Poland Accuses Russia Of Shooting Missiles Into It's Territory

I remember reading that the US had no military personnel stationed in Laos while I was stationed in Laos so I'm somewhat familiar with America's disinformation capabilities.

Can you recommend a news source that is credible concerning this particular conflict?

Thanks,

 

I doubt it. Those numbers are what Ukraine claims to have killed while their word is almost as truthful as the Russians, which is pretty damned low.

 

I've been going with Al Jazeera. I think that's as close to impartial as you can get.

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/8/we-have-significant-losses-and-its-a-huge-tragedy-kremlin
“Yes, we have significant losses of troops and it is a huge tragedy for us,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Sky News on Thursday.

That was in April. You think since the Russians have been pretty much on retreat since then, that it's gotten better or worse?

 

Thanks, I usually check with several sources for information on conflicts like this one since everyone has at least a small bias.
I've learned that Wikipedia is very unreliable for information related to the Middle East and the WW 2 era, for example.

Enjoy your day.

 

Thank you.

Of course the participants in a conflict are going to have a bias in their own favor and most US MSM are going to have a bias in favor of Ukraine so the countries with the least involvement with either Russia or Ukraine seem most likely to have the least amount of bias.

 

So it wasn't a Russian missile because the Russians said so? LOL.

 

"Hi! I was a fairly democratically elected Western leaning leader of Ukraine and in 2004 I was poisoned! I wonder who did it?!"

Orange revolution says "Hi!"

I'm sure it was the CIS, right @Jeannette?

 

I like Veterans Today as a fairly reliable source, but they are far from flawless. It took them a year or more to understand the dangers of the shots, but now they get it.

They are much better on military matters. The core of VT is a bunch of old geysers from the Vietnam era, but the relatively young Jonas Alexis is now editor, and his views have always been good IMO.

 

Well well well...

AP Fires Reporter Behind Retracted ‘Russian Missiles’ Story

The Associated Press scared much of the world last Tuesday when it alerted readers that “a senior U.S. intelligence official” said “Russian missiles crossed into NATO member Poland, killing two people.”

That report, which was widely cited across the internet and on cable news, was taken offline the following day and replaced with an editor’s note admitting the single source was wrong and that “subsequent reporting showed that the missiles were Russian-made and most likely fired by Ukraine in defense against a Russian attack.”

On Monday, the AP fired James LaPorta, the investigative reporter responsible for that story, Confider has learned.

Huh, you would think almost causing WWIII would have gotten him a pulitzer.

 

"Almost started WWIII"? That's a stretch. There was little chance it would escalate to WWIII until it was completely investigated and determined to be an attack on Poland by Russia. It was early information in an article repeating information publicized by Biden himself. Biden's comments were misleading, and the reporter interpreted Russian-made to mean Russian-launched. Everyone new they hadn't yet determined what happened. NATO preparations were merely initiated just in case it was determined to be a Russian attack. Since it wasn't no authorization was given and the mobilization was halted. Calm down. We aren't on the brink of WWIII.

 

There is war hysteria sweeping the West and it just needs a spark to set it off, like maybe something as simple as assassinating an archduke. So a reporter and "anonymous source" try to pin the blame on a "missile attack" on Russia is something that I find worrisome considering so many people are ready to Article 5 right now without any pretext. Throwing a match on a gas soaked pile of kindling doesn't guarantee that it will go off, but it's not a good idea, and it would be hard for me to believe that the purpose of the match wasn't to start a fire.

 

Accountability in a free press.

AP fires reporter, reviews sourcing rules after Poland error
The Associated Press has fired a reporter and is reviewing its standards on the use of anonymous sourcing following a damaging error last week in a story about a fatal missile strike that killed two people in Poland
By David Bauder | AP

 

Yep, shades of MH17 coverage in 2014. The Modus Operandi of western governments and their media is easy to see.

 

sure sure.... lol.
How can I not see that you're raising a white flag?

