Short Time Between a Huge Tragedy and Zelensky's Propaganda Attack Shows Possible Premeditated Murder of Ukrainians by Zelensky

"The Sept. 6 missile strike on Kostiantynivka in eastern Ukraine was one of the deadliest in the country in months, killing at least 15 civilians and injuring more than 30 others. The weapon's payload of metal fragments struck a market, piercing windows and walls and wounding some victims beyond recognition.

Less than two hours later, President Volodymyr Zelensky blamed Russians for the attack, and many media outlets followed suit. 

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 Ukrainian air defense missile fired by a Buk launch system.

The attack appears to have been a tragic mishap. Air defense experts say missiles like the one that hit the market can go off course for a variety of reasons, including an electronic malfunction or a guidance fin that is damaged or sheared off at the time of launch.

The likely missile failure happened amid the back-and-forth battles common in the surrounding area. Russian forces shelled Kostiantynivka the night before; Ukrainian artillery fire from the city was reported in a local Telegram group just minutes before the strike on the market.

A spokesman for Ukraine's armed forces said the country's security service is investigating the incident, and under national law can't comment further.

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.

The Strike

Security camera footage shows that the missile flew into Kostiantynivka from the direction of Ukrainian-held territory, not from behind Russian lines.

As the sound of the approaching missile is heard, at least four pedestrians appear to simultaneously turn their heads toward the incoming sound. They face the camera -- in the direction of Ukrainian-held territory. Moments before it strikes, the missile's reflection is visible as it passes over two parked cars, showing it traveling from the northwest.

The missile's warhead detonates a few yards above the ground shortly before impact, blasting metal fragments outward. The resulting crater and damage extending from the point of detonation is consistent with a missile coming from a northwesterly route, according to an explosives expert and a Times analysis.

A Suspected Ukrainian Launch Site

Further evidence reveals that minutes before the strike, the Ukrainian military launched two surface-to-air missiles toward the Russian front line from the town of Druzhkivka, 10 miles northwest of Kostiantynivka.

Reporters with The Times were in Druzhkivka when they heard an outgoing missile launch at 2 p.m., followed a few minutes later by a second. By chance, one member of the team recorded the first launch in a voice message.

Residents in Druzhkivka also reported an outgoing launch at that time on a local Telegram group. "One more," a post at 2:03 p.m. said, referring to a second missile launch. Locals near the launches described them as abnormally loud -- beyond the sounds of war they have become accustomed to -- which tracks with witness accounts of past Buk launches.

The timing of these launches is consistent with the time frame for the missile that struck the market in Kostiantynivka, around 2:04 p.m.

Additionally, two witnesses who spoke to The Times said they saw the missiles being fired from Druzhkivka in the direction of the Russian front line around the time of the strike; one of them said he saw the missiles going in the direction of Kostiantynivka. A Ukrainian soldier stationed in Druzhkivka, who asked to remain anonymous, also said he heard two missile launches at around the same time.

One of the witnesses also said the missiles were launched from fields on the outskirts of the town, a place residents say is used by the Ukrainian military and from which they have previously seen air defense missiles.

Times reporters who visited the site saw indications that it had recently been used by the military, including trenches, trash pits and wide tracks consistent with a large military vehicle.

Another key indicator: scorch marks. Various ground-launched air defense missiles are fired from the rear of a large vehicle and burn the surrounding turf when they are fired. Analysis of before-and-after satellite imagery shows new scorch marks around the trenches on the day of the strike, possibly indicating that the site was used for launching missiles.

The Missile

In the aftermath of the attack, Ukrainian authorities said Russian forces used a missile fired by an S-300 air defense system, which Russia has used both to intercept aircraft and strike targets on the ground. But an S-300 missile carries a different warhead from the one that exploded in Kostiantynivka.

The metal facades of buildings closest to the explosion were perforated with hundreds of square or rectangular holes, probably made by cube-like objects blown outward from the missile.

Measurements of the holes -- and fragments found at the scene -- are consistent in size and shape with one weapon in particular: the 9M38 missile, which is fired by the mobile Buk antiaircraft vehicle. Ukraine is known to use the Buk system, as is Russia.

Some of the holes are less than 10 millimeters in width, while others are slightly larger. The 9M38 contains two different sizes of solid-metal cubic fragments: eight millimeters and 13 millimeters across.

A Times reporter also reviewed other missile fragments recovered from multiple locations in Ukraine that had been fired by Russian S-300, S-400 and Buk air defense systems, as well as two different American air defense systems. Their shapes and measurements show that the damage at the market site was most likely caused by an 9M38.

Two independent military bomb-disposal experts, who asked to remain anonymous so they could speak candidly, came to the same conclusion and said that the fragments and damage at the strike site are most consistent with an 9M38.

