the home of online investigations

Does Ukraine Have 9M38M1 Missiles?

June 4, 2015

By Nathan Patin

Earlier this week, Russian arms manufacturer Almaz-Antey presented its analysis of the downing of MH17 in an attempt to prove its “non-involvement in the MH17 tragedy.” The company concluded that while MH17 was downed by a 9M38M1 missile fired by a Buk M1, that particular type of missile has not been used by Russian forces since 1999. Bellingcat has since shown that, despite the Russian firm’s claims to the contrary, the 9M38M1 missile is still used by Russia, as seen in pictures as recent as March of this year.

Russian arms manufacturers and the Russian MoD don’t hold a monopoly on falsehoods and dubious claims, however. On June 4, Interfax quoted Ihor Smeshko, an advisor to the Ukrainian president and former head of the SBU as saying, “As far as I know, Ukraine sold its last Buk to Georgia.” Presumably, he was referring not to the Buk M1 missile system, but rather the 9M38M1 missile in response to claims that it may have been stolen from a Ukrainian military warehouse seized by rebels. According to the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, Georgia received 48 Buk missiles from Ukraine in 2007, along with a Buk M1.

Unfortunately for Mr. Smeshko, a number of videos and pictures of Ukrainian Buks have been uploaded to social media since 2007, more than a few of which can be seen armed with 9M38M1 missiles. The 9M38M1 can be easily distinguished from other Buk missiles by its long fins:

A cellphone video uploaded March 5, 2014, shows a convoy of Buks and other Ukrainian military vehicles parked along the side of a road. Four Buks (numbered  321, 312, 331, and 332, respectively) can be seen with 9M38M1 missiles.

A video uploaded on May 8, 2014 shows a Ukrainian Buk numbered 121 being hauled by a trailer. Despite the video’s title, we geolocated this video not in Kramatorsk, but the nearby city of Krasnoarmiisk.

On July 16, 2014, a day before the downing of MH17, the Ukrainian Army released a video touting its “anti-terrorism operations” in eastern Ukraine. Halfway through the video, a Buk can be seen armed with missiles displaying the long, telltale fins of the 9M38M1.

A photograph of Ukrainian Buk 312 was uploaded to VK by a Ukrainian soldier on August 17, 2014. Again, the 9M38M1 missiles are clearly visible.

We could go on; this is just a sampling of the open source evidence confirming that Ukraine — like Russia — still employs 9M38M1 missiles on its Buk missile systems. That being said, Mr. Smeshko’s erroneous remarks only serve to distract from the real issue — and the real evidence — of who is responsible for shooting down MH17.

Nathan Patin

Nathan Patin is a Washington, D.C.-based independent researcher and private investigator at the Mintz Group, an international corporate investigations firm. He focuses on open-source investigation tools and techniques, cybercrime, and the Middle East. He has been a member of the Bellingcat Investigation Team since 2015, and he was a guest presenter at Bellingcat's 2018 Washington D.C. workshop.

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.

Support Bellingcat

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

152 Comments

  1. field marshall vague

    The Russians presented satellite imagery of the BUK missile systems that the Ukraine had in place. What they singularly did not illustrate is that any missile was fired from those locations. Given that they know seemingly know the location (and let us assume that the images presented were not doctored) they would know exactly where to look for any physical evidence (scorched earth etc) generated by the launch of a missile, to illustrate that a missile was fired from that location. Moreover anyone here has every opportunity to go to the open source maps and look for the same evidence.

    Reply
    • Philip Larkin

      i did just that yesterday actually, i think there are some tracks in the area but could not find any burn marks.

      Reply
      • field marshall vague

        In which case, it is reasonable to think that a missile was not fired from there, given the blow back generated by a BUK missile launch this would have been easily identifiable. The Russians (assuming the images are not doctored) can show that a missile system was in place, they have not yet presented any evidence that one was fired from these locations. Moreover many here state (I believe incorrectly) that a BUK cannot be used without it’s support vehicles. Let us assume they are correct, the Russians have also not provided evidence of Ukranian support vehicles being in place.

        But then there is also the analysis provided here by Aleksandr Zakharchenko in an interview with Vice. He states at 7:31 in the interview that he saw not one but two planes in the area after MH17 was shot down and the Ukranian Air force were, in fact, responsible and “….it was clear that they shot it down.”

