Satellite Photos Over North Korea Reveal Kim's Partially Sunken New Warship
The 5,000-ton warship appears to be keeled over, stuck on a slideway in the northeast city of Chongjin, and may be partially submerged, analysts say.
The destroyer is the second to be constructed following the launch of the Cho Hyon, which North Korea unveiled with much acclaim in late April and which has since begun weapons systems testing.
The Kim regime has stepped up efforts to modernize its armed forces, including its United Nations-sanctioned nuclear weapons program and ballistic missile fleet, citing "provocations" by the U.S. and Washington's South Korean and Japanese allies.
Newsweek reached out to the North Korean embassy in Beijing by email with a request for comment.
During Thursday's launch, the bottom of the destroyer's hull was pierced after a transport cradle beneath the stern section slid off and became stuck, according to the state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).
Images supplied to Newsweek by U.S. commercial satellite firm Planet confirmed the ship was resting in an awkward position at Chongjin's Hambuk Shipyard Thursday, partially covered by blue tarpaulins to mask the damage.
A high-definition image captured by Germany-based Airbus Defence and Space shows the vessel listing heavily to starboard.
"Vessel now covered, but angle consistent with reporting bow got stuck on slideway. It is likely the vessel may be on its side or at least partially submerged," Joseph Dempsey, research associate for defense and military analysis at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, wrote on X (formerly Twitter).
"North Korea's admission of failure is rare but would have likely been undeniable once satellite imagery revealed the extent of the 'serious accident,'" he added.
The Korean Central News Agency reported: "Respected Comrade Kim Jong Un made a stern assessment, saying that it was a serious accident and criminal act caused by sheer carelessness, irresponsibility and unscientific empiricism which should never occur and could not be tolerated."
Sidharth Kaushal, Senior Research Fellow at London-based Royal United Services Institute think tank, was quoted by X account Open Source Centre as saying: "The Choe Hyon class represents North Korea's most ambitious naval project to date and its construction was a departure from practice for a navy historically focused on its littorals."
Kim called for the destroyer to be restored as soon as possible, setting a deadline for completion ahead of the key June meeting of the Workers' Party of Korea's Central Committee, according to KCNA. He stressed that the issue was not only a practical one but also a political matter tied to state prestige.
In a speech delivered in late April, the leader announced plans to begin construction of additional warships in 2026, including a cruiser and various escort vessels.
Related Articles
North Korea's Kim Could Face War Crimes Charge: Ex-ICC ChiefNorth Korean Ship Damaged on Launch in Blow to Kim's Navy AmbitionsChina and North Korea's Militaries Don't Trust Each Other: US IntelUS Issues Update on North Korea Military Power
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Medicare Update: Lawmakers Sound Alarm About Major Change to Program
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. More than a dozen House Democrats pressed Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Mehmet Oz in a letter last week over CMS's announced plans to expand prior authorization requirements to traditional Medicare through a pilot program. The new model incorporates artificial intelligence to help make decisions and is being tested in six states beginning in January. "Let's call it what it is: profit-driven healthcare," a financial expert told Newsweek, "And profit motive and patient care mix about as well as oil and water. Lawmakers are sounding the alarm, because this directly affects many of their constituents." Why It Matters The pushback highlights a growing partisan debate over how to reduce Medicare spending without restricting beneficiaries' access to care. It also underscores tensions between the Biden-era expansion of oversight and the Trump administration's stated aim to cut waste while modernizing CMS operations. House Democrats argued the new prior authorization pilot would create administrative burdens for providers and patients, while some Senate Republicans believe the Medicare reforms are necessary for rooting out fraud and overpayments. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA) speaks at a news conference after a meeting with the House Democratic Caucus at the U.S. Capitol Building on September 19, 2023 in Washington, DC. