this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2024
203 points (99.0% liked)

World News

38578 readers
2057 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ArtVandelay@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Submarine promoted to...double submarine

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

It's a permanent full time promotion.

[–] cantrips@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Across the sky

[–] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Is that the second sub that Ukraine has managed to sink? I can't remember if the first one was actually sunk or just badly damaged. Amazing achievement either way.

[–] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Same sub. They waited until it was almost repaired then put it down for good.

[–] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That is just perfect. Maximum waste of Russian resources.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That can't have been cheap.

I thought I read a British analysis that they didn't expect that submarine to be "economically repairable" -- that is, Russia would have been better off just building a new sub at that point than repairing it.

The kicker is that Russia absolutely did not need to base that submarine there. They didn't gain military advantage by doing so. Like, it was a "look, I so fully control Crimea that I can park ships at Sevastopol" thing. This is on Russia choosing to make a symbolic move.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Third Riker of the morning!

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Be aware of rikeflation tho.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Impossible. Riker is eternal and infinite. One long sour note reverberating through the universe, there for us when we need him.

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

Our own Non-Fungible Thrombonist.