The Hague is preparing a trial under MH17: on the current situation


On the morning of March 9, 2020, the trial conducted by the Hague court in the case of the crash of the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 airliner flying MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur should begin in the Schiphol criminal complex. The liner was shot down in the Donetsk region on July 17, 2014. This court has real chances to turn into a “process of the century”, but only on one condition - if, unlike the “investigation” that lasted several years, it will be objective and pass without political engagement. Otherwise, we are just waiting for another section of the show, the directors and directors of which are well known.


Perhaps those who are to sit in The Hague will nevertheless succeed in revealing not only the mechanism of the monstrous provocation of six years ago, but also the scheme of actions of certain countries and structures aimed at putting the blame for the tragedy that killed almost 300 people on the state, he was not at all involved. However, for this they will have to, first of all, break out of the framework imposed from outside and “instructions” aimed at leading the accusation in a strictly predetermined direction.

The fact that the members of the Joint Investigative Group (CCG), which includes representatives of Malaysia, the Netherlands, Ukraine, Australia and Belgium, has so far failed to do so, is completely obvious. Last June, they already announced the names of the suspects in the case: the Russians Igor Girkin (Strelkov), Sergey Dubinsky, Oleg Pulatov and the Ukrainian Leonid Kharchenko, not bothering to back up such grave accusations with irrefutable evidence. Of the same quality were the statements made earlier by them about the “Russian missiles,” supposedly firing their air defense systems and the like.

Representatives of the court in The Hague said they “called on” the suspects to participate in the hearing, but if they refused, they would do well without them. Not the best sign ...

However, as it became known, one person from the above list still agreed to participate in the process. Monique Bunk, the Hague District Court Public Relations Coordinator who made the relevant statement, did not clarify the name or even confirm his direct presence in The Hague. According to her, a certain “private law firm” contacted the court, ready to represent the interests of the defendant. Nothing is known more on this subject.

But a real sensation may be a statement during the hearing of a private detective from Germany, Joseph Resch, who spent several years conducting an independent investigation of the circumstances and causes of the disaster. This person has repeatedly stated that he has some important information about the incident, stubbornly ignored by the international community, up to the specific names of the perpetrators of the death of MN-17. Resh is convinced that without his testimony, the whole process in The Hague would be an absurdity that cannot be taken seriously. At the same time, he also does not intend to personally participate in the conference room, intending to transfer this duty to his trusted assistant.

Numerous interviews with this detective, who published a book about his investigation, suggest that the data that he is ready to publish will not please anyone who has been fanning anti-Russian hysteria around the tragedy all these years.

What can be called before the start of the process points that work completely in favor of Ukraine is, first of all, distrust, which last year expressed to the version put forward by its representatives about the involvement in the Russian catastrophe, Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamad. It is also more than strange that the Kiev transfer of the DPR in the course of the exchange of held persons at the end of 2019 by Vladimir Tsemakh, which Kiev at one time tried to present as “the most important witness of Russia's guilt” in this case, if not at all, was accused. It turns out that no "evidence" exists, as well as guilt itself? No less intriguing is the fact that at the end of last year both representatives of Ukraine were suddenly removed from the international investigation group on MH17, and it’s not even clear at whose initiative either the leadership of the SSG or Kiev.

Well, it is entirely possible that justice in the Hague will indeed triumph - contrary to all efforts made to ensure that this does not happen.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

270 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Pessimist22 30 January 2020 07: 21 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Th something fast, 6 years of investigations of everything and already know everything.
    1. YOUR 30 January 2020 07: 41 New
      • 19
      • 2
      +17
      He wrote about this more than once. Any lieutenant artilleryman or zrvshnik will determine where it came from, build graphics on the holes and determine the launch site of the missile. But for some reason, a respected commission, the wreckage of the plane wasn’t taken away and the bodies of the dead were rushed to relatives and buried without a thorough inspection.
      1. Mar.Tirah 30 January 2020 08: 17 New
        • 9
        • 1
        +8
        Quote: YOUR
        He wrote about this more than once.

        Why did you write? There are officially published conclusions of the Russian commission. What kind of rocket, where they shot, where they hit, even the approximate number of the rocket was published. But only to no avail. Over the hill, this news was blotted out. Https: //novayagazeta.ru/articles/2015/ 05/05/64063-eto-byl-171-buk-m1-187
        1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 08: 28 New
          • 5
          • 31
          -26
          The data from Almaz-Antey and the Russian Ministry of Defense have a serious jamb: Almaz-Antey claims that the Boeing was hit by a missile with a warhead WITHOUT I-beams (that is, not 9N314M), but the RF Ministry of Defense claims that on the rocket from which the part with the number was found, the warhead was 9N314M (with I-beams).
          1. Mar.Tirah 30 January 2020 08: 43 New
            • 14
            • 2
            +12
            Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
            The data from Almaz-Antey and the Russian Ministry of Defense have a serious jamb:

            We read ATTENTIVELY the conclusions of the engineers!
            1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 08: 46 New
              • 3
              • 25
              -22
              I would be much more grateful if your objection were to the point.
          2. BARKAS 30 January 2020 08: 53 New
            • 2
            • 11
            -9
            In fact, this is a clear cant of the investigation to use the wreckage of another rocket as a material evidence.
            1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 09: 00 New
              • 3
              • 37
              -34
              The investigation (at the moment, at least) did not “use it as a material evidence”. It appealed to people who could help with the examination of this fragment. But domestic commentators have already used it as a material evidence in the form of “look, this provesthat Boeing brought down the APU "(although the data from Almaz-Antey say that this is impossible).
              1. Mar.Tirah 30 January 2020 09: 13 New
                • 38
                • 5
                +33
                Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
                But domestic commentators have already used it as a piece of evidence in the form of “look, this proves that the Boeing was shot down by the APU” (although Almaz-Antey’s data say that this is impossible).

                Since when has the troll working on the side of the enemy, even though writing in Russian, become “a domestic commentator” to me? You are my friend, an enemy to me and you do not have a fatherland. I write to you again, carefully read the conclusions from the link I provided. 1.4. Conclusions on rocket type identification
                The nature of the damage and the appearance of the striking elements removed from the aircraft structure allow us to identify the most probable type of warhead (9N314M) and the striking elements - the “heavy” fraction in the form of “double tee”, “light-1” and “light-2” fractions in parallelepiped shape.

                The presence of these signs makes it possible to determine the type of SAM - 9M38M1, which is the main missile of the Buk-M1 SAM.

                It should be noted that for the complete identification of the means of destruction, it is necessary to analyze the chemical composition of the material plots along the edges of the holes in comparison with the chemical composition of the striking elements extracted from various parts of the aircraft. Modeling the process of pointing the 9M38M1 missile to the Boeing MH17 to the point where it was amazed, showed that the intersection of the trajectories of the rocket and the aircraft with the conditions specified in paragraphs 2.3-2.5., is realized only from a limited area - south of the village Zaroschenskoe.

                The size of the district is approximately 2,5 km from north to south and up to 3,5 km from west to east. The limitation of the launch area from west to east is due to the meeting conditions - the angle of intersection of the aircraft in the horizontal plane (75-78 degrees) and the maximum pointing errors (up to 2-3 degrees). The limitation of the launch area from north to south is due to the meeting conditions - the angle of intersection of the aircraft in the vertical plane (20-22 degrees), the magnitude of the slant range and the maximum pointing errors (up to 2-3 degrees).

                A subsequent assessment of the aircraft covering the fragmentation field in the vertical and horizontal planes confirms that the intersection of the trajectories of the rocket and the aircraft with the conditions ensuring that all affected areas are covered by fragments is realized only from this limited area. Especially critical is the vertical angle of the meeting.

                It should be noted that it is in the area of ​​n.p. Zaroshchenskoye according to space intelligence data of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation on July 17.07.2014, 4 (No. 5, XNUMX cm below) were self-propelled firing systems of the Buk air defense system of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
                1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 09: 24 New
                  • 5
                  • 33
                  -28
                  Almaz-Antey performed twice. First, he made an analysis of the photographs and determined where the rocket came from. then he conducted his famous "full-scale experiment", there was a part "specifying the type of rocket", and it indicated that there could not be I-beams in the rocket that shot down a Boeing (and therefore could not have a 9N314M warhead). Here is a page from their report (published on the TASS website):

