Lies are coming from both sides. That is the nature of war. While a healthy caution is justified, outright cynicism is not. After initial Russian success, the Ukrainians are clearly getting the better of the Russians. Anyone denying this is not being honest with the facts.
In regard to the sinking of the Moskva, what is more likely:
1) It was struck by Ukrainian missiles while sailing in a war zone in range of known anti-ship missal batteries; or
2) After many years of operations, a fire of unknown cause broke out completely unrelated to any efforts by the Ukrainians to attack the ship and which the crew was unable to put out?
While the latter is possible, the former is much more likely. While you are cynical of the Ukrainian explanation, where is your cynicism of the much more implausible Russian explanation?
Including the alleged missile attack on the landing ship at Berdyansk.
And what makes you doubt that the Ukrainians did indeed strike the landing ship? The Ukrainians have know anti-ship missal capabilities. Do Russian ships have some fatal flaw that just causes them to catch fire while operating in war zones?
In regard to the sinking of the Moskva, what is more likely...
Again, egregiously lacking facts. Thanks for the concession, albeit with circular logic.
You and others seem desperate to echo/validate propaganda coming out of a war zone and persist with attacks on others questioning the narrative by demanding facts for conclusion, rather than "what is more likely." Just like the left, ironically aligned with the left's position.
Hmmmmm...