Why did the Ukraine secret service delete the photo of BUK with missile missing from their website?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Something very strange is going on with a photo of a BUK on a lowloader. The BUK is missing a  missile and is believed to the heading towards Russiea (according SBU). The video is said to be made in Luhansk.

While a still of this video was shown during an Ukraine secret service (SBU) press conference  as well as on the  SBU website, the still was deleted from the website for unknown reasons a few days later.

Doubt about video

I earlier blogged about this video. There are a lot of doubts about the authenticity of the video. See this blog for an overview.

Arnold Greidanus also wrote a blog with doubts on the BUK video in Luhansk.

The photo on the Avakov Facebook site

The first appearance of the video was on the Facebook site of Ukraine’s Interior Minister Arsen Avakov. The video was published at July 18, 2014.

The next day, July 19, SBU held a briefing on MH17 where it presented several photographs (including Buk 312 which belonged to the Ukraine army) and a still from Avakov’s video. The same day SBU published a report on MH17 on their website. The report contained the same photographs and the still from the video that had been presented at the briefing. The text of the report repeated the statements made by the SBU official Vitaly Naida at the briefing.

The video recording of the briefing can be seen here. At aroud 4:45 Nayda explains that the BUK is missing one of the missiles.

 

This is a  link to one of Ukrainian numerous media reports (in Russian) on the SBU briefing of 19 July. The image clearly shows a still of the BUK on trailer missing one missile.

According to the statements made by SBU’s Vitaly Naida at the briefing, on 18 July, at 2 am, two trucks with Buk launchers crossed the border from Ukraine into Russia. One launcher had four missiles , while the other had three missiles. At 4 am, three more trucks crossed the border: one was empty, the other had a Buk launcher with four missiles and the third had a control unit.

CZxj_nfWQAUrvuq

The other image is a snapshot made by Webarchive.org of the SBU website at July 23 2014. The website clearly shows the two BUKs on the lower end of the page.
Webarchive-SBU-website-23072014

Adjustments made by SBU

However, a few days later (probably somewhere  24-25 July), SBU updated the 19 July report. They deleted the photograph of Buk 312 and the still from Avakov’s video. Also, they revised the text.
The current website of the SBU does not show the photos of the Ukraine BUK 312 and the BUK missing one of the missiles.

Several revisions were made to the text. For instance, the revised report says: “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”.
No mention of a Buk launcher with three missiles!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

57 Comments on Why did the Ukraine secret service delete the photo of BUK with missile missing from their website?

  1. > Why did the Ukraine secret service delete the photo of BUK with missile missing from their website?

    The bottom-right photo of a Buk is their own Buk filmed in March. So they simply took down this one image file that also had a screen from Lugansk video and didn’t upload anything to replace it (like just a screen from Lugansk).

  2. > Why did the Ukraine secret service delete the photo of BUK with missile missing from their website?

    Possibly because more people are questioning the authenticity of the Lhansk video?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjQbQa7Ly2k&feature=youtu.be

  3. Buran, it seems you did not notice: initially, SBU claimed that one of the Buk launchers that crossed the border on 18 July had three missiles. That was said both at the SBU briefing on 19 July and on their website. In the final version of their report, “three missiles” were deleted.

  4. Actually, they did not take away the photo of a ‘Buk’ No. 312 *AND* a still from the video — they took away a single picture that contained the text capture, the Russian ‘Buk’ from the video and the Ukrainian ‘Buk’ No. 312 combined into a single picture.

    As we know very well about the mistake with the ‘Buk’ No. 312 that turned out to be Ukrainian very soon we could understand why they took this illustrative picture away.

    As for the ‘Buk’ snapshot from the video, presumably No. 3^2, they did not take it away individually, it just got lost from SBU site as it was part of the same picture.

    At the same time, Ukraine has never backed off from its initial claim of having filmed the Russian ‘Buk,’ only the location has been made more precise: Luhansk, not Krasnodon as the Ministry of the Interior said initially.

    As you can easily see, the Interior Ministry keeps it on its site as it was, even with that initial incorrect statement of Krasnodon of 18 July 2014, together with the video: http://www.npu.gov.ua/ru/publish/article/1103349 (in Russian; I’m afraid they did not publish it in English).

    And something more about SBU statement on their site: I’ve found a news report about their statement dated the same day, July 19, 2014 but quoting the statement (its Ukrainian version) word-for-word as it is on the SBU site now: http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/article/25463198.html (in Ukrainian). The news item has no time stamp and was obviously written later in the day than most other reports which still used the original version of the statement. That means the changes on SBU site were made almost immediately, within a couple of hours since the initial publication.

