Talk:September 2023 Kostiantynivka missile strike

Incorrect

An errant Ukrainian missile is what caused the tragedy, as visible from reflections from the cars before it struck. If Wikipedia is committed to any shred of decency, it would mention this fact. If. 2601:85:C100:46C0:29FD:35D3:D117:92E0 (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Any sources? All RS reports so far say it was Russian attack [1]. I am sure more details about it will soon be available. My very best wishes (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8nudeu

I examined that video frame-by-frame. I see no missile nor exhaust trail in the car roof and window reflections. They all show clear sky until the smoke from the explosion becomes visible on the far side. I suspect the truck tarpaulin blocked the sound from the true direction when the two persons looked up. Note they do not see anything and only run after the explosion. 195.48.32.156 (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I checked that video too. There is clear reflection on sec 3 on original video. I can provide you screenshot as well. Leviev form Conflict Intelligence Team (CIT) independently confirm based on reflection and people that rocket come from north-west, so it's neither russian rocket nor artillery. Based on video this is air burst with a lot of fragments visible on multiple surfaces (additionally there is no impact hole on the ground). So it's most likely ukrainian rocket (HARM or HIMARS).

It's also looks like that Zelenskyy account uploaded new edited version of that video so you need to check out original one. Kbelyavs88 (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

If a missile flew over my head, my instinct would be to follow it as it flew past. Neither of them do. In fact, the man is still searching when the explosion behind him is under way.

A link to a screenshot would indeed be useful. 195.48.32.156 (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is an example with a detailed analysis of the situation: https://twitter.com/JulianRoepcke/status/1699450596149878983

If you want, I can upload a screenshot from my iPhone with a video frame from Zelensky’s Twitter account, but it’s just a screenshot from a phone without any verification. I just saved it because I was expecting some kind of manipulation with this video.

Regarding your point about tracking the missile, if it was sudden (and it seemed to be), people instinctively turn towards the source of the sound. Kbelyavs88 (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The Military Channel also shows that car roof, but the missile reflection is barely visible. Seems yours has been enhanced.

I noticed the man in grey on the right with the black shoulder strap. He is away from trucks and reflecting walls. He looks up and to the east. That suggests the true direction of the sound. The other people are looking at the camera's wall because the sound is being reflected. The shops block the sound from the east, preventing them from hearing the original source.195.48.32.156 (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, this Wiki page currently says, "The strike, which deliberately targeted civilians". There is no evidence for this, whichever side the strike came from. Pecanstantin (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, that is what Zelensky said. [2]: “It’s the same as it was before: whenever there are any positive offensive steps by the Ukrainian Defense Forces, the Russians always hit civilians and civilian objects… where they can reach with any kind of missiles or artillery. We know this direction very well. We understand that they hit deliberately”. Do we have any sources confidently saying that it was just an accident? My very best wishes (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The analysis of Julian Roepcke as well as the NYTimes is deeply flawed. Neither of them looked at the actual audio data of the recording of the attack. Microphones can't magically pick-up sound from behind them. The very fact, that there is audio of the missile approaching, makes it absolutely clear, that in can only come from the front direction of the webcam, which made the recording.

An actual analysis of the recording is available here:

https://x.com/nafomono/status/1702687206907805896?s=20

Microphones with cardioid polar patterns are discussed in the analysis. FactFinderUa (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

We are not supposed to analyze videos and other primary sources like that. I did watch a report by the Conflict Intelligence Team yesterday. That was presented as a personal guess by Leviev. It does not mean much. There must be some remains of the missile to establish its type; there must be some real investigation. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

NYTimes analysis Akusso (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Ruwiki links supporting the version with Ukranian strike

Aside from the CIT, the version with Ukranian strike was supported by Julian Roepcke. 185.10.224.66 (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

What was the type of the missile if it was a missile? A ballistic missile or a cruise missile, to begin with? I did not see it in any RS. From what I read and listen on YouTube (e.g. Leviev), there was no any real investigation, only a couple of wild guesses by a couple of experts. All they say "it might be". My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

There's extended and more recent discussion on the matter, highlighting the possible missiles capable of such a strike: [3] Meanwhile, Mr. Mykhailo Podolyak has just told that the matter is clear, and there won't be any investigation at all. VORON SPb (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Great. So, according to Leviev (Conflict Intelligence Team),

1. They admit that their first conclusions/guesses, based on reflections of the missile at the roofs of the cars, were wrong or at least baseless (1st paragraph in your source [4]),
2. A believable version "for them" is that it was either a Russian or a Ukrainian missile of certain types ("Таким образом, правдоподобной для нас выглядит версия попадания либо российской ракетой Р-27 или Р-37, либо украинской HARM.).

