Slashdot Mirror
Russian Missile Parts Found At MH17 Crash Site
An anonymous reader sends this report from the BBC: Fragments of a suspected Russian missile system have been found at the Flight MH17 crash site in Ukraine, investigators in the Netherlands say. They say the parts, possibly from a Buk surface-to-air system, are "of particular interest" and could help show who was behind the crash. But they say they have not proved their "causal connection" with the crash. ... Ukraine and many Western countries have accused pro-Russian rebels of shooting down the plane, saying they could have used a Buk missile system supplied by Russia. Russia and the rebels deny any responsibility and say the Ukrainian military was to blame.
It seems unlikely the West's censure of this behavior would cost the Russians a kopeck, let alone the World Cup or some pricey sanctions. Europe will still purchase Russian petroleum products this winter, and the exploitation of Ukraine for its strategic location and natural resources will continue unabated.
Putin has seemingly waited past the World's collective attention span. Care and concern for Ukraine is waning in the West.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Cue hordes of astroturfing Russian trolls in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. 1...
Literally no-one on this thread will be who they claim to be. Not even me.
I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
Rebels didn't use planes, so Ukraine didn't need to bring anti air missile systems in there, let alone, shoot them down.
On the other hand, Igor Strelkov's ("rebel leader" and, coincidentally, Russian citizen) wrote shortly after the plain was shot down:
"AN-26 plane was shot down near Torez, it fell somewhere near "Progress" mine. ... without hitting peacefull people.
Warned them, do not fly in "our sky".
Here is a video proof of yet another "birdfall".
Birdy fell
There is also information about another plain, probably Su"
http://news.bigmir.net/ukraine...
For quite a while Russia was trying to push "it was shot down by uklrainian Su-25" despite the fact that even creator of the plane denied it was possible.
Incidentally, Russia has vetoed creation of MH17 Tribunal in UN.
Smoking Guns: Russian Separatists Shot Down Malaysian Flight MH17
Unfortunately there are no "take backs" on this.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Missile parts find you.
will sometime this century take back what was stolen from them in their century of humiliation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
and russia, having absolutely no friends because of their neoimperialist thuggery today, and a broken economy, and a rusting military, won't be able to do anything about it
russia is a nuclear power you say?
oh, don't worry: china won't invade, no war will be declared
local freedom fighters will revolt (the area already has huge chinese minorities) and china will simply provide "humanitarian" aid to local chinese. russia will complain the "local" revolutionaries have the latest chinese military tech and will claim some are in fact chinese army
china won't care about the complaints. the world won't care about the complaints
the irony will be delicious
georgians and ukrainians, you will be avenged
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Found the Russian shill!
I have never understood the blatant lies coming out of the Russian military or their proxies when they claim it was Ukrainian forces who shot down the airliner. I can only presume they believe people around the world are as gullible as the average Russian, and possibly just as drunk, because they have never answered any of the following questions.
If Ukraine was the only one who had helicopters and jets, why would they need anti-aircraft weapons against farmers and miners (the term Putin has used to refer to his troops in Ukraine)?
If the plane was coming from the West, meaning it was flying into Ukrainian airspace from a known location, why would Ukraine, if it had anti-aircraft weapons deployed, target then shoot down an aircraft not coming from the East?
How does Russia and their proxies explain the fact postings were made on known Twitter accounts and radio intercepts recorded of Russian proxies bragging about shooting down a Ukrainian jet?
Why is it that pictures of a Buk missile system were taken near the shoot down site, the same system which was then tracked on its way back to Russia AND which had one missile missing?
How does Russia and its proxies explain that people in the area witnessed the launch of the missile from territory under Russian control? Not just one person, but several, all pointing to the same general area?
Why did Russia and its proxies prevent investigators from entering the crash site for days afterwards? What evidence were they trying to hide?
If Russia or its proxies did not shoot down the civilian airliner, why did Russia veto a UN resolution to fully and openly investigate the incident? If Russia is innocent they should have been happy to have an investigation to prove their innocence.
It is quite clear Russian troops and/or their proxies shot down a civilian airliner, then bragged about it, yet beyond all reasonable comprehension they stubbornly cling to the fantasy they are not criminally responsible. It's as if the they've learned nothing over the last 100 years since the coup.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
What would the consequences be if irrefutable proof was uncovered in the wreckage?
Lawsuits for compensation filed by the families of the victims against the Russian government.
Similar to Pan Am 103.
The DUH point being that the rebels were armed and trained by Russia and included Russian soldiers. That they shot down a plane is just incidental to the thousands they killed to seize control of Ukraine.
That we know damn well that Russia invaded Ukraine and we did nothing to stop them, just like we did nothing in Georgia, just as we did nothing in the Crimea. Now they control the Baku pipeline as it crosses South Ossetia, and they've re-designated South Ossetia to be part of Russia, and we've still done nothing.
At what point are we actually going to defend our borders from Putin and his pathetic little army?
If it's an undeclared war by Russian forces in Ukrainian territory, and not a civil war between different Ukrainian groups, it would provide a legal justification for intervention in the conflict.
Still combine the rebels initial celerbration of the shootdown, the shootdown occouring over a rebel controlled area and now the discovery of debris from a *surface* to air missle it seems far more likely to me that the rebels shot it down than the pro-government forces did.
Probably similar to the consequences of someone in Den Haag tried to get a US serviceman to the International Criminal court. Remember that the US made a law to make it possible to invade the Netherlands if anyone from the US was attempted to be prosecuted there.
