How Ukraine's Blowing Up Russian Ship Was More Effective Than Russia's Missile Attack On Civilians

Ukraine targeted and destroyed an irreplacable Russian military asset, killing almost its entire crew, blowing up the ammunition it was carrying, embarrassing Putin and causing him to order that any surviving officers 'be sent to the front.' All for a minimal cost.

Russia launched an attack on civilian targets which cost hundreds of millions of dollars, had no measurable impact on Ukraine's ability to wage war, did no significant damage to infrastructure or power generation, hardened Ukrainian resolve and caused such outrage globally that arms shipments to Ukraine are increasing. JL

Phillips O'Brien reports in his substack: 

In blowing up the Novocherkassk, the Ukrainians destroyed a high value, irreplaceable target, which had the secondary benefit of destroying the cargo on the target, and they did it at the cost of a very small number of missiles. The cost the Ukrainians paid is many times smaller than the costs they incurred on the Russians. The achievements for the Russians massive missile and drone attack seem very small by comparison.158 missiles/drones were used against Ukraine, and the Ukrainians shot down 114; almost all the cruise missiles (87) and Shaheds (27). It was extremely expensive for the Russians to launch, had no measurable result on Ukraine’s ability to wage war, caused no significant damage to Ukrainian infrastructure.

This week in the war was defined by two very different attacks, one smaller and precise and the other sprawling and extremely expensive. I thought for the update I would focus on these attacks and delve a little deeper into what is actually an effective operation in war and what is less so.

Odesa after the Russian attack on December 29, 2023. https://news.yahoo.com/morning-attack-ukraine-least-18-085943585.html

Ukraine sinks the Novocherkassk

The Novocherkassk before the Ukrainians came calling

On the day after Christmas, the Ukrainians executed a superbly timed attack on a high value target. The Novocherkassk was a Ropucha Class Landing Vessel, one of the larger ships in Russia’s Black Sea Fleet.1 At this point in the war, the prospect of the Russians executing a maritime landing is pretty minimal, but that did not stop the Novocherkassk from playing an important role in Russian logistics. What it seems to have been doing is bringing supplies from Russia into occupied Crimea, giving the Russians an alternative to bringing everything across the Kerch Bridge. At one point there were rumors (and nothing more than that at this point) that the vessel was carrying a load of Iranian-made Shahed drones into Crimea when it was hit. What seems even more likely is that it was laden with explosive ammunition.

Regardless of the load, it was an important, high-value target. Russia will need such vessels acutely if Ukraine ever can shut the Kerch Bridge—however it cant now replace any vessels that it loses in the Black Sea, as they will not be allowed to pass through Turkish waters from the Mediterranean due to the Montreux convention.2 (Basically in times of war, Turkey only is expected to allow civilian vessels to pass through its waters into the Black Sea). So the loss of the Novocherkassk means that its capabilities are permanently losses to the Russians for the duration of this war.

And in the end it was quite loss. Docked at the port of Feodosia, the Ukrainians obviously had excellent intelligence of the Novocherkassk’s exact location. They launched at least one cruise missile (Storm Shadow/Scalp) at the target and the explosion it caused was spectacular

Novocherkassk exploding. Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/12/26/struck-by-ukrainian-missiles-the-russian-ship-novocherkask-exploded-with-the-force-of-30-tons-of-tnt/

Supposedly exploding with the force of 30 tons of TNT, the Novocherkassk seemed to have a large store of ammunition on board.3 One Russian source reportedly claimed it was packed with artillery shells and Grad rockets (and the stunning explosion makes that eminently believable).

Officially the Russians claimed that the vessel was only damaged, but this made about as much sense as saying that the Hindenburg suffered a minor leak as it was landing in New Jersey. The ship seems to have been obliterated by the blast, and its worth noting that British MOD intelligence felt confident enough that the Novocherkassk was destroyed, to troll the Russians about it a day later.4

So in summation, the Ukrainians destroyed a high value, irreplaceable target, which had the secondary benefit of destroying the cargo on the target, and they did it all at the cost of a very small number of storm shadow/scalp cruise missiles. In other words the cost the Ukrainians paid is many times smaller than the costs they incurred on the Russians.

