I don't understand the reasoning. If Ukraine isn't openly acknowledging the attack doesn't it mean that it's respecting the orcs' "red line" of not attacking what they consider Russia?

If your enemy could be grossly incompetent enough to blow up their own base, or just roughly incompetent enough not to protect it well, why not keep both possibilities open? Maybe they did both :D

It is interesting that Russia aren't accusing them of attacking. That's a bigger deal to me...

Did Russia ever admit that Moskva sank for other reasons than "fire caused a munitions explosion"?

It makes sense though, there's no benefit in accusing Ukraine in this, otherwise it means 2 things:

- anti air defense didn't work

- panic between civilians in Crimea (more so than now people already leaving their holidays)

Ukraine attacked Russia proper (not just Crimea) before. We all remember Mi-24 over Belgorod but there were also Tochkas fired against airbases (IIRC Taganrog and Milerovo).

I don't think red lines exist. Maybe for using western supplied munitions.

I just read that a whole base went up in flames near Moscow.

There's zero chance that would be a direct attack by AFU. It's _possible_ it was some sort of sabotage operation (if so, it's much more likely to be Russians who oppose the war), but it's also a wooden barracks building... structure fires are a thing that happen for a whole range of reasons.

The chatter seems to be it was a conscript base. Either the conscripts didn’t want to go, or what also happens is that bases get understaffed for X amount of people while still getting the money for those “missing” soldiers. Getting rid of evidence then becomes an option.

A lot of the Russian conscripts seem to be minorities from more rural areas, and Russian military lifestyle is very subpar and is likely a downgrade for those conscripts from their home.

So yeah, the conscripts getting upset and burning down a base is very believable.