New video states BUK transport at Zuhres was filmed at July 5

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

At June 30 2016 a video appeared at YouTube on a channel named ‘MH17 Inquiry”. The video titled ‘1st episode: “BUK” in Zugres’ shows a presenter called Bruce Grant.

The video shows what is claimed the man who filmed the BUK transport on a road in Zuhres. This man named Andrey Andryushim claims he made the video with his mobile phone from his balcony at July 5. He then uploaded the video to vKontakte. He made the video between 10:00 AM and 1:00 PM.


Bellingcat however claims the video was made by an unknown person  at July 17 2014.

‘MH17 Inquiry’ states that at July 5 the city of Zuhres was controlled by Ukraine forces. The next day the separatists took over control of the city.

That seems highly unlikely. This map shows the situation at June 20 2014. The city of Zuhres is clearly controled by separatists.

This maps show the situation at July 3. Zuhres is indicated by a green circle. Again the town is controlled by the separatists.

Mind maps does not always reflect the correct situation. The same sort of map showed end of July 2014 the area around the MH17 crashsite as being  controlled by separatists. However an Ukraine army convoy was able to cross the area. See my post here.

Bruce Grant claims that it was always claimed the video was made at July 18. That is incorrect. Bellingcat stated the video was made at July 17 and shows a BUK on a lowloader heading towards Torez.

Andrey Andryushim claims the truck drove in the direction of Shakhtars’k. And he stated the opposite direction is towards Russia. That is weird as Shakhtars’k is direction of Russia.

Andrey Andryushim

The first notice of the Zuhres video was via a Tweet sent by a user named @3Andryu (Andrey And). He likely also used  was also the name MASH, @m_a_s_h_ua.

The image below shows his info. The info was taken from a deleted vKontakte page.

Below the screenshot of the video showing Andrey Andryushim. The face looks the same as the one of the deleted vKontakte webpage. Here an archive of his posts.

This is the Tweet likely sent by Andrey Andryushim to the webmaster of Ukraine@war. (@djp3tros). He notifies @Ukraine@war about the video and mentions the exact location the video was made. He also mentions the date and time.

Aric Toler of Bellingcat stated in a Tweet at July 1 2016 that the man in the video claimed to be Andrey Andryushim looked like the man on a photo found by Bellingcat.

MH17 Inquiry

At the YouTube video called MH17 Inquiry is written:

Our project is called the “MH17 Inquiry”. Our contributors are independent Russian and international journalists, experts and scientists. We set ourselves the task of dragging this case away from the realms of politics and conspiracy theories into the realm of facts and the deductive method.

The Russian language video showing the same item is here.

The YouTube channel ‘MH17 Inquiry’ seems to be some sort of coordinated public relations attempt of Russia. It is interesting the video is shown in two languages. Previous Russian attempts to explain the situation was mostly targeted for domestic consumption. The videos are professionally made.

The video ends with a statement that soon more information will be revealed.

The presenters

The presenter in the Russian language version is called Alexander Volovik Mikhailovich, former president of the oil and gas concern Bi-Gaz-Si.

Alexander Mikhailovich Volovik is a powerful figure in Russian busines.He headed Bi-GAS-SI and participates in the leadership of a number of exchanges , banks and investment funds.He is a professor at the G.V. Plekhanov Russian Academy of Economics , president of the Moscow Retailers Association ; president of the Moscow Chamber of Trade & Industry ; vice-president of theInternational Academy of Independent Consultants ; Co-chairman of the Interglobal Association of Institutional Investors ; founder of RosNefteGasStroy , PromStroyBank , MosBusinessBank , and Russian National Commercial Bank.

He is seen here at a ceremony with Russian Prime Minsiter Dmitry Medvedev

And on the personal website of Volovik a picture can be seen of Volovik standing very close to president Putin.

The presenter of the english version of the video is called Bruce Grant. He is a British citizen. Not much information can be found on him. His name appears on a website advertising english language teachers in the Moscow region. Here is his LinkedIn profile



Kremlin connection

Besides the Russian speaker seems to have close ties with Putin, the filming of the video was likely done in a building of the Russian Federation. Look at the logo at the door. It is the Coat of Arms of the Russian Federation. Ot could be the Imperial Coat of Arms. In that case the building is a historic one.

My thoughts

I am not convinced about the statements made in the video. The Volvo is escorted by what seems to be the same vehicles which escorted the Volvo shown in a video filmed in Makiivka. (more info here)

This video was confirmed to be filmed at July 17.

What are the chances that at July 5 Ukraine forces uses a lowloader, a Volvo truck and escorting vehicles like the VW and the separatists uses the same vehicles at July 17?

However, the Makiivka video was filmed around 11:05. It implies that the BUK transport had to travel at a much higher speed than previously calculated on videos to reach Zuhres at  11:40am.

The errors in the video are typical for Russia. For some reason there are always easy to debunk claims from Russia.

It could be Andrey Andryushim is indeed the man who made the video and is now being forced to make the false statements as seen in the new video.

Lets investigate the video a bit more. Bellingcat for sure will do so.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

105 Comments on New video states BUK transport at Zuhres was filmed at July 5

  1. Photo and info from deleted vk page of Andrey:

  2. @m_a_s_h_ua and @3Andryu is the same user with identical email address (use restore acc to check). He first upload video to youtube and gave link to bellingcats. But bells missed that comment. After days one user found that comment and retweet. And Andrey upload video’s source to google drive and gave link to bells to prove.

    • > @m_a_s_h_ua and @3Andryu
      Is it possible to see creation dates of those accounts?

      • Ok, found myslef.

        @3Andryu was created or has become active around 17 July 2014 (now deleted). This is likely an account created with the intention of sending information about Mh17. Not much can be guessed about it, besides that this is likely the same person as @m_a_s_h_ua (by recovery email)

        @m_a_s_h_ua was created 15 January 2012
        Likely a genuine account. But what I find it hard to understand is that the account is still active and pro UA, while Andrey Andryushim does not seem to be. For example as his high school in VK account he specified DNR name not an UA name.

