TheMalcontent
patreon
Russia-Ukraine Flash Report for 4-15-22 12:00 PDT: Moskva Update 3
🕑 Added 2022-04-15 19:23:48 +0000 UTCWe're making this publicly available due to serious questions on the status of the crew of the Moskva. Additionally, we are attaching our April 12 Situation Report for your review. For those considering becoming supporters of our team, we hope this peek into what we provide will aid in making a decision.
There are growing questions on the fate of the crew of the Moskva. There are three versions of what happened and when.
ASSESSMENT:
Based on publicly available information, we have concluded that the Moskva was struck by at least one and possibly two antiship missiles. The number is academic at this point, as is the debate on if they were Ukrainian-designed Neptune missiles or British-provided antiship missiles (not Harpoons, there isn't a land-based version).
Several naval experts speaking publicly on the matter are echoing each other. On a warship like the Moskva, internal ammunition storage, fire suppression systems, and damage control procedures would prevent an internal explosion from becoming catastrophic and causing the loss of the ship. If this was an accident, it was a colossal failure in operations and the chain of command. We are well aware of high-profile Russian navy incidents in the past. Fire is the biggest enemy of a vessel, and even a poorly trained crew of a rusty commercial bulk carrier understands the danger of fire on a ship.
Based on the information we received, the time from the explosion to the Moskva rolling over and sinking is estimated at 90 minutes. Based on the timeline, we do not believe that Russian naval assets were on the scene before the Moskva sunk. The Russian Ministry of Defense's account of the loss, using the words "lost stability" and due to hull damage "sunk in a stormy sea," matches what was reported to us on April 13.
The best disinformation is rooted in fact because it makes it harder to disprove. Two points we are debating are the ship was in tow and that the weather was stormy on April 14. Based on all of the available evidence, there was nothing for the Russian navy to recover beyond the surviving crew in the water.
We understand OPSEC and naval vessels in a wartime setting do turn their transponders off. Before the incident, the Moskva periodically transmitted position data, and open source intelligence monitored communications. An excellent way to tell the world "not sunk" would be restarting radio communications from the Moskva. The last communication was an SOS, declaring the ship was sinking. The message was not encrypted and was sent by radio communications and Morse code.
Malcolm Nance wrote this after the attack was announced.
"Folks. As a expert in being attacked but surviving anti ship missiles (x3 times!) and damage from hitting a large anti ship sea mine … if you “Abandoned ship” your sinking & all efforts to save her are ended. That. Ship. Is. Finished."
Russia has said very little about the crew beyond that they were recovered after abandoning the Moskva. While the debate raged yesterday on whether the Moskva sunk or not, the pattern of ships in the area, including those not associated with the Russian navy, was a search and rescue pattern - not a vessel towing effort with a defensive screen.
There has been debate on the weather conditions during the missile strike and the alleged Russian recovery attempt. The sea conditions on the Black Sea were poor on April 12 - 13, and we wrote about it impacting Russian naval operations on April 12 (SITREP attached).
Russia blaming "stormy seas" on April 14 did not align with weather conditions when the alleged recovery was happening. It would align with the account provided on April 13 and the timeline we've pieced together.
The water temperature in the Black Sea is between 45 and 48 degrees F (7 to 9 degrees C.). Abandoning ship after a missile strike, with little time to prepare, into rough water with 25 to 40 KPH winds and 9 degrees C. water is less than ideal. Any crew member that went overboard with only a lifejacket would start to suffer from hypothermia in 10 to 15 minutes, which could become fatal exposure after three hours. Lifeboats and rafts would offer far better protection but would be hard to deploy in the dark, with the ship listing to one side and the weather conditions at the time of the missile strike.
Due to the known conditions late on April 13, anyone overboard would drift away quickly. Sailors that didn't work to stay in groups would have little chance for survival.
We can confirm this - only 14 members of a 510 compliment have definitively been recovered with photographic proof.
We have seen several numbers for the total recovered, and they are consistently in the 50 to 60 range. The Turkish military has denied they rescued any crewmembers of the Moskva. Ironically, Russia's aggressive stance in the Black Sea, operating an informal blockade, the documented targeting of several commercial ships since March 3, and early statements the crew was recovered likely blunted any recovery effort.
If the Moskva lost 85% to 90% of its crew, it would be the worst wartime maritime loss of life from a warship sinking in combat since the USS Indianapolis was torpedoed on July 30, 1945. Considering the lack of OPSEC by Russian state media to date, we believe if all or most of the crew were recovered, state media would be showing this information.
In our assessment, the Russian navy has suffered a catastrophic loss of life with the sinking of the Moskva - a ship that would likely have some of the most experienced members of the Russian navy aboard.
We are also aware it is being suggested the Moskva had nuclear warheads aboard. Given the overall role of the ship and being one of only four operating missile cruisers in the entire Russian navy, we believe this is plausible. The Black Sea has a mean depth of 4,111 feet. The question of nuclear warheads and their status after the sinking is an academic debate.
Comments
I have a question, everyone talks about how if troops from a nato nation were attacked in Ukraine would trigger the famous "Article 5", but the text of Article 6 is as follows: Article 6 1 For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer. So I'm not seeing it. Were there nato member troops in Ukraine when the Treaty entered into force?
That’s a brutal way to go …
