9 ms·

MH17 missile 'brought in from Russia'

121 points by jaap_w 10y ago

jpkeisala 10y ago
Wasn't this concluded 2 years ago?
- diggan 10y ago
  The article mentions that they knew the missile itself was a Russian one but not from where on the ground it was fired. The article says that the investigation team now concluded that the missile was also fired from a location that was controlled by Russian rebels (at that point).
romanovcode 10y ago
I just don't understand how can pilot be so reckless to fly over known warzone? Hey I'm not saying it's their own fault, but please stop telling me that it's "safe" because it's not. It was a known warzone. Todays example: Virgin Atlantic, Air France and Emirates will no longer allow its planes to fly over Iraq due to concerns about the dangers posed by Islamic militants.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Hundreds of other planes did too, because no authority tracked by airlines reported the area as an active conflict zone --- moreover, among the world's conflict zones, there aren't many in which an airliner flying at altitude would be at risked. The unique situation here is that Russia had deployed extremely sophisticated surface-to-air batteries.
  - chokolad 10y ago
    > The unique situation here is that Russia had deployed extremely sophisticated surface-to-air batteries. Single launcher. Full battery has 4 launchers and a significantly more sophisticated radar. Arguably that radar would have helped to sort between Ukrainian observation plane and civilian Boeing.
- erkkie 10y ago
  Are you for real? There's war zones all over the world, usually that doesn't mean shooting down a passenger flight 10km high, for which you need specialized equipment, not just a random shoulder carry rocket. Until the incident, airspace at civilian cruising altitudes was free and open in Ukraine. Hint: space is 3d, lower levels were closed in various places.
  - andreasley 10y ago
    On July 14th 2014, just three days before the MH17 incident, an Antonov AN-26 Ukrainian military transport plane was hit at 21 000 feet altitude, so there was a strong indication that SAMs were available to the seperatists. According to the Dutch Safety Board, the airspace should have been closed [1]. [1] http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/dutch-safety-board-ukraine-should-have-closed-its-airspace-before-mh-17-was-shot-down-180956921/?no-ist http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/dutch-safety-board-u...
    - erkkie 10y ago
      Thanks for the link, hit at 21000 feet just earlier does change the risk profile, but then again, it's hard for the Safety Board to come to any other conclusion post the facts.
    - anthonybsd 10y ago
      AN-26 was hit with a MANPADS which cannot target altitude at which civilian airliners fly. No one at the time thought that Russia was crazy enough to supply the rebels with BUKs.
      - andreasley 10y ago
        While the previous aircraft were downed by MANPADS or AA, the AN-26 in question was flying at an altitude only reachable by a SAM. At the bottom of this article [1] is a good overview of the shot-down aircraft over east Ukraine in 2014. [1] http://airheadsfly.com/2014/07/15/ukraine-latest-an-26-downing-more-advanced/ http://airheadsfly.com/2014/07/15/ukraine-latest-an-26-downi...
- okket 10y ago
  You need state sponsored military equipment to shoot down a 10km high flying airplane. You can't do this with your homebuilt rocket launcher. Up to this incident nobody was thinking that a state could be reckless enough to target civilian planes. Or lend their military equipment to people reckless enough. This has changed since then.
  - eternalban 10y ago
    old news: Iran Air was shot down by US Navy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
- mikeash 10y ago
  And a bunch of other airlines are not diverting from Iraq because they disagree about the danger. At the time of the MH17 shootdown, some airlines were already diverting around eastern Ukraine, and many others were not. A reasonable assessment of the danger was made, and they decided that it was safe enough to continue flying there. That assessment turned out to be wrong, but that doesn't mean the it was "reckless."
