the home of online investigations

The Role of Sergey Dubinsky in the Downing of MH17

March 2, 2017

By Bellingcat Investigation Team

Translations: Русский

Following the publication of “Identifying Khmuryi, the Major General Linked to the Downing of MH17,” additional information has surfaced that further confirms the identity of Khmuryi as Sergey Nikolaevich Dubinsky, born August 9, 1962. The clearest confirmation of our investigation came courtesy of Russian actor Ivan Okhlobystin, who was photographed with Dubinsky on his Odnoklassniki profile. In a February 16, 2017 op-ed with RT (archive), Okhlobystin confirms that Sergey Dubinsky is indeed the separatist figure who went by the name Khmuryi and Petrovsky while serving under Igor “Strelkov” Girkin in Sloviansk and Donetsk.

“Sergey Dubinsky, with the call-sign Khmuryi — a respected Russian soldier, who honorably devoted his entire life to serve the Fatherland, even when his Fatherland entrusted him with senseless and harmful tasks in a period of social disorder in the mid-90s. He had already retired, but he was once again struck with bad luck: a coup took place in his native Ukraine, and as a soldier, he could do nothing except stand up in defense of the Constitution and joined up with the militia in Sloviansk under the flag of Strelkov.”

Sergey Dubinsky (middle) in Donetsk, Ukraine, in December 2014, photograph uploaded 15 October 2016. Left: Ivan Okhlobystin, Right: Ivan’s wife Oksana Arbuzova.

After the publication of our article, a number of readers commented on how Dubinsky had posted for some time on a message board at, where he posted under the username “Нехороший” (Bad) in reference to the username “Bad Soldier” that he used in the Antikvariat forum. Numerous long-time users on the message board, including some separatists, confirmed the identity of Dubinsky/”Bad” in his time posting on the message board. He also made various posts that correspond with the biographical details of Dubinsky, such as an off-hand reference about his birthday that corresponds with Dubinsky’s birthday.

  • On August 2, 2015, Dubinsky confirmed that the recordings with his voice released by the Security Services of Ukraine (SBU) on July 18, 2014 were authentic.
  • In an attempt to confirm Dubinsky’s identity, a user asks him what car he often drove while he was in Sloviansk in June 2014. On July 12, 2015, Dubinsky replied that it was a black Peugeot 3008. The same type of car was filmed escorting Buk 332 through Makiivka on July 17, 2014, though this does not mean that Dubinsky was in the car at the time, but rather than it was used by men of the DNR intelligence services.
  • On July 13, 2015, Dubinsky said that he had previously only been seen in a single video from May/June 2014, filmed in Kramatorsk.

Additional information regarding Sergey “Khmuryi” Dubinsky has also emerged since the publication of our article. On February 18, 2017, InformNapalm published an article showing that Dubinsky joined a congress of the “Union of Donbas Volunteers,” which took place on November 4, 2016 in Moscow. Dubinsky himself gave comments to the BBC Russian Service in response to our article. Dubinsky did not refute his identity as Khmuryi, and instead claiming that a Ukrainian Buk was responsible for the downing of MH17, though the location provided by the Russian Ministry of Defense for this supposed Ukrainian Buk shootdown has been thoroughly debunked.

With Sergey Dubinsky’s identity as “Khmuryi” confirmed beyond all reasonable doubt, both in his additional discovered posts and confirmation from his friend Ivan Okhlobystin, we can now provide additional analysis regarding Dubinsky’s role in the transport of Buk 332 on July 17, 2014 through eastern Ukraine. As this analysis will show, Dubinsky was a key–or perhaps even the key–figure in organizing the transport of Buk 332 from Donetsk to a field south of Snizhne on the day of the tragedy. Furthermore, this additional analysis confirms the authenticity of the intercepted telephone conversations involving Dubinsky published by the SBU on July 18, 2014. Some details of these calls were previously under dispute or unclear, such as references to downed jets and Gvozdikas in a call between Dubinsky and “Botsman,” but a closer look reveals that even minor details in the calls can be verified through open source materials.

The following sections will provide both a summary and detailed analysis of the five calls involving Sergey “Khmuryi” Dubinsky published by both the SBU and JIT, along with additional commentary on some of the additional details provided in a slightly extended version of a call published by the JIT.

Dubinsky in Intercepted Calls Published by the SBU

Intercepted phone calls published by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) reveal numerous details about Dubinsky’s role around the transport of Russian Buk 332 on July 17, 2014. The day after the downing, the SBU identified Khmuryi (Dubinsky) as “Sergey Nikolayevich Petrovsky, born 1964, officer of the Russian GRU, Igor ‘Strelok’ Girkin’s deputy of intelligence, who was in Donetsk at the time of the intercept.” We now know that some of these details are true, and some are a bit off–namely, the year of birth (1962, not 1964) and his last name (Sergey Nikolayevich Dubinsky, not Petrovsky, which was his pseudonym in the DNR). Additionally, in one uploaded version of the conversations, the SBU duplicated information from a previous call (see summary of the fifth call). The SBU provides the number of the telephone that was intercepted: +38 063 121 3401. Two of the original videos published by the SBU can be accessed here (Ukrainian) and here (English). Dubinsky speaks at the following times in the video: 1:33 – 3:52, 4:15 – 5:22.

Summary of the first call (9:08am):

In the first conversation, Dubinsky speaks with “Buryatik,” a separatist soldier who has never been identified with certainty. Buryatik asks Dubinsky (Khmuryi) where to load a Buk-M1 (which is called a “beauty,” “Buk,” “B,” and “M” at different points), which was taken by Buryatik from an unidentified location to Donetsk. After asking where to unload and hide the Buk from the truck it was towed on, Buryatik confirms to Dubinsky that the Buk came with a crew. Dubinsky tells Buryatik that there is no need to unload and hide it, but instead said that it has to go “to there” now.


  • The time of this call (9:08am) is provided in the English version of the SBU video, along with the JIT’s video from March 30, 2015.
  • It is unclear from the call if this “crew” (экипаж) came with the Buk from Russia, was a group of separatist soldiers, or was a mix of the two.
  • The destination for the Buk mentioned by Dubinsky is presumably a field south of Snizhne, or another place meant to provide air defense cover to the area. This is quite logical for the time, as Ukrainian jets conducted airstrikes in the area around Snizhne at that time. The most well known example of this was an airstrike hitting an apartment building in Snizhne on July 15, killing 12 civilians. Satellite imagery further documents the presence of a Su-25 ground attack fighter in the area on July 16, 2014 (see coordinates 47.951409, 38.828687).
  • A video published on March 30, 2015 by the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team reveals a few extra seconds from this call, as detailed at the end of this article.

Summary of the second call (9:22am):

In the second phone conversation, which begins at 2:12 in the embedded video above, Dubinsky agains speaks with Buryatik. He asks if he brought one or two Buks. Buryatik explains that there was a mix-up with the transfer, as they did not have or were not willing to give/loan a second vehicle to transfer another Buk with. “They” unloaded the Buk from the truck they transported it on, and the Buk crossed the border on its own and was then transported with a truck. Dubinsky then tells Buryatik that the Buk will be going to its destination with tanks from the Vostok Battalion.


