Destroying the Ukrainian culture could be one as Poutine’s propaganda is saying that Ukraine is not a real country with a real history but a part of Russia that needs to be recovered.
Mainly the part where an attack intended to destroy the building would be very easy but this is just mild damage. I mean that in the sense of it not being catastrophic rather than implying that this occurring to a religious building isn’t upsetting, it’s not a pleasant thing. The point being that when they intend to actually blow stuff up there’s usually very little left over of the targets, which leads me to believe this wasn’t the target.
Which is why I’m interested in seeing what hit it. I’m surprised there are no photos of the missile debris so far, there are in almost every single other attack as it’s the information that validates a lot of information for international eyes.
They aren’t using it as a symbol though, blowing up a religious building is not exactly a move that would be popular among russians. Which is why they’re denying that it was Russian munitions and trying to claim that it was Ukrainian anti-air missiles falling back on buildings after trying to shoot down other things. To use it as a symbol you kinda have to say it was you.
What this will become however is a symbol of reconstruction for Ukraine, which is not at all beneficial to Russia’s strategic interests. Hence why I lean to it being a mistake of some sort. Given the accuracy their missiles have though that’s hard to justify as well, unless it’s not actually the main payload of a missile and is instead one of the earlier stages that gets split, like the fuel tubes sections. This is why actually seeing the missile debris is useful, you can figure out whether it was the target or not based on whether it’s the payload section or some other part of the missile.
Destroying the Ukrainian culture could be one as Poutine’s propaganda is saying that Ukraine is not a real country with a real history but a part of Russia that needs to be recovered.
Nah that makes no sense mate.
What doesn’t make sense to you?
Mainly the part where an attack intended to destroy the building would be very easy but this is just mild damage. I mean that in the sense of it not being catastrophic rather than implying that this occurring to a religious building isn’t upsetting, it’s not a pleasant thing. The point being that when they intend to actually blow stuff up there’s usually very little left over of the targets, which leads me to believe this wasn’t the target.
Which is why I’m interested in seeing what hit it. I’m surprised there are no photos of the missile debris so far, there are in almost every single other attack as it’s the information that validates a lot of information for international eyes.
They could also just use it as a symbol without willing to use more ammunition for a non strategic target.
They aren’t using it as a symbol though, blowing up a religious building is not exactly a move that would be popular among russians. Which is why they’re denying that it was Russian munitions and trying to claim that it was Ukrainian anti-air missiles falling back on buildings after trying to shoot down other things. To use it as a symbol you kinda have to say it was you.
What this will become however is a symbol of reconstruction for Ukraine, which is not at all beneficial to Russia’s strategic interests. Hence why I lean to it being a mistake of some sort. Given the accuracy their missiles have though that’s hard to justify as well, unless it’s not actually the main payload of a missile and is instead one of the earlier stages that gets split, like the fuel tubes sections. This is why actually seeing the missile debris is useful, you can figure out whether it was the target or not based on whether it’s the payload section or some other part of the missile.