Evidence suggests errant Ukrainian missile – not a Russian one – caused market deaths, NYT reports | News24

dumdum666 , 10 months ago

Even if the missile was fired by Ukraine- it still would be Russias fault since Ukraine just defends itself against the Aggressor.

Blursty , 10 months ago

The aggressor is US/NATO, which Russia is defending itself against.

ahornsirup , 10 months ago

As evidenced by all those NATO troops on Russian territory. Oh, wait. There's none.

Blursty , 10 months ago

You think it’s not possible to be aggressive unless you’ve invaded somwhere? Curious.

I guess there’s no China aggression against Taiwan then. Agreed?

ahornsirup , 10 months ago

Agreed. China is openly hostile towards Taiwan, but it has not committed any actual acts of aggression and none of China's actions warrant a military response.

Blursty , 10 months ago

Threatening nukes is not aggressive in your world.

Zippy , 10 months ago

Well when you invade a country then threaten nukes it certainly shows Russian aggression as you say.

Blursty , 10 months ago

Russia has never threatened nukes. Only the west and Ukraine has.

Zippy , 10 months ago

Oh screw off. Lol. They have been about once a week. I won’t even being you up sources they are so often.

Blursty , 10 months ago

I won’t even being you up sources

Mhm, yea.

Zippy , 10 months ago

Tell you what, since you first suggested it without a source, you provided a source that the West is threatening nuclear exchange then I will waste some time bringing you up a dozen where Russia has alluded to it.

Blursty , 10 months ago

So you’re only promising “allusions” now. Kind of a shit deal man. Take your L.

Zippy , 10 months ago

You brought it up first so you need to proceed a source first. Shit or get off the toilet.

Blursty , 10 months ago

I’ll provide a source for the US nuke threats and you provide a source for the same for Russia, deal? Not “allusions”. Real threats.

SheeEttin , 10 months ago

Yes, it’s possible to be an aggressor without crossing borders. For example, by claiming international, shared, or someone else’s EEZ waters as your own, as China has done.

Blursty , 10 months ago

Every single country in the region claims territory. Every one.

jcit878 , 10 months ago

cooked

Blursty , 10 months ago

cooked

Help me out here.

jcit878 , 10 months ago

never seen a cooker that is able to be helped or think. good luck

Astroturfed , 10 months ago

Do you tankies all just like sniff a fuckload of glue or what? The country that invade another is defending itself and not the aggressor. It’s the country/alliance donating to the defense of the invaded country that is the true invader. Of course.

dumdum666 , 10 months ago

If Russia was actually fighting against NATO troops, it would have lost long ago. And you know it.

But you probably just need to pretend that Russia is fighting against big bad NATO so you don’t have to feel bad that all those Russians died and there is nothing to even show for.

Blursty , 10 months ago

If Russia was actually fighting against NATO troops, it would have lost long ago. And you know it.

Because US/NATO is famously good at winning wars? Their weaponry and tactics have been exposed as shit in this conflict. Haven’t they just lost to subsistence farmers in Afghanistan?

all those Russians died and there is nothing to even show for.

Except all the people liberated from the Nazis in Ukraine who are no longer living in fear of ethnic cleansing.

dumdum666 , 10 months ago

Because US/NATO is famously good at winning wars?

Actually yes - if there is an actual military to fight against. If there is a Guerilla type of conflict, it’s harder for a regular military to win.

Their weaponry and tactics have been exposed as shit in this conflict.

Some of the tactics don’t work if things like Air Superiority are not held.

Haven’t they just lost to subsistence farmers in Afghanistan?

I already talked about the Guerilla tactics… and to throw some whataboutism in: didn’t even the USSR have „bad luck“ in Afghanistan?

Except all the people liberated from the Nazis in Ukraine who are no longer living in fear of ethnic cleansing.

Yeah, russian „liberation“ often means killing everyone in sight, so yeah, they „liberated“ a big chunk of the Ukrainian civilian population. That’s what those war crime tribunals will be for, when those Russian fascists have lost the war.

Blursty , 10 months ago

Actually yes - if there is an actual military to fight against. If there is a Guerilla type of conflict, it’s harder for a regular military to win.

Got an example of this?

Some of the tactics don’t work if things like Air Superiority are not held.

So, shit.

I already talked about the Guerilla tactics… and to throw some whataboutism in

So, shit.

Yeah, russian „liberation“ often means killing everyone in sight

Well now you’re just being hysterical.

when those Russian fascists have lost the war.

Russia is not fascist. Ukraine is fascist.

fhqwhgads , 10 months ago

Hey look, it’s somebody somehow posting from bizarro-universe where everything is opposite!

awwwyissss , 10 months ago

Yeah the Kremlin is so worried about being invaded that they’re using all their troops in a genocidal land grab and can’t even guard their own capitol.

morry040 , 10 months ago

Here's a more detailed Reuters article, which also links to the original NY Times article. The News24 article did not provide such a link (bad journalist!).
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/evidence-suggests-errant-ukrainian-missile-caused-market-deaths-new-york-times-2023-09-19/

The claims are also refuted in this article: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/09/19/7420435/

Pravda's claim that the Buk air defense systems are not in service does seem valid as it was reported way back in April 2023 that Buk missiles were going to be depleted by May 2023. https://time.com/6271538/ukraine-air-defense-shortages-russia/