4 ms·

> 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 atte

• 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.
  • Const-me 10y ago
    “there were a lot of Buk systems there” the exact machine has been identified and tracked. “Russia amassed a [potentially invasion] force of 40K with all the hardware, tanks, etc.” Some of those forces have actually invaded Ukraine. For example, here’s international correspondents directly witnessed one small episode of the invasion: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11035401/Russian-armoured-vehicles-and-military-trucks-cross-border-into-Ukraine.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/110... “too much for rebels to handle” there’re little to no rebels. But there’re lots of Russian military personnel. “Russia has moved onto the second version more than a decade before” — true, they have a newer version developed. They did not however scrapped the older ones. Here you’ll find multiple recent photos of the older Buk-M1 complex with older 9M38-series missiles still on active service in Russian military forces: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/03/evidence-the-russian-military-supplied-the-type-of-missile-used-to-shoot-down-mh17/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/03/evi... “regiment A-1402 in Donetsk” there was only one Buk there, and it was broken beyond repair. “why would Russia dig up old missiles” — no need to dig up anything, the older missiles are on active service. “when rebels got a bunch of that hardware themselves?” In this war, Russians frequently use this tactic to hide their invasion. They capture (or claim to capture) one instance of military hardware from Ukraine, smuggle extra copies of the equipment to Ukraine, and claim “rebels” are using the hardware they captured. They already played that trick earlier with e.g. 2S9 Nona mortar.
    • trhway 10y ago
      you're right about M1 missiles availability - i never paid much attention to it as i haven't bought into the whole idea of Russia sending that one BUK. I'm not even sure why such an emphasis on it - for example I still remember my frustration with Russia that they'd allow the rebels to be pounded from the air and wouldn't send them capable anti-aircraft weapons (it didn't even cross my mind back then that civilians would still be allowed to fly over the war zone especially given the use of military aviation - i mean that would be beyond stupid, wouldn't it? yet here we're...) Anyway, giving the state of shock the catastrophe put everybody into and its huge political ramifications, no evidence produced after the catastrophe can be trusted without good cross-check verification. Everybody was lying, altering and producing fake evidence after the catastrophe. There is no need to even try to discuss Russian "photos" of Ukranian SU-25 shooting MH-17 with something looking like Star Wars laser canon. The rebels deleted tweets and posts made in the half-hour after MH17 where they were celebrating shooting down of another Ukraine military cargo plane. On the other side things weren't much better. Immediately after MH17 went down, Ukraine government produced that famous wiretap of cell phone conversation between a leader of rebels and his Moscow handler where the rebel reported about discovery that the shot down plane was a civilian plane and that the plane was shot down by the "cossaks from Chernuhino roadblock". Chernuhino is 70km+ from the firing position specified in the Dutch report. So either Dutch are lying (why would they?) or the Ukraine government falsified the evidence. For the couple weeks before July 17 Ukraine was deploying the Buks all around the warzone - the on duty systems were reported on Ukranian state TV with the military leaders of the Ukranian "Anti-Terrorist Operation" talking in front of them, and the Ukranian journalists published photos of deployed Buks from the ATO zone, not counting multiple pre-July 17 social posts related to those deployment. Well, next day after MH17, on July 18, Ukraine clearly stated that no Buks were deployed before July 17 in the ATO zone, only MANPADs. So, the only evidence that can reasonably be taken into account is the one that was published before the downing of MH17 (i don't know about any evidence published after the shot down that has been cross-verified). So, this is what we have as evidence from the pre-MH17: 1. At least 2 Ukranian bases with Buks - the bases A1402 and A0194 of the 156th anti-aircraft regiment were captured by rebels before July 17. At least one launcher, on A1402, fell into the rebels hands. My comment here: military hardware is repaired by replacing modules. Ie. it is pretty easy - go to the storage, pick the module and replace. Engine, etc. is easy too. Definitely repairs could have been carried out between June 29 (the capture, actually June 27/28) and the July 16 when the Ukranian SU-25 was shot down between 6 and 8 km altitude near Amvrosievka. 2. A Buk launcher on low-ride trailer was seen around 9am July 17 in Donetsk. It was accompanied by gray RAV4, Russian made SUV and mini-van. Those cars were seen in a convoy of several tanks, etc. on July 15/16 that was going to and coming into Donetsk from direction of Enakievo, and the convoy may have been from Russia. That convoy didn't had Buk. My comment: bellingcat considers that it is the evidence that Buk came from Russia, ie. it was going separately from that convoy. I think it is completely opposite - you wouldn't let your extremely important asset to separate from convoy, especially on the road that was close to and contested at times with Ukranian forces. The cars - SUVs and minivan may have been carrying related rebel commanders/coordinators and the crew for the Buk. There is no evidence connecting that Buk in anyway to all those Russian Buks across the border. 3. MH17 was shot down by Buk from a position, according to the Dutch report, south of the road between Torez and Snezhnoe. That is basically all the evidence that is known. All the rest of the stuff - given for example how fast Ukraine produced the [falsified if you believe Dutch findings] wiretap which i listened to on California morning of July 17 - could have been easily falsified. So thus it all comes to interpretation.