-
Russia confirmed a Ukrainian missile attack damaged one of its Black Sea Fleet warships.
-
But Russian officials have said that only one person was killed.
-
Independent Russian media suggests dozens may be dead.
The damage to a Russian warship appears much worse than the Kremlin is willing to acknowledge.
The Russian navy’s landing vessel Novocherkassk — part of its Black Sea Fleet — was hit in a Ukrainian attack on a port in Russian-held Crimea, officials said Tuesday.
While the Kremlin-appointed governor there has said the ship was damaged and one person was killed, video and media reports paint a much-darker picture.
Images of a massive explosion at a dock in Feodosia spread on social media. Reporters and open-source intelligence channels posted photos showing smoldering wreckage at the pier, backing up Ukraine’s claim that long-range missiles triggered a massive explosion that blew up the ship.
Independent Russian media is also questioning the stated death toll.
Astra, a Telegram channel sharing Russian news from independent journalists, reported there were 77 sailors aboard the Novocherkassk at the time of the Ukrainian attack; this class of ship typically has a crew size of about 100.
As according to pro-Russia trolls here on Lemmy, Ukraine is losing the war, I wonder how much damage they would do to the Russian fleet, if they were actually winning
Not trying to defend Russia, but the concept of a Pyrrhic Victory has existed for quite some time.
Yeah and it’s been Russian military strategy for nearly as long. Idk if Russia will win, but as it is now both countries will struggle under the weight of the loss of population and resources and immense debt that they’re incurring. For Ukraine it’s obviously worth it, but for Russia, I struggle to see how it’s worth it because even victory will come with an angry edge province and political instability.
You are correct in my opinion. It seems whoever orchestrated that thought it would be the second Crimea, forgot Ukraine had 8 years to prepare (even with a shared soviet corruption problems and cheap traitors) and completely ignored the historical case of their resistance in and post WW2. One magazine even published a postponned article summarizing the achievements of russian warriors, and there were public persons speculating about taking Kiyv in three days. Even if you ignore them normalizing of such an act at all, they were sniffing their farts while planning it and thinking it’d go alright.
Mostly because I think Russian high command was telling Putin whatever he wanted to hear. “Yeah boss, sure, we’ll just steamroll into Kyiv, nobody will dare fight back against us…” Keep in mind Russia had tried this EXACT same “rush and decapitate” strategy in Georgia in 2008.
Ukraine has oil reserves that Russia has eyes on. There’s the solution to your equation.
even victory will come with an angry edge province and political instability.
Victory would mean Russia has killed most of the Ukrainians who would fight back.
Dunno, it looks like Russia is LOSING BADLY
Nope Russia bad! Ukraine needs money.
DENTAL PLAN
You’re defending America’s long time enemy because you’ve consumed their propaganda. You’re not an American patriot, you’re a Russian simp.
Have you ever considered Ukraine is a sunk cost?
Lol check the ruble’s value over time. Feel free to get back to me if you have any data or rationality to back up your room temp IQ argument.
I’m going to assume your answer to my question is “no”, you have not considered Ukraine is a sunk cost.
Tell me you’re a victim of propaganda without telling me you’re a victim of propaganda.
You seem to have forgot all the data to support your argument. I’ll respond to your latest unsubstantiated bullshit, but this is the last time:
The propaganda I consume pushes me to defend America, its allies, and civilian lives.
The propaganda you consume has you fighting for America’s cold war enemy. The one that has been sowing discord for decades. You’re not a patriot. You’re just a useful idiot for genocidal Russia that can’t even win a war they started against a country 1/10th of their size.
I mean atm, Russia is on the offensive and has gotten some actual results. They conquered Marinka, a 10k population village(before war), which defined the line of conflict, and Avdiivka, a major fortress town that has been holding through the entire war, since 2014, is being threatened with encirclement. Zaluzhnyi even said that they might be forced to abandon it within the next couple months. This would be a significant win for the russians if it happens, much more important than Bakhmut.