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6G0AzZk5K4

        There we have it, mystery solved….unless of course Aleksandr Zakharchenko is talking utter nonsense, but what could possibly be his motivation for that?

        Reply
        • Philip Larkin

          i dont think it is reasonable to think that a missile was not fired from there, just because i wasnt able to find any burn marks on low resolution freely available google earth photos which were allegedly shot a week after the incident.

          i dont think anyone should be drawing firm conclusions from google earth.

          Reply
          • Field Marshall Vague

            Quite so. It is clear however that the Russians have not illustrated that the Ukranian army fired a missile from that site.

            So all they have in fact said is that the Ukranian army have anti aircraft weapons.Not exactly a scoop is it?

            But then we already know thanks to Mr Zacharchenko, it was, in fact, two planes. So clearly we shouldn’t bother with the Russian MOD or any other analysis of the BUK theory. Given that the leader of the DPR has provided an eye witness account.

        • Andrew

          field marshall vague:

          “that a BUK cannot be used without it’s support vehicles. Let us assume they are correct, the Russians have also not provided evidence of Ukranian support vehicles being in place.”

          The Ukrainians televised their BUK deployment on July 16 and showed one of their KUPOL radar vehicles in use with radar whirling around

          See here, 4:48 to 4:54:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA

          The famous Russian MOD map of the Ukrainian BUK deployment also clearly delineates where they claim the KUPOL radar vehicles were and where the linked BUK TELAR and TEL vehicles were.

          https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Russian-MoD.jpg

          Reply
          • field marshall vague

            It also, crucially, provides no evidence of it being fired. Once again, an army is illustrated to have anti-aircraft weaponry, no more, no less.

          • Not Mark

            I can only hope that there was no KUPOL radar linked with the responsible TELAR. The greatly increased discrimination (NCTR) and IFF capabilities that are provided by the KUPOL would have made it very unlikely that someone fired a missile and didn’t know they were locked onto a passenger aircraft. If this wasn’t an accident then this opens a whole new can of worms.

          • Andrew

            field marshall vague:

            Maybe you recall the last point the Russian MOD made. They stated the Americans had a spy satelite directly above Donbass at the time of the downing of the plane with infrared detection capabilities to watch missile launches. They invited the Americans to provide evidence from this satelite of where the SAM missile was launched from.

            Obviously, my country has yet to release any such data or even acknowledge the Russians are correct about the satelites placement.

          • boggled

            Andrew, I would point out that certain info released by the US Government gets put into many different categories, public info, need to know for example for diplomats and other heads of state, Top Secret, and information to be released to people with certain levels of clearance.
            The USA is not a defendant in this case, and they have no reason to release for the public domain what they know, just that they can state, Russia is guilty and they did their own analysis right away.
            Russia however is one of the suspects, and they feel it is their right to form public opinion by releasing their own info that attempts to exonerate them, they have not released all their info, just the stuff that does not prove them guilty.
            Even though they claim their satellite’s were out of view of that region for about an hour, they had various land based units in Rostov, Sochi, and Donbas that would have captured the launch and communications of the missile and its launcher, did they?
            Nope
            And why? One can only guess.
            I imagine they have the capabilities to documented every GRAD launch and BUK and aircraft flying above 100 feet in Eastern Ukraine.
            And no release of info about a BUK launch? WHY?

            Regardless, they, and you, can accuse that the USA has not released what they know in the public domain.
            Meanwhile they have not presented all their info, just the stuff they can claim to exonerate them.
            The USA will release it to the people they give clearance to, some of it might get leaked before the court case and some of it not, who knows, that is they way of media and DC.
            The USA does not have to exonerate itself by releasing top secret satellite info or AWACS data, but just make sure the right people, decision makers, know what the facts are as they see them.
            Just because you demand it from DC does not mean you always get it.
            It can make its decisions about what is and what is not released.

            Bellingcat does a great job of collecting info and analyzes it to the best of its ability, but they by no means have all of the evidence collected.
            Just that collected from public domain and sifted through it the best they can.
            And for that I thank them, because it helps the world gain a grasp on what is happening.
            One the other side, the US Government and Ukraine government may not collect all the info that Bellingcat does from ‘open source’ and Bellingcat might be able to supply something relevant and important to the investigation that the JIT team might not have time or personnel to address.
            Which I think it has.
            Fare thee well

          • Not Mark

            Boggled, I agree with you 100%. I don’t think these people understand how the US works. Your assessment of why the US hasn’t released information to the public is spot on. I think it would have been more professional for all involved parties to keep their mouth’s shut and present their evidence “behind closed doors” instead of trying to influence public opinion. No doubt there will be a large majority of russians that do not believe the report when it is finally released because they have been told all these things for the last year.