    As for the “three missiles,” the missing missile is clearly seen on the video. While it is theoretically possible that the video may be unrelated to MH17 shooting down, there are no indications of it as of now so the Ukrainian version still stands.

    So why did they take it away? I don’t know. If I were to do it, I’d take away the statement about two more ‘Buks’ being moved from Ukraine. I’ve never heard this version any more; however, they left it on the site but took away the “three missiles” corroborated by the video. Maybe it was because of the overall confusion over the event those days.

    • Hector Reban // February 2, 2016 at 7:00 am // Reply

      Prosto:

      They lost it because it was part of the same photo on which BUK 312 was displayed, OK. The question remains: why not replace it with a still from the Luhansk BUK, why was the text deleted?

      “The missing missile is clearly seen on the video”. So nexto to the neo Babylonian sign reading you now “see” something because it isn’t there?

      In my simple empirical worldview this is not possible, though existentialism played with this phenomenon.

      Of course, one can assume a missile is missing just because an infowarrior named @WowihaY said there were “4 missiles” originally, but this entails some assumptions, conclusion jumping and disregarding the Greidanus research.

      Are you aware of that? If not, then your logic never ceases to amaze me.

  5. Denis Cashcov // February 2, 2016 at 2:25 am // Reply

    Prosto Tak said: “As for the “three missiles,” the missing missile is clearly seen on the video. While it is theoretically possible that the video may be unrelated to MH17 shooting down, there are no indications of it as of now so the Ukrainian version still stands.”

    The truth is that on July 17th 2014 the Ukrainians told us about a video of a buk in Luhansk we know that the story about one being smuggled bak to Russia on the 18th could well be a lie
    Unless the Ukrainians can come up with another video of a buk in Luhansk we can surmise that the video they claimed to be from the 18th is possibly/probably the earlier video

    • The truth is that Ukraine first told about the video on July 18 at about noon, not on July 17, here’s the original post (in Russian): https://www.facebook.com/arsen.avakov.1/posts/670837696339673

      • Denis Cashcov // February 2, 2016 at 3:19 am // Reply

        No, they told us on July 17th 2014 at a press conference of a video of a buk that had been filmed in Luhansk.
        Then they later told us a video had been filmed on July 18 of a buk in Luhansk.
        As only one video seems to exist of a buk in Luhansk we can assume that the one video that exists is probably the one that already existed on July 17.
        There is no reason to believe the SBU that the one video we have is from the 18th
        They later told

        • Do you have any links at such a press conference? In any language. I’ve never heard that.

          • See the link above to Arnold Greidanus’s article on this website.

            “Lysenko: We’ve got information that some rockets complexes have passed into Ukraine territory, which can hit planes from high altitude. There was even a video how these BUK rockets drove through Luhansk. We know this.”

            Ukraine never released that video, unless of course it was re-branded as the alleged MH17 BUK launcher recorded on 18 July.

            It’s very strange that Ukraine would not release the Lysenko video showning a BUK in the possession of Russians or separatists, when that would have been evidence of their guilt in shooting down MH17.

            It’s also a huge coincidence that the missile type and location that Lysenko mentioned match those in the video released the following day.

            I can only think of one reasonable explanation for these remarkable facts, which is that the famous Luhansk video is really the same as the one Lysenko mentioned on 17 July and therefore could not have been recorded on 18 July.

          • Prosto Tak // February 3, 2016 at 4:08 am //

            Brendan,

            Ukraine actually never claimed they *had* the “Luhansk video.” They claimed that *it was shown* to somebody — maybe it was seen by some Ukrainian agent among the separatists. If we are to be correct, at that press-conference it was this way:

            A journalist asks about some information in the social media to the extent that a SAM system ‘Buk’ has been seen somewhere around Snizhne — “not Ukrainian, but, so to say, of an enemy orientation,” in her words; Lysenko answers, “We have information not only about this system” but asks to be patient and wait. The reporter repeats her question, “I just wanted to know more precisely: so do you confirm, about that ‘Buk,’ that it exists somewhere?” Lysenko, at 22:00 in the recording: “We have information that some (such) systems had entered the territory of Ukraine, (the systems) capable of shooting down planes at high altitudes. There was a ‘Buk’ system among them. There was such information. It was even shown on the video when a convoy was going there through Luhansk. We know that.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe7pIaOBPfw

            It looks like it was just another piece of information that were announced first but were never mentioned later — exactly like the statement of “three ‘Buks’ seen to be leaving Ukraine.” Such statements were never repeated by Ukraine — not like many others that the Ukrainian officials continue to quote up until now. I would call such one-time statements rather mistakes that were abandoned than deliberate lies.