The Russians have lost several times now than the population of Avdivka trying to take it. Ukraine shifted to an attritional fight to preserve combat power until they could dismantle Russian fires capabilities which they’ve been doing quite effectively. If they want to win the war with all their objectives, this is exactly how Ukraine does it. Killing Russians is the best way to get them to leave. Never forget that
I agree with what you are saying but you have to realize that this is partially copium. The Americans had great kill ratio in Vietnam but they still lost.
What happened in the past is in the past. Atm Russia has the initiative and seemingly the will and means to continue. Ukraine’s means largely depend on the West.
In EU you have the typical bureaucracy and relactancy of reducing the peace dividends by investing in military equipment production. And thats on top of Hungary sabotaging everything and other major economic issues, like agricultural ukranian products and their effect in EU.
In the US, the republicans are blocking everything and Trump is ahead in the polls.
So it is only natural that with all this uncertainty, Ukraine is reluctant in risking an offensive. If the war ends now, Russia has still gained territory, even if it suffered losses, setbacks and failed to achieve its minimum stated goals(securing Donbass). Though at least they have a landbridge to Crimea so thats something.
Ukraine could lose all their territory and Russia will still lose this war. They already have.
You think this is about territory when it is about energy in Europe.
You think this is Ukraine’s Vietnam when it is literally twenty times that for Russia.
Ukraine could lose all their territory and Russia will still lose this war. They already have.
Maybe but 500 years from now, who would remember what happened. Eventually things become “it is what it is” and people move on. Borders can last for a long time, especially if one side(the EU) isnt willing to go on the offensive. Strongmen like Putin think of this as weakness, people in the West think of it as “learning from the past”.
The USA didn’t lose Vietnam because we couldn’t win it. We lost it because we weren’t trying to win the war, we were trying to occupy Vietnam. This war is totally different, it’s a country fighting for it’s land.
This war is totally different, it’s a country fighting for it’s land.
You could make the same claim for the Russia, that it is considers that land its own and it is fighting for it. Ultimately, yes, this is a different war but my point is that kill ratio isnt always indicative of who is winning.
How many russians see Ukraine as their home vs want it because daddy putin says it belongs to russia?
I mean ultimately, thats how wars are.
The existence of your people or not in an area should not be relevant. If it is relevant, that only leads to genocide and ethnic cleansing. Because noone would want to have a potential casus belli in their land, so they would eliminate all those that would enable something like that.
There are 2 kinds of countries in the world. Those who are satisfied with the current status quo and those who arent. The US, EU, etc are satisfied with the current status quo. Russia, China, Turkey, Venezuela, etc arent. They have issues and they think the current status quo is unfair. And they have irredentist views.
Why would you “freeze” the borders as they are now and not as they were 20 years ago, or 100 years ago or 500 years ago. What i am saying is that India is part of Greece, as per Indo-Greek kingdom of 2000 years ago.
Russia spent 10 years in Afghanistan and had 50k reported casualties with 15k reported fatalities. It is regarded as an absolute failure and a shameful loss by Russians.
Russia has been attacking Ukraine for 10 years(2014-present) and has had over 350k casualties with over 40k dead including contractors with the majority happening in less than 2 years.
For context, America was in Afghanistan for 20 years and had under 30k casualties and around 7k dead including allies and contractors. We consider it a failure holistically. America was in Vietnam for 20 years and had under 60k deaths and it was an absolute and shameful failure.
Only a Russian troll could consider the war to be anything but a failure for Russia that has weakened itself as a country and a military in jist under 2 years. Russia will fail as a country because of this pointless war of aggression.
Even if they do somehow force Ukraine to surrender - they’ve spent so much political capital, military power, actual capital, and human lives on this that they’ll be recovering from their “victory” for decades.
“Win” or lose, Russia’s economy is ruined. The sanctions won’t lift easily and that will cause Russia to do what Germany did after WWI and blame the rest of the world for the state of things. That ends with a big war in Europe as Russia tries to “reclaim” what is “theirs”.
LALALALALL CAN’T HEAR YOU TOO BUSY KISSING PICTURE OF ZELENSKY
Why are you saying this? Do you believe pro-ukranians are on Zelensky’s side rather than the Ukrainian people’s side?
Cope harder, mobik.
Everyone who says Ukraine is losing is a troll.
Tell me you’re not a victim of propaganda.
