2. The landing ship last month was a precision MLRS rocket too.
Let's see those ukranian farmers try and get that.
The Israeli destroyer Eilat was sunk in 1967 by missiles fired from patrol boats which were still in harbour. Don’t know if that counts.
dantsw13
Free Member2. The landing ship last month was a precision MLRS rocket too.
Wasn’t counting that one as it was alongside
Let’s see those ukranian farmers try and get that.
One for the fishermen
Don’t know if that counts.
Nope, looking for land based missiles (will allow rockets) sinking something at sea
ITV reporting that 5 other Russian ships have been observed to be moving further away from the coast by Western intelligence.
That’s the first Russian flagship sunk since the 1905 Russo-Japan war apparently.
My view is that Finland and Sweden need to think hard because they really don’t know which side(s) can be trusted in terms of the propaganda.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahah! Nope. Positioned as both countries are, sharing a border with an antagonistic neighbour, one which has made lying a part of its strategic methodology, and which has put into law its right to assassinate those who upset it within foreign territories borders, while exercising full deniability, I would say, with absolute certainty, that they know PRECISELY which sides can be bloody well trusted!
In exactly the same way I know. Christ, they even have a word, or compound word for it, vranyo
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">vranyo (враньё)</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">“vranyo means:</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">You know I’m lying, and I know that you know, and you know that I know that you know, but I go ahead with a straight face, and you nod seriously and take notes.”</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">“Western and liberal Russian sources have called vranyo a characteristic tactic of the Russian state, even coining a new compound gosvranyo, literally “government-vranyo”.</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"> https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-vranyo-russian-for-when-you-lie-and-everyone-knows-it-but-you-dont-care-181100</span></p>
Ouch. I can’t even begin to understand what the sailors’ families must be going through.
I can, my step-brother was two decks down on the Coventry when she was bombed by an Argentinian Skyhawk, it was extremely stressful until news got through. I actually phoned the MoD, who verified he was ok in a roundabout fashion, by saying, “if you haven’t heard anything, then it’s no news is good news”.
With the Russians, though, they’re not going to be giving any more info away than they possibly can, mostly it’s going to be denial and misinformation and propaganda.
Same as the greatest number of their land-based losses.
mashr
Full MemberJust been asked a good question – how many ships have been sunk by missiles fired from land? I’m thinking the answer might now stand at 1?
Not sunk, but in the Falklands war HMS Glamorgan was hit and badly damaged by an exocet fired from land- it was a ship-based variant that they bodged together a land launcher for. A second missile didn't target lock, and Glamorgan was able to react and turn away from the missile before being hit, which quite likely saved the ship.
Just another of the various things that could have made a huge difference in the Falklands- Argentina ran completely out of airlaunched exocets and never deployed a single ship-based one to the warzone so if they'd deployed more of those this way (between 3 and 8 were actually deployed depending on who you believe) and worked out the launchers a bit better it could have made a big difference...
Not read any previous comments so this may have been covered before.
Seems odd that Nato were against enforcing a no fly zone & letting Poland send ex soviet aircraft in case it “brought them more into the conflict” and was seen as an aggressive act but plenty of ordnance is coming from Nato members.
Only 14 sailors made it back to Sevastopol
If true that's 500 odd lost
I can only see this being used as a propganda tool domestically for Putin, but will surely be a huge blow to morale for RU troops.
Not read any previous comments so this may have been covered before.
Seems odd that Nato were against enforcing a no fly zone & letting Poland send ex soviet aircraft in case it “brought them more into the conflict” and was seen as an aggressive act but plenty of ordnance is coming from Nato members.
Reality of a no fly zone would mean taking our Russian anti air, a lot of which is in Russia itself and (was) on the Moskva cruiser, so would mean targeting there.
Seems odd that Nato were against enforcing a no fly zone & letting Poland send ex soviet aircraft in case it “brought them more into the conflict” and was seen as an aggressive act but plenty of ordnance is coming from Nato members.
It was discussed, but you'll never find it unless you go right back to the start.
