4 ms·
What? Where did I say that it was not destroyed? My point is that it's quite possible that it was destroyed by Ukrainian artillery strikes which supported count
by fuoqi 5y ago
What? Where did I say that it was not destroyed? My point is that it's quite possible that it was destroyed by Ukrainian artillery strikes which supported counter-attack on the Gostomel airport.
- qeternity 5y agoI think most people would consider it destroyed by Russia, even if it were Ukrainian artillery that actually struck.
- dtech 5y agoDestroyed due to the Russian invasion would be better then.
- unmole 5y agoSure, but saying destroyed by Russian airstrikes like the article would be inaccurate.
- efdee 5y agoIn the way that you don't die from a bullet, but rather from your body's reaction to the abrupt entering of that bullet in its perimeter.
- unmole 5y agoSaying it happened as a result of the Russian invasion is accurate, saying it happened because of Russian airstrikes is not.
- Aeolun 5y agoAssuming it was destroyed by Ukrainian artillery, which is very much still in question.
- unmole 5y agoIt could have been destroyed by Russian infantry for all we know. But that's still not a Russian airstrike.
- efdee 5y agoIf you agree it is a result of the Russian invasion, you can't say it's not a result of Russian airstrikes. Maybe not a direct result in the sense that a Russian rocket destroyed it (although there's no reason to rule that out at this point), but definitely as an indirect result. No invasion, no destroyed An-225. No Russian airstrike, no destroyed An-225.
- unmole 5y ago> If you agree it is a result of the Russian invasion, you can't say it's not a result of Russian airstrikes. Airstrike has a specific meaning. From what I understand Russian attack on the airport was primarily an assault by airborne infantry. It's entirely possible that the Antonov was destroyed by a Russian munition. It still doesn't mean it was a result of a Russian airstrike.
- samatman 5y agoThe formal cause of the destruction is the Russian invasion, the efficient cause might be Ukrainian artillery, or it might be Russian airstrikes, as the article indicates. It's a useful distinction, and I wager most people would consider the efficient cause to be the appropriate cause in a sentence like "object destroyed by causal subject". Otherwise we end up with difficulty parsing "Russian MiG destroyed by Russia", are we saying it's all Russia's fault, or that Russian forces shot their own jet?
- Kelteseth 5y agoOh, I misread your comment :(
- ulfw 5y agoWell that's nice. I am sure there wouldn't have been a nice for any kind of Ukrainian weaponry, let alone artillery strikes if Russia didn't forcefully capture said airfield in the first place.