Russia can eat my entire ass, but we can’t really predict how this conflict will play out. Russia is inept, but they have millions of bodies to essentially Zerg rush into this conflict… and that strategy worked for them in WW2
True. To say that Russia is winning/Ukraine is losing is total bullshit, but with that said, it is still really unwise to underestimate Russia.
Yeah because nothing has changed since WW2
Computers are at least two faster.
I can’t wait until nukes start falling so I can jerk off to the new fallout show
Russians live in a world of ‘alternate facts’
Ahh. So they are conservatives.
Yes. That’s how it works.
Where do you think they got the idea from?
Let’s be honest, much of the world does. This one is just found out.
Yeah, remember when everyone said Ukraine was going to be able to take back Crimea once they got Western weapons?
Where are those people admitting they were wrong after the weapons were delivered and Ukraine made no meaningful gains?
Russia lost the logistical war in Ukraine as recently as this week. They’re just out trying to get ahead of the bad news before the domestic population realizes what’s going on.
Sure they did.
There is no Russian supply line out of reach of Ukrainian forces anymore. It’s the same geopolitical fence that makes the territory properly Ukrainian. It’s a difficult situation to claim a territory that you could never maintain in the first place.
Ok.
Well, those people are talking about things that they think will happen in the future. It’s not surprising that armchair analysts predicts things wrong.
To compare that to a Kremlin appointed governer lying about things that already happened is pretty disingenuous.
My entire point is that people who think the war is decided have no idea what they’re talking about.
They were wrong about Ukraine’s counteroffensive, so maybe they’re wrong about Ukraine being able to defend itself.
There is no truth like a Russian denial.
Why are people surprised that Russia lies? That is the only thing they do that your can count on.
Why are people surprised that Russia lies?
This isn’t unique to Russia or even to this conflict. Information Warfare is a big part of the media campaign to support/undermine the war effort. This isn’t new. One classic example - particularly relevant given the geography - is the Battle of the Somme where overly optimistic western news reporting covered up a horrific slaughter of allied forces.
News reports like this are just another angle on the informational campaign, intended to boost western support for the war and present Russian forces as exceptionally weak and prone to failure. During the Iraq Invasion in 2003, we played the same game with “Baghdad Bob” memes, while we glossed over how precarious and unsustainable our charge into the center of Iraq had left the US military. During the “Green Revolution” of 2014, we got to hear all about how weak and fragile the various Middle Eastern governments were, right up until rebellious groups were brutally suppressed and slaughtered from Tunis to Cairo to Damascus to Sana’a to Tehren. I still see Bashar Al-Asad “Who Must Go” memes in circulation, hailing back to that era of heedless hyper-optimism. Nevermind all the shit coming out of Israel’s latest incursion into Gaza.
We’re going to see “Russia is lying! They’re all about to lose! Zelensky will be getting an all-over tan on the beaches of Crimea by next year!” headlines for years to come. That’s just the nature of modern media.
The first casualty of war is truth
Winston Churchill ,or someone, maybe
Certain special irony if that’s a misquote.
“Baghdad Bob” memes
Those didn’t exist. You’re confusing “memes” created by individual people and media bias.
we glossed over how precarious and unsustainable our charge into the center of Iraq had left the US military
The US military destroyed the Iraqi army, almost too well. The army was disbanded and former members joined the insurgents. Militarily it was a huge success. The failure was not gaining the consent of the governed, which is necessary in any modern country.
News reports are not “trying to present Russia as weak”. They legitimately are weak. Do you think the US or NATO would have any trouble rolling Ukraine if it only had Russian support? No troops would be on the ground but Kiev would be rubble within two weeks.
Militarily it was a huge success.
I mean, I have to disagree. The military focus was on taking centers of financial and administrative power, rather than securing the physical capital that allowed the country to operate. A bunch of the post-invasion insurrection was the collapse in quality of life that resulted from all the infrastructure failures the US presided over in a country that was already hobbled by a decade of sanctions and infrastructure issues. This was entirely a consequence of US “Shock and Awe” invasion tactics, which destroyed the machinery that we would have needed in order to successfully govern.
