Ukraine lies related to MH17

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

In each war truth is the first victim. The war in Eastern Ukraine is not different. This post will mention the lies of the Ukraine government and authorities related to MH17.

There are probably more lies. Please add those in the comments.

  1. Ukraine accuses pro-Russia rebels of taking bodies from crash site to remove BUK parts. The Guardian report about this here. “Terrorists brought 38 bodies to the mortuary in Donetsk,” the government statement read, adding that Russian experts would presumably perform autopsies. “The terrorists are seeking for the heavy load trucks to carry the plane wreckage to Russia,” the statement added.Obviously nonsense. 37 of bodies were indeed transported to Donetsk (Kalininskiy mortuarium). This is a link to documents of the Ukraine recovery service SES.  The SES are not terrorists. There was no indication that bodies were tampered with in Donetsk. There is no indication wreckage was transported to Russia.
    In this KRO Reporter docu on MH17 Ukraine spokesman Lysenko stated separatists removed 60 bodies from the crash site and removed pieces of a BUK missile from the bodies. The Dutch JIT stated there were no indications at all of removal of pieces.
  2. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin denied government forces were fighting rebels in the area and said they were respecting a 40-kilometre (24-mile) unilateral ceasefire perimeter around the crash site There is a lot of proof Ukraine forces were advancing towards the crash site end of July. Ukrainian troops were also fighting in Shakhtersk, about 20 kilometres away from the crash site, local news wire Novosti Donbasa reported See more. Many indications in this blogpost about the situation at the crashsite.
    Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte asked Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in a phone call Tuesday morning to halt the fighting around the crash site so that investigators can access it, Rutte spokesman Jean Fransman said. (source CNN)
  3. Ukraine gave two different explanations why there were no military aircraft flying at July 17
    Markian Lubkivsky, adviser to SBU chairman, said at a briefing on 24 Dec, 2014 that Ukrainian war planes did not fly on 17 July because of “rescue operations” to save the crews of the planes downed on 14 and 16 July. According to Lubkivsky, that can be confirmed by radar information. Captain Vladislav Voloshin said in a media interview on 27 Aug, 2015 that Ukrainian Air Force did not operate on 17 July, 2014 because of the bad weather – “complete cloudiness”.
  4. Russian airforce bombed an apartment building in Snizhne.
    Nonsense. Snizhne was controlled by the separatists. Why would Russia invaded Ukraine airspace and bomb a city fully controlled by separatis. It is far more likely the Ukraine Air Force wanted to bomb the warehouse of the separatists which was nearby the apartment.
  5. Ukraine stated the Antonov 26 shotdown at July 14 was caused by either a Russian air to air missile or heavy surface to air system shot from Russia. 
    However Dutch Military Intelligence Service MIVD concluded the aircraft was most likely shot down by MANPADS.
  6. Ukraine stated as documented in the DSB final report that radar of civil air traffic control was switched off because of maintenance. Later a Dutch export stated he believed chances are small that three radar stations were in maintenance at the same time. The Ukraine ambassador the the Netherland responsed later that one of the radar stations was destroyed.
  7. Ukraine stated the separatists tampered with the black boxes. This was said by Deputy prime minister Volodymyr Groysman at a  news conference .The rebels would give the flight recorders to international aviation authorities, but added “There is information that the recorders were in their hands all these days and they did certain things to them.” Asked whether he thought the rebels had tampered with the recorders, Mr Groysman concurre (source)
    Later it was concluded there was no tampering with the black boxes (Reuters)
  8. Ukraine does not have BUK 9M38M1 anymore. This was said by Ihor Smeshko, an advisor to the Ukrainian president and former head of the SBU. He said  “As far as I know, Ukraine sold its last Buk to Georgia.”
    Bellingcat made a posting making clear the statement was nonsense.
  9. The Ukrainian chief of security Valentyn Nalyvaichenko has reported that they have arrested a terrorist group that was planning an attack on the Dutch investigation team in Kharkov (source)
    Dutch secret service later concluded there were no indications for an assault to minister Koenders (RTL)
  10. Ukraine Says Rebels Mistook Doomed Flight MH17 for Aeroflot Plane (source)
    Another nonsense story. Ukrianek claimed the crew of the BUK was unaware of the situation.  Separatists were “ordered” to position a Buk anti-aircraft missile near the village of Pervomaisk in eastern Ukraine, but because the fighters were Russian, not local, they confused two settlements with the same name and less than 100 kilometers apart, Nalyvaichenko said in a statement by his agency.
    That is very unlikely. Explained in this post.






Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

63 Comments on Ukraine lies related to MH17

  1. The so called rebells have admitted that the AN 26, on the 14:th of July 2014, was shot down by a ЗРК «9К37М1» (formerly known as BUK), and that they had obtained this system several weeks before this occasion.
    Here is a link to the russian speaking article:
    Ополченцы сообщили, из чего сбили украинский Ан-26

    • This article refers to a post at the Strelkov-ascribed account in the VKontakte (VK) social media network. The post has a note: “Message from experts”. Most likely, it was just one “expert”, namely the politologist Sergei Kurginyan, who liked to talk about Buk(s) which the separatists reportedly seized at the Ukrainian army base in late June, 2014. “Our talented electronics engineers, genius engineers will fix that Buk…. And it may be that Buks are many”, – said Kurginyan in a Youtube video. He is a freak.

      • Sergey Tokarev // March 18, 2016 at 4:48 am // Reply

        Each your comment to the point, abcd. Bravo.

      • abcd:

        “Buk(s) which the separatists reportedly seized at the Ukrainian army base in late June, 2014. “Our talented electronics engineers, genius engineers will fix that Buk…. And it may be that Buks are many”, – said Kurginyan in a Youtube video. He is a freak.”

        There is no reported about it.

        I think I have shown pretty convincingly at this point that the rebels by capturing A-0194 on June 3 and A-1428 in late June captured at least 6 BUK launchers, consisting of at least two TELAR’s (serial numbers 132 and 322) and 4 TEL’s (serial numbers 113, 133, 313, 333), and possibly 1 Command Post (300). There is also documentary evidence of missiles left at base A-1428. I am beginning to think they may have got their hands on TELAR 131 there too. So yes, that would count as “BUKS are many.”