        @DJP3tros was created 17 December 2014. So I find it hard to reconcile this with the following statement by admin:
        “This is the Tweet likely sent by Andrey Andryushim to the webmaster of Ukraine@war. (@djp3tros). He notifies @Ukraine@war about the video and mentions the exact location the video was made. He also mentions the date and time.”

        • Find it hard to believe that m_a_s_h_ua is an account of someone who lives in Zugres. For example, the account explicitly discloses troops movements in March 2015. I’d guess such spies would be caught without much problems.

          • > the account explicitly discloses troops movements in March 2015

            The account is very politically charged. The last political pro-Ukrainian activity is 29th June – the day before yesterday. It’s highly unlikely that he gives such an interview and continue posting pro-UA. This also rules out the possibility that he was caught as a spy and was afterwards forced to make the statement about filming on 5th July.

          • Although the account was created in 2012, the first activity is on 17th July 2014. Again this looks suspicious. Afterwards its only a charged pro-UA posting. So far I doubt that the account is from the person who said that he has filmed the video on July the 5th.

          • >the first activity is on 17th July 2014
            Oops correction: On 17 June, the next one is on 17th July.

          • MASH_UA and 3Andryu are the same accounts. Andryi changed the name of the account during the war and months after Buk reverted it to MASH_UA. But it is the same account.

            And he is from Zuhres. He posted regularly updates from Zuhres-2, district he lives in, about movement of troops he saw, shellings and all that jazz. He thought that he will be ok since aside the name of district he never posted anything more about himself but I guess they finally managed to find him. I dont think we will hear of him tweeting anytime soon.

            PS: Andryi was very irregular user of twitter with very low followings, mostly followed by and with other ukrainians from Donetsk area. Aside of that one tweet with Buk he wrote in russian exclusively as he does not speak english.

  3. The Makiivka dashcam video contradicts DigitalGlobe’s satellite image of July 17th 2014. The number of missiles on the “Buk” doesn’t match. Either the video is fake, or the satellite image is, or both are. Take your pick.

    You’re welcome to challenge these findings. The dimensions of the truck, loader, launcher and missiles as well as the satellite and solar angles at the given time are not a secret, they can be looked up and verified.

  4. On 5th of July 2014 the sky over eastern Ukraine was pretty sunny with just some Cumulus humilis (Cu hum) clouds. From the Black Sea severe weather was slowly heading northeastwards, reaching the alleged area in the late evening.
    The images from the Aqua/MODIS-Satellite prove this.
    Right side of the pic was made 9:32am, left side at around 11:10am (UTC), so it shows very exactly the time when the video was shot according to Mr. Andryushim.
    BUT in the Zuhres video we can’t see a single Cu hum cloud! Instead the sky is almost covered with Altostratus clouds, which fits much better the weather situation on July 17!

  5. Strange that this ‘spokesman’ at 3.15 in the video calls the DNR, etc. the proRussian people corp.
    A name I have not used in any circles where I have had discussions.

    Bruce does not have much of an online presence either, is he trying to use MH17 for his claim to fame or retirement, just a figurehead? Dunno.

    The Russian version has a different spokesman (I think b/c eyebrows).

    Other impressions, the Zuhres video is taken looking through the glass.
    In the MH17 Inquiry videos they show him taking the image through a removed window.
    Removed window says to me the apartment is vacant and being remodeled.
    It may not be, but that is how it appears with at least 7 window panes of the balcony on the ground.
    IF it is a vacant flat, then almost anyone could come in a film with some kind of stand in that looks similar to the possible video taker.

    Could be this apartment (doubtful) or one apartment over either way IMHO.
    IF you pause either Russian version or English version at about 1.20 you can see a corner of the sidewalk.
    In the Zuhres video, you can see much more of the sidewalk.
    AND you cannot see the flat that juts out into the field of view.

    IMHO, the actual Zuhres video was taken from 1-3 groups (1-2 flats over) of windows over to the left but on the same story or level.

    If you watch the 2nd video (English version) they posted, they call the DNR – the proRussian valencia corps in Donbas!?!?
    Kind of interesting the actors polo shirt saying – 62 Tom Tailor registered trademark- on it but not a lick of English spoken by the dude.
    Also his eyes are extremely dark around them, late night partying? addict? something else?

    Due to being able to see more of the sidewalk and not being able to see the balconies that jut out,

    I call BS on MH17 Inquiry.

    Fare thee well

    • Wind Tunnel Man // July 1, 2016 at 8:51 pm // Reply


      “IMHO, the actual Zuhres video was taken from 1-3 groups (1-2 flats over) of windows over to the left but on the same story or level.”

      No it’s the same location: look at the small blue structure in the middle distance and how it’s alignment to the junction of the paths/roads is the same in both videos. A view from a different balcony, from the same height, would position the small blue structure differently relative to the junction of the paths/roads.

      • for Eugene – did you research also skype, ICQ (used to be very popular in Russia), yahoo, or accounts?

        For WTM – Do you see what I am talking about at 1.20?
        The sidewalk 90 degree bend that is closest to the camera?
        In the actual Zuhres video, you can see more of the sidewalk closer to the apartment complex, but do not see the section of apartment balconies that jut out.

        In this video, you see LESS nearer sidewalk parallel to apartment complex, but balconies (porches) that jut out, stick out like sore thumb at 1.20 when the guy is right at the window and shooting with the video camera.

        It just does not make sense for those porches to be seen with less sidewalk, and not seen with more sidewalk visible.

        It could be one flat to the right on the balcony that juts out, but that seems a little to close to have wide range he got with Iphone5.

        It is a small thing that screams out fraud to me, among the others.
        IF the new MH17 Inquiry did not take a camera shot from that angle right next to the window at the alleged video shooting location, I could possibly see some credibility to their story, but with that shot something doesn’t connect.
        Even at ~1.04 you can see the balcony that juts out and they are further inside the porch not shooting from next to the window.

        Further inside doesn’t hide the jutting out balconies, and does not show the sidewalk.
        Shooting next to the window shows sidewalk and the balcony jutting out.
        It is not the right flat.

