MH17 19 months later: what do we know

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

This post provides an overview of important pieces of what could be parts of the complete MH17 puzzle. Many many questions are still unanswered 19 months after the shot down.

I encourage you to use the comments to express your opinion about what could have happened.


Months before July 17 

  1. Ukraine President Yanukovich impeached in February 2014  (Source)
  2. Putin annexed Crimea (March 2o14)
  3. Separatists supported with Russian equipment and Russian military leaders revolted in Eastern Ukraine. (Wikipedia)
  4. Oligarchs and Ukraine politicians have warm connections with the United States.
  5. Euromaidan is an important piece of the puzzle
  6. Ukraine politicians are corrupt. Ukraine is more corrupt than Russia
  7. Ukraine does not have a regular army like in Western countries. There are extreme rightwing armies which has mercenary soldiers from many countries. These are not controlled by the Ministry of Defense in Kiev but rather by oligarches like  Kolomoyskyi which has ties to Israel.


  1. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission. This is an alternative to the ICC. The court convicted Israel , US President Bush and UK PM Blair.
  2. Malaysia has friendly ties with Russia



  1. US and Ukraine pushed EU to sanctions just before July 17 (source)

Nasty surprise announced at July 8

  1. Ukraine threatens rebels with ‘nasty surprise’ in new push (Reuters)


  1. Ukraine ATC organization UkSATSE failed to close the airspace over Eastern Ukraine. Despite the fact there were many indications of heavy weapons. Despite multiple shot downs of military aircraft. UkSATSE also did not mention war activities in NOTAMS. UkSATSE also did not report to Ukraine that one of the primary radar stations was destroyed. (source)


  1. There were no American citizen on board of MH17
  2. There was one person holding a dual US/Dutch passport

At shot down

  1. A few minutes before the shot down, the transponder of MH17 started to sent out unreliable data according to . This has not been reported by the DSB. (Avherald)


  1. Separatists nor Russia did not have a motive to shot down a passenger aircraft. Could it be a mistake?
  2. Ukraine had a motive to shot down a passenger aircraft deliberately and blame Russia for it (false flag). A second motive is military. Ukraine forces used the crash to start an offensive trying to isolate Donetsk.
  3. Sanctions against Russa were increased due to MH17 and the annexation of Crimea

First weeks after July 17

  1. US embassy Kiev released an impression showing the trajectory of the BUK missile on Facebook. US Government never released an official document (
  2. US intelligence agency did not release an Intelligence Assessment of the cause of shot down. Instead a Goverment Assessment was released (Consortiumnews)
  3. Russia made false claims about the route of MH17 and location of BUK seen missing a missile  (source)
  4. Ukraine started an offensive towards the crash site around July 27 just after the bodies were recovered (source)
  5. At July 17 Israel started a ground offensive in Gaza (Wikipedia)


  1. Ukraine, the Netherlands, Belgium and Australia started a Joint  Investigation Team.
  2. Malaysia was initially not part of the JIT but joined later
  3. Each JIT member has Veto power which means they can decide to withhold the release of information during the JIT agreement.
  4. The JIT agreement is recently extended to October 2016

Who controlled the area 

  1. Maps showing separatist controlled area does not exclude that Ukraine army entered separatists controlled area. There is a video showing Ukraine convoy driving near crash site at July 28 (source)


  1. The United States did not release in public any satellite photos nor SBIR intel.  Despite the fact that many commercial satellites operated above Eastern Ukraine at July 17. (source)


  1. Russia provided a video recording showing blend of primary and secondary radar
  2. Ukraine claimed their primary radar stations of civil ATC were in maintenance. Later Ukraine ambassador stated one of the radar stations was destroyed. The other was in maintenance. (source)
  3. Ukraine claimed their primary radar for military air traffic control was switched off as no military flights were planned.
  4. Ukraine military and civil air traffic control is operated by the same organization UkSATSE
  5. One of the two primary radar station was destroyed at June 16 2014. DSB did not mention this fact in the final report

Hard evidence

  1. United States did not provide any hard, irrefutable evidence which indicated who is responsible for downing

(Social) media

  1. Bellingcat presents reports suggesting a Russian BUK was seen in Donetsk driving East to Snizhne
  2. Bellingcat makes reports based on assumptions and logic instead of hard evidence (source)
  3. Elit Higgins, founder of Bellingcat, is fellow of Atlantic Council. Atlantic Council, based in the US, can be seen as a marketing agency for NATO.
  4. The Bellingcat website started at July 15, 2014. Two days before the shot down of MH17
  5. A photo of a smoke plume which could be the BUK launch was released
  6. This report shows many doubts about the narrative of Bellingcat (source)
  7. A BUK on trailer missing one missile took a very unlogical route. Video likely to be faked for many reasons. (source)
  8. Western regular media make the mistake of linking Russia media to the Russian government. When Novaya Gazeta, a newspaper financed by George Soros (anti-Putin) writes that MH17 was shot down by a BUK, this is not a statement of the Russian government.
  9. There is a lot of misleading of public opinion by Western press like NOS, Reuters, CNN and BBC (source)

Eyewitness of fighter jets 

  1. There are many eyewitness who state they saw one or more aircraft (source)
  2. DSB did not talk to eyewitness on the ground despite the recommendation in Annex 13 of ICAO to do so


  1. A Dutch military intelligence service report states they did not have any information on the presence of a Russian BUK in Eastern Ukraine at July 17. (source)
  2. A BUK TELAR is able to shot down a target in autonomous mode
  3. the BUK missile has a semi-active radar homing radar which means the missile is guided from the BUK TELAR radar or other ground based radar to its target (Wikipedia)
  4. This makes it unlikely the missile retarget like what happened with the Siberia Airlines Tu154 shotdown. Most likely MH17 was the target of the BUK crew (knowing it was a passengerplan or believing it was a military aircraft like IL76)
  5. Only two bow-tie shaped fragments were found in bodies of the cockpit crew. (DSB report)
  6. DSB report is not clear on what they concluded about the bow-tie shaped fragment found by Jeroen Akkermans of RTL Nieuws.
  7. Finland got rid of the BUK system as the country was afraid it had backdoors preventing defense against Russian aircraft (source)