A no-fly zone would mean NATO aircraft and missiles shooting down Russian aircraft. Russia would correctly interpret that as NATO entering combat. Supplying weapons is not the same as joining combat. Russia is in no position to take on NATO so they aren't going to do anything about the weapons supply except complain about how unfair the world is to Russia.
That Brit fighting in Ukraine and having to surrender in mariupol had been paraded on Russian tv.
He looks totally out of it the poor sod.
I'm not going to link to it.
Not sunk, but in the Falklands war HMS Glamorgan was hit and badly damaged by an exocet fired from land
The Argentinian ship that went to South Georgia was also hit and quite badly damaged as a result of being shot at from land, including by a missile I think.
Ah yes, here it is
I gotta agree with this, the best outcome is that Ukraine beats Russia without NATO being actively involved.
https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1514783655083749379
It is a worry that retaliation will be taken - and indescriminately at civilians.
If the Ukrainian's can keep up the pressure and moving forward, they are going to have a cornered tiger on thier hands.
Interesting article by this guy:
Jacques Baud is a former colonel of the General Staff, ex-member of the Swiss strategic intelligence, specialist on Eastern countries. He was trained in the American and British intelligence services. He has served as Policy Chief for United Nations Peace Operations. As a UN expert on rule of law and security institutions, he designed and led the first multidimensional UN intelligence unit in the Sudan. He has worked for the African Union and was for 5 years responsible for the fight, at NATO, against the proliferation of small arms. He was involved in discussions with the highest Russian military and intelligence officials just after the fall of the USSR. Within NATO, he followed the 2014 Ukrainian crisis and later participated in programs to assist the Ukraine. He is the author of several books on intelligence, war and terrorism,
The article is behind a pay wall I can't access, but New York Times reporting that Le Pen has said she will pull France out of Nato and seek closer ties with Russia?
I'd like to see what she actually said rather than a headline writers wet dream interpretation, but that has to be political suicide at this time?
Possibly needs a separate thread.
It is a worry that retaliation will be taken – and indescriminately at civilians.
That's already happening. Or do you mean escalation to chemical or nuclear weapons?
I mean escalating with chemical weapons and increase in the bombardments - possibly outside the southern area of fighting currently.
Interesting how a ship that had a minor fire is now portrayed as one attacked by the US/NATO.
Putin's going to have a tough time explaining how this happened given their total control of the Black Sea etc etc
New York Times reporting that Le Pen has said she will pull France out of Nato and seek closer ties with Russia?
I haven't read the NY Times article, but this article says "NATO's integrated command structure", not NATO itself. The closer ties with Russia are after a peace treaty has been signed. She's obviously trying to find some way of backing away from her previous pro-Putin/anti-NATO stance without looking like she's changed her stance. I hope she gets thumped.
As soon as the Russian-Ukrainian war is over and has been settled by a peace treaty, I will call for the implementation of a strategic rapprochement between NATO and Russia," Le Pen said.
She reaffirmed that, if elected president, she would take France out of U.S.-led NATO's integrated command structure to restore French sovereignty on matters of international security..
@ctk it's interesting only in as much as it's a useful study in Kremlin propaganda
What's dangerous is that his credentials and style of writing make it seem as though he knows what he's talking about
The fact is the article is full of lies.
The guy that wrote it is a Putin stooge who has has whitewashed his attrocities in Syria and chechenya
He claimed the Skripals actually had food poisoning!!
