Prediction: MH17 situation in 2020

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

 

17 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.
      HOW?
      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 available.no 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 available.no 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?

          LOL!
          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 //

            here
            https://youtu.be/0acJ3xyhaJo
            NO CONSPIRACY OR MAGIC.

            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.

  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.
      https://youtu.be/0acJ3xyhaJo
      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. 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?

  5. 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?
    https://youtu.be/-KVVKT9BHHg
    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/46236 (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.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*