  • The time of the call (9:22am) is provided in the English version of the SBU video.
  • Dubinsky expected a second vehicle with the delivery, though it is unclear what this would have been. It would be safe to assume that Dubinsky helped coordinate the transfer and use of the Buk, as he had some previous idea about what would be delivered, and Buryatik knew to call him for where the Buk would be moved or hidden.
  • It’s not entirely clear what situation occurred when Buryatik described “the mix-up that they had” (у них там пошла непонятка). It is possible that he expected another transport vehicle to be used to take another Buk, or that “they” would conduct a portion of the transport themselves.
  • The identity of “they” is unclear, referring to those in Russia who brought the Buk to the border. Buryatik never gives many identifying details, but we know that they had contact with the separatists, may have included crew members (see analysis of previous conversation), and they transported the Buk to the border.
  • The exact crossing point for where the Buk crossed the border under its own power (“она своим ходом (…) перешла через полоску”), or where the transport vehicle was parked on the Ukrainian side of the border, is unclear. Of the possible candidates, an illegal border crossing point between Severnyi, Ukraine and Donetsk, Russia at 48.352967, 39.942758 seems most likely. For more information, see page 47 the Bellingcat report “Tracking the Trailers” and pages 11-13 of the Bellingcat report “Russia’s Path(s) to War“.
  • In an interview with the now-defunct separatist news outlet icorpus (but saved on the blog El Murid), Dubinsky mentioned how he was allowed to take 3-4 tanks from the Vostok Battalion on the day of the downing of MH17: “…when I was going to Stepanivka, right before the Boeing crash, [Vostok Battalion commander] Khodakovsky called me for some reason instead of Igor Ivanovich [Girkin, “Strelkov”], and told me: “If you need to, you can take 3-4 of my tanks.” And I took them, because I did need to.
  • The transport of the Buk with the Vostok tanks did not take place exactly as explained. Arnold Greidanus and Ukraine@War (also see here) have done extensive analysis on the Vostok convoy that travelled along roughly the same route as the Buk, but at different times. Two videos of the Vostok convoy can be seen below:


Summary of the third call (9:23am):

Dubinsky speaks with a different person, “Sanych,” in the third call, starting at 2:43 in the previous embedded video. The SBU describes him as a fighter of the DNR and a deputy of Khmuryi (Dubinsky). In the call, Dubinsky tells Sanych that “my Buk-M” will go with “your guys,” and that the Buk is on a transport vehicle now. He asks Sanych about where to take it to place it in a military convoy. Sanych says to take it to the Motel roundabout.


  • The time of the call (9:23am) is provided in the English version of the SBU video.
  • Buk 332 was parked at the Motel roundabout for some time (as filmed by a driver in this video), before it left eastward through Makiivka (filmed here), Zuhres (filmed here), Torez (photographed here), and finally Snizhne (filmed here).
  • It is interesting that Dubinsky referred to the Buk as “my Buk,” again indicating that he was a key figure involved in acquiring and transporting the weapon from Russia.
  • A key part of these intercepted calls is how we can see which separatists knew different instructions. Here, Dubinsky does not know where Buk 332 should be taken to send it off in a convoy, but he does know the ultimate destination and that it will be with or near Vostok tanks.

Summary of the fourth call (9:54am):

Dubinsky speaks with a new, unidentified person who is only described as a “DNR terrorist.” Dubinsky tells this person to call a man called “Bibliotekar” (The Librarian), and that he will find “you know what” at the Motel roundabout. The unidentified person affirms that he knows what “you know what” is. Dubinsky then instructs him to take “only those who came back, how ever many you need for the escort, and leave the rest behind here.” He then tells him to go to a spot near Pervomayskoe, and check a map for directions to the area. Once the unidentified soldier reaches the area near Pervomayskoe, Dubinsky tells him to set up and unload the remaining people he has with him. His tasks is to be in reserve and to guard the Buk-M that the person is transporting. He closes the call by saying that a man named Gyurza (The Viper) will also be at this location.


  • The time of the call (9:54am) is provided in the English version of the SBU video.
  • The question of Bibliotekar’s identity has never been answered with any satisfaction. Many have investigated the question, but no one has answered who he is for certain. Some have guessed that he is a Russian soldier, perhaps from one of the intelligence services, though without any specific individual in mind. Others have pointed to Fyodor Berezin, who once served as a Soviet air defense officer, was called the “Russian Tom Clancy” by the New Yorker because of the science fiction and military books he authored, and served as the Deputy Defense Minister in the DNR in 2014. That said, it’s unclear if Berezin was in Donetsk at the time, and may have been in Luhansk, per his own LiveJournal posts. However, it would be a mistake to assume that “The Librarian” must be the call sign for a literary or bookish person–for example, “Bibliotekar” is a type of monster in the popular Ukrainian video game/Russian book series “Metro 2033,” which is where Arseny “Motorola” Pavlov’s “Sparta Battalion” took its symbol from. Resolving the issue of Bibliotekar’s identity would also settle some of the central questions surrounding the downing of MH17.
  • It is unclear exactly what Dubinsky refers to when he says only “those who came back,” but it is possible that he is referring to the fighters in Girkin’s ranks who came back from Sloviansk about two weeks before the downing of MH17. These men would likely have more fighting experience than those who had only been in Donetsk and nearby cities.
  • The people described by Dubinsky are likely those who followed Buk 332 in the escort from Donetsk to Snizhne, though not all of these vehicles were still in the convoy by the time it reached Snizhne. For example, in the Makiivka video from around 11:00am, the escort vehicles include a black Peugeot 3008, a UAZ-469 jeep, a grey 2010 Toyota RAV4 with a modified spoiler, and a dark blue Volkswagen minivan. In the Snizhne video, shot just a few hours before the downing, only one vehicle is still escorting the Buk.
  • There are two “Pervomayskoe” villages located next to each other, and just down the road from the location where Buk 332 launched the missile that downed MH17. One village, closest to the launch site, is “Pervomaysky,” while another village just one field to the north is “Pervomayske.” It is unclear which one Dubinsky was talking about, but a separatist checkpoint was located in between Pervomaysky and the launch location, likely indicating that this was the village he had in mind.
  • The identity of Gyurza is not entirely clear, as it is a common call sign for soldiers. He was likely Dubinsky’s deputy in the DNR’s intelligence service. Novaya Gazeta reported in 2015 that Gyurza was a former French foreign legionnaire, but this claim has not been independently confirmed.

Summary of the fifth call:

The fifth and final call, from the late afternoon or evening of July 17, 2014, is between Dubinsky and “Botsman,” identified by the SBU as an officer of the Russian GRU. Dubinsky tells Botsman that “we are near Marinovka” and things are not going too well. He says that things aren’t so great because they are under constant Grad fire, and that they had recently shot down a Ukrainian Su-25 jet. He mentions that his forces received a Buk-M that morning and that things will be easier now. Dubinsky goes on to say that Ukrainians are trying to escape from Zelenopolye, but to break through they have to go through Dubinsky and his forces. He also mentions that “yesterday” (July 16) they shot down two Su-25s, and another today. At the end of the call, Dubinsky says that “in a couple of hours” he’s headed to Donetsk, and that three Gvozdikas are waiting for him in Donetsk. He will then take the Gvozdikas back to “here” (Marinovka).


  • The time of the call is given as 9:08am and Dubinsky is described as in Donetsk–both of which are clearly false. The SBU almost certainly copied the top part of the first call for making the introduction frame for this call, only changing “Buryatik” for “Botsman”. Dubinsky describes his current location as Marinovka in this call, and the call was conducted after the morning and a shootdown with the Buk. The exact time of the call is unclear, but was likely in the late afternoon or very early evening soon after the downing of MH17, but before it became widely known that a passenger jet was actually downed.
  • The identity of Botsman has never been determined, but Dubinsky describes a series of men who used the call sign in a September 13, 2015 post on He mentions a Botsman who was a deputy to Bezler, another who was the deputy commander of the 3rd Brigade from Horlivka, and a third in the “Viking” battalion of the DNR. Of these three, the first is the most likely candidate for the person on the call.
  • There was indeed a large-scale battle near Marinovka shortly before the downing of MH17. On July 16, the day before the downing, a video appeared showing Igor “Strelkov” Girkin and Aleksandr Borodai in a field just northwest of Stepanivka, speaking about the fighting near Marinovka. A Strela-10 anti-aircraft missile system is visible in the video. Separatist forces moved into Marinovka during the day of July 17, and reportedly captured at least a portion of the village on the 16th.

