Image 01 Image 03

Ukraine Updates: Russian Airstrikes, Missiles Hit Kyiv After Sinking of Warship ‘Moskva’

Ukraine Updates: Russian Airstrikes, Missiles Hit Kyiv After Sinking of Warship ‘Moskva’

BBC: “Russia has formally warned the US – and other allied nations – against supplying weapons to Ukraine.”

Russian fighter jets and missiles hit the Ukrainian capital Kyiv days after the sinking of the Russian flagship cruiser Moskva. “Russian air raids and missile strikes hit Ukraine’s capital Kyiv and other major cities on Saturday,” Reuters reported. “The attacks followed Russia’s announcement on Friday that it would intensify long-range strikes in retaliation for unspecified acts of “sabotage” and “terrorism”, hours after it confirmed the sinking of its Black Sea flagship, the Moskva,” the news agency added.

On Wednesday, the Ukrainian military claimed sinking the battleship Moskva with anti-ship missiles fired from batteries positioned in the port city Odessa. Russia denied initial reports but later confirmed that the Soviet-era missile cruiser, which served as its Black Sea flagship and had a crew of 500 men on board, sustained damage and sank to the bottom of the sea.

Last month, Russian forces withdrew from the outskirts of Kyiv, but the Ukrainian capital remains well within the range of Russian fighter jets and rockets. The relocation of troops away from Kyiv was part of the shifting Russian strategy to gain ground in eastern and southern Ukraine and possibly cut off the country’s access to the sea.

Russia responded to the sinking of the battleship by hitting regions all across Ukraine, the Associated Press reported:

Ukraine’s presidential office reported Saturday that missile strikes and shelling over the past 24 hours occurred in eight regions: Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv in the east, Dnipropetrovsk, Poltava and Kirovohrad in the central Ukraine and Mykolaiv and Kherson in the south. The strikes underlined that the whole country remained under threat despite Russia’s pivot toward mounting a new offensive in the east.

Heavy fighting was reported around the port city of Mariupol, where thousands of Ukrainian defenders were still holding out after weeks of Russian encirclement.

For the first time in this war, Russia deployed long-range bombers, hitting targets in Mariupol. “Russia had fired on Mariupol from long-range bombers, the first time they had been used during seven weeks of all-out war between the neighbours,” The Irish Times reported Friday night citing Ukrainian defense ministry.

The fall of Mariupol could further secure Russia’s hold over the strategic Crimean peninsula it annexed from Ukraine in 2014.

Russia “Formally” Warns U.S. Over Arms Supply to Ukraine

Following the sinking of the Moskva, the Kremlin issued a ‘formal warning’ to the United States and Western allies against supplying weaponry to the Ukrainians. The warning could be a prelude to Russian strikes against ships carrying U.S. or European armaments. Last month, Russia declared incoming military aid to Ukraine a legitimate targets in its ongoing offensive.

The BBC, on Saturday morning, reported the Russian warning:

Russia has formally warned the US – and other allied nations – against supplying weapons to Ukraine. The warning came in a formal diplomatic note from Moscow, a copy of which has been reviewed by media outlets in the US.

The two-page diplomatic note – forwarded to the US State Department by the Russian embassy in Washington – warns that US and Nato weapons shipments are “adding fuel” to the conflict in Ukraine, and could lead to what Russian diplomats refer to as “unpredictable consequences”.

It was sent on Tuesday, just as word of a new US military aid package for Ukraine had started to leak out. Only hours later President Biden approved the shipment of $800m of military assistance – including, for the first time, long range artillery weapons such as howitzers – with the aim of matching Russia’s military capability in Ukraine.

The warning comes a day after Germany announced an increase in military aid to Ukraine. “German Finance Minister Christian Lindner has confirmed that the government will boost military assistance spending in 2022 to €2 billion ($2.16 billion),” German broadcaster DW News reported Friday. Since the Russian invasion began in late February, Berlin has been reluctant to supply military hardware to Ukraine, citing its post-WWII policy of not shipping weapons into conflict zones.

Russian Threatens Nordic States With Nuke Deployment Over NATO Membership

After this week’s joint announcement by Sweden and Finland suggesting that they may apply for a NATO membership, Russia has threatened the two Nordic countries with deployment of nuclear and hypersonic missiles near their borders if they move ahead with such a plan.

“One of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s closest allies warned NATO on Thursday that if Sweden and Finland joined the U.S.-led military alliance then Russia would deploy nuclear weapons and hypersonic missiles,” in the Russian Baltic Sea exclave Kaliningrad, overlooking the coasts of Sweden and Finland, Reuters reported.