        ~1.36 hides balcony that juts out, but does not show nearer sidewalk parallel to the complex.
        There is just too much balcony that can be seen it the video from MH17 Inquiry.

        It seems the right height to me.
        Another reason I doubt it is if they actually went through the trouble of getting in the flat and the had the kid with the same phone camera and location, wouldn’t have you shot a short video with it?
        Wouldn’t have you tried to get access to camera EXIF data?
        Wouldn’t you try to get the computer upload time?
        Especially if you were trying to PROVE new dates?

        To me this scream fraud, kind of similar to they way RU MoD alleged fighter jets around MH17 then destroyed (or claimed to but lied) all the unfiltered radar data that might prove it.

        A lot of claims but little proof from MH17 Inquiry, IMHO.

        Fare thee well

        • Wind Tunnel Man // July 2, 2016 at 11:16 am // Reply


          Sorry but you must consider line of sight and not field of view when videos are shot with different cameras and from slightly different positions on the balcony.

          • WTM,
            I may be wrong, it won’t be the first time.
            To me it has to do with the amount of sidewalk corner you can see and the amount of the other balconies that you see jutting out.
            You can see an equivalent amount of sidewalk, but you see more bay window in the new video.

            Anyways, the different apartments is kind of inconsequential.
            Just an initial observation.
            I think it is close to the right flat, if it is not the right one.
            In the original Zuhres video, I believe you see part of the balconies that jut out.
            One thing is for certain original was shot through glass.
            & I think windows were in at time of original video, and are not now.

            Anyhow, the video comes with a few claims the original is wrong date based on having a guy that may or may not have shot the video based on what people claim he might look like.
            From what I know, it is not 100% identity verified.

            Is it him? Is it a similar looking stand in? Is it the guy who actually took the videos?
            Is the guy who uploaded the same as the guy who took the video?
            Could he be bought/threatened?
            Does he have a habit of stretching the truth or outright lying before?
            We shall have to see what the future videos bring, if anything.
            I hear a lot of hot air and little that it proves.
            Do the videos not give the other ‘data’ because of fear of being able to be easily discounted?

            Obviously Professor/miniOligarch Volovik is being hurt by sanctions.
            Obviously he has some ties to Kremlin,Moscow, and Almaz Antey since there are about 5 photos in AA’s archive that have him as a presenter of some awards and ties to Russian Energy concerns.

            Future videos will be interesting to see what they bring to the table, if there are any actual facts that come with them.

            Fare thee well

        • A few observations from comparing the original video with “Inquiry” segment starting 1:21 .

          This shot was carefully set up to match remarkably closely. For example look at the distant foliage details against the apartment building and pole. The alignment of the left window mullion to the apartment building at the very beginning of the “Inquiry” clip is off by a little bit, representing an inch or so off the original sightline in that direction; also the relationship between the white object in the lower right of the frame and the interior window mullion places the camera position within a few inches of the original sightline in that direction. Good job!

          The “Inquiry” shot was filmed from a tripod which pans smoothly around a single pivot point. This is evidenced quite sensitively by the fact that the window glass’ optical distortion is unmoving. (The distortion is more subtle here than in the original, in the original the motion of the handheld camera makes it prominent. However the distortion is easy to see on the “Inquiry” footage at 1:00 where a car drives through it.)

          The optical distortion suggests that this is the same piece of glass as the original. However the window frame is altered; apparently an exterior mullion has been removed.

  6. Ernst Vondelaar // July 1, 2016 at 10:02 pm // Reply

    So, can you explain why Volovik would be presenting Ukrainian counter-propaganda?

  7. Again a fake. Check out the video’s on Volovik’s site. Very strange sources on YouTube. Furthermore, why would a simple site as that, use robot.txt’s? And all these silly congratulations on his news page.
    Perhaps this explains where all this nonsense comes from:
    It also shows with what kind of people Bellingcat is associated.

  8. Volovik is indeed spooky, I would not trust him for a second. But he could be just a messenger.

    What I want to understand is if Andryushin is behind @m_a_s_h_ua or not. Because if he is then he is basically caught doing major spying – all the account activity is still there. If he is not, he needs to explain how the video shot from his window got to the SBU. And he’d better present really good reasons. Maybe him coming up with the 5July statement is an attempt to de-associate himself from whoever is behind mash? Well, one interview will not convince all. The guy must be on a run, if he’s any smart.

  9. > The errors in the video are typical for Russia.

    You realize that these videos weren’t shown on RT, Rossiya 24, or other state news? Yet you already label it as “made by Russian government” or “Russian propaganda.”

    > For some reason there are always easy to debunk claims from Russia.

    Why did Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs lie about Luhansk video’s location by saying it was Krasnodon (they are the ones who allegedly made it)? Why did SBU show their own Buk 312 filmed in March on their page? Why did they show photos of a tank and truck filled with people that looks like it belongs to the Zuhres video, but the Zuhres video doesn’t show it? Etc.

    I hope you sleep well by thinking to yourself that you are objective 😉

    • buran,
      Russian presenter is obviously close to the Kremlin if he can stand so close to vova.

      mislabeling Luhansk video is a forgivable mistake if the person that took it does not respond for clarification.
      To identify it without that, you need someone that lived or had been there.
      To do that, you have to send the video out to people to review from the area.
      Maybe they did not want it leaked before presentation, maybe they did not want the person who took the video to be approached and possibly hurt.
      I don’t know why they released it other then for the proof of a BUK without 1 missile was captured on video.

      BUK 312? who knows, maybe an example image put in by staffer? Maybe sabotage by someone inside SBU? They did not comment on that image at all or claim anything specifically about it.

      Tank and truck in Zuhres was just linking a vehicle or two with the BUK convoy.
      And showing the road was used for heavy vehicle traffic.
      Also It was probably taken from the same flat as the BUK video.

      So besides fighting a war Russia was waging in Donbas, they also had a lot of saboteurs or double agents inside their own service to worry about.