 

It may help to understand capabilities. US surveillance is without parity. It resembles FM... F#$%^@g magic. As a demonstration, surveillance was performed near New York City for a 24-hour period. After the conclusion of the surveillance, they were given a task. They were told at 1 PM on the day of surveillance a man was standing on a certain street corner who waved his arms above his head. They were tasked with tracking this man throughout his travels through the city until he returned to his place of residence at midnight. He took all kinds of evasive maneuvers under bridges, taxis, etc. They succeeded in tracing him during this 11-hour trek. Since they had no prior knowledge of who they were to be tasked with tracking, this should give you the idea they can track EVERYBODY in the city with equal success. Every man, woman and child on a Big Wheel. Every car and also every airborne object. It is likely they could even track the movements of a basketball on a local court and keep score, or perhaps even call fouls.

So, there was little chance the US would incorrectly determine where this missile originated, who fired it, and what actually transpired. They also had access to the impact site. Biden was actually the one who caused confusion in the media and with the public. The military was never in doubt once the data was uploaded. The reports from the impact site apparently reached Biden and others first. It was conveyed the missile was Russian-made and Biden foolishly reported this to the media while at the summit. It was in fact Russian-made. I don't think Biden knew what that meant and neither did many reporters. They jumped to the conclusion Russian-made meant Russian-launched. Remember, Ukraine's military is largely Russian-made equipment (minus the NATO supplied arms). Perhaps the military advisors to Biden should have done a better job of explaining it him, knowing he isn't very bright when it comes to military matters. A short time later after reviewing the surveillance data they evidently clarified it to Biden and the Pentagon issued a statement clarifying their belief was it was a Russian-made anti-aircraft missile which was fired by Ukrainian soldiers in an attempt to intercept a cruise missile fired by Russia at a civilian city. The Ukrainian missile failed to intercept. Case was closed and NATO forces were ordered to stand down.

The S-300 they fired does not have a self-destruct when it loses lock. Once it achieves lock, it closes an ESAF (Electronic-Safe-Arm and Fire; or Electronic-Safe-Arm and Fuse) circuit which arms the warhead squibs. It will then activate the squibs by 1 of 2 methods:
1) impact with an object sufficient for the crush switch to make electrical connection,
2) proximity detection circuit activation (meaning it detects something within its blast radius).
Russian equipment really is pretty crappy for the most part. It works but often when you don't want it to. In this case it never achieved either condition after lock until it hit the grain-drying facilities in Poland. The process of determining what happened worked as intended and there was little possibility this would have devolved into WWIII unless it had actually been an attack on Poland by Russia. The media and the public aren't aware of the details, so they tend to jump to conclusions and get it wrong.

 

More akin to bypassing a target not worthwhile.

 

And the world wasn't on the brink either until this took place. I don't think you have any idea how close the world is on the brink of war once again. Emotions and not reasoning take over during war time. What if it had been a Russia missile and not an S300 used by Ukraine? Why was the missile fired towards Poland? Has that been investigated? Hawk missile systems can be setup so the launcher will not fire a missile if the launcher is pointed in a certain direction and that is a very old system. I'm very certain the newer S300 system has the same setup.

World War I, also known as the Great War, began in 1914 after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. His murder catapulted into a war across Europe that lasted until 1918.

 

You keep on replying with that white flag behind you.... lol

 

Even worse. When WWI ended, the winners determined that Germany must pay for all the expenses turning the Germans into unarmed impoverished slaves for an eternity because the debt was so high that it was unrepayable. Money that they otherwise would invested in their own country to create jobs and with that a possibility of prosperity. Hence they voted on a guy -among reasons- who was not about to honor that insanity of the situation and made Germany first for Germans only. And that guy was Hitler. And so with that the way WWI ended, is mostly why WWII started.

 

As you wish.

“A fly, Sir, may sting a stately horse and make him wince; but one is but an insect, and the other is a horse still.”

― Samuel Johnson

 

The failure to communicate is on you, which is the way you can get it.
- cool hand luke

 

I won't address the Archduke though I am well aware. I will say, should someone assassinate Biden or as a better comparison Kamala Harris this is still deemed an "act of war".

