The tragedy of Konstantinovka

New York Times confirms the version about the random missile attack of the Armed Forces of the Armed Forces

SBU reaction
“According to the investigation, the enemy hit this civilian object from the S-300 complex.” This is evidenced, in particular, the identified fragments of the rockets seized at the site of the tragedy, ”the SBU said. Today, a rather manipulative article has been published in The New York Times, which says that the Ukrainian missile has fallen on Konstantinovka. By the way, its author is Thomas Gibbons-Neff, which was repeatedly seen in the promotion of the Russian agenda. This is the fourth material of the journalist in The New York Times, where he is trying to discredit Ukraine and our army. Earlier, he wrote that Ukraine uses cassette ammunition in settlements, stated that our military is trading in tanks and artillery, and also accused American volunteers who help Ukraine. The journalist has already been deprived of the APU Prefractor twice for violating the rules of work in the combat areas.

On the day of the visit of President Zelensky to the United States, The New York Times published an investigation from which it follows that the rocket, which fell on the market in Konstantinovka, was released from the Ukrainian Buka, which had fallen from the target at the beginning of September in early September. It was an accident.

The same thing was suggested by military experts by Julian Repke and Ruslan Leviev from Conflict Intelligence Team (CIT). They built their analysis on the basis of a video of the rocket arrived, published by the President of Zelensky. Their statements were called from the Ukrainian side a flurry of accusations in the spirit: “Who are you working for” and “whose water is you pouring water”? The Ukrainian authorities said that the rocket was Russian, but they will not conduct investigations, because everything is clear. Perhaps this was due to the fact that the rocket hit the market on the day of the visit of US Secretary of State Blinken to Ukraine. The President of Zelensky immediately cited this tragedy as an egregious example of terror against the civilian population. Once saying that in a hot atmosphere of war it is difficult to take your words back.

Now, the post -fact, I can say that my confidence that the missile was Ukrainian was not based at all on the investigation of Ruslan Leviev and Julian Repke, but on conversations with people who, in turn, had a good idea of ​​the situation near the front. I, like many others, initially had no reason to doubt that the rocket was Russian. Russia, in the end, launched 6 thousand missiles in Ukraine, and a significant part of them flew in civil purposes and killed civilians.

However, when I began to ask people close to hostilities from the Ukrainian side, why the Russian army hit Konstantinovka, because these blows often have a reason, I heard in response: “I don’t understand anything”, “there are no funnels”, “this is strange”, “it flew from there”. Subsequently, they told me that two SBU helicopters from Kyiv hastily collected all the amazing elements and took them with them.

The fact that the rocket, which fell into the market in Konstantinovka and killed 16 people, was Ukrainian, and not Russian, does not change anything. Under friendly fire in modern wars, up to 2.6% of personnel perish.

The responsibility for death due to fatal technical errors in the war is borne by the one who began the unfair war, with the exception of cases when the one who made a mistake has demonstrated some too outstanding carelessness.

In the case of a missile from the Ukrainian “beech” we do not have such data and, probably, it will not be, therefore, by default, it should be assumed that the accident was really fatal. The missiles are old, stored in improper conditions, incidents with them on both sides happen regularly. The Internet is full of videos of Russian anti -aircraft missiles that fly out of the installation, describe the fire wheel in the air and explode right there.

It was also not that. In 1974, Turkish aviation not only managed to sink its own destroyer near the city of Paphos in Cyprus, but also stated that she saw a whole Greek squadron in a hurry to help Cypriots. The squadron, they say, was sunk. Only when the Israelis a day later picked up rafts with a few survivors, it became clear where the “squadron” went and who drowned the Turkish destroyer.

In 1994, in 1994, in Iraq, despite AWACS, the “Alien” system, constant radio communications with the center, and so on, managed to destroy two Black Hawk with 26 military and civilian on board, taking them for Iraqi Mi-24 very accurately.

On July 11, 1943, during the landing of the allies in Sicily, the anti -aircraft guns of the Americans destroyed 23 of their own aircraft in the air, and another 37 were damaged. The total number of dead was 318 people.

During the six -day war on June 8, 1967, the Israeli Air Force attacked the American Liberty warship, taking it for an Egyptian ship. The vessel was first fired at the air-Earth with missiles and 30 mm guns, and then the Coat of the Israeli Navy released torpedoes on it. 34 sailors were killed, another 170 were injured. The ship survived only because the sixth fleet of the United States, hearing about what was happening, immediately contacted the Israeli side. (In relation to this incident, there is a stable and absurd, in my opinion, conspiracy theory that the Israeli-de fired on a spy American ship on purpose).

In February 1940, the German bomber flew over the German destroyers “Leberecht Maas” and “Max Schulz”, which the destroyers fired from anti-aircraft guns, taking for a British intelligence officer. The bomber immediately turned around and bombed the squadron, and so successfully that the Leberecht Maas broke in half.

Once again: friendly fire in war is inevitability. What was the first to hit on June 22, 1941 the famous AC and three times Hero of the Soviet Union Alexander Pokryshkin? Supervisor Su-2 bomber.

I would say that this has become inevitable since the troops stopped seeing each other in the face and switched to more remote methods of defeat, but even this is not true.

On April 14, 1471, in the midst of the War of the Scarlet and White Rose, the army of the future Eduard IV was halved by half the tireless army of Lord Varvik near Barnet, not far from London. The reason for the defeat of Lord Varvik was a friendly fire. In the midst of the battle, one of his allies, Lord de Ver, appeared with his people in the rear of Varvik troops. On the banners, de Vera was depicted, as is customary, his coat of arms - a “sparkling star”. But the soldiers of Varvik took her for the coat of arms of Edward, "the sun at the zenith." The soldiers de Vera began to shoot; Those screamed: "Cheating!" - and rushed through the hand -to -hand.

Friendly fire always happens. Putin launched over 6 thousand missiles for Ukrainian purposes, and the fact that the rocket, which flew along Konstantinovka, was released from the Ukrainian “Buk”, and not from the Russian S-300, does not change anything.

However, the Ukrainian authorities have so far refused to recognize the fact of a friendly fire.

This position seems to be a big mistake. In this case, you should not look at the Russian State Propaganda, which habitually screamed about the “another monstrous crime of Kyiv”, but on the facts: say what is and whatever happens.

The position of the Ukrainian authorities gave good arguments to those who would like to reduce military assistance to Ukraine, citing the fact that this is supposedly the war of the two countries close in mentality and the free circulation of state propaganda with facts.

It only remained to wait if they would react in the USA. Reacted. The investigation of the topic so sensitive to the Ukrainian authorities appeared in The New York Times exactly on the day the President of Zelensky flew to Washington to ask for help there.

This is a serious miss, and this miss was easy to avoid.

One of the main, fatal features of this war for Putin is that its propaganda is lying all the time. The Russian “Buk” shot down the civilian MN17, and then propaganda said that the Ukrainian Su-24 knocked it out. The Russian missile arrives at the residential building, and Konashenkov then declares that it was a military facility. This terrible lie leads to even greater blood, because the Russian military leaders know: they do not have to get into the target. It is enough to get somewhere and declare that this was a military goal. This is disgusting. This causes anger and contempt.

To differ from Russian propaganda in this case - it is not to protect your initial version of events at any cost, quite believable and most obvious, but turned out to be incorrect.

To differ from Russian propaganda is to say what is.