the home of online investigations

You can support the work of Bellingcat by donating through the following link:

Evidence the Russian Military Supplied the Type of Missile Used to Shoot Down MH17

June 3, 2015

By Eliot Higgins

On June 2nd 2015 Russian arms manufacturer Almaz-Antey presented evidence which it claimed showed the specific type of missile used to shoot down Flight MH17 in Ukraine on July 17th. They were quoted as stating

“If a surface-to-air missile system was used [to hit the plane], it could only have been a 9M38M1 missile of the BUK-M1 system.”

They went on to add

“Production of BUK-M1 missiles was discontinued in 1999, at the same time Russia passed all such missiles that were left to international clients.”

The clear implication was that the Buk missile used to shoot down MH17 could have not come from Russia. The most obvious visual difference between the 9M38M1 missile, and the newer 9M317 is the length of the fins, with the 9M38M1 have longer fins, as visible below.

Despite these longer fins being visible on Buk missiles loaded onto launchers at Russia’s Victory Day Parade in Chita (clearly visible in this video) the Almaz-Antey’s head, Yan Novikov claimed “that only the newer BUK-M2 systems with 9M317 missiles take part in modern parades” adding “even an untrained eye can tell the two apart”.  Despite this claim, internet users came across numerous images of what seemed to be 9M38M1 missiles in military service.  

One image uncovered by the Bellingcat investigation team was of particular interest. Reuters’ photographs taken on a road near Kamensk-Shakhtinsky, dated August 16th 2014, shows Russian military vehicles heading towards the town, close to the Ukrainian border. Trucks in the photographs are carrying a number of missile crates, and their markings give a clear indication of their likely contents.

As can be clearly seen, these crates are marked 9M38M1, but what is even more interesting is who appears to be transporting the missiles. The number plates visible end with 50, the same region that the 53rd Brigade originates from, who were filmed in late June 2014 transporting the Buk missile launcher that downed MH17 to this same region close to the Ukrainian border (full report here). In fact, it appears that these may be some of the same vehicles filmed in the June 2014 convoy. The crane visible in one of the photographs appears to share the same number plate, beginning 0502, as a crane filmed in the 53rd Brigade’s June convoy.

Crane 0502

Another truck visible in this video appears to have the same number plate as one of the trucks transporting the missiles in the Reuters photographs.

Truck number plate

Images shared by members of the 53rd Brigade also show 9M38M1 missiles were used by the brigade in recent years, for example this image from 2012.


And this image from 2015


It is also possible to identify 9M38M1s loaded onto vehicles that were part of the June 23rd-25th 53rd Brigade convoy that transported the Buk missile launcher the shot down Flight MH17 close to the Ukrainian border. This video shows vehicles in the convoy, including missile loaders, where the long fins associated with the 9M38M1 missiles are visible.

Buk Missile

From this it is clear that not only are the type of missiles Almaz-Antey claimed were used to shoot down Flight MH17 used by the Russian military, but they are also used by the brigade that supplied the Buk missile launcher that shot down Flight MH17, and were transported in the same convoy that took the Buk missile launcher that shot down Flight MH17 to the border.


Following the US release of Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin’s War in Ukraine, a report produced by the Atlantic Council with the help of Bellingcat, a special press release at the Atlantic Council’s Wroclaw Global Forum in Poland, will feature the next dimension of the report including new facts about MH17 that might change the dynamics of Russia’s denial about its role in the incident. As yesterday’s press conference showed, we’ve already seen a notable change in narrative in Moscow, attempting to further distort the truth.


Eliot Higgins

Eliot Higgins is the founder of Bellingcat and the Brown Moses Blog. Eliot focuses on the weapons used in the conflict in Syria, and open source investigation tools and techniques.

Join the Bellingcat Mailing List:

Enter your email address to receive a weekly digest of Bellingcat posts, links to open source research articles, and more.


  1. Lena

    Russian army training with 9M38M1 at Telemba firing range :
    in 2014:
    In February 2015:
    Russian army TV channel: 2015:

    Dates of the youtube clips given in

    • Not Mark

      Fantastic investigative work Lena! You did a solid job finding more proof of just how pervasive these weapons still are in the russian military. Thank you!

