However, many missiles were fired by Russia at Ukraine.
Same shit, different day? Not to be insensitive, but that's essentially the issue.
I monitor and report developments that materially change the nuclear threat picture. Occasionally, when things are slow, I'll wander into civil nuclear power because I'm bored.
Russia firing another large volley of missiles at Ukraine is obviously significant to the people involved, but from a nuclear threat analysis standpoint, something that has occurred routinely for years does not, by itself, change the broader picture.
I'm also only one person, so I have to prioritize. When something genuinely moves the needle, I report it. That's also why I've largely stopped reporting every development involving Iran or every smaller event in the Middle East as most of it simply doesn't alter the nuclear risk assessment. Ditto goes for Ukraine.
If Russia does something unusual changes nuclear posture, moves strategic forces in a meaningful way, issues an unusual warning, alters doctrine, or otherwise changes the escalation picture then I'm
all over it.

@EVERYONE. Reporting something simply because it happened isn't really what I'm here to do. It has to material change things on the geopolitical chess board even a little, for me to cover it.