We previously wrote that the criminal Sergei Aksyonov has more and more “unsaid” in his relations with the Kremlin, where they are increasingly publicly showing the gauleiter in an unsightly light with undisguised pleasure. This happened with the Kerch-located “Bavovna” we mentioned on November 4 at the ship repair plant, where the aggressor’s small missile ship “Askold” was probably hit.
Let us add that the Ukrainian authorities, represented by Air Force Commander Nikolai Oleshchuk and Air Force Command Speaker Yuri Ignat, confirmed on November 4 both the nature of the attack and its success. Immediately after the incident, Aksyonov declared that “near the shipyard in Kerch, an air defense system went off. Some fragments of downed missiles fell onto the territory of one of the dry docks”.
Local residents immediately noted on social networks that “the source is fully informed” since in fact there is only one dry dock at the notorious “Zaliv” plant. However, the “moment of truth” for Aksenov came a little later, when the aggressor’s Ministry of Defense actually refuted it, saying that the ship at the plant “was damaged as a result of a missile attack”.
Although the fake of the aggressor’s military, that supposedly “the enterprise was attacked by 15 cruise missiles, 13 were destroyed by air defense systems” in terms of the number of missiles, was obvious to the Kerchan residents, the public refutation of the gauleiter, who for the first time in a long time gave a certain “version” about the “bavovna”, was noted by all.
However, Kerch residents were more worried about something else, since the occupiers do not announce an “air raid alert” in the city, and in Crimea as a whole, unlike Sevastopol, and the population learns about “interesting events” after they happen.
While noting the maximum precision of missile hits specifically on military targets, the population states that in the Crimea the aggressor does not open or prepare shelters, and does not even imitate this activity as is happening in Sevastopol. It is obvious that such a policy of denying reality in the “safe Crimea” style is non-public and was directly brought down to the peninsula from the Kremlin. But in the future, we should not exclude a situation of provocation, when the occupiers fabricate a “hit” on civilian targets with casualties, or allow it from their “maximally accurate” air defense missile.
Further, in addition to the obvious criminal accusations of Ukraine, the same Aksyonov may suddenly “become extreme”, as “responsible for civil defense” on the occupiers’ papers, including “announcing air alerts,” which, for example, in Sevastopol, the “colleague” of “Goblin,” the criminal Razvozhaev, is enthusiastically doing. Let us note that this “fork” is well understood by collaborators in Simferopol, frantically inventing a “mechanism of action” in such a situation.