The 30-state Western alliance is willing to accept Sweden and Finland as its newest members, news reports suggest. “At NATO’s recent extraordinary summit in Brussels, the Swedish and Finnish leaders sounded out Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on how the alliance would view potential applications for membership,” Germany’s DW News reported Thursday. “Stoltenberg made no secret of the fact that NATO is in favor of Sweden and Finland joining.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.




Comrade, how dare you spread such Western propaganda!

Heroic cruiser Moskva was promoted to submarine!

    sdelaney420 in reply to Olinser. | April 17, 2022 at 11:27 pm

    Western diplomats must find a way to destroy Putin’s regime without destroying Russia or sending them deeper into China’s orbit.

Eight years, two years… 8 trimesters and now an empathetic response to Obama’s world Spring series from Baghdad to Tripoli to Cairo to Damascus to Kiev, and the remnants of Kabul, with a peculiar, selective sanctions regime and boomerang effect.

That said, Return of the Moskva.

It’s David against Goliath, but all the talk about David him down with a sling shot is pure propaganda.

I’m surprised it’s taken Russia so long to react to arms being supplied by the West.

    Free State Paul in reply to mailman. | April 16, 2022 at 10:38 pm

    I agree. Even worse, I can’t believe Putin has allowed NATO to feed real-time intel to The Ukraine without consequences.

    I’ve read Moskva was targeted by US and GB airborne intel. Ukrainian air defense radars were evidently wiped out D-Day, and NATO AWACS have been taking up the slack.

    Putin should have gone big or never gone at all.

      I suspect Vlad didn’t expect the Ukranians to hold out quite as well as they have done. Now he’s trying to play catch up after the Ukranians gave them a bloody good seeing to on and off the battlefield.

Good meme’s “You sunk my battleship” game.

Subotai Bahadur | April 16, 2022 at 5:07 pm

Three points.
1) The above article keeps calling the Moskva a “battleship”. It was a guided missile cruiser. A “warship”. A battleship is a much larger, gun-armed vessel, none of which are in service anymore in the world.
2) The Russian air raids are supposedly retaliation for acts of “sabotage” and “terrorism”. When a country is invaded by another country, the country being invaded shooting back is neither sabotage or terrorism. It is self defense.
3) An interesting point is being quietly raised. The Moskva being a missile cruiser carries, duh, missiles. Specifically in the 16 slanted silos, 8 on each side of the superstructure. Those silos each hold one P-1000 Vulkan [SSN-12 “Sandbox” in NATO designation] cruise missile with a range of 300 or so nautical miles, and they are dual capable with either a 1000 kg [2200 lbs] high explosive warhead, or a single 350 KT nuclear warhead. There are rumors floating about that some of them in fact did have nuke warheads and the Russians have their equivalent of what we call a “Broken Arrow” scenario. Watch for the Russians to try to get one or more salvage vessels to the sinking site, or one or more warships to keep anyone else [including Ukrainians] from the sinking site. I’m sure that this is NOT how Putin thought the war would go.

Subotai Bahadur

    Technically, it’s one of Russia’s largest surface combatants with a one-shot punch larger and longer-ranged than any traditional battleship, so no harm calling it that. Russia (andromorphically-speaking) got a giant dose of egg on the face when it sank, so regardless of what it they call it, I expect Russian to unload everything it can on any Ukrainian target over the next week. Non-nuclear, we all hope.

    It does cast a new light onto the role of the ship in Harpoon-II. I wonder if they’ll adjust the stats so it takes more than one Mk-48 to sink it now.

      alaskabob in reply to georgfelis. | April 16, 2022 at 7:48 pm

      The modern set piece battleground is being redefined. In the past, infantry needed tanks… now the reverse. Ship size used to be the determining factor in a surface gunfight… now it’s not. With the loss of the Russians main command and control surface ship , taking Odessa by land and sea is not going to happen as planned. NATO ,,, and XI… are learning a lot from this.

        AnAdultInDiapers in reply to alaskabob. | April 17, 2022 at 5:19 am

        Tanks have always needed infantry.

        Russia’s taken a lot of criticism for their use of battlegroups that lack sufficient infantry to protect the armour, especially when the infantry are hiding in their own armoured taxis.

        The current conversations are around the future role of tanks at all – they’re easily spotted by drones, can now be targeted by precision artillery munitions if they stop, and need to be 2-3km behind the infantry if you want to avoid modern ATGMs.

      pst314 in reply to georgfelis. | April 16, 2022 at 8:13 pm

      No. It’s not a battleship so it should not be called a battleship. Just as an armored personnel carrier should not be called a tank.

