Even if it was a Ukrainian air defence missile what difference does it make? It was fired in self-defence. Those civilians would still be alive along with many many thousand more civilians if Russian hasn’t attacked them. There can be no justification or excuse.
Read the history of the conflict since 2014. Read about the Mink and Minsk2 agreements which Ukraine didn’t respect. Read about Ukraine’s attempts to join NATO.
Feel like the argument is pretty weak “UAF launched a surface-to-air missile around that area, around that time, therefore they were the ones bombing themselves”.
I’m not sure what that’s suppose to prove. If the city was targeted by an attack, yeah, air defence likely get into action to protect it. Them being active at that precise moment is expected.
I can’t find the non-paywalled article, i guess i am missing more conclusive evidences.
In this case it seems to be false and that doesn't help with Ukraine's credibility.
Mind though, I'm not saying that Russia doesn't target civilians in general, this is whole another topic.
Snicky, one-sided reasoning – “Well, Ukraine has done it. But! It’s still Russia who is to blame”. That’s why we have what we do.
If Ukraine hadn’t played with the attempts to join NATO, invited by USA and Europe, Russia wouldn’t have invaded it. If Ukraine hadn’t descriminated the russians in Lugansk and Donetsk for a decade, Russia wouldn’t have invaded it.
@cuenca@Cyclist That was the EXCUSE, not the reason. The reason was that Putin wants to completely rebuild the USSR and that entails expanding its borders over UKr, Moldovia, Romania, Bulgaria, etc. until it looms over Europe and then take the rest of Europe. It is a KNOWN ambition of his. Don't be silly. This is about one man's megalomaniac dreams. It has only superficial connections to real politics.
Add comment