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA) speaks at a news conference after a meeting with the House Democratic Caucus at the U.S. Capitol Building on September 19, 2023 in Washington, To Know More than a dozen House Democrats, led by Democratic Representatives Suzan DelBene of Washington and Ami Bera of California, sent a letter to CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz on Thursday, requesting information and urging cancellation of a planned prior authorization pilot for traditional Medicare. The lawmakers wrote that "traditional Medicare has rarely required prior authorization," and said that, while prior authorization is "often described as a cost-containment strategy, in practice it increases provider burden, takes time away from patients, limits patients' access to life-saving care, and creates unnecessary administrative burden." The letter asked CMS for details on the pilot's scope, implementation plan and safeguards for beneficiaries. "Prior authorization is often seen as a roadblock to timely, even life-saving care—replacing the doctor's judgment with an algorithm," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. "Let's call it what it is: profit-driven healthcare. And profit motive and patient care mix about as well as oil and water. Lawmakers are sounding the alarm, because this directly affects many of their constituents." CMS has planned to roll out the prior authorization program in six states starting in January. The Trump administration previously announced a voluntary pledge from major insurers to simplify prior authorization in Medicare Advantage. Lawmakers said that prior voluntary pledges showed public recognition of the harms of prior authorization, and they urged CMS to reconsider extending similar rules to traditional Medicare. Separately, Senate Republicans discussed broader Medicare changes as part of proposals to reduce waste, fraud and abuse and to modernize CMS operations. Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina said lawmakers were examining CMS contracting practices, duplicate payments and upcoding as potential savings sources, according to The Hill. The Hill also reported that legislation from Louisiana Republican Senator Bill Cassidy and Democratic Senator of Oregon Jeff Merkley to reduce Medicare Advantage overpayments had bipartisan interest and might be folded into larger budget measures considered by Senate Republicans. Idaho Republican Senator Mike Crapo said his committee was "evaluating" Cassidy's proposal. Newsweek reached out to CMS for comment via email. What People Are Saying Lawmakers wrote in their letter to CMS administrator, Dr. Mehmet Oz: "Prior authorization has long been abused, and it is bad for patients and providers. The American Medical Association notes, 'Among America's physicians, more than nine in 10 surveyed say that prior authorization has a negative impact on patient clinical outcomes." We urge you to put patients and providers first by cancelling the WISeR model and exploring other ways to limit fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicare program." Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "Will the letter change things? I doubt it. They'll probably get an answer, but expect the same vague, carefully worded response. The current administration is clear on its intent: privatize more of Medicare and crack down on what they label "waste, fraud, and abuse." Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "Few Americans would be in disagreement that services like Medicare and Medicaid should have strong oversight to ensure funding is being properly used, but the concern with the WISeR model being employed is the use of prior authorization for some Medicare services. Medicare Advantage has a history of requiring prior authorization, and while not all uses have been a source of criticism, it is viewed by some beneficiaries as one of several reasons why Advantage has garnered more negative reactions in recent years." What Happens Next CMS faced requests from House Democrats to provide documentation and to cancel the planned prior authorization pilot. Lawmakers in the Senate continue to debate broader Medicare reforms, and committee deliberations could determine whether proposals addressing Medicare Advantage payments or CMS operational changes move into larger legislative packages. "For the time being, the model isn't nationwide and will be piloted in select states," Beene said. "It's difficult to say if this will eventually be implemented nationwide and will largely depend on how this pilot program goes."
