Around 510 crew were aboard the Moskva, which reminds me of the sinking of the belgrano exactly 40 years ago, if memory serves 300+ argies died in that

Apparently the weather and explosions on the ship made rescue attempts challenging, and the heavily damaged ship is now being towed to Sevastopol. When it reaches the port we may get some pics and an idea of casualties

So far the running theory about the Moskva is that it was either a stray Ukrainian mine or an accidental fire that caused the explosion, most likely the latter.

It wasn't hit by Neptune missiles as any launch of these missiles would have been detected and easily dispatched by the Russian warship.

Accidental fires happen all the time in Naval incidents. One infamous case for the US military being the USS Forrestal, which killed dozens of sailors and was caused by a Zuni rocket that misfired (supposedly it was cooked off because John McCain was fucking around with his afterburners on the deck.)

And then once during the Iran-Iraq war an Iraqi Exocet missile fired on an (at the time) friendly US warship and killed 20 people.

Point is, these things can happen easily but I wouldn't put much stock into Ukraine's claim that not only are they responsible for hitting the ship but that they managed to sink it. Seems like they saw what happened and immediately took advantage for a quick propaganda win.

huh???

That the Russian military is floundering almost as bad as Joe Biden's speeches should not necessarily be cause for celebration. I guess if you've completely converted to neo-conservativism then you live for the team sports aspect of it, but if you're on the side of peace and stability, I'm not to thrilled with a cornered dog who happens to have thousands of nuclear weapons, getting even more cornered.

so the russians can fuck up and start a catastrophic fire, but cant fuck up and not intercept a missile?

It's not far-fetched. An accidental fire is actually more likely than dozens of air defense systems somehow failing to notice a couple of antiquated subsonic missiles being fired from an area they are already monitoring, all at once.

The Saker goes more in depth here: https://thesaker.is/day-49-of-the-russian-smo-a-few-notes-on-the-propaganda-war/

You support NATO's reckless policy. Surrounding a nation with military hardware / missile shields would be a provocation to any nation, not just Russia.

Pumping Ukraine full of weapons plus economic warfare (lets put this strait instead of calling it sanctions) isn't exactly being neutral.

loluk



https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/14/un-refugee-agency-raises-alarm-over-uk-homes-for-ukraine-scheme

first you know i support war now you know i support nato expansion? what else is in my brain?

im not strongly in favor of nato expansion especially to nations that arent going to be economically strong enough to seriously contribute. if the turks, ukrainians, balkans, etc want weapons its either us selling to them or china and russia. while im not largely in favor of the US selling weapons im not naïve enough to think we're the only game in town. ukraine feared an invasion, and wanted weapons, and an invasion happened. we're supposed to believe what? a lesser armed ukraine wouldnt have been invaded? a ukraine that didnt request NATO membership wouldnt have been invaded? eastern ukraine was never a putin want? an eastern friendly govt rather than the western friendly govt was never a putin want?

i called this a land grab from the start, and was told tHeYrE fIgHtInG nAzIs.

i said this was the easy play from the start, and putin should have massively raised fuel prices over the course of a few years instead to tax the west for nato aggression. its easier to send peasants into ukraine with leftover cold war tech. win or lose he's sending the message he wants to.