      They were worried about a full scale invasion or so it seemed with allegations of vova’s plane or a plane full of Russians being a possible target with a large amount of Russian forces all along the border just waiting for the word to go.
      Don’t know if it was intentional misinfo, sabotage, just simply non vetted information being thrown out in desperation, or inexperience/poorly trained for it.

      Fare thee well

      • [to boggled]
        > Russian presenter is obviously close to the Kremlin if he can stand so close to vova.

        Yes, just like Poroshenko is Kremlin’s agent, because he was once photographed with Kiselev before Poroshenko was president:

        > mislabeling Luhansk video is a forgivable mistake if the person that took it does not respond for clarification.

        The difference between Luhansk video and other Buk materials is that Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs claimed it was their secret agents that made the video. What do you mean “the person that took it does not respond for clarification?”

        > They did not comment on that image at all or claim anything specifically about it.

        They did not comment on that Buk 312 photo? What is this then?

        For a start.

        [to Lena]

        > The Russian version of the new video was narrated by “Putin’s trustee”

        When you see absurd mistakes in the video (Who ever claimed that the Zuhres video was made on July 18 at all? Where would they even get it from?) and the video is only on YouTube and looks almost like a parody, it makes you wonder the true intentions of this project and also whether those persons are truly working for Russia (unless you can read minds, you don’t know it). And no, a website saying that X person is “Putin’s trustee” doesn’t suddenly make him loyal to Russia or Putin.

        > Ukrainian minister of internal affairs wrote that it’s a video of a missile launcher on the move in direction towards, via and beyond Krasnodon (Russian is my native language, I also understand Ukrainian). Later he commented his message with coordinates where the launcher was shot:

        Why did the Ukrainian MIA, as the authors of the video, did not say it was filmed in Luhansk city? Why would they not mention Luhansk city at all before July 22? It’s not only about Avakov’s message. This is what Paris Match have said:
        “regarding Krasnodon, we have official, on record Ukranian source saying it’s the picture’s location.”

        And there are other sources. Avakov only gave the coordinates showing Luhansk city _after_ Russia’s briefing. So, before Russia’s briefing, they spread disinformation concerning the location of the Luhansk video, they were hiding the true location from Russia.

        Tell me, if Ukrainian MIA has had nothing to hide, why would they not say it was Luhansk city right away and why did they tell papers like Paris Match and others that it was Krasnodon? The city is Luhansk city, what connection does it have to Krasnodon?

        > SBU confused two trucks with white cabins hauling each a launcher (Buk TELAR) with side numbers 3×2. Later they understood that those were different trucks and different TELARs, and deleted the photo from their website.

        Oh yes, confused their own Buk. It’s not like on that March video when this 312 Buk was recorded, you can tell that it’s not summer 😉 That March video with Buk was pretty well-known as well. Even I saw it back in Spring 2014.

        > The pics of the tank and the truck are stills from other videos shot by the same guy who shot the video with the TELAR, from the same apartment in Zuhres.

        Where are these videos? Why did SBU show a cropped screenshot from the Zuhres video, didn’t say this was Zuhres and didn’t show the whole Zuhres video? And they showed it at a time when the Zuhres video wasn’t even publicly discussed (July 19):
        Neither Ukraine@War, nor Bellingcat was talking about it until also around July 22.

        • Buran,
          Александр Михайлович Воловик (Volovik’s) career is fairly well documented.
          Also were he resides.

          As far as contact with SBU – if the person sent video by email for instance with nothing but the video, SBU would have wrote where when how in reply.
          If that person chose not to respond for whatever reason, they would have to attempt to identify the location with Kyiv agents.
          They had a time constraint and getting the video shown was more important than geo coordinates.
          It is just a guess.

          As far as SBU presentation, they only discuss one slide with the missing missile, they do not discuss the other BUK at all, in either language version.
          Both images are there, he ignored the second one and to me he seemed surprised there was a slide with two different BUKs.
          He expected only one picture, IMHO.

          Should he have commented and explained the other image for what it was? Certainly. Did he know? I think so, but not for sure.

          Probably unsightly for a spokesman to criticize his staffer for putting it there on a video that expected world wide viewing.
          Unsightly also for him to make his staff look unprofessional by having to explain an incorrectly placed image of a Ukrainian BUK at a traffic stop, so he ignored the 2 slide and moved on.
          He only discussed the one slide with missing missile.
          Which one had the missing missile? It is clear on the two screen grabs from videos.
          Yes, I think he should have explained second slide, but he did not.

          Fare thee well

        • Buran and others
          This site

          Suggests that as of April 30 2016, Volovik has vova’s ear personally as a confidant and much more than just once.

          Fare thee well

          • What do you mean? This article of 30 April, 2016 just says that on 1 May Volovik will celebrate his 70th birthday. The article lists his titles and achievements. That’s all. The article was published on the website of the Chamber for Commerce and Industry. A glorious publication!

        • At the time Russian arms, ammo, mercenaries, soldiers were supplied to Donetsk (UA) by roads which go near or via Krasnodon (near RU border), then via Luhansk.

          How many times must I repeat that Avakov’s message was mistranslated? The words
          “двигающийся по направлению через Краснодон, в сторону границы с Российской федерацией”
          do NOT mean filmed IN Krasnodon. But were erroneously translated as in Krasnodon.

          • Regardless of how you twist this phrase, it means that Buk was driven through Krasnodon, in the direction of the Russian border. Lugansk is not immediately near Krasnodon.
            Minister Avakov did not know where the video had been filmed. Or he lied deliberately.

          • I am not sure that the translator made a mistake. Avakov uses a sloppy language translated literally “moving in the direction via Krasnodon towards the Russian border”

            Firstly, one would never say that if the object is in Luhansk and there are many ways to proceed with the movement, some of which lead to Krasnodon and some not. At best such a phrase can mean to be at a point where there is only one way you could be moving and that is towards Krasnodon, which is not the case.

            Secondly, it is indeed possible to interpret the above lax phrase as “in Krasnodon”.

            To surmise. A native Russian speaker would not use such a phrase for an object very far away from Krasnodon. Like someone in San Francisco would not say “exit the the Walmart parking lot by the way towards New York”.