            On the other side, the video released the next day, on July 18 and showing a solitary low-loader truck with a single ‘Buk’ minus one missile could not have been called a video of a “convoy” (the Ukrainian word used by Lysenko never denotes a single vehicle).

            And, what’s more important, the video released on July 18 was thought to be from Krasnodon until some “citizen investigators” geolocated it as taken in Luhansk; it became known only on July 19.

            So, as this video was thought to be “from Krasnodon” it could not be the same as the unknown “video from Luhansk.”

            As for the ‘Buk’ itself, it is clear from the Ukrainian speaker’s words that “there was some information” about it but it was not confirmed so at that time, it was better to wait for the exact confirmation (or refutation).

          • Prosto Tak, your argument relies on certain assumptions about what the Ukrainians said.

            You suggest that the first video was one that was seen by somebody who could not make a copy of it, even though Lysenko talks about its contents with confidence (“we know that”) as if they had been verified.

            We’re also expected to believe that Lysenko’s description of it being part of a convoy is accurate, even though the SBU didn’t have a copy of the video. It’s possible that he was exagerating the number of vehicles, or maybe there were some other vehicles too far ahead of or behind the Buk that they could not be seen in the video released on 18 July.

            It’s hard to believe that the Ukrainians really believed that the Luhansk video was recorded near Krasnodon, when they said that it was their own people who recorded it. That seems like a very important detail to get wrong. They had a good reason to claim that it was from Krasnodon because a journey through Luhansk is a very strange escape route from Snizhne to the Russian border.

            What you’re suggesting is theoreticaly possible if you assume certain details, but I prefer to take an overall view and I see a big similarity between the ‘Lysenko’ video and the one released the following day.

          • Prosto Tak // February 3, 2016 at 10:21 pm //

            Brendan,

            “I see a big similarity between the ‘Lysenko’ video and the one released the following day”

            Well, it’s your point of view. I don’t see much similarity between the statements of the presumed two different videos taken at a different time and in different places in different circumstances but with a similar object, a ‘Buk,’ taking part in both, — as they were presented first.

          • Prosto Tak, the main feature of the “two” videos is an alleged Russian Buk travelling through Luhansk, and it’s the Ukrainian authorities, not just me, who highlighted that in each case.

          • Prosto Tak // February 4, 2016 at 9:07 am //

            Brendan,

            With the second video, they highlighted it had been taken in Krasnodon, not Luhansk.

            It was finally geolocated as taken in Luhansk only a day later by “citizen investigators” after which the authorities acknowledged they were wrong.

          • Prosto Tak, The fact that the video released on 18 July was shot in Luhansk suggests that it might be same as the other mysterious ‘Lysenko’ video from Luhansk. The original claim that it was from Krasnodon only suggests that that the Ukrainians might have been trying to cover up the similarity, until they were forced to reveal the true location in Luhansk.

          • Prosto Tak // February 4, 2016 at 11:21 pm //

            Brendan, your version is, of course, also possible. But it has many assumptions that make me see it as your attempt to put the blame on Ukraine by any price and thus looking for ways to interpret simple things in a complicated way to make them look fitting your version.

            But there is much simpler and more obvious version: that the Ukrainians spoke of two separate videos (but the claim of one of them must finally appeared to be wrong and so never repeated again, as it happened with several other wrong claims).

        • Maksym Ponomarenko // February 2, 2016 at 6:58 pm // Reply

          True. The Ukrainians told the world there were two videos of a buk in Lughansk. First at the press conference on July 17 they told the world one existed. Then later on they told us a SECOND VIDEO was shot on the morning of the 18th.
          Yet they only produced ONE video.
          The clear inference is that they already had the video on the 17 but later lied and said it was from the 18th July

          • Prosto Tak // February 3, 2016 at 4:15 am //

            Maksym,

            The Ukrainian have never told about “two videos of a ‘Buk’ in Luhansk.”

            They first told about a video of a ‘Buk’ going through Luhansk as a part of a convoy allegedly shown to someone, but they did not have the video; then, the next day, they showed a video of a ‘Buk’ being transported, without any convoy, “in Krasnodon” — not knowing at the time that it had been in fact filmed in Luhansk!

            And it would be rather strange to have a video of a ‘Buk’ going through Luhansk to the Russian border in the wee hours on July 17, as you claim, and then, later in the day, have the ‘Buk’ seen back in Torez and then Snizhne.

          • Denis Cashcov // February 3, 2016 at 5:50 am //

            Prosto said: The Ukrainian have never told about “two videos of a ‘Buk’ in Luhansk.”