If it had been a Russian missile and not an S-300 then this would mean:
1) it was properly targeted by the Russians and hit its intended target, or
2) it was properly targeted by the Russians, malfunctioned, and hit an unintended target, or
3) it was improperly targeted by the Russians (e.g., meant for a different target) and a mistake by the crew resulted in the missile hitting an unintended target, or
4) it was intercepted by the S-300 causing it to land on an unintended target in Poland on its terminal decent.

Case 1: The Russians would be contacted and asked privately whether they had intentionally targeted Poland. If they claimed they hadn't, then a public apology would be requested by Poland and would be in order. Further, requests would be demanded to ensure it didn't happen again. If they claimed it was on purpose, then this would be an act of war and the pre-determined plan of attack would likely proceed. And we would be victorious in every scenario including nuclear according to the simulations (100 to 0).
Case 2: In many cases this would be identifiable depending on the nature of the malfunction. It would often have a strange flight pattern. It might also be undetectable if due to internal issues and failed to interpret the targeting commands. Here as in case 1 Russia would be contacted for clarification as to intent.
Case 3: This would likely result in a normal flight profile and again as in case 1 Russia would be contacted for clarification as to intent. Yada Yada Yada depending on their response.
Case 4: This would clearly be evident by the S-300 detonation and the subsequent abrupt change in the profile of the Russian missile.

In this case the S-300 was launched from within Ukraine, had lock, lost lock, clearly missed any intended intercept point, did not detonate near the targeted missile and instead continued on into Poland where it apparently didn't even proximity detonate (so that too didn't work) and instead it detonated by crush switch (i.e., impact). In short it was a typical POS Russian S-300 fired by Ukraine.

As for direction... ground-to-ground missiles (especially Russian) are often Zero order. Meaning you plug in launch position coordinates and target position coordinates, and it flies along a normal ballistic profile to its target. It has a parabolic flight path similar to an artillery shell but normally makes slight corrections to reduce errors as it approaches the target. They also tend to have longer ranges than ballistic artillery shells, and accelerate during burn rather than getting all their kinetic energy at launch. Cruise missiles can be programmed to follow any predetermined flight path, most terrain-following, until they reach the terminal flight path, diving on their target. The S-300's is an interceptor, so its flight path would not normally resemble a ballistic flight path. It will turn in response to the missile to be intercepted. Unless the incoming missile was coming directly towards the S-300 it would change directions mid-flight as it attempted to get the best intercept path, which could be perpendicular to the targeted missile and wildly different from the intial launch direction. My understanding is it is normally 2nd order, but later models may be 3rd order.

If you are curious what I mean by order is pretend I am walking from point A to be B. You want to meet up with me.
1st order: You continuously walk directly towards my current position as you approach. In some cases, you might get near enough to engage me if my A-B path was nearly direct to your starting point.
2nd order: You predict where I will be in the future according to my current speed and direction (i.e., my velocity vector) and walk towards where this would place me in a short time. That is a basic description, but it really does a similar thing using shortest time to intercept at your current speed and direction. Here you would be more likely get close enough to engage me.
3rd order: But if I was to change my speed and direction as I walked from A-B, or if my angle of attack is accelerating due to our relative changing positions then your calculation as to my future location would not account for my acceleration (i.e., changing speed and direction of attack). 3rd order accounts for that. For instance, a pilot steadily pulling back on the stick to change his speed, direction and angle of attack. For that pilot/missile to avoid interception it would have to change the acceleration vector (e.g., direction was pulling on the stick) at just the right time as you approached. This random acceleration cannot be accounted for as it is "disordered". But timing and break angle needs to be well executed as the corrective maneuvers by the interceptor happen rapidly. Intercept could also fail if the necessary maneuver is outside the maneuvering capabilities of the interceptor. In the case of piloted aircraft the missile can pull many more g's than the pilot can withstand.
Newer versions are brilliant and can tactically adjust for these disordered evasive maneuvers and figure out the best flight profile giving it the best chance of intercept.

That said, this is why the direction the Ukrainians fired the S-300 might be completely different than the path it eventially took towards intercept. Apparently when it missed it continued straight hoping to regain lock or impact something and wound up in Poland.

 

Well that's a long list of excuses but you haven't addressed some basics.