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." [1]

1. Missile That Killed 15 at a Market May Have Come From Ukraine: [Foreign Desk]. Ismay, John;
Gibbons-Neff, Thomas; Haley, Willis; Browne, Malachy; Koettl, Christoph; et al.  New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast); New York, N.Y.. 20 Sep 2023: A.8.

 

Nustokite daužyti dyzelinius variklius

     „Paslaptinga Rudolfo Dieselio byla

     Autorius Douglas Bruntas

     („Atria“, 384 puslapiai, 28,99 doleriai)

 

     Jei Amerika būtų protingesnė vieta, Vašingtone būtų daugiau, nei dvi politinės partijos, Major League Beisball niekada nebūtų sukūrę paskirto smogiko, o mes visi vairuotume automobilius su švariais, labai efektyviais dyzeliniais varikliais. Galite ginčytis su manimi dėl pirmųjų dviejų punktų, bet 2023 m. negalite ginčytis, kad dyzelinas nėra geresnė alternatyva benzinui (arba akumuliatoriams). Jau seniai praėjo tie laikai, kai tavo senelis Oldsmobile kiekvieną rytą važiuojamojoje dalyje raugėjo juodais dūmais. 

 

Šiandienos dyzelinių variklių emisijos nėra blogesnės, nei benzininių variklių, daugiausia dėl to, kad dyzeliniai varikliai sunaudoja vidutiniškai 30 % mažiau degalų. Jie taip pat yra patikimesni ir tarnauja ilgiau, nei įprasti benzininiai varikliai.

 

     Dyzelinio variklio ir jo išradėjo šlovė aprašyta puikioje Douglaso Brunto biografijoje „Paslaptinga Rudolfo Dyzelio byla“. Dyzelino nuo skudurų iki turtų istorija yra žavinga. Tačiau ponas Bruntas, romanistas, kurio knygose yra „Trophy Son“ ir „The Means“, žmogų ir jo revoliucinę technologiją įkelia į pramonės amžiaus, Pirmojo pasaulinio karo ir persipynusios Anglijos, Prancūzijos, Vokietijos geopolitikos kontekstą.  Rezultatas – gerai ištirta ir gerai parašyta biografija išradėjo, kuris 1897 m. sukūrė naujo tipo vidaus degimo variklį, kuris greitai išstūmė garo variklį ir pakeitė mūsų judėjimo ir gamybos būdus.

 

     Dieselis gimė 1858 m. Paryžiuje. Jo tėvas, imigrantas iš Bavarijos, buvo meistras, gaminęs rankų darbo pinigines ir vaikiškus žaislus. 1870 m. Prancūzijoje pradėjus augti priešprūsiškam priešiškumui, Dyzeliai pabėgo į Angliją; Ten, mums pasakojama, 12-metis Rudolfas susidūrė su siaubais, „kurie jį persekiojo visą likusį gyvenimą: Londono pramonės darbininkų būstai, gamyklos su prastu apšvietimu ir be ventiliacijos, bjaurių apgailėtinų žmonių kvapai, susimaišę su smogu iš anglies dūmų po raugėjimo iš mašinų“. Laimei, rėmėjai Bavarijoje sutiko priimti jaunąjį Rudolfą. Netrukus jis pademonstravo inžinerijos įgūdžius ir baigė politechnikos mokyklos klasės pirmūnu. Galiausiai jis nusprendė sukurti efektyvesnį vidaus degimo variklį.

 

     Norėdamas perteikti Diesel kūrybos svarbą, J. Bruntas paaiškina, koks buvo pasaulis ir kaip buvo atliktas darbas, prieš atsirandant vidaus degimo varikliui. Dauguma mašinų tuo metu buvo varomos išorinio degimo būdu, kai vanduo buvo šildomas – Europoje daugiausia anglimis, o Šiaurės Amerikoje – mediena, kad būtų sukurti garai, reikalingi variklio stūmokliams ir pavaroms varyti. Tai buvo taikoma laivams, traukiniams ir didelėms gamybos mašinoms.

 

     Tačiau garo variklis buvo labai neefektyvus ir prarado daug šilumos, kuri buvo sukurta vandeniui virti. Ankstyvieji Karlo Benzo ir kitų benzininiai varikliai siekė išspręsti šią problemą, tačiau sunkiojo kuro slėginio uždegimo variklis, kurį 1890-aisiais sukūrė Diesel, pasirodė toks efektyvus ir mechaniškai patikimas, kad tapo pasirinktu varikliu daugelyje pramonės šakų, ypač laivų statybos.

