MH17 crash: Compelling body of evidence emerges over responsibility

[muriel_volestrangler]

This is the most comprehensive list of the evidence I've seen. If you don't have an ID at the Financial Times and it asks you for one, you can sign up for free and get a limit number of articles per month - worth it, I think.

The Ukrainian intelligence dossier pinpoints the missile launch time at 16:20, and includes a launch site. It also states that the Buk-M1 launcher was operated by three Russian personnel, under the guidance of a separatist named Bes, short for Besler.

The apparent SBU wire tap evidence indicates that three Buk-M1 systems were brought into eastern Ukraine from Russian territory and handed to the rebels. One allegedly crossed the border into Ukraine at 1am on July 17, near Sukhodolsk. Another was apparently brought in from Russia-controlled Crimea. The third appeared to have been in rebel hands for longer.
...
“Thank God the Buk-M arrived today in the morning. Things got easier,” another recording between an alleged Russian intelligence officer in Ukraine and his superior in Russia said.
...
Images from social media of the missile flare as it was launched at MH17, meanwhile, show it rising vertically upwards. Given the altitude, direction of travel and crash site of MH17, such a rocket trail seems to point to a launch site in the Torez-Snizhne area, and rules out the possibility of a launch from a distance further away by Ukrainian military forces, as was earlier claimed by Russian defence officials. A launch from an S300 anti-aircraft weapon, for example – the only system the Ukrainian military possesses with the range to have hit MH17 – would have looked very different.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a1dcc628-1010-11e4-90c7-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk

[SidDithers]

1. But RT told me it was Ukranians aiming for Putin's plane...

Oh, I'm so confused. I just don't know who to trust anymore.

Thanks for posting.

Sid

[Gormy Cuss]

12. RT is like the NYT for Russia, isn't it?

[OKNancy]

2. tell me this if you know.. does the Ukrainian army even have any anti-aircraft missles

since the rebels don't have any aircraft? They wouldn't need to waste money or men on that type of thing IMO.

[geek tragedy]

3. They own them but have not used them once. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. They have them, but haven't deployed them in the east

since the rebels don't have aircraft, and the Russians aren't flying any men or materiel in - they have always been able to take across the border unopposed, somewhere. The Russians have sent a few aircraft into Ukrainian airspace, it's claimed - but shooting them down when they just appear to be a test would be a sure way of bringing on a full Russian attack.

[reorg]

6. they have 60 and CLAIM not to have deployed them in the region

The strange thing is: how on earth are the DPR militants supposed to have taken them, as FT reports, and as was originally reported by TASS on June 29:

DONETSK, June 29, /ITAR-TASS/. Self-defence forces of the Donetsk People’s Republic have taken control over a missile defence army unit equipped with Buk missile defence systems, the press service of the Donetsk People’s Republic told Itar-Tass on Sunday.

http://en.itar-tass.com/world/738262

- if the Ukrainian army never deployed them there in the first place?

I guess that's why we now see all kinds of speculation about other places from where this weapon system might have arrived ...


And why on earth would the Ukrainian army not deploy anti-aircraft weapons when they are daily attacked by Russian airplanes, as they have constantly claimed right until hours before the Malaysian airliner crash?

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. The 'speculation' about where the system could have come from was in the OP

ie sent over the border by Russia.

"Daily attacked by Russian airplanes"? I have not seen that claim at all.

[reorg]

10. Yes, speculation offered without proof

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-says-jet-shot-down-by-missile-from-russian-plane-1.2709542

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. And the claim was that was the first time Russia has used a plane in an attack

And I can't see a claim that the Russian planes had been inside Ukrainian airspace; it was said to have happened very close to the border:

The Ukrainian defence ministry said the plane crashed on Wednesday night near Amvrosiyivka, about nine miles (15km) from the border with Russia, after rockets hit the tail as the aircraft wheeled away from the border.

"It is likely that this was carried out by air-to-air rockets from the Russian air force, which were patrolling the border in a pair," the ministry said in a statement on its website.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/17/ukraine-claims-plane-shot-by-russian-missile

The 'speculation' that rebels shot down the airliner has good evidence from the rebel side; Strelkov himself claimed the rebels shot down an An-26 on Thursday exactly where MH17 was destroyed, before wiping that claim from VKontakte. And ITAR-TASS reported that the rebels had shot down an An-26 on Thursday. But there's no sign of this An-26 now, while there is the wreckage of the 777.

[reorg]

16. The TASS report expressly refers to an unnamed "witness"

and doesn't make any further claims as to the truth or verifiability of that statement (it is mentioned that another AN-26 was shot down a few days earlier, so, yeah, could be they did it again, or maybe not).

The other "proof" is a wiped social media message of which nobody really knows how it came into existence. Perhaps some explanations are more likely than others, but everything is still speculation at this point.

[Igel]

8. Asking questions is good.

Asking questions as a substitute for facts is bad. They have no truth value.

1. Everything has to be some place. The Donbas was Ukrainian territory. There were military bases there. Not large ones, and sort of randomly scattered. Most were small with just a "chastyna", a unit.