First off, I haven't seen any definitive proof that contradicts the original story of 2 missiles, as opposed to one. I did see some cell phone video from a distance that showed 2 distinct smoke plumes some distance apart, which supports the 2 missile reporting. If it's 2 missiles, it's an intentional false flag attempt. Here's a Reuters (for what it's worth) video showing the 2 distinct smoke plumes:

Second, these missiles have a 'self-destruct' mechanism to prevent errant landings. They or it (depending on 1 or 2 missiles) was turned off. This was intentional. It also gives the missile considerably more range.

Furthermore, the missile was Soviet, not Russian. I know the propaganda always like to say Russian when it suits their needs, but it is an important distinction.

And lastly, the guidance on these missiles can be updated and upgraded to be used as a surface to surface missile. They've already been doing it in the Donbass.

All things point to a false flag on the part of Ukie land. If one of those missiles had hit a fertilizer depot that was supposedly in that location, then no evidence would have been left to identify the missile and some serious would have hit the fan. A lot of people would have been killed/escalation by the Poles would be a certainty.

If we had real journalism and real news, these facts would have been reported. elensky needs to be disappeared.

 

This is a Chinese production. It is set to some pretty cool ominous background music. The videos are a patchwork of various Reuters clips which add little to the story. The one possible exception is the 2 plumes of smoke image from a distance, taken shortly after the incident. The 2 plumes of smoke very near each other, at the impact sight do not necessarily support a 2-missile conclusion. It isn't uncommon for multiple fire concentrations to be caused by a single impact. In fact, it was this early image which was the source of the early 2-missile reports. A construct of journalists and not ordinance experts. Much more conclusive evidence is gleaned and has been gleaned at the impact site itself since the time of these photos as well as tracking and surveillance data (which has superseded these early journalists' conclusions).

I'm not aware of an S-300V self-destruct functional requirement. But your information may be more up to date. How could you possibly determine whether it was intentionally turned off even if it was a function of this variant? It could have been a malfunction. The pieces have been examined close up and it has been publicly stated it was an S-300V. Regardless, it obviously did not self-destruct, not that this concludes anything regarding intent.

I'm curious as to why you believe this is an important distinction? I placed no importance here and I assumed after checking the service dates it was a Soviet era not Russian era missile left over in Ukraine (or repurposed due to capture) since the S-300V production run was during the late Soviet era (1983-1988 ). I held off concluding whether it belonged to Russia or Ukraine until it was announced in a Pentagon briefing the missile was launched from within Ukraine. I don't think Russia is of the habit of driving launch vehicles deep into Ukraine, in order to launch those missiles at their own missiles fired on civilian cities. Therefore, I don't see why it matters that it was of Soviet era origin? It was possessed by Ukraine (however and whenever they got it) and fired in an attempt to intercept incoming Russian missiles fired on Ukrainian cities. Since Ukraine is well aware of the surveillance capabilities of US aircraft near the theatre, they would understand any false flag attempt would be properly attributed to Ukraine not Russia. So jumping to a conclusion a false flag attack was attempted without evidence seems unlikely based solely on the circumstances.

I'm well aware. The Pentagon concluded it appeared to attempt interception and failed. While they obviously won't release the tracking data to avoid publicizing capabilities, I trust the Pentagon and Poland at their word.

I don't believe ANYTHING we now know points to a false flag. The opposite. It certainly doesn't point to an intended targeting by Russia. Or Ukraine or anyone else for that matter. There is ALWAYS evidence left behind after a detonation. It was also reported to be a grain drying facility on a remote, sparsely populated farm. Hardly a likely intended target for anyone. Nor would a fertilizer production facility. Fertilizer doesn't tend to detonate; it burns due to the absorption of moisture.

Your facts are questionable. I'm not in the habit of defending modern journalism; a profession which has been in rapid decline for years. Disinformation and propaganda are ubiquitous. Especially that streaming out of Russia, China and Ukraine among others. This incident is in the past. It is clear what occurred. There is no possibility of this escalating in the future.

Curious why you say elensky instead of Zelensky? Some kind of odd insult?