Including such inconclusive guessing to the page? It seems "undue". Personally, I think that Leviev has discredited himself by rushing to conclusions, then admitting he was wrong, but making other poorly justified conclusions, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Now we have NYT saying exactly the same. Ymblanter (talk) 08:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sure, and it is now included on the page, as it should. But this is not the last word. There is an ongoing investigation by Ukrainian authorities. If it was indeed launched by the Ukrainian forces, they should know who launched it, when and why, and make such information public. That would be the last word. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times investigation found that the market was most likely hit by a Ukrainian Buk missile

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/18/world/europe/ukraine-missile-kostiantynivka-market.html "But evidence collected and analyzed by The New York Times, including missile fragments, satellite imagery, witness accounts and social media posts, strongly suggests the catastrophic strike was the result of an errant Ukrainian air defense missile fired by a Buk launch system."

Is this a credible source? 188.128.68.180 (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

New York Times is generally viewed as a highly reliable source of information. Therefore, it is necessary for this entry to have a major re-edition to adjust its contents according to the latest investigation results. Aronlee90 (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

https://archive.ph/7de2q Archive link for soft paywall. Akusso (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Article summary

But evidence collected and analyzed by The New York Times, including missile fragments, satellite imagery, witness accounts and social media posts, strongly suggests the catastrophic strike was the result of an errant Ukrainian air defense missile fired by a Buk launch system.

Ukrainian authorities initially tried to prevent journalists with The Times from accessing the missile debris and impact area in the strike’s immediate aftermath. But the reporters were eventually able to get to the scene, interview witnesses and collect remnants of the weapon used.

Several witnesses either heard or saw Ukrainian forces firing surface-to-air missiles from Druzhkivka toward Kostiantynivka at the time of the market strike. And evidence collected at the market shows that the missile came from that direction.

Why the missile, which has a maximum range of just over 17 miles, may have landed in Kostiantynivka is unclear — though it’s possible it malfunctioned and crashed before hitting its intended target.

In any case, at such a short range — less than 10 miles — the missile is most likely to have landed with unspent fuel in its rocket motor, which would detonate or burn upon impact, offering a possible explanation for the widespread scorch marks at the market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akusso (talk • contribs) 06:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The NYTimes failed to ask, what the ukrainians were shooting at e.g. a russian missile targeting kostiantynivka and what happened to it (other than exploding in the town, obviously). Anti-aircraft missiles usually self-detonate after missing their targets, for the exact reason to prevent such incidents.

Also, no one looked at the audio data of the recording which contradict the article. FactFinderUa (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The NYTimes did not get any help to investigate the matter. They investigated on their own. They did a thorough investigation. The Ukrainian government closed the case and did not respond to requests. Akusso (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh no, the case is very much active and currently under investigation by Ukrainian SBU and probably some others. The Ukrainian government still claims today that, contrary to the NYT publication, it was S-300 (a very different type of missile) launched by Russian forces [5]. I have no idea who is right, but it is important to have the physical evidence, i.e. the remains of the missile on site, make all measurements, etc. That allows to quickly establish the type of missile. Ukrainian government has it. As about NYT - I am not sure (this is behind paywall). I am sure more will be published about it. My very best wishes (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Russia uses surface-to-air S-300 missiles for ground targets? Those missiles are too valuable to use on ground targets when other cheaper options exist. Akusso (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

iirc, they used it last year when they were low on other missiles, but I think that was in Kherson and Mykolaiv. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It feels like it was a claim by the Ukrainians to pass the blame for malfunctioning Ukrainian S-300 missiles to the Russians. The Ukrainian S-300 missiles would fail, fall on Ukrainian cities and cause damage/casualties. The earliest article just cites a Ukrainian governor for the S-300 claim. The article concludes with At this stage, we can’t say for sure that Russia is employing S-300s in a land attack capacity as alleged, but it certainly appears possible and would make sense bearing in mind the depleted stocks of other more appropriate weapons. We will continue to watch this story and bring you any developments as they emerge. There has been no further development. Akusso (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Ukrainian sources denied to have a BUK missile system in service.

The NYT failed, as every news outlet out there, to actually look at objective and undisputable data, such as the audio of the webcam recording. Which is available to the NYT and everyone.