  • The shot down and damaged jets described to Dubinsky can be partially identified. He mentions downing two “Sushkas” (Su-25 jets) the day before the call. On July 16 at around 1pm, two Su-25s were hit, but only one was actually downed. Reports from separatist sources on that day indicate that the Su-25s were bombing near Savur-Mohyla– just a few kilometers from the eventual MH17 launch site, Marinovka, and the location where Strelkov conducted an interview with an anti-aircraft missile system in the background. Dubinsky was mistaken about the third “Sushka” that was shot down on the day of the call, as it was not a fighter jet he had first thought. The only plane that was shot at or downed that day was Malaysian Airlines Flight 17.
  • We are able to identify the three Gvozdikas that Dubinsky mentions: three unnumbered and unmarked 2S1 Gvozdikas that travelled from Luhansk to Donetsk on July 15, 2014. A convoy accompanying these three Gvozdikas was filmed and photographed numerous times, as described in this Bellingcat investigation. These three Gvozdikas were seen on July 15 in central Donetsk around 7:00pm. Three of the same vehicles in this July 15 convoy–an UAZ-469, a 2010 Toyota RAV4, and a dark blue Volkswagen minivan–were in the convoy on July 17 that accompanied Buk 332 through eastern Ukraine. Dubinsky likely left Marinovka in the evening of July 17 — soon after the shootdown of MH17, judging from his comment on shooting down a new “Sushka” — and took his three Gvozdikas from Donetsk to Marinovka that night. Witness reports indicate that three Gvozdikas moved eastward from Donetsk in the late evening of July 17 and early morning of July 18:

“About 15 minutes ago, three Gvozdikas passed through the center of Makiivka in the direction of Khartsyzka. #stopterror” (Archived)

About 45 minutes later, seemingly the same convoy moved through Zuhres, headed eastward along the same route that the MH17 convoy travelled.

A convoy of heavy equipment is headed towards Shakhtarsk, but it’s hard to tell what’s all in it from the darkness.”

“#Shakhtersk a convoy of heavy equipment is headed your way, it just passed by Zuhres”

Dubinsky in Additional Calls Published by the JIT

The Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team also published intercepted telephone calls, but with some information censored (names) and other information added. In the first call described here from 9:08am–in which Dubinsky speaks to Buryatik about unloading the Buk–there is an extra segment at the end.

Buryatik tells Dubinsky that “they need some time to take a look at [the Buk].” After this, we can hear some conversation in the background. Dubinsky seems to be receiving information in the background here regarding the destination of the Buk, and says “wait a second, Bibliotekar.” It is not entirely clear, but it seems as if Bibliotekar may have been in the same room as Dubinsky during this call at 9:08am on the morning of July 17. Considering how Dubinsky mentioned Bibliotekar in a call to Sanych soon after this one, it is logical to conclude that he received information on where to haul the Buk from Bibliotekar.

The JIT published additional phone calls between separatists that took place the morning after the downing, but the identities of those in the call were not formally established.


Following the downing of MH17, Russian/separatist forces scrambled to retrieve the black boxes from MH17. They did eventually find them and on July 2;1, 2014 handed them over in a press conference to Malaysian officials.

In an intercepted call from July 18, 2014 and released by the SBU on July 21, the head of the Vostok Battalion, Aleksandr Khodakovsky, speaks with a separatist soldier about retrieving key items from the MH17 crash site.

While still searching for the black boxes (Khodakovsky later mentions not knowing what they look like), he mentions that Khmuryi (Dubinsky) has a “key item,” which could be a black box.

It is unclear what this item was, but it is clear that Sergey Dubinsky was a key organizer in efforts to find materials related to MH17 at the crash site–with an emphasis that people from “Moscow” want them secured, and that these items “do not come into somebody else’s hands.”

This article was collaboratively researched and written by the Bellingcat  MH17 Investigation Team, with contributions from the Conflict Intelligence Team.

Bellingcat Investigation Team

The Bellingcat Investigation Team is an award winning group of volunteers and full time investigators who make up the core of the Bellingcat's investigative efforts.

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:


    • Dissident Voice

      When a conversation is retrieved in a full forensically sound chain of evidence in which an actual command has been given to a Buk operator on a specific timeline and a specific location.

      These are not available, are they? (This is true for all SBU intercepts).

      Many, many conclusions as drawn in this article actually lack any sound back-up. For example not even a rigged court could ever take over the proposed chain of argumention that the man on the tapes=Khmuryi=Dubinsky=”Bad”= a sound confession which could triangulate the story as displayed on the SBU tapes.

      • Cody Johnson Jr

        Indeed. So far we don’t know the voice is Khmuryi, we don’t know Khmuryi is Dubinsky, we don’t know Dubinsky is ‘Bad’, we don’t know the recordings are not fakes.

        Meanwhile, bellingcat fulfils its MH17 posting quota for the month.

      • CFL68

        Meh. You are the kind of guy who could look at multiple videos of the same buk convoy deep in rebel territory and claim (like Putin, his generals, and reb leaders) that there is no evidence that rebels have a buk.

        A reasonable person should acknowledge what the most likely scenario is – especially given the range of evidence from Girkin admitting his people did it (warned you not to fly in our sky) to videos to audio to physical evidence.

        • stranger

          The presence of buk doesn’t mean it fired Boeing. The fabricated SBU records don’t mean the finger pointed people are responsible. Usually there should be an investigation first based on objective evidence, and only then one can start blaming. Presumption of innocence, no collective responsibility – the principles the west announce and always violates.

          • Cor

            What is your opinion about the statements from the Russian government about about the downing of mh17?
            The Russian government is sure that Ukraine is responsible for the downing of MH17. Did they have the evidence that proofed that Ukraine is guilty about MH17?
            The term objective evidence, you use, does not excist. You can talk about evidence that is correct or false evidence. Objective and subjective are person related opinions.

        • Dissident Voice

          You should not talk about reason, CFL68, because thats a concept that obviously is alien to you.

          First: we don’t know how authentic these videos are. First of all because there is no certainty about date whatsoever. Furthermore all of them show problems, inconsistencies. Take the Snizhne video: the timing from a shadow casting analysis does not fit the timeline and the video is not datable by means of deep third party investigation.

          It is almost incomprehensible you again start spreading the Strelkov “don’t fly in our sky” disinfo campaign the SBU helped disseminating at the evening of the crash. Even pro-Bcat investigator Greidanus has confirmed for all of you this story was a hoax.

          Because the Chernukhino tapes are also blatantly faked – as even Bcat and JIT should admit by now, but don’t – the first two building blocks to spread a story of a separatist mistake are clearly fabricated. What could that say about the dissemmination of tweets and imagery at the same date, stuff that can be linked to a tiny group of very staunch pro-Kiev sources?

          Bcat even features MASH in this article again, the informant/reconnaissance volunteer who is the same person that videoed the Zuhres video but later claimed in front of cameras he took it on another day.

          And then you start about reason throwing in some argumenta ad hominem…

      • Max Power

        I have to agree. the article repeatedly says “it seems” , it “may have” and other such wordings that make it clear that they aren’t sure about anything at all.
        But then they use all these doubtful pieces of information and then declare they know for sure what happened.