  1. Dutch prosecutor has a suspicion on murder. This makes it more likely the BUK crew knew it was targeting a civil aircraft
  2. The JIT agreement between the Netherlands and Ukraine has been extended to October 2016

Dutch Safety Board

  1. Concluded MH17 was shot down by a BUK warhead  9N314M on missile type 9M38M series
  2. Did not allow press to ask questions after the presentation of the final report at October 13 2015
  3. Did not talk to air traffic controller
  4. Did not report that one radar station was destroyed in June 16, 2014
  5. DSB is by law prohibited to provide more information than what has been document in the final report
  6. Ukraine should have closed its airspace as there were enough indications for heavt weapons able to hit passenger aircraft
  7. Final report has many flaws  (source)
  8. Russia Rosaviatsiya sent two letters to DSB with criticism on the DSB investigation


  1. Dutch government refuses to complain at ICAO, Russia and Ukraine about the two states not handing over primary radar. The reason is that DSB states extra radar recordings are not required. The prosecutor states extra radar is not required
  2. Dutch government blocks information, blocks debates on radar recordings,   and so on and so on. (source)



There are a couple scenario’s possible. If it turns out that the evidence posted on social media is fake, MH17 is likely to be a false flag operation

  1. A Russian BUK TELAR shot down MH17 by mistake believing it was a military aircraft
  2. A Russian BUK TELAR shot down MH17 but targeted a military jet operating at a lower altitude. The guidance of the missile was compromised. An Ukraine radar station guided the missile to MH17
  3. An Ukraine BUK Telar entered the area west of Saur Moglia and deliberately shot down MH17 in a false flag operation.
  4. An air to air missile. DSB did not rule out all types of air to air missile. The report stated that DSB investigated air to air missiles commonly used in the region. DSB found some pieces of a BUK missile. A parts of paint of a BUK missile
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

56 Comments on MH17 19 months later: what do we know

  1. Liane Theuer // February 14, 2016 at 5:49 pm // Reply

    Marcel, you start your historical review with the annexation of the Crimea.
    However, I wish to protest strongly!

    To understand the events in Ukraine, you have to start no later than with the illegal removal of Yanukovych.
    Even Poroshenko has called this illegal !
    He has asked the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to declare the law to which the institutional putsch against the former president in February last year was legitimized, unconstitutional :

    “I ask the court to confirm that the law on the removal of Viktor Yanukovych as the president is unconstitutional.”

    According to Poroshenko the impeachment of former President, due to the statutory protection of the president title, was unconstitutional. He also stressed that the Ukrainian parliament in February 2014 when it approved this law, undermined the Constitution.

    Everything that happened after goes back to the coup in Kiev !

    • Liane you are right! I just added this important event.

    • President Yanukovych was never really impeached. That would have required a lengthy procedure as described in the Ukrainian constitution.

      The reason given for removing him from office was that he had effectively removed himself by fleeing the capital. The Ukrainian parliament declared that he withdrew from performing his constitutional duties. That ignores the fact that he had only been gone for one day, was fleeing from violent opponents, and had stated that he was still the president and did not intend to resign.

      The law that Poroshenko considered unconstitutional was not really about Yanukovych’s original removal from office. It was passed the following year with the aim of stripping Yanukovych of his title as President.

      Poroshenko’s comments on that law confirmed that Yanukovych was not impeached, when he said that the Constitution of Ukraine “said that the title of President of Ukraine is protected by law and retained for life, unless the president of Ukraine in question has undergone the procedure of impeachment.”

  2. Typo: 4th chapter from the bottom should be Prosecution (not Prosection).
    I wanted to complain about the same as Liane did before me, but since it’s corrected I won’t insist, even though Crimea was not an annexation, but a secession, and the initiative belonged to Crimeans, not Putin.

  3. Motive 1 is confusing and should be:

    Separatists nor Russia did have a motive to shot down a passenger aircraft.


    Separatists and Russia did not have a motive to shot down a passenger aircraft.

    To Scenario #4 I’d like to add:

    Because of the small evidence of bow-tie shrapnel, it’s not even sure it was a BUK at all. The DSB did not provide enough evidence to rule out an air-to-air missile.

  4. I would argue that this outline as presented, is too narrow in scope for somebody discovering the situation for the first time. It only adds more confusion for them as opposed to giving accurate and concrete leads needed to investigate this tragedy in detail. My opinion is that RT (Russia-Today), while many believe it to be biased, presented an excellent documentary containing highly relevant interviews of family members who lost their loved ones that day. They believe the facts are being hidden just as their requests to view their loved ones remains were. One open autopsy (The Pilots) could have very easily proven the innocence of the Ukrainians.

    Watch it here:

    In a case of war and politics, it is said that when a lie works better then the truth, always go with the lie.

  5. You claimed that the Russians lied about the location of the Buk with the missing Missile. They most likely didn’t. Some times, perhaps most times, information is simply inaccurate, not a deliberately fake. In this case the Russians knew that the location originally given by the Ukrainians i.e. Krasnodon was wrong. As I recall, the Russians got their information from the internet, not always the most reliable source. In fact the, Ukrainians had to admit that the video had be taken in Luhansk city, they even gave the correct coordinates and the time. The Ukranians made many statements at that time, with many inconsistencies. It is hard to believe that it only were genuine mistakes, for example the sound recordings blaming the Cossacks of Chernukhino. But in general you should be careful with the words ‘liar’, ‘fake’ and the like, unless you’ve got actually proof.
    You also missed maybe the most likely scenario: The Buk was Ukranian, it was captured by the separatists in June 2014 and, contrary to what the Ukrainians said, not beyond repair. You have three possibilities. First the plane was deliberately brought down, but you are right, unless they are completely crazy, they have motive. Second, they thought it was military plane. Third, there was a military plane. The Buk was locked on to a military plane, but lost its lock after evasive maneuvers (loosing the lock is the whole point of these maneuvers. so I don’t agree with you) and locked on to a different target MH17. You mentioned the downing of Tu 154. After this incident, exercises with Buks where on a hold for seven years. You should also consider a Buk m1 is not a state of the art weapon, and it is not certain that all systems are functioning properly. A modern warplane is far from without a chance against a Buk m1.
    Your statement that DSB Concluded MH17 was shot down by a BUK warhead 9N314M on missile type 9M38M series is wrong. They claimed it was 9M38 series. The problem with that: there is no 9M38 series. The Russians and the Ukrainians couldn’t agree about the missile type, so the DSB decided to call it 9M38 series. In fact 9M38M1 is an upgrade from the 9M38, with different specifications. At this crucial point DSB is extremely sloppy, it even mixed up the simulations from Almaz Antey.

