Perhaps because so many lies come from the Ukranians.
Including the missile strike on the Kramatorsk train station, falsely attributed to the Russians.
Including the alleged missile attack on the landing ship at Berdyansk.
The list is LONG...and those parroting news reports without validation should remember IT'S A WAR ZONE and that PROPAGANDA IS PART & PARCEL of war operations.
The landing ship was destroyed at Berdyansk. There is extensive video from several angles of a very large fire aboard, and sat pictures of the ship sunk at the pier.
The 2014 ukranian deep state installed by obama and co will sacrifice as many unwashed Ukrainians as needed to replace putin with a puppet and deep state in a box. We agree he is evil, but what about a leader picked by obama and co today?
For now putins evil is fairly confined, as a nationalist. His replacement? Um.. not likely.
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?