Oh, how many US people have been prosecuted for torturing people in Europe again? What's that ? No one ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Strategic location and natural resources"? Look, I'll be the first to argue that Ukraine has great future potential, if it can get past its huge problems of endemic corruption and end the situation with the Russian paramilitaries holding a chunk of the country. But as it stands, Ukraine is a basket case. Their per-capita GDP is under $3100 per year - that ranks it between the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Palestinian Territories. Their largest source of economic activity is just letting Russian oil pass through their country.
They're doing a lot to try to remedy the situation, and in the future - given enough time period of stability without corruption - it has great potential for agriculture, manufacture, and energy production. But that's not going to happen any time soon. And probably would never happen under a scenario of the country being run by Russian puppets.
As for "strategic location", it depends on whose perspective you look at it as. Russia considers it "strategic" because they want to have a "buffer zone" and think in spheres of interest. The US and Europe however tend to think in terms of "hot spots" and having accessibility to those "hot spots" that they're heavily involved in, be they Afghanistan, Syria, etc. Ukraine isn't particularly useful in any of these regards. Nor is it a major energy producer (always a concern to the west), just an energy transporter from Russia - it's in neither side's interests to block the flow of energy, since Russia needs to sell it and the west needs to consume it. So what's the great strategic value?
Europe had a lot of interest in bringing Ukraine more into their sphere as a sort of "New Poland" - that is, a country that starts out as poor which can provide host to low cost manufacturing labor and low-cost raw goods, benefiting the wealthier countries while also allowing the new country to grow. Poland once served that role (along with a number of other Eastern European nations), but they've gotten too expensive as their per capita income has risen. But if there's anything the EU cares about more than economic growth, it's "not getting involved in potentially icky military action". There's no growth potential for a Ukraine with a simmering war inside its borders, but there's a lot of risk. Which, of course, Russia knows well; the Donbas conflict basically neutralizes their ability to get significant European investment. It also pretty much keeps them out of NATO, as NATO isn't going to accept a country that would cause an immediate Article 5 invocation against the country with the world's largest number of nuclear weapons.
You're absolutely right that it doesn't matter what they find in the wreckage. There will always be a Russian spin, and their media control will always allow them find a way to present that to their public as God's Own Truth. Even if they found a hand-signed letter from Putin to Igor Strelkov, with his DNA on it, praising Strelkov for his actions in Donbas and announcing the delivery of the Buk system, and a reply from Strelkov announcing the date, time, and location that they were planning to use it to try to take down an airplane... it still wouldn't make a whit of difference. I mean, given that Strelkov already publicly announced shortly after taking down the plane that they had just taken down a plane and there's videos of the rebels talking about the takedown, cheering, then slowly coming to the realization that it was a passenger liner... really, what effect could any more evidence have at this point?
Lastly, a minor correction: you're thinking of winter deliveries of natural gas, not petroleum. Beyond this, last year's mild winter left gas stocks high, and Europe has been working hard to increase their independence from Russian natural gas. Russia doesn't have nearly the leverage that they use to, and ongoing European efforts are only going to decrease this. They got complacent before and left themselves vulnerable, but they are adapting.
I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
Well the French government decided to cancel the delivery of 2 "Mistral" battleships that Russia had ordered. This was a way of condemning the role that Russia played in Ukraine. The result: a huge cancellation fee will be payed to Russia and now France must find new buyers for the 2 ships. It leaves you wondering who the sanction was really against ...
...apart from Putins clean up team. Someone is going to the gulag for leaving some fragments behind.
it's russian missile parts, can't prove it was a russian missile. the Ukrainian military is almost all former USSR aka Russian equipment. some russian military hardware is actually made in the ukraine and the russian supply planes are breaking down because they can't get anymore parts from the ukraine. look it up, it was on the news a few days ago
Cost of doing business. Really that's what this will come down to. The Russian government will pay the families if push comes to shove, but hey they sure did send a message and that's worth every penny.
I've read about it in NYTimes today, they say "Russian-made", not "Russian". Big difference. BTW, Ukraine also has BUK missile systems in service.
LMOL, ummm no thanks for playing. Nobody trusts Putin.
Right and the Russian army that's involved in this action isn't using Russian equipment.....
Putin is that you...
As for Putin succeeding at waiting it out... yes, the general American and European public have the attention span of a gnat, but even still, Russia's poll numbers have plunged around the world. Even Germany, Russia's "bridge" to the EU, is something in the ballpark 70% negative 20% positive in the last Gallup poll. Even if they're not closely following the conflict, they're no longer so willing to just put up with Russia's behavior.
The question comes as to what's going to happen next. Obama has been playing Ukraine with a very soft hand - they need (among countless other things) modern anti-tank weapons and long range counter-strike radars, but the most "provacative" things the Obama administration has been willing to provide are trainers and short-range radars not useful against most equipment used by the paramilitaries. Russia has some of their best tank and artillery models in Donbas, way better equipment than Ukraine has. But the Obama administration has been very cautious about "provoking" Russia. But whoever takes the White House next may choose a different strategy. The same applies to the ever switching governances in Europe. Some entities want to offer Ukraine whatever military equipment they want. Others want to throw Donbas, Crimea, and pretty much whatever else Russia wants to Russia and renormalize relations. These people are in a minority in Europe, but in certain parts of Eastern Europe they stand a chance at winning, and even one pro-Russian government can become a very big headache for the EU. There are even already a few moderately pro-Russian elements, such as the current governments of Greece and Hungary.