  1. Rob

    Bellingcat said :

    “This is quite logical for the time, as Ukrainian jets conducted airstrikes in the area around Snizhne at that time. The most well known example of this was an airstrike hitting an apartment building in Snizhne on July 15, killing 12 civilians. ”

    Let it be noted that there never was any confirmation of this (Ukrainians hitting Snizhne on July 15). In fact, Ukraine denied hitting any target on July 15.
    Instead, this may very well be an attack by the Russian air force, preparing Snizhne to place an air defense systems like a BUK, to “protect” them, while in fact the only reason was to shoot down MH17 from a location where the BUK would be appreciated.

    • Rob

      Ukraine has declared many times that they were not flying on July 15, because one of their planes had been downed July 14 near the Russian border, and the fate of the pilots was still unknown.
      So again, who made the attack on Snizhne July 15 ?

      • stranger

        Who believes official Ukraine? They bombed own Snezhnoe and denied that. IF any Russian jet was there, could you imagine what YELLING would be raised ranging from Poroshenko to NYT and WP. There were NO any Russian jets in Ukraine for all the war.

          • stranger

            Nobody believes nobody. Im just saying it would be ridiculous to take for granted the official statements of Ukrainian side as an evidence.

          • stranger

            I’m saying about the war actions at Donbas. MH17 is a completely different topic. For MH17 I would never ever believe Ukraine turned off all military radars and civilian primary ones on the 17th, as they claimed to DSB to justify why they didn’t provide any primary radar data.
            Also Ukraine said there were not military flies on the 17th because allegedly their jet was shot down at the high altitude on the previous 16th. But there are peoples witnesses they heard Ukrainian jets even on the 17th.

          • Rob

            You still did not identify a single lie by Ukraine, while many lies by Russia have been exposed by media outlets, especially Bellingcat.

            If it were a Ukraine fighter on July 15 attacking Snizhne, Russia could easily show radar images (which according to Russia are able to detect even a small drone at that distance) to expose the Ukrainian lie.
            Yet that never happened; not a peep from Russia on this incident.

            Which means that the Ukrainian claim that a Russian fighter bombed Snizhne in the morning of July 15 still stands, and Bellingcat cannot use it as evidence against Ukraine.

          • Rob

            The interesting part is that if this was a Russian false flag attack, that the Russians choose Snizhne as the place where they wanted to place a BUK.
            Why Snizhne ? For one, it is close enough to the Russian border for direct communication with a BUK command unit.

            After all, you don’t hand over a BUK TELAR and tell the separatists to have fun with it, and shoot at anything that moves.

        • Stepan

          Man, it seems you are working none stop, 9 to 5 in both languages (I have red your posts in russian-speaking comments section. You can continue to undermine clear evidences of russian involvement in killing of 300 of passengers, invent ukrainian SU 24 planes or putin’s plane as a target… You even can deny presence of russian weapons and soldiers in Crimea and Donbass. Your slavish co-citizens will believe you without any prove (they are afraid of learning how deep into trouble your junta have gotten them) and rest of the world will not believe you ever again after nonstop lies… Keep working, comrade!

          • Hugh Eaven

            Rob: “If it were a Ukraine fighter on July 15 attacking Snizhne, Russia could easily show radar images ”

            You’re making that up, Rob. Even the NYT analysed the attacking plane flew very likely west-east, considering the missile strike damages. And so far the few witnesses reported low flying, which is indeed the usual Su-25 attack vector for ground targets (while releasing flares against SAM). No way the normal Russian radar picked that up! On the other hand Ukraine would have likely picked up any west approach as that would have brought the plane deeper into Ukraine and likely in reach of all mobile and fixed radar units and spotters guarding the more active battle zone there.

            What interests me from the Ukrainian denials is the possibility that the whole of the Air Force was not under a single command at the time and not all missions clocked and booked.

          • Rob

            Hugh, that is interesting. NYT reported as you said an attack from west to east :
            However, the impacts (as witnessed by the apartment building on the picture in that publication) suggest a north-south impact (the apartments are positioned east-west).
            Do you have an explanation for where they obtained their statement that “he angle of the 10 holes punched by the bombs and the direction of the damage indicated that the bomber was flying from west to east. ” ?

          • Rob

            If I google “snizhne july 15 2014” there are a lot of images of this attack.
            Can Bellingcat maybe shed a light on this and determine if the attack was west-east or south-north ?

          • Aric Toler

            It was from a jet so it doesn’t really matter which direction it came from, as a Ukrainian plane could have been on either side. There’s no reason to believe that it was a Russian plane outside of a relatively outlandish comment from a Ukrainian official.

          • stranger

            Man, how nice to meet so clinical case. 🙂 I write by EST just because unfotunally have a lot of free time now. I have never intentionally said a bit of lie. Give a single citation. I’ve never said nothing you ascribe me here.
            I’m concerned that Russia is under constant flow of dirt and lies when I know that has nothing to do with reality. What Russia did it did, but don’t ascribe to her what she didn’t do and what you think she really is! (She because Russia is a female grammar gender word in Russian). Really that’s it. If you ever discussed based on established facts and logocal reasoning I would have nothing to add or challenge. But you are not. Look at what you are writing.
            My co-citizens really don’t need my to explaine anything. Some think more or less as I am, and I hope they are a majority. They are just very disappointed and don’t understand that crap and aggression pouring to Russia from everywhere. The others are strictly against the government and I have nothing to tell them to. Some understand what and why they are doing, some Id say are more deluded or have just nothing to do. If you read Russian you could see what kinds of replies they write me. Ask Aric.
            So no, even here you are fantastically far from reality, and I’m upset when the same attitude is applied to my country.
            We are just sharing our opinions and facts we know here, why so aggression

          • Rob

            Aric, we may never be able to prove (or provide publicly available evidence for) who committed the attack on Snizhne on July 15.
            But we may be able to determine from which direction the attack came.

            Also, the Snizhne attack has all the makings of a classic Russian false flag attack where they blame Ukraine :

            – If this was a Ukrainian attack, the supposed target was 300 meters away, which would mean a military blunder. Not likely to be the case.

            – Andriy Lysenko claimed they were not flying that day, and the reason was plausible : The day before a plane was downed along the Russian border, and the fate of the pilots was still unknown.
            Also, Lysenko is not ever been caught lying, while his counterparts at the Russian Defense Ministry lie all the time, as witnessed by Bellingcat’s reports.

            – The Snizhne attack was heavily promoted on Russian TV as another example of Ukrainians shooting at their own people. Which they do for EVERY attack even if fact-checkers (like ukraine@war) showed convincingly that the fire came from Russian controlled area.

            The scary part is that IF this was a Russian false flag attack, then it may very well have been committed to make the residents of Snizhne welcome a BUK system that would arrive two days later. A BUK system that killed 298 innocent people.

          • stranger

            Rob, nice try, but check chronology. The building in Snezhnoe was destroyed on 15 jul, the Ukrainian Su25 was shot at a high alt 5.2-8.2 km on the 16 jul, after which Lysenko announced no flights on 17 jul when Boeing was shot. 3 sequential days.
            So we may assume Buk appeared there because of previous Ukrainian raids.
            Btw Su on 16 jul was shot at the alt unreacheble for hand held IAM, there should have been something heavier, may be that exactly Buk? Buk missed one missile, why do you think he didn’t spent it for Su on 16 jul.
            And what motherf..r sent rebels an SMS saying An 26 should fly on 17 jul and gave MH17 direction instead – that is the question.
            It was Ukraine who alway blamed Russia for own crimes. This time is not an exception.
            I understand you want to defend your Ukraine, but don’t lie for that, truth is easy to tell, truth will always win.

            I understand

          • Rob

            stranger said (in a comment below) :

            “14 jul 14 An-26 was shot at a higher 6.5km
            Same day, Ukraine increased to FL320”

          • Rob

            And since the fate of the pilots of that AN-26 was not yet determined, Ukraine was NOT flying on the morning of July 15 when the Snizhne attack occurred.