Some had a couple of tanks. Some had radar stations, sometimes portable. Others had radio and communication devices. Depends on the unit's purpose. Some were emergency medics. Some were anti-aircraft.

The Buk on 6/29 was in an anti-aircraft unit. It wasn't so much deployed there from a large military base as just there on permanent deployment or perhaps forgotten. The rebels recently said it was trash when they got it. The unit commander said he'd made sure it was ruined and couldn't be easily repaired when they surrendered their post. (Their "post" was a building the land behind it and an adjacent lot behind a fence on a city block that mostly had two story buildings. The picture of the post was a mainstay during the siege and when it surrendered.)

I was a summer intern at DARCom at a proving grounds between my junior and senior year and carpooled the 40 miles to and from work. One of my fellow riders worked in maintenance and said he was sweating. They had inventory, and it was a mess--they were missing tools and had tools they weren't supposed to have. He'd have to bring back some of the power tools he'd borrowed and always intended to return without being caught. But, he said, the real problem was their tank. He wasn't sure where it had come from--he'd only been there 15 years or so. But they had a tank sitting in one corner of their oversized building and now, he said, they had to account for it on their inventory when it had never been issued to them.

2. There was no reason to deploy that kind of AA weapon--it's mostly for higher altitude or faster planes. Most of the incursions into their airspace occurred right at the border, with a jet possibly flying a km in and retreating, or flying over a spit of Ukraine into Russian territory--the border isn't a straight line. More important were the choppers, some of which went in more than a km and landed, some of which tracked a column of Ukrainian troops near the border for 10 minutes up to 30 minutes before leaving. UAVs frequently cross, but stay close to the border. MANPADs would have been a better choice against choppers. Deft use of assault rifles can bring choppers and UAVs down. Some UAVs have been downed.

One doesn't expose expensive, dangerous weapons to capture unless there's a good reason for those particular weapons. The Ukrainians had no reason to deploy SAM systems. And any Buk hauled that far would have needed 3 men plus carriers, and if you're going to have soldiers and carriers moving equipment you'd rather have useful equipment moved. Every piece of hardware moved and not needed is taking the place of a piece of hardware that might be needed or is a waste of resources.

[reorg]

11. Okay, so you have all the answers

"One doesn't expose expensive, dangerous weapons to capture"
"It wasn't so much deployed there from a large military base as just there on permanent deployment or perhaps forgotten."

Right.

Of course, everything at this point is speculation. There are many possibilities, maybe it was a tragic accident, possibly a false flag operation, we'll see which side will end or prevent an investigation and say "you'll just have to trust us!"

[IronGate]

13. False flag operation?

There was no false flag op, this was a big time fuck up by Pootie poot's pro Russian terrorists and now they're doing everything they can to hide this.

[reorg]

14. Wouldn't be the first in the Ukraine this year

as you probably know very well.

[Igel]

9. Today had an interesting report.

I can't say if it's accurate because it claimed special knowledge.

It was from somebody who said he was stationed in Belorus in the '80s when Buk-M1s were deployed for the first time and was trained on them. They were Buks, but with a first generation of modifications.

It's not just a Buk that the Russians are really focused on. It's Buk-M1s. They claim to have picked up comm chatter in the Donbas between two Buk-M1 units not too far from Donets'k, which links them and makes them into a more coherent anti-AA system. The second Buk unit could use its radar to track the same target and make the system more accurate.

So this guy says that the M1s were shipped with white missiles and Belorus was first in line for them in '87 or '88. Ukraine was next in line but production was slow then and Ukraine got few. He said they asked if the missiles couldn't be repainted darker or in camo and were told it had to do with the temperature of the missile. If they repainted them they'd reach too high a temperature and consequently explode at the wrong time. They were stuck being white. And he inserted pictures of the M1 with dutifully white missiles.

But, he added, years later, after he was off SAM duty, the Buk M1-2 was deployed. This was after '91 and Ukraine wasn't on the Russian army's provision list. He never used one of them. However, the Buk M1-2 *did* have dark green missiles. And he dutifully inserted a photo of one of those.

He put in photos of the Buks in Snizhne and on their way to Krasnodon, and they had dark missiles.

No word on the just plain Buk unmodified system and its missile color scheme.

So If the Russians are right and they were Buk M1s between Torez and Donets'k, then they weren't Ukrainian M1s. The Buk M1-1s were produced and deployed late in the USSR's lifetime and were replaced by the longer-lived M1-2s. It may be that nobody cared about missile color differences when having them routed to the Donbas. Both are Buk M1s. If we discount the Russians then I guess the missile color of the Buk (unmodified) is at issue--but those are both old and also common.

However, the only real claimed evidence that the Ukrainians had Buks deployed in the right area is this Russian report.

Perhaps somebody who actually knows squat about Russian SAM systems from the '80s and '90s could weigh in? And PM me?

[dipsydoodle]

17. Doesn't the shrapnel pattern vary between the different marques too ?

Ive read somewhere or other today that the fuselage damage should determine the type used.

[geek tragedy]

4. Those trying to deflect blame from the separatists

are going to find themselves sitting between Dick Cheney and David Irving in short order.

[RobertEarl]

18. I am going to wait for the wikileaks report

Most every other source have proven to be liars.