    • You are absolutely right about the Russian claim of the Buk video being filmed in Krasnoarmeysk. There is an internet law (it even has a name, though I forgot it): If you want to know the right answer, don’t ask the question; post the wrong answer and someone is going to correct you.

      And that’s exactly what they did: the Russian defense ministry knew of course that this could not have been one of their missile systems crossing back across the border, but they were not sure about the location. And immediately upon hearing that the Russians alleged where the video was taken, uncle Bellingcat geolocated the stuss out of it to prove that it was shot in Lugansk, and the Russians are “lying through their teeth”. Thereby also proving that the Krasnodon location given by Kiev was a lie, too. Useful idiot…

    • >The Russians and the Ukrainians couldn’t agree about the missile type, so the DSB decided to call it 9M38 series.

      There can be no two opinions as to what type of missile has bow tie shaped fragments. If you’re unsure then you haven’t done your fact finding right.

      I like the following theory as to why they decided to call it 9m38-series. The more advanced (bow tie) missile version has the delayed detonation, which (among other facts) does not fit the Snezhzhnoe launch location. Therefore they decided to “broaden” their missile type designation into the fictional territory to include the older trigger type, which may not have the delay. This way they can have a way out if someone brings out the inconsistency – just say the rebels reassembled the missile from different parts (old trigger + new warhead).

      There’s a lot more can be said on the subject.

      • You are talking about the war head, 9m38 is the designation of the missile. According to the Russians the older missile cannot be combined with 9n314m warhead unless you make some modifications, that are not allowed in Russia. DSB should have checked this, because this might have been important evidence.
        It is possible that the avherald information is a simple typing error. He probably should have written: at 13.20:18 (Appendix I DSB report). Unless you have other evidence, you better remove this.

        • The missile manufacturer has exclusive right to define designations. If you are not happy with those definitions use your own (like NATO does), but just don’t redefine the existing ones.

          According to the missile manufacturer the bow tie warhead 9N314M is only installed on the 9M38M1 missile. Therefore if the DSB found bow ties then they should have said that the missile was 9M38M1 or 9M38 with 9N314M warhead.

          Sorry, even if Almaz-Antey is lying somewhere, you should still stick to their terminology as they are the manufacturer.

          I am leaving aside the issue that the bow ties were likely planted anyway.

          • Hector Reban // February 19, 2016 at 8:43 am //

            Its absolutely unbelievable DSB didn’t order metallurgical tests to confirm if all metalparts presumably coming form the warhead (recognizable bow-ties, cubics and others) were of the same iron ore batch.

            They claim a single warhead could consist of unalloyed steel parts from multiple batches, notwithstanding the advise of the Russians to investigate this.

            Furthermore, TNO mentions this explictely in their recommendations (p. 24, appendix Y) that metallurgical characterisation of the metal fragments was advisable.

            Strangely enough they add the words “if necessary” to the need to do among others this follow up investigations, which makes one wonder under what circumstances it would be advisable to NOT follow up.

            So both TNO and Rosavatsia insist in this but DSB puts it aside. That says something about their appraoch.

          • I asked Marjolein van Asselt (boardmember DSB) personally why DSB did not metallurgical test to determine which type of warhead was used. She said the AA stated that this does not make sense as various manufacturers were used to construct warheads. They use metal from various sources.
            It sounded like a strange excuse to me.

          • Hector Reban // February 19, 2016 at 9:12 am //

            That is what the DSB answered the Russians, mentioned in appendix V.

            But we all know how causality works and that a 1970’s/80’s older type warhead cannot consist of newer iron ore batches.

          • Liane Theuer // February 19, 2016 at 9:43 am //

            Hector, about the “multiple batches“ :
            We know the warhead (if 9N314M) has two layers.
            Layer one has big cubes.
            Layer two has small cubes and bow-ties.
            Each layer should come from the same batch, because the fragments must match exactly and they will certainly be produced in one operation.
            So, IF two different batches, then only for a complete layer.
            That means : ALL big cubes should consist of the same batch of unalloyed steel.
            ALL small cubes and bow-ties should consist of the same batch of unalloyed steel, too.

            My guess is that exactly the two bow-ties are from a different batch.
            But that of course the DSB does not want to mention as it would crash down the allegation “9N314M warhead”.
            And it would point out that the two bow-ties were foisted to the DSB.
            If for example the big cubes are from different batches that would mean there were two missiles.
            That is the only logical explanation for me.

          • To me it seems that the metal the bowties are made of should be stronger/harder than plain iron. The warhead design specs out the aluminium penetratuon depth of around 26 mm. As most (96% according to AA) bowtie fragments survive the collisions, it seems that they should be reasonably strong not to brake at the central narrow point. But these are just thoughts; an expert is needed for a better judgement.

            The DSB had to do the metallurgical analysis already to assess their strength, if the above point makes sense.

            However, I don’t think that the lack of the metallurgical analysis serves as a good indication of report’s rigging because the DSB has a sort of plausible deniability excuse. Suppose they have done the analysis, what’s next? Should they rely on data supplied by AA to determine the batch origin? What if AA fabricates this data? That would place the investigation into a very inconvenient position.

            As to the non-Buk origin of those few bowtie fragments. I don’t think we should dig here either for the reason that Ukraine could trivially plant genuine Buk fragments (as I wrote behore, even an average guy after some research could have picked such fragments on a military test field (eg Chauda) and tossed them over onto the train). It’s a much higher chance that SBU had planted genuine fragments than a random bits of metal looking like bowties were found.

            However, there are much more solid indications of the rigging in the report. The following points cannot be attacked easily:

            1.The detonation point was moved away almost by a factor of three. There is a good chance that the DSB has put a major effort to make this look believable, but still failed. Because how could you argue these:
            ? There must be a reason why the DSB had to move the detonation point away from the right position. We should ponder about this more.