          • stranger

            They might have said so, doesn’t mean they didn’t. Another couple of Su were shot on 16 jul. Anyway give a link to the official statement of no flights on 15th, published before 15th, not afterwards?

          • Rob

            Aric, regarding that Snizhne attack, here is a picture of one of the buildings (along Lenin street) :
            This is taken from the July 16 GoogleEarth (WorldView) image at 48.019230°N, 38.757507°E.

            Now, how did that hole in the south wall come about if the attack came “from the west” as the NYT article suggests ?

            To me, it looks like the attack must have come from the South to make a hole like that in the South wall of that building.

      • stranger

        In the same way Ukraine denied other destructions and victims at Donbas. “They are firing to them themselves” became a men.

        • Rob

          Yeah, right. Tell that to the the people in the Mariupol attacks, and the Volnovakha checkpoint attack, and Kramatorsk, and Artemivsk, both attacked with cluster munition, and in Donetsk, against the very people that these “separatists” claim to protect, the deadly attacks on school 63, and the Leninsky bus stop, and the Jan 30 mortar attacks, ALL of these CLEARLY were fired from Russian controlled areas.

          • stranger

            Tell that to the citizens of Slavyansk, Kramatorsk, Gorlovka, Donetsk, Luhansk. Where Ukraine used avia bombers, tanks, heavy artillery, grads to fire on those cities disregarding the civilian casualties. How many civilians died – 2000? Because Ukraine wanted to fight away rebels from their cities.
            That is NOT a symmetrical case. You give just particular cases against the systematic killing of own civilians civilians.
            “both attacked with cluster munition” you probably confuse with Syria. What cluster munition in Ukraine? But grads and Uragans are even worse.

          • Rob

            OK. Tell me ONE specific example of Ukraine attacking “citizens of Slavyansk, Kramatorsk, Gorlovka, Donetsk, Luhansk.”.

          • stranger

            Are you kidding?? Google the pictures of destructions in those cities.

          • stranger

            I’m saying the destruction of Donbas and killing of civilians was systematic, not several picked up examples. The rebels didn’t advance to capture cities and towns. Mariupol was revoked immediately after the yelling in western press. May be even the fire on Mariupol you refer was a provocation. The rebels defended own cities which Ukraine tried to capture using inappropriate weapo.

          • Rob

            Yes. Caused by Russian attacks, as I pointed out for 7 explicit cases which were clearly fired from Russian controlled areas.
            Now once again : Show me ONE case where the destruction was clearly caused by Ukrainians. I bet you CAN’T, because there is none.

          • stranger

            “Yes. Caused by Russian attacks, as I pointed out for 7 explicit cases which were clearly fired from Russian controlled areas.”
            Interesting, how killing of civilians in Slavyansk, Gorlovka and Kramorsk are related to the particular and no so damaging inside you refer to, if you incidents happened much later, when Donetsk was already beseaged by Ukrainian army??

            “Now once again : Show me ONE case where the destruction was clearly caused by Ukrainians.”
            You were able to give those examples because they were specifically picked up and turned into propagandistic picture for the west. Many of them are still arguable. Poroshenko went to US with the cut piece of that bus stricken by the blast.
            Rebels don’t work for propaganda, also because it would be useless.
            May be this event became a mem. Did your hear about Gorlovskaya Madonna? Enjoy, that was after the Ukrainian artillery tried to target an administrative building it Gorlovka in the very beginning of this conflict where civilians didn’t even perceived it as a war or danger and freely walked in the streets.
            That is that the example you asked for. Satisfied?
            But I said that the very idea to through army agains own rebellion region was a crime. And that Ukraine systematically fired w/o target to cities and other densely populated areas. That is a systematic crime verses you several negligible by the contrast to all other cases.
            Focusing on details prevents from seen the whole sometimes. “When they don’t see forest behind separate trees, they start to count particular leafs” (c)

          • Rob

            Yes, I heard about the Gorlivka madonna.
            Yet it remains unclear who fired the GRAD missiles.

          • stranger

            That was NOT a grad missile, that was artillery shells. They were targeting the IAB building on the rebels territory.The case was clear. The rebels detained Ukrainian artillerists who were responsible.

          • Rob

            Stranger, you don’t KNOW that Ukrainians fired the shots.
            You are just repeating Russian propaganda, but they present no evidence.
            The issue is that the Gorlovka attach that killed that lady and her baby is similar to the 7 attacks (killing 96 people in total) that VERIFIABLY were fired from Russian-controlled areas.
            The pattern is this : Shoot up some civilian targets, blast the casualties on Russian TV and media, and blame Ukraine for it.
            It’s all part of Russia’s dirty war in Ukraine, and MH17 is a part of that. Same mechanism, same lies, same blame on Ukraine.

          • stranger

            “The pattern is this : Shoot up some civilian targets, blast the casualties on Russian TV and media, and blame Ukraine for it.”
            Just BS, I don’t know what to say else. I saw the interview with the people who participated there where they captured Ukrainian artillerists who fired on MVD/MIA building. That what Ukraine is doing – they are firing on themselves, they besiege themselves, to put all blame for Russia at least verbally. “Russian propaganda” have enough of real cases of Ukrainian and volunteer battalions atrocities documented by OSCE. What other 96 victims are you saying if 2000 are dead by now?

          • Rob

            That is 96 victims proven to be killed by fire from Russian controlled territory (394 if we add MH17), and 0 victims proven to be killed from Ukrainian controlled territory.

        • ttb

          Weary at despairing of the willingness of some to dismiss out of hand the stack of evidence that puts the Russians firmly in the dock while playing up the flimsiest of fig leaves that creates another smoking gun – I have resolved to find it amusing instead.

          “But there are peoples witnesses they heard Ukrainian jets even on the 17th.” I believe their might have been as many as seven (7) people who stated they saw or heard what they thought/presumed/were sure was a military jet (or jets) on the day. Those who still play this up ignore the 100+ who state they either didn’t see any other aircraft or can confidently state there were no other aircraft present -and these are people who live in an area assumably broadly sympathetic to the rebels. Then there’s also the fact that the late-in-coming Russian radar also confirms there were no other suspicious aircraft in the area.

          • stranger

            “and these are people who live in an area assumably broadly sympathetic to the rebels. ”
            Aha so it is not a russian occupition, local people support the rebellion?!

            They are sympathetic to the rebels? And all cats’ investigation is based on Ukrainian Security Services SBU records. Remember how the cats researched the Russian sat image with that frequency analysis and epic failed. But still they could have at least try a frequency analysis of those records to find point of mount and validate authenticity. They never tryied, they review anything from Russia under a microscope and take everything from Ukrainian special services for granted and don’t ever try to validate.

          • ttb

            “Aha so it is not a russian occupition, local people support the rebellion?!” Who said anything about an occupation? Incursion stranger. Try incursion. Better again try belligerent incursion. Besides it wouldn’t matter if the viewed the Russians as their liberators. There’s a thing called Rule of Law and the Russians know full well their offside of it. Otherwise they wouldn’t bother their holes with all the cloak and dagger stuff sneaking gear and men in and out. Also I described the locals as likely ‘broadly sympathetic’ to the rebels. I’ve nothing to base that on other than this is Eastern Ukraine we’re talking about. And even if they are -a lot of people up the road from me in Northern Ireland are ‘broadly sympathetic’ with Irish Republicanism -it doesn’t mean they support or supported the actions of the IRA.