Even the articles on this very site, explaining how reflections and acoustics & doppler-effect work, contradict the NYT article and the narrative.

Unless there is a credible physicist analyzing the audio data and all other parameters in a meaningful way, the NYT article is a biased and false report.

A missing understanding of the laws of physics regarding reflections and accoustics, is not an invitation to make baseless accusations sorely based on misinterpreted video imagery of people looking up in the sky.

If this passes as proof, more UFO articles should be featured here. FactFinderUa (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

So are you just going to trust the investigation that the prime suspect conducts?! If it was them after all, they are obviously not going to confess. This is basic information warfare. We're much better off siding with independent sources. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Key word there "usually self-detonate". Alexiscoutinho (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

See also section

Given that it is believed to likely have been a Ukrainian strike (or at least the culprit is not clearly established), can certain links in the See also section be removed? 82.36.165.47 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Image parameters

Given the above, the name and description of the image used should probably be changed. Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

👍 Alexiscoutinho (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Remove Russian war crimes category

It should have never been added in the first place. 18:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC) 93.87.23.96 (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Done Smeagol 17 (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

No objections from me, at least with the current sourcing on the page. One should realize though that Russia was in part responsible, even if that was an errant Ukrainian missile because it started the aggression. My very best wishes (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Access to the crime scene

[6] - why is that significant? Cited article does not explain for how long and why the journalists were not able to examine the site. Here is what usually happening. The police cordons the crime scene to collect the evidence and does not allow others to access. But everyone can access later. Was not it something like that? If so, this does not deserve mentioning on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Was not it something like that? Maybe. But the way it's written makes it seem a relevant. Considering the Ukrainians were suspect of the incident and that they could have used the opportunity to alter the scene/filter what the reporters could see, it is quite possible that that happened. We can't know and the reporters probably couldn't either. That's why I think they kept that remark in the article. I don't see a problem with we summarizing that peculiar detail though. i.e. "After being initially prevented from accessing the strike scene, reporters eventually investigated..." Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to be exact, the NYT article says: Ukrainian authorities initially tried to prevent journalists with The Times from accessing the missile debris and impact area in the strike’s immediate aftermath. But the reporters were eventually able to get to the scene, interview witnesses and collect remnants of the weapon used. This is all it says. Hence the authors do not consider this to be a big deal. Note the wording "immediate aftermath". That is what I am talking about. Any police investigators would prevent access by journalists "in the strike’s immediate aftermath".

But there is more. The access for one of the authors was indeed prevented earlier "for violating the rules of work in combat zones" [7]. Google translate: author [of the NYT article] is Thomas Gibbons-Neff, who has repeatedly been seen promoting the Russian agenda . This is the fourth article of the journalist in The New York Times, where he tries to discredit Ukraine and our army. "Earlier, he wrote that Ukraine uses cluster munitions in populated areas, stated that our military trades tanks and artillery, and also accused American volunteers who help Ukraine of wastefulness. The journalist has already been deprived of the press card of the Armed Forces twice for violating the rules of work in combat zones ", the special service [SBU] emphasized. Did they mean that issue in NYT article? I have no idea. Since this is not clear, I would rather omit whole thing.My very best wishes (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I would rather keep some sort of remark, maybe shorter, maybe more neutral. There's a million ways the authors could have phrased that in a way that "brushed it off" more/gave it less importance. If they thought it was irrelevant, they could have simply ignored that detail. It can't be ruled out that the scene was altered and that would be a big deal. Even if it isn't the most likely scenario, it is relevant keeping that detail in mind here, like they did in the article. Regarding that other Ukrainian article, well, it's Ukrainian and is against a more well known and reputable source, NYT. Imagine if it was the other way around and it was the Russian media trying to discredit the western report... Having said that, I don't see a problem in including this rebuff of the Ukrainian source somewhere in the wiki article (if it isn't already). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not see any reason for including this unclear and insignificant detail. Based on the additional publication, there was a "bad blood" between the Ukrainian authorities and one of the authors of the publication, but this is hardly so much relevant to the subject of this page. However, if you insist to include this (I suggest we do not), then we need to present the both sides of the controversy and describe it as a separate issue. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

if you insist to include this I still do: better keep something irrelevant than omit something huge. then we need to present the both sides of the controversy and describe it as a separate issue I'm fine with that (if you want you could alternatively add an {{efn}} at the end of that sentence). Though I won't personally edit/add to this article for the forseeable future. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

"than omit something huge". Obviously, this is not anything huge. But OK, I got your answer. My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)