Prediction: MH17 situation in 2020

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

My prediction for the situation on MH17 in 2020. I just hope I will be totally wrong.

JIT: between 2017 and 2020 JIT announced it was able to find the names of a few people involved in the logistics of transporting the BUK to and from Russia. As these people could not have been aware of the results of their acting JIT decided not to prosecute these people. There will be no court case against the people who had command over the BUK as the names could not be determined.

JIT was not able to find a motive for the shot down. Most likely because the motive is something which should not be made public. My guess Ukraine somehow provoked the launch of a missile.

JIT countries did not agree on an international court case or under Dutch or Ukraine law.

ICJ: the application filed by Ukraine against Russia was not accepted by ICJ as a case ICJ has jurisdiction on.

ECHR: a couple of next of kin filed an application against Ukraine for not closing the airspace. Case still under investigation.

Dutch government succeeded in keeping minutes of meeting of cabinet secret. The government did not take legal actions against Russia or Ukraine.

Dutch parliament. All members who were in opposition in 2014-2017 period are either out of parliament or member of government parties. Not much criticism.
Some member of Parliament talk about a Parliamentary inquiry on MH17 to find out what the government did in the years 2014-2017.

Dutch public has forgotten about MH17.

Dutch press. In 2017 (3 three later) and 2019 (5 years later) on tv a couple of documentaries will be shown with a lot of focus on the next of kin. No investigation into all aspects of MH17


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

47 Comments on Prediction: MH17 situation in 2020

  1. IMHO, the situation may considerably change only in the following cases:

    1) After a palace coup in Russia leaders of the new Russian regime in attempting to strengthen their legitimacy and to improve the image of Russia have decided to reveal certain crimes of the former regime;
    2) In Netherlands and some other parts of the West the political forces have come to power, which have got political will to inflict a real punishment on the Russian regime for this crime and prosecute its officials involved in it, not being scared of Putin’s “asymmetrical response”.
    3) Russian armed forces for whatever reason have shot down more airliners with citizens of Western countries aboard.

    Of course, the probabilities of 1) and 2) are very low…

  2. “My guess Ukraine somehow provoked the launch of a missile.”
    My guess as well. And they made it with help of USA. That is why all parties are throwing feces at each other instead of providing tangible and verifiable evidence. Practically leadership of all 3 countries (Dutch government behaviour might indicate that not just USA but NATO structures are involved as well) should be put on independent trial – impossible situation.
    Russians clearly supplied the weapon and they had clear motive to do it. But it is clear that TELAR would be supported by KUPOL across the border – it is just pure logic.
    Ukrainians had a motive to provoke Russians to become pariahs of the world. But they lacked technical capabilities to do it with high degree of certainty. They could only do low level tasks on the ground in preparing the evidence based. Even that was not made professionally –
    Self-contradictory poor quality photos and videos leaked to social media plus doctored phone intercepts.
    USA had motive and means to deceive KUPOL about an approaching SU25 towards SAUR Moguls. TELAR crew just got the encrypted data about the target and it’s predicted interception point, so that semi-guided missile can be launched. After launch they just had to switch on illumination radar for few seconds. Whatever was in the beam got illuminated and provided signal for missile to lock on. Nearly fail proof trick if you think about it. But something went wrong, that is why Kerry had to back down from his initial statement of seeing launch, trajectory and hit. Probably Russia sent more than 1 TELAR into the done, so the one that launched the missile that hit mg17 was not in Snezhnoe but in another location. Hence the trajectory of missile is not what they’ve drawn on ppt slide and and it was crooked indicating retargeting. And they had no “BUK trail story for that location”. So it was left to “independent” bulshitcats to investigate.

    Russians have no proof for such scenario. All they know that SU25 was there and when missile was approaching it it disappeared or didn’t present any target that reflects radar signal. Rebels also have little. They were told by Russians that SU25 was targeted. All they found was MH17. That explains their total confusion. And scenario above explains the strabge behaviour of all parties.

    Your prediction is correct. MH17 will be made forgotten. And because so many parties are guilty and those parties do not like to be prosecuted.

    • sotilaspassi // April 19, 2017 at 2:01 pm // Reply

      >“My guess Ukraine somehow provoked the launch of a missile.”
      I imagine it is possible that someone fed incorrect spotter info.

      >My guess as well. And they made it with help of USA.
      How? Magic?

      That just does not seem possible vs radar evidence.

      >But it is clear that TELAR would be supported by KUPOL across the border – it is just pure logic.
      I do not consider that being strong possibility without getting detected by SIGINT. Note also that NATO AWACS plane was just leaving the area.

      Also, KUPOL would not make mistake between civilian airliner and SU25/AN26.

      >Self-contradictory poor quality photos and videos leaked to social media

      So far all photos and videos seem authentic. No-one proved any serious issue on them.

      >USA had motive and means to deceive KUPOL about an approaching SU25 towards SAUR Moguls.
      There’s nothing on radar beside civilian planes!

      >Kerry … seeing launch, trajectory and hit.
      SBIRS can explain that + Kerry’s imagination.

      >Probably Russia sent more than 1 TELAR into the done, so the one that launched the missile that hit mg17 was not in Snezhnoe but in another location.

      Other locations are not possible for BUK missile to cause the seen damage.

      >Hence the trajectory of missile is not what they’ve drawn on ppt slide and and it was crooked indicating retargeting. And they had no “BUK trail story for that location”.

      Launch smoke photos + eyewitness + US image/slide match.

      >All they know that SU25 was there
      Why it is not visible on any primary radar then?

      >They were told by Russians that SU25 was targeted.
      Note that SU25’s were shot down daily. So, people simply assumed it was SU25 or AN26.