                  https://cdn3.tass.ru/width/746_f4e82b2e/tass/m2/uploads/i/20151014/4108341.png

                  1. aver2000 30 January 2020 13: 34 New
                    • 9
                    • 1
                    +8
                    Great for you. But this, therefore, is not from the same Almaz-Antey report?
                    1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 13: 37 New
                      • 2
                      • 16
                      -14
                      No, this is a page from an earlier report issued to conducting a "field experiment". Accordingly, this is a result that was later refined.
                      1. aver2000 30 January 2020 13: 38 New
                        • 10
                        • 1
                        +9
                        Vyacheslav, are you kidding me? How could a field experiment refine holes in a Boeing’s hull? He specified only the position of the rocket relative to the body of the aircraft, and that’s all.
                      2. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 13: 48 New
                        • 1
                        • 16
                        -15
                        I quote you the contents of the report written, published and presented at the official press conference by Almaz-Antey. And the page that I cited above, I did not draw.
                      3. aver2000 30 January 2020 13: 50 New
                        • 5
                        • 1
                        +4
                        And I brought you a home-made picture, not from a report? And there it is written in red and green that Almaz Antey believes that the rocket was with warhead 9N314 (M), but you persistently prove that Almaz did not say that))))
                      4. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 13: 54 New
                        • 2
                        • 12
                        -10
                        Your picture is from an earlier report. After him, Almaz-Antey issued the following report, where he considered possible и appropriate specify the type of rocket. Almaz-Antey counted, not me. I brought a picture from this report.
                      5. aver2000 30 January 2020 13: 57 New
                        • 4
                        • 1
                        +3
                        And throw a link to a new report, read.
                      6. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 13: 58 New
                        • 2
                        • 11
                        -9
                        https://tass.ru/eksperiment-almaz-anteya
                      7. Mountain shooter 30 January 2020 18: 53 New
                        • 10
                        • 1
                        +9
                        In my opinion, you were mistaken in the forum, dear! Would go to the "Censor", there you will understand.
      2. SPARKS 30 January 2020 15: 43 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Uncle, please post specific data unconditionally confirming Russia's guilt.
        1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 15: 50 New
          • 0
          • 13
          -13
          I already know that you will answer - that everything is forged. So I don’t see the point.
    2. IrisFloDataSet 30 January 2020 12: 15 New
      • 1
      • 14
      -13
      Well, you betrayed your fatherland in August 91.
      1. Mar.Tirah 30 January 2020 12: 26 New
        • 18
        • 0
        +18
        Quote: IrisFloDataSet
        Well, you betrayed your fatherland in August 91.

        Though off topic, I’ll answer. You don’t poke me, we’re not sitting at one table. I took the oath once, and I didn’t have the other and was at the State Emergency Committee. But unlike you, I live in the same place where I lived, and I’m doing everything possible so that my country, my Russian people do not disappear from the face of the earth. Politicians come and go people stay. with our way of life, we will survive these. Even the repressed people did not think to betray and sell their country, unlike you, “people of the world” without a flag and homeland.
        1. IrisFloDataSet 30 January 2020 19: 30 New
          • 2
          • 17
          -15
          And put his little head in the fight for the Emergency Committee? Well, yes ... There was no direct order! @ And then you would all .. Bullshit! You are the same traitor as Herr Vlasov. You are preaching some people. .. Speak for yourself! Changed the oath of sausage and jeans.
          1. Mar.Tirah 30 January 2020 19: 43 New
            • 14
            • 0
            +14
            Quote: IrisFloDataSet
            Brekhna

            But who offended you so much, it won’t be sad, but there is no one to regret it. But otherwise it can’t be. You deserve a reward. March further under Nazi marches, people without a flag and homeland, praise the UPA.
  2. BARKAS 30 January 2020 09: 14 New
    • 11
    • 1
    +10
    The data of Diamond Antey say that the chip is left and cannot be considered a thingdock, and nothing more!
    1. Strashila 30 January 2020 09: 21 New
      • 9
      • 2
      +7
      An attempt to falsify is the norm, remember in the 2000s Saakashvili also shook rocket debris, such as the Russians fired on. so they laughed at him, the wreckage of a rocket that had not been for a decade.
      And the setup, it’s easy, I remember there were criminal cases when the missile weapons to be disposed of were exported abroad.
      But Iranian events have shown that this case must be considered in a different plane, the bases with a transponder.
      So in a hurry.
    2. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 09: 31 New
      • 1
      • 35
      -34
      Quote: BARKAS
      The data of Diamond Antey say that the chip is left and cannot be considered a thingdock, and nothing more!
      This also means that it cannot be considered proof of involvement of the Armed Forces, and many consider it to be such, referring to documents on the serial number of the rocket from the Russian Ministry of Defense.
      1. BARKAS 30 January 2020 10: 13 New
        • 18
        • 1
        +17
        This means that the chip according to the number from the Ukrainian missile and provided by the Ukrainian side with the aim of falsifying evidence, but the error came out with a warhead.
        1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 10: 36 New
          • 1
          • 19
          -18
          What exactly can be falsified with a fragment of a rocket with a number indicating its belonging to Ukrainian military unit?
      2. Andrey Komkov 30 January 2020 10: 45 New
        • 20
        • 0
        +20
        Have you forgotten anything? One smallest thing? Namely - that this fragment was involved in the death of MH17, the Dutch themselves declared in the person of their JIT at one of the briefings and asked to find information about this missile. The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation provided it with reference to factory magazines, after which the Dutch instantly replayed everything back, realizing that they themselves had substituted themselves in this way.
        1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 11: 31 New
          • 1
          • 24
          -23
          I remember that - except for the part that the Dutch replayed something, I don’t remember that.
          1. Andrey Komkov 30 January 2020 11: 42 New
            • 16
            • 0
            +16
            In the latest JIT report, this fragment is not among the material evidence. This suggests that they did not include him in the list of evidence for MH-17, thus playing back.
          2. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 11: 50 New
            • 0
            • 17
            -17
            Quote: Andrey Komkov
            In the latest JIT report, this fragment is not among the material evidence.
            JIT did not issue any reports. They are preparing materials for the court.
          3. opus 31 January 2020 00: 02 New
            • 5
            • 4
            +1
            Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
            JIT did not issue any reports.

            issued the Netherlands Security Council based on JIT reports

            go here:

            get to here:
          4. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 31 January 2020 04: 56 New
            • 0
            • 8
            -8
            Quote: opus
            issued the Netherlands Security Council based on JIT reports
            The Dutch Safety Board (DSB) conducted its own investigation. This is a technical investigation under the auspices of ICAO, which is being done for any plane crash. JIT is conducting a criminal investigation, this is another investigation, although it does include a DSB investigation as one of the evidence.
          5. opus 31 January 2020 10: 09 New
            • 6
            • 1
            +5
            Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
            which is done for any plane crash

            OVV investigates all disasters, not just air


            JIT is in the competence of the Netherlands prosecutor, I agree
            but OVV uses JIT materials / reports
            Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
            JIT is conducting a criminal investigation, this is another investigation

            Based on an investigation by the Joint Investigative Group (JIT) -> The Netherlands Public Prosecutor's Office is prosecuting and so on .--->
            International court warrants are issued ..
  3. mister-red 30 January 2020 11: 44 New
    • 15
    • 0
    +15
    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    I remember that - except for the part that the Dutch replayed something, I don’t remember that.

    Well, yes, they just stopped mentioning it. And they should have seized on this and requested similar documents from Ukraine. In fact, it can be called "outplayed"
  4. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 12: 30 New
    • 0
    • 16
    -16
    Quote: mister-red
    Well, yes, they just stopped mentioning it. And they should have seized on this and requested similar documents from Ukraine. In fact, it can be called "outplayed"
    This is not a fact, but your subjective opinion about how often JIT should publicly mention a particular circumstance, but does not. And you are trying to pass off your subjective opinion as a fact.
  5. mister-red 31 January 2020 20: 31 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Wow subjectivity Au, what are you talking about ?! Then the question is an edge to you, as an expert - and what kind of devil did they then show the rocket serial? What was the need for this?
  6. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 2 February 2020 16: 33 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    I’m not interested in guessing on the coffee grounds, trying to attach my head to the shoulders of others, and arrange a battle of opinion with the opinion whose thick coffee. This is a meaningless conversation that leads to nothing. I am interested in the facts, and the fact in this case is that the JIT never refuted anything they said about the demonstrated rocket fragment.
  7. mister-red 2 February 2020 21: 57 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Iron logic. But actually why should they refute themselves? Do you have information about such acts in other investigations?
    Once again: why did they name the rocket number? Probably then to find the ends. Why are they curious that the rocket was delivered in Dolgoprudny (and if, for example, in Dnepropetrovsk, what would that be said?) And are not interested in the fate of this rocket in Ukraine?
    And actually, why on the JIT page the main part of the materials is occupied by analysts, how much does Russia help in different areas of the DNI / LC?
    Read, interesting. But all this from empty to empty and is irrelevant
    Without a doubt, the process will go on for a long time and will not end with anything. As the well-known Bernstein said, “Movement is everything, purpose is nothing”
  8. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 3 February 2020 05: 22 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: mister-red
    But actually why should they refute themselves? Do you have information about such acts in other investigations?
    This is a logical error, which is called https://ru.rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ignorance_argument

