I misspoke above - they did mention shelling offhand and in the abstract but they made zero comment about: * whom they thought was responsible. * any attempts

I misspoke above - they did mention shelling offhand and in the abstract but they made zero comment about: * whom they thought was responsible. * any attempts they made to discover who was responsible. * any evidence they had seen, not seen, asked for or not been given access to. If their genuine, honest conclusion was "we are still not sure who did it" then the appropriate response would be to admit that and to lay out the evidence they had seen. For whatever reason they chose to boil their assessment down to "shelling happened" and avoid pointing fingers. I can see why Russia interpreted that as a green light to shell Pivdennoukrainsk.