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Faces Decision on Case Urging Overturn of Same-Sex Marriage
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Supreme Court is facing a choice about whether to take up a case filed by former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis urging the overturn its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark case that guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage nationwide. Davis' attorney Matthew Staver told Newsweek he is optimistic the court will take the case. William Powell, the attorney who represented the couple that sued Davis, wrote in a statement provided to Newsweek he is "confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis's arguments do not merit further attention." Daniel Urman, law professor at Northeastern University, told Newsweek it is unlikely the Supreme Court would agree to overturn same-sex marriage. Why It Matters The case, filed by Davis—a former Kentucky clerk who spent six days in jail over her refusal to provide marriage certificates to same-sex couples on religious grounds—could represent a threat to federal protections for same-sex marriage one decade after the nation's highest court legalized the unions across the country. Some justices like Clarence Thomas have signaled an openness to revisiting the case in recent years as the court has moved to the right. That conservative shift on cultural issues has been defined by its 2022 ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, which for decades guaranteed abortion rights. If the court overturns nationwide same-sex marriage, the issue would likely return to the states, many of which have still not passed laws allowing members of the same sex to get married. The U.S. Supreme Court justices pose for a portrait in Washington, D.C., on October 7, 2022. The U.S. Supreme Court justices pose for a portrait in Washington, D.C., on October 7, To Know In a recently filed petition to the Supreme Court, Davis' attorney Matthew Staver raised religious objections to same-sex marriage. "Obergefell was 'egregiously wrong,' 'deeply damaging,' 'far outside the bound of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed,' and set out 'on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided,'" he wrote. Davis' case "presents the ideal opportunity to revisit substantive due process that 'lacks any basis in the Constitution,' " the petition reads. "This flawed opinion has produced disastrous results leaving individuals like Davis 'find[ing] it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws,'" it reads. "And, until the Court revisits its 'creation of atextual constitutional rights,' Obergefell will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'" The filing said that if the court overturns Obergefell, marriage rights would be returned to the states, but that any same-sex couples who were married since the ruling would be grandfathered. Staver told Newsweek he believes the decision is on "weak on shaky ground." "It has no basis in the Constitution," he said. "It's what caused this issue with Kim Davis to be sent to prison for six days and now facing hundreds of thousands of dollars personally, is the Obergefell opinion originally, and I think that it's time to reevaluate that and overturn it." Urman told Newsweek it is "very unlikely for the Court to hear the case." While Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito may side with her, it's appears less likely that conservative justices like Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts would move to overturn same-sex marriage, he said. "There's a chance that a conservative majority could use the case to expand the rights of religious objectors to same-sex marriage," he said. "But that's not the same as overturning the right itself, and I don't see a majority of the Court ready to do that. Culturally, same-sex marriage has become embedded in American life, and it is still popular in public opinion polls." Paul Collins, professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told Newsweek that while Davis wants to use the case as a vehicle for the court to overturn same-sex marriage, that isn't necessarily the issue at the heart of the case. "Instead, it is about a jury verdict for inflicting emotional damages by violating a same-sex couple's right to marry. This just isn't the right vehicle for challenging a constitutional right to same-sex marriage," he said. Conservative members of the court are likely to be interested in overturning same-sex marriage but may not view this as the best case to do so, Collins said. "If the Court were to take the case, I think they would likely stick to the core issue in the case: the jury verdict regarding Davis violating the couple's constitutional right to marry," he said. Kim Davis' Arguments Have Faced Legal Scrutiny Davis became a national figure after she denied licenses to same-sex couples following the Obergefell ruling on June 26, 2015, over her religious objections. In September of that year, a judge held her in contempt, and she spent six days in jail. Davis' arguments have been rejected by lower courts. A 6th District Court of Appeals panel earlier this year dismissed her First Amendment argument because she is being "held liable for state action," rather than her individual actions. "Although Davis's assertions are novel, they fail under basic constitutional principles. Under § 1983, Davis is being held liable for state action, which the First Amendment does not protect—so the Free Exercise Clause cannot shield her from liability," that ruling reads. The Supreme Court also denied an appeal filed by Davis in 2020. How Popular Is Support for Same-Sex Marriage? Polls show that most American support for same-sex marriage remains high, but has dropped in the past few years. Gallup showed that 69 percent of all Americans back the legalization of same-sex marriage in May 2024, down from 71 percent in May 2023. Eighty-three percent of Democrats and 74 percent of independents support same-sex marriage, while only 46 percent of Republicans do so. What People Are Saying Attorney William Powell, who represents the couple who sued Davis for not providing a marriage license wrote in a statement to Newsweek: "Not a single judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals showed any interest in Davis's rehearing petition, and we are confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis's arguments do not merit further attention." Paul Collins, professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst told Newsweek: "Conservative Christians are serious about getting the Court to reconsider Obergefell. This case is being brought by Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal organization. If the Court denies Davis' petition—which I think it will—this won't be the end of the battle against same sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights more generally." Daniel Urman, law professor at Northeastern University, told Newsweek: "The current supermajority on the Supreme Court has the votes to reshape American law how they see fit, but the Court still needs to appear legitimate in the eyes of the public. Overturning the right to same-sex marriage could spark tremendous public backlash and criticism of the Court. Chief Justice Roberts would work very hard to avoid this, and I don't see more than 2 votes (Alito and Thomas) to overturn Obergefell." Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the 2022 case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization: "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell." What Happens Next The Supreme Court could make a decision about whether to accept Davis' case in the coming months but has not indicated either way which way it is leaning.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Russia Using Donald Trump Peace Talks to Divide US and Europe: ISW
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The upcoming summit between President Donald Trump and his counterpart Vladimir Putin is being used by the Kremlin to divide the U.S. from Europe over the war in Ukraine, according to analysis. That assessment by the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) comes amid a diplomatic flurry involving Ukraine's European allies and concerns that Friday's talks between the leaders in Alaska could present the Russian president with an advantage. Russian officials want to weaken cohesion between the U.S, Ukraine and Europe by promoting the latter two as barriers to a deal to end the war, the Washington, D.C.-based think tank said. Ukrainian geopolitical analyst Viktor Kovalenko told Newsweek Monday the summit was "a vital diplomatic breakthrough for both the U.S. and Ukraine." Newsweek has contacted the White House for comment. President Donald Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky meet in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, February 28, 2025. President Donald Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky meet in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, February 28, It Matters Kyiv and its allies are concerned that the Russian president is not interested in any deal given that he has not backed down on his goals of fully subjugating Ukraine. This is especially pertinent given that it has been reported the U.S. is proposing swapping land Moscow partially occupies for peace, which Volodymyr Zelensky has rejected. What To Know The Kremlin and Russian media have responded positively to Friday's meeting which will see Putin's first visit to the U.S. in a decade to Alaska, a U.S. state which was part of the Russian empire until 1867. Putin has refused a U.S.-proposed ceasefire Ukraine backs, demanding Kyiv forgo NATO membership and withdraw troops from partially-occupied Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions as preconditions for peace. It has been reported that Trump has said he and Putin will discuss a ceasefire proposal involving Kyiv ceding eastern territories to Russia, which Zelensky has firmly rejected, warning it would allow Moscow to regroup and attack again. But Europe would also oppose such a deal and so officials close to the Kremlin have presented the continent, rather than Moscow, as the barrier to peace. Russian political scientist Sergei Markov told The Washington Post that Russia's main interest in the summit is to portray Ukraine and Europe rather than Russia as the obstacles to a deal. Meanwhile, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on social media that "Euro-imbeciles" are trying to stop the U.S. from striking a deal. This echoed a view from the head of the Russian Liberal Democratic Party (LDPR), Leonid Slutsky, who is part of the systemic opposition but backs Putin's foreign policy, said European countries are trying to prevent a quick peace settlement in Ukraine. The ISW used these examples as showing the Kremlin's intentions to use the Alaska summit to divide the U.S. from Europe rather than engage in meaningful peace efforts. Moscow has not budged from its long-term goals of preventing Ukraine from joining NATO, the installation of a pro-Russian proxy government, and Ukraine's demilitarization, which would ensure Ukraine's full capitulation, the ISW said. Russia will also very likely violate any ceasefire while blaming Ukraine for the violations as it repeatedly did in spring 2025, the think tank added. The White House is considering inviting Zelensky to the summit, said the ISW, on the back of several reports citing sources familiar with the matter. Kovalenko, from Ukraine Decoded, said this reported move by Washington signaled its awareness of Ukrainian concerns and contradicted Trump critics who have framed the event as sidelining Kyiv. If Zelensky had a role, he could propose a phased deal in which Russian withdraws from most of the regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, including its nuclear power plant, in exchange for gradual sanctions relief, Kovalenko told Newsweek. Crucially, Ukraine must retain its so-called "fortress belt" in Donetsk and Luhansk, a bulwark against future Russian incursions, he added. What People Are Saying Institute for the Study of War (ISW) on Sunday: "The Kremlin is attempting to use the upcoming Alaska summit to divide the United States from Europe rather than engage in meaningful peace efforts." Viktor Kovalenko, from Ukraine Decoded substack: "The Alaska summit could halt the bloodshed, but without Ukraine's buy-in and a focus on Russian withdrawal from key regions, it risks becoming a diplomatic mirage." What Happens Next Before the Alaska summit, diplomatic wrangling is likely to continue with Bloomberg reporting how European leaders are likely push the conversation toward a ceasefire based on the current front line as a first step toward a broader settlement, rather than a proposal to swap land for peace.