    • The Russian version of the new video was narrated by “Putin’s trustee”:
      They promised more episodes. Don’t worry, the whole series will be shown on Russian state-controlled TV channels, perhaps in order to distract from Bellingcat’s forthcoming anniversary report.

      Ukrainian minister of internal affairs wrote that it’s a video of a missile launcher on the move in direction towards, via and beyond Krasnodon (Russian is my native language, I also understand Ukrainian). Later he commented his message with coordinates where the launcher was shot:

      SBU confused two trucks with white cabins hauling each a launcher (Buk TELAR) with side numbers 3×2. Later they understood that those were different trucks and different TELARs, and deleted the photo from their website.

      The pics of the tank and the truck are stills from other videos shot by the same guy who shot the video with the TELAR, from the same apartment in Zuhres.

  10. Billy Bob // July 2, 2016 at 9:03 am // Reply

    Interesting stuff.

    So it seems we come back to the same old question. Inability to verify the dates of any Buk pics or videos.

    Now we have Bellingcat et al claiming the 17th for the Zuhres video, and the guy who says he filmed it claiming the 5th.

    Higgins is frothing at the mouth alleging witness tampering and threatening twitter posters with the police.

    • Good point.
      The flat from which the Buk was shot was calculated by the community pretty quickly. This makes me think that the DNR counterintelligence also visited the place long ago. The fact that @m_a_s_h_ua continued posting to this day may suggests that it was not from whoever lived/lives at this address.

  11. Michael Kobs // July 2, 2016 at 9:41 am // Reply

    Fine Lena, but Avakov gave the location after it was geolocated and exposed as a lie.
    The same can be said for the “mixed up” Ukranian BUK. The same can be said for the alleged big Vostok convoy including BUK and a reported KAMAZ with anti-aircraft gun that wasn’t there.
    Not even Bellingcat cleared up their sources until today. “Three tweets that describe the missile launcher and an accompanying convoy travelling through Torez were posted at 12:07pm, 12:15pm, and 12:26pm local time. Others on VKontakte report that the convoy included three tanks, with posts at 1:14PM and 2:14PM that confirm the information was posted on Twitter before the downing of MH17.” The first three sources are two times the same source. All later sources referring to the Vostok convoy saying something like “3 танка на Снежное проехали”.
    The intercepted phone calls are selfexposing as made for distraction and were online barely after enough time for the video editor to put them together. The Cherukhino Cossaks only had Manpads. Bezler probably was the commander of them – the “miners” group. And no bird-spotter of a russian BUK crew would call the commander of the Manpads barely 1.5 minutes prior to the launch to tell him about a “big one” he cannot see.
    The SBU even gave the US delegation images of the Georgian war stating it shows the Russian invasion on ukanian territory.
    In fact, almost every official statement (both sides) is a deliberate lie or at least deliberately not the full truth. This includes all the affiliated media. We have to live with that. You should try it too.

    • Avakov didn’t write that the video was shot IN Krasnodon. It’s incorrect translation to English. Correct translation: towards Krasnodon and beyond.

      There were several convoys on that road on July 17. The low-loader with the Buk was accompanied only with cars and a van. Tanks were in other convoys.

      About Chernuhino Cossacs was some wild guess of a bandit.

  12. Billy Bob // July 2, 2016 at 9:41 am // Reply

    @m_a_s_h_ua is not the guy who filmed it, just a ukrainian info warrior who ripped the video from Andrey Andryushim’s Vkontakte page.

    That’s what i understood the MH17 Inquiry video to be saying.

    • That’s what they said, yes. But is this true? Not sure. @m_a_s_h_ua looked like they were posting about troops movement along that very road. I cannot believe they were not under attention of DNR counterintelligence.

    • But its likely @3Andryu, the poster who first tweeted the message on the 17th with the original video labeled 0647.IMG, is the same person as MASH, who posted the 2nd message with another link to the video on 22.7.2014.

      The first posting was directed straightly to Petros, but he disregarded it. When MASH tried again on the 22nd to draw his attention, this only worked because someone retweeted his message to Bellingcat too.

      After spressure from Higgins, mentioning the vid matched his timeline, Petros, who said he thought it was a fake because of the artefacts around the vehicles, immediately came by. Its really interesting he now is claiming he didn’t get the evidence on a silver platter, coordinates and time of capture attached, because actually he did.

      Not long ago all photos from this twicsy account were deleted. A month ago someone not Russian (and not me) posted the same info on Now this video suddenly shows up.

      My thoughts are a bit more nuanced than admin’s. Actually the Russians bureaucrats do not produce for the western markets, at least not as thorough as the Ukrainians.

      I think this project has been started up by some wealthy Russians, an oligarch maybe discontent with Putin handling the information war. It seems a private initiative with hired spokespersons like mr. Grant.

      Or, dependent on the level of opposition that is waged, it has been made by anti-Putin people, maybe even in cooperation with SBU counter intelligence, to cook up some easy-to-debunk story to discredit criticism to the Bellingcat guarded narrative, heavyly under fire at this moment.

      A photoshopped picture with some inserted people behind Putin says nothing. Even when it was not photoshopped. Wasn’t it the Praetorian Guard, close to the Emperor, who became his biggest enemy?

      But the fact people with actual knowledge about the 17.7 Buk trail jumped to conclusions at once claiming Putin-did-it may say something about the effect the makers of this vid desired for.

      But then again, they could also be a group of pro-Russians who clumsily tried to save the motherland by issuing something they deemed would have a positive impact – but without having any deep knowledge about details.

    • No, it’s can’t be. If you upload video to VK page, then you CAN’T download source file. But source file (mov) was also published on google drive account and shared later with bellingcats.

      • There is also a question about still shots of tanks made from the same flat. Were they too grabbed from the same VK account? All is very strange.

    • Your explanation makes no sense. When you describe a video you describe where it was taken, not where you imagine the vehicle in the video is going.

  13. well any tweets reporting movement on the road sounds like typical ukrainian info warrior stuff. repeating second hand info as they do.

    i personally think the guy on the MH17 Inquiry film is indeed the one who took the Buk video and he is not @m_a_s_h_ua.