    Once again: why did they name the rocket number? Probably then to find the ends.
    They said plainly why: to find witnesses - people who are familiar with the designation system in the workplace. I do not know how many times it is necessary to make such announcements, but I see no reason why they can not be done once.
  • Andrey Komkov 30 January 2020 10: 42 New
    • 18
    • 0
    +18
    And what's the difference, which of the combat units? Both the warhead from 9M38 and the warhead from 9M38M1 — both form a “scalpel” with a vector perpendicular to the rocket's motion vector and with a similar fragmentation field gradient. And therefore, both the horizontal and vertical angles of approach of the rocket to the target will be identical for both 9M38 and 9M38M1, they will differ only in characteristic openings in the skin. Therefore, the type of rocket does not play a special role here, it is the angles of approach of the rocket that play. And they, calculated from the characteristic damage to the power pack of the MH-17 airframe, indicate only one possible launch area - somewhere near the village of Zaroshchenskoye. Where at that time Ukrainian troops were standing (about which there are a lot of evidence and facts).
    1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 11: 03 New
      • 1
      • 26
      -25
      Quote: Andrey Komkov
      And what's the difference, which of the combat units?
      The difference is that Almaz-Antey, in one scenario, was able to correctly determine the type of warhead, and in another, it could not, and this means the reliability of its expert analysis. And expert analysis is what Almaz-Antey relies on in his conclusions.
      1. Andrey Komkov 30 January 2020 11: 41 New
        • 13
        • 0
        +13
        Again, to talk about whether it is true or not, it is possible only in one case - having on hand the parts of the MN-17 airframe and conducting a chemical analysis of the fragments. And so here in the photographs - I beg you, do not be like mad cats in their "expert opinion" on the spots in the photo to identify the BUK in Donetsk as belonging to the Kursk Air Defense Brigade. As for Almaz-Antey - that in one, that in another case, the nature of the formation of a fragmentation field of the scalpel type and the nature of damage to the airframe are the same. Differences will be only in the depth of penetration of the finished striking elements (GGE) into the airframe structure and in the form of inlet and passage openings from the GGE.
        1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 11: 49 New
          • 0
          • 22
          -22
          Quote: Andrey Komkov
          And so here in the photographs - I beg you, do not be like mad cats
          Why are you writing this to me? It's not me who determined the point of defeat from photographs, collected an official press conference, published one report first, then conducted a field experiment, compared its results with photos, collected another official press conference, published a second report?
          1. Andrey Komkov 30 January 2020 11: 55 New
            • 13
            • 0
            +13
            You did not take out from the report what Almaz-Antey invested there. He tried to prove one thing - that the angle of approach of the rocket was completely different than the one pointed out by the Dutch. Where the Dutch got it from is understandable (from the description of a similar anti-aircraft missile), but they didn’t take into account the features inherent in the 9M38 and 9M38M1 missiles — the presence of a “scalpel”. Anteyevites full-scale experiment simply proved their theoretical calculations about the angle of approach of the rocket and the characteristic damage to the surface of the airframe and its power set. And which of the missiles - with or without the I-beam - is no longer important, the nature of the fragmentation field of both combat units is the same.
            1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 12: 11 New
              • 0
              • 17
              -17
              Quote: Andrey Komkov
              You did not take out from the report what Almaz-Antey invested there.
              If he didn’t want to invest there, perhaps it wasn’t worth investing there?

              An examination where the reader is invited to guess independently "what did the author want to say here?" - This is not the kind of expertise that professional experts do, and it causes even greater doubts about the qualifications of Almaz-Antey specialists than individual errors.
              1. Andrey Komkov 30 January 2020 12: 35 New
                • 15
                • 0
                +15
                For an unambiguous and complete identification of the warhead type, not a photo is needed, but specific pieces of a specific MN-17 airframe with specific damage are needed. They were not provided to Almaz-Antei, so he could only judge by good photographs. Unable to take the physical dimensions of the holes, according to the nature of the hole in the photo, Almaz-Antey experts suggested that it was 9M38 without I-beams. This was the only controversial assumption in the rest of the report. As I wrote above, if there is really an I-beam, not a parallelepiped, all the other calculations from this do not change, because everything else is both the nature of the fragmentation field formation, the direction of movement of the fragments and even their speed (because the weights of the heavy GPEs of these Warheads are almost the same) - do not change. And therefore, the main conclusion of the Almaz-Antey report is not changing - the angle of the missile's approach to the target.
                Well, you are stubbornly trying to turn the whole discussion to one thing - the Almaz-Antey report is incorrect in principle only because they incorrectly called the warhead. Give the diamond crew part of the glider - and after a while you will get the type of warhead and even when it was made (for similar missiles of the same series that were still in stock). But no one will do this, because then the whole investigation, built on lies and fraud, will simply crumble like a house of cards.
              2. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 12: 48 New
                • 0
                • 16
                -16
                Here, in principle, there is nothing to argue about, this opinion is against opinion. I believe that factual errors undermine the credibility of the expertise (because the expertise that I can’t double-check based on my knowledge, I assess only by the degree of trust in the expert who made it), and you think that mistakes only decorate it. OK, your right, I have nothing to object to.
          2. Mar.Tirah 30 January 2020 12: 42 New
            • 13
            • 1
            +12
            Quote: Andrey Komkov
            You did not take out from the report what Almaz-Antey invested there

            Do not mess with someone who does not see anything except the oak gate.
          3. aver2000 30 January 2020 13: 47 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: Andrey Komkov
            He tried to prove one thing - that the angle of approach of the rocket was completely different than the one pointed out by the Dutch.

            Andrei, and here there is one interesting point, for which for some reason no one pays attention. Rotate the rocket 180 degrees and get exactly the same scalpel entry into the plane, but the rocket launch point is on the other side.
            1. Evil Booth 30 January 2020 15: 37 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              vabscheto hurt the engine wing and tail
            2. Evil Booth 31 January 2020 18: 10 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              what is shown everywhere and many times .. glory to the minuses.
          4. Aleksandr1981 30 January 2020 19: 06 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Logical thinking, though the rocket will need to be launched from space !!!
          5. Andrey Komkov 30 January 2020 20: 53 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Will not work. Do you know why? You forgot about one thing - about the radio fuse. there are 4 points around the circumference of the hull with the petals of radio emission, almost perpendicular to the axis of the rocket. The range of the radio fuse, if my memory serves me, is up to 8-10 meters. Those. the sequence is this: first the missile’s head passes the target, one of the blades of the radio fuse catches the target and gives a command to detonate and the warhead forms a “scalpel”. Those. in the case of a missile approach not to the left, but to the right of Petrovsky, it would hit not on the left side, but on the right side of the liner. Then, even theoretically, there would be no damage to the left engine; it would be obscured by the liner body (as it actually happened with the right engine). But in fact, we have major damage to the left engine, and even our expert pulled the GPE from the left engine out of the “heavy” rock, which he transferred to the Dutch side and which she quickly “lost”. Why lost - just understand. For with the variant of the approach of the rocket from Pervomaysky, the GGE could not get into the engine in any way, as if they had not tried. The “scalpel” worked strictly perpendicular to the axis of flight of the rocket, which would be used in this case to be directed to the engine. GGE there simply was nowhere to come from. So he was "lost" so as not to spoil the picture.
        2. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 14: 27 New
          • 0
          • 13
          -13
          By the way.
          Quote: Andrey Komkov
          You did not take out from the report what Almaz-Antey invested there.
          What Almaz-Antey wanted to put in there, you can ask Almaz-Antey himself. Here is the page where the questions are indicated for which the "field experiment" was answered:
          It turns out that if the type of warhead is determined incorrectly, then at least 50% of the tasks for which everything was basically started were failed.
          1. Andrey Komkov 30 January 2020 21: 00 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            In this case, Almaz-Antey had to choose from two missiles - 9M38 and 9M38M1. These two missiles are completely identical, except for one - in the warhead of one there are I-beams, in the warhead of the other there are parallelepipeds. And so the guidance system, radio fuse and everything else is completely identical. Up to the gradient of the fragmentation field and the trajectories of the GGE of the “heavy” fractions during the formation of the “scalpel”. Those. it was possible with such success to write something like 9M38 (M1). The Dutch in their report did trickier. They wrote "9M38 family rocket." So Almaz-Antey did everything right, he says in his report there - 9M38 (M1).
          2. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 31 January 2020 04: 05 New
            • 0
            • 7
            -7
            Quote: Andrey Komkov
            The Dutch in their report did trickier.
            The Dutch made like real high-class professionals - they indicated not only their data, but also the boundaries of their data, did not make statements for which they had no reason. At the same time, they determined the type of warhead as 9N314M - according to their data, such a warhead could be installed on both 9M38M1 and 9M38.