Of course, the whole game changes if Russia ratchets things up elsewhere. Belarus, formerly Russia's biggest European pal, suddenly seems to want to run away from them as fast as they can (although Europe doesn't seem to be in a rush to embrace them). If Russia involves Little Green Men in Belarus, the situation could escalate. And it most definitely would escalate if they involved them in NATO states like Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.
I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
What are the consequences when the US kills a few dozens of innocents in a drone strike?
What are the consequences when israel encroaches on the land of others and then brutally suppresses anyone who disagrees?
Or, to put it more generally: What are the consequences for [insert random act of brutality perpetrated by world superpower]?
Answer: nothing. There are no consequences.
The world is fucked up man. The guy with the most nukes (or the most money) gets to do whatever he wants.
Ultimately, Europe and the US can't do anything to Russia because they know all it takes is the press of a button to send everyone back to the middle ages, either via nuclear obliteration or economic strangulation.
So we will do what we always do: make some disproving noises for a while and then its business as usual.
World: fucked up.
LMOL...ok Potsy. If the Ukraine wants to join NATO they can. If the Ukraine wants to join the EU, they can. Ukraine is it's own country and can make it's own decisions. Putin can just suck it.
Buk was developed by Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute of Instrument Design of Zhukovsky, Russia and NPO Novator of Yekaterinburg, Russia. It is produced by Novator's Kalinin Machine-Building Plant. It is a Russian missile system. Russia is not the only country to own them, but they designed, made, and still make them, including the latest updated variants not available in former satellite states.
The paramilitaries issued a "don't fly in our skies, we'll shoot you down" warning days before the attack. Immediately after the attack, they announced shooting down the plane, before deleting the announcement hours later it after it was discovered to be civilian. The plane was shot down deep in DNR territory. The missiles have a maximum range of 20 kilometers, far away from the nearest Ukrainian troops.
I know it's great to want to be skeptical, but at some point you need to come down to Earth.
I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
The plane was probably shot down by accident. So an obvious precedent would be Iran Air Flight 655, for which the United States did not admit legal liability but did pay compensation to the families.
If not for the sanctions, Russia would have the Mistrals today. Now they have to launch their own design program. It's tenatively scheduled to be done in 2020, which knowing Russia, means in reality somewhere between 2025 and Never.
The sanctions have also caused Russia to dramatically curtail their production estimates for new weapons systems like Armata.
I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
So, how is the summer so far in St Petersburg? Or does 'The Agency' keep you indoors too much to notice it?
So what you're saying is that it's the US's fault for not offering appeasment to Putin by refusing to ally with a country which isn't Russia and has never taken any military action against Russia except for defense.
The US has done many crappy things but the blame for this lies squarely with Putin. But hey blame them for no appeasement, because appeasement worked so well last time.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I'm pretty sure his voters do...
Ukraine also has BUKs. So you can't unambiguously infer who fired the rocket just because it was a BUK. (IF it was a BUK)
... who invaded who's country? Might the Ukrainians have done it? Sure... terrified, overwhelmed, outgunned, under trained... sure... they could have done it. But the Russians are to blame for that either way because they're the ones that panicked the kittens and pushed their backs against the wall. Raise your hand if you think the Ukrainians started this shit? No one thinks that. Raise your hand if you think the Ukrainians have a crack military or even a competent government? Okay.
So what the actual fuck?
Now am I saying the Ukrainians did do it? No... For all I know it was the Russians that did it or their proxies. But it really doesn't matter.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The US invading a fellow NATO-member, Russia will love that.
No netter way to scare of former members of the Warsaw Pact from joining NATO.
Russia can even veto any accusations against it...
What would the consequences be if irrefutable proof was uncovered in the wreckage?
Pretty much nothing.
Some outrage, some threats of this and that, some media coverage...and then nothing, because Kim Kardashian's ass will make another appearance and everyone will forget all about some plane that went down somewhere in some country that none of us has ever been to.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
So we're to believe that Ukraine smuggled a BUK deep into DNR territory to shoot at planes when the DNR had no planes, and then convinced Strelkov that he had shot it down?
Interesting, tell me more.
I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
Which is both a fact and completely useless when trying to figure out who operated the aircraft.
Now, if they found Russian aircraft parts or US missile parts at the crash site, they'd have a story.
Imagine this would have happened in Iran or any other place in the middle east. Some middle eastern country would have shot down an airliner with a missile and then blamed the rebels. You really think we would be here a year later and nothing would have been done?
Fewer people trust Obama than Putin.
I think you are right when only counting home audience. Many reasons for that, media included. But if you where to poll all democratic nations around the world (excluding US and Russia), I would be surprised if people trusting Putin more than Obama accounted for more than single digit percentage.
Putin's voters are he, himself, and one Vlad P. Utin. That's all the votes he gets and all the votes he needs.
Since everyone other than the complete wackos already knew it was shot down by a Russian missile, this isn't really news. The only real question is who shot it down and why (including, why was it flying over a war zone where both sides had Russian surface-to-air missiles?).
Ukraine was using planes and a number of them was shot down by "the rebels".
"IL 76 was shot down near Luhansk, 49 Ukrainian military are dead"
http://ru.tsn.ua/spetstemi/v-l...
Just about every former member of the old Soviet has Buc missiles. I want to know what MODEL of Buc missile they found at the site.
It seems that the story about two attack jets shadowing the airliner may be red herrings. So, at this point in time, the most important question is, "Which Buc missiles, precisely, were used to down the aircraft?"