          • Andrew

            Boggled:

            The US doesn’t need to exonerate itself. Rather, it is making accusations. Normally, when you make a serious accusation, you back it up with evidence beyond “trust us”.

            I’m well aware of top secret clearances and the hesitance to release satelite data or anything revealing ground capabilities or in theater assets. The US only acknowledge its spy satelite operations existence officially in 1994.

            Russia’s mentioning of the satelite over head is a way of thumbing their nose at the US. They know the US will not show anythign regarding the capability of this spacecraft.

          • Not Mark

            Andrew, the point here is that *WE* (civilians) are quite likely not privy to the evidence that the US has collected. The US made an accusation and I am sure they have provided the evidence to the proper people. No one has even mentioned that the US isn’t providing the requested data except for the russians. I haven’t heard the Dutch going to the media and pleading with the US to release its trove of evidence. Have you? I would guess this is because they almost certainly have been provided this evidence. The public just isn’t privy to it. What do you think?

          • boggled

            Not Mark, thank you for your support and added explanation.
            Your right I believe, the whole purpose of the Kremlin and their sponsored and controlled media is to sway people of RF’s public opinion and many of those who support Uncle Vova and his policies of discrediting the West to try and get a slice of the pie.
            They figure, 2-3 years, the results will come out, but by that time they have stated their various conspiracy theories and produce their manufactured evidence to support their stretch of the imagination truths.
            They hope no one will call them on their bluff or lie.
            People do.
            But the main purpose has been addressed, and that is to maintain their support base, and attempt to weaken the West, meanwhile gain some traffic and new fan base for their Kremlin sponsored and controlled media.
            If they take a small share of the pie from all the major ‘MSM’ networks, their support base grow exponentially.
            Meanwhile they hope each one of the major networks is weakened.
            I also think they expect in Crimea, the old term possession is nine tenths of the law.
            And they have people like Mr. Parry who they fund or have their support and they do not care if those that support them get thrown to the wolves and they ruin their reputation by repeating the Kremlin lies or trying to protect Russia in their mind of promoting the greater good – to them – of weakening DC.

            They were hoping to get that in their land bridge also, I think.
            I am glad to see Ukraine has rallied, and most everyone is working to stop the land bridge, however their is still a long road ahead for Ukraine.
            I am thinking the “West” is holding back from completely destroying Uncle Vova and his elite’s reputations because that means certain other influences might come into play.
            It could become an Radical Islamic Federation with a large arsenal of nukes, it could be taken over completely by the neo nazis and other nationalistic groups.
            It could see the return of an even worse dictator like Stalin if the Chechen leader gets put in as top dog.
            For Russia and the world to survive, I think some kind of change is needed in Russia to get rid of the corruption, the neo nazis, the kleptocratic elite and oligarchs, but the people of Russia have to take those reigns themselves.
            I am not sure they will.
            Anyways, thanks again for the comments and discussion.

