[Kevmo]

Reasonably good start. I withdraw my accusation that you guys could do it. Now we just need 20 or 30 more articles like it.

From the article:
“For background, Moskva was severely damaged in mid-April after being struck by Ukrainian Neptune shore-based anti-ship cruise missiles while sailing the Black Sea. “

That goes directly against the Russian cheeky claim that it was their own incompetence which sunk the ship.

[Navy Patriot]

I never said the claim that Moskva was struck by Neptune missiles was false, just that it was sensationalized by the Daily Male, because it was.

All my comments on Moskva in particular, were made AFTER I read less known sources like The Warzone.

I never proffered the reason for the Explosion and Fire on Moskva, only that there was one. There was plenty of evidence to support that.

Emma Helfrich believes the Ukrainian reports of (apparently two) Neptune missiles striking Moskva, but she does so well into the second half of the article AFTER all the Facts and Background needed to understand the SUBJECT of the article, while noting disagreement about Russian reports. It is a more responsible way to report news, inform first, speculate second.

[DarthVader]

The conclusions that Navy Patriot stated in post#62 are very, very close to mine and what I have posted concerning this incident. Daily Mail and other sources like this sensationalize these stories rather then present them in a competent, technical and realistic assessment from a military/combat perspective. Some of the sources you want to see are likely not accessible to you and very detailed and reliable. Most of what you get in the news is 10-20% fact and the rest is conjecture.