Even your last post spoke of these Iranian drones in Russia as unimaginable and now you're like this is business as usual.
No, at the time I was questioning the evidence. And it is BAU. The arms business is huge business, especially when conflicts like these erupt. We're busily emptying our inventories and selling or donating surplus stock to Ukraine. Russia's doing the same. Russia would have been familiar with Iranian drones from Syria. Russia could copy the drone designs, or licence those and produce them themselves. I'm not the one making a big issue out of arrms deals, 'we' in the West are. We also seem suprised and badly informed about Russian capabilities given our leaders expected this to be a short war because Russia had run out of missiles/tanks/artillery/small arms and now winter clothing.
Yet the conflict isn't showing much sign of stopping, and we're prolonging it by flooding Ukraine with weapons instead of calling for peace talks and an end to the slaughter. Oh, how humane we are.
If not apologising is the worst case war crime Ukraine has done, I pity your lack of perspective. Russia is destroying civilian infrastructure daily but because those old Soviet era missiles landed for some reason in Poland, the Ukrainians civilians are fair game?
My perspective is obviously somewhat different to yours. There was 'breaking news' of Russian missile attacks on Poland. Ukraine demanded NATO intervention. Poland initially talked of emergency Article 5, then Article 4 talks. The AP reported 'anonymous senior intelligence sources' confirming the Russian missile strike. Article 5 basically means WW3 and we all die.
Then we determined the missiles were Ukrainian. Zelensky assured us that his air defence commanders knew it was a Russian missile strike. The AP journalist was fired. The narrative changed to 'Russian missiles' (launched by Ukraine). Those 'old Soviet era missiles' are apparently so good that they're intercepting the majority of Russian missiles. 70 missiles launched, 60 intercepted, 30 power facilities hit. Ukrainian math just doesn't add up a lot of the time.
But reality is frequently distorted in propaganda, as you are doing. At no point have I said 'civilians are fair game'. Those are your words, not mine. Civilian casualties are inevitable in conflicts around densely populated areas though. Parties to the conflict are obligated to minimise civilian casualties though. But accidents happen, eg-
On 3 October 2015, a United States Air Force AC-130U gunship attacked the Kunduz Trauma Centre operated by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF, or Doctors Without Borders) in the city of Kunduz, in the province of the same name in northern Afghanistan. 42 people were killed and over 30 were injured.
So then we have-
A newborn baby has been killed in a Russian missile strike on a maternity unit in Ukraine's southern Zaporizhzhia region, emergency services say...
...The Zaporizhzhia region, where a key nuclear plant is located, has been the focus of repeated Russian attacks.
This could be cause and effect. The NPP has been the focus of repeated attacks. Possibly from artillery/rockets launched from the hospital area. This has been reported by Amnesty, and also happens in places like Gaza because forces know that facilities like hospitals are supposed to be protected. But by firing from those locations, they're also endagering civilians, hence this is generally a war crime. Ukraine argues that they're justified in shelling the NPP because there are Russians there. Russia's justified in attacking forces firing on the NPP because that's generally a bad idea.
Or the hospital strike could just be the result of a missile interception, with the fragments from missiles landing on the hospital. So it was unfortunate collateral damage, and the hospital (like many other civilian 'targets') was just collateral damage. It's a well-known risk, and as I've mentioned before it's an issue with Israel and their Iron Dome system. They try to intercept over sparsely populated areas to minimise damage from falling debris. Ukraine doesn't really have that luxury, and a lot of intercepts are occuring over populated areas. Just because an apartment building was hit, it is not evidence that it was a target. Whether it was a war crime or not is one of those things where international law probably hasn't caught up because it's a fairly rare occurence.
Those missiles didn't have the range from Russian soil, so it couldn't have ended in NATO involvement in any case.
So if you know that, and I know that, why did Zelensky spend so long denying it? The S-300's certainly didn't, but other Russian missiles could have the range. So Ukraine launched, missed, the Russian missile struck somewhere in Ukraine, the Ukrainian interceptors ended up in Poland instead of self-destructing. If Zelensky lied or was misinformed about this, then what else has he got wrong?