            And a note to Andrew, Think about criminal courts and investigations in the USA and how they work.
            The Cops (the USA) get information from an informant.
            They investigate and make a decision of whether or not it is criminal.
            They still have not made an arrest yet, and they have not shown the suspect ANY evidence.
            Get a court order for a wire tap, and more investigative work.
            Soon they get enough info to determine if a crime has been committed and whether or not they have enough evidence to get an arrest.
            I remind you, at this point it is not to collect enough to find someone guilty or not, that is the prosecutor’s (JIT) job.
            It is just enough to detain the suspect (put on sanctions).
            The Grand Jury of the court determines if their is enough evidence to move forward and hold the person or not until the court date and whether or not they are a threat to society or to run.
            Judge sets bail or refuses bail.
            A year or more down the road, the court case happens.
            This is time for both the prosecutor and defender to sift through the evidence and analysis.
            And then create the way they see the case should go.
            Let me remind you, at this time the suspect and the jury still have not seen ALL the evidence.
            The prosecutor, police and courts must make it ALL available to the attorneys, but the suspect does not always get to hear, see, and touch it all until the court case.
            I remind you, the IMPARTIAL jury is not supposed to hear about any of the evidence or they are thrown out of the jury pool.
            Although generally that is not the only limiting factor on a jury pool selection, it is a contributing factor.
            Some instances like MH17, you cannot help the jury bringing some things that they heard since it made international news.
            Regardless, the Judge, the Jury, and the Suspect generally do not hear ALL the evidence until trial.
            So anyways, that is kind of the way the law works in ‘your country’.
            Then sentencing and punishment and sometimes a civil trial.
            In Russia, it is quite different.
            And other nations have their own style to their courts.
            The USA government is going to follow the way they operate in the USA.
            They just have to supply information to the prosecutors and let them take it from there.
            There are situations were info and evidence gets discussed, but that is usually up to the police and prosecutors.
            It is the ‘West’s’ way of bringing a suspect to court and attempting to give them a presumption of innocence in the courts eyes.
            It is not perfect but it works.

            It could be like Uncle Vova’s KGB days, where you upset a Russian neighbor, they manufactured some lie to tell law because they were angry, and because the policeman was a relative, off to the Gulag you went to wait for your trial in 3 years. And usually those trials were a show trial as well.
            Kind of like what they are doing with Nadiya Savchenko, the Estonian, and other Ukrainians the FSB kidnapped in other countries and then brought back to Moscow as hostages and people they could utilize for their own purposes, be it blackmail or some other leverage.
            Anyways, that’s my two cents and a half.
            Not Mark’s 2nd comments says it more less long winded, but I thought a little more thorough explanation might help you in ‘your country’ remember how the government and courts work.
            Fare thee well

  2. Philip Larkin

    who believes the words of anyone in eastern europe without proof, certainly not me.

    Reply
      • Philip Larkin

        so why rave on about Zacharchenko’s statement then?

        doesn’t seem worth mentioning even.

        Reply
        • Field Marshall Vague

          An eye witness account is regarded as evidence in any court of law you care to mention, hence the term oft used …a witness gives evidence.

          Mr Zacharchenkos statement is evidence. Whether you regard it as reliable evidence is another matter.

          But as we said, the Russians haven’t illustrated or provided any evidence at all of a missile launch, none.

          Aleks account illustrates that the Russians have only really done one thing, consistently changed their story….with nary a scrap of evidence for any of it.

          Reply
          • Philip Larkin

            eye witness evidence is widely regarded as the worst level of evidence, highly subjective and unreliable.

            The Russians haven’t provided proof of a missile launch indeed, nor has anyone else.

            i’m open minded but i doubt we will ever see any reliable evidence in this case, allowing all parties to continue with their existing stances.

          • Seb

            Thou its fubar evidence, you wouldnt be able to spot a SU-25 that alegedly shot down MH-17 at 10.000m height with bare eye. It would be simply too small, mostly you dont even see bigger planes unless you can see the contrails.

          • Muppet

            Well Seb, the other point being MH17 was flying at FL35 and the max service ceiling of the SU-25 doesn’t allow it to get anywhere near that altitude. Not to mention it would have lacked the speed to reel in the speeding airliner, even if it was ‘clean’ i.e. not carrying any drag-inducing ordnance or fuel tanks.

  3. Field Marshall Vague

    Well that’s not entirely accurate is it? There has been evidence of a missile launch elsewhere, analysed on this very site.

    Evidently it didn’t pass muster with your good self. So tell me, what exactly is your definition of reliable?

    Reply
  4. Field Marshall Vague

    That, in concert, with other evidence , yes.
    Now, I must go, alas your line in conversation (charming though it is) is no competition to a summers day.

    Fare thee well.

    Reply
    • Philip Larkin

      so you weren’t actually really going, you just knew what the response to the smoke plume photos was going to be.

      the response is its been stated to have been digitally manipulated by the founder of Foto Forensics., Bellingcat’s favourite site.

      Reply
      • Field Marshall Vague

        Ah, Dr Neal Krawetz.

        His work is, of course, beyond reproach.

        Reply
        • Philip Larkin

          you’re aware he is the inventor and proprietor of Foto Froensics, the very site Bellingcat relies on for its own ‘digital forensics’?

          That would qualify him as an expert.