If it was a model from the '70's or '80's then we blame Porkochenko and Ukraine.
If it is a modern, up-to-date model, the Putin bites the big green weenie. They haven't sold any new model missiles to Ukraine, or any of the other former client nations.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Following the Bellingcat report Origin of the Separatists’ Buk, which showed that the Buk missile launcher linked to the downing of MH17 was filmed inside Russia a few weeks earlier, the Bellingcat investigation team has continued to search for additional information, and has recently discovered two more images of the Buk missile launcher linked to the downing of MH17.
https://www.bellingcat.com/new...
Fucked up? No, the world keeps functioning as it has always done and always will: might makes right. Anyone thinking otherwise is a deluded fool who deserves to be dragged kicking and screaming into the harsh reality.
You can thank wingnut blogs, hate-radio, and Fox News for that. They've turned most of the Conservatives into deranged wingnuts.
"Battleships", LOL. "Battleship" is not a synonym for "warship". Bismarck was a battleship. Hint - eight 15" guns, over 40,000 tons. Nobody has built a battleship in 70 years.
The Mistrals are "amphibious warfare ships". Puny in size, slower than shit, with next to no armament, they can carry 16-35 helicopters and no more than 450 troops except 900 for short duration.
What would the consequences be if irrefutable proof was uncovered in the wreckage?
Russian authorities would burn even more those dangerous Dutch flowers and other plants.
My kids try the same thing when they're caught. It's an attempt at distraction in order to circumvent blame.
"Why did you do that?"
"My sister did it last week, and she didn't get in trouble"
What we must not forget, is that Malaysia decided to fly over a war zone. This does not talk the attack on the airplane right, but it creates circumstances...
Over 300 other civilian planes flew over the area the same week. There was no "no fly" zone and flying over the area at over 32,000 feet was considered negligible risk.
It is only Monday morning quarterbacks trying to blame the victim that say they shouldn't have been flying there. If the plane hadn't been shot down, planes would still be flying over the area and nobody would say a word about it.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
In this case, reading deeper finds that the Ukrainians are using much older Russian buk missiles which have different parts from the relatively newer buk missiles used by Russia and the rebels. The rebels had apparently even shot down multiple Ukrainian military planes in the same air space just days before using a buk missile system. Even with that, however, there is still debate about whether the rebels were able to steal a Ukrainian buk missile system, or whether they were just using one provided by Russia.
So, if the missile is found to contain the newer buk parts, it's Russian, supplied by Russia to the rebels, and categorically the rebels who shot down the plane. However, if the missile is found to contain the older parts, then there is still a question of whether it was the Ukrainian military or the rebels, and the investigation continues.
Of course, the whole game changes if Russia ratchets things up elsewhere.
Really? What did you base that on? Iran is backing terrorists around the world and the western nations are sending them a few hundred billion to complete nuclear weapons to attack us all with.
If Russia "ratchets things up" I imagine we'll send them a box of chocolates for every 10 thousand civilians killed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Sorry about the confusion, I'm not a native English speaker and I guess that I'm still a little bit traumatized years after having had to watch the movie "Battleship" :)
Unless there was evidence of deliberate targeting of the civilian airliner because it was a civilian airliner, rather than an accidental shoot down through misidentification, then it would probably be more like that of Iran Air Flight 655, which the US has never apologised for and only paid a settlement after Iran took them to court. Indeed, President Bush (the first one) even said "I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy" when referring to the issue.
LMOL, ummm no thanks for playing. Nobody trusts Putin.
What about Steven Seagal?
http://www.theguardian.com/fil...
Sorry about the pedantry. Trust me, nobody cares except for frij. Meanwhile, those of us who actually read know it's a freaking HELICOPTER GUNSHIP.
That Ukrainian air traffic control allowed civilian planes into area where BUK were used few days earlier and where airforce operated sorties is of course also Putin's fault. So are all the other problems humanity has at the time. I do not even care why Ukrainian government lost that part of the country. I never did. I consider it silly that it had to come to all the fighting but did not care before and do not care now. The only thing I care about is - refugees. The interesting point is that the terrorists actions and anti-terrorist activities of Ukrainian military like forces did not cause massive exodus towards Germany etc just yet. The other part of the world where everybody was so hangho about fighting the oppression Syria and Kosovo are so fucked up that people want to get out of there at almost any cost life including.
Nice writeup, thanks -
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
I'll repeat: So we're to believe that Ukraine smuggled a BUK deep into DNR territory to shoot at planes when the DNR had no planes, and then convinced Strelkov that he had shot it down?
Interesting, tell me more.
I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
If it was a model from the '70's or '80's then we blame Porkochenko and Ukraine.
Yeah, how on Earth could Russia supply BUK from 70-80s, really.
As for "strategic location", it depends on whose perspective you look at it as. Russia considers it "strategic" because they want to have a "buffer zone" and think in spheres of interest.
The strategic location of Ukraine is not Ukraine in its entirety. It's Sevastopol and the land between it and Russia. It's all about port capacity.
Russia's total port capacity is roughly 5,181,000 TEU. Of that 2,900,000 comes through the Baltic basin. Of that figure 2,250,000 passes through St. Petersburg. The Far East segment of port capacity accounts for 1,389,000 TEU the majority of which passes through Vladivostok. The Black Sea ports account for 761,000 TEU with most of it passing through Novorossiysk. They're at capacity and don't have the best land transport connections to the Moscow region.