            Of course they did. They spoke about one video at a press conference on the 17th.
            Then they spoke about a 2nd one which they claimed was filmed after that on the 18th.
            That is two videos….yet there only exists one as far as we know.
            So the one they claim is from the 18th might well be not from the 18th but the one that existed on the 17th.
            I think it probably is as there only exists one not two videos as far as we know

          • Liane Theuer // February 3, 2016 at 8:43 am //

            I think there was a group within the SBU that consciously scattered messages about Russian Buks. Arsen Avakov and several other politicians were among this group. But obviously they had agreed not particularly good with Lysenko. Therefore Lysenko spoke early as July 17 on the SBU video evidence.
            May be they hope that such “mistakes” will go into oblivion.

          • Prosto Tak // February 3, 2016 at 9:46 am //

            Denis,

            Again: Ukraine did not speak about “two videos from Luhansk”. They spoke of having knowledge about “one video of a ‘Buk’ as a part of a convoy from Luhansk” ant then they published “another video of a single ‘Buk’ from Krasnodon.” The first video mentioned has never been released by anyone yet. So we do not know whether it exists or existed. As for the second video, it was known as a “video from Krasnodon” for a whole day before it was geolocated to Luhansk.

            Liane,

            I think it would be much better to know what you are writing about.

            You speak about “a group within the SBU that consciously scattered messages about Russian Buks” and then mention Avakov and Lysenko — neither of whom had (and has) anything to do with SBU.

            Avakov is the Minister of the Interior Affairs whose ministry has historically had not very good relations with SBU and its Soviet precursor, the KGB.

            Lysenko is one of a group of spokesmen of the office of the President of Ukraine on the issues of Anti-terrorist operation.

          • Liane Theuer // February 3, 2016 at 11:06 am //

            Prosto Tak : „Avakov is the Minister of the Interior Affairs whose ministry has historically had not very good relations with SBU and its Soviet precursor, the KGB.“

            Nice try, Prosto Tak. The facts are others :

            “The SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) and the Interior Ministry have collected and continue to collect irrefutable evidence and proof that point to the authors of this tragedy from the terrorist organization DNR/LNR (Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republic), and their Russian, Putinist masters,” said Interior Minister Arsen Avakov.
            http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/avakov-irrefutable-evidence-shows-that-kremlin-backed-separatists-shot-down-malaysian-plane-356730.html

            The SBU works together with volunteer batallions, which are subordinated to the Ministry of Interior. One example :

            „Terrorist acts against Ukrainian servicemen planned for Ukrainian Independence Day on the 24th August were prevented as a result of a special operation by “Aidar” and “Chernihiv” Territorial Defense Battalions and the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). A group of saboteurs was neutralized.“
            https://burkonews.info/base-saboteurs-forests-severodonetsk-neutralized/

          • Prosto Tak // February 3, 2016 at 11:24 pm //

            Liane, so what?

            They have to cooperate now but usually tend to almost make foes at peacetime.

            Which has nothing to do with your accusing the SBU for the “sins” which you see in the actions or words of the people that do not belong to SBU.

          • Prosto > “The first video mentioned has never been released by anyone yet”

            I wonder why Ukraine has not used the excuse of US intelligence: “we haven’t released the video because we don’t want to reveal the capabilities of our camcorder technology to the enemy”?

  6. By the way, nobody is impressed with SBU’s ability to make up stories? They claimed five trucks in total had crossed the border on 18 July, three of them with Buk launchers (!), one with a control unit. Meantime, even one single Buk launcher was not detected crossing the border either way.
    The link to the Associated Press article on the briefing held by senior U.S. intelligence officials on 22 July, 2014:
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-present-intelligence-data-plane-crash-0
    An excerpt: The intelligence officials were cautious in their assessment, noting that while the Russians have been arming separatists in eastern Ukraine, the U.S. had no direct evidence that the missile used to shoot down the passenger jet came from Russia.

    • Actually, SBU did not “make up stories.” They did not repeat again what they later saw to be untrue, like this story about “three ‘Buks’ being seen to leave Ukraine.” They made that mistake but they have never insisted on it any more.

      Obviously the US intelligence officials you mention acted more professionally and did not make any statements they were not sure of.

      Ukraine did it more hastily and made some statements based on unchecked reports — but anyway they did not repeat them or insist on them later. So all the Ukrainian stories you call “made-up” were buried immediately and not voiced any more.

      And that is a difference with the numerous stories made up by Russia that are repeated again and again.

      • Hector Reban // February 3, 2016 at 11:26 am // Reply

        So, Prosto, a one time lie isn´t a lie?

        So what is the official story now. You seem to know how we should read the Ukrainian statements, as contradictive with the facts as they are.

        • No, Hector, a one-time mistake is not a lie.

          A wrong statement that is being repeated again and again after having been debunked IS a lie, as Russia constantly does.