          Reply
          • Field Marshall Vague

            I am well aware of who he is and what he does.

          • Philip Larkin

            so you would agree he is an expert on his own program, Foto Forensics, or not?

      • CC

        @Philip Larkin Buk re: plume photo, “its been stated to have been digitally manipulated by the founder of Foto Forensics”. A quick Google search didn’t find me this citation (specifically plume photo, not recent sat pix allegation), can you give a link? Tnx.

        Reply
        • CC

          Dr. Krawetz gave these clues to what he found in 2.bmp:
          1. Color Density plot contains a line at 20 degrees to vertical in right side of frame
          2. Graininess uniform, evenly distributed, higher than expected; suspect noise added
          3. Fails every colorspace test.

          While I wish Krawetz would say something more complete about those results, I suspect his attitude is “I’m not getting paid, so I’m not giving my full analysis”. The best reference to the Krawetz methods I have found is this from 2008 http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-dc-08/Krawetz/Whitepaper/bh-dc-08-krawetz-WP.pdf, and various samples he has analyzed on his blog.

          Many Krawetz techniques seem to rest on understanding jpeg compression effects; it is unclear to me whether 1.bmp and 2.bmp were ever compressed (I don’t think so).

          Also I am curious what would be included in “every colorspace test”.

          Any ideas?

          Reply
          • Not Mark

            I too wish he would have given more thorough explanations. When I read what he says, he kind of comes off as a crackpot to me. Just my personal take on what he wrote… Might just be because it’s beyond my understanding, I suppose?

    • Philip Larkin

      do you or don’t you agree that he is an expert on the program he himself wrote, Foto Forensics?

      Yes or No?

      No non answers permitted.

      Reply
    • Philip Larkin

      Do you or don’t you agree that he is an expert on his own program, Foto Forensics?

      Yes or no answer.

      Reply
    • Philip Larkin

      so you would agree he is an expert on his own program, Foto Forensics, or not?
      Yes or no?

      Reply
      • Not Mark

        Being a little aggressive here Philip, no? How many more times are you going to ask this poor guy to fall into the logic trap that you set up for him?

        Reply
        • boggled

          Just a thing of note to you or the moderators here, and you can delete this statement after reading.
          I have noticed my comments in the comment box at the end of the article do not show up, but if I click on reply, they do every time, although sometimes needing moderation, but not always.
          And it is not just this article.
          After typing in the box at the article a couple times it has said awaiting moderation in the past, other times it just goes to the beginning of the article and their is nothing.
          I am not sure if it is my platform, the browser I use or some other factor, but just thought I would mention it because it may be an issue for other commentators who do not comment on Bellingcat because their attempted comments fade away into the wind, and some of them they take time to write.
          Especially for those that are two finger typists, ie 10 to 20 words a minute.
          Since there is not a TOS rule book for commenting, I am guessing it is mostly common sense, to keep this from getting to be a madhouse, however if one of your automatic moderation filters blocked out the word Hulio, or the guy’s name the song is dedicated to, maybe that should be mentioned somewhere.
          Hope these thoughts are helpful.
          Fare thee well.

          Reply
          • Not Mark

            I feel your pain. My comments get caught in moderation oftentimes. If I type a very long comment I will copy it before I hit send so it doesn’t get lost in the ether. There are some keywords that will definitely cause moderation. Also, if you include more than one URL it will require moderation. Happy commenting!

          • boggled

            Thanks for your quick reply, and your right to remember to copy your comment before you send, good word to the wise.

            Like I said, I was mainly mentioning regarding the main comment box more so then after hitting reply and making a comment.
            It could be like you said, putting links in however I have seen 6 links get through in one comment, and the most I have ever done has been 2.