            Quote: Andrey Komkov
            So Almaz-Antey did everything right, he says in his report there - 9M38 (M1).
            None of them, as they say, pulled their tongue to conduct a subsequent "field experiment" with the explicitly stated goal of "clarifying the type of rocket."
          3. Andrey Komkov 31 January 2020 20: 36 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            JIT high-end professionals ?? In what? In falsified investigations? Or in the impudent collection of Resh’s materials, for the sake of which they received a court decision to open his private bank cell (!!!), the materials from which were then quickly lost by these “professionals” (about which Resh directly stated)? To take as the basis of the "investigation" of mad cats about spots on the BUK and on the basis of this draw profound conclusions about the membership of this BUK in the Kursk brigade - this is simply the top of the "professionalism" of JIT. Or professionalism - is it to pull out an unbroken and undamaged piece of a rocket and loudly declare - MN17 was shot down with this rocket? And then quickly get ashamed to remove it, when it turned out to be documented that the Ukrainian rocket - is this what you call professionalism ?? I'm just curious - and stuffing of rabid cats - what article do you interpret? What are the grounds for the Dutch claims? Or do you consider the "investigation" of rabid cats the peak of a professional investigation?
          4. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 2 February 2020 16: 57 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Andrey Komkov
            Take as a basis for the "investigation" of rabid cats about spots on the beech
            This is a logical error called https://ru.rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title= Associative_Crimination

            If mad cats (and indeed anyone. For example, Hitler) say that 2 + 2 = 4, this will not be mean:

            1. That 2 + 2 is not equal to 4
            2. That anyone who says that 2 + 2 = 4 takes as a basis the words of mad cats / Hitler / and so on.
          5. Andrey Komkov 3 February 2020 11: 31 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Listen, you, in your desire to defend the JIT with their delusional accusation, even forgot to mention that the Dutch publicly thanked the rabid cats for their “investigation” and that part of the materials of this “investigation”, in particular, “BUK's way back to Russia” was like JIT was used in the report (do you want to remind you of the JIT presentation with pictures? Otherwise, you will say that there was nothing like that). And it doesn’t give a damn that BUK couldn’t physically leave for Russia, because there are a lot of bridges, overpasses and dams with a carrying capacity of 25-30 tons, which is less than the weight of the SDA of 37 tons (the weight of the installation is 35 tons, and together with 3 missiles 690 kg each - 37 tons), and even less than the total weight of the entire installation of 48 tons (37 tons of self-propelled guns + 12 tons of tractor). But something I don’t see there along the path of the collapsed bridges and destroyed dams, apparently the BUK just flew these bridges and dams through the air? This is not to mention bridges whose overall height is lower than the height of self-propelled guns with missiles. Probably flown too?
            So you can stick your "associative charge" yourself you know where, any objective court will expel all this JIT together with their "evidence" from the courtroom. One misfortune - the Dutch court and objectivity - these are completely incompatible things.
            For money has already been paid by the customer of this performance, the accused has already been named, “evidence” has been sewn to the case, the necessary evidence has been thrown out so as not to spoil the good picture of the destruction of the peace liner by the vicious LDN terrorists supported by Russia (
            - type of evidence of the inhabitants of Zaroschensky about the presence of their BUK systems near the village,
            - military personnel who saw the launch of the BUK from a real point, and then were mysteriously killed by “enemy snipers” even at a distance of 15 km from the front line,
            - residents of Grabovo, who saw TWO military aircraft in the sky, and then heard 2 explosions,
            - primary data of radars for monitoring the air traffic of the Russian Federation in the Rostov Region, which did not record any missiles in the direction of MH17 heading from Snezhnoye,
            - - information from the RF radio surveillance systems on the location and activity of the work of the self-propelled guns of the Armed Forces at the time
            - data from the manufacturer of BUK Almaz-Antey missiles on the real mass of explosive of 9M38 missiles, real fragmentation field, etc., which contradicted the DSB model
            ) - in general, everything is ready for the indicative flogging of the Russian Federation and the declaration of its country as an accomplice of terrorism.
          6. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 3 February 2020 11: 40 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Andrey Komkov
            And it doesn’t give a damn that BUK couldn’t physically leave for Russia, because there are a lot of bridges, overpasses and dams with a carrying capacity of 25-30 tons
            This is a constant load, and the bridges are also counting on skipping a one-time load, much heavier.

            Quote: Andrey Komkov
            This is not to mention bridges whose overall height is lower than the height of self-propelled guns with missiles. Probably flown too?
            Traveled around.

            Quote: Andrey Komkov
            - residents of Grabovo, who saw TWO military aircraft in the sky, and then heard 2 explosions,
            ... and which the Rostov radar did not see.
          7. aver2000 April 20 2020 03: 27 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Andrey Komkov, but about the bridges on the path of the BUKA, this is interesting. I managed to draw a complete route along which the beech was transported. Tell me, which bridge could not withstand it, I will look on my map if it passed through it.
  • mister-red 30 January 2020 11: 46 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Can you recall at least some kind of expert assessment from the investigation, and not the repetition of incomprehensible information from the Internet?
    1. Andrey Komkov 30 January 2020 11: 57 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      In the sense? If you are about the investigation, then everything is in the Dutch report. Or are you talking about?
    2. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 12: 01 New
      • 0
      • 19
      -19
      I can. The Netherlands Security Council laid out the wreckage of MH17 at the Air Force base in Gilza Ryan and, based on its results, gave an opinion on the location and direction of the attack.
      1. mister-red 30 January 2020 12: 03 New
        • 15
        • 0
        +15
        Sorry dear, I saw this very calculation. Just compare with what was caught from the sea when the Ukrainians shot down a Russian plane. Somehow, it’s probably harder to pull everything out of the sea. A pile of debris is still in the fields.
      2. Andrey Komkov 30 January 2020 12: 11 New
        • 14
        • 0
        +14
        At the same time, they simply did not bring half of the wreckage from the crash site. What kind of calculation in this situation can we talk about? And the second - they used to calculate the direction of impact of a warhead explosion with unidirectional detonation of the warhead of a similar air defense missile, when the generated field of fragments has a cone-like character forward in the direction of movement of the target. Whereas the 9M38 family warheads (as the rocket is called in the JIT report) undergo bidirectional detonation from two sides to form a “scalpel” of the heaviest GGEs (for this, the barrel-shaped form of the warhead itself also serves). Those. from the very beginning, the Dutch incorrectly took into account the fragmentation field of the rocket and from here incorrectly calculated both the direction and place of the strike (this is even mentioned in the Almaz-Antey report). Plus, on the 9M38 (9M38M1) missile, the lobe of the radio fuse diagram is directed so that the rocket explodes after the target has begun to pass (so the efficiency with a scalpel is higher), and not before passing, as is the case for missiles with a conical lesion field.
        1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 12: 22 New
          • 2
          • 15
          -13
          I answered a specific question whether I know the expertise from the investigation not from information from the Internet. I don’t know if they were carried out correctly or not, enough debris was collected or not enough, I am not an expert in laying out aircraft debris. The DSB report says that the Diamond-Antey method does not take into account the change in the angle of flight of fragments after breaking through structures. Let the court deal with this, such examinations are done for him.
          1. Andrey Komkov 30 January 2020 12: 43 New
            • 9
            • 0
            +9
            The fact of the matter is that all the diamondists took into account. Because DSB wrote this for the light components of the fragmentation field. But the heavy components just do not change the direction of movement (this is exactly what the "scalpel" is designed for). Our expert found one of the heavy GPEs in the MN-17 engine, breaking through 3 engine designs in a row - a body, a shell, and one of the pipelines, he was stuck in 4 elements. The most interesting thing is that he did not change anything, but continued to move in a straight line. This was told by the expert himself in an interview. But then he didn’t find either this GGE or any mention of JIT in the report.
          2. Liam 30 January 2020 13: 07 New
            • 0
            • 4
            -4
            Quote: Andrey Komkov
            Our expert found one of the heavy GPEs in the MN-17 engine

            What is your expert? Who is he, when did he get access to the aircraft, who allowed, within the framework of what kind of examination and where can you get acquainted with his conclusions.
          3. Andrey Komkov 30 January 2020 21: 26 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            This is not my expert, this was the representative from Russia in the international group Oleg Storcheva (deputy head of the Federal Air Transport Agency). At first, our representatives worked there, but then, when they saw the Dutch openly swindle with evidence and everything else, ours refused to work there. There was an interview with him, where he told all these moments. And as he told the Dutch that a rocket could not explode at a distance of 2 meters from the plane, as they had originally set, because then the high-explosive action of the Boeing’s explosives would have made ALL the windows, and not just those on the left. And about the GGE, which he himself found in the wreckage of the engine, following his path through the holes in the engine structure and transmitted to the Dutch, and they "did not include it in the final report." And about the fact that when they showed them how, according to the Dutch, the rocket was on, he immediately told them that neither the radio fuse of the rocket would work, nor the fragmentation field of another shape at all. And many other things. Look, in the internet it's all there. As there is an open letter from Storchev to the chairman of the Security Council of the Netherlands, where he briefly explicitly indicated to the Dutch what they are doing with this investigation.
          4. Liam 30 January 2020 21: 36 New
            • 0
            • 6
            -6
            Quote: Andrey Komkov
            This is not my expert, it was the representative from Russia in the international group Oleg Storcheva

            I’m embarrassed to ask. When and by whom were the representatives of the Russian Federation included in the investigation team? This is just a sensation. Share the link
            Quote: Andrey Komkov
            Look, in the internet it's all there.