After that, our efforts to rebuild Iraq were largely a sham, serving as a funnel for kicking money back to the Bush mega-donors. So we just got a reputation in the country as these hopelessly incompetent and shamelessly corrupt middle men. And after ousting all the original incompetent and corrupt middle men (along with a healthy number of competent and forthright engineers and administrators), this gave the insurrection the same nationalist flavor that gave birth to the original Ba’athist party.
So it wasn’t a military success. It was a smash-and-grab operation in which the US ultimately fumbled the bag. We didn’t get solid control over the southern oil fields. We didn’t cement Iraq as a South Korean / Israeli / Jordanian style permanent regional ally from which to project our influence. We couldn’t secure the borders or quell insurrections long enough to transition to civilian rule. We couldn’t even hold Fallujah for more than a year at a time. Even as Bush was rolling out those “Mission Accomplished” banners, we were already losing traction in the territory we said we’d claimed. This was in large part because the original push into Baghdad fully exhausted the US military’s ground capacity. The tanks that made it to Baghdad in May of 2003 were running on fumes, having completely outpaced their supply convoys.
The US invasion of Iraq was a mess from day one. It was only Saddam’s own weak position, and the refusal of US mass media to report any kind of negative analysis of the initial charge into Baghdad, that left the illusion of success.
News reports are not “trying to present Russia as weak”. They legitimately are weak.
They have a firmer control of the Donetsk region than the US ever had outside the Green Zone of Baghdad. If the US Invasion of Iraq could be considered a success (it was not), the Russian invasion of eastern ukraine was total victory (also untrue, but it still holds up marginally).
Do you think the US or NATO would have any trouble rolling Ukraine if it only had Russian support?
I think the US is currently involved in too many theaters of combat and is far too exhausted from decades of international conflict to dedicate anywhere near what it brought to bear against Iraq in 2003. What’s more, the political capital of losing significant numbers of American troops in a slugging match with Russia would be disastrous to the current administration’s reelection chances. If Biden sent divisions to the Ukrainian front, President Trump would be recalling them inside the next year guaranteed.
NATO is even more toothless, given the state of German and French and British armed forces. Germany has 10% of the required military readiness under NATO guidelines, because they’ve been so lackluster in military spending over the last two decades. France is being run out of its old colonial enclaves across Africa and still has far too many economic ties to Russia to want to pick a fight. The UK is flat broke and its governance is in shambles. Nobody else in the alliance has anything resembling a competitive military force, much less one armed and trained for a foreign invasion.
Ukraine was already a proxy war with Russia. Its proved a futile one. Ukraine had the 9th largest military in the world and its been virtually wiped out.
No troops would be on the ground but Kiev would be rubble within two weeks.
That was the Pyongyang gambit of the 1950s, back when the US had uncontested air superiority and more ordinance than it knew what to do with. Modern air defenses make that kind of strategy impossible. Americans would lose more in the air than anyone lost on the ground.
Who is surprised?
deleted by creator
Someone writing a report about propaganda doesn’t believe the propaganda, they’re trying to inform others that propaganda is being spread.
I’m guessing you’re just making up whatever let’s you agree with who’s upvoted.
Ukraine underreports their losses too. But they cannot really be blamed. It’s important to keep spirits high. It’s sort of the same logics Russia uses.
I’m just glad the west support Ukraine as strongly as we do. Gives them actual chances to win this (to Russias annoyance)
Well you see, comrade, the Ukrainian missile explosion killed one crew member.
The remaining missing servicemen are investigating the minor malfunction of the ship getting too hot from the explosion of the Russian cargo. It is only workplace accident, da?
- Some Government Official, presumably.
only one dead because the pieces they found all put together weighed less than a single moblik.
the vaporized, I mean, missing crewmembers are being reported as AWOL and their families will receive no compensation for their traitor kin.
go team ditchmeat!
they deserted to low earth orbit
Is that picture from before or after the missile hit? That ship looks like it belongs in a treeline behind someone’s old barn
Looks like the black and white picture from the article is from 2015! I thourght it looked like something out of a museum.
You belong in a museum!
Hahahahaha! Yeah, I do 🤣
Before, there’s basically nothing left of it.
Blyat!
Removed by mod
