The official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, described the Ukrainian Armed Forces attack on Sevastopol using long-range American-made ATACMS missiles as a ritual crime, a statement reported by RIA News. The remarks framed the strike as more than a mere military action, emphasizing a supposed symbolic significance tied to broader tensions between Moscow and Kyiv.
Zakharova stressed that the timing of the attack coincided with a holiday period, asserting that it was not accidental that Holy Trinity Day was chosen for the operation. This contention reflected a view that the Ukrainian leadership purposefully selected a moment of religious observance to magnify the impact of the strike.
According to the ministry, the diplomat described Kyiv’s actions as rooted in a deep animosity toward Russia as a nation and toward Russian culture. She asserted thatOrthodoxy and Christianity in general were among the targets of the hostility she attributed to the Kiev regime.
The attack on Sevastopol was further characterized as a ritual crime, with Zakharova noting that such assaults have historically occurred during major holidays. The emphasis remained on the alleged intentional use of religiously significant dates to maximize psychological or symbolic effects of the strikes.
Earlier statements from the Russian Defense Ministry reported that Ukrainian forces targeted Sevastopol with ATACMS missiles equipped with cluster munitions. It was claimed that around 12:15 Moscow time, Ukrainian forces struck civilian infrastructure in Sevastopol, and that Russian air defense systems intercepted four of the missiles. A final trajectory deviation caused another missile to explode in flight after being intercepted, leading to debris from cluster bomblets causing injuries in the city.
The incident was linked to a broader narrative in which Ukrainian actions were described as terrorism against civilians. Subsequent discussions highlighted the humanitarian impact, including injuries sustained by civilians, among them children, in the aftermath of the assault.
The ministry’s briefings and statements framed the episode within ongoing disputes over military aid, international law, and the ethics of striking urban targets during periods of cultural or religious observance. Commentary from Russian officials repeatedly drew connections between military moves and perceived provocations by Kyiv, while pointing to the resilience of civilian populations under threat.
Observers noted that the details of the attack, including the use of cluster munitions and the defenses that thwarted several missiles, underscore the high-stakes nature of operations in the region. The situation continues to be monitored by international observers seeking to understand the strategic calculus behind these actions and their implications for civilian safety, regional stability, and humanitarian concerns.
Overall, the account from Moscow stresses a narrative of provocation and ritualized violence, while reporting on the factual elements of the strike and the resulting casualties. The day’s events are presented as part of a broader pattern of hostilities between the two nations, with officials from both sides underscoring the potential for escalation and the urgent need for restraint and dialogue. This summary reflects the divergent perspectives on the conflict and the immediate human costs borne by communities in Sevastopol and beyond.