          • stranger

            Yes. Nevetherless that means locals support the rebels and Russia and rather blame Ukraine who came to bomb them. May be in the very beginning it was like you describe, but when real blood shed started and 2000 civilians died, locals took rather rebels and Russian side.
            Many times from the highest official Ukrainian side it was called Russian occupation and claimed they are fighting Russian regular army.
            Imagine England sent aviation, tanks, artillery to finally get rid of IRA in military way and started to bomb and shell Irish cities, what would most of Irishes feel? They would rather support all their against all who came with a sword. Difficult to imagine, but more or less that is Ukrainian reality. Donetsk the largest city is really all under fire which can start any time unpredictably, one town or other the shell may come at any time. Schools, hospitals nobody care. The civilians are really under constant threat from Ukrainian fire. The rebels fire too but try target only Ukrainian positions and they just stay, Ukraine craling forward, the rebels would not fire if Ukraine didn’t attack.

            The rule of law – sounds great. The rule of law says Ukraine may use any weapon except those of mass destruction to target rebels everywhere, even in cities, even in densely populated areas, even by massive fire grads systems. The 2000 civilians are just “collateral damage” and everybody else who will be killed just in all the mess. Right?
            Where was the Rule of Law when the illegal violent bloody coup happened and legally elected president was removed by a small groups of nationalist who didn’t represent all the people? Why so white West did everything to promote and support the coup and actually made it happen when they new they are working against Russian interests, but worse of all the current government is not a western government, the revolution led to only

          • stranger

            …only to the chaos. No any western principals or laws are actually working.
            There is the rule of law and rule of moral. Which is far not the same. Though I agree to anything you would answer. Still the rule of moral matters even though that is much more ambiguous and volatile matter.

          • Rob

            stanger, you claim that Ukraine is responsible for the destruction in Donbass, yet the evidence suggests that Russia is bombing Ukraine and blaming Ukraine for it. Bellingcat has recorded hundreds of such bombings, and specific bombings are analysed by other fact-checkers as well.

            Russia’s war process of targeting Ukrainian civilians and then blaming Ukraine for it is documented very well. Here is one example :
            This is school 63 in Donetsk, where two teenagers lost their life.
            The attack came clearly from Russian-controlled area.

          • stranger

            Rob, you are getting farther and farther from reality.
            You are writing with an accent. What is your original language?

          • ttb

            You’re getting farther and farther off topic and your contextualising the Russian/rebel response, as you see it, reeks of whataboutery. Russia doesn’t get to sneak a SAM launcher across a border, fire a missile into one of the worlds busiest trans-contintental air corridors and then shrug their shoulders at the resulting horrific loss of life and claim none of this would’ve happened if Ukraine hadn’t been jerking them around –which is about as close to an admission as they’ve gotten.

            Your Irish analogy is lumpen and clumsy -let me try straighten it for you. Following the hypothetical events you describe the (actual legitimate) Irish Army, decide to assist the (paramilitary, non-state grouping) Provisional IRA and smuggle a BUK missile launcher over the border into Northern Ireland where they accidently shoot down an airliner. In a state of panic the IRA claim the airliner was shot down by an RAF jet. Witnesses come forward and, in an area considered supportive of the IRA, just seven of them give versions of events that in any way back up the IRAs version of what happened (including one who subsequently admitted to Reuters he’d been coached). Worse again –radar data from everywhere and everyone, including from the recalcitrant, un co-operative and vexatious Dublin authorities, confirms there were no military aircraft present.

          • stranger

            ttb, whoever you are there, please curb your nasty manners and try to keep a constructive and respectful discussion. Don’t pretend to be less smart than you are. Thank you.
            Donbas was the area of air figting. Every day Ukrainian combat jets flew to bomb the rebels positions and produce collateral victims. Many of them, at least shown in DSB report, were shot down by rebels. Everybody knew the rebels have anti aircraft missaleses. Hand held in the beginning with the cealing may be like 3km. Ukraine closed the skyes for civilian aviation up to that 4km or so. On 16 July one day before the catastrophe (!) Ukrainian jet was shot at a higher altitude like 6,5km. Ukraine was concerned and reportedly temporarily withdrawn further flights. Ukraine immediately closed the sky up to like 9.5km. According to their official press conference Ukraine knew the rebels possessed buk. I believe even 2(!) buks were announced. Russian television announced the rebels would be defending with a buk. That is all before the catastrophe.
            Now the question, why did not Ukraine closed the sky to a higher altitude where all commercial liners are flying? Not to loose commercial income? And if rebels down it, that would only serve Ukrainian targets?
            It’s interesting to note, Russia also issued a standard warning in the system used to trace a route for all avia companies in the world (forgot the name) for own adjacent areas up to the same like 9.5 (I don’t remember correct numbers, the correspondence between them is important) but also lower than commercial flights fly. And just a day or so before the catastrophe, Russia added some comment to this warning, but didn’t correctly issued a new one, saying a much higher altitude to close. Strange..
            The Malaysia avia company tracing the route using this warning system in an automatic mode didn’t ever noticed a lower restriction and potential dander, because the sky at Crimea (!) was previously closed by the west as a annexed area, but Donbas where avia fighting was going was not! Malaysia had to diver to the north up to Donbas. Avoided the closed peaceful Crimea and got caught at open Donbas war zone.
            So that is also a question why the sky was not closed at the aria of air fighting.
            As for Irish IRA analogy, I just wanted to show you that Ireland is not Donbas and the situation is different. I gave you the situation in Donbas in terms of Ireland. You further analogy with Boeing is the same ridiculous as mine. That’s it, no any other here.
            And you are trying to divert from the question to Rob – what is his time zone and original language. I guess Ukrainian. Which is great by itself of course

          • ttb

            Dry yer eyes Stranger. This is a big boys website –and in any event I can’t see where or what I’ve written anything that you could find disrespectful.
            In any event you’ve now fallen into the pit deniers usually end up in – the victim-blaming, wife-beater logic of “it’s Ukraines fault for not closing their airspace”*.
            So far as I can see Ukraine played it by the book with regards it’s airspace. It was entitled to try and keep its airspace open, can ill afford to forego what I’ve read might be €2billion in overflight payments and could be accused of ‘caving in to terrorism’ in the event it unilaterally stopped all flights. Returning to the Irish analogy for a moment if the principal were applied here that the threat of an attack must result in closing the route we shouldn’t have had a Dublin – Belfast train service since about 1965. There is no precedent I can think of wherein a non-state grouping had this class of weapon put at their disposal.

            More likely though was that, despite the viciousness already seen in this conflict, not in their wildest imaginings did they think some abject loon would fire a SAM into L980 through 50%+ cloud cover at a target they evidently hadn’t ID’d. That they appear to have sat around the place for around 3 hours before firing only fuels my suspicion there was alcohol involved.

            *There are questions I would like the Ukrainian side to answer and I’m sure they’ll have to explain when this comes to court. I’d like to see the claims of Vadim Lukashevich explored further. Namely that Ukrainian authorities arrested an individual that afternoon at Dnipro airport after he allegedly signalled to seperatists by text the departure of an An26. I’d like to know what those Ukrainian authorities did next if indeed they did anything at all.

          • stranger

            “might be €2billion in overflight payments and could be accused of ‘caving in to terrorism’ in the event it unilaterally stopped all flights. ”
            No that doesn’t work like that. Let’s refer to our bible – DSB report.

            Section 4 of DSB report: Flight Route System
            States publish NOTAM messages describing any possible hazards at a specific area and other information to international Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) System used by all flight operators to trace the route originally and monitor the conditions along the route.

            If you read further, very interesting:

            Fig 77
            The sky has been already closed at Crimea (!) for a long time. But for Donbas Ukraine sent the set of NOTAM to close the sky like that:
            6 jun 14 An-30 was shot at <4.5km
            Same day, Ukraine first time closed the alts to FL260
            14 jul 14 An-26 was shot at a higher 6.5km
            Same day, Ukraine increased to FL320
            16 jul 14 two Su-25 are shot at 6.2-8.2km
            No reaction. The very next day Ukraine claimed to stop all own military flights and the Boeing catastrophe.
            18 jul 14 Ukraine issued flying prohibited restriction, but too late

            So Ukraine have never closed the alt FL330 where MH17 flew. Malaya and other flight operators automatic routing system didn't trigger a alt match, the routed the trace w/o knowing of anything above.