            2. No right hand side exit holes on Mh17. AA had counted a couple of dozens in their test. 777 should have had even more holes as IL86 cabin has more metal in it and the dynamic explosion would give the fragments a bit higher speed (+6%).

            3. No bowtie shaped holes have been found. Note that while Ukraine could have easily sneaked in genuine bowtie fragments from a different explosion, Ukraine could not have changed the photographs in circulation, which don’t show any bowtie shaped holes. Many photographs have been captured very soon after the event when a pro-Kremlin legend, if any, couldn’t have yet been formed.

            Marcel, please consider adding a ‘DSB report flaws’ category to your site. You’ve already done several posts that nicely falls into it.

          • Something else. AA should conduct another field test if they want to make a killer point. They should make a warhead of half size and half number of fragments. Place it in their calculated position (1.6 metres away = 3x DSB distance) and orientation. Explode and report on the close match of the observed damage to that of on Mh17. Almaz-Antey I hope you read this.

            Spoiler alert: the above parameters match those of an R27 aam (with fragmentation-based warhead) that had been in production in Kiev factory some 20 years ago and possibly later.

          • Hector Reban // February 20, 2016 at 8:14 am //

            Eugene: Of course the warhead consists of something harder than iron, namely steel, which is made from iron adding carbon to it.

            Perhaps the reports of the Russian mining companies and AA could have been rigged, but that argument could be invoked against all information. Its true the DSB has made a clear case of avoiding everything the Russians could supply, but its just this – also on the metallurgical topic – that merits criticism.

            Of course, that there are also many other maybe more important points of criticism doesn’t mean we shouldn’t address this one.

            There is a lot the DSB could have found out by doing metallurgica research. It seems they have neglected to do this because, as you clearly show, the results would rely on trust in Russian sources.

          • Imagine crime investigators not matching the bullet and the gun found on a crime sceme. You’d immediately suspect the investigators are involved in something fishy, wouldn’t you?

            Yes, the DSB should have done the metallurgical analysis only because it’s a right thing to do (and a pretty easy thing to do).

            Whether the DSB haven’t done it for the reason I have outlined in my previous post or because they knew that the analysis could show the Ukrainian origin of the bowties, we don’t know. Recent posts by Marcel exposed the DSB in that they seemed to know very well where not to look:
            -no need to talk to the air trafic controller
            -no need to talk to eye witnesses
            -primary radar data is not needed anymore

      • Denis Cashcov // February 17, 2016 at 5:01 am // Reply

        Eugene: [There can be no two opinions as to what type of missile has bow tie shaped fragments. If you’re unsure then you haven’t done your fact finding right.]

        The bow tie fragments were the wrong size. The Russians pointed that out.What type of missile has bowtie fragments that size?

      • Denis Cashcov // February 17, 2016 at 5:18 am // Reply

        Originally one of the bow tie fragments was said to weigh 5.5 grams. Then this changed to 6.1 grams. But if the fragment was from the missile they claim it should weigh at least 7.2 grams.

    • > [Rob]: You also missed maybe the most likely scenario: The Buk was Ukranian, it was captured by the separatists in June 2014

      There are at least a couple of problems with this theory: There is not a single photo or video of any captured Buks. Most known Buk materials appeared within hours after MH17 was shot down. Then there is no proof that Buk was ever used to shoot down any Ukrainian planes. And finally, the PM photos apparently show a Russian Buk. By your logic (if you say it’s captured Ukrainian Buk), you consider the PM phoptos photoshoped or at least photoshopped to show Russian Buk? If so, why then the PM photo is present on the JIT’s page and their video?

      Also, with the existence of websites, such as flightradar24, showing current positions of the passenger jets to anyone with the internet, how exactly separatists would not be aware that it is a passenger jet there, too? With this in mind, the scenario of them seeing a plane and confusing it with a military plane because of some “tip off” makes it not very likely.

      • On the contrary, there is evidence for this scenario. For Example the Nayda video from the 19th. Nayda tries to convince the audience that the Russian had planned it long before. He uses two articles from Itar-Tass. One from 29-6-2014 and one from 17-7-2014. Nayda says (via official interpreter: “they announced that separatists on the 29e of June got access to a Buk land-air missile systems. On the 17 of July this year, Itar Tass tells something different: they say terrorist don’t have access and they don’t have such Buk systems.” I checked the originals from Itar-Tass. The first article refers to a claim made by the separatists that they overran an air defense base in Donetsk and they also claimed, they are now in possession of a Buk. Itar-Tass made perfectly clear, the information was unconfirmed. Actually, the 29e, the Ukrainians admitted, the separatist had taken this airbase, but they denied the loss of any usable Buk. At the end of the press briefing, he even had to admit, the separatists were talking about a Ukrainian Buk m1. According to him, this Buk was unusable. Of course this made his original statement that the Russians knew before and even planned it, complete bogus.
        JIT is perfectly clear: all they presented was another scenario, which means it can also proven wrong. The SBU has provided lots of information, often conflicting, sometimes a clear fake. You don’t have to use Photoshop to create fakes. A different time or place will do the trick as well.
        You mentioned Flightradar24. I use FlightAware. They gave a completely wrong position for M17, which made many believe that the Ukrainians had changed the course of MH17 on purpose. This site even claimed that RT Russia was lying when showed the information from FlightAware, although others like The Telegraph and the Daily Mail made the same mistake.

        • Buran:

          “There is not a single photo or video of any captured Buks.”

          Sure there is. BUK 322 at Base A-0194, sitting prepped for transport with its guard rails removed and hung behind the unit.


          “Actually, the 29e, the Ukrainians admitted, the separatist had taken this airbase, but they denied the loss of any usable Buk.”

          It would be more correct to say that they denied that any BUK’s lost were usable, which I feel is a subtle difference. For example in this article they admit that they left behind three BUK’s which they claim were disabled and that Base A-0194 was overrun by the “terrorists”, and so this was not a location with Ukrainian BUK’s in active deployment.

          Так, подделкой оказался “спутниковый снимок” генштаба РФ якобы от 14 июля с.г. отдельного радиотехнического батальона в/ч А-0194 в районе поселка Тепличное Луганской обл.:

          “Россияне утверждают что якобы на этом снимке расположены несколько пусковых установок “Бук М 1″. Вместе с тем на снимках, которые есть в пользовании СБУ, на 16 июля с.г. (а дальше будет продемонстрирован и снимок от 17 июля с.г.) заметны просто 3 единицы военной техники, которые в течение двух суток не изменили место своего расположения, а на территории военной части и вблизи нее отмечаются последствия артиллерийского обстрела”, – сообщил В.Найда.