Sevastopol has a capacity of around 600,000 TEU, which can nearly double Russia's Black Sea port capacity, and conveniently all the areas that are "pro-Russian" provide a landpath to Russia. With some investment in rail infrastructure this could greatly increase the shipping capacity for Russia in the Black Sea should Crimea and the other areas become part of Russia. It would also mean that Russia had a land connection to the primary naval facilities for their Black Sea fleet.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
the Ukraine, when in the same airspace an Antonov was downed just the week before. I find strange, that has seemingly never come up in discussion. The theory that the MH-17 flight height was too high, to be caught by a BUK seems to be stupid with hindsight.
That movie will traumatize anyone. Though I haven't found other movies with as good battleship footage unfortunately. It's kind of like that scab you keep picking at.
Let me guess, your professor told you that or was it the regular liberal news media? Your parents must be proud.
Care and concern for Ukraine is waning in the West
TBH I think it never existed. That is the problem with the Russian conspiracy theories (ie, that the US hired a sniper to start the whole thing, etc): the US doesn't care enough about Ukraine to hire a sniper.
The general attitude in the west is, "Russia, why are you doing stupid things?" Then go back to reading our newspaper or arguing about abortion or healthcare or our own favorite countries to harass, like Iran. Ukraine is just that country that half of us can't even find on a map.
(Of course, sometimes Russians look at America, for example, in our relationships with Pakistan, and say, "America, why are you doing stupid things?").
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It seems that the story about two attack jets shadowing the airliner may be red herrings.
As was overwhelmingly obvious at the time.
So, at this point in time, the most important question is, "Which Buc missiles, precisely, were used to down the aircraft?"
If it was a model from the '70's or '80's then we blame Porkochenko and Ukraine.
If it is a modern, up-to-date model, the Putin bites the big green weenie. They haven't sold any new model missiles to Ukraine, or any of the other former client nations.
Even if it were old Buks Putin's still the main suspect. The idea Putin loaded up the rebels with old Soviet equipment that looks like stuff taken from Ukrainian bases is hardly implausible, I think the rebels were even claiming to have taken their Buks from Ukrainian bases!
I stole this Sig
Oh, THAT must be why it's legal to smoke weed in the Netherlands but not (yet) in most of the US. Thanks for clearing that up!
As for "strategic location", it depends on whose perspective you look at it as.
Seriously? "Southern access to the Atlantic" is one of Russia's longest-running strategic concerns.
Europe had a lot of interest in bringing Ukraine more into their sphere as a sort of "New Poland" - that is, a country that starts out as poor which can provide host to low cost manufacturing labor and low-cost raw goods, benefiting the wealthier countries while also allowing the new country to grow. Poland once served that role (along with a number of other Eastern European nations), but they've gotten too expensive as their per capita income has risen.
Poland per capita GDP went from $5,000USD to $22,000USD since 1990. You don't think Ukraine would be better off like that?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There are different versions of Buks and even the same version of the design might be manufactured differently with differently sourced parts. Yes, if Russia sent over old Buk systems from before the breakup of the USSR or soon after, there can be doubt. If it was a relatively recent manufacture with signature parts, its Russian.
Of course, again, as someone else said, old Buk or not, the Ukrainians would have had to have fired it from deep in DNR territory, when the rebels don't use planes. That pretty much would assure that the only thing they are shooting at would be civilians (or their own planes).
The simple explanation is that the rebels thought they were shooting at a Ukrainian jet and made a mistake. Not really a difficult thing to believe. It doesn't require the rebels (or anyone else) to have committed a purposeful war crime. It is understandable why they don't want the bad PR, but there's nothing really absurd or even earthshattering about the accusation.
So, it's the Russians, or at least the Russian supplied rebels. And they made an error. In the end, the blame is still squarely on Russia for destabilizing the eastern Ukraine. It doesn't even really matter much if they meant to shoot it down or not. This is what happens when you destabilize a region.
Fine try this. The Ukrainian government first claimed that a Buk missile system had been stolen by the rebels and provided photographic proof of the stolen system. This was considered problematic because they did not inform civilian aviation authorities of the missing system and so they later denied that it was stolen. The US government also claimed to be aware of the medium range ground to air missile in the region but also did not inform civilian aviation authorities. No one saw a 10 kilometre long missile trail that should have been visible from 20 kilometres away (that is approximately 1,250 square kilometres in a highly contested zone), it occurred during daylight hours. It is fine to claim it was brought down by a missile, it is not fine to ignore air to air missiles, especially in light of any evidence of weapon deployment or firing (this tends to favour an air to air missile and not a ground to air missile).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Buk missiles are not really 'Russian' - they are Soviet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system). As such they are employed by both the Russian and Ukrainian army. While Russians updated theirs a little so theoretically could be distinguished from the vanilla version employed by Ukraine AFAIR it is not something which could be done based on the wreckage, you would have to see the laucher (or according to the article do the tests which the experts are now doing) so both parties could be assumed responsible. At the stage of confliect when MH17 was shot down Ukrainians are proven to have Buks in the area and ready to fire. The rebels claimed to have such a system but this was never proven with any amount of certainity.
So my point really is that to say that the 'Russian' missile was found is dead wrong and is just bad journalism.
I'm just glad I got warned off from watching that awful piece of drek.
Just as an aside, the English catch-all term would be "Warship." A "Helicopter Gunship" refers to a specific type of helicopter, such as an AH-64 Apache. The specific term for a ship like this would be Amphibious Assault Ship, or Helicopter Carrier, depending on which aspect you wanted to play up.