      If Russia was fooled to shoot at MH17, why do they not say so?

      • Your argument about SIGINT and Awaks is silly. Please stop it. And I explained why in another thread.

        It is also not hard to look out technology that specifically designed to fool KUPOL about the incoming target. Why can’t you make a simple search for it? KUPOL didn’t mistake Boeing for SU25. KUPOL have seen the phantom SU25 or similar plane approaching. KUPOL is just replying on radar signal reflected from a target. There are technologies that first evaluate KUPOL’s illumination signature (frequency, modulation, etc) and then just send back a signal to KUPOL antenna that creates the phantom on the screen. No physical plane is actually flying. But KUPOL has no means to know it. Information about this technology is openly magic there.
        So KUPOL have information on the phantom to TELAR. Semi-active missile was first launched into predicted intercept point without illumination. The illumination was switched on in the last 10 seconds of flight for proportional navigation to a target within the illumination beam. Who ever was in charge of BUK had no means of knowing what he is illuminating. It is a most basic method for BUK complete system consisting of TAR, Command unit and TELAR.
        Russians told them that target is SU25, so they believed that that was the target that they hit.
        It was a nearly fail proof provocation by Americans. All their AWAKS and satellites where in place to establish the blame. When they want Americans have no problem of throwing around high tech data. Ukrainians also prepared the “evidence” on Snezhnoe BUK and it’s trail. But here something went wrong. Most likely there was more then 1 TELAR and the 1 that launched missile at BOEING was not in Snezhnoe, and careful evaluation of satellite data showed that missile made drastic turn instead of nearly straight line that would be expected from Snezhnoe. That is why Kerry had to go silent on his original claims. That is why ParisMatch was invented ( PM journalist lied about the images origin). So he was supplied with those images. What is the probability that Ukr nationalists know about some crappy French journal?
        The was Aleinikov with missile trail photo and inconsistent and obviously fabricated story about how the picture was taken. And surprise-surprise also Ukr nationalist. Story about old aunt of rebel supporter and at the same time being special agent for Avakov who recorded Lugansk BUK is another “brilliant” piece of evidence. How blind can you be to ignore all those things?

        • sotilaspassi // April 20, 2017 at 7:05 am // Reply

          >It is also not hard to look out technology that specifically designed to fool KUPOL about the incoming target.

          You have a link? (did not find anything after quick search)

          >KUPOL have seen the phantom SU25 or similar plane approaching. KUPOL is just replying on radar signal reflected from a target. There are technologies that first evaluate KUPOL’s illumination signature (frequency, modulation, etc) and then just send back a signal to KUPOL antenna that creates the phantom on the screen. No physical plane is actually flying. But KUPOL has no means to know it. Information about this technology is openly magic there.

          I wonder how that kind can be injected in the area. I imagine transmitter should be in the direction of the fake target.
          You think there was F-22 in the air?

          >Semi-active missile was first launched into predicted intercept point without illumination.

          So far I have understood that missile can not be launched without illumination from remote TELAR.
          Where you have learned launch can be done without TELAR illumination radar being on?

          > The illumination was switched on in the last 10 seconds of flight for proportional navigation to a target within the illumination beam.

          That sounds hard to believe. Nearly 20s of missile flight before illumination?
          How the TELAR firedome knows what to illuminate on the fly?
          How the TELAR would happen to illuminate different target than what the KUBOL informed?

          So far I’ve understood TELAR does not launch without own illumination being on. (but so far I’ve focused on understanding solo TELAR operation)

          >All their AWAKS … where in place to establish the blame.

          Out of range.

          >Ukrainians also prepared the “evidence” on Snezhnoe BUK and it’s trail.

          Way too demanding for SBU who can not even tell the difference between their and RU military HW.
          And why only the launch near Snezhnoe was reported by eyewitnesses?

          >Most likely there was more then 1 TELAR and the 1 that launched missile at BOEING was not in Snezhnoe

          All evidence prove the only launch was from south side of Snezhnoe. See also Almaz-Antey material of BUK flight to target, they do not indigate any zig-zag flight scenario.

          >and careful evaluation of satellite data showed that missile made drastic turn instead of nearly straight line that would be expected from Snezhnoe.

          That is only your fantasy.
          DSB and JIT do not indicate anything like that after they saw the data.
          And I doubt SBIRS can see BUK flight after rocket fuel runs out 17…22s after launch.

          >How blind can you be to ignore all those things?

          I try not to believe in any conspiracy theory.
          I need facts + evidence.

          There is no evidence that back anything you write.
          Hopefully you can give link to facts vs KUPOL fooling technology.

          • Policarp // April 20, 2017 at 8:09 am //


            If you take Eltsin book about BUK system (for example p22) you can get information that trajectory of missile is divided into inertial and semiactice. During inertial missile is launched by TELAR or TEL towards a predicted point that target will reach based on known speed and direction recorded by TAR. there is no illumination of target at this moment, so that pilot does not know that missile is launched and locked on it. During this period TAR can also send correction to missile via standard radio communications in case target changed direction or speed. But still pilot will only see that he is detected by TAR and will not make evasive manuvour unless he can see the trail from missile. When missile approaches the predicted point TELAR will switch on illumination and semi-active homing starts based on reflected signal from target.
            This dual regime allows to keep pilot unaware of the danger till the very last moment and also protects the location of TELAR.

          • This seems a likely scenario in a situation where a TAR is available. Like in normal combat operation . In the MH17 case it is likely the TELAR was operating in autonomous mode (no TAR link and support). Could it still be the missile in its inertial phase is guided by radio signals by the TELAR and in its final phase illumunated by radar? I find this hard to believe as it will take time to startup the radar.

