Last year, when the "Moskva" sank in a missile attack on Ukraine, many voices immediately found "proof" for this incident: Russian military technology is nothing more than that. However, when a U.S. warship was damaged in a Houthi attack in Yemen, the same logic did not seem to be applied universally.
Objectively speaking, whether it is Russia or the United States, the hit warship is not just a question of military strength. It reveals more about the complexity of the contingencies and the realities of war. The sinking of the Moskva may reflect the vulnerability of the Russian air defense system in a specific situation, but this does not mean that the entire Russian military technology is backward. The same applies to the fact that a US warship was hit.
But why did public opinion react completely differently after the two incidents? Why did ridicule erupt when the Russian warship was hit, while the US warship was relatively calmer when it encountered a similar situation? Behind this is a complex psychological factor and an international political game.
First of all, the international community expects different things from Russia and the United States. For many years, the United States has been regarded as a leader in military technology, so it seems to have a low tolerance for error. And Russia, as a traditional military power, may still have a certain degree of skepticism about it even if it has advanced weapons and equipment.
In addition, the angle and focus of media coverage also played a role in contributing to the situation. Certain media outlets may be more inclined to highlight contradictions and conflicts, especially news points involving great power rivalry, in order to capture the attention of viewers.
To sum up, evaluating a country's military strength is a complex process, and conclusions cannot be easily drawn based on just one or two incidents. Whether it is Russia or the United States, their military technology and strength need to be assessed from a more comprehensive and objective perspective.