        The better question is whether any repairs were made to put them in service. If not, it certainly wasn’t for a lack of desire to do so.

        • Andrew, June the 5th, Telar Buk 322, turned missile launch shoe. July the 16th, Telar Buk 322, missile launch shoe rotated normal to tractor body. Why would that have happened? I think they were definitely trying to repair it. They may have used parts from different Buks to repair the most promising one(s). These parts may have been taken from Buks at base A-1428, because they look stripped:

          • Rob:

            Well they certainly at least turned it on. It was rotated by June 30.

            The videos of base A-0194 show rooms chock full of spare electronics modules. To my eye, and knowing the tendency of the Russian military to simplification and interchangeability, these seem like plug and play type modules.

            The picture of 322 shows no visible damage, while 132 looks like someone put a hang remade or RPG into to rotator drive that elevates the missiles.

  2. Liane Theuer // March 17, 2016 at 12:09 am // Reply

    According to Kiev it´s allways Russia that shot down Ukrainian Airplanes :

    – – “President awarded the title of Hero of Ukraine to Oleksandr Petrakivskomu and posthumously – Sergei Krivonosov and Dmitry Mayborody
    Major Majboroda died July 14 in Krasnodon district, Luhansk region, when his plane was hit by a missile “air-air”. He tried to control the last aircraft, allowing other members of the crew to evacuate.”

    Later deleted from the Poroshenko´s website, but confirmed here :

    – – „An Ukrainian Air Force Sukhoi Su-25M1 was shot down close to the border with Russia on Wednesday night 16 July around 19:00 local time, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence confirmed on 17 July. According to Kiev the hostile fire came from Russian territory and not – like in many earlier incidents – from anti-government elements in the east of Ukraine.“

    By PETER LEONARD Jul. 17, 2014 10:51 :
    – – „Security Council spokesman Andrei Lysenko said the pilot of the Sukhoi-25 jet hit by the air-to-air missile Wednesday evening was forced to bail after his jet was shot down. He said the rockets launched at Ukrainian troops were fired from the Russian village of Kuibyshevo.
    Aviation experts, however, have questioned whether the stricken transport plane was flying at the altitude Ukrainian officials had claimed.

    – – „Kiew meldet den Abschuss eines Kampfflugzeuges durch einen russischen Kampfjet auf ukrainischem Staatsgebiet.
    Ein russischer Kampfjet hat nach Darstellung der Armeeführung in Kiew ein ukrainisches Kampfflugzeug über dem Osten des Landes abgeschossen. Dabei handele es sich um eine Maschine vom Typ Suchoi Su-25, sagte ein Sprecher des ukrainischen Nationalen Sicherheitsrates. Das Düsenflugzeug wurde demnach über ukrainischem Staatsgebiet am Mittwochabend von einer Rakete getroffen.
    Der Sprecher sprach von einer “erneuten Provokation”. Erst am Montag hatte Kiew dem Nachbarland vorgeworfen, eine Militärmaschine vom Typ AN-26 abgeschossen zu haben. Das Transportflugzeug sei in großer Höhe vermutlich von einer Luft-Luft-Rakete eines russischen Kampfflugzeugs getroffen worden, erklärte das Militär.“

    – – „According to a Ukrainian MoD press release Both Su-25s were shot down on 23 July near the village of Dmytrivka, pro-Russian separatists have told Russian Interfax one of the planes has come down near the village of Snizhne, less than 10 miles (16 km) to the northwest.
    The Ukrainian Ministry of Defence has said later it believes the Sukhois were hit by missiles fired from Russia, but that is unconfirmed. According to Kiev the planes flew at about 15,000 to 16,000 feet. That does put them within range of shoulder-launched SAMS (MANPADS), as well as the by now notorious Buk/SA-11 that killed 298 people on board the Malaysia Boeing 777-200 airliner.

  3. Ukraine claims to not be closer than 50 km to MH17 crash site (Ukraine had over 5,000 troops troops around Dyakove, Saur Mogila, Amvrosievka and the region to the north, south of Ilovaisk and around Mospino – all within 50 km), claims BUK is not deployed in the ATO Zone (BUK is confirmed to have been in the ATO Zone).

    A high-ranking source for “” in operational command “South” commented on the circumstances of the destruction of the Malaysian “Boeing” near Torez:

    “On July 17 Ukrainian aircraft did not undertake flights over the territory of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions. Ukraine can easily prove the complete absence of our aircraft in the sky – the last flight was the evening of July 16 – the day before the tragedy with the Boeing. The nearest positions of Ukrainian troops are at a distance of 50 kilometers from the crash site of the airliner – we do not control the territory over which was destroyed by Boeing. We do not have long range air defenses in operation in the zone of the ATO, our units are provided exclusively military air defence systems “Shilka” and “Tunguska” , which can hit targets only up the height of 5 kilometers. Thus, it is possible to state with all responsibility – Ukraine is absolutely not involved in the destruction of the “Boeing”, and it will be easy to prove it. The aircraft was destroyed by a Russian air defense missile system “Buk”, manned by Russian military specialists. On July 14 and 16 near the route on which the Malaysian plane was flying, flew a Ukrainian transport aircraft Il-76, but they operated at lower altitudes of 6 to 7 thousand meters. Obviously the Russian specialists have confused the “Boeing” with our transport, and did not pay attention to altitude and the fact that the liner flies on an international air corridor. Undoubtedly, any international Commission will quickly establish all the circumstances that confirm this version, and will permit the exposure of this act of international terrorism perpetrated by Russia.”