          Контрразведчик также заявил, что на вооружении указанного батальона, который был выведен под обстрелом террористов в Харьковскую область, не было активных средств поражения типа ЗРК “Бук”. “Батальон выводил технику и личный состав под обстрелом террористов. А та техника, которая была повреждена и которая осталась в месте дислокации – она изображена на российских фотографиях так, якобы там дислоцированы “Буки”, – сообщил В.Найда.

          “На момент террористического акта территория части находилась под контролем пророссийских террористических организаций. Поэтому утверждения о том, что на этой территории стояли украинские “Буки”, являются полностью сфальсифицированными”, – прибавил он.

          It is very interesting that all focus on June 29 and later was on Base A-1402, which was the headquarters unit of the 156th Regiment and not a normal place of deployment, and not on Base A-1428 and especially not on Base A-0194, which were, and which had no less than six BUK’s available

          • Andrew, perhaps you can check the link you gave to Buran. This link leads to a picture of a Buk in Yuvileine.

          • Rob:

            Its not in Yuviliene despite what the link says. It is on base A-0194 circa May or June around when the base was seized. The wire fence and military vehicle in the background to the upper right (northeast) are clearly visible on Google Earth for June 5, 2014.

            See here: 48°36’36.18″N, 39°13’54.96″E

            The launch shoe is clearly turned the same way, and its the correct unit number. The rebels seized the base on June 3. By June 30, they had figured out how to turn on the BUK and rotate the launch shoe. The BUK mysteriously vanishes after July 16.

          • Andrew, on July 16 Colonel Cassad wrote: “Strengthening of the air defense of the LPR, which allowed to lower the importance of enemy aviation significantly. The destruction of the radar station in April-May wasn’t in vain. The appearance of a combat-ready “Buk” is a significant aid.” Might this be your missing Buk?

          • Rob:

            “The appearance of a combat-ready “Buk” is a significant aid.” Might this be your missing Buk?”

            I don’t know. On the one hand, the Digital Globe imagery seems to show the BUK still sitting unused at A-0194. On the other hand, I respect the credibility of Colonel Cassad. He has not, for example, gone back post MH-17 and censored this article.

            However there is also this comment on VKontakte Strelkov-Info concerning Base A-1402 and A-1428

            Vkontakte Summary of the Militia of Novorossiya – July 4, 2014, 17:02 pm

            Сводки от ополчения Новороссии
            04.07.2014 Обзор боевой ситуации от ополчения.

            16:20 (МСК) Военная часть, возле которой был убит российский журналист при обстреле автобуса с солдатскими матерями, взятая ночью ополчением, полностью находится под контролем ДНР. В части есть неплохие средства ПВО в рабочем состоянии.

            In short, this states that in the military portion of base A-1402, which is base A-1428, is under the control of the DNR since night time and that “there is decent air-defense equipment in working order.”

      • 156th Air Defense Regiment
        The same Regiment was mentioned by a source from one of the Ukrainian defense departments :

        “On July 17 the commanding officer of 156th Anti-Aircraft Regiment was instructed to conduct a training exercise of ground troops stationed near Donetsk, which involved deploying the troops, and carrying out a routine tracking and destroying of targets with the Buk-M1 missile,” the source said.
        The source added that the actual launch of the rockets was not intended.
        Two Sukhoi Su-25 combat aircraft on a reconnaissance mission participated in the exercise.“

        Base A-1402 is south of the Donetsk Airport.
        Coordinates: 48° 3’36.76″N, 37°44’37.38″E
        The Ukrainian 156th Anti-Aircraft Artillery Regiment retain control of the base A-1428 north of Donetsk Airport and apparently moved their active equipment north to there. This base is just south of the M04 and is 2km north of Spartak and 2 km east of Opytne, near Avdiivka.
        Coordinates: 48° 5’53.44″N, 37°45’14.41″E
        The two bases are separated by just 4km.

        Google Translate from a VK forum :
        Nikolay Timofeev :
        I dare to ask a question. Lord say came under the control of the militia, so here is a question for those who have served: that there is a technique in which state?
        Thank you in advance
        Anna Tikhonova :
        In Donetsk, our special forces soldiers of the army of the Donetsk People’s Republic captured the garrison missile forces, anti-aircraft missile defense regiment number A-1402.
        On arms of the cost of air defense systems of medium and long range.
        Militias have counted at least 20 SAM “Buk” and mobile radar “Dome” in the amount of 9 pieces.
        The press service of the Interior Ministry of Ukraine in Donetsk region confirmed this information: “In Donetsk, the representatives of the” DNR “captured military part number A-1402.”
        Recall that the Slavic and Donetsk share 113 km. Depending on the modification 9S18 M1 “Dome” radar can detect targets at a distance up to 150 km, and the working range of defeats the purpose of SAM “Buk” is 20 km away.
        But Anna Tikhonova added an old BUK photo.

        Look at this weapon posted by soldiers 156th Anti-Aircraft Artillery Regiment. Looks like S-200 long-range SAM :

  6. Maybe you should also put in a section “Eye witnesses for a BUK launch or BUK smoke trail”?

  7. Of course list can go into the past forever but it might be important to understand how the dumbest policy of Merkel and Barroso actually created the problem out of nothing. Here is a link that roughly summarises the last weeks before Maidan madness.

  8. Liane Theuer // February 16, 2016 at 9:31 pm // Reply

    U.S – German – Dutch intelligence
    Three intelligence services – three different conclusions.
    But I´m quite sure that they looked at the same satellite imagery.

    1) U.S. intelligence
    There was never an offical Intelligence Assessment on MH17 – the mechanism used in the past to present significant findings.
    The “Government Assessment” supported the contention that the likely perpetrators were separatists. Like Kerry’s presentations on the Sunday talk shows of July 20, 2014 : “We picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar.”