    • Matthew

      On a side note, we can argue all day if Russia has or does not have these missiles in use still, but I would like to ask a bit more of a logical question.
      We all know Russia has been supplying equipment to the terrorists in Eastern Ukraine, the initial leadership of the terrorists are Russian so really there is no doubt about Russian involvement. Had people here been in Eastern Ukraine you would know that many of the “Rebels” have a Russian accent. So I will assume that we are all grown up enough to acknowledge that point. If you want to dispute that point please remember Putin said he had no troops deployed in Crimea, then a year later he said on national TV that he did deploy troops there. So… my question is:

      Why would anyone think that Ukraine shot down MH17? After all, they apparently had a ground attack aircraft in the vicinity. Ukraine is yet to fire any missiles at rebel planes because it is well known that the rebels have no planes! However the rebels have been shooting down Ukrainian planes and helicopters with missiles before and after the MH17 incident. So really, to believe that the first and only time Ukraine fired a missile it hit MH-17 is really grasping at straws.

      I don’t need a photo analysis to prove to me what happened. Go to Eastern Ukraine, see the type of men these terrorists are and judge for yourself. After all, if any Ukrainian wanted to be part of Russia, they could have easily crossed the border at any time.

      • Not Mark

        I share the same view with all of your points. It is futile to try and convince some of these people how silly any other conclusion sounds. Haha, yes the very first SAM that Ukraine decided to use for whatever reason that day is the one that shoots down a passenger plane. Sure it unlucky, right? LOL Good to see sputnik news is trying to spin this in some crazy way:

      • elliot_au

        Yes, I do believe because Ukraine is need to prove that fights with terrorists rather than own people.

      • Viktor

        You calling the rebels “terrorists” and producing accusations based on “the type of men” they are, tells me you will never think straight on the issue.

        There have always been such strong connections between Eastern Ukraine and Russia that the borders are unnatural and arbitrary, most people would struggle to say if they are Russian or Ukrainian. Their language is a mixture of Russian and Ukrainian. So no need to be surprised the rebels are “Russian” (whatever you mean by this – ethnicity, language, passport, or anything else). But to prove the Russian *government* has anything to do with this is a completely different issue.

        As to why Ukrainians would shoot down a plane – they did have BUKs in the area of the conflict for some reason, what caused them to pull the trigger can be anything at all.

      • Tom

        Ukraine is the one that benefits the most from the downing of the plane – it occurred at the time it needed some PR. Russia is the one to loose the most from it. So from that point of view it is as likely Moscow ordered the downing as it is to claim two ground attack aircraft downed the airliner.

        • Jonas

          Russian defenders are so pathetic… Their arguments are even worse than those of crazy conspiracy theorists…

  2. Brendan

    Dates on Google Earth images have been reported to be very inaccurate, even before July of last year. I’m assuming that the people reporting those mistakes weren’t just making them up.

    As far as the Digital Globe images used in Google Earth are concerned, the files with the “acquisition date” only reveal the source of the date info, not whether it’s correct or not. The files don’t reveal anything about whether those images have wrong dates, as reported with other images in Google Earth. There’s no new evidence that the Russian MoD lied, unless someone can show that Digital Globe have avoided those date errors.

    The files confirm that the picures were taken by Digital Globe and that Google did not alter the dates, but I don’t think anyone suggested that anyway. It’s only to be expected that Google would just pass on the information given to them by the image provider, instead of trying to figure the details out for themselves.

    The only thing that can be said about the various photos from around that time is that there seems to be no evidence that they were taken in a different order to how they are dated.

    I’m sure it’s possible to verify which date is right and which is wrong anyway. There must be other satellite photos taken around the same time that can be compared to those from Digital Globe and the Russian MoD. It must also be possible to find out if a satellite was above a certain location at a given time because satellites follow a predictable path.

    I think I’ll wait for evidence based on science rather than relying on unverifiable dates provided by anyone in either Russia or the West.

  3. Stavros

    Jesus you guys are grasping at straws:

    1) Production of BUK-M1 missiles was discontinued in 1999, at the same time Russia passed all such missiles that were left to international clients.”

    2.) “Despite this claim, internet users came across numerous images of what seemed to be 9M38M1 missiles in military service. ”

    3) “#Putin visiting the 102nd Russian military base in Armenia, Dec 2013.
    Behind him is BUK 9M38-M1”

    Are you aware that Armenia isn’t in Russia, and that the 102nd base was originally the 127th MRD of the Soviet Ground Forces, which until the 102nd base was established in ’96, was used by the Armenian military, along with the cache of arms and equipment it inherited from the Soviet Union.

    Additionally, after its establishment, a huge cache of arms and equipment were moved from the 12th military base in Batumi and the 62nd Military Base in Akhalkalaki (both in Georgia) to the 102nd base in Gyumri.

    Georgia and Armenia are of course, both among the international clients Almaz-Altay spoke of, and all three bases, being Soviet-era holdovers, would logically be stocked full od older tech.

    Further, even cursory research would have revealed the extent to which Armenia relies on Russia, particularly the 102nd base for its security and to the extent to which the two cooperate and share infrastructure. In brief, the 102nd base in Gyumri doubles in as both a Russian military base as well as an Armenian base, and stocks equipment used by both. As such, it operates as a CSTO (the post-Soviet analogue to NATO) base.

    Russia itself no longer uses the older BUK systems. Armenia, however, does, given that is a poor, landlocked country, it graciously accepts what it can afford.

    The far less contorted version, which still satisfies the requirement of showing that the BUKs in question are Russian provided, is that they are Ukrainian in origin, as Ukraine is (was) also one of Almaz-Altay’s aforementioned international clients, which like Armenia, is poor (much, much poorer, actually) and relies on old Russian tech along with what it inherited at the end of 1991.

    That of course, proves nothing, but neither does this article.

    • Daniel Romein

      You actually only react to point 3, but if you read the report good again, you also will notice the part where we make clear the 9M38M1 missile have been seen on many videos and images in Russia itself. And not only a few years ago, but as recent as march 2015. Even in the 23-25 June 2014 Buk convoy that transported the Buk missile launcher related to the downing of MH17 a missile loader can be seen with 9M38M1 missiles.

    • Not Mark

      Stavros, in response to points 1 and 2 you have above I present this photo in case you haven’t already seen it:

      That shows a 9M38M1 missile being launched by russian forces in the republic of Buryatia , Russia @ 19/03/2014 17:24:24. How are we grasping at straws here? And please don’t say “Not Mark, your picture was taken a few months before MH-17 was shot down” because that is a silly rebuttal for many reasons.

      • PavewayIV

        You realize, of course, that Buryatia (and Zabaykalsky Krai for that matter) are on the other side of Lake Baikal, right? The Russian Air Force doesn’t even have SAM stuff there – they’re not expecting a Mongolian Air Force sneak attack. The Russian Air Force did give some army unit in Buryatia a BUK batallion a few years ago, so I guess you could technically argue ‘the Russian Armed Forces’ still use them.

        As for the parade picture from Chita (Zabaykalsky Krai), you’ll want to notice that the TELARs are proudly sporting the soviet red star while every other piece of armor has the St. Geroge’s ribbon stripes with a white star. In other words, it’s presented as historic hardware, not ‘standard’ stuff. Close up pictures of the military exercise BUK launch show the missiles with scratched, worn-off paint looking pretty tired. It looks more like a staged event for the press to burn off some of their worn-out, obsolete SA-11s.

        Again, you can make a simple technical argument that Russia still has a few BUK M1’s in nowhere, Siberia with Soviet markings. It’s really a stretch to say they have any of these for any reason in Western Russia. The FireDome radars on the TELARs are obsolete and the M1s can barely hit 20km. They’re useless old junk that has since gone to one of the former Soviet republics – or their Eastern Siberian equivalents: army units in Buryatia and parades in Zabaykalsky.

  4. boggled

    It seems interesting that people criticize you and are grasping at straws themselves and saying that countries that belong to the Russian Federation are not necessarily Russia, so therefore they do not have BUKs.
    Then they try to narrow it down to well Western Russia does not use BUKs.
    And just because they are in Moscow’s sphere of influence that Moscow cannot call up on those stockpiles and buy or take them if they see fit, RIGHT.

    The couple things that I did grasp from watching the conference of the Almaz-Altez group was they did not go out of their way to prove Russia or RF does not have BUK’s of that type, it did go out of its way to state in 2005 (ten years ago) Ukraine had 991 of them and they were at or near the end of life cycle for the missile, the carrier, the launcher or the electronics and Ukraine decided to provide its own end of life maintenance at the time.
    With embezzlement and corruption in Ukraine’s leadership at the time it is a well known fact this is one place they let lapse.
    Engines seized up, tires went flat, repairs were initiated but never completed, tank treads scavenged for other vehicles, rusted out bodies and frames, bad software or other electronic issues, among other items.
    Anyways, more an accusation that Ukraine had a lot of them, then a defense that Russia, Moscow, or RF does not.
    Let’s remember, when the RF illegally annexed Crimea and took over all of the Ukrainian military bases there, they kept and smuggled some of that equipment to Eastern Ukraine, they did not give it all back to Ukraine as they attempted to state without proof.
    There is still a Ukrainian submarine that is in RF hands.

    It was interesting also to notice to me, that the guys leading the conference really seemed to sweat at various points during the Q and A session because they would be treading away from the lines that the Kremlin and the Russian MOD present to the Russian speaking population..
    Particularly to questions that were asked about issues outside of their analysis to attempt to get sanctions stopped against their country.
    One thing in particular was the questions regarding whether or not they felt it was an SU25 that destroyed MH17.
    They made the failed attempt though to say that the are not discounting that theory, however, if the theory of the BUK is correct, it can only be one warhead, one launcher, and one missile, all specified in their argument and that it is impossible to be any other G2A missile or warhead in use in Russia.
    They did not elaborate further why it could or could not be a R60 missile, however, they could say with certainty that the only possible G2A missile that it could be is the one in the video travelling back to Russia from Torez region with one missile missing.
    Another issue, interesting that I saw in the conference, although not admitting guilt, it did seem that they apologized to those families of MH17 for the use of their missile in the destruction of MH17.
    They did not say as a caveat, if it was our missile and not a SU25.
    Just a flat out apology personally from their company.
    Anyways, thanks Not Mark and others who linked to the video, it was interesting to watch.
    Those are a couple of items of note, there are many others.
    Fare thee well

    • boggled

      Wasn’t Lake Bakhail the stomping grounds of former corrupt President of Ukraine and his son’s location of his death as he and a group of people drove over thin ice?
      Kind of strange coincidence that many of the troops and equipment showing up in Ukraine are from that region.
      Not all of course, as Nemtsov’s report Putin.War points out, Chechnya ARMED soldiers and equipment are giving a free pass through Russian border checkpoints into Ukraine.
      Fare thee well

  5. Jason

    A Ukrainian Antonov An-26 transport plane crashed in eastern Ukraine on July 14, 2014.

    The Ukrainian government ran several stories up the flagpole concerning the incident.

    Allegations that the plane was flying at an altitude 21,000 ft (6,400 meters) when the incident occurred are based entirely on reported claims by surviving crew members.

    Head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) Valentyn Nalyvaichenko said he had “unconditional evidence” that Russia was involved in downing the aircraft.

    Spokesman for the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine Andriy Lysenko stated “Two possibilities are under consideration on the basis of a report from the Ukrainian pilots: either a strike of a ground-based missile fired from a Pantsir missile system or a strike by an … air-to-air homing missile that was fired from a Russian aircraft that had scrambled from the Russian airport at Millerovo.”

    Ukrainian Defense Minister Valeriy Heletei stated in a report to President Poroshenko that the plane was struck by a “more powerful missile that was probably launched from Russian territory” which ignited speculation that a Buk surface-to-air missile had destroyed the An-26.

    The sensational incident should have prompted an immediate intensive investigation. No such investigation was conducted.

    Additional allegations that the aircraft was shot down by a separatist-held Buk missile were based on unverified social media remarks cited by Russian news site.

    American officials claimed evidence suggested the An-26 had been shot down from Russian territory, but continued their well-established pattern of presenting no evidence.