            There are a lot of things on the Internet. Often, even that cannot be. Why should I look for evidence of YOUR sensations. It’s easy for you to share a link to the sources of such sensational details
          5. Andrey Komkov 30 January 2020 23: 02 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Well, even a simple surface search gave the first link - https://www.mk.ru/incident/2016/01/14/rosaviaciya-privela-shest-faktov-oprovergayushhikh-gollandskuyu-versiyu-gibeli-mn17.html. Too lazy to search?
          6. Liam 31 January 2020 01: 03 New
            • 1
            • 5
            -4
            Quote: Andrey Komkov
            Well, even a simple surface search gave the first link - https://www.mk.ru/incident/2016/01/14/rosaviaciya-privela-shest-faktov-oprovergayushhikh-gollandskuyu-versiyu-gibeli-mn17.html. Too lazy to search?

            Serious people do not spend their time reading internet garbage cans. In this internet garbage can you can read such masterpieces:
            The investigation stubbornly ignored numerous evidence supporting the defeat of the aircraft by an air-to-air missile. Investigators did not pay attention to the fact that many eyewitnesses indicated the presence at the time of the disaster in the sky next to the Boeing of Ukrainian military fighters. The recording of the conversation with the Ukrainian aircraft technician Agapov, which spoke about the equipment on the day of the crash of Ukrainian Su-25 missiles with air-to-air missiles and the return of one of these attack aircraft, already without ammunition, was not taken into account.
            And in the same place below:
            According to Storchevoy, their participation in the investigation looked like this: “The Security Council of the Netherlands arranged several meetings with all authorized representatives of the investigating states. At the meetings, the opportunity was presented to inspect the wreckage of the aircraft, to receive partial information about their research ... however, Russian organizations and specialists were not involved in these studiesdespite repeated offers from our side to assist in parts of providing both competent specialists and the necessary equipment for conducting complex examinations ”.
            Did you even read this garbage before you bring it as "evidence"? Do not fool people with these fakes
          7. Andrey Komkov 31 January 2020 20: 43 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            If you carefully read my link, then we are talking about an open letter from the Federal Air Transport Agency to the Dutch indicating what and how they violated. And about the facts that I spoke, Storcheva told in an interview. Look, all this is. Or do you think the JIT investigation, based on the "investigation" of rabid cats, is the height of professionalism? Then one of us is fooling people, it’s you.
      3. Andrey Komkov 30 January 2020 23: 46 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Well, for example, didn’t you come across such a picture? https://cdn.aviaforum.ru/data/attachment-files/2017/09/876122_f7d809830565757a2240478860840fac.png Something I do not remember him in the final report of the Dutch in October 2016. And you?
      4. Pete mitchell 31 January 2020 01: 03 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        Gentlemen, an interesting discussion, only a little technical orientation. Take a wider view of the situation: the Danes simply fulfill the order, the music is ordered .... As old Clinton said there: the plane was shot down by a Russian rocket, that's the whole story, the bourgeois are happy. Almaz-Antey defends a multi-billion dollar business, they openly do not care about politics, they cut for grandmas and for their reputation, it’s a sin to blame them for something.
        I spoke with the bourgeoisie in general and the Dutch in particular - their opinion is based on the bourgeois mass media: no one has heard about the MO briefing and the arguments of the Russian Federation, the directions of the GDP to provide maximum assistance, in general, no one has heard about the opinion of the Russian Federation. This is a huge gap in the work of those responsible.
        The result of the trial in The Hague, in principle, is understandable, then what? Someone interested in the victims? Do not make me laugh. All technical arguments recede under the pressure of political conditions. One funny question: where is the dispatcher? For some reason, 404 countries applaud the arguments, but they do not stand up to criticism, and the opinion of the Russian Federation is ignored - this does not happen.
        RF, it’s time to show teeth in this case, otherwise they will hang all the dogs
  • Vyacheslav Viktorovich 31 January 2020 05: 10 New
    • 0
    • 9
    -9
    Quote: Andrey Komkov
    At first, our representatives worked there, but then, when they saw the Dutch openly swindle with evidence and everything else, ours refused to work there.
    They worked in the DSB commission, and then, when the DSB work was completed, the final report was released, and the turn of the JIT came, then they stopped working, since no one included them in the JIT initially.

    As for the comments, all the comments that were submitted to the DSB are answered by the DSB, and they are attached to the DSB report in the "consultation" section. If any comments were thrown in a roundabout way through the press, it means that they were embarrassed to submit them directly.
  • Andrey Komkov 31 January 2020 20: 53 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    That's right, why include the party that was initially declared guilty. But the other side, which even carried out a special operation to hide evidence (documents surfaced, oh, what a shame, not everyone managed to shut their mouths), it was directly included in the JIT. It’s right that the criminal could clearly cover up the tracks, if all of a sudden any data comes up against him. European logic in all its glory.
    DSB issued a report in which EVERYTHING that our experts submitted was thrown out. And the primary data of the Utes radar, which monitors the air situation (proving with objective impartiality that no missiles flew from Snezhnoye in the direction of МН17), and our observation data (Orlan worked hard, winding along the border under the watchful eye of the Utes), and data on missiles from the manufacturer, and data on Ukrainian BUK systems, their location, etc. - all thrown out of the final DSB report. Of course, our people were embarrassed to submit all this, it was through the press. By the way, something I did not see in the final DSB report a word about Resh's materials, which were impudently dragged from his cell and safely “lost”. Also in the "Consultations" section? Can you even indicate a page?
  • Vyacheslav Viktorovich 2 February 2020 16: 49 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    "Detective Joseph Resh" - this is an absurd clown who is trying, as they say now, to "hype". If it was not clear to you when they suggested that he pass the evidence through the German police according to the standard procedure, and he began to demand that everything be arranged in the form of some kind of ceremony, and it did not become clear later, when he issued an ultimatum, and quietly merged after the deadline, then you are a very naive person.

    Quote: Andrey Komkov
    EVERYTHING that our experts submitted was thrown out. And the primary data of the cliff radar
    The primary data was magically “found” after the release of the final report.

    Quote: Andrey Komkov
    in which EVERYTHING that our experts submitted
    Of course, our embarrassed to submit all this
    You contradict yourself a bit here.
  • Andrey Komkov 3 February 2020 12: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Well, to call a ridiculous clown a person from whom materials were seized from a private bank cell (!!!) by a court decision, can only be a person who does not understand the work of the judicial system of the Netherlands at all. And if he is a "clown", then why are these materials still not returned to him? And in the report there is not even the slightest mention of them. They just took it and got lost. And Resch started up this whole epic with the transfer of data for only one thing - so that the transmitted materials were clearly and publicly recorded and again not “lost”, as was the case with their predecessors from the bank cell. By itself, JIT could not go for it for well-known reasons, so I had to refuse. But they can’t refuse Reshch to appear in court, because this is no longer their estate. You can only slander him, pour the ears of slops, call him an absurd clown, etc., in order to sow doubt in advance about his words and the documents presented to him.
    As for the inconsistency - well, tell me what of the filed by our experts fell into the DSB report. Simulation results AA, which are called contradictory to the DSB model (despite the fact that the DSB itself screwed up both with a fragment field and with the mass of explosives and with the weight of fragments and a bunch of parameters.)? But then their model is correct, white, democratic, and the AA model from the evil RF, which coincides in fragmentation marks with damage to the cabin and hull, is not suitable. Or about the AA experiment, which showed the coincidence of the main fragmentation field, taking into account the dynamic correction with the main damage of MH17, but which was rejected due to the fact that our Boeing turns out to be a flying battleship from the armored steel, where the fragments do not penetrate 2 mm of aluminum profile, and ricochet inside from the sheets of armor, so this cannot be recognized. Despite the fact that the Dutch very beautifully stretched strings through these holes in the casing and in the floor.
    And the primary data was transferred a long time ago, right after the presentation, only the Dutch began to muddle that they did not have decoders of this format, and why not in the international standard (apparently not realizing that this is the primary raw data generated in the radar itself, therefore, free from edits and everything else - thus the accusations of falsifying the result can be immediately removed automatically), give us this data in an international format. Ours gave them the decoder program before the report, but they didn’t see a trace of this data in the report. At an air forum about this, spears were broken for a very long time.
  • Vyacheslav Viktorovich 3 February 2020 13: 46 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The final DSB report was released in October 2015.
    Almaz-Antey on the transfer of "newly found" radar data in September 2016.
  • Andrey Komkov 4 February 2020 09: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Well, then we are waiting for the surfacing of this data in court. But I’m more than sure that the prosecution will not even remember them in court, and when the defense raises this, they will say that there was nothing of the kind or it didn’t suit them for one reason or another.
    By the way, about the driveways and bridges, what are you trying to prove here. There is one very good film by an American correspondent, who, unlike all the defenders of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, clambered over everything himself and felt everything with his hands and walked around with his legs. I'm about Patrick Lancaster. So the comrade was not too lazy and along with the civil engineer traveled the path by which the BUK was supposedly taken to Russia at the presentation of the JIT (which will then appear in court as JIT said). This movie is https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=aGjbL4YS9cY. And at the moment 07:04 of this film, the answer to reality is visible to your statement by the theorist that bridges are made under constant load and can withstand heavy loads. There was a limit of 30 tons in front of the bridge in the video. And a tank weighing 40 tons tried to drive through the bridge, i.e., about the weight of a clean self-propelled guns with missiles without a tractor. The result is clearly visible in the video, the bridge under the tank failed, although the excess was 40%. And after that, will you assure us here with foam at the mouth that the BUK supposedly drove through the dam near Zugrez, although it faces a restriction of 25 tons (this is with the weight of the installation on a tractor of 48 tons, i.e. almost double excess)? ?
    On the same video, this dam is also shown (starting from 04:05). And she couldn’t go round her SOU when she was taken out by the militias, because this is the only way from Donetsk to Zugrez, and she lit up in Zugrez on the well-known video attached by JIT to the case.
    And how can one explain such a discrepancy between theory and reality? And everything is simple. In reality, the installation of a BUK military unit from Donetsk via Zugres was taken to the west, from the side of Dnepropetrovsk (most likely the installation was somewhere near Snezhny or Torez), and this was at the beginning of JUNE 2014, more precisely, on June 3, 2014. And the APU did it, not the militia (the author of this video, who was shooting the column from his balcony, provided the data on the current shooting time. There was a whole army convoy with armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles and trucks, and in the end, a little beech went behind). Most likely in late May, early June, the Armed Forces of Ukraine moved their units from Snezhniy Shakhtersk, etc. to the west so that they do not fall into the hands of the militias. This is how the BUK of military unit A-1402 near Zugres (on its eastern outskirts, heading north-west) lit up. But someone decided to hype and edited the video, leaving only a piece with BEECH and saying that the video was shot just July 17, 2014 on the day of the downing of MH17, and the Dutch took this trimmed video and used it as evidence. But I think, at the trial, this complete record of the army convoy with the BUK at the end will come up along with the legally correct testimonies of the author of the video, after which some in JIT will have a pale appearance and cold legs.
  • Vyacheslav Viktorovich 4 February 2020 09: 51 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    This is what 4-year students of specialty 270206 "Construction and operation of roads and airfields" teach:

