6 ms·

According to Russian media it's quite the opposite. They say Russia doesn't use the 9M38 missiles any more, Ukraine does.

tptacek 11y ago
They are full of it. There are pictures of Putin at Russian military bases standing in front of 9M38M1 missiles!
- jakobdabo 11y ago
  Obviously, I don't know who shot the missile. But when trying to use logic here, I don't see why would Russia shoot the plane. They had nothing to gain. Ukraine? I don't know, I refuse to believe they would deliberately kill hundreds for some advantage. My bet is on the rebels who did it mistakenly. The question is whose BUK they used. One provided by Russia or one taken from an abandoned Ukrainian base.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I don't know how to respond to this comment. Your earlier comment parroted a line that is apparently popular in the Russian media, that Russia no longer uses the 9M38M1 SAM. But that missile is distinctive, and can been seen in recent photographs at Russian military installations. I didn't say that Russia shot down MH17. I said that if they're claiming not to use that missile, they're lying. Why? What a weird thing to lie about, that's so easily falsifiable.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    - dennisgorelik 11y ago
      Putin's lie about "Russia does not invade Crimea" (Feb 2014) was also easily falsifiable. Nevertheless he lied about it and his ratings in Russia did not even suffer from it.
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    Most evidence point in a single direction: The separatists got the BUK somehow from Russia (Stolen/Supplied/Holiday...), and that the downing of the aircraft was a mistake (As you say neither part in this conflict has any interest in downing a civilian jet). What we should remember here is that "who did it" in this matter is more a matter of who was in command and who provided the hardware, rather than who pushed the button. This is the most likely hypothesis but there are others. Apart from the craft being downed by Ukraine (Nothing in the report points in that direction), another hypothesis one would be actual Russian personnel, rather than Ukrainian separatists, operating from inside Donetsk. That would be hugely controversial, but hard to prove.
- powertower 11y ago
  Those pictures are of Putin on a military base in Armenia that runs joint operations. Both Armenia and Ukraine use 9M38M1, Russia stopped production in 1999 and begin phasing it out. I'm sure there are a few of these still around here and there, but no one is lying about the production stop that happened 16 years ago (that can be verified many ways). Those pictures are sourced from - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/19731 http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/19731 And they are still up. It's not much of proof of anything. As far as the other 2 whole pictures at parades, etc, well, that's proof of itself that these missile models are dwindling in numbers and are a rare sight.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I guess I'm having trouble following the logic that says recent pictures of the Russian military displaying these missiles is evidence that the Russian military no longer has them.
    - powertower 11y ago
      The logic is that 3 pictures, with 1 likely being a prop (for use in parades or as a display unit) and 1 likely held by a foreign joint military in Armenia - are not proof of the Russian-side lying. For every 1 of these decommissioned missiles that Russia still posses, Ukraine probably has 100 (considering it's always been a weapons depot for this type of older Russian and Soviet-era gear).
      - tptacek 11y ago
        I think we're moving the goalposts here. Is there any controversy over whether Ukraine has BUK launchers, or use 9M38M1 missiles? Both Ukraine and Russia clearly do. Nobody forced in anyone in Russia to make the easily falsified claim that they didn't have any 9M38M1 missiles. The only reason it's interesting to establish that they did is that it harms an alibi they weren't forced to offer. The Dutch report, and a lot of other open-source evidence, makes it pretty unlikely that the Ukranians launched the missile. This is a missile system that consists of several vehicles, one of which is a giant lumbering missile launcher. The missile was launched within an 100km^2 firmly controlled by the separatists. The Ukranian military didn't spirit a missile launcher convoy to a wheat field just a few km south of Snizhne --- a town that Ukraine was bombing --- spectacularly down a jetliner, and then somehow spirit that convoy back to Ukranian-held territory. That is not a reasonable narrative. I don't see any serious arguments that this was anything other than a tragic accident. No matter who launched the missile, we're all pretty sure they didn't mean to shoot down MH17. The subtext behind Russia's involvement is that they set up a barely-organized irregular separatist militia with a weapons system that was easily capable of shooting down airliners.

