3 ms·
If 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 Russia
by efdee 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. 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.