New York Times Breaks Ranks, Tells Story of Ukraine Self-Harming Missile Strike

 Truth is the first casualty of war, it’s often said, and nowhere is this borne out more than in Ukraine.  When a September 6 missile strike on the town of   Kostiantynivka in eastern Ukraine killed 15 civilians and injured more than 30 others, Ukraine’s President Zelensky blamed Russian “terrorists” just two hours later.  A team of New York Times journalists and weapons experts debunked that.  The missile was fired by Ukrainians on Ukrainians.

The missile was packed with metal fragments according to design and had the explosive power to pierce walls and to maim victims beyond recognition. American big media has entered a new period and enjoys one-sided, and   the story played across the American continent and Europe.  A similar self-harming missile strike occurred earlier in the war, and was weeks later determined to have been launched from Ukraine.

 You’d think American media would at least strike a cautious note, and seek verification from original sources, but none did — except for the liberal New York Times.  Give them credit, liberal does not always mean lying any more than conservative means always telling the truth.  

So what happened is that the New York Times sent its own investigative team to the area to find out what happened.  Now everyone knows, or should know by now, that Zelensky and Co. holds free speech and communication behind an Iron Curtain which would have been the envy of the old Soviet Union.  Ukrainians who speak out, or even look like they’re thinking   beyond the tightly controlled press releases are tied to lampposts, beaten,  jailed and even murdered. 

The New York Times headline of today writes thusly of the obstacles in front of them in reporting the true story:  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.

  I’d like to know who said what in trying to stop the news from getting out but even the New York Times must have its limitations in today’s political and economic environment. Still, credit is due; journalism is wounded but not entirely dead.  The full story is in an article titled

Evidence Suggests Ukrainian Missile Caused Market Tragedy:

“. . . 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.”

There is a great deal of additional verifying information in the article and there is no substitute for reading it in full. I’ve paraphrased only a little of it because it’s behind a pay wall but they offer a horribly inexpensive promotion where you can get an online version for less than the price of a chocolate bar .  I don’t know if they give Pulitzers for team effort but if they do, the people who wrote this article should be considered.  All credit to these folks   accomplished a feat worthy of the name “Journalism.”

 

 :

 John Ismay, Thomas Gibbons-Neff, Haley Willis, Malachy Browne, Christoph Koettl and Alexander Cardia

 

 

 

  

How America Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (Shades of Dr. Strangelove)

 

Someone on Twitter a.k.a. X dared to ask the question: What would you do in the event of a nuclear war?

I was glad someone asked, given the dangers of current U.S. foreign policy vis-à-vis the war between the ‘Allies’ of Ukraine and those of Russia.  It’s pretty clear the countries supporting Ukraine don’t want Americans and Europeans to think bad thoughts. But how can you not?

There’ s continuing escalation as the U.S. warmongering politicians keep pouring money and military equipment into Ukraine.  Not only is this killing off generations of Ukrainians and Russians, too, but it’s effecting a world wide malaise in inflated food prices, housing prices, automobile prices and industrial production. 

Terrified as I am, I was surprised by the blitheness with which many people responded.  There seem to be two sides.  At the prospect of a nuclear war between the U.S., China, and Russia, I would be on the side that simply gives themselves up for a horrible death.  On the other said, there are people saying, in effect, oh well, it’s not so bad as you think.

Let’s look at some of the responses:

Here’s a sober thought from “Thinking Creature” :  I’ve been in one of those bunkers in the Russian Far East: they could accommodate thousands, pretty amazing indeed. Now I am in Australia and all our buildings won’t withstand a wolf huffing and puffing. So we just turn into  a star dust. Very quick & hopefully painlessly.

 Meanwhile, bright boy Tor Vizsla says:   Nuclear weapons are less of threat then people make them out to be - the two weeks of radiation and the end of global trade that comes afterwards. That I am prepared for. 

Ah, very good there Tor!  I can rest easy, though my first thoughts run to the “end of global trade.”  Yeah, that would be an awful thing when you’re incinerated.