On another note, I doubt the Russians would ever classify it as that officially, because of the Montreaux convention. Essentially, they've always designated their aircraft carriers as "Aircraft Carrying Cruisers" dating back to the time of the Soviet Union in order to be able to pass through the Bosporus and Dardanelles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What? Have we run out of shit bricklayers again?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Even better, did you hear that the Ukrainians smuggled a a BUK system to the Indian Ocean on a container ship, and shot down MH370, too? That's why it wasn't found in the designated search area, you know!
Not likely. Russia had some hard times - really hard times - when they sold off everything that wasn't nailed down to come up with cash. They sold off that old inventory, or palmed it off on debtors.
The rebels are getting late-model equipment, but probably not the latest. Ukraine, on the other hand, still has huge quantities of 30+ year old military equipment.
Sorry, no, but ancient Buc missiles would clearly mark Porkochenko as the guilty party.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
And Russians didn't film themselves celebrating and post about on Twitbook.
Care and concern for Ukraine is waning in the West
TBH I think it never existed. That is the problem with the Russian conspiracy theories (ie, that the US hired a sniper to start the whole thing, etc): the US doesn't care enough about Ukraine to hire a sniper.
Ukraine was specifically mentioned in Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997:
Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasion chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn into debilitating conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who would then be resentful of the loss of their recent independence and would be supported by their fellow Islamic states to the South.
And just how much the USA actually cared about who is in power in the Ukraine we know from the phone call (commented transcript) between Victora Nuland and Geoffrey R. Pyatt .
If this were the only scrap of evidence regarding the crash of the plane, you would be correct, but it isn't the only evidence. The circumstances make the plain interpretation much more likely: that it was shot down over rebel territory by a rebel-controlled BUK launcher either captured from the Ukraine military or brought there by Russia. You can invent all the bizarre conspiracy theories you like, but when the rebels themselves briefly confirmed they had shot down a plane that day it is pretty hard to take the alternative scenarios seriously.
Confirmation bias is always a risk, but I'm sure the Netherlands investigators will be thorough.
As far as I remember, at first the international investigators couldn't begin the investigation because of the fighting near the crash site. So it wasn't "deep in the rebel controlled area". This picture from the BBC web site also proves it: http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news... (from this page: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... )
Interesting how when a liberal US president pushes manipulating the leadership of a foreign government, it's totally cool with the left-wing groups, huh?
The facts:
-The US helped to topple the Ukrainian government in order to gain an ally in the region and secure a strategic foothold
-Russia reacted by giving support to "freedom fighters" in Crimea to keep their strategic foothold in that area
-The VAST majority (85%+) of the people who live in the disputed region identify as Russian, NOT Ukrainian.
-This whole issue is a pissing contest between the US-backed govt in Ukraine and the Russian government, with Ukraine trying to lay claim to land where the people identify as Russian nationals.
-If Ukraine had any integrity, they would admit that Crimea is predominately "Russian" and let it go. Russia has shown no intentions to reclaim Ukraine, despite FUD from that side. If Ukraine would get over their egos and leave Crimea alone, all of this would stop.
-The plane was likely shot down by Russian-backed freedom fighters; however, they also likely misidentified it as a Ukrainian fighter jet, since they've been attacking the separatist positions since this all began.
If anyone deserves blame, it's whoever told them it was safe to fly a commercial jet overtop of a region where jets had been shot down recently.
And just how much the USA actually cared about who is in power in the Ukraine we know from the phone call [youtube.com] (commented transcript [bbc.com]) between Victora Nuland [wikipedia.org] and Geoffrey R. Pyatt [wikipedia.org].
That's actually really great, I appreciate the transcript.
There is no doubt that the Ukrainian Ambassador cares about Ukraine. It's his job. It's kind of Victoria Nuland's job, too. And of course Brzezinski thinks we should care about eastern Europe. He's Polish. If America cared about "limiting Russian power" then Romney would be president right now, probably trying to push back Russia from Ukraine. Frankly, after the end of the cold war, it's hard to take Russian threats very seriously. Russia is not trying to destroy America, and America is not trying to destroy Russia.
The reality is America doesn't care about Ukraine very much. Europe cares a little more, but not real.y.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Its actually a helicopter carrier..... This is a helicopter gunship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. - Albert Einstein
I'm sure they would, but what the hell has that got to do with the post you're replying to, you stupid fuck?
i trust putin to be exactly what he is.
a snake in the grass.
putin is like, super upfront about being a supervillain.
:) here in the US, my general impression,
after tuning out of the daily coverage like, 4 months ago.
is...
1. Putin is batshit insane.
1b. by extension russia is batshit insane.
2. putin is like, super popular in russia
3. russians are straight up seizing ukrainian territory, and nations are not doing a lot except for economic sanctions because 1b.
4. apparently russia is a thing again.
should Crimea and the other areas become part of Russia
Newsflash, Crimea is part of Russia since 2014. (And they will probably build a bridge.)
:) right? i just kinda wanna give them a hug and ask them what it's like to live in russia, and if all those dashboard cam videos are like... representative of life there.
+1 informative. Thanks.
Interpretation of hypothetical circumstances is a theory, sometimes even conspiratorial. Confirmation bias is always a risk for all possible interpretations.
And you're welcome to read some of the debunking of bellingcat's "report".
This incident shows that there were 300 reckless aircraft captains, who ought to be stood down, along with air traffic controllers and all decision makers in the line.
