The "into" says something about the path the rocket took. "
At" only says something about how they were aiming.
"in" would not be appropriate, since that would imply that Russia fired the rocket from Ukraine.
"at" would not be appropriate, because they weren't aiming at Ukraine: they were aiming at some more specific target within Ukraine.
To hit that target, the rocket must go into Ukraine.
The article is emphasizing how Russia crossed the border with their rocket.
(Of course these accusations are at the moment not proven, but this is about English, not politics or news.)
ell.stackexchange.com/users/4204/Phil Frost
Firing a missile at something would mean that I am firing at a target .
Unless Russia is firing very powerful nuclear weapons, it would be strange to think that it is aiming at "Ukraine" as its target.
It would be hard to miss, but it would certainly not be a big feat either.
In this case, what is meant is that Russia fired missiles at targets that are somewhere inside Ukraine.
The wording is chosen to emphasize the fact that Russia did not move into Ukraine to fire, but that they are firing from within Russia to a target within Ukraine.
Obviously, the actual targets are either unknown or deemed unimportant to be mentioned in the headline: the main message is not that some target was fired at, but that a country that denies all military involvement in this conflict is now said to have fired missiles that crossed the border of what is internationally still regarded as an autonomous country.
ell.stackexchange.com/users/2992/oerkelens
Not at all a poor use of a preposition.
Perhaps it's somewhat idiomatic, but into is a commonly-used preposition when talking about rockets and missles, whether those are being fired into space, into the ocean, or into enemy territory.
Commercial and military satellites are frequently fired by rockets into orbit Source: Peter P. Wegener,
What Makes Airplanes Fly?:
History, Science, and Applications of Aerodynamics , 1997
We build huge bridges and concrete dams and send mammoth rockets into space Source:
E.J. Hearn, Mechanics of Materials Volume 1 , 1997 Von Braun recognized that shooting rockets into the heavens could arouse fear and religious anxiety Source: James Gilbert, Redeeming Culture: American Religion in an Age of Science , 1997
Four Turkish F-100 fighter planes buzzed concentrations of National Guardsmen and fired rockets into the sea Source: Andrew Faulds, 1988 Lebanese terrorist groups lobbed rockets into Israel's northern settlements and tried to penetrate the border Source:
Ira Sharkansky, Policy Making in Israel: Routines for Simple Problems and Coping with the Complex , 1997 Against von Braun's fervent hope that this would not happen, German military forces launched more than thirteen hundred V-2s at targets in England, and more than sixteen hundred V-2s into Belgium and France Source: Stuhlinger & Ordway, Wernher von Braun, Crusader for Space , 1994 The preposition at is common when specifying a particular target, but into is frequently used to indicate that a missile or rocket landed inside a particular region or country.
ell.stackexchange.com/users/113/J.R.
"Russia fired rockets at Ukraine"
The missiles went from Russia in the direction of Ukraine, but they did not necessarily get as far as Ukraine.
People would read this to mean that they did not in fact reach Ukraine, since otherwise they would have used a different preposition to make it clear that the missile had reached the Ukraine, which makes a more shocking headline.
"Russia fired rockets in Ukraine" Someone associated with Russia, perhaps Russian soldiers, while inside Ukraine's borders, fired a rocket.
"Russia fired rockets into Ukraine" Missiles were fired from Russia, and the missile did end up inside Ukraine's borders.
ell.stackexchange.com/users/4947/Kai
You are quite right that logically you would fire at Ukraine since Russia aimed to attack Ukraine, however, being English myself I know that this is actually valid and correct English (to say "into").
It is more of a local quirk (I am currently studying Arabic where I have to compare quirks between my own language and theirs) within the English language; that when talking about vast areas/entities like this, i.e. regions/countries (Ukraine being a region and an entity), you are more likely to say "into", irrespective of what armament was used.
However if you were talking about something smaller and more specific, say, a plane then "at" should be used.
Another example of specifics would be "firing at Ukrainian soldiers" which of course the quote you see in the title later refers to
(I read the story earlier today).
ell.stackexchange.com/users/9067/Sammaye
This seems fine in American 4th grade.
However, ' and ' seem to imply that someone may have stated this phrase in other press.
Are there any cited names listed in the rest of the article other than the reporter?
Being on that mobile os is that your cache and/or news results may be poisoned by another running app.
I've seen this before on android.
ell.stackexchange.com/users/9089/kris
A headline from a BBC News app on my mobile reads:   Russia 'fired rockets  into  Ukraine'   I could not find this on the BBC website, but it shows on my cellphone.      Why  into?  You fire  at  someone/something. Maybe  into  refers to somewhere  inside  Ukraine but it looks a poor use of the preposition.   Correct me, please.
Russia 'Fired Rockets INTO Ukraine' - BBC
ell.stackexchange.com
<prepositions>
ell.stackexchange.com/questions/29908
ell.stackexchange.com/users/3187/Maulik V
You are quite right that logically you would fire at Ukraine since Russia aimed to attack Ukraine. "Into" refers to the path the rocket took. "At" refers to how they were aiming.  However, in this case, it means that Russia fired missiles at targets that are somewhere inside  Ukraine. Inside' refers to the rocket's path, 'at' refers to how it was aimed.
Inside' refers to the rocket's path, 'at' refers to how it was aimed.