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.

  • slaacaa@lemmy.worldEnglish
    655·
    9 months ago

    As according to pro-Russia trolls here on Lemmy, Ukraine is losing the war, I wonder how much damage they would do to the Russian fleet, if they were actually winning

    • Alxe@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      9 months ago

      Not trying to defend Russia, but the concept of a Pyrrhic Victory has existed for quite some time.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.worldEnglish
        171·
        9 months ago

        Yeah and it’s been Russian military strategy for nearly as long. Idk if Russia will win, but as it is now both countries will struggle under the weight of the loss of population and resources and immense debt that they’re incurring. For Ukraine it’s obviously worth it, but for Russia, I struggle to see how it’s worth it because even victory will come with an angry edge province and political instability.

        • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          4·
          9 months ago

          You are correct in my opinion. It seems whoever orchestrated that thought it would be the second Crimea, forgot Ukraine had 8 years to prepare (even with a shared soviet corruption problems and cheap traitors) and completely ignored the historical case of their resistance in and post WW2. One magazine even published a postponned article summarizing the achievements of russian warriors, and there were public persons speculating about taking Kiyv in three days. Even if you ignore them normalizing of such an act at all, they were sniffing their farts while planning it and thinking it’d go alright.

          • Mirshe@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            9 months ago

            Mostly because I think Russian high command was telling Putin whatever he wanted to hear. “Yeah boss, sure, we’ll just steamroll into Kyiv, nobody will dare fight back against us…” Keep in mind Russia had tried this EXACT same “rush and decapitate” strategy in Georgia in 2008.

        • chitak166@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          9 months ago

          even victory will come with an angry edge province and political instability.

          Victory would mean Russia has killed most of the Ukrainians who would fight back.

        • ghostdoggtv@lemmy.worldEnglish
          31·
          9 months ago

          Ukraine has oil reserves that Russia has eyes on. There’s the solution to your equation.

    • NIB@lemmy.worldEnglish
      111·
      9 months ago

      I mean atm, Russia is on the offensive and has gotten some actual results. They conquered Marinka, a 10k population village(before war), which defined the line of conflict, and Avdiivka, a major fortress town that has been holding through the entire war, since 2014, is being threatened with encirclement. Zaluzhnyi even said that they might be forced to abandon it within the next couple months. This would be a significant win for the russians if it happens, much more important than Bakhmut.

      • galloog1@lemmy.worldEnglish
        81·
        9 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

        • NIB@lemmy.worldEnglish
          53·
          9 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.

      • Death_Equity@lemmy.worldEnglish
        31·
        9 months ago

        Russia spent 10 years in Afghanistan and had 50k reported casualties with 15k reported fatalities. It is regarded as an absolute failure and a shameful loss by Russians.

        Russia has been attacking Ukraine for 10 years(2014-present) and has had over 350k casualties with over 40k dead including contractors with the majority happening in less than 2 years.

        For context, America was in Afghanistan for 20 years and had under 30k casualties and around 7k dead including allies and contractors. We consider it a failure holistically. America was in Vietnam for 20 years and had under 60k deaths and it was an absolute and shameful failure.

        Only a Russian troll could consider the war to be anything but a failure for Russia that has weakened itself as a country and a military in jist under 2 years. Russia will fail as a country because of this pointless war of aggression.

        • Mirshe@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          9 months ago

          Even if they do somehow force Ukraine to surrender - they’ve spent so much political capital, military power, actual capital, and human lives on this that they’ll be recovering from their “victory” for decades.

    • chitak166@lemmy.worldEnglish
      54·
      9 months ago

      Everyone who says Ukraine is losing is a troll.

      Tell me you’re not a victim of propaganda.

      • negativeyoda@lemmy.worldEnglish
        51·
        9 months ago

        Russia can eat my entire ass, but we can’t really predict how this conflict will play out. Russia is inept, but they have millions of bodies to essentially Zerg rush into this conflict… and that strategy worked for them in WW2