  - acz 10y ago
    What was the weather situation over this region on that day?
    - mikeash 10y ago
      I have no idea. Why do you ask?
- abandonliberty 10y ago
  Everything is a calculated risk. Your question is equivalent to asking a crashed driver how they could have been so reckless to drive that day. In hindsight, we tend to fall into the trap that the actual outcome was the correct/fated outcome. That we should have predicted it and known better. A weather forecast that posted a 5% chance of rain on a sunny day is not wrong. No matter if it rains or is sunny, the probability was still just 5%, but we often assume that if the forecast was "correct" it should be 0% or 100%. That's not how it works. A coin toss is always 50%, even after the fact.
lfx 10y ago
It is me or title looks very ambiguous? It sounds that missile was launched from Russian grounds. What a scary way to begin a morning.
- supergirl 10y ago
  Yeah. Title is technically correct but to make it so ambiguous it has to be intentional.
- mikeash 10y ago
  To me the title sounds like they just mean the missile was made in Russia, which was obvious from the start. (Even if the Ukranians had been responsible, their missiles were still made in Russia!) What they actually mean is that the missile was transported in from Russia shortly before the shootdown, and the launcher and remaining missiles went back to Russia not long after. But yes, the wording of the title is way too vague.
  - piva00 10y ago
    The way I read it is that it's more than it was made in Russia, that was pretty obvious, the title implies that they were brought from the Russian stockpile rather than the Ukrainian one.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      I'm not sure which title you're commenting on, but if it's the current HN title, note that it's been changed. It previously matched the title of the linked article, which is "MH17 missile 'came from Russia', Dutch-led investigators say."
- zzzcpan 10y ago
  It doesn't actually matter whether someone moved the missile a bit outside of Russia to fire it and took it back to Russia after the fact or did it from Russia.
- dang 10y ago
jkot 10y ago
> was fired from to a field in territory controlled by Russian-backed rebels. > "...that came from the Russian Federation," chief Dutch police investigator Wilbert Paulissen said I think the wording 'territory of the Russian Federation' is not best choice. Report says it was fired from Ukraine, 10 km from border. It implies that donbas is already part of russia.
- verytrivial 10y ago
  I agree. These are two separate assertions: fired from location X, and "came" (originated or transported) from location Y but that could be read as "fired" too.
- haberman 10y ago
  They are saying that the missile originated from Russia, not that it was fired from Russia. The investigation concludes that the missile was transported from Russia to the rebel-controlled territory, where it was then fired.
woodcut 10y ago
The dutch led investigation has been a joke from the start, the previous report they released was submitted to Russia for screening prior to publication, they had them remove any references to this being an carried out by Russian soldiers operating in Eastern Ukraine as all evidence to date clearly shows.
- woodcut 10y ago
  --- EDIT being down voted for what? None of what i said is remotely controversial.
readhn 10y ago
If there is solid evidence and especially if there are multiple witnesses then this should be taken to court! Im not sure who the defendant should be on the Russian side, the ministry of defense?
- okket 10y ago
  > If there is solid evidence and especially if there are multiple witnesses then this should be taken to court! Which court?
  - readhn 10y ago
    that's a question for lawyers out there. im sure there are precedents in our history. Track down who gave the order and sue them! Does not matter who it is - P. or his buddies. Otherwise what is the point of this "investigation"?
    - ahoka 10y ago
      There are precedents: they are called world wars.