    On July 20/2014 Robert Parry has reported on the statement of an anonymous source :
    „U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.The source said CIA analysts were still not ruling out the possibility that the troops were actually eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms but the initial assessment was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers. There also was the suggestion that the soldiers involved were undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site.“

    On July 22/2014 National Intelligence Director James Clapper authorized a background briefing including some sketchy talking points in a very short “Government Assessment” for selected mainstream journalists. Some quotes :

    The Los Angeles Times :
    „U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems.“
    The Guardian (not invited to the briefing) :
    „Some of the evidence provided by US intelligence – whose fiscal 2013 budget was $68bn – included Facebook posts.“

    The Telegraph :
    „The intelligence officials were cautious in their assessment, noting that while the Russians have been arming separatists in eastern Ukraine, the U.S. had no direct evidence that the missile used to shoot down the passenger jet came from Russia. The plane was likely shot down by an SA-11 surface-to-air missile fired by Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, the intelligence officials said. But the officials said they did not know who fired the missile or whether any Russian operatives were present at the missile launch. In terms of who fired the missile, “we don’t know a name, we don’t know a rank and we’re not even 100 percent sure of a nationality,” one official said.
    The officials made clear they were relying in part on social media postings and videos made public in recent days by the Ukrainian government, even though they have not been able to authenticate all of it. For example, they cited a video of a missile launcher said to have been crossing the Russian border after the launch, appearing to be missing a missile. But later, under questioning, the officials acknowledged they had not yet verified that the video was exactly what it purported to be.
    From satellites, sensors and other intelligence gathering, officials said, they know where the missile originated – in separatist-held territory – and what its flight path was. But if they possess satellite or other imagery of the missile being fired, they did not release it Tuesday.“

    Foreign Policy :
    „U.S. intelligence analysts are now persuaded that the jet was downed by accident, likely by forces who believed they were taking aim at a Ukrainian military aircraft. But nothing in the agencies’ classified files has brought them any closer to definitively blaming Russia.“

    abcNews :
    „The leading theory is that Russian separatists were behind the launch, probably by mistake by an “ill-trained crew,” officials said, they are still trying to determine precisely who fired the missile. We don’t know the rank, we don’t know the name, we don’t know the nationality of the individual who pulled the trigger or why they did it,” said the official.
    The U.S. intelligence community is still trying to determine whether the trigger-puller was a Russian, a separatist trained by Russia or possibly a volunteer familiar with the missile system from the Ukrainian military and who may have joined the separatists.“

    Paul Craig Roberts :
    „Obviously, the US satellite photos do not support the Obama regime’s lies. If the White House had any evidence of Russian complicity, it would have released it to great fanfare days ago. The intelligence officials themselves claim that Russia is, perhaps, indirectly responsible, because Russia “created the conditions” that caused Kiev to attack the separatists.
    From all appearances, the Obama regime intends to turn the “international investigation” into an indictment of Russia, and the Dutch seem to be lined up behind this corrupt use of the investigation.“

    The satellite imagery shown to journalists came from DigitalGlobe.

    Summary of what the intelligence officials said :
    a) They do not know who fired the missile
    b) SA-11 was possibly launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military.
    c) No evidence that the missile came from Russia.
    d) Most evidence came from social media
    e) The „missing a missile“ video is doubted

    On June 2015 Parry said :
    “… after I reported on the growing doubts within the U.S. intelligence community about whether the Russians and the rebels were indeed responsible – the Obama administration went silent.
    This strange behavior reinforces the suspicion that the U.S. government possesses information that contradicts its initial rush to judgment, but senior officials don’t want to correct the record because to do so would embarrass them and weaken the value of the tragedy as a propaganda club to pound the Russians.”

    On August 17/2015 ex-CIA analyst and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) Ray McGovern said :
    “The absence of an “Intelligence Assessment” suggested that honest intelligence analysts were resisting a knee-jerk indictment of Russia. The White House and State Department run the risk that some honest intelligence analysts would blow the whistle, especially given the dangerously blasé attitude in Establishment Washington toward the dangers of escalating the Ukraine confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.“

    On October 13/2015 Parry said :
    “Last year, another source briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts told me they had concluded that a rogue element of the Ukrainian government – tied to one of the oligarchs – was responsible for the shoot-down, while absolving senior Ukrainian leaders including President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. But I wasn’t able to determine if this U.S. analysis was a consensus or a dissident opinion.
    CIA analysts had met with Dutch investigators to describe what the classified U.S. evidence showed but apparently with the caveat that it must remain secret.”

    This is the easiest way to be able to maintain a certain narrative.

    So, what do we know through U.S. intelligence sources :
    The culprits were „troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms“ or „eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms“ or „a rogue element of the Ukrainian government – tied to one of the oligarchs“. No evidence the BUK came from Russia.

  9. Liane Theuer // February 16, 2016 at 9:34 pm // Reply

    2) German intelligence
    Gerhard Schindler, president of German intelligence agency BND, spoke on October 8/2014 to a secret parliamentary committee on security affairs.
    The BND claims to have evidence that separatists downed MH17 using a BUK stolen from Ukraine army.
    The BND concluded the rebels were to blame after a detailed analysis based on satellite and other photos. But on the other hand he stated : Ukrainian photos have been manipulated, there are details indicating this.
    “He also told the panel that Russian claims the missile had been fired by Ukrainian soldiers and that a Ukrainian fighter jet had been flying close to the passenger jet were false.”

    Robert Parry : “However, a European source told me that the BND’s analysis was not as conclusive as Der Spiegel had described.“

    Because Schindler´s statement contradicted the general narrative “the Buk came from Russia”, the Ukrainian Defense ministry objected immediately :
    “Command Air Forces of Ukraine officially declares that the information about the capture of terrorist anti-aircraft missile system BUK M1 in the military unit of the Air Force of Ukraine is not true.”

    Nevertheless, the BND seems to have spoken out a few truths.
    I’m sure German BND saw the same satellit imagery as the Dutch MIVD.
    But he could not identify Ukrainian soldiers but pro-Russian separatists.
    Whether the BND can distinguish the battle dress of pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian volunteer battalions, I doubt it.
    Obviously, these satellite images unsupported the launch location in Snizhne. Otherwise Schindler would not have spoken of “manipulated photos”.
    Schindler´s statements were so explosive that the German Chancellery filed a charge of “betrayal of official secrets”.