    • abcd:

      ” They claimed five trucks in total had crossed the border on 18 July, three of them with Buk launchers (!), one with a control unit. Meantime, even one single Buk launcher was not detected crossing the border either way.”

      I find this very believable in part and I am no Ukraine partisan.

      As of July 16, Ukrainian 156th Regiment BUK TELAR 322 and TEL’s 313 and 333 were abandoned at BaseA-0194 northwest of Lugansk. It is possible Command Post 300 was also there – there is no visual record of it after February 25, 2014, that I am aware of, while the remaining BUK’s of this unit left under self-propulsion to Kramatorsk, then Avdeevka, and then by flatbed to Vasylkivka, with movement starting on March 5. These BUK’s vanish by July 27.

      I personally believe that the Russian military confiscated these four BUK’s in a special operation and took them to Russia the night of July 17-18 to remove them from the theater of war post-MH17 and keep them away from the rebels (and Ukraine).

      I suppose everyone can make up their own mind about this, but it seems like the simplest explanation.

      • Andrew,

        Are you sure the three ‘Buks’ were left at the Luhansk base?

        From what I could find, this base had been evacuated back in Spring 2014, and I was not lucky enough to find any evidence of those ‘Buks’ left to the separatists (though there were a couple of oral statements by some Ukrainian security officials about leaving an unidentified ‘Buk’ or even two behind in an inoperable condition).

        • Prosto Tak:

          “Andrew,

          Are you sure the three ‘Buks’ were left at the Luhansk base?”

          Yes, it is definitely confirmed. Both the Russian and Ukrainian satellite presentations post 7/17 note one TELAR and two TEL’s at the base immediately prior to 7/17. Further, Valery Bolotiv is on video admitting the rebels had captured 3 BUK launchers with the base, and Ukraine also admits they were under rebel control. This point is beyond dispute.

          There are video records of the movement described by the Shariy BUK 312 story showing BUK’s 301, 312, 321, 322, 323, 331, and 332 on March 5, 2014 after they left Base A-0194. 311 broke down between Lugansk and Soledar and had to be rescued by civilian low-loader as described in the interview. The other units proceeded self-propelled to Kramatorsk airfield. From there they then moved to base A-1428 in Avdeevka by civilian low-loader on March 16. On March 19 they left on a mix of military and civilian low-loaders via Karlivka to Vasylkivka where they joined units from Battalions 1 and 2 of the 156th Regiment and also units of the 11th Regiment and 222nd Regiment in publicly announced air-defense exercises.

          “From what I could find, this base had been evacuated back in Spring 2014, and I was not lucky enough to find any evidence of those ‘Buks’ left to the separatists”

          The base was not evacuated. The low-loaders, BUK, 313, 322, and 333 and possibly 300 were left, along with numerous support trucks and missiles. Each Ukrsinian Battalion is armed with around two full rounds of missiles for each launcher, so around 96 total. The TELAR’s carried 20 missiles from A-0194 on March 5, and I believe 2 trucks were dispatched with another 12 missiles total.

          “(though there were a couple of oral statements by some Ukrainian security officials about leaving an unidentified ‘Buk’ or even two behind in an inoperable condition).”

          These statements were in reference to Base A-1402 and A-1428 at the end of June. A-0194 was captured on June 5.

          • sotilaspassi // February 5, 2016 at 9:24 am //

            Is there any study page with saved satellite images of those BUK’s?

          • sotilaspassi // February 5, 2016 at 9:42 am //

            Ok, on this page there are some images of BUK units at luhansk base:
            http://kremlintroll.nl/?p=569

          • Prosto Tak // February 5, 2016 at 9:51 am //

            Andrew,

            I still could not find any confirmation of that, looking for such information in English, in Russian and in Ukrainian. Valery Bolotov, the then leader of the separatists in Luhansk, is actually on a video of July 20, 2014 claiming they had only one ‘Buk,’ not three but obviously giving no proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVdTpbur4cc (in Russian). I also could not find anything about the Ukrainian side admitting the loss of those ‘Buks’ that you mention.

          • Prosto Tak:

            “I also could not find anything about the Ukrainian side admitting the loss of those ‘Buks’ that you mention.”

            The confirming statement may be found here. Note that it specifically confirms that 3 BUK Ukrainian Launchers were left at their normal base of deployment and that this base had come under the attack of the rebels and was under their control on July 17. Therefore, it concludes, active Ukrainian controlled BUK launchers were not there on July 17, only damaged equipment captured by the LNR “terrorists”.

            http://www.ukrinform.ru/rubric-lastnews/1690776-kak_genshtab_rf_za_4_dnya_sfalsifitsiroval_snimki_po_boingu_1653774.html

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

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

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

            In Yandexian English:

            “The Russians claim that the alleged in this picture there are several launchers “Buk M 1″. However the pictures that are in the use of the SBU, on 16 July (and it will be shown and the picture of 17 July) visible just 3 units of military equipment, which are within two days did not change the place of its location and on the territory of military unit near it and observed effects of artillery fire,” – said V. Naida.