          • Policarp // April 20, 2017 at 8:24 am //

            “All evidence prove the only launch was from south side of Snezhnoe.”
            Which evidence? Aleinikov photo’s accompanied with obviously fabricate story?
            State department’s sattelite image with green trajectory drawn by marker on top of it?
            Flawed analysis by DSB with simulations based on weird assumptions about missile warhead and incapable to explain damages to engine and tail?
            Planted butterfly element by a journalist?
            Or all the tangible evidence that is kept secret with excuse investigation secrecy?
            Which other “evidence” did I miss?

          • Policarp // April 20, 2017 at 8:29 am //

            “See also Almaz-Antey material of BUK flight to target, they do not indigate any zig-zag flight scenario.”
            NO need for zig zag. Just obvious turn of the missile after reflecting target being at different location from where the phantom was supposed to be.

          • sotilaspassi // May 3, 2017 at 9:13 am //

            at Policarp

            >>“All evidence prove the only launch was from south side of Snezhnoe.”
            >Which evidence? Aleinikov photo’s accompanied with obviously fabricate story?

            Photo from Torez and from three other locations match with Pervomaiske field.

            >State department’s sattelite image with green trajectory drawn by marker on top of it?

            Also that match the location.

            >Flawed analysis by DSB with simulations based on weird assumptions about missile warhead and incapable to explain damages to engine and tail?

            That’s your flawed analysis of DSB material.
            What tail damage you mean?
            Something not possible by secondary fragments from missile + forward fuselage?
            There is not any serious issue with DSB analysis so far.
            It seems pervomaiske location is best match to cause the damage seen according to all (official and unoffiscial) sane investigators.

            >Planted butterfly element by a journalist?

            How did they plant those into bodies?
            How does proven butterfly frags (+butterfly holes) change the launch direction?

            >Which other “evidence” did I miss?

            Two photos.
            And the fact that to cause MH17 damage BUK can only approach from ahead.
            And the fact that BUK fly niearly straight line to non.maneuvering target after it receives the radar echo.
            And the fact that eyewitness only saw a launch from the Pervomaiske direction.
            And the fact rebels also admitted their side doing it.
            And the fact that BUK TELAR was only seen to go to “south from Snizhne”.
            Etc etc etc.

            But go ahead and try little more to protect the “freaks from moscow” with your fantasies with no proof.

          • Policarp // May 3, 2017 at 1:13 pm //

            Ok. sotilaspassi. You seem to be hysterical. I notice how you decided not to continue discussion on retargeting theory, where you obviously cannot find anymore arguments, and decided to focus on the less relevant post of mine. My mistake, should have kept to the topic and not react to your provocation.

            But what the he’ll, let’s play your game.
            Torez photos are from Aleinikov, if I spell his name correctly. There was 1 photo from the side. Which are other 2 photos?

            In any case we can focus on Aleinikov. We can immediately note that he is an interested party and his evidence should be approached carefully. Allegedly the photo shows the missile trail. Aleinikov his story about how the photo was taken several times. But one consistent point that he started shooting after he heard explosion that shook his windows clearly indicates that he is lying. It just doesn’t match the possible progress of events.
            Second, the photo only indicates that there is a trail. It doesn’t prove that it was the only launch. Plus it doesn’t prove that launch was preformed on the date claimed by Aleinikov. Only link is Exit file, which can be manipulated by online software. Plus camera is claimed to have time off. What makes us sure that date was also off.
            Photo from the side appeared very long after the event. I think only last year. Meaning 2 years after. Very suspicious at best. But still even we accept it as real evidence it doesn’t prove that there was only 1 launch. It is just your wishful thinking. And finally launch from Snezhnoe doesn’t contradict retargeting theory, but you seem not to notice it.

            The serious issue with DSB is for example warhead simulation by TNO that was a sloppy and unprofessional job. Probably it is the reason that they try not to mention it again.

            Planted butterfly was discussed on this blog
            Butterflies in the bodies are not confirmed specifically. Very shaky description of autopsy report and vague claims on extracted pieces. It is again your wishful thinking.

            “fact that BUK fly niearly straight line to non.maneuvering target after it receives the radar echo” it is a fact in your imagination which contradicts how all semi-active missiles work, Russian, American etc. Antenna offset angle should be enough for you to start reading to understand falsity of your statement.

            But would like to see if you also read on how BUK SYSTEM actually work. You obviously have little knowledge based on your comments on April 20th.

          • @Policarp: you are right the EXIF data is not proof whatsoever the photo was made shortly after the launch.
            However shadow analysis done by people active at the Russian forum show the photo must have been make close to the time the missile was launched.
            Now again with some clever photoshop it could be done. Although extremely unlikely. Also there are eyewitness confirming the launch from the area the missile plume seems to be originating from.

          • Policarp // May 8, 2017 at 4:23 pm //

            Actually Aleinikov photo is not so critical for me, as it is not affecting much the retargeting theory. I’m just pointing to it as flimsy evidence that would be discarded in any court, particularly due to inconsistency of Aleinikov’s story about taking that photo. Admin, I think in one of your articles you even come to the conclusion that photos where taken from balcony and not from roof.
            In regards Photoshop and m, there is actually used Ралив, who is showing certain arguments in favour of manipulations in photo. I’m not expert or even simple user in image manipulation, so cannot judge. But he found a number of regions in the photo that have strange rectangular shape ( he call them blankets). They do seem to be some image manipulation residue.
            But in any case, I’m glad that technical arguments provided against Retargeting with Raethron or equivalent tool collapsed. It is also more or less agreed that if Russian military has provided TELAR they would definitely support it with TAR from across the border ( they would also do if rebels got their own BUK TELAR). It is just logical and harmless for the them. And of course we can flush down the drain the theory proposed by Slozhny/Illarionov, it is just too stupid.
            Fooling of TAR under direct Russian military command really explains all the strange inconsistentencies in this case, including strange claims about SU25 that doesn’t exist on civilian radar but obviously was seen by Russian military. Also the cooling went wrong, which is the only reason why Americans would back down on their strongest evidence available and go numb on it. They never do in other circumstances.