  4. sotilaspassi // March 17, 2016 at 7:33 am // Reply


    From the video recorded of the shootdown (of AN26 at 14Jul), it does not seem to be a launch from a MANPAD:
    -it looks like the plane was flying at high altitude
    -missile flew long time & long distance to the target

    Most likely the shootdown will not be inspected. Altitude will not be fully known, nor the weapon. It just looks like missile flew from russia. (ukraineatwar has some pretty valid analysis of it)

    • Sergey Tokarev // March 17, 2016 at 12:48 pm // Reply

      Are you saying that DSB is a bunch of jerks? DSB report was almost empty, but there was a doubtless claim that AN26 was downed by a MANPAD. If you are challenging such statements of DSB, we should assume that they know nothing about anything.

        • Sergey Tokarev // March 17, 2016 at 1:58 pm // Reply

          Are you kidding me? I have read DSB report. It clearly states that this Kiev claim is a lie. No aircraft was downed by other weapons but MANPADs before MH17, no aircraft was downed in Ukraine by Russian jets. I thought you were looking for truth. Sorry. Obviously you are not. Your attempt to challenge this DSB conclusion is simply an attempt to disqualify them, basically saying that there are no any authorities in the Netherland capable of something, therefore we should disregards any statesments of DSB and the Netherlands in general.

          • sotilaspassi // March 17, 2016 at 2:20 pm //

            UA say it was downed by pantsir or air-to-air missile from 6300…6500 meters.
            On DSB report page 185 there is mention that dutch MIVD say it was shot down by manpads.
            So far I have not found the place where DSB “agrees” that it was shot down by manpads.

        • Sergey Tokarev // March 17, 2016 at 2:28 pm // Reply

          Who cares what UA say? Have they ever been caught telling truth? Can you show me one UA statement which has been proven to be true? If you equate their nonsense with conclusions of DSB authorities you won’t ever find out anything. Regards.

          • sotilaspassi // March 18, 2016 at 8:48 am //

            Many times they have told truth. But not sure vs MH17 case… it would be in their advantage to lie that AN26 flew below 5000m -> no threat to civilian flights.

            So, MIVD has looked on some photos taken from crash site etc. and from that they have concluded it was taken down by MANPADS. DSB does not state if they think MIVD result is correct.
            Based on Ukraine imformation, AN26 was out of reach of manpads…

            From the video…
            The missile that hit AN26 burned fuel for about 15 seconds.
            I wonder what kind of burn times nonorussia has with their manpads?
            For example max flight time for “9K338 9M342 Igla-S / SA-24 Grinch” seem to be 11,5s.
            Trying to find the most advanced RU MANPAD missile 9m336 flight times… would seem to be around 15s
            (y2015 model, 4500m max ceiling btw.)

            Perhaps RU can provide primary radar data that shows the flight altitude of AN26 when it was hit.
            Or rebels can give the black boxes?
            And MIVD could elaborate why they think it was downed by MANPADS.

          • Dutch newspaper did a solid analysis of the shotdown. The newspaper used the two videos. It concluded the Antonov must have been shot down by an air to air missile. This was concluded by the fact that the missile flew 15 km and over 40 seconds. Too long for MANPADS

            I am wondering why the Dutch military secret service concluded it was a MANPADS.

    • Sotilaspassi, Ukraine@war must be wrong. “It means the video has been running for a full 39 seconds before impact. It means the launch had to be close to them so they immediately put on the camera to record the events. Basically the only thing they did not record was the launch itself.” The distance was about 20km. It would have taken a Buk missile around 20 sec to reach its target. The same goes for a Panshir missile.

  5. Liane Theuer // March 17, 2016 at 10:01 am // Reply

    5. Ukraine stated the separatists tampered with the black boxes.
    Additional Ukraine claimed that the separatists were planning to hide the black boxes.
    Evidence was (as usual) an intercepted phonecall :

    – – „Ukraine accuses pro-Russian separatists of planning to hand over the flight recorders to Moscow as they turn up in Donetsk.
    Ukraine’s security service has released a recording it says features pro-Russian separatists talking about trying to hide the black boxes from flight MH17 at the request of Moscow.“

    – – „Ukraine produced what it said was a recording of another intercepted call between rebels (in Russian) saying Moscow had given orders not to hand the “black boxes” to international monitors. The authenticity of the tape could not be confirmed.“

  6. Liane Theuer // March 17, 2016 at 10:15 am // Reply

    Statements around the „missing missile“ video :

    Subtext to this video :
    – – „Anton Gerashchenko, an adviser to Ukraine’s interior minister, said that the video was made by Ukrainian intelligence agents in the early hours of Friday morning, as the launcher moved towards the Russian border.
    The footage has not been independently verified, but it purportedly shows the launcher with two of its missiles missing.
    “It’s not hard to guess why,” wrote Mr Geraschenko.
    “It was exactly these missiles which brought death to almost 300 innocent passengers of the ill-fated Malaysian Boeing,” he added.“

    Anton Gerashchenko spoke about two of its missiles missing !

    But this contradicts a statement made by the Head of the SSU Department Vitalii Naida :

    – – „At 2:00, July 18, two movers each with a Buk missile launcher crossed the Russian border in Luhansk region.
    At 4:00, another three movers: one of them empty, other carrying a launcher with four missiles and the latter allegedly with a control unit, crossed the state border.“

    Vitalii Naida didn´t mention a launcher with missing missiles !

    Arsen Avakov claimed the SA-11 on a transporter was traveling through Krasnodon. But later it became obvious that it was in Luhansk.

  7. Liane Theuer // March 17, 2016 at 10:19 am // Reply

    BUK in Torez
    The Independent visited Torez on July 21/2014 :
    – – „According to Vitaliy Nayda, head of the SBU’s counterintelligence unit, the image was “evidence” of Russia’s involvement.
    But on Tuesday, when The Independent visited the site where the image was taken and showed it to local people, they claimed they had seen no such missile truck and dismissed the image as hoax. “All the Ukrainian media is lying,” said one man, Andrei Sushparnov.
    The Ukrainians have not yet revealed how they got the photograph or who took it.
    But the image, and other similar material, has become part of a raging information war.
    The Independent had been helped to the location by a Russian-speaking American citizen journalist, Aric Toler. Mr Toler admitted there was no irrefutable proof the image was taken on July 17 as claimed by the Ukrainians. But he said an internet search revealed the picture did not appear before the 17th.

