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.

38 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. Say Russia did it for the purpose of argument... by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What would the consequences be if irrefutable proof was uncovered in the wreckage?

    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

  2. Well this should be fun by Oxygen99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  3. Rebels didn't use planes by Kartu · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
    Warned them, do not fly in "our sky".
    Here is a video proof of yet another "birdfall".
    Birdy fell ... without hitting peacefull people.

    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.

    1. Re:Rebels didn't use planes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ukraine wasn't using planes, so the pro-Russian rebels didn't need to bring anti air missile systems in there, let alone, shoot planes down.

      FTFY

      More like BTFY... The Rebels had been shooting Ukraine planes down in the weeks leading up to MH17. Hard to shoot down planes if Ukraine isn't using them.

    2. Re:Rebels didn't use planes by yobjob · · Score: 2

      And we don't believe him because we're not Russian morons.

    3. Re:Rebels didn't use planes by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      Strelkov's VK and Twitter accounts had long been the official social media mouthpieces of the DNR and had never been questioned. Strelkov can be heard making the same boast in a video. Russian media embedded with the rebels also echoed their shootdown claim, adding “Ukrainian military claim that the losses were caused by actions by Russia. The militia refuted this information, correcting that they had shot down the plane from a ZRK ’9K37M1 (better known as a Buk).” Numerous Russian news sources, even ITAR-TASS, carried the story.

      After the fact that it was a civilian plane came to light, Strelkov switched to conspiracy theory mode - still not changing from "we shot down the plane", but rather to the plane wasn't actually full of civilians but rather a bunch of already-dead bodies.

      --
      I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
  4. The victory dance might have been hasty by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
    1. Re:The victory dance might have been hasty by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Did you even skim it? They have captured audio recordings from the day of the disaster between pro-Russian separatists and their Russian handlers, with the separatists asserting that they had shot down the plane just like they had shot down the two other Ukrainian air force planes in the days prior, before realizing that the plane wasn't a Ukrainian military transport, but was rather a civilian aircraft.

  5. han imperialists by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Funny

    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
  6. How is it Ukraine's fault by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:How is it Ukraine's fault by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's no way a Russian missile could get hot enough to melt an airliner.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:How is it Ukraine's fault by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Informative

      When the World Trade Center collapsed, there were those who said the burning fuel from the airliners never got hot enough to melt the steel beams of the buildings. This means, in their warped view, there was no way for the buildings to have collapsed on their own and were instead deliberately destroyed.

      The problem with that idea is twofold. While the heat from the burning fuel may not have gotten hot enough to melt the steel, it was sufficient to heat the metal and cause structural deformation.

      Further, these conspiracy folks completely ignore all the other combustible material inside the buildings which WERE hot enough to warp the beams and pull them laterally from the sides of the building (see this sheet, numbers 8 and 9 for a further explanation) which then precipitated the pancake effect we all witnessed.

      Thus, the reference to not being able to melt an airliner.

      However, these same folks ignore incidents such as this one where a tanker fire directly under a bridge was able to melt steel beams. It's the way conspiracy theories work. Ignore anything which contradicts your point of view or explain them away as not relevant to their rantings. Just like Russia and their proxies have done trying to claim their innocence at shooting down the civilian airliner.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  7. Re:Say Russia did it for the purpose of argument.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Say Russia did it for the purpose of argument.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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/...

  9. Re:Say Russia did it for the purpose of argument.. by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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?!?"
  10. Re:Say Russia did it for the purpose of argument.. by Djoulihen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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 ...

  11. This comes as a surprise to precisely no one.. by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...apart from Putins clean up team. Someone is going to the gulag for leaving some fragments behind.

  12. Russian-made, not Russian by qaz123 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Russian-made, not Russian by QuasiSteve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is indeed the problem. The Russian government (and tbh, all others involved) can - and will - continue to shift the blame. First it's a Ukrainian fighter jet, then it's not a Russian-made rocket, then it's Ukrainian 'rebels', then it's pro-Russian separatists they have no control over, then it's not their fault the recently-dismissed-from-Russian-army people shot down the wrong plane, and finally what were commercial planes doing there anyway?
      ( Hint: That's already the debate in various lawsuits against companies and governments other than the Russian one - as even the family members of victims realize Russia's covering their ass all too well. )

      So the report's conclusions - which apparently need political debate to finalize - really don't matter much.

      In the mean time, Russia imposes sanctions against countries involved in investigations leading to bankruptcies left right and center (oh right, that's why the conclusions need political debate), vetoes any U.N. proposal they dislike (the U.S. does much the same in other matters.. can't blame them for that one - too bad there isn't a cap on the number of vetoes votes one can cast per given time period), and happily go about business as usual knowing that in the end, this is barely even a blip on the radar in their history - much the same as Korean Air Lines 007, Iranian Air 655, Pan Am 103 (might ring a bell under 'Lockerbie ') and many others.

  13. Re:Say Russia did it for the purpose of argument.. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    LMOL, ummm no thanks for playing. Nobody trusts Putin.

  14. Re:Say Russia did it for the purpose of argument.. by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?!?"
  15. Re:important fact about this conflict. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

    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.

  16. Re:Whoever wrote the title is an idiot by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

    BUK isn't a "Russian" missile system. It was developed by several USSR countries, including Ukraine.

    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?!?"
  17. Re:Say Russia did it for the purpose of argument.. by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?!?"
  18. Re:important fact about this conflict. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

    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.
  19. Re:Whoever wrote the title is an idiot by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?!?"
  20. Re:In reverse by Ihlosi · · Score: 2
    You really think we would be here a year later and nothing would have been done?

    Last time this happened, the people responsible for launching the missile at the airliner got decorated. Not for launching the missile, of course, but in general.

  21. Ukraine was using planes. by Kartu · · Score: 2

    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...

  22. Buc missiles? Who has them? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  23. Re:Say Russia did it for the purpose of argument.. by fnj · · Score: 3, Informative

    delivery of 2 "Mistral" battleships

    "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.

  24. Re:Say Russia did it for the purpose of argument.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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"

  25. Re:Malaysia flew over a warzone... by tompaulco · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  26. Re:Say Russia did it for the purpose of argument.. by Djoulihen · · Score: 3, Funny

    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" :)

  27. Re:Say Russia did it for the purpose of argument.. by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  28. Re:Whoever wrote the title is an idiot by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?!?"
  29. Re:Buc missiles? Who has them? by Kartu · · Score: 2

    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.

  30. Re:Buc missiles? Who has them? by quantaman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  31. You underestimate Ukraine, a lot by Kartu · · Score: 2

    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.