That's a fucking terrible interpretation. By that interpretation both sides of war in ukraine are russian coz UA happened to use some of russian equipment...
Actually no, it's not terrible, it's outright malicious
That's a fucking terrible interpretation. By that interpretation both sides of war in ukraine are russian coz UA happened to use some of russian equipment...
Actually no, it's not terrible, it's outright malicious
Well, no, I made a pretty clear distinction about what context we were using "Russian" to refer to.
By that interpretation both sides of the war in Ukraine use Russian manufactured weapons. Which isn't a crazy thing to suggest, since it's manifestly true.
It seems very likely to me that the journalist meant "Russian-fired rocket". But is that what their source meant? I could easily see a conversation where a source said "Russian missile" referring to the type or manufacture of the missile, and the journalist misunderstood that as "Russian missile" referring to the army who fired it. Clearly, from the context of the slack conversation, this happened quickly without a lot of time to clear up the context.
If you had no idea who the plane belonged to, it wouldn't be very strange to say that it was an American-manufactured plane.
Could it make sense for someone to communicate that idea? Sure, absolutely.
Does it make sense to say the sentence you wrote? It really depends on who is saying what, and in which context!
My main point was: this looks like it was a misunderstanding (which, unless the source was fabricated, or just lying to the journalist, it was). I was presenting a hypothetical context in which that misunderstanding could arise.