          • Slozhny // May 9, 2017 at 12:14 am //

            Policarp, nobody cared of your “retargeting theory” just because even with zero knowledge of radio electronics (like you have) it looks like a classical leftist (anti-US) conspiracy theory. As a former professional in the field I can assure you that retargeting a Buk missile from a phantom to a real target is a pure nonsense. Beginning with the fact that it’s just impossible to create a “phantom” (range-gate pull off technique) unless your deception jammer is within the radar beam. Then the radar has to lock on to the phantom (a narrow beam). So you need a real aircraft with a jammer, and can imitate a phantom only on the line radar-jammer (more feasible behind your aircraft). The best result you can achieve by this is that a missile misses your aircraft and destroys itself. In a very improbable case another target appears within the scope of lock-on (that is impossible to set up deliberately anyway: too narrow zone), its parameters (mathematical model) will be too different from those of your phantom target, so lock-on will simply be broken.

          • Policarp // May 9, 2017 at 2:41 am //

            “As a former professional in the field ” -it’s a pity that Raytheon didn’t consult you before developing their most recent technology. But you seem to be missing the difference of principle behind the Raytheon system. It is only deceiving TAR. Semiactive missiles launched by TELAR are no guided by reflection of “narrow” illumination beam from Fire dome radar for most of their flight. It starts illuminating the predicted direction base on data from TAR only at the last few seconds. “Jammer” doesn’t need to replicate the phantom for this illumination signal. Either missile doesn’t find any target where expected and selfdestructs or locks on any target within the beam. TELAR crew doesn’t have time or means to understand that wrong target is locked on. Jammer doesn’t need to bother about it. Placing the Raytheon system on track with airliner would ensure that this situation can happen with high probability. No mystery there

          • Slozhny // May 9, 2017 at 10:42 am //

            Policarp, no matter which radar it deceives. This technology does not work the way you imply. A phantom can be created ONLY on the line radar-jammer. Moreover, illuminating from another radar placed elsewhere makes it even physically impossible to get a real target and a phantom situated (for a required period of time) on one line passing through the illumination radar, and yet to make phantom’s parameters realistic at that. So TELAR simply couldn’t illuminate the real target as it would be in a different 3D-direction than the phantom. You understand nothing in this field, but are trying to invent conspiracy theories using your tech fantasies.

          • Policarp // May 9, 2017 at 12:12 pm //

            You seem to be oblivious to something very simple. Phantom didn’t need to be “situated (for a required period of time) on one line passing through the illumination radar”. It was not “interacting” with TELAR at all. It was only deceiving TAR across the border and there was no problem for him stay in stable line with it. They knew precisely where TAR was stationed. TELAR would just switch illumination radar in the last seconds of missile flight. Illumination beam direction would be instructed by TAR. Such scenario for BUK system is standard operating procedure. Why are you oblivious of this if you are such an expert?
            Signal from Fire Dome will be at specific frequency and modulation pattern. MH17 would reflect it for missile to lock on. No need for phantom interference. Cruise speeds of su25 and Boeing are practically equivalent. So no issues with Doppler. All the phantom had to do is to trace the flight path of MH17 within the narrow but not really too narrow beam (1.4° width in azimuth and 2.65° in elevation). At 26 km it gives more than 2 km variation in vertical target position that will still place it within the beam. It is not really hard to accomplish that 3D position of phantom would get within that beam when TELAR starts to illuminate, particularly as Americans had total operational knowledge of everything happening in Donbas. The only question is what went wrong with that plan that seemed to work but they had to back down and hide the real evidence that they have.

          • Slozhny // May 9, 2017 at 2:27 pm //

            Policarp, expectedly, it appears useless to explain simple tech things to you. You ignore one part of these and bullshit on the other. I guess it’s useless to spend more time and efforts to bring those home to you or adduce many other tech counterarguments (either general ones or how the Buk system actually works). Your spatial-dynamical reasoning also seems too poor to grasp the problem. And above all your conspiracy thinking, which I didn’t even try to refute, since it’s just a faith unsusceptible of any criticism. So adieu.

          • Policarp // May 9, 2017 at 2:53 pm //

            Hahahhahahhaha “And above all your conspiracy thinking” and this is from someone propagating Illarionov’s conspiracy, which is devote of any logic or reality.
            I noticed that you were made to smell your own manure on a number of forums for technical reasons. So yes. I should run away and not even try to argue technicalities with such expert.

          • Slozhny and Policarp:
            you both made your point and you are not agreeing. I request both of you now to stop this discussion,

          • sotilaspassi // June 6, 2017 at 9:16 am //

            In April I went through the MALD info I found.

            “MALD is an expendable air-launched flight vehicle that looks like a U.S. or allied aircraft to enemy Integrated Air Defense Systems”

            Nowhere does it say MALD can fake an airliner to look like an enemy.
            MALD can only fake itself to look like an enemy.