    Borodai was right about BUK 312 :
    Borodai press-conference, July 20th
    „Regarding the situation with “Buks”, then from my point of view, all of this messing around the recognition of “Buk” No. 312, which the junta tried to pass on as Russian, serves as a smokescreen called to cover the fact of destroying the airliner with “air-air” missiles.“

    • Liane Theuer // March 19, 2016 at 12:08 am // Reply

      Another statement by Vitaliy Nayda :

      „In an interview in Kiev this week, the Ukrainian counterterrorism chief, Vitaly Nayda, gave the AP the government’s version of the events of July 17.
      According to Nayda, at 1 a.m. on July 17 the launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck. He cited communications intercepts that he would not share with the AP. By 9 a.m., he said, the launcher had reached Donetsk, the main rebel stronghold 125 miles (200 kilometers) from the border. In Donetsk it is presumed to have been off-loaded from the flatbed and started to move in a convoy on its own.
      Nayda said the Buk turned back east toward Snizhne. Townspeople who spoke to the AP said it rolled into Snizhne around lunchtime.
      Even before the plane was downed, the AP had reported on the presence of the missile launcher in the town July 17.
      Here is what that dispatch said: “An Associated Press reporter on Thursday saw seven rebel-owned tanks parked at a gas station outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Snizhne. In the town, he also observed a Buk missile system, which can fire missiles up to an altitude of 22,000 meters (72,000 feet).”
      AP journalists saw the Buk moving through town at 1:05 p.m. The vehicle, which carried four 18-foot (5.5-meter) missiles, was in a convoy with two civilian cars.

      By the way : Did the AP journalists ever came up with their names ?

  8. Obviously you didn’t do a good research well for “Ukraine lies related to MH17”:
    1. There was no indication that bodies were tampered with in Donetsk.
    – Section 2.13.1 explicitly mentions an autopsy. 10 bodies had ribs removed.
    Autopsy is not a SES’ business.

    2. There is no indication wreckage was transported to Russia.
    – You clear underestimate how seek Russian people can be

    3. If “Antonov” was shut down with MANPAD then how is this “lie” is relevant to “MH17”?

    4. “Ukraine stated as documented in the DSB final report that radar of civil air traffic control was switched off because of maintenance. Later a Dutch export stated he believed chances are small that three radar stations were in maintenance at the same time.”
    – Expert’s opinion is indicative of DSB misunderstanding the state of radars. Why would Ukraine lie about well-known facts.
    It looks like the blog is ran by a team, not a single person. Otherwise I do not understand how you could forget your own post The post clearly explains that the radars were destroyed by Russians.

    • Roman, it is clearly said in Section 2.13.1 that “A section of rib was removed from eleven of the bodies. This was for DNA examination as part of the identification process and is the common local working method.”

    • 4. DSB clearly did not write in the final report that one of the radar stations was destroyed. So Ukraine told the DSB that all of their radar stations were in maintenance. And DSB accepted that. Only after an independant radar expert stated that this would be very unlikely, Ukraine admitted one radar station was destroyed. Eurocontrol was not informed about this.

      Can you point me to the text in the blogpost where is written that “he post clearly explains that the radars were destroyed by Russians.”
      Save your effort. I did not write not indicate that radar station was destroyed by whatever party.

    In the comments to this topic (see the link) I wrote that two contradictory explanations had been presented as to why Ukraine Air Force “did not operate” on 17 July, 2014. Markian Lubkivsky, adviser to SBU chairman, said on 24 Dec, 2014 that Ukrainian war planes did not fly on 17 July because of “rescue operations” to save the crews of the planes downed on 14 and 16 July. According to Lubkivsky, it can be confirmed by radar information. On 27 Aug, 2015 Captain Vladislav Voloshin said in a media interview that Ukraine Air Force did not operate on 17 July, 2014 because of the bad weather – “complete cloudiness”.

    In the comments to this topic (see the link), I wrote that at least two contradictory explanations had been presented as to why Ukraine Air Force “did not operate” on 17 July, 2014. Markian Lubkivsky, adviser to SBU chairman, said at a briefing on 24 Dec, 2014 that Ukrainian war planes did not fly on 17 July because of “rescue operations” to save the crews of the planes downed on 14 and 16 July. According to Lubkivsky, that can be confirmed by radar information. Captain Vladislav Voloshin said in a media interview on 27 Aug, 2015 that Ukrainian Air Force did not operate on 17 July, 2014 because of the bad weather – “copmlete cloudiness”.

    • Sergey Tokarev // March 18, 2016 at 4:24 am // Reply

      On another occasion, Markian Lubkivsky said that actor Porechnkov came to Donetsk not to deliver humanitarian aid but for safari for civilians, that he paid $50K for murdering 50 civilians, $1K for each murdered Donbass citizen. This statement qualifies him as a clown, and all his other statements should be taken with a barrel of salt.

  11. Sergey Tokarev // March 17, 2016 at 12:07 pm // Reply

    I followed this case closely for a couple of month, but seeing that everything coming from Kiev was nothing but lies, I lost interest.
    The most interesting piece of evidence is phone intercept IMHO, where federalist rebels boast about downing a jet. Kiev published it right after the crash. Serbian bloggers claimed that they analyzed the audio file using a program it was created with, and found out that it was forged one day before the crash. Anybody interested can check this. If this is true – it is most definitely pre-planned CIA false flag.

    • sotilaspassi // March 17, 2016 at 12:31 pm // Reply

      So you believe they:
      -prepared handfull of videos and photos for a “BUK on rebel area” with suitable weather and other conditions
      -smuggled BUK device deep into rebel area
      -fired at passenger airliner
      -smuggled the BUK device back to UA side without anyone seeing it

      I do not believe in it.
      I believe SBU lied and also serbian (pro-russia) bloggers lied.

