Ukraine destroys prized US$1.2 billion Russian air-defence system
www.scmp.com
The advanced S-400 ‘Triumf’ air-defence system was destroyed in a joint operation by Kyiv’s security service and navy in an attack off the coast of Yevpatoriya, Ukrainian official Anton Gerashchenko said.

The advanced S-400 ‘Triumf’ air-defence system was destroyed in a joint operation by Kyiv’s security service and navy, Ukrainian intelligence sources said The attack off the coast of Yevpatoriya was orchestrated through the aerial drones and Neptune domestic missiles, Ukrainian official Anton Gerashchenko said

Ukraine used drones and missiles to take down an advanced Russian air-defence system worth US$1.2 billion early on Thursday, according to multiple reports.

The advanced S-400 “Triumf” air-defence system was destroyed in a joint operation by Kyiv’s security service (SBU) and navy, the BBC and Reuters reported, citing Ukrainian intelligence sources.

The attack off the coast of Yevpatoriya was orchestrated through the use of aerial drones and Neptune domestic missiles, per Anton Gerashchenko, a Ukrainian official writing on Telegram.

Yevpatoriya is a coastal city in the west of occupied Crimea, which Russia seized from Ukraine in 2014.

  • Wahots@pawb.socialEnglish
    791·
    10 months ago

    Just as a heads up, SCMP is a bit of an iffy source, being owned by alibaba and run as a near state owned paper. At one point, it was also owned by Murdoch as well.

    Since the change of ownership in 2016, concerns have been raised about the paper’s editorial independence and self-censorship. Critics including The New York Times, Der Spiegel, and The Atlantic have alleged that the paper is on a mission to promote China’s soft power abroad.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Morning_Post

      • JohnnyEnzyme@lemm.eeEnglish
        8·
        10 months ago

        SCMP is an odd one, as they commonly publish articles critical of the CCP.

        They seem to operate along the lines of ‘we can’t stop anti-CCP news, but at least we can soften the blow for select audiences.’ Or something like that. They’re definitely an interesting case, though.

      • Wahots@pawb.socialEnglish
        2·
        10 months ago

        I’ve noticed! I try to help raise awareness of potentially unreliable sources when I recognize them. :)

      • MeowZedongEnglish
        12·
        10 months ago

        Is it that people don’t notice the source or that they prefer sources that are open about their biases? How is it any less useful to know that this source is generally pushing a pro-China story when we also know that the NYT, BBC, etc will push a pro-US and pro-NATO bias and then strut around pretending that they are somehow balanced and unbiased?

        Talk about eating up propaganda…

        A big part of seeing through the bias of an organization is reading around through other sources with different biases and then taking a critical look at all of them so you can get closer to what is actually going on and challenge your own biases. I find the users on Lemmy tend to actually read the sources that are provided whereas people are so bad about reading sources posted to Reddit that commenters not reading the source became a meme on Reddit.

        This comment is just another example of the pretentious Redditor attitude that an exudes an air of, “Here, let me grace you all with my superior intellect as you are all a bunch of uncultured swine.” Instead of blindly applying a negative judgement against the community, why don’t you stop and think about why it may be this way? Better yet, ask others why they read outside of mainstream sources instead of assuming you know better.

        No source is ever unbiased and to pretend otherwise and place sources that confirm your own bias on a pedestal is pure, uncritical drivel. Be critical of the Chinese media, but don’t pretend that Western sources are any better. Every public communication you see from any organization is propaganda.

      • etuomaala@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        91·
        10 months ago

        The South China Morning Post article is a carbon copy of the BI article. That is typical of disinformation outlets. 4/5 of the news is copy pastad from reliable sources, and the other 1/5 is total bullshit. Russia Today operated like that for years, and probably still does.