  14. Andrey Andryushim is real person. His and his sister live in that flat. Register in: 2 house’s entrance, 4 floor, first flat on stair landing (house 31, flat 25)

    Info from ukraine database:

  15. Thanks JayDi.

    Birth date for Andrey also matches the one on his archived Vkontake page.

  16. JayDi wrote.
    “No, it’s can’t be. If you upload video to VK page, then you CAN’T download source file. But source file (mov) was also published on google drive account and shared later with bellingcats.”

    I highly doubt that. There are all kinds of download tools available to save videos off the web.

    • You can download video file, BUT it will be encoded mp4 file, not the source mov-file. You can compare quality of that files and see the difference (in mov-file from goolge drive account will be more details).

  17. Here’s a site that enables you to download videos posted on VKontake.

    • Hugh Eaven // July 2, 2016 at 1:04 pm // Reply

      As already stated, the videos being watched are not the same as those being uploaded. All current video services translate uploaded videos to a more compressed or (for them) standard format like flv, mp4, etc. In many cases .mov files are uploaded by users but could be anything really, divx, avi, 3gp, etc. The video site makes tjen sure its converted and watchable with common browsers and/or flash. The original is probably deleted.

      Eugene had a great point: even the .mov file found does not mean it’s the original. One can download eg from Vkontake and convert them again to .mov, then upload elsewhere again. Best would be to compare upload dates from the services themselves and compensate for time-zone or the way the service calculated their timestamp (many went wrong here in the past with certain Youtube timestamp “analysis”).

  18. eugene wrote:
    “There is also a question about still shots of tanks made from the same flat. Were they too grabbed from the same VK account? All is very strange.”

    Yes, I’m sure the VK account was scraped for info by Ukrainian keyboard warriors as normal.

  19. Hector Raban wrote:
    “The first posting was directed straightly to Petros, but he disregarded it. When MASH tried again on the 22nd to draw his attention, this only worked because someone retweeted his message to Bellingcat too.”

    The first one was disregarded because he tweeted the wrong twitter account. A different Petros. Did you not notice that?

  20. May be the audio in this first part of that series was heavily edited. Spliced from what he said about something else, in reply to questions different from what we hear in the video.

  21. Billy Bob // July 2, 2016 at 8:21 pm // Reply

    Well his story is he didnt feed the SBU with anything.

    Pro Ukraine web goblins ripped his pics and videos from his now deleted VKontake page.

    • Hector Reban // July 3, 2016 at 6:56 am // Reply

      Can’t be. He also conveyed stuff from the Vostok convoy, which really was on the road on the 17th. I believe Micha suncalced this movement to about 12:10 EEST in Zuhres.

      As Andrey was part of a network of “infowarriors” reporting about military separatist movements (at least until 29.5.2016 if I reacall correctly from his timeline), its my conviction he was tipped of when a movement would come by his house.

      So he took footage from Vostok too, which he didn’t issue on the net.

      Nevertheless, at least on 19.7.2014 on a presser, head of Ukr. counter-intelligence Nayda published “evidence” of a socalled terrrist convoy, showing a still from the Buk convoy and two phtos from the Vostok movement.

      The interviewer asks Andrew if he was the poster nickname so and so, i.e. Molochnik and Action Tube. These two video channels only issued the video, but you can check it, on july the 22nd after MASH approached Dajey Petros for the second time (I hope you are convinced now this is reality after all ;-))

      So Andrey is using the possibility the docu makers are giving him for plausible deniability to exonerate himself as the disseminator of the video, apart from the Vkontakte version. But we know this can’t be true.

      So why did Andrew mmake the easy-to-debunk claim about making the vid on the 5th? Was he using the interviewers or did he get other incentives to issue this statement?

  22. Billy Bob // July 2, 2016 at 8:36 pm // Reply

    admin wrote:
    Wrong. @djp3tros was created long before December 2014. See the screendumps at the site of @djp3tros himself.

    Twitter says it was created on 17th December 2014.

    @DajeyPetros on the other hand was created October 2011.

    If you claim otherwise than what is clearly displayed on twitter then prove it please.

  23. Billy Bob // July 2, 2016 at 8:40 pm // Reply

    Ah i’m sorry, i’ve just found the screendumps. you are correct admin.

  24. Antidyatel // July 3, 2016 at 5:04 am // Reply

    Wow. The blog is now visited by Elena Vasilieva – famous “rights activist” that provided the list of Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine. What a fun it was when the list consisted of the whole football team from Orenburg. Admin, congratulations, you have been noticed.

  25. Antidyatel // July 3, 2016 at 7:08 am // Reply

    Admin, why do you write
    “This video was confirmed to be filmed at July 17.”
    There are claims about the dates. But what is the definitive proof of it? Did I miss something?

  26. Here are more info from reliable source (from real militants and inhabitants from near places) about territory control on first July days:


    1. As I remeber Zuhres territory nominally controls by local militia on first July days by a few dozen people with old hunting weapon. Good weapong equipped militia control Slyavyansk and Snizhne-Shakhtarsk territory.

    2. Zuhres controled by ukraine soldiers and by militia on same days. Like Shakhtarsk and Torez. Event at Donetsk was ukraine military units on last June’s days. It was total chaos on that days and nobody known real situation and what to do.

    • That blog delete comments with russian text. You can see original rus data on pastebin:

    • Yes, if one pays attention to what the commendant says, he does not say that the city eas under ua control on the 5th, only that Slavyansk rebels arrived on the 6th. The city could have been under local rebels on the 5th.

    • Liane Theuer // July 3, 2016 at 5:50 pm // Reply

      RNBO: News & Analysis Center July 7 Update :
      “In Donetsk Oblast, militants mined a dam in Zuhres and bridges on the approach to the town. In this manner, the mercenaries are doing everything they can to complicate the situation in the Donbas and to increase social tension among locals.”

      “on the approach to the town” means the separatists were not in control of Zuhres on July 6/2014.

