Russian officials confirmed their warship Novocherkassk was damaged by Ukraine — but reports suggest they're downplaying the toll.

  • Russia confirmed a Ukrainian missile attack damaged one of its Black Sea Fleet warships.

  • But Russian officials have said that only one person was killed.

  • Independent Russian media suggests dozens may be dead.

The damage to a Russian warship appears much worse than the Kremlin is willing to acknowledge.

The Russian navy’s landing vessel Novocherkassk — part of its Black Sea Fleet — was hit in a Ukrainian attack on a port in Russian-held Crimea, officials said Tuesday.

While the Kremlin-appointed governor there has said the ship was damaged and one person was killed, video and media reports paint a much-darker picture.

Images of a massive explosion at a dock in Feodosia spread on social media. Reporters and open-source intelligence channels posted photos showing smoldering wreckage at the pier, backing up Ukraine’s claim that long-range missiles triggered a massive explosion that blew up the ship.

Independent Russian media is also questioning the stated death toll.

Astra, a Telegram channel sharing Russian news from independent journalists, reported there were 77 sailors aboard the Novocherkassk at the time of the Ukrainian attack; this class of ship typically has a crew size of about 100.

  • @[email protected]English
    11•10 months ago

    The Russians have lost several times now than the population of Avdivka trying to take it. Ukraine shifted to an attritional fight to preserve combat power until they could dismantle Russian fires capabilities which they’ve been doing quite effectively. If they want to win the war with all their objectives, this is exactly how Ukraine does it. Killing Russians is the best way to get them to leave. Never forget that

    • @[email protected]English
      -1•10 months ago

      I agree with what you are saying but you have to realize that this is partially copium. The Americans had great kill ratio in Vietnam but they still lost.

      What happened in the past is in the past. Atm Russia has the initiative and seemingly the will and means to continue. Ukraine’s means largely depend on the West.

      In EU you have the typical bureaucracy and relactancy of reducing the peace dividends by investing in military equipment production. And thats on top of Hungary sabotaging everything and other major economic issues, like agricultural ukranian products and their effect in EU.

      In the US, the republicans are blocking everything and Trump is ahead in the polls.

      So it is only natural that with all this uncertainty, Ukraine is reluctant in risking an offensive. If the war ends now, Russia has still gained territory, even if it suffered losses, setbacks and failed to achieve its minimum stated goals(securing Donbass). Though at least they have a landbridge to Crimea so thats something.

      • @[email protected]English
        6•10 months ago

        Ukraine could lose all their territory and Russia will still lose this war. They already have.

        You think this is about territory when it is about energy in Europe.

        You think this is Ukraine’s Vietnam when it is literally twenty times that for Russia.

        • @[email protected]English
          0•10 months ago

          Ukraine could lose all their territory and Russia will still lose this war. They already have.

          Maybe but 500 years from now, who would remember what happened. Eventually things become “it is what it is” and people move on. Borders can last for a long time, especially if one side(the EU) isnt willing to go on the offensive. Strongmen like Putin think of this as weakness, people in the West think of it as “learning from the past”.

        • @[email protected]English
          -2•10 months ago

          This war is totally different, it’s a country fighting for it’s land.

          You could make the same claim for the Russia, that it is considers that land its own and it is fighting for it. Ultimately, yes, this is a different war but my point is that kill ratio isnt always indicative of who is winning.

            • @[email protected]English
              -2•10 months ago

              I mean ultimately, thats how wars are.

              The existence of your people or not in an area should not be relevant. If it is relevant, that only leads to genocide and ethnic cleansing. Because noone would want to have a potential casus belli in their land, so they would eliminate all those that would enable something like that.

              There are 2 kinds of countries in the world. Those who are satisfied with the current status quo and those who arent. The US, EU, etc are satisfied with the current status quo. Russia, China, Turkey, Venezuela, etc arent. They have issues and they think the current status quo is unfair. And they have irredentist views.

              Why would you “freeze” the borders as they are now and not as they were 20 years ago, or 100 years ago or 500 years ago. What i am saying is that India is part of Greece, as per Indo-Greek kingdom of 2000 years ago.