            CID also stated that in service a specified battalion, which was launched under attack by the terrorists in Kharkiv region, had no active weapons of type ZRK “Beech”. “The battalion was bringing equipment and personnel under attack by the terrorists. And equipment that was damaged and left at the place of dislocation – it is depicted on the Russian photos allegedly stationed there “Buki”, – said V. Naida.

            “At the time of the terrorist act the part territory was under the control of Pro-Russian terrorist organizations. Therefore, the assertion that on this site stood the Ukrainian “Buki” are completely fabricated,” he added.

          • sotilaspassi:

            “Ok, on this page there are some images of BUK units at luhansk base:”

            Yes, you found it. And note for BUK 322 between March and July, as Galileo said:

            “E pur si muove!”

          • Prosto Tak:

            “Valery Bolotov, the then leader of the separatists in Luhansk, is actually on a video of July 20, 2014 claiming they had only one ‘Buk,’ not three”

            They had one autonomous BUK TELAR. The two BUK TEL’s clearly visible in the space imagery are slave units unable to acquire targets on their own, and so useless to the rebels without a KUPOL TAR and Command Post vehicle.

          • Prosto Tak // February 5, 2016 at 9:41 pm //

            Andrew,

            The link you gave actually states exactly the opposite: that there were no ‘Buks’ at this base as it was captured.

            Whether true or not, SBU stated that while the Russians claimed there were three “‘Buk M1’ launcher vehicles” (a general term which, in case of ‘Buk,’ could mean both TELs and TELARs) at the base shown in the picture, in fact these were some other unspecified “units of military equipment.”

            The SBU spokesman then added again that it was some damaged equipment abandoned at the base and it was shown in the Russian pictures as if it were ‘Buks.’

            So, still no firm data on the lost ‘Buks,’ as it seems.

          • Prosto Tak:

            “The link you gave actually states exactly the opposite: that there were no ‘Buks’ at this base as it was captured.”

            No, not at all. It states quite clearly that the Battalion was withdrawn to the Kharkov Oblast (i.e. to Izyum, where it protected the headquarters of the ATO, as it did later at Kramatorsk), and that equipment that was damaged was left behind at the base and that is what is seen in the Russian picture (and I might add on Google Earth).

            “Whether true or not, SBU stated that while the Russians claimed there were three “‘Buk M1’ launcher vehicles” (a general term which, in case of ‘Buk,’ could mean both TELs and TELARs) at the base shown in the picture, in fact these were some other unspecified “units of military equipment.””

            They are BUK-M1 launchers. They are identified as TELAR 322, TEL 313, and TEL 333. if you don’t believe me, why don’t you ask the Ukrainian Government where those units are right now?

            They are parked precisely at the location on base A-0194 where Ukraine always stored BUK launchers that were not in immediate service. Further, you can clearly see the launch shoe of the TELAR 322 is at first turned 90 degrees, then, after the rebels capture the base, it is turned back to its normal position. Below it to the south, a TEL remains with its launch shoe turned 90 degrees. You are welcome to lie to yourself that “unspecified units of military equipment” seen on the territory of a BUK-M1 air defense base with a rectangular rotating top section are something other than a BUK launcher, but I don’t think you will convince too many people of it.

            “The SBU spokesman then added again that it was some damaged equipment abandoned at the base and it was shown in the Russian pictures as if it were ‘Buks.’”

            Actually what is said is that the base was under the control of the “pro-Russian terrorists” and so that it is preposterous to speak of the military equipment that as being actively deployed Ukrainian BUK’s. I agree. The BUK’s no longer belonged to Ukraine, because they were captured by the LNR rebels. Also, Russia clearly knew that Ukraine had lost these three BUK’s through its carelessness with its military equipment. The real reason Russia showed this picture post MH-17 in the July 21, 2014 military briefing was not to accuse Ukraine of having active BUK’s at Lugansk at A-0194, but to demonstrate the source of BUK’s in the possession of the rebels was from equipment captured from the Ukrainian military.

            So it is shown in both the Russian picture and in Google Earth as clearly being three BUK’s. If you think not, why don’t you enlighten us all as to what equipment it could possibly be instead?

            “So, still no firm data on the lost ‘Buks,’ as it seems.”

            On the contrary, that could be only if you have your head buried in the sand like an Ostrich.

