4 ms·

If we should single out one group in Ukraine it should be the one who shot down a civilian airliner using weapons borrowed from Russia, shouldn't it? It seems

If we should single out one group in Ukraine it should be the one who shot down a civilian airliner using weapons borrowed from Russia, shouldn't it? It seems you almost honestly belive this but to the rest of the world it kind of obvious who are the arsonists in Ukraine.

trhway 10y ago
>who shot down a civilian airliner using weapons borrowed from Russia the Buk used by rebels was an Ukranian Buk captured by rebels on June 29 near Donetsk. It is well known, and the capture was in the news at least 2 weeks before the MH-17. The rest of the world is just too lazy to even check the Internet archive. Rebels were pounded from the air and they used whatever anti-aircraft weapons they could get. They used this Buk to shoot down 2 Ukranian fighters on July 16 (the shotdowns at 6 and 8 km altitude - well above MANPAD reachability - are clearly mentioned in the MH17 Dutch commission report). They shot down MH17 taking it for a military cargo plane - the two unfortunate factors played a role here 1. the MH17 was flying significantly north of the civilian corridor and thus it got into the Buk launcher's radar observation sector which was set up as to look toward typical route of Ukraine military planes approaching the rebel held territories 2. the rebels had only Buk launcher, not the complete full-functional Buk system, specifically they didn't have Buk's big radar vehicle, and the radar on the Buk launcher is limited - has shorter distance, handles only a sector of about 120 degrees, its main purpose is to track the assigned target and guide the missile to it, it isn't that suitable for identification, lacks transponder identification hardware, etc. Ukraine didn't close the airspace for commercial airlines in the war zone even though Ukraine was using military airplanes in that war and those planes were receiving fire back from the ground. Ukraine didn't close the airspace even after loosing Buk batteries to rebels at 2 different military anti-aircraft bases. They didn't close airspace even after loosing 2 fighters on July 16 at the altitudes well above MANPAD ceiling. Why loose all these money the airlines pay for use of the corridor! The MH17 victims relatives has recently filed a case against Ukraine for that in the high court of the EU.
- Const-me 10y ago
  > was an Ukranian Buk captured by rebels Russian Buk from 53-rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, from Kursk. There were many witnesses on the land, who paid attention, and shared their evidences. In Russia: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/10/08/exploring-russias-53rd-brigades-mh17-convoy-with-storymap/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/10/08/exp... In Ukraine: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2016/03/04/8110/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2016/03/04/811... You just can’t hide movements of something that large in a populated areas. It’s also visible on satellite images: https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/examining-evidence-russias-involvement-malaysia-airlines-crash https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/examining-evidence-russias...
  - trhway 10y ago
    >Russian Buk from 53-rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, from Kursk. There were many witnesses on the land, who paid attention, and shared their evidences. of course there were a lot of Buk systems there, in the Rostov region right across the border from Ukraine. After all, back then Russia amassed a [potentially invasion] force of 40K with all the hardware, tanks, etc. right there on the border with Ukraine. Buk is a standard component of such a force designed to cover it on the move and on the battlefield. The Buk system is designed as multiple vehicles system, too much for rebels to handle, and military wouldn't give just one launcher - it isn't how military works, and Buk isn't intended to be used for the tasks the rebels had. When Russia finally gave powerful anti-airctaft systems to the rebels it were single-vehicle highly automated Pantsir-S1. The pieces of shrapnel found in MH17 clearly indicated that the missile which hit MH17 was from the first version of the Buk system. Ukraine had only the first version while Russia has moved onto the second version more than a decade before. The rebels did capture Ukraine Buks at least at 2 Ukraine military bases. In particular regiment A-1402 in Donetsk. It was confirmed by the Ukraine military at the time according to those Ukranian sources http://gordonua.com/news/separatism/v-shtabe-ato-podtverdili-zahvat-eshche-odnoy-voinskoy-chasti-v-donecke--29439.html http://gordonua.com/news/separatism/v-shtabe-ato-podtverdili... and http://informator.media/archives/4880 http://informator.media/archives/4880 . This is Russian http://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/news/2014_06_29/Donetsk-militia-takes-control-of-Ukrainian-anti-air-installation-1561/ http://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/news/2014_06_29/Donetsk... . Twitter on June 29 - https://twitter.com/lennutrajektoor/status/483281165479313408 https://twitter.com/lennutrajektoor/status/48328116547931340... (notice that response https://twitter.com/PeterGrnlund1/status/483318010804183041 https://twitter.com/PeterGrnlund1/status/483318010804183041 ) . So why would Russia dig up old missiles and give one launcher to rebels when rebels got a bunch of that hardware themselves? All the accounts clearly describe the movement of the rebels' Buk launcher, under its own power, not on trailer, on July 17 in the direction from Donetsk into Torez, rebels having launch there and in the afternoon getting into position 20 km north, just south-east of Debaltsevo (superposition a 120 degree sector looking straight West from that position with the Flightradar24 path of MH17 - you'll understand why MH17 got on their radar). The plane damage is consistent with the Buk missile coming from that position. Nor Dutch report, nor Russian alternative version specify correct firing position, ie. position that would match the plane damage and the Buk missile behavior and warhead explosion shrapnel distribution pattern. The Dutch report shows incorrect behavior of the missile, while the Russian is just a pure fantasy.