Then there’s the relatively moderate ‘The Nothing to See’ : You have to find a way to survive until radiation levels are low enough. Moreover, the entire infrastructure will likely be severely affected, particularly critical aspects like electricity, as nuclear plants are obvious targets. This is not just a matter of trade; the level of chaos is expected to be incredibly high.

I like this one.  You know he’s stocked up with plenty of ammo, a good supply of thirty round clips,  and has converted his AR-15 to full automatic. 

You will not breathe a sigh of relief from what cc cw who “likes playing guitar on the Louisiana Bayou” has to say about a tri-partite nuclear war between the U.S, China, and Russia:  the entire manufacturing complex in the USA; the gulf, east and west coasts are toast as are the major cities and especially the states where icbms and military bases are primary targets and will be hit with an over abundance of missiles from planes, subs, ships and icbms and small bombs that i imagine are already in position in certain places ( i hope I am wrong about this and that I am just being a little paranoid).

He hopes he’s wrong about this and is just being paranoid.  I hope he’s wrong about this too but as for the ‘paranoid’ I would say not, given the morons who are rattling China and pouring billions into Ukraine to fight the Russians.

 I mean, really, wouldn’t you rather hear lonesome cc cw playing his guitar on the Louisiana Bayou than the explosive sound of, wait for it - “The Sausage” Ivy Mike H-Bomb  Maximum Yield: 10.4Mt  Length: 24 feet 7 inches
 Weight: 39,000 – 42,000 pounds  Date Created: 1952

 

 

 

 

 

Short Film: The Tailor — (A choice that sometime you have to make)

 

“The Tailor” is an interesting SHORT Italian film which in the first scene poses a quandary that lasts through the entire movie.  During the German occupation of Italy during WWII, a tailor and a German officer become friends of a sort.  The German officer brings cigarettes and food and in exchange wants the tailor to make him a dashing suit for an upcoming ceremony.

It’s the ‘of a sort’ that requires you to examine your own conscience.  Do you engage with the people who have a presence in your country and are the guests of Il Duce?   His wife doesn’t seem to understand he has no choice. She tells him they should have done what her father did – flee the country.  That’s a choice many Ukrainians made recently as Russian troops took up residence in the eastern part of the country.

 Poland was a common destination, but so was Russia.  The   numbers of people who fled Ukraine are known, but kept secret. 

Not long after the German Nazi leaves, Paolo’s sister Lucia arrives with the news she’s about to marry Mauro, a leader of the local partisans.  She wants a suit made for her soon-to-be husband.  As with the German, there’s a time limit.  The German officer wants the suit within five days, while his sister Marisa wants the suit made within four days. 

If this is not unsettling enough, Marisa tells Paolo that the Allies are creeping forward and will soon be near.  “I don’t want to know anything about that,” Paolo says fearfully.

He can’t work on two suits at the same time.  “You have to choose,” says Paolo’s wife, reminding me of a less drastic ‘Sophie’s Choice,’ a film requiring the heroine to choose one child for the gas chambers and one for the work farms. 

The ante for Paolo is upped when the Nazi officer comes for a measurement and invites Paolo and his wife to attend a ceremonial dinner. “You’ll become the foremost tailor of the Third Reich,” the German officer says.  It’s a test of nerves and loyalties for Paolo who looks stricken.  Like most of us, you see, all Paolo wants to do is live peacefully, do his job, and care for his family.

You ask yourself though.  When does acquiescence become participation?  Paolo’s peaceful aspirations are shattered when the Nazis discover her perfidy and execute Lucia.  Paolo’s wife is contemptuous of him for his passivity in the face of Nazi brutality.  She expects her husband to do something — take a side. 

As for cinematography, it’s sepia toned, nostalgic rather than stark.  Supporting Nazi characters are gray and occasionally cartoon-like. It’s a low-budget film, holding faithful to plot if not to the actions and dialogue of the film’s extras, but the plot is a good one and the conundrum it poses is appropriate to our own times.  

It’s an excellent short film, directed by Antonio Losito. You couldn’t spend a better fifteen minutes watching  as it comes to a surprising ending.