The Russian Mass Missile/Drone attack on the morning of Dec 29

Early yesterday morning stories started coming in of a mass Russian air assault that seemed to involve attacks on every major Ukrainian city. Kyiv, Lviv, Odesa, Dnipro, Kharkiv, etc, were all targeted as the Russians tried to overwhelm Ukrainian air defenses with a mass attack. The pictures that came in of hospitals and residential buildings being hit (some of which were actually hit by debris falling from shot down Russian missiles) was sobering.

This attack was arguably the largest attack on Ukrainian cities during the course of the war. It was certainly very expensive and used far more costly ordnance than other similar Russian operation’s for a while. John Ridge has kept a chart of the make up of Russian air attacks on Ukraine (the last, highest bar is the attack the other night). Not only is it the highest bar, but its the bar that has by far the largest number of missiles, not just Shaheds.

Source: https://x.com/John_A_Ridge/status/1740908361460462018?s=20

In particular, the raid used considerably more ballistic missiles (the orange band in the chart) than any raid for a while. These are very difficult for the Ukrainians to intercept, even with the advanced anti-air capabilities. This seems to be particularly the case with the Russian X-22 missile.5 Originally designed to attack enemy aircraft carriers, its been repurposed into an air-to-ground weapon that the Russians have used against Ukraine. The Ukrainians claimed some were used in the attack.

Overall 158 different missiles/drones were used against Ukraine the other night, and the Ukrainians claim to have shot down 114.6 Of these, the Ukrainians were saying that they shot down almost all the cruise missiles (87) and Shaheds (27), leaving many of the ballistic missiles to have gotten through.

Source: https://x.com/GeneralStaffUA/status/1740658994757398751?s=20

There was also a significant loss of life (though thankfully less that one might have feared considering the mass attack). The most up to date reports that I can find state that at least 31 Ukrainians were killed and significantly more wounded.7

The attack was almost certainly planned long in advance (the specific date of the attack might have been influenced by the sinking of the Novocherkassk—we dont know). Clearly equipment had been stockpiled, a layered operation worked out, and it comes on the heels of months of mostly Shahed attacks (the green bars in the chart) which seem to have at least partly been aimed at stretching Ukrainian air defense, revealing weaknesses, making the Ukrainians use up valuable anti-air ammunition, etc.

The immediate reaction to the attack was rather dramatic. I did an interview with BBC television, and the presenter clearly wanted it to be seen as a major event which could have serious implications on the war. I did my best to try and put this into perspective and look at the attack more analytically. Here is a link to the video if you want to watch it.8

Link to video: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-67838996?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=658eaf2df825603c1a38118d%26Russian%20attack%20is%20a%20big%20expenditure%20of%20expensive%20missiles%20-%20analyst%262023-12-29T13%3A44%3A26%2B00%3A00&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:59ab3d61-509c-4e88-87f3-7a865ab835dd&pinned_post_asset_id=658eaf2df825603c1a38118d&pinned_post_type=share

Share

What really matters?

When we look at these attacks what do we see? Certainly the attack on the Ukrainian cities seemed to be the more dramatic, with fires burning in many places, a huge amount of ordnance fired, and lots of commentary on what it might mean. Yet, when discussing a military operation, its important to start by asking what it actually achieved, particularly in relation to what it cost.

When the attacks first were reported yesterday morning, I tweeted out that we needed not to jump to conclusions about whether this should be seen as an important success by the Russians. I gave two tests, did it shut down Ukrainian infrastructure (power generation) in any meaningful way and did it damage Ukrainian military production (or we might say Ukraine’s ability to wage war)?

