If it is true that Russia has committed numerous war crimes, the evidence gathered by 6 journalists who co-authored the New York Times article indicates that the origin of the missile with dramatic consequences would be, surprisingly, the Ukrainian camp. In fact, according to interviewed air defense experts, unfortunately, it is common for missiles hitting the Kostiantynivka market to deviate from their trajectory for various reasons: electronic malfunction, defective guidance fin, etc. The day before the tragedy, the city was subjected to Russian bombings and great chaos ensued. Despite Ukrainian authorities’ reluctance, journalists from the investigation were finally able to go to the market to retrieve the missile’s debris from the pile of sheet metal, observe the damage caused by the attack, and interview people.
Several elements corroborate the theory of a defective Ukrainian missile. First, the Ukrainian artillery attack was reported in the Telegram group a few minutes before the attack on the market. When journalists from The Times were in Drushkivka, they also heard the missile launch. Second, in surveillance videos, at least four pedestrians appear to simultaneously turn their heads toward the sound of the missile. However, they face the camera towards Ukrainian-controlled territory. Third, by analyzing the missile’s reflections on the hoods of parked cars, we can tell from its trajectory that it is coming from the northwest. A source from Northwest confirmed the impact and damage caused by the missile by an explosives expert and analysis by The Times. Other evidence is piling up, with testimonies from residents highlighting unusually noisy missiles. One of the witnesses said the missiles were fired from fields on the outskirts of the city, commonly used by the Ukrainian military. Journalists confirmed this information by noting the presence of the army through wastes, trenches and above all the most visible burns, as these types of missiles usually burn the ground when launched from the back of large vehicles.
“According to the investigation, the enemy attacked this civilian target with the S-300 complex. This is especially proven by the fragments of the missile found at the scene of the tragedy. Ukrainian news agency says Union Following reports from the Ukrainian Intelligence Service (SBU). However, the impact damage at Kostiantynivka is characteristic of a warship other than the S-300 complex. The facades of the market are perforated with hundreds of square or rectangular holes, which may be the result of cubic objects projected outwards by the missile. This applies especially to the 9M38 missiles launched by BUK anti-aircraft vehicles. Several experts, including two independent military experts, confirm the use of this type of missile. So the official explanations are likely to be erroneous or false, leading people to believe an attack on the S-300 complex, which is mainly used by Russia.
Invasion of Ukraine – Ukraine rejects accusations blaming its military for deadly attack
Reactions were swift, especially contempt One of the journalists on trial was accused of being in the Kremlin’s pay. Mykhaïlo Podolyak, adviser to the Ukrainian president, condemned the New York Times investigation and the interference of foreign media on X (formerly Twitter).Conspiracy theories”. However, he promises that the circumstances of the attack on Kostiantynivka will be subject to a thorough and detailed investigation.In either case, legal truth is upheld.
“Total coffee junkie. Tv ninja. Unapologetic problem solver. Beer expert.”