Why heavily armed Soviet ships were not simply unstable

A seakeeping answer distinguishes high topside weight from outright instability by considering the Soviet use of heavy, ice-capable hulls and the very different motion of Kresta- and Kirov-class ships.

Question

Were Soviet surface combatants so top-heavy and overarmed that they handled badly in rough seas?

Short answer

They could be uncomfortable and lively, especially a Kresta, but their heavy ice-capable hulls meant topside weight did not automatically make them dangerously unstable.

Notes

Soviet surface combatants often carried more topside weight and armament than comparable Western designs. Their hulls were also built heavily, in part for cold and ice-affected waters, so a simple visual judgment does not prove dangerous instability. The practical penalty could instead be violent and uncomfortable motion in rough weather. A Kresta-class cruiser is contrasted with the larger Kirov class: keeping lunch down in heavy seas would be difficult on the former, while the latter should ride more comfortably.