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Baud
It was linked to a few pages back
quick google showed up these falsehoods that pretty much blow up his narrative
eg, Putin suplying arms and tanks is pretty well doccumented
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27849437
and there have been a lot of exampes of russias involement in the seperatist republics
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/25/russia-ukraine-soldier
He also links to the OSCE to back up his claims that Russia isn't involved
Even though the OSCE has spent the last 8 years detailing Russia's supply of arms, troops and cash
This was the whole reason why Putin said that Russia wasnt bound by the Minsk agreement- because he had no part in the war
the idea that russia only invaded ukraine because ukraine started to attack and that Puin never intended to replace zelensky was laughable- ill find the link but putin had a team in place to replace him https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-crisis/russia-brings-ex-ukraine-prez-to-minsk-talks-putin-wants-him-to-replace-zelensky-reports-articleshow.html
one of Yanukovichs aides was on twitter having to leave ukraine hed arrived as part of the invasion force, thinking itd be over in a few days
Thanks for the clarity, thols2
Did some digging to see where that Postil link was coming from. Thay seem to be some sort of extremes fringe religious zealot cult hidden behind loads of intellectual BS. I don't ca\re how qualified an author appears to be to give an opinion on a subject, wehen the publisher has an agenda as strong as they have I wouldn't believe a word that is written without a Siberian Salt mine sized dose of scepticism.
Rumours are that Admiral Igor Osipov
Commander of the Black Sea fleet has been arrested by the FSB (and his aide beaten up)
To use a terrible cliche ‘don’t drink the tea Igor’…
I thought Russia said that Ukraine didn't sink the ship, it just caught fire and sank. Pretty terrible luck that an accidental fire would break out on a warship in the middle of a war though.
Also odd that there’s not a scrap of footage (so far) showing the fire or the resulting damage. Almost like there’s something they don’t want people to see
Interesting how a ship that had a minor fire is now portrayed as one attacked by the US/NATO.
As noted a few pages back, how can Moscow demand retribution for something that was a "small fire triggering munitions"?
There was a view that the majority of Russians were fed propaganda to keep them in line. Such an obvious contradiction must be, er, obvious?
They really must want to believe.
The article is behind a pay wall I can’t access, but New York Times reporting that Le Pen has said she will pull France out of Nato and seek closer ties with Russia?
I am not sure what she means, obiously her statements are aimed at a target part of the electorate rather than making a statement about France's treaty obligations.
They really must want to believe
Yup
Interesting how a ship that had a minor fire is now portrayed as one attacked by the US/NATO
The TV program linked earlier has them not saying that the ship was attacked by NATO as that would be clearly be wrong but that Russia is fighting against NATO's infrastructure rather than NATO itself which is probably quite correct. They were taking great pains to avoid disagreeing with the official line
They really must want to believe.
Or they live in a country where to say the 'wrong thing' now costs 10 years in prison.
To be pedantic, I think both are actually incompetence.
https://twitter.com/A_Pritchett/status/1514714611093753858
I'm confused, if the Moskva sank because of a fire/storm/technical issue then why would Russian media call for immediate bombing of Kyiv in retaliation? Seems a little bizarre to me.
She reaffirmed that, if elected president, she would take France out of U.S.-led NATO’s integrated command structure to restore French sovereignty on matters of international security..
They left this bit of NATO in 1966.
Not sure how true it is but de Gaulle said to Eisenhower "I want all American soldiers to leave French soil" and Eisenhower replied "Does that include the ones buried in it?"
The Russian mindset is a bit like the Italian football defenders. Spend all match kicking the s@1t out of your opposition, and as soon as they brush you gently, roll about in a near death act, demanding a red card.
PJM1974
Free Member
I’m confused, if the Moskva sank because of a fire/storm/technical issue then why would Russian media call for immediate bombing of Kyiv in retaliation? Seems a little bizarre to me.
I agree.
I think its because they obviously know what actually happened and are insanely furious BUT can't actually express the true reason for that rage as it goes against the official kremlin lie... so are effectively arguing themselves into some sort of enraged paradox.
It's really something to witness isn't it?
I’m confused, if the Moskva sank because of a fire/storm/technical issue then why would Russian media call for immediate bombing of Kyiv in retaliation? Seems a little bizarre to me.
It’s really something to witness isn’t it?
It's an act. Faux outrage purely for consumption by the Russian public.
^^ No, I believe they genuinely are angry. From the Russian, pro Putin perspective, wouldn't you be?
Of course venting that rage on state controlled tv is definitely part of their remit too.