    Requests by the party DIE LINKEN were not answered by referring to confidentiality obligations.

    But one statement DIE LINKEN could get :
    “The AWACS detected signals from an anti-aircraft missile system and another radar signal in its view range, that AWACS could not allocate. The air defense system has been automated by AWACS as “Surface to Air Missile” classified SA-3, an across the region routinely detected signal.”

    SA-3 is in operation in Ukraine :
    The Ukrainian SAM Network

  10. Liane Theuer // February 16, 2016 at 9:39 pm // Reply

    3) Dutch intelligence
    The MIVD stated in contradiction to the German intelligence :
    “On 29 June 2014, the Separatists captured a Ukrainian armed forces military base in Donetsk.
    During the course of July, several reliable sources indicated that the systems that were at the military base were not operational. Therefore, they could not be used by the Separatists.
    (..) Even though there was information pointing to the fact that the Separatists had been supplied with heavy weapons by the Russian Federation, there were no indications that these were powerful anti-aircraft systems.”
    Indirectly, the MIVD also noted that Kiev has not told the truth about the altitude of the AN-26 on July 14.

    U.S – German – Dutch intelligence
    Three intelligence services – three different conclusions.
    But I´m quite sure that they looked at the same satellite imagery. What does it mean ?
    First : The launch location was not Snizhne (that´s why the U.S. went silent)
    Second : The men seen at the launch location could be pro-russian separatists or ukrainian soldiers or a defector from the ukrainian military or “rough elements”.
    Third : The BUK was either the Ukrainian military or was stolen the Ukrainian military. But none of the three intelligence services could provide evidence that the BUK came from Russia.
    It is striking that not a single official body asserts that the BUK was delivered from Russia.
    This work is leaving to Bellingcat.

    • Denis Cashcov // February 17, 2016 at 5:48 am // Reply

      Thank you Liane

    • All the western intelligence services obviously prefer scenarios where a surface-to-air-missile is involved in the downing of MH-17.

      However, they ignore the fact that the launch of such a missile can not be overseen in a densely populated area like Donbass and must be observed by many eyewitnesses.

      • There are plenty of areas in the Donbass that are essentially uninhabited or only sparsely inhabited. The areas immediately south of Shakhtersk-Torez-Snizhne are one such area and it is this area all parties say the launch occurred from.

        Since July 17th was overcast at the time of launch with relatively low clouds, the missile would have disappeared quickly into the clouds and not be seen. If the launch was far enough away from the cities (5 to 10 km south), it would also barely be heard, just like you do not hear the roar of jet engines once you are a few kilometers from an airport.

        • There is no place in the areas immediately south of Shakhtersk-Torez-Snizhne without city or village near (less than 5 km)

          • Eugene, can you kindly change your nickname? Because it was me who was posting under this nickname for vast majority of times.

            admin, maybe you can do something about duplicate nicknames?


          • I cannot prevent duplicate usernames as WordPress does not have such a feature. Please use a different username if you want so.

          • OK

          • Eugene:

            “There is no place in the areas immediately south of Shakhtersk-Torez-Snizhne without city or village near (less than 5 km)”

            I wonder if you kept up with the travelogues of Max Vanderwerff who actually went and visited these areas? Many of the “villages” you talk about turned out to be mostly deserted with few or no regular residents. For example, in the 10 km between Blagodatnoye and Zaroshchenske (containing Shaposhnykovo “village”) he saw a grand total of one person.

            It is similarly empty in the 12 km between Bolshaya Shyshovka and Petrivske (no intervening settlements), and in the 13 km between Chervonyi Zhvoten and Hryhorivka, the only people to be seen on July 17 were the rebels on Saur Mogila. Going south from Petrivske, there is no settlement for 8 km until the village of Artemivka.

            People expecting to find dozens of eyewitnesses taking launch pictures and making real time internet posts from these areas are going to be disappointed.

          • Andrew:

            But why should the Separatists (or Russians) place a BUK in the ‘middle of nowhere’ to defend the area against Ukrainian airstrikes and accidentally shoot down MH-17? This does not make any sense anymore …

          • H.L.:

            “But why should the Separatists (or Russians) place a BUK in the ‘middle of nowhere’ to defend the area against Ukrainian airstrikes and accidentally shoot down MH-17? This does not make any sense anymore …”

            I’m afraid I don’t follow this comment?

            The Ukrainians and Bellingcat Crowd accuse the Russians/Separatists of placing a BUK in the rural area south of Snizhne to act as air defense for the fighting at Saur Mogila and the adjacent cities of Torez and Snizhne. I don’t think this is the most brilliant location due to its proximity to the frontlines (10 km or less to nearest Ukrainian artillery locations), but the accusation is made, and that is where they say it was. Except of course for CORRECT!V, who place it north of Snizhne near Mine 18, which is much more sensible since it is far behind the lines and thus able to protect a larger area.

            The Russians and Almaz Antey state that a Ukrainian BUK was located in the rural areas south of Shakhtersk. This location would allow Ukraine to provide air defense coverage from Russian attack for the Ukrainian fighter jets attacking Saur Mogila and the transport planes supplying the offensive along the border. The location is sensible because it doesn’t permit targetting planes far inside Russia itself which would be a provocation, but does go right up to the border.

        • Andrew: “Since July 17th was overcast at the time of launch with relatively low clouds, the missile would have disappeared quickly into the clouds and not be seen.”

          First, what many people would have noticed was not the missile itself but the plume it left behind. The missile would have disappeared from sight within seconds but the plume would have stayed for minutes.

          Also, the weather in that area was not simply overcast, as there would have been many breaks in the clouds. In the places where there were clouds, the cloud base was a minimum of about one kilometer, according to the DSB’s preliminary report.

          So the missile plume would have stood out to anyone looking at the sky within a distance of several kilometers. The plume of a BUK would have been something that very many witnesses would not have seen before, even in a war zone like Donbass. That’s assuming that MH17 was shot down by a BUK, which is something that I haven’t seen much convincing evidence for.

          It’s true that there are some places with very few inhabitants within many kilometers in the area south of Shakhtersk and Torez, but not really south of Snizhne. But the extent of those places is quite limited, if you exclude populated areas.

          The absence of photos from those areas does not rule out a BUK launch but it does look like a case of “the dog that didn’t bark”.