Doesn't matter whose side, what war, nor the phase of the moon. As a civilian, I don't fucking care anymore who is fighting who. Sick of it all. They are ALL arseholes. Yes, including your side, whatever side, whatever colour, whatever politics, whatever language.
I bet if the people on board were given the choice "arrive a day later / pay more" or "possibly arrive dead, a couple of weeks' later, to be used as political footballs for some time", they'd choose the former (at a guess).
Which would you choose?
Of course after having the knowledge we have now, I would choose to go around. With the knowledge I had before, I, like everybody else, would not have been concerned about going through.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Only Russia agrees.
The rest of the world doesn't think so.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
Old McDonaldski had a farmski, ee ii ee ii oo. And on this farmski he had some trollski, ee ii ee ii oo.
How's the weather in Moscow right now, btw?
Well the EU would be obligated to move into the Ukrainian conflict to protect it's citizens, then as the war was won and the rebels retreated into Russian territory the EU would be obligated to give some form of chase, then Russia would shoot up a few EU troops claiming they violated it's sovereign territory, the EU and Russia would skirmish unofficially until a tipping point ,then Russia would lose it's UN Super Vieto, There would finally be sanctions, the sanctions would turn into blockades, Russian assets would be seized fibreoptic lines severed pipelines emptied as Russia was isolated, world Oil Prices would soar, all tech development would dry up as any money not in oil would go into alternative energy, the old Russian Bloc would become a colder version of mad max and America would barely notice a change except for bitching about the price of shipping and the new electric cars.
That's what would happen if there were concrete proof that the russian backed rebels shot down the airline.
Right, 'cause it's totally illegitimate for a population to choose to secede from a country that tries to suppress their freedoms.
Quite a few European politicians seem to agree (see, for example: http://sputniknews.com/politic..., even if it's sputnik). Of course, you seem to be supporting the opinion of people, who preferred an outcome similar to Donbass.
Also, this is quite amusing.(Scusi, also Sputnik, but you can easily find their sources to be legitimate yourself.)
Here's a scenario that hasn't been argued. What if an insurgent from some middle eastern country has worked their way into the Russian Army as a missile operator and purposely fired at the plane to bring it down with the hope of plunging Russia and the US into war with each other. The middle east has no love for either Russia or the US and if they were busy with each other perhaps the middle east would be left alone.
Besides, if Russian sent advanced SAM equipement to their puppet state-sponsored terrorists, it is their responsibility to close that zone for civil flights. They did not.
Or at least put a breathalyser lock on the firing button.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Okay, try this. There was a false report that one of the Valar was on that plane, so the remaining spirit of Sauron possessed some SAM operators.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
For even more pedantry, the French finished Jean Bart a little less than 70 years ago. I have no idea why France thought it worthwhile to finish her with all the disruption remaining from WWII.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Says who? There were no confirmed cases when BUK was used in that area before at the time. AN-26 that was shot down in that area few days before was likely downed with either air-to-air missiles (air-to-air missiles are much lighter; compare destructiveness - 6 out of 8 people on board of that AN-26 survived) or advanced MANPAD. Anyway, Ukraine had no means to investigate it, as it crashed on occupied territories.
Besides, Russia supplied that BUK, missiles, and half-trained monkey to operate it, and it was their responsibility to close airspace.
Russia has the men with guns in Crimea.
The law is an abstract force. There can be courts, trials, legislation, police, diplomats and meetings. But what gives the law any existence at all is force or threat of force - and whoever controls the force, controls the law.
Bwa-ha-ha... It's as old as me - and, actually, now Russia has much more modern weapons.
Actually, the real criminals are Ukrainian air dispatchers who led the MH17 to the area of conflict. And the whole situation looks like this: there was one military aircraft serving as a target for defense exercises without actual firing, but... there appeared to be a civilian aircraft as well, and the real missile was fired.
Well the EU would be obligated to move into the Ukrainian conflict to protect it's citizens,
On what basis is the EU obliged to do this?
What is already happening is that Russia is strengthening its ties with the other BRICS countries, and the big loser is the EU.
An irrefutable proof of what? That somebody shot down the airplane? Look at the million of possibilities:
1. Plane shot down by Ukrainian BUK manned by Ukrainian forces
2. Plane shot down by a Ukrainian BUK system captured and manned by Pro-Russian rebels.
3. Plane shot down by a BUK system provided by Russia to Pro-Russian rebels and manned by Pro-Russian rebels.
4. Plane shot down by a Russian BUK system which was manned by regular russian troops.
I don't think studying the wreckage will ever conclusively prove or disprove any of these possibilities.
"Battleships", LOL. "Battleship" is not a synonym for "warship". Bismarck was a battleship. Hint - eight 15" guns, over 40,000 tons. Nobody has built a battleship in 70 years.
The Mistrals are "amphibious warfare ships". Puny in size, slower than shit, with next to no armament, they can carry 16-35 helicopters and no more than 450 troops except 900 for short duration.
Amphibious assault ships are for projecting ground power. The US has two classes (America and Wasp). The Mistral has provision for 40 tanks which is enough to put the fear of whatever deity they worship into a small nation. They have no offensive armament but to be fair Russia isn't short on offensive warships, however they are short on amphibious transports (which is why they were buying them from the French).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
This is pure propaganda: everyone in the region has weapons built in Russia (or even in former USSR): the Russian army, the Donbass separatist republic armies, and Ukraine's regular army;
The origin of the weapon does not tell us anything about attribution.
The trouble is that it's not just the Russian puppets who are the problem. US/European puppets (Tymoshenko) are no better.