    Repeat, no objective evidence was presented by the Ukrainian MoD, SBU, US or NATO.

    A Ukrainian Sukhoi Su-25 close air support aircraft crashed in eastern Ukraine on July 16, 2014.

    The Ukrainian Defence Ministry claimed the aircraft was destroyed by “air-to-air rockets from the Russian air force which were patrolling the border in a pair.”

    The Ukrainian SBU claimed the Ukrainian Su-25 was shot down by a Russian MiG-29 using a R-27T missile.

    Once again, no objective evidence was presented by the Ukrainian MoD, SBU, US or NATO.

    When MH-17 crashed on July 17, Proshenko called it the “third tragic incident in recent days after Ukrainian military An-26 and Su-25 jets were shot down from Russian territory.”

    No evidence necessary.

    Per request: references are easily locatable by searching the quotations above.

    • boggled

      Maybe you should write the SBU with your journalist credentials and ask if your so concerned.
      Also, I hope you have some level of Defense Department clearance also, because they do not give out the technical jargon and sometimes classified data to those who just ask for it.
      Do you expect their spokesman to stand there for 10 hours a day 7 days a week reading through ALL the notes prepared for him and that he was briefed on?
      DO you expect reporters to ask all the same questions you would ask ?

      There is a reason for the phrase ‘need to know’ and just because your a concerned person of Earth, that does not give you any clearance, credentials, or right to demand anything.

      Imagine if the DC spokesman said Syrian jets bombed a civilian neighborhood and killed 20 people.
      Do you think reporters would ask for the names of those people?
      Do you think the DC spokesman would give you the EXACT year, date, and modifications of the jets used?
      Do you think the DC spokesman would tell you how many of those civilians were born in 1978?
      There is a limit to the evidence they collect and to what they tell about what they know.
      Some countries are more thorough about evidence collection and dissemination then others.
      Ukraine has still some of that Soviet mentality as well.
      They can be tight lipped when they want to.

      In the USA they can be tight lipped also about ALL that they know.
      AS Snowden revealed, however, there is a few reason for not going into all that info.
      It is lost in the masses, spokesmen and women would be working 24/7 7 days a week talking about issue, and some of it touches on classified type issues.
      Maybe a person like you feels there should be NO classified data or evidence.
      Me personally, I think it is a good thing to keep many things from your enemies.

      Anyways, I think you get the jist of what my reply is.

      Another possibility is journalists did not think to ask for followups, clarification, or put pressure on the SBU to release more, because they got enough for their 30 sec sound byte or blurb in the online news articles, or their twitter feed, etc.

      And yet another one would be due to their Defense Department trying to run a war, kick out Russian moles, recruit and train an army, repair tons of old not running equipment, do day to day stuff, and provide answers to the political system, and prepare for martial law and investigate all the other incidents happening.
      Maybe they did not have enough staff or investigators or people to type up the reports to be more thorough then what they were with the evidence and analysis of what they collected.
      Fare thee well

    • Not Mark

      Jason, these guys are in a full blown war. I don’t think they have the resources to drop everything and do thorough investigations every time a piece of their equipment is blown up. The Ukrainians have their hands full just trying to not get swallowed up by russia. I don’t know what you expect here?

      • boggled

        One again, Not Mark, you show your natural gift for the short and sweet.
        I try do say enough because I do not comment or check often and try to offer some issues to think about that might stir some discussion before I return.
        Sometimes I guess I come off rougher and more belligerent then I intend.
        Sometimes I get typing and get carried away.
        Was never a great English grammar or writing student, and I guess I try to overcompensate and I was never on a debate team.
        Anyways, thanks for saying it the right way.

        • Not Mark

          Boggled, I don’t know where you are from but your English grammar is perfectly understandable and your points are very clear to me. I just figured Jason (and friends) wouldn’t read all of that so I summarized it for him. Now he will bring up some other random topic, I am sure. When I first started commenting here I got carried away as well but then I realized that no one took the time to read and respond to a really long comment. I now stick to the short and sweet if I can. Keep up the good work my friend!

