In an apparent misfire, a Ukrainian military shelling strayed across the border into Russia’s Rostov region, destroying a house and killing one civilian within, wounding two others. Russia summoned the Ukrainian charges d’affaires over the matter, cautioning against “irreversible consequences” from such attacks.
Ukraine denied the incident, and claimed that “mercenaries” were trying to cross the border in from Russia to Luhansk, and that they destroyed large numbers of vehicles at the border.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry is pushing Ukraine to apologize for the incident, though some high-ranking MPs were calling for Russia to immediately launch a retaliatory strike against the Ukrainian artillery forces in the border region.
Fighting continues in eastern Ukraine between the military and ethnic-Russian rebels, with Ukrainian tanks attempting to storm the city of Luhansk today, though apparently unsuccessfully.
Just remember this, if it is acceptable for the Israeli's to attack Palestine for rocket attacks that have killed no one, then it is acceptable for Russia to return fire when Russians are killed!
Personally though a better solution would be that there was NO attacks from anybody!
whether that be in Ukraine or in fact Gaza!
Ukraine denied the incident, and claimed that “mercenaries” were trying to cross the border in from Russia to Luhansk
In 2014, one can easily get full airborne surveillance of a border and be able to count heads and vehicles going this way or that. Since the start of the conflict, I have not seen a single photo. How is that?
Ukraine is inviting Russia to cross the border.
Sounds like the rebels are getting ever more desperate! Clearly, they have every interest in lobbing shells into Russia in the hope of forcing Putin to attack. Equally clearly, and for the very same reason, the Ukrainian military has every interest in making sure no shells land in Russia. One guess, therefore as to who is the most likely culprit! Loved the "irreversible consequences"! Since the consequences of war are always "reversible", it can't mean that! The more Putin blusters and threatens, the less likely he is to do anything concrete.
Really? The consequences of war are always reversible?
I invite you to prove it by resurrecting the dead of, say, World War II. Let me know when it's done, then I'll take your claim seriously.
You are, on the other hand, correct with respect to which side's interests are most served by a shell landing in Russia.
And on the third hand, shells don't always land where a party's interests dictate they should land.
I'm sure that, since you are willing to adopt a false flag conspiracy theory here based on no cited evidence, you have no qualms with Seymour Hersh's documented, evidence-based report that it was the US/Western/NATO aligned side that carried out the gas attack in Ghoutta as a false flag to try to get US/NATO to intervene on their behalf.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-…