By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In the Mediterranean Sea, Russia has deployed three ships, including one carrying Kalibr cruise missiles with a potential salvo of four missiles, as reported by the Ukrainian Air Force. Despite this presence, no Russian ships were detected in the Black Sea or Sea of Azov as of this morning, according to RBC. Over the past 24 hours, six ships passed through the Kerch Strait towards the Black Sea, with three continuing to the Bosphorus Strait, while five ships moved towards the Sea of Azov.
Read the original article here
Kiev: “Russia deploys aircraft carrier with cruise missiles in the Mediterranean” – Okay, let’s unpack this, shall we? The initial takeaway here is that the headline itself is immediately suspect, and the source of the information is highly questionable. The core issue is a glaring inaccuracy: the headline refers to an “aircraft carrier,” but the body of the article correctly identifies the vessel as a “cruise missile carrier.” This is not a minor detail; it’s a significant factual error that fundamentally changes the nature of the threat and, frankly, reeks of sloppy journalism.
The discrepancy between the headline and the article’s content suggests either a deliberate attempt to sensationalize or, more likely, a lack of attention to detail on the part of the author or editor. The headline reads “aircraft carrier,” but the article proper refers to a “Kalibr cruise missile carrier.” This could be a simple mistake, a misinterpretation, or even an attempt to generate more clicks by using a more attention-grabbing term. The critical distinction here is the type of ship. A cruise missile carrier is designed to launch missiles, while an aircraft carrier is meant to launch and recover aircraft. Russia does not have any operational aircraft carriers and the only one in existence is undergoing repairs and is unlikely to be operational again, so this headline is completely misleading.
The comments highlight the critical difference between a true aircraft carrier and a vessel that carries cruise missiles. The Russian navy does have vessels capable of carrying and launching Kalibr cruise missiles, which pose a significant threat. However, these are not aircraft carriers in the traditional sense. The focus is on the missile-launching capabilities, not the ability to operate fixed-wing aircraft. This type of weapon system is a powerful tool, and its deployment in the Mediterranean is a point of concern, but not necessarily for the reason the headline suggests. The true threat is the missiles themselves and their potential use against Ukraine.
This misunderstanding is further compounded by the ongoing state of Russia’s only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov. It’s plagued with problems, including fires and repairs. It has not been operational for a considerable time, and there is a strong likelihood that it will be scrapped, essentially leaving Russia without an operational aircraft carrier. The current situation is that Russia has no operational aircraft carriers in the true sense of the term. Even the Admiral Kuznetsov is more of an aircraft-carrying cruiser, and not a dedicated carrier.
The response to this news reveals a common desire among many to see it destroyed, and that would be the preferable outcome, and that feeling makes sense. Russia’s actions, especially in the context of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, are viewed with immense skepticism and even hostility. There are sentiments of hope that this vessel, whatever its true classification, might meet a premature end, or even be sunk. The sentiment is that Russia’s military is not invincible.
The focus shifts to the technical aspects of the vessel in question. The potential for this vessel, mislabeled as an aircraft carrier, to pose a threat through its missile payload is clear. There is concern over the type of missiles the vessel carries, and their potential range and targets. The very presence of such a vessel in the Mediterranean raises questions about Russia’s strategic intentions and its ability to project power in the region. It’s a legitimate concern that needs careful consideration.
Finally, it is clear, that the spelling of Kyiv is the correct, and not the historical “Kiev”, which is the Russian spelling. The news source appears to be somewhat lacking in credibility and attention to detail, as suggested by the misspelling of the name of the Ukrainian capital, and the misleading headline. This reinforces the need to critically evaluate the source of information and to be wary of sensationalized headlines. The details matter, and it is important to be as accurate as possible when reporting on military matters. It is important to rely on credible sources and to avoid spreading misinformation, especially in times of international conflict. The headline is wrong and so is the article in its inaccuracies.