          • Brendan:

            “First, what many people would have noticed was not the missile itself but the plume it left behind. The missile would have disappeared from sight within seconds but the plume would have stayed for minutes.”

            Why would they notice it? The land is not flat and there are many obstructions to a clear view at a distance like rolling terrain and trees. There would be little to draw their attention in that direction, since the real excitement was the explosion and crash to their north, not a launch to their south. Second, how are you certain of how long it would stay on a day with a steady moderate wind?

            “Also, the weather in that area was not simply overcast, as there would have been many breaks in the clouds.”

            Pavel Aleynikov’s infamous photos of a supposed plume are quite demonstrative of the completely overcast sky to the south of the Torez area.

            “but not really south of Snizhne”

            South of Snizhne was the primary area of fighting and shelling with heavy artillery. Why in the world people would be hanging around near the fighting is beyond me. Anyone with sense would be well out of the way of that area given the constant barrages of D-30 artillery shells and Grad rockets.

          • Andrew: “Why would they notice it? The land is not flat and there are many obstructions to a clear view at a distance like rolling terrain and trees.”

            That area has a lot of hills but they are no more than a couple of hundred metres high. That’s not high enough to block the view for many witnesses a few hundred metres or more away.

            “There would be little to draw their attention in that direction, since the real excitement was the explosion and crash to their north, not a launch to their south.”

            That was probably true around Torez, but not to its south or south-east, around the most likely launch site.

            It’s not just the BUK plume that would have been noticable there (if it was BUK). A missile passing within a few kilometers, at faster than the speed of sound, would have made a lot of noise. Even people who were indoors would have looked outside to see what caused it.

            “Second, how are you certain of how long it would stay on a day with a steady moderate wind?”

            Even in the worst case scenario where the plume dissipates relatively quickly, witnesses had plenty of time to grab a camera or smartphone and take a picture.

            “Pavel Aleynikov’s infamous photos of a supposed plume are quite demonstrative of the completely overcast sky to the south of the Torez area.”

            Those two photos show only a small part of the sky in the direction to the south. We don’t know what the rest of the sky looked like at that time, apart from what we can gather from the overall weather situation.

            Regardless of whether those photos show the plume from the actual missile launch, they show that the sky was not very overcast. There was enough sunlight in one photo to calculate the time of day at approximately 4:30 pm, according to a Russian internet forum, as reported by Bellingcat (“Shadow of a Doubt: Crowdsourcing Time Verification of the MH17 Missile Launch Photo”).

            It’s true there were a lot of people who would not have witnessed a BUK missile for various reasons. Their view could have been blocked or they might have even fled the area. But that that still leaves a large number of people who should have witnessed such a powerful missile.

          • I know that there were many eye witness accounts of an alleged BUK missile being fired in that area on 17 July, but they don’t necessarily describe a BUK. They could have been some other missile, either surface-to-air or artillery fire, which are not unusual in a war zone.

          • Where are these eyewitness accounts?

            Bellingcat wrote an article “MH17 In Their Own Words: Witness Testimonies on Social Media from July 17th, 2014” claiming there are witnesses, but they only present some tweets etc.


            Marcus Bensmann (CORRECT!V) came up with some anoymouns witnesses which apparently do not exist – Max van der Werff went there and could not find them.

            RT presented a lot of eye witnesses for fighter jets in their documentaries, Max van der Werff had an interview with Bulatov Lev Aleksandrovich and Marcel list a lot of eye witnesses for military aircraft on this website.


            But are there any real eye witnesses speaking in front of a camera and reporting that they have seen a missile?

            I am not aware of eye witnesses and in forums like this one people which support the BUK theory usually always argue that eye withnesses obviously are afraid of the separatists and therefore keep quiet.

          • TYPO: “… some anonymous witnesses …”

  11. In appendix K of the final report the DSB found an interesting way to prevent unwanted questions about falling flares and chaff.
    The DSB took the trouble to collect five times 100 mtrs of white textile and transport it to Holland as a proof there were no SU-25 with flares and chaff, which were seen and filmed by several people.
    They used one of the video’s to calculate that the textile needed about 15 minutes to arrive exactly at the place where 14 minutes earlier the wreckage started burning.
    How is this possible, was there no wind at 10 km. altitude and is not metal heavier?
    Did anybody see a picture with at least some meters of white cloth?
    If so I will no suggest that somehow this white textile was only found afterwards by the investigators, to explain these amazingly straight falling white stripes
    I would accept these are not flares against the black smoke of the wreckage, but just five unrolled rolls of textile.
    But this is not an explanation of the numerous white spots that are not to be seen in the DSB video, because of the length and the bad quality of the copy.
    But they really could be chaff, a SU-25 has lots of them.
    And which company is using expensive transport by plane to export white textile to a cotton producing and not very rich country?
    It is all possible but mister Westerbeke could at least check.

    • RT reports on the four-minute clip posted by the on 17 July, 2015:
      The clip “is followed by a transcript from a longer 17-minute video, which has not been released. News Corp Australia told RT that they “stand by the transcript, it was taken from the full video, which investigators now have.”

      The text cites a rebel commander as saying that “the Sukhoi [fighter jet] brought down the plane and we brought down the Sukhoi.”

      Later on, the man is quoted as saying that “there’s two planes taken down,” while a voice in the background says, “the fighter jet brought down this one [MH17 Boeing], and our people brought down the fighter. They [the Ukrainians] decided to do it this way, to make it look like we have brought down the plane.”

  12. Add –
    The ukranian BUK was fixed 16.07.2014 on video:

    Postion dont found exatly, however this video was made during visit of [BUK video 4:55] in ATO zone 15-18 of July 2014. I suppose he visits the area near Amvrosievka. His interviews from ATO.

  13. Add –
    The ukranian BUK was fixed 16.07.2014 on video:

    Postion dont found exatly, however this video was made during visit of [BUK video 4:55] in ATO zone 15-18 of July 2014. I suppose he visits the area near Amvrosievka. His interviews from ATO.

  14. Add –
    The ukranian BUK was fixed 16.07.2014 on video:

    Postion dont found exatly, however this video was made during visit of [BUK video 4:55] in ATO zone 15-18 of July 2014. I suppose he visits the area near Amvrosievka. This is his interviews from ATO:

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.