      • Sergey Tokarev // March 17, 2016 at 12:41 pm // Reply

        ‘smuggled BUK device deep into rebel area’ – no, I don’t believe that. However I have not seen any genuine evidence of BUK device deep in rebel area.
        Serbian bloggers – an interesting part is that you don’t need to believe or not believe, you can simply repeat what they did, check the original date of this audio file by meta-data left, and this would be crucial evidence if true.

        • sotilaspassi // March 17, 2016 at 2:06 pm // Reply

          We know the data can be manipulated.

          “no, I don’t believe that”
          Ok. So you just think CIA somehow arranged rebels to down the airliner.

          If there would be some conspiracy, it would seem to require a stealth missile equipped with BUK warhead.

          • Sergey Tokarev // March 17, 2016 at 2:12 pm //

            🙂 Don’t like truth, do you? You don’t. Nasty thing this meta-data is, forging of files leaves traces. Sad. As Reagan put it, ‘facts are nasty things’. Please accept my condolences. Please excuse my curiosity, but.. CIA false flag, not the first one, not the last one. What’s so special? Why are you so nervous?

      • Sergey Tokarev // March 17, 2016 at 3:23 pm // Reply

        Let me add a note regarding BUK deep in rebel area. I didn’t follow this case recently, and I din’t examine all ‘evidence’ from Kiev and clowns like Eliot Higgins, but look at my argument – we all have sufficient knowledge that there isn’t any genuine – as opposed to fake or inconclusive – evidence about BUK device deep in rebel area, as you put it.
        1) DSB issued a video advertisement, urging the witnesses of BUK to show up. The video implied that BUK was rebel’s. However in ‘final’ DSB report not only they don’t blame the rebels. More that that – DSB pretends that establishing the culprits wasn’t their purpose, recommendations on flights safety were. So they changed their agenda, they changed purpose of their investigation. Why? Because they failed to blame the rebels. Simple.

        • Sergey: it was not DSB who requested witness to come forward. It was JIT.

          • Sergey Tokarev // March 18, 2016 at 4:11 am //

            Thank you. I stand corrected. You are right. However you should attribute different value of statements of a) JIT, DSB or MIVD, on one hand – they are official bodies, and their task is apparently cover-up, but they are highly unlikely to overtly lie on technical issues, and you can put those conclusions into broader mosaic and eventually see the whole picture, and b) clowns like Eliot Higgins or UA, on another hand, who don’t have any intergity or standards, whose purpose is to flood you with spam and make you drown in this spam, doing Sisyphean labour sorting this spam out.

        • sotilaspassi // March 21, 2016 at 3:47 pm // Reply

          DSB found out the same what most free/hobby investigators found out much earlier (via analyzing debris photos & radar). Missile came from ahead.
          MH17 was above rebel area when it was hit, some 40km ahead was also rebel area, so there was a TELAR deep inside rebel area.

  12. The war zone maps presented by Ukraine’s Council for National Security and Defense (RNBO in Ukrainian) in July, 2014 were deceptive, as they showed the division line between Ukraine Armed Forces/National Guard and the separatists significantly further to the south than it was in reality. As the top government body in charge of defense policies and ATO information (ATO is anti-terrorist operation), RNBO certainly knew that the town of Amvrosievka was under Ukraine Armed Forces control. But the RNBO maps showed Amvrosievka under separatist control.

    Novorossia: operational news for 15 July
    In the morning, near Amvrosievka, militia shelled 3d battalion of 72nd brigade of Ukraine Armed Forces with Grad launchers….During the day, convoys of Ukrainian military equipment and infantry retreated along the Russian border from the east westwards – via the village of Kozhevnya to Novopetrovskoe, Grigorovka and further to Amvrosievka.
    17 July
    …Amvrosievka residents say that the night of 17 July was the most quiet over the past month. All the units of junta [the Kiev government] were dispatched for fighting; just their checkpoints remained in the town.

    • Hector Reban // March 18, 2016 at 6:44 am // Reply

      The last comment seems to be very important. The ATO forces seem to have been sentd to the north-east to regain terrories in the Marinovka area lost on the 16th to free up the “southern cauldron”.

      It is in my hunble view very plausible that if the threat of the Russian airforce was real – and officially Ukr. said it was – they would move BUK launchers from the rearbase or from even more west (i.e. the 1st battalion expelled from airforce base A-1428) to the uninhabited Bolshaya/Velyka area to direct their air defense capabilities towards the Russian border in order to protect ATO attacks.

    16 July
    A soldier of Ukraine’s 72nd brigade says that “yesterday, Amvrosievka was shelled, where there were our military depots”.

  15. Does planting bowtie fragments count as a lie?

  16. Liane Theuer // March 18, 2016 at 11:28 pm // Reply

    Statement by the Delegation of Ukraine at the 761-st FSC Plenary Meeting
    (23 July 2014 at 11.00, Hofburg)
    The claim by the Russian Delegation on 760-th Plenary meeting of the FSC that the terrorists captured the air-defense rocket system “Buk” is groundless.
    The inventory of the air-defense rocket systems and air-defense guided rockets in Ukraine was checked. No absence of rocket or air-defense system was reported.
    Thus, any information that terrorists might have seized them is groundless.

  17. Sergey Tokarev // March 19, 2016 at 7:18 am // Reply

    When we attach certain credibility degree to different pieces of info, say 90% to statements of JIT, DSB or MIVD on technical issues, and 10% to statements of UA dignitaries or Eliot Higgins, there is a special statement to which I personally attribute 99% credibility – you can have different opinions. Here it is, Naryshkin’s statement

  18. At lot of “evidence” for the BUK theory is highly suspicious to be a fake or is even known to be a fake, some examples:

    – the “intercepted phone calls” which might be assembled from several phone calls:

    – the “Paris Match photos”:

    – the “Torez photo”:

    – the BUK videos:

    – the “BUK contrail photos”:

  19. Liane Theuer // March 19, 2016 at 3:26 pm // Reply

    About the intercepted phonecalls the German Bundesregierung said on September 9/2014 :

    „Der Bundesregierung ist auch ein in den Medien veröffentlichter Telefonmitschnitt des ukrainischen Geheimdienstes bekannt. Dessen Authentizität konnte nicht verifiziert werden.“
    TRANSLATE : „The federal government also knows a telephone recording of the Ukrainian secret service published in the media. Its authenticity could not be verified.”