trhway 10y ago

>who shot down a civilian airliner using weapons borrowed from Russia the Buk used by rebels was an Ukranian Buk captured by rebels on June 29 near Donetsk. It is well known, and the capture was in the news at least 2 weeks before the MH-17. The rest of the world is just too lazy to even check the Internet archive. Rebels were pounded from the air and they used whatever anti-aircraft weapons they could get. They used this Buk to shoot down 2 Ukranian fighters on July 16 (the shotdowns at 6 and 8 km altitude - well above MANPAD reachability - are clearly mentioned in the MH17 Dutch commission report). They shot down MH17 taking it for a military cargo plane - the two unfortunate factors played a role here 1. the MH17 was flying significantly north of the civilian corridor and thus it got into the Buk launcher's radar observation sector which was set up as to look toward typical route of Ukraine military planes approaching the rebel held territories 2. the rebels had only Buk launcher, not the complete full-functional Buk system, specifically they didn't have Buk's big radar vehicle, and the radar on the Buk launcher is limited - has shorter distance, handles only a sector of about 120 degrees, its main purpose is to track the assigned target and guide the missile to it, it isn't that suitable for identification, lacks transponder identification hardware, etc. Ukraine didn't close the airspace for commercial airlines in the war zone even though Ukraine was using military airplanes in that war and those planes were receiving fire back from the ground. Ukraine didn't close the airspace even after loosing Buk batteries to rebels at 2 different military anti-aircraft bases. They didn't close airspace even after loosing 2 fighters on July 16 at the altitudes well above MANPAD ceiling. Why loose all these money the airlines pay for use of the corridor! The MH17 victims relatives has recently filed a case against Ukraine for that in the high court of the EU.

Const-me 10y ago
> was an Ukranian Buk captured by rebels Russian Buk from 53-rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, from Kursk. There were many witnesses on the land, who paid attention, and shared their evidences. In Russia: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/10/08/exploring-russias-53rd-brigades-mh17-convoy-with-storymap/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/10/08/exp... In Ukraine: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2016/03/04/8110/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2016/03/04/811... You just can’t hide movements of something that large in a populated areas. It’s also visible on satellite images: https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/examining-evidence-russias-involvement-malaysia-airlines-crash https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/examining-evidence-russias...
- trhway 10y ago
  >Russian Buk from 53-rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, from Kursk. There were many witnesses on the land, who paid attention, and shared their evidences. of course there were a lot of Buk systems there, in the Rostov region right across the border from Ukraine. After all, back then Russia amassed a [potentially invasion] force of 40K with all the hardware, tanks, etc. right there on the border with Ukraine. Buk is a standard component of such a force designed to cover it on the move and on the battlefield. The Buk system is designed as multiple vehicles system, too much for rebels to handle, and military wouldn't give just one launcher - it isn't how military works, and Buk isn't intended to be used for the tasks the rebels had. When Russia finally gave powerful anti-airctaft systems to the rebels it were single-vehicle highly automated Pantsir-S1. The pieces of shrapnel found in MH17 clearly indicated that the missile which hit MH17 was from the first version of the Buk system. Ukraine had only the first version while Russia has moved onto the second version more than a decade before. The rebels did capture Ukraine Buks at least at 2 Ukraine military bases. In particular regiment A-1402 in Donetsk. It was confirmed by the Ukraine military at the time according to those Ukranian sources http://gordonua.com/news/separatism/v-shtabe-ato-podtverdili-zahvat-eshche-odnoy-voinskoy-chasti-v-donecke--29439.html http://gordonua.com/news/separatism/v-shtabe-ato-podtverdili... and http://informator.media/archives/4880 http://informator.media/archives/4880 . This is Russian http://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/news/2014_06_29/Donetsk-militia-takes-control-of-Ukrainian-anti-air-installation-1561/ http://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/news/2014_06_29/Donetsk... . Twitter on June 29 - https://twitter.com/lennutrajektoor/status/483281165479313408 https://twitter.com/lennutrajektoor/status/48328116547931340... (notice that response https://twitter.com/PeterGrnlund1/status/483318010804183041 https://twitter.com/PeterGrnlund1/status/483318010804183041 ) . So why would Russia dig up old missiles and give one launcher to rebels when rebels got a bunch of that hardware themselves? All the accounts clearly describe the movement of the rebels' Buk launcher, under its own power, not on trailer, on July 17 in the direction from Donetsk into Torez, rebels having launch there and in the afternoon getting into position 20 km north, just south-east of Debaltsevo (superposition a 120 degree sector looking straight West from that position with the Flightradar24 path of MH17 - you'll understand why MH17 got on their radar). The plane damage is consistent with the Buk missile coming from that position. Nor Dutch report, nor Russian alternative version specify correct firing position, ie. position that would match the plane damage and the Buk missile behavior and warhead explosion shrapnel distribution pattern. The Dutch report shows incorrect behavior of the missile, while the Russian is just a pure fantasy.