5 ms·
> It’s not Ukrainian propaganda that the Moskva sunk. If you are interested in some backstory on the Moskva, Michael Kofman covers some in an interview[1]. It
by wrp 4y ago
> It’s not Ukrainian propaganda that the Moskva sunk.
If you are interested in some backstory on the Moskva, Michael Kofman covers some in an interview[1]. It seems to be true that two Ukrainian missiles struck it and it sank sometime later, but the rest of the story is uncertain. Kofman describes the Moskva as an antiquated rust bucket, with its defensive systems likely not even functional.
[1] https://warontherocks.com/2022/04/ukraines-military-advantage-and-russias-stark-choices/ https://warontherocks.com/2022/04/ukraines-military-advantag...
- nosianu 4y ago> Kofman describes the Moskva as an antiquated rust bucket, with its defensive systems likely not even functional. You know, that is the kind of truth that actually adds to the story of how bad Russia is doing rather than mitigating that story. Unless that wasn't their flagship (in that fleet), but I never saw that part of the narrative disputed.
- indymike 4y ago> Kofman describes the Moskva as an antiquated rust bucket, with its defensive systems likely not even functional. Fire sinks ships. In WWII most ships that went to the bottom didn't blow up. They caught on fire, and eventually, sank or were scuttled. If Moskva wasn't ready to fight, was defenseless, or even sea-worthy, what does it say about leadership to put it in range of anti-ship missiles? Finally, the story on Moskva is that it was sunk by a country that barely has a Navy.