And it's not just a "foreign meddling" problem, either. No Ukrainian politician that I know of is worth the air that they breathe. Foreigners are just exploiting the power vacuum that has existed ever since the USSR broke up, and not one person in Ukraine was able to clearly and convincingly articulate what their country is.
Even more interesting they are already trying to rebrand a United Nations political meeting (of only selected countries with ties to the US government) as an International legal tribunal (implying neutrality). I also liked the German rocket scientists trying to prove that is was a Russian BUK missile system by doing calculations to prove and medium range ground to air missile system is a medium range ground to air missile system. Of course I am not really all that interested so here is something from someone who put more investigative effort into it http://pierre-lamble.eu/the-cr..., far more than the political fluff piece by the BBC (it sure ain't what it used to be).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Cop throws a gun next to the black man: "He had a weapon!"
Throws ancient soviet missile parts next to downed plane: "It was the Russians!"
People should learn by now that everything is not what it seems.
You are very wrong on the "greatest source of activity" of Ukrainians being pumping 100 milliards cubic meters of russo/asian gas..
Ukraine has kept about 60% of USSR time industry, which is a damn high number for a former Soviet Republic.
On top of it, unlike with smaller and "less truth worthy" republics, it was invested A LOT into Ukraine.
Metallurgy was still running pretty well, last time I've checked.
Ukraine has atom energy industry up and running, including its own radioactive mines.
Ukraine is still capable of producing tanks, anti-tank missile systems and what not.
Ukraine has people with unique "hard to find anywhere" skills, farther of a friend of mine is an expert at "wielding by explosion" (sounds crazy, I know) and has no problems finding contractors in EU.
Google shows GDP PPP of Ukraine to be USD 3900.
Georgia is shown to be USD 3600.
Now for me, a Georgian, this shows how freaking skewed these numbers are, countries are in no way on par, while Georgia is ahead as far as corruption goes, beating Eastern Europe, Greece and Italy in TI ratings, Ukraine is far ahead economically.
War and corruption is what stops huge investments from flowing into Ukraine, but it is a country with tremendous potential.
It's ironic, that the most painful sanctions are not sanctions at all.
Oil price is what hit Russia most.
Most of the sanctions were a joke. (going after pro-kremlin singer Kobzon, for the fucks sake, that's a very brave step dear EU)
What question did you just answer?
Actually, the technology on board the AEGIS cruiser worked just fine, reporting that the plane was climbing, and squawking in civilian mode. It was the crew that decided that the plane needed shooting anyway.
Probably the same as KAL007. Not a lot.
Actually it's a Helicopter Carrier or an Amphibious Assault Ship. Take your pick.
That was when they thought that they had shot down an Antonov military transport.
The EU what? They would invade Russia with the Eurocorps? Are you aware of how ridiculous that is? The EU has no large standing army just some rapid response forces. If anything ever happened it would have to be through NATO and there is presently no reason for NATO to get involved.
...it hit the plane after it had *already* crashed!
The problem is that Iranian planes regularly changed their systems . sometimes their F14 squaked at mode 3. That combined with the aircraft choosing to not answer made for a deadly combination. That was not the case in Ukraine.
Transponders were common on aircraft at the time, and Iran Air Flight 655 was broadcasting the correct civilian identification at the time. It was a civilian aircraft departing on a scheduled service using a normal civil traffic airway.
Iran Air Flight 655 should never have been shot down, just as MH17 should never have been shot down.
Also the airspace above Ukraine is handled by Ukraine, short of sending in military jets to close the airspace there isn't anything Russia could do - you cant issue NOTAMs to close airspace you don't have authority over.
No one is going to know what happened for sure other than the people where were involved.
Rei's writeup makes the most sense of anything I've read on here so far (including your post).
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
A week before MH, they shot down a Ukranian transport airplane from some 20.000 feet. You have to be a retard to send your plane over that area. But I am not blaming conspiracy if it can be explained by stupidity - the top managers of airline companies were probably too busy with lobying activities, and coctail parties, to have time to check if their planes are flying over war zones. Where is that country you speak of, Ukraine?
Over 300 other civilian planes flew over the area the same week. There was no "no fly" zone.
Yes and no. The FAA specifically forbade any US based carrier from flying over that part of Ukraine. I think the similar organization(s) (I think there is just one that covers all of the EU but I could be wrong) in the EU did the same thing. It was only carriers from other regions of the world that allowed flights to transit Eastern Ukraine at that time.
Nothing will happen. The world and the US at this moment in time is simply to cowardly to stand up to wanton murder for the sake of land annexation. This world is allowing timidity to rule and you have wolves like Russia and China that have no issue encroaching into the sheep herd.
....hence the Second Amendment of the US Constitution......
No, no, plenty of British bricklayers available, most wearing UKIP teashirts
Two words, no explanation should be required, 'EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE'. Any plane close enough to an exploding missile to be shot down (not to forget unexpended missile fuel) will not just get punctured with fragmentation (designed to knock combat aircraft with armoured elements to increase durability) but also with the remains of burnt explosive material, paint will be blown off, some will be charred and fairly substantial amount of that plastic coating will be peppered and impregnated by high temperature particles from the burnt explosive material as well as residue from the explosion of missile fuel. In fact even the most incompetent crime scene investigator would not bother fucking around with looking for missile parts (what a fucking joke) but only for evidence of an explosion external to the aircraft and that would be sufficient, no proof of explosion sufficient to destroy the aircraft then no missile.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen