Russian officials confirmed their warship Novocherkassk was damaged by Ukraine — but reports suggest they're downplaying the toll.

  • 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.

  • @[email protected]English
    9•1 year 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.

    • @[email protected]English
      0•1 year 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.

      • @[email protected]English
        1•1 year 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.