A Russian missile strike on Kharkiv killed four people and injured 31 others, according to RBC-Ukraine, as rescue crews kept searching the rubble of a destroyed residential building. The report shows how the city’s January 2 attack quickly became a recovery mission as officials and emergency workers tried to determine whether more people remained trapped.

The supplied evidence says two ballistic missiles hit the central part of Kharkiv, striking residential areas directly. One five-story building in the Kyivskyi district was destroyed, and a fire broke out at the site. The blast also damaged neighboring buildings, shattering windows and damaging facades. That combination of destruction and fire made the scene difficult for rescuers and reinforced how concentrated the attack was on civilian infrastructure.

By the time of the report, the death toll had risen to four. RBC-Ukraine said the body of a third person was found under the rubble late on January 3, after the bodies of a 22-year-old woman and a 3-year-old boy had already been recovered. Kharkiv Mayor Ihor Terekhov said fragments of another person’s body were later found under the wreckage, indicating the final toll could still be subject to confirmation as the search continued.

The injuries were extensive as well. The source says a total of 31 people were hurt in the missile strike. Emergency services, including the State Emergency Service and city and regional authorities, were involved in the response. The Kharkiv Regional Military Administration said the missiles were aimed at the central part of the city, while the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office identified them as Iskander ballistic missiles.

This report stays with the facts in the packet. It does not speculate on the military target, extend the casualty count beyond what rescuers had confirmed, or claim knowledge of the full tactical purpose of the attack. What it does establish is that a residential building was hit, people were killed in the ruins, and the aftermath was still unfolding days later.

The human pattern is visible in the numbers and in the scene: a child, a young woman, and other civilians among the dead, with dozens injured and a destroyed building still under search. The source material supports a plain conclusion, not a sweeping one: Kharkiv was struck hard, the damage was severe, and the city was still counting the cost. The casualty recovery in Kharkiv also shows how war damage evolves over time. Early counts are often revised as rescuers clear debris, and the discovery of bodies hours or days later is part of that grim rhythm. That is why the report’s sequence matters: first two bodies, then a third, then fragments of another person’s body under the rubble.

The attack’s effect on nearby buildings is also a reminder that even when the direct target is one structure, the blast wave can spread harm far beyond it. Shattered windows and damaged facades may seem secondary next to fatalities, but they indicate the reach of the strike into a dense urban neighborhood. The source makes clear that the city’s civilian fabric was hit hard.