    Particularly heavy loads — trailers, tractors, tractors and other machines — have to be passed over bridges and other man-made structures. Therefore, in addition to calculating on columns of automobiles, it is necessary to check the designs for the passage of single heavy wheel or caterpillar loads.
    http://zadocs.ru/sport/59996/index.html?page=6

    If you want to argue, argue with the author of the textbook.

    Quote: Andrey Komkov
    But I think, at the trial, this complete record of the army convoy with the BUK at the end will come up along with the legally correct testimonies of the author of the video, after which some in JIT will have a pale appearance and cold legs.
    And if it doesn’t come up, will you reconsider your opinion?
  • Okolotochny 30 January 2020 12: 44 New
    • 8
    • 3
    +5
    I don’t know if they were carried out correctly or not, enough debris was collected or not enough, I am not an expert in laying out aircraft debris.

    First find out, and then prove with foam at the mouth. Go back to Israel.
  • Octopus 30 January 2020 13: 38 New
    • 2
    • 7
    -5
    Your opponents are partly right.

    The investigation did not really isolate the scene of the incident from the accused; moreover, it did not have free access to it, unlike the accused. From the point of view of criminal law, this is a very strange situation.

    By the way, it is unpleasantly reminiscent of the constant itching of the IC of the Russian Federation to investigate something in / in Ukraine.
  • Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 13: 46 New
    • 0
    • 14
    -14
    If the Boeing fell in the center of The Hague, I would probably agree with you, and this is a very strange claim. Investigators had to deal with what they had to, and the court, of course, will have this in mind.
  • Octopus 30 January 2020 14: 02 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    And what does the court care about the problems of the investigators? If investigators cannot provide information to establish a complete picture of the incident, then they cannot, there is nothing to judge.
  • Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 14: 10 New
    • 0
    • 10
    -10
    The "full picture" is never known, to anyone and about anything, this is a meaningless demand. The information should not be complete, but sufficient with an acceptable degree of reliability.
  • Octopus 30 January 2020 14: 23 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    sufficient with an acceptable degree of certainty.

    And when a Dutch court judges any other killers, would he also consider such an investigation sufficient?
  • Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 14: 30 New
    • 0
    • 9
    -9
    The question is not for me, I am not a Dutch court. I can say for sure that if the murderer did not let investigators to the crime scene, the court would not consider it a reason to recognize him not guilty.
  • Octopus 30 January 2020 16: 01 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    I can say for sure that if the murderer did not let investigators to the crime scene, the court would not consider it a reason to recognize him not guilty.

    What are these shortcuts, "killer"? No one is guilty until his guilt is proved in an equal adversarial court.
  • Vyacheslav Viktorovich 31 January 2020 03: 52 New
    • 0
    • 4
    -4
    Quote: Octopus
    No one is guilty until his guilt is proved in an equal adversarial court.
    Wrong. No one has been legally convicted and there are no legal consequences for him until his guilt is proved in court.
  • Octopus 31 January 2020 06: 09 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    )))
    Someone seems to be starting to play with words.

    You see. I believe that those killed in this incident were normal neutrals - victims of hostilities.

    Suppose, as a result of the Schaffhausen bombing in April 44, 40 Swiss were killed and 270 injured. And then the Swiss government is conducting a criminal investigation to determine who specifically killed these people, that is, who specifically pressed the button of the bombing device. Moreover, the investigation, of course, is carried out without any participation of the “defendants” and is generally not supported by the American side. Would such an investigation be “justice”? Or are the Dutch not "investigating" just that?
  • Vyacheslav Viktorovich 31 January 2020 06: 42 New
    • 0
    • 7
    -7
    Quote: Octopus
    Would such an investigation be “justice”?
    Justice happens in court, not in an investigation. If the opportunity to participate in the trial was provided to the other party, then I see no reason to consider the process unjust (even if the party refused to attend the trial).

    Quote: Octopus
    You see. I believe that those killed in this incident were normal neutrals - victims of hostilities.
    There is this type of war crime - "indiscriminate attacks." The Geneva Conventions distinguish between “collateral losses” in attacking a legitimate target and “indiscriminate attack”, outlawing the latter.
  • Octopus 31 January 2020 07: 48 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    If the opportunity to participate in the court to the other party was provided,

    You see. Provided is not a solution. Or the court establishes the truth on the basis of the evidence provided by the prosecution and the defense as part of the adversarial process. Either the prosecution and the defense agree without a trial, as part of a deal with the investigation, and the court approves the deal (which, frankly, is not good at all, but is widely practiced). Or the court holds a meeting in absentia, only with the prosecutor and a rather peculiar investigation. Yes, it is quite possible, in Russia and the USSR there is a lot of experience on this topic, but I do not see anything good for liberalism in this.
    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    There is this kind of war crime

    )))
    You see, we come back to the original thought. War crimes are committed by losers. Goering, Dönitz, Ribbentrop were war criminals, but Harris, Lockwood, Molotov were not. Before clarifying the moment of victory, the topic of war crimes should be raised prematurely. And the Dutch court, as far as I know, is investigating not war crimes, but criminal ones.
  • Vyacheslav Viktorovich 31 January 2020 09: 19 New
    • 0
    • 6
    -6
    International relations are generally an extremely peculiar area of ​​relations, due to the lack of effective enforcement mechanisms such as those that the state has in relation to a citizen. We have to live with it and carefully draw parallels between domestic law and international.
  • Octopus 31 January 2020 09: 31 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    the lack of effective coercive mechanisms of the kind that the state has in relation to a citizen.

    You are absolutely right. Therefore, similar events had previously been carried out either in the format of a transaction with the investigation, when the Glavgad surrendered the sixes (Libya), or by establishing the occupation administration in a soft (Yugoslavia) or hard (Germany) form. In this case, nothing has been done.
    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    it is more careful to draw parallels between domestic law and international.

    Are you criticizing the Dutch-Belgian-Ukrainian-Australian idea to make a similar case in a regular Dutch court?))))
  • Vyacheslav Viktorovich 31 January 2020 09: 38 New
    • 0
    • 6
    -6
    Personally, I am not interested in legal hooking at all, and, to tell the truth, I would have gladly turned off this conversation, which is not very interesting for me. I am interested in objective reality, and here it is more important what data are received and by what methods than the status of the subject who studies it.
  • Octopus 31 January 2020 09: 46 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    turned this conversation not very interesting for me

    OK.
    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    I am interested in objective reality

    My question "who shot down" does not raise any doubts (and my answer to this question does not coincide with your other opponents). So I'm only interested in crocheting. Yes, shot down. And what will they do now?
  • Vyacheslav Viktorovich 31 January 2020 09: 59 New
    • 0
    • 6
    -6
    Quote: Octopus
    Yes, shot down. And what will they do now?
    The legitimacy of the court and the sentence will be determined individually by the subjects of international relations. What will be recognized by each participant will be legitimate for him (this is the same as with the recognition of states). There is no doubt, in general, that the entire Western world recognizes the legitimacy of the Dutch court. Naturally, he does not recognize the legitimacy of the verdict, but he will have to make a choice - either play according to the proposed rules, or lose the beneficial types of cooperation with the Western world due to sanctions.
  • Octopus 31 January 2020 10: 43 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    to lose beneficial forms of cooperation with the Western world due to sanctions.

    That is, the task boils down to the classic one, to buy out the sixes. And was it worth it to fence the garden for 6 years? Are you really ready to believe that the verdict will become reason regular sanctions, not occasion to the next sanctions?

    Perhaps for you this is crocheting, and my mother is legist, I am not fond of it when the court verdict becomes a letter of deed and a bill.
  • Vyacheslav Viktorovich 31 January 2020 10: 56 New
    • 0
    • 5
    -5
    I vehemently share your dissatisfaction with the current system of international relations, but I have no other system for you. And even if someone has it, it will not be implemented at least until the next world war.

    Quote: Octopus
    Are you really ready to believe that a court verdict will be the cause of the next sanctions, and not the reason for the next sanctions?
    Yes. There are a lot of reasons, and so, the desire of Western countries to impose sanctions is noticeably less than the reasons at their disposal for this.
  • Octopus 31 January 2020 13: 36 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    I vehemently share your dissatisfaction with the current system of international relations

    drinks
    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    the desire of Western countries to impose sanctions is noticeably less than the reasons at their disposal for this.

    I find your position controversial. As much as there was desire, there will be so much, but only there were sanctions timed to A, there will be the same sanctions timed to B. At the same time, the court from the instance that makes the decision becomes the instance that urges other actors (politicians) to show goodwill. I find it a minus, not a plus.
    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    even if someone has it, it will not be implemented at least until the next world war.

    Euro-identities say this, figs with him with the plane, the main thing is that there should not be a third world war. But if you leave out the extradition to the Hague personally for the Sovereign, then all issues with specific performers could be resolved immediately and with any degree of bloodthirstiness. Jews practice this, and some Iranian general has recently learned something about international relations. By the way, and it also had 6 years of investigation and the trial, don’t you know?
  • Liam 31 January 2020 09: 35 New
    • 0
    • 6
    -6
    How do you imagine the responsibility of Russian citizens who committed crimes abroad and managed to return to the Russian Federation, which, as you know, does not give out their citizens. Here, for example, a Russian tourist killed someone in Thailand and returned, the Thai people did not have time to figure out before leaving.
    Will this person go unpunished? He will not be judged anywhere? He will not sit?
    Or there are legal rules governing such cases
  • Octopus 31 January 2020 10: 11 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    Quote: Liam
    Will this person go unpunished? He will not be judged anywhere? He will not sit?
    Or there are legal rules governing such cases

    Naturally, this case will be considered by a Russian court under Russian laws (and practice). Depends on the circumstances.
    If, for example, he stabbed someone, it would be quite possible to sit. If he killed people with heavy army-level weapons, it certainly won’t be unless the Thais find convincing arguments enough to buy his head. Some strange question, by golly.
  • Liam 31 January 2020 10: 18 New
    • 0
    • 4
    -4
    Quote: Octopus
    Naturally, this case will be considered by a Russian court under Russian laws (and practice

    Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Article 12. The effect of the criminal law in relation to persons who committed a crime outside the borders of the Russian Federation

    1. Citizens of the Russian Federation and stateless persons permanently residing in the Russian Federation who have committed a crime against the interests protected by this Code outside the borders of the Russian Federation are subject to criminal liability in accordance with this Code, if there is no decision of a court of a foreign state with respect to these persons for this crime
    Quote: Octopus
    Depends on the circumstances

    The circumstances are simple. Russia, in the framework of interstate treaties, has undertaken to recognize the decisions of foreign courts and ensure their enforcement in relation to its own citizens on its territory.
    Quote: Octopus
    If

    There will come the consequences that Russia will cost, including a pretty penny.
  • Octopus 31 January 2020 13: 40 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: Liam
    are subject to criminal liability in accordance with this Code, if in relation to these persons for this crime there is no decision of a foreign court

    Yes. And since such a decision is admissible, it will be, Mr. Girkin is not subject to criminal liability in Russia and is also not subject to extradition.
    This rule excludes double responsibility, you interpret it the other way around.
    Quote: Liam
    The circumstances are simple. Russia in the framework of interstate treaties took

    Do not make up. The jurisdiction of the Dutch court was confirmed by specific countries in relation to their citizens. Not Russia.
    Quote: Liam
    which Russia will cost, including a pretty penny.

    1. On the redemption of sixes answered above.
    2. For these consequences, what, do you need a court?
  • Liam 31 January 2020 14: 33 New
    • 0
    • 4
    -4
    Quote: Octopus
    such a solution is admissible

    It is clear that you are not a lawyer. In this case there will be only one Dutch court. Two times for the same they will not be judged. This is the jurisdiction of the Dutch court and Russia cannot hold its own alternative court. It can execute or not the decision of the Dutch court on its territory. . With consequences in case of failure.
    Quote: Octopus
    The jurisdiction of the Dutch court was confirmed by specific countries in relation to their citizens. Not Russia.

    Once again. Russia recognizes the jurisdiction of the Dutch court. And even cooperates. The data from the radars was sent at the request of the Dutch prosecutors. For the same fragments of a rocket, etc., etc., the Dutch do not need any additional confessions in this case. For:


    The list of international treaties of the Russian Federation on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family, criminal and other matters



    Kingdom of the Netherlands
    1. Convention on Civil Procedure 01.03.1954/XNUMX/XNUMX
    2. The Convention repealing the requirement of legalization of foreign official documents 05.10.1961/XNUMX/XNUMX
    3. Conventions on the delivery of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters abroad on 15.11.1965/XNUMX/XNUMX
    4. European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters on 20.04.1959/XNUMX/XNUMX
    5. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards on 10.06.1958

    Quote: Octopus
    For these consequences, do you need a court?

    The user above answered you - for the onset of legal consequences, you need a court decision. This is the legally correct wording. You translate everything into verbal geopolitical battles.
    There are people who are responsible for the death of 300 people. They should be called a court by an official sentence.
  • Octopus 31 January 2020 17: 17 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Quote: Liam
    It’s clear that you are not a lawyer

    Yes.

    My let's say belonged to the fact that Strelkov-Girkin would not necessarily be found guilty. I have reasonable doubts that the Buk’s crew followed exactly Strelkov’s orders.
    Quote: Liam
    Once again, Russia recognizes the jurisdiction of the Dutch court.

    Why do you think so?
    Quote: Liam
    even cooperates.

    Cooperation in the investigation (for example, this was not an attempt to confuse the investigation) does not mean recognition of justice.
    Quote: Liam
    European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 20.04.1959/XNUMX/XNUMX

    Read it.
    Quote: Liam
    The user above answered you - for legal consequences, a court decision is needed.

    It?
    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    or lose beneficial forms of cooperation with the Western world due to sanctions.

    You and the user above do not share political sanctions and court decisions. Is it in the Dutch court’s verdict that you would say “Germany to introduce a duty on Russian gas in the amount of 100% before Russia extradits people or bodies according to the attached list”?
  • Liam 2 February 2020 17: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Octopus
    I have reasonable doubts that the Buk’s crew followed exactly Strelkov’s orders

    The court is for this purpose needed to establish whose orders the crew carried out and who was in the crew, too.
    Quote: Octopus
    Why do you think so?

    And where did you get that he doesn’t recognize? Is there a proof with an official statement from the officers of the bodies of the Russian Federation-Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, State Security, and the Investigative Committee?
    Quote: Octopus
    Cooperation in the investigation (for example, this was not an attempt to confuse the investigation) does not mean recognition of justice

    This is exactly what it means. Court orders, the jurisdiction of which you do not recognize, do not fulfill. And the Russian Federation - fulfills.
    Quote: Octopus
    Read it.

    More than carefully. Including this
    statements:

    1) The Russian Federation proceeds from the understanding that the provisions of Article 2 of the Convention must be applied in such a way as to ensure the inevitability of responsibility for committing crimes falling within the scope of the Convention;

    2) The Russian Federation proceeds from the understanding that the legislation of the Russian Federation does not contain the concept of “political crimes”. In all cases, when deciding on the provision of legal assistance, the Russian Federation will not consider as “political crimes” or “crimes related to political crimes”, in particular, the following acts:



    b) the crimes provided for in Article 50 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (1949), Article 51 of the Geneva Convention on the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea (1949) Article 130 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (1949); Article 147 of the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949); Article 85 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 on the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (1977), and Articles 1 and 4 of Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, concerning the protection of victims of armed conflicts of a non-international character (1977);

    Quote: Octopus
    You and the user above do not share political sanctions and court decisions. Is it in the Dutch court’s verdict that you would say “Germany to introduce a duty on Russian gas in the amount of 100% before Russia extradits people or bodies according to the attached list”?