      - readhn 10y ago
        haha sure. no one is going to world war III over this! I hope you realize this. What needs to happen is proper legal process and some heads need to roll at the Russian ministry of defense.
  - ivan_gammel 10y ago
    National courts first, then European Court of Human Rights if they will not win in national courts. Based on this report relatives of victims can sue in ECHR all involved parties, including both Russian Federation (for providing military equipment to separatists) and Ukraine (for not closing air space for civil flights).
    - deleted 10y ago
chvid 10y ago
The new bit I suppose is this: "They also narrowed down the area it was fired from to a field in territory controlled by Russian-backed rebels." Little doubt has there been that the weapon used was made in Russia.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Also that the missile was transported from Russia shortly before the shootdown, and the launcher and remaining missiles were transported back to Russia. They mean "came from" in a more specific manner than just that it was made there.
  - kobeya 10y ago
    That was from social media images that are not news. It was reported on at the time. I'm not sure what's new here other than a two years too late rubber stamp of eyewitness reports.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      What's new is that the statement is now based on a great deal of hard evidence and investigation, rather than a couple of pictures and some internet commentators.
acqq 10y ago
In the indirectly related story (MH), the story of MH370 is also clearer: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/28/mh370-pilot-flight-simulator-plot-course-southern-indian-ocean https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/28/mh370-pilot-fl... http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/mh370-disappearance-that-fuselage-is-in-one-piece-says-expert-a-1107149.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/mh370-disappearanc...
nikolay 10y ago
What a purposely misleading title - it makes you think it was fired from Russia as today people just read the titles! BBC just lost all its credibility for servicing geopolitical agendas!
ken47 10y ago
News like this has nothing to do with startups or the tech scene. Or am I missing something here?
- DenisM 10y ago
  HN guidelines list appropriate content as ~ "anything of interest to hackers". If you think this article detracts from the site rather than enrich it, use the "flag" option.
nikolay 10y ago
Well the US kills tens of civilians (like in the recent bombings of the "coalition") with drones or bombers - there's nothing in the headlines with such rhetoric, and it's all justified and civilized. When our "friends" the Saudis and the Qatari kill thousands in Yemen - it's fine. When Turkey violates a sovereign nation and performs a military operation in Syria - it's fine. When Kiev kills thousands of people in East Ukraine, when they shell orphanages, schools, malls, residential areas - it's all just and okay. This hypocrisy is sickening! Why would the Russia and pro-Russian rebels down an airplane that will do nothing but hurt their agenda?! And how can an airplane chose to fly above areas with an ongoing military conflict?!
- Dolores12 10y ago
  cui bono
vladimir-y 10y ago
I wonder why US and Ukraine still not made public a photos taken by space satellites?
- lb1lf 10y ago
  Oh, I can think of a couple of reasons: a) Relevant coverage does not exist. (I find it unlikely that full real-time coverage of the globe is available.) b) Coverage exists, but is kept secret so as not to disclose surveillance capabilities.
  - vladimir-y 10y ago
    > Relevant coverage does not exist. Doesn't sound like a possible a reason for me. Conflict in the region has existed for some time, so place for photo cameras focusing was well known. > is kept secret so as not to disclose surveillance capabilities. It's not a news that we are being watched, so this reason also doesn't sound reasonable for me. Any other reason? May they have something to hide? As I understood many of the so called evidences are based on the youtube movies taken by the cell phones by random people. So that should not be a problem to fake such kind of evidences. Also treating google earth photos like an evidence sounds funny for me.