tptacek 11y ago

They are full of it. There are pictures of Putin at Russian military bases standing in front of 9M38M1 missiles!

jakobdabo 11y ago
Obviously, I don't know who shot the missile. But when trying to use logic here, I don't see why would Russia shoot the plane. They had nothing to gain. Ukraine? I don't know, I refuse to believe they would deliberately kill hundreds for some advantage. My bet is on the rebels who did it mistakenly. The question is whose BUK they used. One provided by Russia or one taken from an abandoned Ukrainian base.
- tptacek 11y ago
  I don't know how to respond to this comment. Your earlier comment parroted a line that is apparently popular in the Russian media, that Russia no longer uses the 9M38M1 SAM. But that missile is distinctive, and can been seen in recent photographs at Russian military installations. I didn't say that Russia shot down MH17. I said that if they're claiming not to use that missile, they're lying. Why? What a weird thing to lie about, that's so easily falsifiable.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - dennisgorelik 11y ago
    Putin's lie about "Russia does not invade Crimea" (Feb 2014) was also easily falsifiable. Nevertheless he lied about it and his ratings in Russia did not even suffer from it.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  Most evidence point in a single direction: The separatists got the BUK somehow from Russia (Stolen/Supplied/Holiday...), and that the downing of the aircraft was a mistake (As you say neither part in this conflict has any interest in downing a civilian jet). What we should remember here is that "who did it" in this matter is more a matter of who was in command and who provided the hardware, rather than who pushed the button. This is the most likely hypothesis but there are others. Apart from the craft being downed by Ukraine (Nothing in the report points in that direction), another hypothesis one would be actual Russian personnel, rather than Ukrainian separatists, operating from inside Donetsk. That would be hugely controversial, but hard to prove.
powertower 11y ago
Those pictures are of Putin on a military base in Armenia that runs joint operations. Both Armenia and Ukraine use 9M38M1, Russia stopped production in 1999 and begin phasing it out. I'm sure there are a few of these still around here and there, but no one is lying about the production stop that happened 16 years ago (that can be verified many ways). Those pictures are sourced from - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/19731 http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/19731 And they are still up. It's not much of proof of anything. As far as the other 2 whole pictures at parades, etc, well, that's proof of itself that these missile models are dwindling in numbers and are a rare sight.
- tptacek 11y ago
  I guess I'm having trouble following the logic that says recent pictures of the Russian military displaying these missiles is evidence that the Russian military no longer has them.
  - powertower 11y ago
    The logic is that 3 pictures, with 1 likely being a prop (for use in parades or as a display unit) and 1 likely held by a foreign joint military in Armenia - are not proof of the Russian-side lying. For every 1 of these decommissioned missiles that Russia still posses, Ukraine probably has 100 (considering it's always been a weapons depot for this type of older Russian and Soviet-era gear).
    - tptacek 11y ago
      I think we're moving the goalposts here. Is there any controversy over whether Ukraine has BUK launchers, or use 9M38M1 missiles? Both Ukraine and Russia clearly do. Nobody forced in anyone in Russia to make the easily falsified claim that they didn't have any 9M38M1 missiles. The only reason it's interesting to establish that they did is that it harms an alibi they weren't forced to offer. The Dutch report, and a lot of other open-source evidence, makes it pretty unlikely that the Ukranians launched the missile. This is a missile system that consists of several vehicles, one of which is a giant lumbering missile launcher. The missile was launched within an 100km^2 firmly controlled by the separatists. The Ukranian military didn't spirit a missile launcher convoy to a wheat field just a few km south of Snizhne --- a town that Ukraine was bombing --- spectacularly down a jetliner, and then somehow spirit that convoy back to Ukranian-held territory. That is not a reasonable narrative. I don't see any serious arguments that this was anything other than a tragic accident. No matter who launched the missile, we're all pretty sure they didn't mean to shoot down MH17. The subtext behind Russia's involvement is that they set up a barely-organized irregular separatist militia with a weapons system that was easily capable of shooting down airliners.