      On July 13/2014 a bridge was blown up :
      “According to the people, the bridge over the river Krynka near the Zuievskyi reservoir was blown up by militants who have mixed up with a sound of a moving tractor with an armoured vehicle.
      “They were drunk and probably droning tractor that was approaching the bridge scared them. So they blew up the bridge. People say that the responsible for the explosion were punished by their own group,” a local resident said.”

      Look at the photo published by
      The national colors of Ukraine would no longer have been on the bridge if Zuhres would have been under full control of separatists.

      • Suppose Zuhres was not under control of the separatists. The area toward the east was. How much sense does it make for the Ukraine army to transport a BUK TELAR towards the east? The separatists do not have fighter jets. At the same time we know Ukraine evacuated many BUK systems from bases like Luhanks to other bases in areas controled by Kiev.

        If the video was indeed made at July 5, which I doubt, the convoy was a separatists convoy.

        • Ukraine official persons spoke every day about russian regular army invasion and active russian aircrafts in Donbas’s airspace (well, in july month and later).

          Official Ukraine version of july 16 aircrafts accident (one was destroyed and another one was damaged) was air-to-air missiles from Russian mig aircraft. And it was July 16, a day before mh17.

          • Ukraine told a lot of nonsense. They even claimed Snizhne was bombed by Russian Airforce.
            Bringing a Ukraine Army BUK TELAR towards the east in separatists controled area does not make sense at all.

        • “Separatists” is just an euphemism for calling Russian mercenaries. They came to Zuhres on July 6, 2014. Before that there were local “militia” there. They could hardly control the town because of small number and being riffraff, but they had a checkpoint on H21 at the dam.

          “Before there was one checkpoint on the dam in Zuhres. Now there are much more. Well fortified, and controlled not by local alcoholics as before, but by more serious people.”

      • > “on the approach to the town” means the separatists were not in control of Zuhres on July 6/2014

        Here, “on the approach to the town” means “near the town”. The separatists “mined a dam in Zuhres and bridges” (if they did it) in order to defend their positions from potential attacks.
        On 6 July, 2014, Zuhres was controlled by separatists. Several Russian organizations supplied medicines for local hospital on 6 July:
        It seems that on 5 July Zuhres was controlled by separatists as well. I found no news about any fighting/attack/retreat with regard to this town in early July 2014.
        Volovik is not trustworthy absolutely. It is very strange that he talks about the Zuhres video as if the Ukrainian/pro-Ukrainian side claimed that the video had been filmed on 18 July. As we know, the Ukrainians and their supporters claim it was 17 July.

        • Are you trust AA (Andrey), the author of buk’s video? He said what it was filmed July 5 on Saturday. Ukrainian side doesn’t known who and when it was filmed, but video’s author known the best.

          • The author knows when he filmed the video. But I do not know whether he told the truth about the 5th of July. Maybe, it was a lie, given Volovik’s weird game. However, I do not trust the Ukrainian side either.

          • Probably Andrey said various bullshit in order to save his ass. For example, towards Shahtarsk and towards Russia border is the same direction, not the opposite.

            He talked about noise. Convoys with tanks were noisy. However, the convoy with the low-loader with the Buk was silent. Note that he never said “Buk”.

        • The talk about July 18 and direction to the Russia border mean that Volovik confused the Zuhres video with the Luhansk video.

          • So the announced next episode of this MH17 Inquiry channel will be about the Luhansk video?
            It is all very amateuristic. Not doing the case of Russia a favour.

          • It seems that Volovik got nutty about fame. His website with the photoshopped “Putin picture” (and most likely photoshopped “Medvedev picture) speaks for itself.

          • Slozhny // July 4, 2016 at 12:11 am //

            There is a road connecting Shakhtarsk and Russia: It could be used on the night July 17-18 for evacuation of Buk from the launch site towards Shakhtarsk (to avoid carrying it through Snizhne and Torez), and then via Luhansk to Russia. This might be the matter Andrey was telling about when he said of directions of some road towards Shakhtarsk and Russia. In the video we probably see fragments of an on-site interrogation of Andrey (heavily cut and edited to distort sense of his words), not an interview or propaganda show.

          • Buk was spotted in Snizhne in the evening July 17 after MH17 shootdown:
            (20:06 local time)

          • Slozhny // July 4, 2016 at 1:51 pm //

            Lena, actually there was Strela-10 behind Fourchette store.

          • @Slozhny: how do you know it was a Strela-10?

          • Slozhny // July 5, 2016 at 1:13 pm //

            Admin, Lena, sorry, I made a mistake. Long ago an eyewitness wrote in personal correspondence that an “Osa” had been behind Fourchette, not Strela-10. Not sure if he was accurate and could tell one from another, but at least it was not a Buk.

          • These coordinates are in Snizhne on the road to the south, where Buk was videoed driving south towards the launch site before the shootdown. A Strela-10 was filmed 3.5 km to the south-east from Buk launch site on July 16. Depending on the direction where the convoy moved, it could be the 332 Buk on the road via Luhansk or Strela-10 evacuated to the south towards nearest Russian border in the panic after MH17 shootdown.

  27. Hugh Eaven // July 3, 2016 at 8:47 am // Reply

    Marcel: “Andrey Andryushim claims the truck drove in the direction of Shakhtars’k. And he stated the opposite direction is towards Russia. That is weird as Shakhtars’k is direction of Russia.”

    The English subtitle reads “Russia and its border”. The nearest border is strictly not in the direction of Shakhtars’k. But assuming the transport came from Donetsk, moving it to the direction of Torez and Shizhne makes only sense because that probably was much safer considering seperationalist control in that direction and the various controlled checkpoints with Russia.

    The “Inquiry” people really should provide evidence that war (capture/recapture) had reached the Shakhtarsk Raion already around 5th or 6th of July, like they’re suggesting. It doesn’t seem to be the case at all. But who knows which town aligned with whom on which day exactly?

  28. Facebook page of Andrey Andryushim:
    Volovik is not as important as admin thinks.
    “Here an archive of his posts.” Well. I see the posts of at least five different Andrey Andryushims. The internet is a great deceiver, it can keep you occupied for days and at the end you ‘ll find out, you still have nothing.

