• bucho@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What are you even talking about? You said that the Romanian government said it wasn’t intentional, not that it didn’t happen. I then linked you to a direct quote from them saying it didn’t happen. They categorically denied that it happened. Why the hell are you still arguing?

        • bucho@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No. They denied that a drone hit them. To deny that something is an attack, you have to first admit that something happened that could be interpreted as an attack. Like a drone hitting your soil. They denied that that happened.

          Do you just not understand what you’re reading? Is that the problem? You said: “keywords means of attack”, which makes me think that you think that “means of attack” is somehow a signifier for your point. Which, it’s not. You just don’t understand what that means.

          “Means of attack” in this case means a drone. If Ukraine had claimed that Russia accidentally hit Romanian territory with a missile, then “means of attack” would be a missile.

          The full sentence, then, with translation (since you apparently don’t understand what it means), is:

          “At no time did Russia’s means of attack [drone] generate direct military threats [cause damage, or impact, or explode] on Romanian national territory or waters. [within Romanian borders]”

          Which is saying the exact same thing that the pithy one line summary from the article said above this quote:

          The Romanian Defence Ministry said Romania was not hit.

          Romania denied that a drone hit them. End of story.