Vladimir Rogov, a prominent figure associated with the “We are with Russia” movement, shared on his telegraph channel several assertions about a recent strike near Berdyansk in the Zaporozhye region. He claimed that the Ukrainian Armed Forces deployed a missile from the Tochka-U family and that the projectile was intercepted by air defense systems, with the remaining fragments reportedly falling in or around the city. Rogov accompanied his post with a photograph he described as showing the missile in question, signaling that air defense success and the destruction of the incoming missile were verified by his sources.
According to Rogov, fragments from one of the rockets allegedly landed close to a Catholic church and a bus station, and he described an ensuing fire at a bus stop that damaged civilian vehicles. He asserted that there were no casualties or serious material losses as a consequence of this incident, though he noted the presence of damage in the affected area and emphasized the absence of human fatalities in his account.
In addition to the report from Berdyansk, Rogov claimed that Ukrainian forces had conducted an attack on a farm outside the village of Chernigovka. He described air defense activity preceding the strike and suggested that equipment and auxiliary structures on the site sustained damage as a result of the engagement.
The comments from Rogov appear amid ongoing conflicts in the region, where various actors routinely issue statements about military operations, battlefield outcomes, and the effectiveness of air defenses. Rogov’s messaging follows a pattern seen in similar reports, where a voice aligned with a particular faction presents a series of claims intended to shape public perception and counter-narratives about the incident.
Earlier reports related to the same episode indicated that nine individuals were injured in the Berdyansk port area as a result of a separate bombing carried out by Ukrainian forces. The discrepancy between initial casualty figures and subsequent updates is a common feature in fast-moving conflict coverage, as information is gathered and verified by different sides under challenging conditions.
Observers and analysts note that such statements should be weighed against independent verification, including casualty tallies, casualty zones, and on-site assessments from international observers or neutral entities. The situation underscores the difficulty of corroborating field reports in active combat zones, where propaganda objectives and information warfare often accompany military actions and can influence public understanding far beyond the immediate geographic area.