            So, if some US plane launched MALD to shadow MH17 and to fake it to look like some military plane:
            -there should have been US plane in the air to launch MALD (meaning radar invisible F22) (not fully impossible, but risky, F-22 is visible to eye and satellites)
            -MALD can fake itself to look like military plane, to draw enemy fire to itself.
            -MALD is small, it might be able to shadow MH17 without being noticed. (possible, even though risky)
            -MALD would need to be able to land/crash to UA territory for not to become captured by Russia. (possible, it has long range)
            -NATO AWACS plane would naturally not “report” about MALD or F-22 to DSB/JIT.
            -note also that RU AWACS plane was near the area (it might detect any/every radio anomalities)
            -possible TAR crew in Russia should anyway notice the target being in civil aviation corridor
            -possible TAR should be aware MH17 being at the same location in the air, because of Mh17’s SSR transponder

            If Russian TELAR was fooled to shoot at MH17. They should say so, instead inventing 100 lies.

            Russia must pay anyway for terrorism and enabling MH17 shootdown.
            Ukraine should at least admit they FAILED to close the airspace and are partially RESPONSIBLE.
            If some party fooled Russians to shoot at MH17, they must pay as well.

            International aviation should stop flights on areas where there is suspect of a MANPAD (any anti-aircraft weapon) being in risky hands.
            Perhaps international aviation should stop civilian flights on all areas where aerial devices fly without transponders.
            The cost of downing an civilian airliner should be made so high that no-one does it any more.

  3. Thomas Schansman // April 18, 2017 at 9:21 am // Reply

    I want you to be wrong, incorrect, missing the point, overseeing important aspects of this cruel attack.
    I do expect that parties involved will take their responsibilities and acknowledge their wrongdoings. It may take time, maybe more than we can bear or tolerate e. But I want to believe I will get to know the truth.
    We will wait for justice. Justice for MH17. For all those families involved. We will never ever forget or stay silent.

    • I wish you were right. But Parties involved have very bad track record on taking responsibility.
      Here is the presentation video for the technology that was likely used to cause this disaster.
      Ready for deployment in Feb 2014, just in time. Adjusting the scenario shown in the promotional video toy he situation that resulted in downing mh17 is quite straightforward. No magic required. I would give a benefit of doubt that it was an unfortunate overconfidence by Americans and they just tried to reveal position of TELAR to Ukrainian airforce but orchestrated media campaign just after the event and BUK trail “evidence” convince me that dowing mh17 was the intended result. But something went wrong that made them rely on inadmissible evidence. And the likely reason is that “wrong” Russian TELAR engaged the target from unexpected location and Americans were unaware of its presence

  4. Rather depressing storyline… My granny used to say: “Truth always finds its way” and I tend to believe it will – for all the victims, for their families, for all of us whose lives are being played by the warmongers as if they do not have any value. To those warmongers: human lives do matter! Every single life lost in war is one too many! I do hope we, civilians, can join forces and stop the insanity of war.

  5. What could possibly prevent Russians from supplying data to TELAR in Donbas from TAR just across the border. BUK complete system is designed to keep TELAR many km away from TAR.

    • Strange. I’ve read majority of the articles on this blog. It is clear that BCiters version of smuggled Russian BUK across the border is assumed proven for all practical reasons. So Russians smuggled multi-tonn hardware that can be directly linked to them if captured. There was no significant protection of that hardware based on photo/video “evidence”. More to this, loader with BUK was traveling close or as many pointed out straight through Ukr positions. So capturing had substantial probability of being captured. But for some reason it is assumed that Russians will not provide TAR support for that lone TELAR through coded messages using secured link – an action that would be not possible to prove even if signal is intercepted. It seems like Russians should have no logic at all, doesn’t it?

      • If the reason for the delivery of the TELAR there was indeed to shot down Ukrainian warplanes, a TAR (or another radar that can send info to Buk TELAR) across the border would be used for sure, since it greatly improves chances for detection and hitting approaching maneuvering warplanes. If the plan was to shot down this or whatever civil airliner, use of TAR support would be unreasonable. Because the fewer military men know of such a plan the better, and a target designation in this case could be sent to the crew even via an internet messenger from an (anonymous) person watching fr24, yet with a high probability the chosen target would be hit.

        • Good. Im happy with your answer. It is logical that if Russians passed TELAR to rebels, they would also provide TAR support from across the border. The only scenario when TAR will NOT be used is if there was an intent to shoot down an airliner. I’m sure you would get a lot of support in pushing the intent theory.

          But I wonder how do you imagine that operation to be planned based on the data we have now. They planned to kill so many civilians but they seem to be quite clumsy in hiding their murder weapon. And of course the media was so on their side that they could easily rely on MSMs to confirm the version that they will present. I guess your version is that Russians tried to implicate Ukr army in shooting down an airliner and that would give Russia a pretext for invasion. So why didn’t they try this version at least in their media? Really, what is your mind could ve the planning of such operation be?

  6. I don’t know whether there was a support from across the border or not actually. From the collection of data I have got by now (including private sources) the version that the shotdown was an act of terror seems more likely to me that any version it occurred due to a technical error or negligence. I mean masterminds, not the crew which apparently just blindly fired at the designated target. Psychological defence mechanisms of the general public prevent it from believing the Russian regime is capable of committing such villainous acts of terror, so no widespread support of such theory could be expected, even in the case it would be well-grounded. Andrei Illarionov explained plausible “rational” reasons many times, do read him if you are unfamiliar with those. I could add more reasons, especially irrational psychological ones which any terrorists are actually guided by, but that would not change much the main point. Decision-makers in the West were to get a proper message as to who committed the act, so neither Buk was masked nor phone conversations about its delivery were secure. But no leaks on names of Russian military men involved, of course. Do you remember Putin’s answer to the question about the Moscow metro on the night of 17 July 2014? (the last question)
    Nothing odd in it, in your opinion? If so, demonstrate the video to any applied psychologist…

    • Illarionov has suggested his deliberate terrorist act theory within few days after the event while sitting in Washington. Very “credible” and “researched” position. He never managed to support his accusation not only by facts but even slight sense of rationale in the alleged Putin’s plot to shoot down passenger plane apart from usual he is an evil man. Quite pathetic reasoning there. A low Illarionov alleges that Russian system is corrupt to the core. Everything is about money. How is it that members of the Putin’s corrupt team are not cashing in on the opportunity?