        Arminius in reply to pst314. | April 16, 2022 at 10:40 pm

        Look at the raw material we’re dealing with. Here’s an article from this past January.

        You can already tell from the URL. But let’s look at the headline.

        “Landing mishap’: Seven soldiers injured after US F-35 jet crashes in South China Sea during military exercise”

        Yes, of course. We have soldiers working the flight decks of US Navy aircraft carriers. Or is it US Army aircraft carriers? According to the person who subtitled the video at the link, it’s the Army.

        At least the reporter who wrote the article got it right.

        “Bangkok: A US Navy F35C Lightning II combat jet conducting exercises in the South China Sea crashed while trying to land on the deck of an American aircraft carrier, injuring seven sailors, the military said.

        The pilot ejected during the “landing mishap on deck” of the USS Carl Vinson on Monday. The pilot was recovered by a military helicopter and is in stable condition.

        In total, seven sailors were injured, three who needed to be evacuated for medical treatment in Manila, Philippines, and four who were treated on board the ship. The three sent to Manila were reported in stable condition on Tuesday morning, the Navy said.

        A US Pacific Fleet spokesman said he had no more details…”

        So, what’s the tally? The headline writer was no doubt a different individual than the person who subtitled the video. And the reporter is a different person than those other two. And at least one editor had to clear this for publication.

        Only one out of four of the people (and no doubt more than that as I’m told by the NYT that they have “layers and layers” of editors who prevent them from producing crap) can tell the difference between a Sailor and a Soldier.

        After 20 years of dealing with this crap, thankfully retired for nearly as long, I’m just happy they could figure out the Moskva was a type of ship as opposed to a bug zapper.

      Arminius in reply to georgfelis. | April 17, 2022 at 12:07 am

      You bring up an interesting point. I was involved, lo those many years ago, when the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force began acquiring Aegis Combat System-equipped destroyers.

      Check out the names. DDGs 173 – 176 Kongo, Kirishima, Myoko, and Chokai.

      Now, search on the same names, except as WWII Imperial Japanese Navy warships. Don’t spell it all out. Just search, for one example, “WWII IJN Myoko.”

      I won’t provide the link as if you’re interested just use the search terms provided.

      “Japanese cruiser Myōkō

      Myōkō (妙高) was the lead ship of the four-member Myōkō class of heavy cruisers of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN), which were active in World War II.[2] She was named after Mount Myōkō in Niigata Prefecture. The other ships of the class were Nachi, Ashigara, and Haguro.”

      Or “WWII IJN Kirishima.”

      “Kirishima (霧島?) was a warship of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War I and World War II. Designed by British naval engineer George Thurston, she was the third launched of the four Kongō-class battlecruisers, among the most heavily armed ships in any navy when built. Laid down in 1912 at the Mitsubishi Shipyards in Nagasaki, Kirishima was formally commissioned in 1915 on the same day as her sister ship, Haruna. Her name is derived from Mount Kirishima (霧島山 Kirishimayama?), an active volcano group in Kagoshima Prefecture.”

      The JMSDF resurrected these names because they are their new capital ships. And time marches on, so they are far more capable than anything built in the 1940s. Except in terms of armor belts and decks, and guns big enough to provide naval gunfire support to troops ashore.

      It’s not OK to call them “battleships.” No more than it is to call them “ships of the line” hearkening back to the days of sail.

    JohnSmith100 in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | April 16, 2022 at 7:08 pm

    I agree completely, now that sunken ship should be promptly have mines dropped around it, perhaps we should supply those mines specifically because of the warning?

      CommoChief in reply to JohnSmith100. | April 18, 2022 at 12:42 pm

      It could be argued that deliberately placing mines around a sunken vessel and thus preventing safe salvage operations which are a legitimate commercial activity; would be a violation of the law of war. It’s absolutely prohibited to use sea mines to prevent lawful commercial activity.

I have little doubt that Russia is being played like a fish, the object being to exhaust them an deplete their military. Ukraine is paying a heavy price, but it may be in their best interest, long term.

Don’t the odds that Russia uses chemical weapons or tactical nuclear weapons increase daily, the better Ukraine does on the battlefield? Supposedly, Putin’s (manipulated) popularity is 83% at home. It won’t do that he loses. Why is no one on TV talking about this risk?

Perhaps the MSM and Dems want a nuclear winter to deal with the existential threat of climate change; and throw in a little extra famine to what is already baked in the cake? /s