    - lb1lf 10y ago
      a) You cannot get high-resolution imagery from geostationary satellites. It comes from low earth orbit spacecraft. These, by the very nature of their orbit, cannot remain fixed over one place; they move relative to the ground below and once past it, will not be back until they've completed an orbit. This, then, means that someone will have to prioritize what areas to investigate and at what times; satellite orbits can be changed, but that is _extremely_ costly, as you need to expend fuel - and there's no simple way to refuel; spend it all, and you need to launch another satellite. So - maybe the US found that something other than Russian-backed militias destabilizing Ukraine warranted their attention. Say, IS or al-Qaeda - and focussed their attention elsewhere. b) It is not news that you are being watched. It may, however, be news when a satellite is watching; perhaps the US piggybacks surveillance gear on commercial satellites, for instance - they couldn't reveal satellite imagery without anybody and his dog being able to figure out which satellite took the photo. Or - the quality of the photos may be much better than anticipated. Or, for that matter - maybe the US doesn't want to stick this to Russia as hard as they could; perhaps they do not want to find out what the world community would do once it is proven beyond any doubt that Russia gambled that they could destabilize Ukraine at no cost to themselves, only to find that the rebels and their -ahem- advisors of undisclosed origin promptly escalated the conflict by committing mass murder by incompetence, ignorance or both. As for your last point, I don't quite catch it. Is the lack of obviously faked 'evidence' evidence that someone is having something to hide?
Dolores12 10y ago
Why is it here? The other day US have killed another 62 Syrians and over hundred wounded by mistake. Still no news here about it. https://www.rt.com/news/359678-us-strikes-syrian-army/ https://www.rt.com/news/359678-us-strikes-syrian-army/
Const-me 10y ago
There’s a video in English, uploaded to YouTube by the Netherlands’ public prosecution office: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf6gJ8NDhYA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf6gJ8NDhYA The video summarizes available evidence answering the question why we sure what happened.
kmerroll 10y ago
To cut to the chase, the study confirms what was fairly obvious: - Yes, a Russian missile shot down a commercial aircraft. - Yes, Ukrainian separatists (Russian supported) controlled the area. So what's the outcome? Putin could care less and doesn't answer to any authority that can apply restraint or collect damages. So what does this change?
- nazgob 10y ago
  Families of victims can sue. Like with Yukos case, foreign Russian assets can be arrested to pay for damages. It will probably take many, many years and maybe one of future Russian governments will decide that it is better to close that case. There where so many victims that its almost certain that some families will keep pushing this case forever.
andreasley 10y ago
The official website of the "Openbaar Ministerie" (Dutch Public Prosecution Service) contains a press release, including some animations and intercepted calls [1] as well as a page with documents from the presentation [2]. [1] https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-crash/@96068/jit-flight-mh17-shot/ https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-crash/@96068/jit-flight-m... [2] https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-vliegramp/presentaties/presentation-joint/ https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-vliegramp/presentaties/pr...
Dolores12 10y ago
Why is it here? The other day US have killed another 62 Syrians and over hundred wounded by mistake. Still no news here about it. https://www.rt.com/news/359678-us-strikes-syrian-army/ https://www.rt.com/news/359678-us-strikes-syrian-army/