      I don’t know about psychological defence mechanism of Russian people but your assumption about the even shows how you would do it if you were Putin. So it might be you who need to visit psychiatrists.

      If Russia wanted to shoot down the airliner they prepared a pathetic media campaign to support it. While the other side was launching an aggressive media campaign “Putin kills children ” within minutes or even before the plane hit the ground. It was amazingly coherent through out MSMs, so it is clear that they were provided data by perpetrators in advance or immediately after crash. The focus points of the campaign clearly indicate who was I charge. So NO, even on psychological level the evidence is not pointing at Kremlin, in terms of premediating the tragedy.

      • Everyone can read and make own conclusion whether Illarionov managed to support his accusations. It was written in October 2015, when many things had been clarified. Generally Illarionov appears to be right on most occasions related to crimes committed by the Russian regime. No idea which “members of the Putin’s corrupt team” you hinted at, and what opportunity for those to cash in.

        I meant people all round the world. However, a large part of pro-Putin people alleges that it was Ukraine which shot down MH17 intentionally, that contradicts all known facts and is based on nothing (unlike Illarionov’s version which fits the facts rather well). Such behaviour obviously has psychological motives, namely a (unconscious) psychological projection. So think again about who needs what.

        Have you understood that target recipients of the terrorist message were decision-makers in the West, not the Russian audience? Nevertheless the Russian media campaign was huge and completely lying. Ukrainian one simply met the cause. I would say it was even insufficient. Ukrainian MSM were much more concerned about the war than about MH17. Unlike Russian ones.

        • Even in your linked October 2014 article he states that his conclusions from July 2014 are valid. Sp you clearly missing something. Apparently Bellingcat and at just confirmed them.

          As such, his version can be immediately thrown out due to the shoot down of AN24 at above 6 km few days earlier. The secret terrorist act was not too secret after all. All his the arguments are sophism of relatively poor level. Neither events before or after the shoot down confirm that scenario. Saying that Putin’s numerous telephone calls to all leaders is unprecedented and proves the intent is beyond seek.

          Multiple versions of events appeared around the world because no concrete information was revealed by either party. But apparently Illarionov solved the case like Sherlock Holmes by looking at dust particles on Putin’s suit within few days of the event. Brilliant, he should be put in charge of all investigations. I wonder why world is not paying attention to such genius. Funny thing is that we still have only undated photos and videos with manipulation at minimum in terms of compression. All those photos and videos are also received from shaft anonymous sources and those who published them were proven to lie about them ( Paris Match and Aleinikov are good examples).

          “Have you understood that target recipients of the terrorist message were decision-makers in the West”

          NO I didn’t understand it and I still don’t. “Target recipients” seemed to be acting opposite of what you are trying to imply.

          • Expectedly, you have replied with nothing but a lot of demagoguery (and some conspiracy in your comment below). So you have no real arguments against Illarionov’s version.

            As for the recipients, well, they changed their behavior not to the extent Putin had wished. Obviously he and his gang couldn’t forecast consequences in such matters correctly, and he couldn’t order an expert research on this. However, at least no considerable military aid has been provided to Ukraine, there is a constant pressure of the West on Ukraine to comply with the (impracticable for Ukraine) Minsk Agreements dictated by Putin at gunpoint (and no pressure on Russia which is not going to comply with them at all), sanctions against Russia are kept on a minimal (acceptable for Putin) level and may be easily lifted due to actions of Russia’s puppets in EU, etc etc.. Via its puppets in Netherlands (Baudet et al.) the Russian regime managed to push through and win the referendum against Ukraine-EU Association Agreement. To a great extent all that became possible due to MH17. Appeasement policy, you know. Even if not always conscious…

          • Policarp // May 1, 2017 at 12:13 am //

            “you have replied with nothing but a lot of demagoguery” – pot calling the kettle black.

            What other arguments are needed against Illarionov if he is not discussing any facts but using some Crystal ball in guessing Putin’s intention? You conveniently ignore An24 shoot down that alone destroys Illarionov’s conspiracy theory.
            “Via its puppets in Netherlands ” ;)))))
            You really think that dutch votes against association because of Putin.
            “To a great extent all that became possible due to MH17” – before mh17 there were no real sanctions. So again your argument collapses.
            It is getting annoying to argue with you – please get some logic in place. Talk about facts and not about Putin’s perceived intentions- you have no clue and no means to know those.

          • Slozhny // May 1, 2017 at 1:44 am //

            Nobody knows Putin’s intention, it’s just a consistent version which can explain most of known contradictory facts on the matter. Unlike any other version I am aware of. The An-26 downed from Russia’s territory/airspace 3 days earlier in no way contradicts the version.

            It’s quite obvious that the referendum in the Netherlands would not take place without MH17 and funding organization of the referendum and anti-Treaty propaganda from Russia. Having common sense is sufficient to conclude this.