            It's curious that Russia also issued NOTAMs for
            own adjacent territory and one was very fancy if pointed out FL330 but is comment or so, so the auto system would not notice.

            I believe FL330 means 33000 feet or 10.058km, where MH17 was flying.

            "Ukrainian authorities arrested an individual that afternoon at Dnipro airport after he allegedly signalled to seperatists by text the departure of an An26."
            Wow, that is interesting, what date it was, I hope not 17 jul? So texted on An26 and gave the route of MH17 instead! Fk, what if those authorities took the separatists phone number he sent SMS to and sent a fake message about another An26 by giving MH17 direction? Good conspirology! But seriously Buk could have waited for something they thought should have flown from that direction. Give your link please.

          • Rob

            stranger said :
            “Ukrainian authorities arrested an individual that afternoon at Dnipro airport after he allegedly signalled to seperatists by text the departure of an An26”

            Where exactly did you get the quote from ? It’s not from the Dutch Safety Board report.

          • stranger

            Rob, that was written by ttb two comments ago, reportably Vadim Lukashevich claims that.

      • Dissident Voice

        This entire story supports – as other stories do – the inclination of official Ukrainian sources to be involved in cooking up false flag narratives to blame Russia and get NATO involved in a war against Russia.

        • Rob

          Since the Ukrainians were not flying on July 15, who made the attack on Snizhne July 15 ?

          • Dissident Voice

            You are elevating a statement after the fact from a dubious source to a dogma.

    • stranger

      There are a lot of radars there civilian and military. Do you think a Russian jet could have been unnoticed.

      • Rob

        Apart from the fact that the Donestsk airport radar was bombed by ‘separatists’ the day before, and thus that for close targets, Ukrainian radar was rather blind at the time, don’t you think that if this was a Ukrainian fighter, that the Russian radars would not have picked it up ?

        • stranger

          I don’t know did Russian radars see the Ukrainian air activity. Probably. Why would they share with public?
          There were a lot of Ukrainian anti aircraft complexes with military radars over there. I don’t think they would neglect a possibility to hummer Russia via the western press if something. Russian aviation was never ever seen there so that would be a sensation. In the same way I see no any necessity for a single lone Russian jet to target a civilian building in Sneznoe probably under the rebels control. A concentration of Ukrainian forces would be a more logical target.
          Ukraine tried to fight rebels out from their cities and densely populated areas, not vice verse.

          • Rob

            Stanger said
            “There were a lot of Ukrainian anti aircraft complexes with military radars over there”
            Which evidence do you have for how close the nearest Ukrainian anti aircraft complexes where ?

          • stranger

            I guess, because Ukraine does have them and closing their eyes on the air above Donbas and above the Russian border would be unconcern.
            Anyway a better guess than your Russian jet. What was the reason for that, you give just official Ukrainian lie. Why Russian? Because Russia is always to blame and Ukraine to wash out white.

          • stranger

            For example we’ve seen an Ukrainian TV program showing the Ukrainian buks with heave radar systems somewhere in the region of Kramators or that side. Could those buk support radars see Snezhnoe up to Russian border? Needs to calculate. Could there be buks or other radars in other places? Likely.

          • Rob

            stranger said :
            “…Ukrainian buks with heave radar systems somewhere in the region of Kramators or that side. ”

            That would be Kramatosk FYI. Which is more than 100 km from the MH17 crash site. Likely beyond the reach of their radar.

          • Rob

            Kramatorsk is about 120 km from Snizhne. Clearly out of range for BUK radar. So Ukraine could not have seen a Russian fighter on July 15 attacking a civilian target in Snizhne.

          • stranger

            Well first of all according to Wike the range of buk supporting radar(not telar itself) is at least 100 km, second why do you think Ukrainian buks and radars were only where Ukrainian tv showed them once?
            But we stared from debunking your claim based only on ukrainian lie, that it was Russian jet. No any other reasons to believe that, neither witnessers nor the whole logic of conflict. Btw Ukraine said it was “an unidentified jet” they never mentioned Russia, ” Russian jet ” appeared only on social media.

          • stranger

            “Kramatorsk is about 120 km from Snizhne. Clearly out of range for BUK radar. So Ukraine could not have seen a Russian fighter on July 15 attacking a civilian target in Snizhne.”
            )) do you follow your logic? Your “logic” implies Ukraine has only one base and buks only in one place which was shown on public television?

            But anyway, we started from: there was NO ANY Russian jet there. That was your original statement followed by this discussion.

            Give us the sources where did you get that was the Russian jet? If it just your guess, what logic your guess is based on?

          • Rob

            Your argument seems to be that the Ukrainians must have had some radar that could detect the July 15 fighter, but the evidence we have suggests that Ukrainians could NOT have detected them (being 120 km away).
            However, Russian radar systems claim to be able to detect even a BUK missile over Snizhne, so these Russian systems surely would have detected (allegedly Ukrainian) fighter plane over Snizhne on July 15.
            Yet not a peep out of Russia on this incident.
            Which is so telling.

          • stranger

            My argument is that Russia didn’t have and couldn’t ever have jets there. If you claim that you need any evidences or at least reasonable considerations.

          • Rob

            stranger said “Russia didn’t have and couldn’t ever have jets there”.
            Now that is just silly.
            Of course they could have jets there. It’s only 10 miles across the border.
            That’s an easy flight, and more interestingly, it is within the reach of BUK communication between a TELAR in Snizhne and a command vehicle in the Russian Kuybyshevo area.

          • stranger

            Rob, if Russian jets were there in Ukraine, your new nationalistic anti Russian regime would be kicked of Kiev in a couple of weeks. Russia doesn’t use force other than helping the rebels to keep their ground. Russian jet there would contradict all spirit and logic of this conflict. Moreover you have zero evidences just none to claim that, even official Ukraine didn’t call it Russian jet, they said an “unidentified jet”. If it were Russian indeed Ukraine would not call it so.

    • CFL68

      The Russian propagandists here would love to drag you down into the weeds of nebulous and derivative debates that can never be resolved.

      In the context of Putin and his generals and rebel leaders claiming at the top of their voices that they have no Buks, you could show them multiple videos/photos with exact geolocation deep in rebel territory and they will still claim ‘there is no evidence’ – or will blame Nuland, etc., or fret about NATO aggression.

      Ukraine was definitely bombing rebel positions. There is no point in haggling over which days or which models of planes or ordinance. Rebels were firing rockets/shells and blowing stuff up too. Its a war.

      The key issue Russia has been trying to hide is the fact that its chain of command is involved directly in starting and sustaining the war against its neighbor Ukraine. The buk is just more evidence.

      • stranger

        CFL Whom did you call Russian propagandist, moron, me who is not living in russia or Mr. Bushkin or other few rare commenters. You idiot, just read what I’m writing. I told nothing from what you ascribe me. Moreover all comments of critics here including myself and some others makes more sence that other regular commenters yelling and whining. You at least try to understand what exactly people try to say. Or come to see your psychiatrist, as I have advices to you.

  2. Dissident Voice

    So you claim Khmuryi /Petrovsky is Dubinsky, but that on itself does not give any better insights in the SBU tapes. Nonetheless in this article these are taken over at face value except for the parts that are so clearly wrong you have to invent some work-around to make the rest fit the narrative.

    Is it clear at your own desks the analysis as written down here contain giant leaps to conclusions and uncritical reference to SBU rendering of the intercepts?