121 points by jaap_w 10y ago

jpkeisala 10y ago

Wasn't this concluded 2 years ago?

diggan 10y ago
The article mentions that they knew the missile itself was a Russian one but not from where on the ground it was fired. The article says that the investigation team now concluded that the missile was also fired from a location that was controlled by Russian rebels (at that point).

romanovcode 10y ago

I just don't understand how can pilot be so reckless to fly over known warzone? Hey I'm not saying it's their own fault, but please stop telling me that it's "safe" because it's not. It was a known warzone. Todays example: Virgin Atlantic, Air France and Emirates will no longer allow its planes to fly over Iraq due to concerns about the dangers posed by Islamic militants.

tptacek 10y ago
Hundreds of other planes did too, because no authority tracked by airlines reported the area as an active conflict zone --- moreover, among the world's conflict zones, there aren't many in which an airliner flying at altitude would be at risked. The unique situation here is that Russia had deployed extremely sophisticated surface-to-air batteries.
- chokolad 10y ago
  > The unique situation here is that Russia had deployed extremely sophisticated surface-to-air batteries. Single launcher. Full battery has 4 launchers and a significantly more sophisticated radar. Arguably that radar would have helped to sort between Ukrainian observation plane and civilian Boeing.
erkkie 10y ago
Are you for real? There's war zones all over the world, usually that doesn't mean shooting down a passenger flight 10km high, for which you need specialized equipment, not just a random shoulder carry rocket. Until the incident, airspace at civilian cruising altitudes was free and open in Ukraine. Hint: space is 3d, lower levels were closed in various places.
- andreasley 10y ago
  On July 14th 2014, just three days before the MH17 incident, an Antonov AN-26 Ukrainian military transport plane was hit at 21 000 feet altitude, so there was a strong indication that SAMs were available to the seperatists. According to the Dutch Safety Board, the airspace should have been closed [1]. [1] http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/dutch-safety-board-ukraine-should-have-closed-its-airspace-before-mh-17-was-shot-down-180956921/?no-ist http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/dutch-safety-board-u...
  - erkkie 10y ago
    Thanks for the link, hit at 21000 feet just earlier does change the risk profile, but then again, it's hard for the Safety Board to come to any other conclusion post the facts.
  - anthonybsd 10y ago
    AN-26 was hit with a MANPADS which cannot target altitude at which civilian airliners fly. No one at the time thought that Russia was crazy enough to supply the rebels with BUKs.
    - andreasley 10y ago
      While the previous aircraft were downed by MANPADS or AA, the AN-26 in question was flying at an altitude only reachable by a SAM. At the bottom of this article [1] is a good overview of the shot-down aircraft over east Ukraine in 2014. [1] http://airheadsfly.com/2014/07/15/ukraine-latest-an-26-downing-more-advanced/ http://airheadsfly.com/2014/07/15/ukraine-latest-an-26-downi...
okket 10y ago
You need state sponsored military equipment to shoot down a 10km high flying airplane. You can't do this with your homebuilt rocket launcher. Up to this incident nobody was thinking that a state could be reckless enough to target civilian planes. Or lend their military equipment to people reckless enough. This has changed since then.
- eternalban 10y ago
  old news: Iran Air was shot down by US Navy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
mikeash 10y ago
And a bunch of other airlines are not diverting from Iraq because they disagree about the danger. At the time of the MH17 shootdown, some airlines were already diverting around eastern Ukraine, and many others were not. A reasonable assessment of the danger was made, and they decided that it was safe enough to continue flying there. That assessment turned out to be wrong, but that doesn't mean the it was "reckless."
- acz 10y ago
  What was the weather situation over this region on that day?
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I have no idea. Why do you ask?
abandonliberty 10y ago
Everything is a calculated risk. Your question is equivalent to asking a crashed driver how they could have been so reckless to drive that day. In hindsight, we tend to fall into the trap that the actual outcome was the correct/fated outcome. That we should have predicted it and known better. A weather forecast that posted a 5% chance of rain on a sunny day is not wrong. No matter if it rains or is sunny, the probability was still just 5%, but we often assume that if the forecast was "correct" it should be 0% or 100%. That's not how it works. A coin toss is always 50%, even after the fact.

lfx 10y ago

It is me or title looks very ambiguous? It sounds that missile was launched from Russian grounds. What a scary way to begin a morning.

supergirl 10y ago
Yeah. Title is technically correct but to make it so ambiguous it has to be intentional.
mikeash 10y ago
To me the title sounds like they just mean the missile was made in Russia, which was obvious from the start. (Even if the Ukranians had been responsible, their missiles were still made in Russia!) What they actually mean is that the missile was transported in from Russia shortly before the shootdown, and the launcher and remaining missiles went back to Russia not long after. But yes, the wording of the title is way too vague.
- piva00 10y ago
  The way I read it is that it's more than it was made in Russia, that was pretty obvious, the title implies that they were brought from the Russian stockpile rather than the Ukrainian one.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I'm not sure which title you're commenting on, but if it's the current HN title, note that it's been changed. It previously matched the title of the linked article, which is "MH17 missile 'came from Russia', Dutch-led investigators say."
zzzcpan 10y ago
It doesn't actually matter whether someone moved the missile a bit outside of Russia to fire it and took it back to Russia after the fact or did it from Russia.
dang 10y ago

jkot 10y ago

> was fired from to a field in territory controlled by Russian-backed rebels. > "...that came from the Russian Federation," chief Dutch police investigator Wilbert Paulissen said I think the wording 'territory of the Russian Federation' is not best choice. Report says it was fired from Ukraine, 10 km from border. It implies that donbas is already part of russia.