Source: https://x.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1740687194082468160?s=20

From this perspective, the achievements for the Russians seem very small indeed. The air campaign that they waged last winter, which so far seems to have been more effective than the one this winter, knocked out the power supply to Ukrainian cities for significant stretches, and threatened to cause significant economic chaos. I’ve asked Ukrainians in the last 24 hours what the infrastructure impact of this mass attack was, and so far it seems to have been light. There were some smaller power cuts in Odesa, but Kyiv seemed mostly unaffected and there are few signs that war fighting infrastructure was damaged in a material way. Maybe reports will later emerge that the Russians hit a military target of very high value, but so far, that seems not the case.

So in strategic terms, its not clear whether this mass attack achieved anything material. Ukraine can fight the war exactly the same before the attack as afterwards.

Now, I know that some people are saying that maybe it will have a morale impact on Ukrainian willingness to fight the war (that was an implication of the BBC questioning). This is an old chestnut with almost no evidence behind it. The idea that attacks on civilian targets sap the morale of people being attacked and makes them not support a war is small. Serious deprivation (which can result from a long-successful air campaign) might do it—but one large attack with 30 dead and little infrastructure damage almost certainly will not. If anything it will give the Ukrainians more determination. What do they see? An enemy at this point who is basically trying to terror bomb their cities—and at the same time Ukrainian air defense that is doing a credible job defending them. It would be surprising if that population then turned around and said lets make concessions to the attacker.

In terms of getting aid to Ukraine, if anything (and we also dont want to overreact the other way) the raids might provide a little more support for getting the stuck aid package through the US Congress. It was interesting to see that President Biden marked the attack by releasing a personal statement—and in that statement saw an opportunity to urge Congress to pass the aid bill.

Here is the middle paragraph (its a short statement) and a link to the whole thing.

In the face of this brutal attack, Ukraine deployed the air defense systems that the United States and our Allies and partners have delivered to Ukraine over the past year to successfully intercept and destroy many of the missiles and drones. The American people can be proud of the lives we have helped to save and the support we have given Ukraine as it defends its people, its freedom, and its independence. But unless Congress takes urgent action in the new year, we will not be able to continue sending the weapons and vital air defense systems Ukraine needs to protect its people. Congress must step up and act without any further delay.9

It should be noted that Biden was not alone, but many European leaders also made special statements about the attack and how it shows the need to send more aid to Ukraine.10

So, unless this heralds an acceleration in the Russian campaign, and they have stockpiled many more missiles of this type, and can keep coming back and doing it regularly, this attack is almost certainly a strategic loss for the Russians. To sum up:

the achievements for the Russians seem very small

1. It was extremely expensive for the Russians to launch

2. It has had no measurable result (so far) on Ukraine’s ability to wage war

3. It has caused no significant damage to Ukrainian infrastructure such as power generation

4. If anything, it has helped make the case to Ukraine’s supporters about the need to aid the country more.

1. If anything, it has helped make the case to Ukraine’s supporters about the need to aid the country more.

(ps. I have an op/ed piece coming out next Monday in a major US paper, which was partly motivated by yesterday’s attacks. It actually helps make the case about how Ukraine should be armed).

On the other hand, the Ukrainian attack on the Novocherkassk was the opposite—a clear strategic success. It cost relatively little for Ukraine and gained a significant result. A major Russian warship was erased, one capable of performing very important logistical tasks, as the cost of a very small number of cruise missiles.

Moreover, in a larger sense it highlighted the professionalism gap between the Ukrainian and Russian armed forces. The Ukrainians were able to react quickly to the existence of a high value target, get the right ordnance into action, and achieve a strategic result. One, by the way, that seems to have particularly irritated Putin.11

The Ukrainian operation can help it win the war, the Russian operation, if anything, will do the opposite.

Its not a dramatic way of looking at things—but I would argue it is the better way to understand war.