The mentioned consequences for Russia weren't significant. No power plant exploded and Crimea had already lived with the canal mostly blocked from 2014 to 2022. There was no rocket, it's confirmed. No one else could blow it up, that's the problem.

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I mean do you have a proof for that specific guy?

A guy with a nazi tattoo is a nazi.
Not that it mattered to this matter of the strike, the point is that he was military and plenty of military there.
The inhabitants said they were far enough from the front and never even heard sounds of bombs.
Russia never targeted that unimportant tiny place.
Only when they had high ranking military in one place.
They aren't going to waste a 4$ million Iskander on a few peasants.

The mentioned consequences for Russia weren’t significant. No power plant exploded and Crimea had already lived with the canal mostly blocked from 2014 to 2022.

Just because there wasn't a nuclear disaster doesn't mean it wasn't immensely dangerous and criminal.
Even the biased IAEA said so.

it’s confirmed. No one else could blow it up

Yup, no country besides Russia can blow stuff up from a distance.
Especially since the entire NATO and other vassals are giving them everything they can.
Russia probably blew up their Crimean bridge too.
I'm sure the ukrainians can confirm that, and who wouldn't believe them?

[–] Shatur@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 hours ago

A guy with a nazi tattoo is a nazi.

Sure. But do you have any photo such tattoo on him? Also UN reports that the strike killed 59 civilians and no legitimate military target around.

They aren’t going to waste a 4$ million Iskander on a few peasants.

So why would Ukraine waste money on their rockets to kill civilians?..

Yup, no country besides Russia can blow stuff up from a distance.

I mean, yeah, you cannot explode things from a distance without something like a rocket or a drone.