By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On March 1st, two Russian Iskander-M missiles struck the Panama-flagged MSC LEVANTE F container ship in Odesa, reportedly injuring two port workers and damaging port infrastructure. Russia claimed the ship carried British weapons from a Turkish NATO base, a claim denied by Ukrainian Vice Prime Minister Oleksii Kuleba, who stated the cargo was entirely civilian. A second ship, the SUPER SARKAS, was also reportedly hit. The incident follows a pattern of Russian attacks on civilian vessels in Ukrainian ports.
Read the original article here
Putin unleashes Iskander-M missile attack to ‘sink container ship in Odesa carrying cargo of British weapons for Ukraine,’ according to some reports. However, the credibility of this claim is immediately questionable. The sheer logistical improbability of Britain shipping a significant arms consignment through the heavily contested Black Sea, a waterway largely controlled by Russia, raises serious doubts. Land and air routes through Poland would be far more sensible and secure options.
The narrative of a ship laden with substantial weaponry—numbers cited ranged wildly, from the absurd to the plainly impossible—suggests a deliberate exaggeration, possibly designed to inflate the perceived impact of the attack. The accounts vary wildly, with some claiming a catastrophic sinking, while others report minimal damage. This discrepancy highlights the unreliable nature of the initial reporting.
The lack of substantial independent verification further weakens the claim. There’s a noticeable absence of photographic or video evidence showing the purported destruction of a weapons shipment. Instead, reports focus on relatively minor damage to cargo ships near the port, suggesting a less impactful strike than initially described. The claims of extensive destruction simply don’t match the available evidence, or the lack thereof.
Adding to the skepticism is the fact that several sources point to the Daily Mail as a primary source for this information, which has a history of publishing sensationalized and often inaccurate stories. The Daily Mail’s established reputation for right-leaning bias and tendency towards dramatic reporting further casts doubt on the accuracy of their account. Their reporting of this incident doesn’t align with independent verification, prompting further questioning of their credibility.
Furthermore, the alleged target’s ownership is a significant point of contention. Reports suggest the ship was Swiss-owned, sailing under a Panamanian flag, and therefore not directly a NATO asset. An attack on a Swiss-owned vessel, while still an act of aggression, does not automatically constitute an attack on a NATO member state, thus mitigating the potential for a significant escalation.
Many comments highlight the likelihood of this incident being a carefully orchestrated false-flag operation, a tactic often employed by Russia to justify its actions and garner international sympathy. The timing of the attack, potentially designed to coincide with a significant international event, further supports this theory. The lack of corroborating evidence from neutral sources further suggests a deliberate attempt to mislead the international community.
The assertion that Britain would use a Russian-controlled waterway for weapons shipments to Ukraine is widely dismissed as nonsensical. The strategic risks involved are far too significant to make such an approach even remotely plausible. This detail is an obvious red flag which would lead even casual observers to question the veracity of the reporting.
Several commenters correctly point out the established transportation methods used for supplying Ukraine with military aid: primarily land routes through Poland and neighboring countries. These established, secure routes negate the need for the risky and improbable sea route described in initial reports. The logistics alone render this part of the story extremely unconvincing.
In conclusion, the narrative of a targeted strike on a British weapons shipment in Odesa appears to be a highly suspect claim. The lack of credible evidence, the improbable logistics, the dubious source, and the potential for a false-flag operation all strongly suggest this report should be viewed with extreme caution. While it is possible Russia launched a missile strike, the details surrounding the intended target and the extent of damage are highly likely to be exaggerated and deliberately misleading.