The Sept. 6 missile strike on Kostiantynivka in eastern Ukraine was one of the deadliest in the country in months, killing at least 15 civilians and injuring more than 30 others. The weapon’s payload of metal fragments struck a market, piercing windows and walls and wounding some victims beyond recognition.
Less than two hours later, President Volodymyr Zelensky blamed Russian “terrorists” for the attack, and many media outlets followed suit.
But evidence collected and analyzed by The New York Times, including missile fragments, satellite imagery, witness accounts and social media posts, strongly suggests the catastrophic strike was the result of an errant Ukrainian air defense missile fired by a Buk launch system.
Ukrainian authorities initially tried to prevent journalists with The Times from accessing the missile debris and impact area in the strike’s immediate aftermath. But the reporters were eventually able to get to the scene, interview witnesses and collect remnants of the weapon used.
You stay where you belong and you let us surround with nukes and there’s nothing you can do about it with because I’m not touching you I’m not touching you I’m not touching you
Your grasp of international relations, foreign policy, and national security has not improved since 4th grade.
deleted by creator
NATO and the EU have been abundantly clear that Ukraine is not going to be admitted into NATO.
The reason Russia invaded Ukraine is because the US was attempting to create the conditions for stationing nuclear capabilities along the Russia-Ukraine border. The same border through which Russia was invaded twice and cost them millions of lives. Are you saying they should have waited until the USA had successfully installed those nuclear capabilities before invading so that they would be invading a country with nukes? That would be daft suicide.
deleted by creator
That article is from July. In August and in September there have been a large number of articles about why Ukraine can’t and won’t join NATO. Many NATO countries are putting requirements that Ukraine can’t meet. NATO itself is putting requirements that Ukraine refuses to meet.
As for Ukraine giving up nukes thanks to the USA, I don’t think you understand anything about the situation. Ukraine was neutral and remained neutral as a condition of Russian national security. Ukraine having nukes meant Russia wasn’t going to invade it but also that the USA wasn’t going to invade it either. Having nukes meant Ukraine was stable and could remain neutral. Getting rid of Ukrainian nukes meant that suddenly conflagration was on the table. And the USA activated the Nazis and created a hot conflict back in 2008. 6 years later they supported the right-wing coup that wanted NATO, a transnational nuclear military, to establish it’s capabilities within the country. So now we have no nukes owned by Ukraine, a non-neutral Ukraine, and the march of a nuclear military to Russia’s border.
So yes, you can decontextualize historical facts all day long to craft whatever narrative you want. When you put the history together, the actual trajectory becomes quite clear.