 

     Iš tiesų, prieš diegiant Diesel naujoves, laivai turėjo „pakelti garą“, kad galėtų išplaukti į jūrą – procesas gali užtrukti kelias valandas. Su dyzeliniu varikliu laivas galėtų plaukioti per kelias minutes. Dyzeliniams varikliams taip pat nereikėjo dešimčių vyrų, kasančių anglį į katilus; išlaisvinti nuo visų tų vyrų ir visos tos anglies, laivai galėtų priimti daugiau krovinių. „Dyzelinas degino klampų kurą, kuris neturėjo dūmų, buvo saugus laikyti, o variklis sunaudojo kurą taip efektyviai, kad laivas galėjo apiplaukti pasaulį, nesustodamas papildyti degalų, ir tai darė be pastebimų išmetamųjų dujų, kad laivo buvimas būtų matomas horizonte“, – rašo ponas Bruntas. „Be to, dyzelinio variklio degalai buvo gaunami iš gamtos išteklių, kurių buvo gausu beveik visur“, įskaitant augalinius aliejus ir kitus biokurus.

 

     O kaip tada su automobiliais? Dyzelino darbas daugiausia buvo sutelktas į didelius variklius, todėl automobilių pramonė ėjo su benzinu. Benzinas buvo pigus, panašus į žibalą, kuris dešimtmečius apšvietė gatves ir namus; Tuo tarpu XX amžiaus pradžios automobilių varikliams nereikėjo arklio galių ir sukimo momento, kurį gamino dyzelinis variklis. 1910 m. pagrindinis benzino variklio konkurentas buvo ne dyzelinis, o garo ir elektriniai varikliai.

 

     Dyzelinio variklio be dūmų efektyvumas dideliais atstumais taip pat įkvėpė naujos gyvybės povandeniniam laivui, ką karinis jūrų laivynas jau seniai bandė išsiaiškinti. Staiga, pasauliui atsidūrus ant karo slenksčio, povandeninis laivas tapo daug gyvybingesne ir pavojingesne ginklų platforma.

 

     Rudolfas Dieselis buvo pagirtas už savo išradimą ir stovėjo kartu su Thomasu Edisonu ir Henry Fordu, kaip pramonės pradininkas. Jis dirbo su Adolphus Busch, kurio gamykloms reikėjo variklių vandeniui siurbti ir alui vėsinti, taip pat Nobeliais ir Rotšildais bei jų naftos gavybos įmonėmis. Tačiau Dyzelis tapo Johno D. Rockefellerio priešu, kurio „Standard Oil“ dėl Edisono elektros lemputės jau prarado rinkos dalį elektros įmonėms. Rokfeleriui, ponas Bruntas, mums sako, kad „revoliucinė Diesel technologija – variklis, kuriam nereikia benzino ar jokio iš žalios naftos pagaminto produkto – yra egzistencinė grėsmė“.

 

     Dyzelis dingo jūroje 1913 m., todėl kilo „paslaptingas“ titulo atvejis. G. Bruntas spėlioja – remdamasis gandais, anekdotais ir sąmokslo teorijomis – kad Dyzelį galėjo nužudyti pramonininkai, kurie turėjo pralaimėti dėl augančio jo variklio populiarumo. Taip pat yra teorija, kad Dieselio mirtį galėjo suklastoti britų žvalgyba, kuri norėjo jį nukreipti iš Kanados kurti dyzelinius variklius Didžiosios Britanijos laivynui.

 

     Taigi, kodėl Rudolfas Dieselis nėra geriau žinomas ir kodėl ne daugiau iš mūsų vairuoja automobilius, varomus jo revoliucinio išradimo? Dyzeliniai varikliai Europoje buvo populiarūs dešimtmečius dėl pernelyg didelių benzino kainų – su tuo amerikiečiams dar visai neseniai neteko susidurti. Norėtųsi manyti, kad dyzeliniai gali džiaugtis renesansu, tačiau prieš kelerius metus kilęs „Volkswagen“ skandalas, kai automobilių gamintojas buvo pagautas, apgaudinėjantis EPA emisijų testus, Amerikoje dyzelinui dar kartą užtraukė juodą akį. Ir tai labai blogai. Ir variklis, ir žmogus nusipelno kito žvilgsnio.“ [1]

 

1. Stop Knocking Diesel Engines. Yost, Mark. 
Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 20 Sep 2023: A.17.

Stop Knocking Diesel Engines.

"The Mysterious Case of Rudolf Diesel

By Douglas Brunt

(Atria, 384 pages, $28.99)

If America were a saner place, Washington would have more than two political parties, Major League Baseball would never have created the designated hitter, and we'd all be driving cars with clean, highly efficient diesel engines. You can quibble with me on the first two points, but you can't argue in 2023 that diesel isn't the better alternative to gasoline (or batteries). Long gone are the days of your grandfather's Oldsmobile belching black smoke in the driveway every morning. Today's diesel emissions are no worse than those of gasoline engines, mainly because diesels are, on average, 30% more fuel efficient. They're also more reliable and last longer than typical gasoline engines.

