(CNN) — Russian guided missile cruiser Moskva rest in the depths of the Black Sea this morning.
It is unclear whether he was the victim of Ukrainian missiles, Russian incompetence, bad luck, or a combination of all three. What is certain, however, is that the largest loss of a naval ship during the war in 40 years will raise troubling questions not only for Moscow, but also for military planners around the world.
What caused the sinking?
The ship sank off the Ukrainian coast in the Black Sea on Thursday.
The Russian Defense Ministry says a fire of unknown origin detonated ammunition stored on the ship and the resulting explosions left the Moskva with structural damage. It says the warship sank in rough seas while being towed to a nearby port.
Ukraine says it hit the Moskva with anti-ship cruise missiles and that these set off the fire that detonated the munition.
US and Western defense officials seem to favor the Ukrainian version.
The United States believes with “medium confidence” that Ukraine’s version of events is accurate, a source familiar with the latest intelligence told CNN.
The Moskva was armed with a range of anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles, as well as torpedoes, naval guns and missile defense systems, meaning it would have had large amounts of explosives on board.
When was the last time a ship of this size was lost in a war?
The Argentine cruiser General Belgrano was torpedoed and sunk by the British nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror on May 2, 1982, during the Falkland Islands War.
The General Belgrano and the Moskva were similar in size, each about 600 feet (182 meters) long and displacing 12,000 tons, although the crew of some 1,100 aboard the General Belgrano was more than twice the size of the Moskva’s crew. of about 500.
An undated image of the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano.
Russia has not revealed the number of victims left by the fire and subsequent sinking of the Moskva. A total of 323 crew died when the General Belgrano sank.
What does the loss of the Moskva mean for the Russian war effort?
The biggest effect may be on Russian morale. As the flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, the Moskva was one of its most visible assets in the Ukrainian war. Although Moscow carefully handles news about the war in Russia, it will be difficult to hide the sudden absence of such a large ship.
And its loss will cast doubt on Russia’s war-fighting abilities, whether due to enemy action or accident.
“Both explanations for the sinking of the Moskva point to possible Russian shortcomings, whether it be poor air defenses or incredibly lax damage control and security procedures on the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet,” analysts Mason Clark, Kateryna Stepanenko and George Barros wrote. of the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) in its daily war report.
Carl Schuster, a former US Navy captain, said doubts reached as far as the Kremlin.
“It raises questions about naval competence 10 years after (Russian President Vladimir) Putin announced that he would restore the capabilities, morale and professionalism of the navy,” Schuster said.
“It appears that he has failed to deliver on any of his promises to any of Russia’s military services,” Schuster said, noting that Russia had also suffered setbacks on the ground.
But analysts are divided on what impact the sinking will have on the Russian invasion.
ISW analysts see it as a relatively minor hit, saying the ship was primarily used for cruise missile strikes on Ukrainian logistics centers and airfields. Russia has ground systems and attack aircraft that can do the same thing, they said.
However, they added that if it was indeed a Ukrainian missile that led to the sinking, the Russian navy would have to rethink its operations, possibly moving ships away from Ukrainian territory and adjusting its air defenses.
In Washington, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said Moskva’s main mission was air defense of Russian forces in the Black Sea.
“It will have an impact on that capacity, certainly in the short term,” Kirby told reporters.
The Russian guided missile cruiser Moskva is seen in a satellite photo in the Black Sea on April 10.
A lesson for China?
Analysts say the sinking will be carefully studied in East Asia, especially if it is confirmed that Ukrainian missiles hit the warship.
In particular, analysts will be seeking any perspective he can offer on any potential military conflict involving Taiwan, the democratically ruled island that the ruling Communist Party in Beijing claims as part of its territory. Beijing has not ruled out the use of force to gain control of Taiwan and this has caused tensions with the US, which is committed to equipping the island with defensive weapons.
Timothy Heath, a senior international defense fellow at the RAND Corp. think tank, said the Moskva attack would underscore for both China and the United States “the vulnerability of surface ships” in any possible military confrontation.
Heath said that in such a scenario, the US Navy would want to keep its surface ships out of range of anti-ship missiles that Beijing has amassed in mainland China.
China, on the other hand, would be aware that Taiwan has been acquiring low-cost anti-ship missiles similar to those that Ukraine claims struck the Moskva, Heath and others said.
Because of that, “any potential (Chinese) invasion of Taiwan remains an extremely high-risk mission,” Heath said.
But some analysts said the sinking of the Moskva is of limited relevance to the situation in East Asia.
Thomas Shugart, a former US Navy submarine commander who is now an analyst at the Center for a New American Security, said there were too many differences between the situations.
The Moskva’s air defense systems are not up to par with the more modern Aegis systems on US Navy destroyers, and the Ukrainian anti-ship missiles are not as good as the Chinese, Shugart said.
And Soviet-era warships like the Moskva have typically been “known for their offensive punch, not their defensive systems or their damage control,” Shugart said.