verytrivial 10y ago
I agree. These are two separate assertions: fired from location X, and "came" (originated or transported) from location Y but that could be read as "fired" too.
haberman 10y ago
They are saying that the missile originated from Russia, not that it was fired from Russia. The investigation concludes that the missile was transported from Russia to the rebel-controlled territory, where it was then fired.

woodcut 10y ago

The dutch led investigation has been a joke from the start, the previous report they released was submitted to Russia for screening prior to publication, they had them remove any references to this being an carried out by Russian soldiers operating in Eastern Ukraine as all evidence to date clearly shows.

woodcut 10y ago
--- EDIT being down voted for what? None of what i said is remotely controversial.

readhn 10y ago

If there is solid evidence and especially if there are multiple witnesses then this should be taken to court! Im not sure who the defendant should be on the Russian side, the ministry of defense?

okket 10y ago
> If there is solid evidence and especially if there are multiple witnesses then this should be taken to court! Which court?
- readhn 10y ago
  that's a question for lawyers out there. im sure there are precedents in our history. Track down who gave the order and sue them! Does not matter who it is - P. or his buddies. Otherwise what is the point of this "investigation"?
  - ahoka 10y ago
    There are precedents: they are called world wars.
    - readhn 10y ago
      haha sure. no one is going to world war III over this! I hope you realize this. What needs to happen is proper legal process and some heads need to roll at the Russian ministry of defense.
- ivan_gammel 10y ago
  National courts first, then European Court of Human Rights if they will not win in national courts. Based on this report relatives of victims can sue in ECHR all involved parties, including both Russian Federation (for providing military equipment to separatists) and Ukraine (for not closing air space for civil flights).
  - deleted 10y ago

chvid 10y ago

The new bit I suppose is this: "They also narrowed down the area it was fired from to a field in territory controlled by Russian-backed rebels." Little doubt has there been that the weapon used was made in Russia.

mikeash 10y ago
Also that the missile was transported from Russia shortly before the shootdown, and the launcher and remaining missiles were transported back to Russia. They mean "came from" in a more specific manner than just that it was made there.
- kobeya 10y ago
  That was from social media images that are not news. It was reported on at the time. I'm not sure what's new here other than a two years too late rubber stamp of eyewitness reports.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    What's new is that the statement is now based on a great deal of hard evidence and investigation, rather than a couple of pictures and some internet commentators.

acqq 10y ago

In the indirectly related story (MH), the story of MH370 is also clearer: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/28/mh370-pilot-flight-simulator-plot-course-southern-indian-ocean https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/28/mh370-pilot-fl... http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/mh370-disappearance-that-fuselage-is-in-one-piece-says-expert-a-1107149.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/mh370-disappearanc...

nikolay 10y ago

What a purposely misleading title - it makes you think it was fired from Russia as today people just read the titles! BBC just lost all its credibility for servicing geopolitical agendas!

ken47 10y ago

News like this has nothing to do with startups or the tech scene. Or am I missing something here?

DenisM 10y ago
HN guidelines list appropriate content as ~ "anything of interest to hackers". If you think this article detracts from the site rather than enrich it, use the "flag" option.

nikolay 10y ago

Well the US kills tens of civilians (like in the recent bombings of the "coalition") with drones or bombers - there's nothing in the headlines with such rhetoric, and it's all justified and civilized. When our "friends" the Saudis and the Qatari kill thousands in Yemen - it's fine. When Turkey violates a sovereign nation and performs a military operation in Syria - it's fine. When Kiev kills thousands of people in East Ukraine, when they shell orphanages, schools, malls, residential areas - it's all just and okay. This hypocrisy is sickening! Why would the Russia and pro-Russian rebels down an airplane that will do nothing but hurt their agenda?! And how can an airplane chose to fly above areas with an ongoing military conflict?!