            Overall it works great and the moderators do a great job keeping things as civil as they can be in such a polarized world.
            It is a hard line to draw between encouraging legitimate debate, allowing both sides to present arguments and evidence and quieting down those of both sides that can become enthusiastic and emotional on a global issue, and then keeping out the propagandists that will promote something outrageous.
            to the moderators – Thanks again for keeping comments open and encouraging debate.
            to Not Mark – thanks for adding comments and offering your viewpoint, evidence you have seen or read, and keeping the debates moving forward.
            To the others – thanks for bring up many issues and points I have not either thought about or read or seen before and contributing to the debate as well.
            To Eliot and other authors and investigators – Your work is widely appreciated by many, and especially for little no one’s like me that are searching for some truth further then that that is offered in small blurbs and sound bytes in MSM.
            Fare thee well

      • boggled

        A few issues recently discussed in the comments here are discussed in the interpretermag’s article which can be found by searching for —
        — assessing-putin-war-a-look-at-the-last-investigation-by-boris-nemtsov-and-his-colleagues
        Scorched earth found, the smoke plume photograph’s reason for alteration, english translation of Nemtsov’s et al expose’ on Uncle Vova, etc.
        Fare thee well

        I also remind people they can use the search button to find articles done by Bellingcat that might answer questions they have before they speak of a redundant issue..

        Reply
  5. boggled

    There has been a lot of evidence collected regarding MH17, and a lot of analysis about the evidence that is available to the public.
    Some of it is circumstantial, but taken as a whole, you tend to get a larger picture.
    Not to say that there might be some conclusive evidence, or smoking gun, that the official investigators are holding to their chest.
    Did everyone involved have a BUK? Yes, clearly demonstrated here at Bellingcat, even Russia itself has enough open source data provide to conclusively say they had a BUK that drove from a base in Russia, over the highways of Russia into Ukraine and back again.
    Ukraine has its own military bases in their country and they had BUKs stationed at various locations.
    The separatists claimed they had captured multiples and also a Russian mechanic has claimed to have worked on them and attempted to get them running, because they had been sabotaged when Ukraine’s military left the various bases as well as the fact that much of Ukraine’s military equipment are rusting out, had bad motors and sit on flat tires.
    Did everyone have a motive? I can for any crime you can imagine a motive, it is just how broad your imagination is.
    Claims are Ukraine’s was to frame Russia, get sanctions imposed and more global recognition of the conflict in their country.
    Claims are for both Russia and the Separatists, it was because Ukraine’s aircraft involved in the conflict were causing many loses and made things difficult for the Separatists to expand their territory and maintain what they had gained.
    So they were trying to bring down a Ukrainian military aircraft.
    Was an airplane recorded shadowing MH17 as has been reported by various pro Kremlin witnesses that have made claims about a fighter jet in the area that day?
    JIT says the black boxes have no indications of that and add to that, you would have to have a good set of binoculars, a steady hand to hold those, a clear day, and good eyesight to see a jet flying above 5000 meters. You can test for yourself and try to identify a vehicle at 3 miles. So witnesses claims are somewhat in doubt to be able to identify a fighter jet plus it did not show up on the black box recording and it was not announced as previously happening with other passenger jets and other jets nearby did not report any Ukrainian military aircraft.
    It was reported as a possibility from the Russian MOD report, the thing I was surprised about there is they claimed a specific aircraft.
    An aircraft that only carries heat seeking missiles that would have targeted an engine, and from seeing the damage, the engines were not the item targeted or destroyed, so again, the plausibility of a SU25 is very much in doubt.
    There are a few other factors that almost completely discount a SU25.
    Collected evidence of a Ukrainian BUK firing in the area is very little.
    As collected info from the people living in the area that Almez-Antey by reporters for novayagazeta, they said both visuals of fighter aircraft and missile but everyone completely denies any BUK being seen in their area.
    One witness even said the missile came from a direction in the north east of where he was, which would give more support for the Sniznhe area as a launch point.
    They also said Separatist checkpoints were outside the villiage and they were kind of a no man’s land, neither Ukraine or Separatists controlled at the time.
    They had BUks and some were moved in preparation for a Russian invasion because Uncle Vova said he could take Kyiv in a week, and thoughts were of a full scale invasion preparation by Ukraine. They might lose, but they would make Uncle Vova pay for that decision.
    The only real evidence that makes Ukraine a possibility is they had BUKs located near the flight path, that is it.
    No evidence of a Ukrainian BUK missile missing from inventory, not video of a launcher travelling down Ukrainian controlled or no man’s land roads, no witnesses stating a BUK fired from Ukrainian military controlled area.
    I won’t go into the evidence collected by Bellingcat and other investigative journalists conclusions about the possibility of Russian or Separatists fired missile, there is a plethora of it.
    Judging the validity of those arguments Bellingcat has gone out of its way to explain how, why and with what evidence the base their conclusions on, although they do not specifically say it was an accidental shooting by an inept crew, an intentional shooting of an aircraft that was Ukrainian military, or other variants of that theme.
    There is a lot of evidence collected that says it was a Russian BUK that traveled to Ukraine across Russian highways with a Russian crew and transport vehicle, targeted an aircraft, and oops it was civilian, and then it returned to Russia missing one missile.
    There is a lot at stake here for any guilty party, and they know they are the ones that did it, there is no evidence at all of a rogue groups with it, there is no evidence of a hacker gaining control of a Ukrainian BUK or a Separatist BUK targeting computer and launching it, there is no valid evidence of any of the other various thrown out there conspiracy theories like a plane loaded with dead bodies.
    You go where the evidence takes you, and from what is open sourced and put together by Bellingcat and others, there is a lot of evidence pointing to the Kremlin’s culpability.
    Not to say that it is impossible to have some other conclusion come out of the Dutch team with the classified evidence they have and what is not available to be discussed in public.
    It could be a missile launched from a satellite.
    There could be a smoking gun that places Ukraine’s militias or military as the culprit, that is doubtful, but classified evidence could make it so.
    There is very little evidence supporting that theory right now in public available sources.
    Russian MOD could have shown to the public the radar and other telemetry they collected since they have stated they did not have their satellites overhead at the time.
    They and the Separatists had data collection available at the time, since they wanted to know when Ukrainian military were overhead.
    They could have cleared any culpability and placed it all on Ukraine’s shoulders at the time of that conference almost a year ago.
    Did they? NO, so one must ask, why have they not cleared their responsibility?
    Only assumption is, if they release it, it will be heavily scrutinized and shown to be false. Or it places the location of the launch inside Separatist controlled lands.
    A trillion dollar lawsuit, judgement at the Hague, international condemnation are all at stake here.
    It will be interesting to see what the official report is with their ability to review classified evidence.
    All the public can do is wait, and patience is a difficult thing.
    Thank you Bellingcat and others for taking the time to sift through the OVERWHELMING amount of evidence available to the public and sift through it all.
    I have my opinion I have formed by what I have read so far from various places, is there enough for you to make your own opinion on available facts that places Moscow under greater suspicion and not conspiracy theories based on little or no evidence?