    They can not confirm the russian satellite images about ukrainian Buks either :
    „Der stellvertretende Generalstabschef der Streitkräfte Russlands, General Andrei Kartapolov, präsentierte im Rahmen einer Pressekonferenz am 21. Juli 2014 russische Satellitenbilder, auf welchen zu sehen sein soll, welche ukrainischen Luftverteidigungssysteme zum Zeitpunkt des Absturzes von MH 17 im Raum disloziert und in Reichweite gewesen wären. Deren Authentizität kann hier nicht bestätigt werden.“

    About AWACS :
    „Die AWACS erfassten in ihrem Auffassungsbereich Signale von einem Flugabwehrraketensystem sowie ein weiteres durch AWACS nicht zuzuordnendes Radarsignal. Das Flugabwehrsystem wurde durch AWACS automatisiert als „Surface to Air-Missile“ SA-3 klassifiziert, ein in der gesamten Region routinemäßig erfasstes Signal.“

  20. Liane Theuer // April 2, 2016 at 9:33 am // Reply

    At last we know exactly who has shot down MH17…
    From Poroshenkos Website :

    „The Ukrainian President and the Prime Minister of the Netherlands coordinated future common actions on the investigation into the tragedy of the MH17 flight shot down by Russian militants in July 2014.“

  21. Liane Theuer // April 4, 2016 at 11:30 am // Reply

    The next weeks we will read a lot about the „Panama Papers“.
    Such a concerted action by media around the world never happend before.
    What comes out about Petro Poroshenko is already published.

    The original source is the German SZ :

    SZ provided other medias with more background :

    If someone needs a translation German – English, please ask me.

  22. Liane Theuer // April 4, 2016 at 11:33 am // Reply

    Short summary of the findings about Poroshenko :

    “If I get elected, I will wipe the slate clean and sell the Roshen concern. As President of Ukraine I plan and commit to focus exclusively on welfare of the nation,” Poroshenko told the German newspaper Bild less than two months before his election.

    But instead he created a company in an offshore zone in the British Virgin Islands, where he withdrew the assets of Roshen in order to avoid paying sales taxes in Ukraine.
    On August 21/2014 Mossack Fonseca & Co, a company that registers firms, cooperate in the creation of a new company in the British Virgin Islands for Poroshenko.
    It was called „Prime Asset Partners Limited“. The sole owner of the company was indicated as a Ukrainian national, Petro Poroshenko, registered by his address.
    Cyprus national Olga Georgiou was appointed as CEO of Petro Poroshenko’s newly created company.
    Mossack Fonseca records specify that Prime Asset Partners would serve as the holding company for the Ukrainian and Cyprus companies of Roshen confectionary corporation, with “proceeds from the business trade” of the corporation being its source of funds.

    On October 17/2014, the registrars at the British Virgin Islands receive a note from a bank regarding the decency of the Ukrainian president:
    “Petro Poroshenko is a client of the public joint-stock company ‘International Investment Bank’ since February 25/2009… We confirm that this individual’s account activity was done in compliance with the bank’s requirements,” Konstantin Ludvik, the bank’s chairman wrote in the letter.
    According to official information from the National Bank, Petro Poroshenko still owns the International Investment Bank.

    During a news conference in Kyiv January 2016, Poroshenko said that in 2016 all his Roshen shares had been put in a blind trust managed by a “respectable first-league foreign bank” which will “own, control and manage the assets.” Even earlier, he made the same claim in an interview with Deutsche Welle in November of 2015, saying the trust was a done deal.
    According to a letter from the Presidential Administration there is no trust – neither blind nor any other – the trust is still only a plan because it is being discussed only in the future tense.
    So the President transfers his assets to offshore zones, where the sales taxes are zero percent.
    When it comes to money, the president of Ukraine is ready to openly violate the law. In his 2014 tax declaration he didn’t mention the creation of his company abroad.

    Petro Poroshenko is a customer of Raiffeisen Zentralbank Austria.
    On behalf of offshore companies in the British Virgin Islands, the Raiffeisen Group awarded high million loans to companies within the control of Poroschenko.
    Borrow from offshore companies in favor of third parties apply in corruption investigators as a sure sign of money laundering.
    The business relationship between Raiffeisen and the letterbox companies started in 2002. The firm Mossack Fonseca registered at that time a company called “Linquist Services Limited” in the British Virgin Islands. The owner of the company remain in the dark, as directors are nominees used.
    The offshore company Linquist maintains several bank accounts at Raiffeisen Zentralbank Austria.
    In the majority the borrowers are real firms belonging to Poroschenkos Roshen and Ukrprominvest.
    With a dated December 23/2010 agreement between Linquist and Raiffeisen Bank International (RBI) a credit from RBI over not less than 115 million dollars to Poroschenkos Confectionery Group Roshen Kiev was agreed. Accounts of Linquist served as collateral.

    The president failed to report the newly registered „Prime Asset Partners Limited“ and additional companies in his 2014 asset disclosure statements. The information is also missing on the 2015 asset forms.
    The Kyiv-based financial service group ICU (the president’s financial advisers) disclosed there were two more companies: one in Cyprus called CEE Confectionery Investments Ltd., registered in September 2014; and a second, registered in the Netherlands in December 2014, called Roshen Europe B.V. The BVI holding company holds the Cyprus company which in turn holds the Dutch company.
    Meanwhile, the president’s income declaration for that year gives no mention of either foreign income, or investment in the statutory funds of foreign companies.

    Poroshenko violates the law twice : misrepresent information and deprive his country of badly needed tax dollars.

    On March 21/2016 Ukraine’s National Bank, and the country’s fiscal and anti-monopoly agencies announced they had agreed to work jointly towards “de-offshorization” of Ukrainian business.

