Researchers at @CITeam_ru, led by @RuslanLeviev, elaborate on their conclusion that Wednesday’s attack in Kostiantynivka was likely an accidental hit by a missile fired from a Ukrainian warplane.
https://notes.citeam.org/ru-dispatch-sept-7-8
Key here is that the missile appears to have been fired from the northwest and traveled roughly parallel to the ground. The analysis of the rocket’s flight pattern is based on (1) the angle of its reflection on a parked blue car, (2) the direction of the donut-explosion captured on camera, and (3) the scatter pattern in aftermath photos.
Speaking to @michaelnacke, Leviev acknowledged that some missiles in Russia’s arsenal can change course, meaning that it could have been fired from another direction (from occupied territory) before turning back toward Kostiantynivka, but he says the in-flight maneuvering needed in such a scenario (with a missile that was apparently rather small) is unlikely.
https://youtu.be/ZKkiW1Js4Ls?si=fvfPIQOCuKbx0qZ2
CIT says the incident suggests that there are problems with Ukraine’s stockpiled missiles — either with the rockets themselves or with the carriers on aging Soviet jets. Kyiv should investigate to prevent similar tragedies in the future, say CIT researchers, adding that new evidence like debris footage or missile-launch imagery from U.S. satellites might change their mind.
@kevinrothrock I heard this assumption from Julian Röpcke who is correspondent for the infamous German tabloid Bild and as far as I know, he was the first source for this assumption. As with any news from Bild, they write what generates clicks, regardless of the truth.
The CIT has a better track record, but they also have been proven wrong concerning missile attacks in this war, so I‘ll wait for further analysis, before jumping to conclusions,
@mathie @kevinrothrock
After Ruslan's words that Kakhovka Dam had likely deteriorated by itself (yeah-yeah, structural issues caused by blah-blah) I'd take his words with a grain of salt too. And bringing up the point that it's just not beneficial to the Russian side as it would flood their own positions in an argument is just unprofessional for an OS investigator.
No, I'm not making this shit up, here it is: https://twitter.com/RuslanLeviev/status/1665955005092835336
@m0xEE@breloma.m0xee.net @kevinrothrock @mathie @m0xee@librem.one
Yeah, the whole “cui bono” thing is used way too often in place of analysis.
My comment came out a bit hot-headed too so I'd like to clear things up.
First of all, I don't think the dam had been blown up on purpose that day either — but I think that it might have been planned to hinder the counteroffensive (which it did). So the explosives had indeed been planted inside — than some sapper's mistake happened and it went off. If it's Russian side in question and human factor is a deciding factor, my money's on it — I'm not Russian for nothing 😂
I think dam's demolition was planned — just not that day.
Then the Cui bono argumentation — to be completely correct, it was his deflection of someone else's attempt to look for motives. I think the investigator shouldn't engage in this sort of arguments at all. Motives are important when coming up with initial versions — then you look for evidence to confirm or deny each of those versions, but not all of them at the same time! Then pick the one which is more plausible — that is how the investigation works, facts come first and shouldn't be written off or downplayed if they contradict the motives of version you already have in mind as a priority.
Unfortunately that thread is full of holes now, I only have parts of it cached in my Nitter instance which is now down — that is where I have found the link. Using motives in place of clues reveals the investigator's bias towards one of the versions — that is unprofessional, but it was clearly the case in that thread.
And besides, with the style of warfare Russia engages in, throwing a version out because it might lead to high losses — that's just laughable.
@m0xee