    Conspiracy theorists and Kremlin sponsored media journalists, are you ready to live with the damage to your reputation in shambles if your wrong?
    How will your conscience be if your wrong?
    People will not forget and forgive very easily over this global incident.
    You might still be able to get a job outside of Russia in Cuba, but that is about the limit of your opportunities for the future.
    Is what your getting paid right now worth the ruin of your reputation?
    You will be shunned and blackballed if your proven wrong – and you know you will be after the report is released.
    Do not forget, the CEO of Almas-Antey at the news conference apologized to the world in advance of the report being released for the use of their name brand equipment being used in the destruction of MH17.

    Which should be given more weight? Conspiracy theories with little or no valid evidence promoted by the various Kremlin sponsored propaganda machinery, or the one with the majority of documented and validated evidence so far?

    Reply
  6. boggled

    And also, for those of you interested in the size and type of the shrapnel released by the 70 kg warhead of the alleged BUK missile that murdered 300 innocent people.

    http://en.censor.net.ua/resonance/328926/submunitions_of_russian_missile_bukm12_aka_sa17_which_downed_the_malaysian_boeing_mh17_exclusive_photo

    Not a 3 kg warhead from a jet and a bunch of anti aircraft gunfire, just too much shrapnel damage for this to be plausible.
    It would take the FULL payload of three aircraft at least firing their guns semi accurately with at least four 3 kg missiles to do the amount of shrapnel damage.
    A fighter jets guns are not accurate, and all the could do is strafing runs over and over again to produce that damage, and it would have to be hitting the same parts of the Malaysian Airliner.
    Therefore, MH17 would have been able to have time to report the incident with a prolonged fighter jet attack.
    It is evident, it was a sudden surprise incident with little if no warning that was done with one solitary missile.
    They would have to also approach the aircraft’s flight path from the north east to attack it head on and do the damage shown from over SEPARATIST illegally occupied territory.
    Last I knew, Ukraine did not have any stealth technology, and there were no shadowing planes were shown on black box data released.
    These few points makes ANY type of fighter jet, that Ukraine has, all the more an impossible theory.
    Just common sense.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)