  29. VK Strelkov Info posted that usable air defense equipment was found at Base A-1428 on July 4. Moving a BUK for light repairs on July 5 fits that statement.

    • Base A-1428 is the one north of Donetsk. Location 48.098601, 37.754403
      I am not sure if the weather of July 5 fits the video.

    • Hugh Eaven // July 3, 2016 at 5:16 pm // Reply

      A big pull-back operation was clearly in progress from that area towards Donetsk and beyond possibly to regroup and safeguard equipment. So there’s at least this context of getting the BUK out at that day.

      Pro-Ukraine report for the 5th at:

      “The column of armor and cars of terrorists moved to Donetsk through uninhabited places and the column with more than a thousand militants were remaining an easy target for the ATO forces for at least two hours; why the ATO forces did not take the chance remains a mystery…”

  30. “He is seen here at a ceremony with Russian Prime Minsiter Dmitry Medvedev” The ceremony took place on 27 February 2015. Volovik got a cultural prize, as at least forty others. Here you can find the complete list:

    • Indeed. Many authors and artists were awarded. Volovik goes as an “author” here. He got a prize for authoring an “encyclopedia” about the Russian state.

  31. Mr.Bushkin // July 4, 2016 at 3:09 pm // Reply

    The route of transport is quite strange, since Ukrainian positions around Zaroshchenske are about 20 km behind the hilltop seen in the video according to this map:

  32. Some clarifications about Volovik. I looked through various websites where his name is mentioned and I concluded that he is not “a powerful figure in Russian business”. The “corporation”, where he is reportedly CEO, Bi-Gaz-Si, is a dummy. This is its website, it’s a joke:
    What he is actually doing is networking, squeezing himself into various associations and societies, and capitalizing on presenting himself an “important person”. Of the long list of his titles, only a few are valid, but their quality is doubtful. He is a member of Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (Russian abbreviation is RAEN). It is absolutely not the same as Russian Academy of Sciences (RAN). RAN is a true academy, funded by the government. RAEN is an association of those who wish to be called “academicians”. Late Nobel Prize winner Vitaly Ginzburg called RAEN a fake. Then, Volovik is a member of Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society (IPPO). Also, he seats on board of the Russian Chamber for Commerce and Industry – as CEO of Bi-Gaz-Si (which is a dummy corporation). And, his crown jewel, he is доверенное лицо of Putin. This is not that Volovik is a confidant of Putin or is close to him. Formally, it means that Volovik was appointed a representative (proxy) of Putin when the latter was a candidate for presidency at the election of 2012. Representatives are supposed to campaign for their candidate. However, Volovik was added to the list of Putin representatives just a few days before the election and had little chance to campaign.
    According to this news of 27 Feb 2012—gOKouMaVQeQU/
    20 persons, including Volovik, were added to the list of Putin representatives at the very end of February. (With this addition, there were 529 names in the list.) The election was held on 4 March 2012. Thus, this additon had no practical sense. I guess that those 20 persons lobbied hard to be included into the list. Putin might not ever heard the name of Volovik. But since then Volovik has been capitalizing on the “honorable title”.
    The room where Volovik was filmed might be in the Chamber for Commerce and Industry or in Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society.
    Given the dubious figure of Volovik and his incompetence in the case of MH17 (see his “18 July” assertions), it is very unlikely that “MH17 Inquiry” is “some sort of coordinated public relations attempt of Russia”. The “inquiry”‘is something very strange.

    • Russian academy of NATURAL Sciences (as opposed to Academy of Sciences, or Academy of Medical Sciences) is a place infested with scammers and Vovlik is high up there, as I understand.

    • Hugh Eaven // July 5, 2016 at 5:36 am // Reply

      abcd: “”” The “inquiry”‘is something very strange. “””

      Thank you for the great research. Personally I don’t find it that strange though. The Internet, book and radio landscape is for decades awash with these kinds of people and their video productions, paperbacks, late night radio guest slots and conference speaker appearances. Same basic patterns: some “credentials” often appear which are just not really that upon closer inspection but still repeated as “impressive” and always latching on to the latest craze, whatever is popular and vague enough that it even “might* be so at first glance. The question remains where the gain here exactly is. More publications coming? The click-ad model? Just the glow of attention? Or getting paid to muddle the waters even further? Even one “anonymous donor” would be enough to get these people in gear, doing all the hard work. It’s many things, it could be many things, but unusual — not really!

      I do wonder now if the guy “Andrey Andryushim” in the video is just a look-alike. No effort at all is made to identity him further on screen (passport, his living room, neighbor interview), which wouldn’t be such an effort. Why not? Why not go the extra mile?

  33. Andrey’s house and floor plan (see flat 25):

    • Saw it posted on
      Why is the floorplan interesting?

      Other question: how many postings on vKontakte do you know about reports of fighterjets on July 17?
      Saw this one

      • It’s for info only. For people who don’t trust data by Andrey (he is real, live in that flat and filmed that video from his flat).

        P.S. I don’t known about all chats on that days. Asked mh17’s users to search that data. One trusty guy from lostarmour ( ) tell me what there were hundreds of evidence and messages all around internet (with events on July 17).

      • > Other question: how many postings on vKontakte do you know about reports of fighterjets on July 17?

        I know two. One in the thread about booms (with 150 posts) mentioning the flying fighter 36 minutes after the boom, the other one is that above. Also in the other thread people talk about seeing fighter flying, but I could not make it if it was a joke or not (most people wouldn’t take it as a joke, I believe, but I don’t count it anyway). I only know about the “Eavesdropped in Torez” group.
        Any Russian speakers, what’s your opinion?

  34. sotilaspassi // July 11, 2016 at 7:11 am // Reply

    Some found out idea of rebels moving broken BUK units around Donbas to fool SBU. Very cool idea, if rebels had ok looking missiles to attach on those launchers.
    It would scare UA airforce and would force UA to do some counter measures against them, far away from actual war zone.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.