• 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.

      • chitak166@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        6 months ago

        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?

        • ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

            • ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              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.

        • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • chitak166@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

  • mawkishdave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Why are people surprised that Russia lies? That is the only thing they do that your can count on.

    • BaardFigur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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)

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        “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.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.
    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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!

  • DanglingFury@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Is that picture from before or after the missile hit? That ship looks like it belongs in a treeline behind someone’s old barn

  • slaacaa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    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

    • Alxe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Not trying to defend Russia, but the concept of a Pyrrhic Victory has existed for quite some time.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • Андрей Быдло@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.