            First real US sanctions were introduced on 16th of July 2014. Real EU sanctions MH17 were to follow within weeks in any case. MH17 had been shot down right before a phone conversation between Obama and Putin (by Putin’s prior request) took place. So this way Putin expressed his discontent…

          • Policarp // May 1, 2017 at 6:30 am //

            I was thinking to ask you why they had to travel all the way to Snezhnoe and back, practically the furthest point from where they entered. Why such risk and difficulty? Then I wanted to ask, why would they try shooting the airliner practically on the limit of missile range? Such risk again.
            But then I realised that according to your conspiracy theory Obama, Merkel and others are also involved and cover up for Putin. This is to Complicated, no wonder your call yourself Slozhny. I better keep away, insanity might be courageous.

            I just stick to he retargeting theory.

          • Policarp // May 1, 2017 at 6:51 am //

            Although I cannot stop laughing about the reasoning behind shooting the plane from Amsterdam- because Putin hates gays;)))))). Brilliant, both you and Illarionov.

          • Slozhny // May 1, 2017 at 5:10 pm //

            If the Russian regime wanted to commit an open act of terror, it would just shoot down an airliner over ATO zone from Russia’s territory/airspace (of course, denying this fact, which would be a sufficient excuse for pro-Ru people). But if it wanted to make the general public of the West (not decision-makers who have access to classified intelligence data) to believe that was a technical error made by “separatists”, it needed to demonstrate how “separatists” brought some Buk to a reasonable for air defence for their forces place, a missile should be fired from around it, and hit an airliner which flew in a direction similar to that used by Ukrainian warplanes.

            “But they need at least… time so that they had a look at it.”
            How do you think, who “they” are? I would suggest that by “оБсмотрели/оТсмотрели” Buryatik meant “разглядели”, i.e. “had detected/discerned” instead of “had a look at”. Actually he implied “we” needed to expose this Buk for some time in Donetsk in order that Ukrainian intelligence could have detected it. Any other suggestions?

            25 km is far from the limit, the more so for a large target flying straight towards TELAR with a constant speed.

            Obama, Merkel and some others should know from their intelligence how that really happened. At least these mentioned did not cover up for Putin, but they obviously couldn’t make their knowledge public, and had to simulate lack of knowledge. C’est la vie. But anti-Russian sanctions could be really much more effective, had they and their fellows more courage.

            Don’t pretend you don’t understand the sarcastic sense of the arisen from Russian propaganda Internet meme used by Illarionov (“Gayrope”).

        • Just realized. Original post by Illarionov was on 23 July 2014. By that time Kerry had to go silent on “We saw the take-off. We saw the trajectory, we saw the hit”. Something was wrong in the data that they’ve seen that stopped them from snowing after declaring that they have it and that it is conclusive. I wonder if Illarionov was supplied with data for his imagination to start a new theory.

  7. “Slozhny and Policarp:
    you both made your point and you are not agreeing. I request both of you now to stop this discussion,”

    Sure. Technical possibility of using Raytheon or equivalent system for causing the tragedy can be left to proper experts.
    But one non technical thing that should be reiterated is that if rebels got BUK TELAR (from whatever source) there is nearly zero probability that Russian military would definitely provide TAR support to it. Just because they could with minimum danger (as it seemed) to them and they provided other more direct support. Hence, all theories should consider this as starting point.

    • Wanted to add. Everyone had a lot of fun with Russian MOD in regards su25 and the fact that they mistook reflections from a falling debris for it. But this was based on analysis of civilian radar data. During the 21 July briefing they actually have the scheme of the situation in the air from 17:10 till 17:30pm. Mh17 was hit roughly at 17:21. It is clear that a military key was detected at 17:19pm, 2 minutes before the hit, so it cannot be explained by debris. Also that jet appeared out of nowhere and was quickly ascending towards mh17. “Also, Russian monitoring systems registered that there was a Ukrainian Air Force jet, probably Su-25, climbing and approaching the Malaysian Boeing.The Su-25 was 3-5 km away from the Malaysian plane” it started climbing 5 km in front of mh17. And it was clearly getting into line of sight of expected TELAR. then it suddenly disappeared. At the same time no such data on civilian radar. This strange story can be explained by Russian MOD idiotism, for sure. But maybe a rational explanation is that the scheme is based on data from TAR that was under influence of Raytheon or equivalent jammer and that is why only that radar could see this phenomenon. And that is how the signal managed to appear out of nowhere and disappear suddenly to oblivion at 10km. It also might explain the strange characteristics of the jet manuvour (speed at such altitude) that might be hard for real jet to accomplish. Just think about it.

      • The dark blue “track” is a trajectory of MH17 forward fuselage fragments over Petropavlivka at high altitudes, with a fake beginning added S-W of MH17 (likely for better “cogency” for believers in Ru MoD tales). As for all the rest see my tweets in the threads:
        A metric-wave radar, by the way. Hope you are able to google what follows from this. Hereupon I stop this discussion.

        • “A metric-wave radar, by the way. Hope you are able to google what follows from this. ”

          You are so mysterious. Are you trying to say that because standard TAR is cm-wave radar, your argument is solid? But maybe you forget something. For example “Nebo” is actually and integral system of BUK battalion.( Google it:). Hence the command vehicle would be receiving data from it form a composite operational situation of the airspace. And that compositional will include data from KUPOL in Kuybashavo. And based on that composite data the target is assigned to TELAR. The frequency at which the approaching target is detected is not important. TELAR just need to send the missile roughly towards a target direction and switch on illumination radar pointing roughly at the target with accuracy of the cone center of approximately 2 km at such distance. Well enough even for using solely data from Nebo. But i would still expect KUPOL in Kuyboshevo to be the one lured by phantom.