Dolores12 10y ago
cui bono

vladimir-y 10y ago

I wonder why US and Ukraine still not made public a photos taken by space satellites?

lb1lf 10y ago
Oh, I can think of a couple of reasons: a) Relevant coverage does not exist. (I find it unlikely that full real-time coverage of the globe is available.) b) Coverage exists, but is kept secret so as not to disclose surveillance capabilities.
- vladimir-y 10y ago
  > Relevant coverage does not exist. Doesn't sound like a possible a reason for me. Conflict in the region has existed for some time, so place for photo cameras focusing was well known. > is kept secret so as not to disclose surveillance capabilities. It's not a news that we are being watched, so this reason also doesn't sound reasonable for me. Any other reason? May they have something to hide? As I understood many of the so called evidences are based on the youtube movies taken by the cell phones by random people. So that should not be a problem to fake such kind of evidences. Also treating google earth photos like an evidence sounds funny for me.
  - lb1lf 10y ago
    a) You cannot get high-resolution imagery from geostationary satellites. It comes from low earth orbit spacecraft. These, by the very nature of their orbit, cannot remain fixed over one place; they move relative to the ground below and once past it, will not be back until they've completed an orbit. This, then, means that someone will have to prioritize what areas to investigate and at what times; satellite orbits can be changed, but that is _extremely_ costly, as you need to expend fuel - and there's no simple way to refuel; spend it all, and you need to launch another satellite. So - maybe the US found that something other than Russian-backed militias destabilizing Ukraine warranted their attention. Say, IS or al-Qaeda - and focussed their attention elsewhere. b) It is not news that you are being watched. It may, however, be news when a satellite is watching; perhaps the US piggybacks surveillance gear on commercial satellites, for instance - they couldn't reveal satellite imagery without anybody and his dog being able to figure out which satellite took the photo. Or - the quality of the photos may be much better than anticipated. Or, for that matter - maybe the US doesn't want to stick this to Russia as hard as they could; perhaps they do not want to find out what the world community would do once it is proven beyond any doubt that Russia gambled that they could destabilize Ukraine at no cost to themselves, only to find that the rebels and their -ahem- advisors of undisclosed origin promptly escalated the conflict by committing mass murder by incompetence, ignorance or both. As for your last point, I don't quite catch it. Is the lack of obviously faked 'evidence' evidence that someone is having something to hide?

Dolores12 10y ago

Why is it here? The other day US have killed another 62 Syrians and over hundred wounded by mistake. Still no news here about it. https://www.rt.com/news/359678-us-strikes-syrian-army/ https://www.rt.com/news/359678-us-strikes-syrian-army/

Const-me 10y ago

There’s a video in English, uploaded to YouTube by the Netherlands’ public prosecution office: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf6gJ8NDhYA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf6gJ8NDhYA The video summarizes available evidence answering the question why we sure what happened.

kmerroll 10y ago

To cut to the chase, the study confirms what was fairly obvious: - Yes, a Russian missile shot down a commercial aircraft. - Yes, Ukrainian separatists (Russian supported) controlled the area. So what's the outcome? Putin could care less and doesn't answer to any authority that can apply restraint or collect damages. So what does this change?

nazgob 10y ago
Families of victims can sue. Like with Yukos case, foreign Russian assets can be arrested to pay for damages. It will probably take many, many years and maybe one of future Russian governments will decide that it is better to close that case. There where so many victims that its almost certain that some families will keep pushing this case forever.

andreasley 10y ago

The official website of the "Openbaar Ministerie" (Dutch Public Prosecution Service) contains a press release, including some animations and intercepted calls [1] as well as a page with documents from the presentation [2]. [1] https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-crash/@96068/jit-flight-mh17-shot/ https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-crash/@96068/jit-flight-m... [2] https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-vliegramp/presentaties/presentation-joint/ https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-vliegramp/presentaties/pr...

Dolores12 10y ago