    Interestingly “Today the second” [plane allegedly downed on the 17th] is purported to be a mistake made by Khmuryi, but of course a scientific approach would entail assessment of other possibilities. More acceptable would be a scenario in which the SBU spliced and edited these parts of the tape using different conversations from different dates and so also misdating the produced conversation -as they obviously did with other tapes.

    However, Bellingcat chooses to endorse the entire SBU narrative based on the intercepts now, only after two and a half year. Why only now?

    In that case it would be interesting to see how Bellingcat could match the story of the Chernukhino launch into the bigger picture, a SBU story of a presumed “confession” already issued 5,5 hrs after the crash.

    • stranger

      “In that case it would be interesting to see how Bellingcat could match the story of the Chernukhino launch into the bigger picture, a SBU story of a presumed “confession” already issued 5,5 hrs after the crash.”
      Hm, why did they miss so important evidence?

      Bellingcat is deaf and silent to your critics and doesn’t care as long as they can produce sensational material, but actually just reprint the work of others. The errors and garbling as well as ignoring not fit material and pushing the evidences into the predefined theory doesn’t hurt their popularity and salaries so far. So why change?

      • Dissident Voice

        Unfortunately they copied my “confession” of “Bad” on the forum, but without the warnings attached to them. Cherry picking?

    • Rob

      I second that, Alex.
      Bellingcat, you guys are amazing.
      Without your work we would not very little about what happened on that dreadful day July 17, 2014.

  3. Cody Johnson Jr

    I have to ask what kind of intelligence service advertises that it’s tapping phones by putting the recordings on youtube.

    • Dissident Voice

      The one that wants to deliver a first strike to start up an information war to get to the hearts and minds of useful audiences. This all seems to have been meant to stage a trial by media.

  4. Cody Johnson Jr

    bellingcat wrote:
    “The clearest confirmation of our investigation came courtesy of Russian actor Ivan Okhlobystin, who was photographed with Dubinsky on his Odnoklassniki profile. In a February 16, 2017 op-ed with RT (archive), Okhlobystin confirms that Sergey Dubinsky is indeed the separatist figure who went by the name Khmuryi and Petrovsky while serving under Igor “Strelkov” Girkin in Sloviansk and Donetsk.”

    The editorial says nothing about Dubinsky using the name Petrovsky.

      • Cody Johnson Jr

        So the SBU gets the name wrong, date of birth wrong and promotes him to major general from colonel.

        bellingcat’s explanation is that the wrong date of birth is just a mistake, that Dubinsky must have been calling himself Petrovsky while in Donbass and the incorrect rank was a new rank given to him by the rebel forces.

        It seems what’s going on here is making excuses for the SBU’s dodgy information, more than anything else.

        • stranger

          An example of SBU record amateur frequency analysis. Not ideal, but the right way to go.

          Preferably the other records would be cheched for points of cut and mount which are possible for phrases in the same conversation or even for separate parts inside the phrase. The voice authentity analysis should be done also – is it belongs to the person and isn’t it an actor’s voice.
          That is what can confirm validity of those evidences.
          Unfoturnatelly Bcats analyze only Russian evidences and believe every crap coming from Ukrainian special services. But that is the personal interest, you know, career, fame, money for mortgage.

      • Cody Johnson Jr

        You /Inform Napalm etc say Dubinsky is aka Petrovsky.

        He has never said he was using the name, nor has the anon person posting as Petrovsky on the forum claimed to be Dubinsky.

        I don’t think you have identified Dubinsky as aka Petrovsky except in your own minds.

  5. Rob

    Do you guys have any information on the relationship between Dubinsky and Igor Bezler ?
    After all, Bezler received a call from (spotter) “Naimanets”, just 2 minutes before MH17 was shot down :

    The question is : Was “Naimanets” a real spotter, and was Bezler really in the line of command, or is this call a fake, and real command to launch the missile went via another channel ?

    • Rob

      The point is : If Dubinsky (Khmuryi) claims that this is “my BUK-M” then what is the role of Bezler in the chain of command ?

      • Cody Johnson Jr

        According to all the ‘tapped calls’ put together, the BUK is everybody’s and nobody’s and in more than one location at the same time.

        • stranger

          Schrödinger’s Buk. It exists only when and where one observes it. Russian Quantum Mechanics.

    • Daniel Romein

      There is a connection between Dubinsky and Bezler via ‘Botsman’, a person who very likely was the deputy of Bezler. However, we do not have any information who ‘Naimanets’ is. It is not to us to decide if the intercepts are real or not, although we don’t have reasons to believe they are not, as they correspond with the timeline of the events, supported by videos, photographs and messages on social media.

      • stranger

        Why you cannot do a simple frequency anylysis of the phone call records? That might potentially show the points of cuts and mounts, and glueing together of inconsistent pieces with different noise patterns.

      • Cody Johnson Jr

        if it isnt up to you to decide if they are real or not why are you concocting stories around them as if they are real?

      • stranger

        Why didn’t you put a large alert-disclaimer in the beginning of your articles saying what you’ve just told us, that you cannot/dont want to establish the validity of the records and are not sure?!
        Another question, why when it comes to blame Russia, you investigate under microscope the minor thing you can catch to. But as for the evidences from Ukrainian special services, you mostly take it for granted?
        What is you strong prebias against Russia is based on?
        Another one pls. We’ve heard b/cats are financed by Google, Soros’ fund and a number of other funds. But we’ve figured out 2guys employees of B/cats are not doing research themselves and reprint third authors like yourself for example. Who finance those authors in turn? And more particularly who financed you, if you are the author of this article?
        Please don’t leave those critical questions rhetorical, would appreciate to hear the answers, thanks.

      • stranger

        You were so eager to prove Russia is guilty for humanitarian convoy bombing when this argument was used by your governments to hummer Russia in UN to defend the rest of their armed proxies hiding in Aleppo. Then the UN investigation proved Syrian army is behind that bombing and Russia is not guilty!
        Why didn’t you publically apologize to Russia and didn’t publish the official statement of denial?

      • Rob

        Thank you Daniel. That makes sense.
        Let me also note that this conversation between “Naimanets” and Bezler occurred 2 minutes before MH17 was shot down, which puts constraints on the timeline :

        The conversation itself lasts 30 seconds, and the flight time of the missile was some 30 seconds too. This leaves only 60 seconds for Bezler to “report to commanders”, to switch the TELAR radar on, to acquire the target, to lock into the target, and to press the button. Which is a pretty tight timeline.

        Seems to me that either Bezler was in direct contact with the TELAR in Snizhne, or Bezler was not in the chain of command, and the whole call was fabricated to make it look like the “separatists” were involved.

  6. Cody Johnson Jr

    and of course the intercepts dont correspond accurately to real events. there are numerous problems with them.

    for example the Buk is specifically ordered to go with the Vostok tank convoy. Ukraine tried to present the story that it did, using a still of the Buk from a video and a photo of a Vostok armoured truck.

    But we know the Buk did not go with any tanks. so what’s that about?

    • stranger

      We can also recall the very first call interception of SBU where it was said “Chernukhinskie” shot down the Boeing, which clearly contradicts to all further records mixes.

      • Rob

        Yes. The “separatists” don’t know s**t about what’s going on.
        That’s because the Russian military was doing all the work.

        • Rob

          Also note that Bezler was in charge of Horlivka, and NOT “Chernukhinskie”.
          So either the separatists don’t know s**t about what’s going on (since Russian military pulls the strings) or Bezler was not in in chain of command for the MH17 downing (and thus the call to Bezler was fabricated).

        • Cody Johnson Jr

          Really? why would the separatists be giving orders/spotting planes then?

          Why bother presenting the wiretaps if they are meaningless?


Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)