New fragments of a drone similar to those used by the Russian military were found on Romanian soil, the defence ministry said on Saturday, and President Klaus Iohannis said this indicated an unacceptable breach of Romania's air space had occurred.
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?
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.
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?
They denied it was an attack
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:
Which is saying the exact same thing that the pithy one line summary from the article said above this quote:
Romania denied that a drone hit them. End of story.