3 ms·
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. Ukrain
by 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 agoI 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 agoPutin'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 agoMost 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.