this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2024
305 points (98.7% liked)

World News

39004 readers
2575 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Ukraine's military says it attacked and destroyed a Russian submarine while it was anchored at a port in the occupied Crimean peninsula. 

The Rostov-on-Don, a kilo-class attack submarine launched in 2014, sank after it was struck in a missile attack on the port city of Sevastopol on Friday, Ukraine's general staff said in a statement. 

It was reportedly one of four submarines operated by Russia's Black Sea fleet capable of launching Kalibr cruise missiles. The Russian defence ministry has not commented. 

Officials in Kyiv said the attack also destroyed four S-400 air defence systems protecting the peninsula, which Russia illegally annexed in 2014.

top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 67 points 3 months ago (2 children)

If this is true then its so magnificent, a second submarine sunk by a country without a navy...

[–] Hubi@feddit.org 57 points 3 months ago (4 children)

It's not the second one, it's the same one that had been heavily damaged by a Storm Shadow missile in 2023 and had been in dry dock undergoing repairs ever since. This hit probably finished the job for good.

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 38 points 3 months ago

A target so nice they sunk it twice

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago

Ah bummer, well nice anyways! Thanks for the info!

[–] Delta_V@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

Gimli on sinking the submarine of Theseus: That still only counts as one

[–] CptEnder@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Rare Turkey W

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 35 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Submarine violent decommission and conversion into reef successful.

Slava Ukraini!

[–] N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 3 months ago

The Ukrainian underwater biome restoration project is way ahead of schedule. So nice of the Russians to donate so much equipment.

[–] MinorLaceration@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago (3 children)

"And Russia's internal security service, the FSB, recently said it foiled a Ukrainian plot to destroy its last remaining aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov. The ship, launched in 1985, has been undergoing repairs since 2018."

I hope Ukraine can still make this happen. That would a be huge win, even if the carrier is never functional and isn't in the black sea. Imagine if Russia no longer even had a carrier. That'd be one way to put them in their place.

[–] ZapBeebz_@lemmy.world 24 points 3 months ago

All Ukraine has to do is nothing. The Kuznetsov has about a 75% chance of sinking every time it puts to sea

[–] Ulfhethnar@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

My understanding is that Russias maintenance cost on that carrier is so much higher than its capabilities that Russia is trying to bait Ukraine into expending resources attacking it.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago

So hit the docks and maintenance facilities it's at, not it itself

[–] humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I have a friend who actually was serving on this aircraft carrier. It's hell and the crew was dis moraled due to lack of basic needs like towels and working bathrooms.

Sunking Admiral Kuznetsov would look like destroying mental asylum for depressed patients

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

I've heard it's a bit like a labyrinth where nobody even has up-to-date schematics of the passages on the ship, and a lot of spaces are just sealed and conserved. And it stinks everywhere.

[–] TheMightyCanuck@sh.itjust.works 20 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Once they confirm which boat it was, I'll mark it off

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You already have. It's the one that was previously hit by storm shadow in dry dock. They did some repairs, refloated it, and then the Ukrainians hit it again.

[–] TheMightyCanuck@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

HA thank you for the info

[–] frankgrimeszz@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I’m grateful it wasn’t a nuclear sub.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

.......wait, what? Its hard to tell from context.

Are you saying you're glad that at least russia still has it's nuclear sub?

Or are you saying you're glad that russia wasn't attempting to use a nuclear sub?

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 40 points 3 months ago

I guess they mean that they are happy it wasn't a nuclear-powered sub because of the environmental damages the release of radioactive material might cause.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 20 points 3 months ago

Wat. Seems a much more reasonable read is that they are grateful a Russian nuclear sub isn't contaminating the entire area right now

[–] frankgrimeszz@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

What the other guy said. I don’t support Russia, but nuclear fallout is bad for everybody. Underwater nuclear explosion would be more contained than in the air, but I don’t wanna see radioactive fish with three eyes.

[–] MartianSands@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Destroying a nuclear sub, or a nuclear weapon, doesn't lead to a nuclear explosion. It takes considerable care to cause a nuclear explosion, and smashing a reactor or warhead just leaves you with a pile of radioactive scrap.

Not saying that isn't a problem, but it's way less of a problem than a nuclear explosion

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 3 points 3 months ago

Destroying a nuclear sub, or a nuclear weapon

Or any craft with a nuclear reactor.

[–] selokichtli@lemmy.ml -2 points 3 months ago

Ah, yes, they are destroying one every other week.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -4 points 3 months ago

BBC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for BBC News:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4nggvg1yggo
~Media~ ~Bias~ ~Fact~ ~Check~ ~|~ ~bot~ ~support~