  6. Alex B

    Just one notice. The hole article is based upon one single thesis that Almaz-Antey’s representatives denied possession and use of 9M38M1 missiles by Russian Armed Forces. But I’d been searching for a long time and failed to found any proof of claim “at the same time Russia passed ALL such missiles that were left to international clients.” The goal of their presentation was in dropping charges against their company related to MH17 crash and resulted in sanctions against them. Almaz-Antey did not deal with 9M38M1 missiles from its foundation, that was the point. At the same time the issue of possible use of these missiles by Russians at present didn’t get any discussion.

    • Not Mark

      I don’t remember the time stamp of the point in their conference where they say this but they essentially say something to the effect of “we were able to release classified information about this missile because it is no longer in use by the russian military” with the strong implication that only Ukraine still uses them. Just watch the ~90 minute video and you can hear what they say straight from their own mouths.

  7. rc

    A very clear video of the BUK with 9M38M1 missiles in the Russian Victory Day parade.

    Putting Out A Fire On Russian Buk Missile System – Victory day parade ( Chita,Russia ) | 9.May 2015

  8. Robert van der Noordaa

    Dear Sirs,

    Compliments on all the hard work you have done.

    My questions concerns the type of rocket used to shoot down MH17. According to your research it seems to be 9m38M1. According to the article of Jeroen Akkermans who has parts of the shrapnel it is identified as a 9M317 rocket. The pictures available indeed seem to show the 9m28M1 with the long fins. Do you have any idea why they identified a different rocket?

    Thanks and greetings,


    • boggled

      One possible – A BUK M1-2 could launch and carry both types of missiles at the same time.
      A BUK M1-2 and a BUK M1 launcher almost look identical.
      The M1 launcher can only launch up to the version 9M38M1 and before missiles, then the manufacturers updated to the M1-2 as a crossover until the next gen launcher came out the M2.
      In the video we can firmly identify two missiles as 9M38M1, but not the third or missing one, in my opinion.

      Other possible I have been searching for info on is that the missile parts themselves are interchangeable.
      Such as fins, warhead, missile motor and booster motor, guidance (nose cone).

      Ukraine reports no working missiles or BUKs left at the bases.
      From that I infer that other parts were left there.
      A Separatist leaders stated they had miners to shoot the missile and drive the BUK, missile parts (not whole missiles) and a non functioning BUK.

      If I remember right the base they reportedly took them from had a BUK loader launcher, which is not the one on all the photos of the BUK in Eastern Ukraine.
      I believe the site was Lenta RU, but I have yet to find that page again.
      I think it was Pushilin or the guy he is usually with that made the statement.

      If you find any info about interchangeability or the statement I just described, then please let us in the comment section know 🙂
      Hope I have been helpful.

      Fare thee well

  9. Skeptical

    lThe discussions above demonstrate that if anyone is sufficiently motivated, almost any argument can be dressed up as plausible, such that great effort is required to corroborate or refute such claims. However, when an entire organisation, devoted to promoting a highly one-sided and indeed prejudicial world view, it becomes impossible to verify what is true from the apparently plausible. Efforts are made by individuals to provide counter arguments, which are then subject to disproof by attrition. What is strange is that Ukrainian government and media sources are accepted by default, while anything from a Russian source is a-priori suspect, false or misleading. Organisational resources including online appeals go to vast lengths to discredit the claim, Given the track record of Ukrainian sources, with a history of comical deception, one assumes that these claims merit at least equal skepticism as a Russian source. It is if any Russian, regardless of expertise or professional standing, is seen as corrupt, incompetent or an agent of state misinformation. Such positions may be appropriate for investigators in this environment, but only if it is across the board.
    I also find it strange, and I may have missed something, that every finding by this organisation, not just about Ukraine and Russia, all support positions and conclusions which agree with the US/NATO/Western Media narrative. History alone, provides many examples where the official position was later found to be untrue or deceptive, yet this highly trained group of investigators are yet to uncover any deception.

    There has apparently been no investigation into activities of Ukrainian para-military atrocities, or responsibly for shelling deaths of civilians in Donetsk and Luhansk, which are well documented on youtube for example?