    Transparency International Ukraine is calling it a conflict of interest and apparent violation of both the constitution, which bans the president from business activities, and the corruption laws, which ban all public officials from conducting private business.

  23. Liane Theuer // April 15, 2016 at 10:11 pm // Reply

    Missing missile video

    On March 13/2015 the German Government answered questions of the party DIE LINKE.

    Drucksache 18/3818
    Kleine Anfrage der Partei DIE LINKE
    23. Teilt die Bundesregierung die Auffassung, dass das am 18. Juli 2014 auf der Website des ukrainischen Sicherheitsministeriums veröffentlichte Video, das die Rückzugsbewegung eines BUK-M1-Transporters nach dem Abschuss des Fluges MH17 durch ostukrainische Rebellen zeigen soll, eine Fälschung ist bzw. keinen Sachverhalt abbildet, der belastbar Rückschlüsse auf den Kontext der Verursachung des Absturzes zulässt (wenn nein, bitte begründen)?
    Die Authentizität dieses Videos konnte nicht verifiziert werden.

    Translation :
    Printed Matter 18/3818
    Small request of the Party DIE LINKE
    23. Question : Does the Federal Government share the view that the on July 18, 2014 on the website of the Ukrainian Security Ministry published video, that will show the retreat movement of a BUK-M1 transporter by eastukrainian rebels after the launch of the flight MH17, is a fake or show no facts that permits the resilient conclusions about the context of the causation of the crash (if not, why not)?
    Answer : The authenticity of this video could not be verified.

  24. Liane Theuer // May 1, 2016 at 8:57 am // Reply

    The story about the Olenivka shelling is not related to MH17, but it demonstrates how Kiev lies when it comes to their own crimes.

    On April 27/2016 the Ukrainian Army shelled the rebel-controlled village of Olenivka, just metres from a demarcation line separating the two sides at a checkpoint crossing in east Ukraine.
    Four civilians – including a pregnant woman – have been killed. 15 people were also wounded.
    Six homes and a hospital were damaged in the village.

    The OSCE conducted crater analysis and wrote in a spot report :
    – Based on that, the SMM assessed that the direction of fire was west-south-west, and that the type of weapon used in the attack was likely 122mm artillery.
    Further north on Moskovskaya Street, the SMM observed some slightly damaged residences and demolished outhouses. Having conducted analysis on three craters there, the SMM assessed that the direction of fire was likely west-south-west and that the caliber of weapon used was not less than 120mm.

    And so Kiev speaks out :
    – The range from the forefront positions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to the site of the incident is 6.6 km, said the press center of the Anti-Terrorist Operation commenting on the tragic events in Olenivka,Volnovakha district, in Donetsk region on April 27.
    “Based on the tactical and technical characteristics of the 82-mm mortars, we see that they could not be used at such a distance, because a 2B14 Podnos mortar has a maximum range of 3,000, while a 2B9 Vasylyok mortar – a range of 4,200 meters,” said the Ukrainian side.
    Thus, any targeted firing from this types of weapons is only possible from the territory under the temporary control of illegal armed groups.
    “Based on the above, the tragic events in the village of Olenivka are a cynical, premeditated terrorist act, organized by the Russian-occupation forces. In order to discredit the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the enemy is ready to fire at civilians in the militant-controlled areas,” said the HQ.

    The Anti-Terrorist HQ completely ignores the OSCE assessment. NOT 82-mm mortars were used in the shelling but 122-mm artillery !!!

    And even 152-mm artillery, as the OSCE wrote on April 30 :
    – The SMM conducted further crater analysis following the fatal shelling incident in “DPR”-controlled Olenivka. The SMM determined the origin of the shelling (south-west and west-south-west) for the five craters, four of which were assessed as caused by 122mm artillery and the fifth by 152mm artillery. The closest crater to the clinic was 50m east of its entrance. The SMM observed some damage to the eastern walls of the clinic building caused by shrapnel, and minor damages to its roof caused by a blast wave. The SMM observed a storage building 100m south of the clinic which had been completely destroyed by a direct impact.

    Paul Quinn-Judge, a senior adviser to the International Crisis Group, said in an interview :
    – „ In this case it was obviously artillery, or at least heavy mortars that killed the civilians. (..) I and anybody else who is interested can pick up a map and look at it [Editor’s Note: Ukrainian troops are positioned west-south-west of the spot where the shelling occurred.]
    I’ve no doubt that the OSCE is going to report back to the relevant governments about this particular tragedy and other ones like it. So, you know, they could be a little more daring in the language, but that’s really not their job.“

    I agree with Paul Quinn-Judge on „the OSCE could be a little more daring in the language“.
    At least they could attach a current map in their reports.
    Then every reader would be able to identify the culprit. In this case, it was clearly the Ukrainian Army.

  25. IsThatSo // May 2, 2016 at 2:05 am // Reply

    The night time shelling at Olenivka (“Elenovka” in some reports) fits the same pattern as MH17:

    1. Murder of civilians and destruction of civilian property.
    2. Disregard of long establish rules and norms of conduct.
    3. Blaming the separatist militants.
    4. Attributing the destruction to a weapon system that could not have possibly have been used.

    Before the shelling the target was scanned by a UAF drone, which is evidence of premeditation.

    From the beginning I’ve seen the suggestion that the downing of MH17 was accidental in the sense that MH17 was not the intended target. This suggestion does not fit the pattern and does not pass the sniff test.

  26. Liane Theuer // May 4, 2016 at 9:57 pm // Reply

    The story of Dmytro Yarosh’s Business Card

    Remember : On April 20/2014 a checkpoint of the separatists in Bielbasovka, a suburb of Slavyansk, was attacked.
    Four SUVs approached the checkpoint and suddenly opened fire on the guards. These returned fire and managed to repel the attack. Two cars of the attackers burned down completely. Both had brand new license plates from the Dnepropetrovsk region and a lot of weapons and ammunition loaded.
    Six people died in the firefight.
    It was the first battle of the shortly after inflaming civil war.

    At the battle site was found the Business Card of Dmytro Yarosh, then the head of the Right Sector.
    The discovery caused much mockery in Western Media : Many assumed a staging by the Russian secret services. Everyone laughed at this “crude propaganda campaign of the Russians.”
    But the separatists claimed it was done by the Right Sector.

    Now we know for sure that every word of the separatists was true !
    Dmytro Yarosh personally told on April 22/2016 that he himself had prepared and executed the attack (a lot of details and names) :

    Actually, we could have known before. On July 21/2014 Andriy Denisenko, Dmytro Yaroshs deputy, posted on Facebook that it really was the Right Sector, with Yarosh at the top, which attacked the checkpoint in Slavjansk.
    Translation : “Hardly any of the members of his campaign team could imagine that the politician and presidential candidate Yarosh, practically spitting on his campaign, as a simple soldier risked his life under fire. Bottom line, thanks to the fantasies and fears of Moscow’s propaganda and the manliness of our guys, there is the new national brand “Yaroshs card”, a first victory over the terrorists. And the only politician who does not makeup for the camera against the backdrop of war landscapes, but really fighting for the unity of Ukraine. Now you know : Yaroshs Business Card – this is not a myth but the deadly reality for separatists and Putin’s invaders.”

    False flags with the aim to defame the Russians from the very beginning belonged to Kiev´s strategy.

  27. Liane Theuer // August 4, 2016 at 3:54 pm // Reply

    Anton Gerashenko and faked photos :

    On August 26/2014 Anton Gerashenko posted this message on FB :
    “The day before yesterday, on Sunday morning, a half company of Shakhtersk fighter together with a platoon of special police battalion Dnepr-1, supported by several units of armed machinery of the 51 motorized brigade, under the joint command of Ruslan Onishchenko carried out an intelligence-subversive operation in the neighborhood of the roadblock in Donetsk-Mariupol highway in the vicinity of Elenovka settlement, which is roughly 20 km from Donetsk.
    The terrorists were crushed”

    As “proof” he showed various photos, et al from the death female sniper Natalia Krasovskaya :
    If deleted use this link :

    But Natalia Krasovskaya is still alive. Here on stage on Octobre 18/2014 :

    And still alive on September 7/2015 :

    So, what about the photos of the killed sniper Natalia Krasovskaya ?
    Did someone hired “desaster actors” to boast of military success ?
    We have every reason to suspect that faked evidence was also used in MH17.

    By the way : The commander of the special operation, Ruslan Onishchenko, is at the time charged in Kiev because of creating a criminal group, rape and torture. On August 2/2016 his “brothers in arms” attacked the court house in Maidan style and prevented the hearing. It is postponed on August 9/2016.
    I hope the raped female witness, who has to appear the third time on court, will survive her confession.

  28. sotilaspassi // August 5, 2016 at 9:25 am // Reply

    reminder of topic:

    “related to MH17”

    • Liane Theuer // August 5, 2016 at 10:07 am // Reply

      sotilaspassi, you know exactly what role Gerashchenko has played in the providing of “evidence” to MH17. Therefore, it is quite relevant to MH17 when I point out the means by which he usually provides “evidence”.

  29. Liane Theuer // August 28, 2016 at 11:38 am // Reply

    Another example of photo fake :

    Dmitry Muravsky, an employee of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry, published photos of „the real war in ATO area“.
    His photos quickly went viral in western media.
    But a number of Ukraine-based photographers and soldiers claim that some of the photos were staged.

    Viktor Moroz, a platoon commander of the unit where one of the photos was taken :
    “I officially declare that Muravsky’s photo with the explosion in [Shyrokne] was staged. The place is real, it’s on the front. The men were told what to do and how to act, there were no injuries and sprained limbs. There was no bombardment, an explosive device was detonated remotely, covered in a sack or in cement or in a mixture used for construction, or in chalk.”

    Another photo that Muravsky included in his “Pain of War” album, depicting two soldiers running in a trench with an explosion behind them, was taken during a training.

    Read the story here :

    20 journalists published an open letter, claiming :
    „We affirm that we, the undersigned, have nothing to do with these methods of photography and pretending staged images to be non-staged. We strongly condemn such manipulative activities.
    The author of the pictures is a Defense Ministry employee, but we would like to apologize on their behalf for such a mess and the clumsy attempts of Defense to participate in the information war.
    The situation given is very dangerous for all of us – for the author, journalistic community, the Ministry of Defense and in general for the reputation of the whole country. A big scandal is about to happen.“

    This is the first time that journalists come forward with accusations against the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense of using staged photos.
    I hope others will follow in relation with MH17 !

  30. sotilaspassi // August 29, 2016 at 7:45 pm // Reply

    Comment to 5.
    MIVD report state SU25 was downed with MANPAD from 6km altitude.
    Would be very nice to know more because 6km is generally out of range for vanilla MANPAD. (unless the missile is launched from helicopter)

    • Daniel Been // August 30, 2016 at 9:24 am // Reply

      But why would it be vanilla in terms of Ukraine? Considering Russia is accused to have supplied everything but the kitchen sink

      The second-generation MANPADS like 9K338 Igla-S / SA-24 mgiht be able to damage crafts at 5-7 km to the point of a crash. Note again that a given “effective service ceiling” does NOT tell you the maximum altitude a misisile can reach at all, it only indicates a given effective range according to predictabel performance and targetting (eg full speed). If the latest Igla-S models indeed could reach 6km when done by a specialist operator who can do trajectories remains unclear. This would only be known only in the field and not within the manufactorer specs (as what would be the use to claim anything so unreliable?).

      “The “Igla-S” tactical and technical characteristics enable it to destroy targets at altitudes up to 5-7 km. The limiting altitude of effective target destruction for the “Igla-S” complex is 3.5 km, according to Deputy Director General of the enterprise Vasily Russu”

      Example of news item from 2015 at least:
      June 10, 2015 “Russian soldiers in Ukraine with modern 9K338 Igla-S (SA-24) SAM. Geo-located near Donetsk.”

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.