      • Andrew, if three Buk launchers had indeed crossed the border on 18 July, they would have been certainly detected by U.S. surveillance satellites and we would have heard about it from U.S. officials. However, nobody, apart from SBU, ever said that any Buk was detected crossing the border. In particular, the U.S. intelligence officials, who briefed journalists on 22 July, said nothing of those SBU-alleged Buks. Read the AP article.

        • abcd:

          “they would have been certainly detected by U.S. surveillance satellites”

          How would they detect them at night, since the SBU says they passed the border between 2a and 4a during the military curfew?

          • Andrew, then what about the Buk that, according to SBU, was delivered from Russia into Ukraine in the morning of 17 July? This is SBU’s well-known Youtube post published on 18 July:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4
            In this post, SBU claims (you can read English subtitles) that on 17 July, around 1am, Buk-M1 was transferred from Russia into Ukraine near the town of Sukhodolsk (it is located near Krasnodon, Lugansk region). By 9am, SBU claims, Buk was delivered to Donetsk. Thus, at least part of the route to Donetsk Buk was driven in full sunlight. But you know: there are neither satellite images nor photos/videos of Buk driving to Donetsk in the morning of 17 July.
            Also, it is interesting to look at the timing of SBU’s posts on Youtube. The above video contains intercepted conversations between several separatists, which allegedly took place on 14 July (the recording #1) and on 17 July (the recordings #2 to 6). All the conversations in the recordings #2 to 6 allegedly took place between 9am and 10 am on 17 July. At first, separatists allegedly talked about the arrival of Buk into Donetsk (the recording #2, timed 9:08am) and then about the transfer of Buk to Pervomaiskoe. First of all, if SBU had intercepted those phone conversations in the morning of 17 July, why they did not warn the government so that the latter closed the sky? (To me, this is a rhetorical question). Then, a real question: if SBU had intercepted those conversations in the morning of 17 July, why they posted the above video on 18 July early afternoon? The Ukrainian media reported on this SBU posting after 1pm. The earliest report I found was timed 1:30 pm. Why did it take such a long time for SBU to present their evidence? As you know, the conversations between separatists intercepted after the Boeing crash were made public by SBU the same day, 17 July.

          • abcd:

            “Andrew, then what about the Buk that, according to SBU, was delivered from Russia into Ukraine in the morning of 17 July?”

            There is no evidence of this other than the SBU simply saying so.

            On the other hand, regarding their statement about 4 BUK’s passing the border into Russia the night of July 17/18, 4 BUK’s definitely disappeared from Base A-0194 at the same time – TELAR 322, TEL’s 313 and 333, and Command Post 300.

            So while I put little credence into a BUK coming from Russia until further evidence surfaces, I believe there is evidence that Russia could possibly have confiscated some Ukrainian BUK’s.

          • > I believe there is evidence that Russia could possibly have confiscated some Ukrainian BUK’s

            Couldn’t the rebels plainly hide the BUK’s out of satellite view?

          • Andrew,
            > There is no evidence of this other than the SBU simply saying so.

            Yes, this is one of the things I tried to say: no evidence except for SBU stories.
            As for three or four Buks that disappeared, they could have been hidden in some industrial hangar, or taken to pieces for spare parts, or blown up.

          • abcd:

            “As for three or four Buks that disappeared, they could have been hidden in some industrial hangar, or taken to pieces for spare parts, or blown up.”

            Yes, they could have. But it is also more probable in my mind that they vanish to Russia at the same time SBU says that many BUK’s go across the border. A simple explanation for a simple problem.

  7. Liane Theuer // February 4, 2016 at 12:53 am // Reply

    “I personally believe that the Russian military confiscated these four BUK’s in a special operation and took them to Russia the night of July 17-18 to remove them from the theater of war post-MH17 and keep them away from the rebels (and Ukraine).”

    That´s an interesting point of view.
    But how can Russian military confiscate a Buk in Vasylkivka ?
    So, what do you think where the four Buk´s were confiscated ?
    Or do you speak about the abandoned Buk´s northwest of Lugansk ?

    • I am talking about the abandoned BUK’s at Base A-0194 northwest of Lugansk that are clearly shown on space imagery and admitted by Ukraine to have been left at the base, and then vanish after July 17.

      • sotilaspassi // February 4, 2016 at 1:55 pm // Reply

        Is there any study page with saved satellite images of those BUK’s?

        (I suspect they indeed were unrepairable junk and that they were tried to be repaired by russian professionals. But so far there is no indication that any of those became into working condition + there was no missiles for them. So, they were hidden after Jul 17 to cause extra smoke screen / maskirovska? Possible they were buried to some mine and fresh units were brought from russia to replace them.)

        • sotilaspassi // February 5, 2016 at 9:53 am // Reply

          Do we have any images anywhere about those BUK units left at base A-0194?
          This video show mainly some junk from the base: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGrCijBIsdw

          • sotilaspassi:

            “Do we have any images anywhere about those BUK units left at base A-0194?”

            Yes we do. A picture of BUK 322 at A-0194 was posted to Twitter (and mislocated as being in Yuviliene).

            https://twitter.com/stabilizec/status/509116114240933888

            Note that in Google Earth images, on June 5, the launch shoe of TELAR 322 was turned 90 degrees. On June 30, it is rotated in line with the tractor body. By July 28 on Terraserver images it is gone, having moved away. It was not so broken that it could not operate at least that much. Therefore, the Twitter picture was taken after the vegetation fully came in in May and no later than June 29, by which time the launch shoe was rotated.

            Fascinating video by the way. The destroyed vehicles at ST-68UM “Tin Shield” field-mobile radar station trailers. Most of the remaining vehicles seen were also removed shortly after July 17.

          • Prosto Tak // February 5, 2016 at 11:18 pm //

            Andrew,

            The twitted picture used to make much fuss, it was claimed that this ‘Buk’ had been moved into Ukraine by the Russians; however, we do not know neither the time nor the place or other circumstances of the taking of this photo.

          • Prosto Tak:

            “The twitted picture used to make much fuss, it was claimed that this ‘Buk’ had been moved into Ukraine by the Russians; however, we do not know neither the time nor the place or other circumstances of the taking of this photo.”

            The photo shows one of the sister units of Ukrainian BUK’s 311, 312, 321, 331, and 332 which are known from numerous photos and videos made between March and July of 2014. Compare for example to photos here of unit 321:

            http://www.tanzpol.org/1970/01/tpc89946,100–mh17-razbiraem-fakty-i-nabrosy-divannye-rassledovaniya-stran.html

            Same paint, same number font, same wear on the radar dome paint. There is of course a great reason why Ukrainian BUK 322 is in none of those videos – it was left at the base.

            The location of the photo is here on Google Earth:

            48°36’36.00″N, 39°13’55.00″E

            This is the storage area at Base A-0194 for BUK’s not current deployed armed on the firing position mounds to the south. In all of the Google Earth pictures from February 25, 2014 and earlier, you can see six BUK TELAR’s and TEL’s parked around this location. They are obviously BUK’s because you can see their turned launch shoes relative to the tractor bodies.

            If you use the history slider and choose April 28, May 24, or June 5, 2014, you can clearly see this BUK TELAR with is launch shoe rotated, just like in the picture.

            In the background of the picture, you can see a fence. The fence is clearly seen on Google Earth just to the north of the location. To the background in the right, you can see a military trailer. This trailer is seen on Google Earth here:

            48°36’37.00″N, 39°13’59.00″E

            We can pretend we do not know the time or circumstances, but it is pretty obvious to me from the above that it was taken in May or June, 2014 at the location I note.

        • sotilaspassi:

          “But so far there is no indication that any of those became into working condition”

          The BUK TELAR obviously operated enough to rotate its launch shoe after it was captured by the rebels, and then it was somehow able to propel itself off the base, either by rolling onto a low loader or by driving off.

          “there was no missiles for them.”

          How are you able to demonstrate this? Do you have firm evidence that Ukraine evacuated every single missile from this base? Do you possess Ukraine’s active inventory database of its zenith rockets?

  8. Liane Theuer // February 10, 2016 at 1:39 pm // Reply

    Evidently the Ukraine had a lot of satellite images from the war zone on July 2014 :

    „Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) revealed the evidence collected during July 2014 testifying to the military aggression of Russia against Ukraine. This includes evidence of the shelling of Ukrainian cities and the killing citizens, as well of evidence of the conveying of weapons into our territory.
    In particular, according to the results of the satellite survey on the ATO areas next to the border with the Russian Federation the Security Service of Ukraine detected a corridor used by the Russians for the supply of military equipment and armament.
    The SBU also published photographs, which show the position of the Russian multiple launch rocket systems GRAD which have illegally entered the territory of Ukraine, and which were repeatedly used to attack the peaceful settlements of our country.“
    https://burkonews.info/security-service-ukraine-presents-evidence-military-terrorism-russia/

    The link contains a video of satellite surveys that Ukraine used. But not a single Buk was found :
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_9uGW5CCio

    Is anyone able to identify the satellit ? Seems not to be from DigitalGlobe.

  9. sotilaspassi // October 19, 2016 at 9:44 am // Reply

    Just to clarify.
    The SBU mistakenly shown UA BUK seem to have 4 missiles.
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2waW5WUURXZ3pENHM

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*