    If I have misunderstood the nature of your organisation, and you are providing a service on behalf of external clients then I apologise for the misunderstanding.

    • boggled

      Skeptical, I encourage you to look at this page and read it thoroughly and take notes and then read it again.

      This is JUST ONE instance where Kremlin sponsored media and youtube posters and Kremlin paid propaganda trolls distorted the truth of what actually happened.

      I can remind you about the crucified child story, as well.
      The list is long, far longer then I have time to write of incidents that have been researched and investigated and the Kremlin agents have lied over and over again.

      How many strikes should they have? (baseball analogy)
      They have demonstrated an unwillingness to change.

      Kremlin sponsored media and their paid comment makers have had a wild time distorting the truth that has been researched and they have been proven LIARS repeatedly.

      The human right violations are noted, investigated and ninty- five times out of a hundred they are Kremlin proxy agents caused and responsible for.

      IF you have a particular claim, report it to a watch dog human rights groups and see if they have already researched it.
      Most instances have already been researched and investigated and reported on.

      Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you, in a few cases Ukrainian’s have messed up big time.
      They are being held responsible and being put in jail, and the UN and other groups are keeping a LONG log of what is happening all over Ukraine.
      Western Governments are holding them to a higher ideal, if they want to become a part of Europe and Ukrainians know this.

      A place in Ukraine that does a lot of research into Human Rights abuses inside of Ukraine is KHPG. Look it up.
      Or you have Amnesty International, or International Red Cross, or OSCE.
      They have all been documenting and commenting to the UN and other bodies about what is going on.

      The Kremlin viewpoint is invalid because during the whole Ukrainian issue they have proven themselves to be habitual liars all the way up to vova.
      No more strikes, no more trusting their sponsored media, no benefit of the doubt.
      Ukraine has earned that in the way they have changed.
      Russia has a long road to go ahead to regain its validity as a nation.
      Do you think Putin got kicked out of the G7 or G20 because those leaders were jealous of him? Really?
      They had a valid reason.
      Sanctions have a valid reason.
      They do not do that just because.
      The Kremlin flicks its nose at International law over and over again, now they get the punishment for those actions.
      There is a saying – expect time if you do the crime.
      The Kremlin is a criminal government and from here on out, nothing they say or do will be taken at face value EVER again.

      So go cry your sob story over on RT that Bellingcat is not fair to Russia because they KEEP CATCHING Russian’s doing crimes.
      Tough Shit.
      If the Kremlin did not do criminal activities, then they would not get caught, Da?

      And no, I am not prejudiced against Russians or their independent media.
      I quote novayagazeta and many others in my comments.
      I have friends that are Russians and they are HAPPY they LEFT Russia.

      Ever wonder why for the past 3 years since vova had his fake election win that 1 MILLION RUSSIANS leave Russia ever year?
      hint: the reason is in my question.

      You can live your alternative universe that the world is picking on Russia unfairly.
      Sorry, the truth is they deserve it and are judged by the world according to their actions and lies they are caught doing.

      Fare thee well

  10. Woke

    This article is just obfuscation. It doesnt prove the missile came from Russia. If you want to talk about visual differences then how about the warhead colors – the JIT and Bellingcat say the warhead was white, as evidenced by the video of the 3-missile BUK on the truck. However the footage Bellingcat produced of the 53rd Brigade showed all their missiles had red warheads. There is plenty of evidence of Ukrainian missiles in the vicinity of Slovyansk with white warheads, yet this isnt even a consideration for Bellingcat.

    Almay-Antey are right. The missile was a 9M38M1. This means either Ukraine or Russia. If it was said that the missile was M1-2 then it could only have been Russia but there is zero evidence for that. The issue is not the TELAR but the missile and the warhead. The JIT said the warhead was 9N314M on a 9M38- series missile. I have read that only an unusually small amount of bowtie fragments from this warhead type were recovered and there is some doubt it was actually a 9N314M and it was actually a 9N310, which only Ukraine uses. A 9N310 warhead only implicates Ukraine. Ukraine possess 9N314M warheads and Ukraine even made their own copies of the BUK-M1 system using this warhead.


Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)

You can support the work of Bellingcat by donating through the following link: