A misguided defense missile could have killed 16 people in Kostyantynivka, Ukraine, according to research by the New York Times. Neither the report nor the denial is proven. The case shows how difficult independent reporting is during war.
This research result was painful for the people of Ukraine. At the beginning of last week, the US “New York Times“There are serious indications that it was a misguided Ukrainian anti-aircraft missile that killed 16 people at a market in eastern Ukraine on September 7th – and not, as stated by President Volodymyr Zelensky, among others, another targeted attack by Russia on Ukrainian civilians.
Many Ukrainian media outlets wrote about a “scandalous report.” Officials denied this, citing ongoing investigations. Presidential adviser Mykhailo Podoljak complained on Twitter that such reports promote conspiracy theories.
To date, neither the New York Times’ research nor the statement by Ukrainian authorities has been independently proven.
Targeted fire is rarely independently verifiable
Because of the numerous massive Russian war crimes against Ukrainian civilians documented by independent bodies, Ukrainian authorities and media now often make quick judgments. This was also the case with the rocket in Kostiantynivka. The Ukrainian president blames “Russian terrorists” and speaks of “complete inhumanity” and the “blatantness of evil.”
But whether shelling of civilians in the war against Ukraine is always targeted can only be proven beyond doubt in a few cases. The fact is: Russia attacks Ukraine every day with artillery, rockets and drones, repeatedly hitting civilians. It is also a fact that fewer and fewer people abroad are interested in the daily attacks.
“Narratives are more important than facts”
“There would be no need to launch missiles if there was no Russian war of aggression,” argues communications expert Oleksiy Kharchenko, speaking from the heart of a large part of the Ukrainian population. He is annoyed that this fact was not mentioned in the New York Times reporting. For Kharchenko, journalism is more than just a collection of facts. “Facts are important, but the narrative is more important,” he says.
In addition to the practical difficulties of reporting on the Russian war of aggression, the Kostiantynivka case also shows how narrow the public discourse in the country has become. “Apart from the war on the front, there is an information war. And of course we act in the interests of the Ukrainian people,” says Oleksandr Chubukin, a local journalist from Zaporizhia. His hometown is also regularly shelled. Most recently, a rocket hit, among other things, a hotel popular with aid organizations, journalists and soldiers.
Independent research at the impact site is hardly possible
A spatial separation between civilians and soldiers is practically impossible in southern and eastern Ukraine. “There could be soldiers in any building in Zaporizhzhia because they are constantly moving around the city. In most cases these are civilian buildings because the soldiers also need something to live in or go shopping or pick up packages.” The front is only around 35 kilometers away.
If many civilians are killed in a rocket strike, the Ukrainian presidential office is often the first to inform about the incident. “The presidential office is trying to create an information monopoly,” says Chubukin. And journalists like him often cannot independently verify the information. Even if they are directly on site. After an impact, Ukrainian investigative authorities first begin to collect evidence. Journalists are often initially denied access. A normal procedure, says Tschubukin and points to security reasons.
Security reasons restricted Publications a
There could be objects that have not yet exploded at the impact site. Footage released too early could be used by Russian troops to check and correct their aim. The local journalist explains that the risk of a second attack on helpers, investigators or journalists is also high. “Only when something has already been shown by the regional authorities or the president’s office do we publish such information,” says Chubukin.
Like him, the vast majority of reporters in Ukraine adhere to such rules. Impact sites or important objects may not be filmed and their location may not be mentioned. Violation of this rule by journalists has resulted in fatalities in the past.
Accusation of Russian propaganda
At the same time, critical reporters must quickly accept the accusation of Russian propaganda. One of the authors of the article in the “New York Times” had already been noticed because he was supposedly spreading “Russian narratives”, many Ukrainian media report. His accreditation was revoked twice. The background was reports of bartering with Western weapons at the front and Ukraine’s use of cluster munitions. There is great fear that negative reporting could damage Ukraine’s reputation abroad.
“We really hope that by publishing this the journalists were just jumping on the hype and not trying to derail President Zelensky’s visit to the US,” says Ihor Solovey, head of the Center for Strategic Communication at the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture.
Distrust of unpleasant reporters
The center says it develops “narratives to strengthen Ukraine’s image in the areas most targeted by the aggressors.” In practice, this is primarily about combating Russian propaganda. For years it has been spreading demonstrably and deliberately false information and contradictory information with the aim of sowing distrust and doubt. “They are trying to provoke a conflict between society and politics in democratic countries,” says Solowej.
As a result, there is great distrust of reporters who publish research that is unpleasant for Ukraine. The Ukrainian secret service has already tracked down Russian agents in Ukraine disguised as journalists, Solowej said. At the same time, Ukraine is aware of the relevance of independent reporting on the war of aggression. “We understand very well that without the help of our partners it will be very difficult to continue fighting,” says Solowej.