The evidence that she was sunk in action is that the Ukes CLAIMED it. Before even the Rukes acknowledged there was a fire. That is evidence. Not that we can trust one side over the other, but it is evidence nonetheless.
In addition, a bunch of other Russian ships have fled the coastal zone. That wouldn’t have happened if it were merely a fire, but woulda happened if they figured out they were in range of antiship missiles.
Haven’t seen satellite imagery of ships fleeing south.
I suspect the Russians do not know what happened. There were survivors so eventually they will know. Don’t know if warships have black boxes like airliners, but there was plenty of time to extract them. They knew the risks of towing in heavy weather so if those boxes exist, they would have gotten them.
BTW the Exocet that hit HMS Sheffield never exploded. Unused propellant started a fire and it took time to put it out. A few days later, sank, while being towed. The Falklands seas are always rough. And then there is HMS Glamorgan. Hit with an Exocet. Survived. Repaired. Sold to the Chilean Navy. Served 12 years. And then sank. While being towed.
The Russians are admitting it sank at this point.
Exactly. Amazingly - but not surprisingly - Russia continues to lose military assets. This time a naval ship of some real importance.
The myth of the powerful Russian military is forever tainted. Sure, they have nuclear weapons. But outside those they have been shown to be a third-rate power.