The glories of the diesel engine and its inventor are chronicled in Douglas Brunt's excellent biography, "The Mysterious Case of Rudolf Diesel." Diesel's rags-to-riches story is a fascinating one. But Mr. Brunt, a novelist whose books include "Trophy Son" and "The Means," puts the man and his revolutionary technology in the context of the Industrial Age, World War I, and the intertwined geopolitics of England, France, Germany, Russia and the U.S. at the beginning of the 20th century. The result is a well-researched and well-written biography of an inventor who, in 1897, created a new type of internal-combustion engine that quickly supplanted the steam engine and changed the way we move and make things.

Diesel was born in Paris in 1858. His father, an immigrant from Bavaria, was a tinkerer who crafted handmade purses and children's toys. As anti-Prussian animosity began to rise in France in 1870, the Diesels fled to England; there, we are told, 12-year-old Rudolf encountered horrors "that haunted him the rest of his life: tenement housing of the London industry laborers, factories with poor lighting and no ventilation, the foul smells of wretched humans mixed with the smog of coal smoke from belching machines." Luckily, sponsors in Bavaria agreed to take in young Rudolf. He soon displayed a proficiency for engineering and graduated at the head of his class at a polytechnic school. Eventually he turned his mind to creating a more efficient internal-combustion engine.

To convey the importance of Diesel's creation, Mr. Brunt explains what the world was like, and how work got done, before the advent of the internal-combustion engine. Most machines at the time were powered by external combustion through a process that heated water -- primarily by coal in Europe and wood in North America -- to create the steam needed to drive an engine's pistons and gears. This applied to ships, trains and large manufacturing machines.

The steam engine, however, was highly inefficient, losing much of the heat that was generated to boil water. The early gasoline engines of Karl Benz and others sought to address this problem, but the heavy-fuel, compression-ignition engine that Diesel developed in the 1890s proved so efficient and mechanically sound that it became the engine of choice for most industries, particularly shipbuilding.

Indeed, prior to Diesel's innovations, ships had to "raise steam" before they could be put to sea, a process that could take hours. With a diesel engine, a ship could get under way in minutes. Diesel engines also eliminated the need for dozens of men shoveling coal into boilers; freed of all those men and all that coal, ships could take on more cargo. "Diesel burned a viscous fuel that had no fumes, was safe to store, and the engine consumed its fuel so efficiently that a ship could circumnavigate the globe without stopping to refuel, and it did so with no discernible exhaust to give away the ship's presence on the horizon," Mr. Brunt writes. "What's more, the fuel for a Diesel engine came from the natural resources that were abundant nearly everywhere," including vegetable oils and other biofuels.

What, then, of automobiles? Diesel's work was mainly focused on large engines, and as a result the automotive industry went with gasoline. Gas was cheap, akin to the kerosene that had been lighting streets and homes for decades; meanwhile, the automobile engines of the early 20th century didn't require the horsepower and torque that the diesel engine produced. In 1910, the gas engine's chief competitor wasn't diesel but steam and electric engines.

The diesel engine's smokeless efficiency over long distances also breathed new life into the submarine, something navies had long been trying to figure out. Suddenly, with the world on the brink of war, the submarine became a much more viable -- and more deadly -- weapons platform.

Rudolf Diesel was celebrated for his invention and stood alongside Thomas Edison and Henry Ford as a pioneer of industry. He did business with Adolphus Busch -- whose factories needed engines to pump water and cool beer -- as well the Nobels and Rothschilds and their oil-producing companies. But Diesel made an enemy of John D. Rockefeller, whose Standard Oil was already losing market share to electricity companies thanks to Edison's lightbulb. Rockefeller, Mr. Brunt tells us, "viewed Diesel's revolutionary technology -- an engine that didn't require gasoline or any product derived from crude oil -- to be an existential threat."

Diesel disappeared at sea in 1913, giving rise to the "mysterious case" of the title. Mr. Brunt speculates -- based on rumor, anecdote and conspiracy theories -- that Diesel may have been killed by the industrialists who stood to lose from the growing popularity of his engine. There's also a theory that Diesel's death may have been faked by British intelligence, which wanted to spirit him off to Canada to develop diesel engines for the British navy.

So why isn't Rudolf Diesel better known, and why aren't more of us driving cars powered by his revolutionary invention? Diesels were popular in Europe for decades thanks to exorbitant gasoline prices, something Americans haven't had to contend with until recently. I'd like to think that diesels could enjoy a renaissance, but the Volkswagen scandal of a few years ago, when the carmaker was caught fooling EPA emissions tests, once again gave diesel a black eye in America. And that's too bad. Both the engine and the man deserve another look." [1]

1. Stop Knocking Diesel Engines. Yost, Mark. 
Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 20 Sep 2023: A.17.