      • sotilaspassi // June 6, 2017 at 9:32 am // Reply

        “they mistook reflections from a falling debris for it”
        Even for an amateur, it took only ~30minutes to learn and figure out that it was debris and not a f.jet.
        RU MOD had the data for days before they decided to lie 21.jul.2014.

  8. The case could have been solved in 2015, if DSB had carried out a comparative analysis of the pre-formed fragments found and the pre-formed fragments of an intact 9N314M warhead.

    This is the briefing of Rosaviatsia’s Oleg Storchevoy on 16 July, 2015:
    It is 30 minutes of Storchevoy’s speaking Russian. At first, Storchevoy says that, under ICAO rules, he can’t disclose any details about the investigation before the publication of an official report by DSB. So, he can speak only in general terms. Then, he said that, apart from supplying data and participating in two DSB meetings, Russian specialists were not involved in the investigation. At 9:11 Storchevoy says that Russia repeatedly offered its assistance both with specialists and equipment, but to no avail. At 29:12 he says: “The Russian side is fully open for a joint work with the commission. We are ready to take part in any research, to grant our specialists and our data. We have a high-quality equipment, including that for carrying out a metal analysis, which can determine the grade of steel that was used to make a pre-formed fragment. And, consequently, the exact type of the missile. We are ready to carry out all the necessary examinations in the presence of specialists from any countries. We have nothing to hide.” The above part of Storchevoy’s speech can be seen here, in Russian:
    In English, I found only this, by Roland Oliphant, who included a few lines about Storchevoy’s briefing in a large article on the MH17 case:

    Needless to say that Rosaviatsia’s offer to determine the grade of steel was ignored.

    According to DSB’s report of Oct 2015, their experts carried out a chemical analysis of the fragments found to compare them between themselves: “The analysis showed that the 20 selected fragments from the wreckage and the remains can be divided in two distinctive groups… the fragments within a group were made from the same unalloyed steel base material (i.e. the same plate).” DSB presented the chemical composition of the two groups of the fragments in Table 12 on page 93. (It seems that DSB withheld part of the information, as Table 12 does not show carbon and silicon, which must be there by Russian standards.)

    Remarkably, DSB did not carry out an analysis to compare the fragments found and the fragments from an intact 9N314M warhead. In the final report’s Appendix V, in response to Russia’s objections to the draft report, DSB explained: “Studying the detailed chemical composition of the steel is not relevant to the investigation as the high-energy objects are usually made from low-grade metal (unalloyed steel) originating from different batches, different sources, different manufacturing locations and over different periods of time. Matching the fragments found with reference material from an intact warhead would not be possible because of these differences.”

    The above statement is utterly untrue. The Soviet and Russian industrial production has been governed by state standards, which are named ГОСТ (GOST). It is just by definition that missiles have been manufactured under GOST rules, which – by definition – have specified what grade of steel is to be used to make warhead fragments. The grade of steel for this kind of products is indeed low, but the composition and properties of low-grade metals are specified by GOSTs as well as those of high-grade metals. For common quality carbon steel (aka unalloyed steel), the chemical composition has been governed by GOST 380-xx, where xx is the year when the standard was developed.

    The period of time when missiles of the 9M38 series were manufactured was covered by GOSTs 380-71, 380-88 and 380-94, consecutively. According to these GOSTs, the content (in percentage) of carbon, manganese and silicon must be within specified ranges, while the content of unwanted elements – sulphur and phosphorous, which accompany iron – must be under specified limits. The content of other possible elements, like chromium, nickel, copper, must be under specified limits, too. Compliance with GOSTs, which is required by law, means that the chemical composition of fragments of 9N314M warheads is within specified ranges and under specified limits, regardless of “batches, sources”, etc. Accordingly, the statement that “matching the fragments found with reference material from an intact warhead would mot be possible” is untrue.

    Obviously, the idea of “different batches, different sources”, etc was supplied by the leading expert organization within DSB and JIT, this is, by the Kyiv Research Institute for Forensic Expertise (KNIISE). The Kyiv experts perfectly well know the GOST system, as Ukraine was part of this system at the Soviet time and at the post-Soviet time up to Dec 2014. This is a news item about the Ukrainian government’s decision to abandon the GOST system:

    With the Kyiv experts’ perfect knowledge of GOSTs, their statement about “differences” resulting from “different batches, different sources” is a deliberate lie. Apparently, they lied because they were anxious not to allow a comparative analysis to be carried out. Why? Because they know that the missile that shot down MH17 is different from Buk missiles and that the grade of steel of the fragments found is different from the grade of steel of fragments in 9N314M warheads.

    I think that the missile that shot down MH17 was the blast/fragmentation version of R-27. This version does exist. See my comments here:

    A detailed analysis of the presumed weapon is a must in the investigation of any murder. A police expert would never issue a final conclusion about the weapon just on the basis of what the weapon looks like. A visual assessment is just the first step of the analysis. But the appropriate investigation procedure is denied in the MH17 case. Because Ukraine, a party with a clear motive and means to commit this crime, said that the detailed analysis is “not relevant”.

    Meanwhile, in Europe there are plenty of laboratories certified to do a metal analysis. There is the European Committee for Iron and Steel Standartization (ECISS), based in Brussels, which could assist the investigators.

    • sotilaspassi // June 6, 2017 at 9:38 am // Reply

      “The case could have been solved in 2015, if DSB had carried out a comparative analysis of the pre-formed fragments found…”

      Not true.
      There is 0% change it would change the facts found out so far.

      It is 100% proven MH17 was shot by pro-RU people.
      Fragments do not have fingerprints of the crew or the commander who told the crew to launch at MH17.
      (it also seems “rebels” had access to both Russian and Ukrainian BUK missiles)

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.