    Do not attribute your thoughts to me. The court decision will write Sentence of Mr. Pupkin to imprisonment for a term of. And all. Execution of the sentence is not the task of the court but of other state bodies. First of all, in this case, the penitentiary system of the Russian Federation according
    Code of Criminal Procedure Article 472. Procedure for a court to resolve issues related to the execution of a sentence of a court of a foreign state
    And the failure of the Russian Federation to fulfill its obligations under international treaties is a political issue and not a legal one. And these issues will be resolved politically.
    The case of the court is to establish the procedural truth in the case, and the execution of its decisions is another area
  • Octopus 2 February 2020 17: 24 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: Liam
    Code of Criminal Procedure Article 472

    You decided to patrol me? Or are you rewriting from some blochik without looking?

    In relation to citizens of the Russian Federation, article 459 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies, and not 472 at all.
    Quote: Liam
    More than carefully.

    You do not even seem to read the headline. Otherwise, they might have realized that assistance in carrying out the investigation was not nearly equal to the automatic recognition of the sentence against a citizen of the Russian Federation.

    Quote: Liam
    And where did you get that he doesn’t recognize? Proof is with an official statement

    https://www.government.nl/topics/mh17-incident/news/2017/07/07/minister-of-security-and-justice-signs-mh17-treaty-with-ukraine
  • Liam 2 February 2020 18: 14 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    I regret to admit that you do not own the topic and do not distinguish between the topic of initiating and investigating a criminal case at the request of a foreign state and the execution of a sentence imposed by a foreign court against a citizen of the Russian Federation. You also absolutely do not understand the concept of jurisdiction and the difference between Ukraine and the Russian Federation in this case. The jurisdiction of this case belongs to Ukraine as the state on whose territory the crime was committed. Your reference is the agreement between Ukraine and the Netherlands on the transfer of their first “powers” ​​to the latter in terms of the preliminary investigation and the court. Russia has no rights to jurisdiction in this case because the crime has not been committed on its territory, the victims are not citizens of the Russian Federation, the plane did not belong to the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation can not transfer anything and / or recognize it. Also, the Netherlands did not contact the Russian Federation with requests to initiate a criminal case in this case, therefore, Article 459 is by no means here.
    There are only instructions from the Dutch in accordance with legal aid treaties and there will be a requirement regarding the execution of a Dutch court sentence in accordance with Article 472.
  • Octopus 2 February 2020 22: 11 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: Liam
    initiation and investigation of a criminal case at the request of a foreign state and execution of a sentence imposed by a foreign court against a citizen of the Russian Federation

    Probably.
    Quote: Liam
    Under the conventions, the jurisdiction of this case belongs to Ukraine as a state in whose territory the crime was committed

    Yes.
    Quote: Liam
    Your link is an agreement between Ukraine and the Netherlands on the transfer of the former of its “powers" to the latter in terms of preliminary investigation and trial.

    Yes.
    Quote: Liam
    Russia in this case has no rights to jurisdiction because the crime was not committed on its territory, the victims are not citizens of the Russian Federation, the plane did not belong to the Russian Federation

    Yeah. From a formal point of view, this is nothing more than a Ukrainian trial of Russian citizens.
    Quote: Liam
    Also, the Netherlands did not turn to the Russian Federation with requests to institute criminal proceedings in this case, therefore, article 459 is not there.

    Yes.
    Quote: Liam
    and there will be a requirement regarding the enforcement of a Dutch court sentence in accordance with Article 472.

    Chapter 55. FACE TRANSFERCONDEMNED FOR DETERMINATION
    FREEDOM, FOR SERVING PUNISHMENT IN THE STATE,
    WHICH CITIZEN IT IS

    If the Dutch court succeeds in catching Mr. Strelkov and the soldiers and officers of the 53rd brigade, they can be transferred to serve their sentences in the Russian Federation. Then Article 472 will apply to them.

    With perseverance worthy of a better application, you prove to me that the sentence of a Ukrainian court in the Netherlands has a direct effect on Russian citizens in Russia.
  • Liam 3 February 2020 00: 07 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Not direct. And through a decision of a Russian court that “analyzes” a foreign court’s verdict and accepts or refuses to do so. The reasons for possible refusals are listed in the conventions, mainly political persecution. By the way, this is the main reason why foreign courts refuse to execute sentences Russian courts in relation to the "opposition" - Khodorkovsky and so on.
    In this case, this motive grew. The court cannot be used. For the Russian Federation, when signing the Convention, it was immediately stated that there were no "political motives" for it in investigating cases of victims of armed conflicts. I threw it higher.
    And the passengers of the plane are the victims of the armed conflict. So this "legitimate" excuse will not work. We will have to refuse in the "basman" style. What will entail the consequences for violating the conventions
  • Octopus 3 February 2020 00: 55 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: Liam
    What will entail consequences for violation of conventions

    Again. You are referring to a convention on investigations, not on the courts. Russia helped to investigate the crimes of the pilot Voloshin, or who was guilty there at that time, and not this whole Russophobia.

    In the case of criminal prosecution of a Russian citizen in Russia, Russian, not Dutch, law applies. In this case, 459 Code of Criminal Procedure and 12 Criminal Code. At the same time, the Dutch drug addiction to conduct a trial in absentia creates an additional conflict: a convicted citizen of the Russian Federation is not subject to repeated prosecution in the Russian Federation. So the reason for the refusal of the GP to initiate criminal proceedings against conditional Strelkov may be (and should be, with a literal reading of the legal norms) the very fact of the verdict in the Netherlands. Twice for one they do not judge. May the world collapse, but the Law triumphs.
  • Liam 3 February 2020 12: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Octopus
    You refer

    These conventions are a cloud. Not only the one that I have indicated. There is also the Minsk Convention which regulates the execution of sentences and another 100500 others that the Russian Federation has signed. By the way. I’m sorry that relatives will be paid without waiting for the court. Non-judicial agreement. Negotiations are already underway.
  • Andrey Komkov 3 February 2020 12: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    You know, I'm just interested in something else. This court will be held right now, Strelkova will be convicted, etc. people will be pecked at Russia as a country-accomplice of terrorism (otherwise why start this whole farce?), they will demand material payments from it, etc. And then after about 10 years, documents suddenly pop in or people speak out or the CIA archives open and it turns out that everything was completely wrong, that in fact MH17 was shot down by the APU, shot down by order of Poroshenko and the CIA operation is behind all this. I wonder how the Dutch will behave in this situation? Just from the point of view of lawyers, I’m interested in further behavior.
  • sevryuk 1 February 2020 01: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Did they commit? From the same Satanists ...
  • Andrey Komkov 30 January 2020 22: 50 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Interestingly, the facts of the deliberate shelling of the crash site with heavy artillery by the Armed Forces of Ukraine as interpreted by the court? But they were, and because of this, experts for a long time could not start an investigation. Moreover, whether the APU was shot not near, but precisely at the place of the fall. Shells were even recorded on some of the wreckage of the liner. For me, it was a deliberate attempt to destroy evidence.
  • Vyacheslav Viktorovich 31 January 2020 04: 48 New
    • 0
    • 10
    -10
    Quote: Andrey Komkov
    Interestingly, the facts of the deliberate shelling of the crash site with heavy artillery by the Armed Forces of Ukraine as interpreted by the court? But they were, and because of this, experts for a long time could not start an investigation.
    The court will read the reports of the OSCE special observation mission. And there it is not written about "targeted shelling by heavy artillery from the APU," but it is written that observers could not get to the crash site because of "aggressive representatives of the DPR in a state of visible intoxication" - https://www.osce.org / ukraine-smm / 121431
  • Andrey Komkov 31 January 2020 21: 49 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    That's right, then these are the messages like https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2014/11/18/7044603/ I just dreamed about. And not just me. It happens.
  • Vyacheslav Viktorovich 2 February 2020 16: 52 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    There is nothing about "targeted shelling of the crash site with heavy artillery from the APU."
  • Liam 30 January 2020 14: 34 New
    • 0
    • 6
    -6
    You have a very peculiar idea of ​​the Criminal Procedure Code in particular and of forensic science in general.
  • Octopus 30 January 2020 15: 47 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Quote: Liam
    very peculiar idea of ​​the Criminal Procedure Code in particular and of forensic science in general.

    )))
    And what is their originality?

    Do you really think that if the accused provide military control over the area of ​​the incident and over all the main witnesses, the court can work under the CPC?
  • Liam 30 January 2020 18: 12 New
    • 0
    • 6
    -6
    Can you throw a link to the Code of Criminal Procedure something "prohibitive" in this sense?
  • Andrey Komkov 31 January 2020 21: 27 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    And how, from the point of view of criminal law, to interpret the fact that the country that carries out a special operation of the SBU to clean up the tails and conceal evidence of the downed MH17, which throws up to the investigation "recordings of the militants' negotiations" with obvious rude installation traces - is this country being included in the investigation team? That's right, the offender must be in the thick of the investigation in order to instantly remove or add the necessary materials if something goes wrong. By the way, and how to understand again from the point of view of criminal law, the fact that representatives of Ukraine are now removed from the JIT?
  • opus 31 January 2020 00: 36 New
    • 3
    • 5
    -2
    Quote: Andrey Komkov
    What kind of calculation in this situation can we talk about? AND

    well, the calculation is good enough

    blunting strings is problematic
    1. Andrey Komkov 31 January 2020 22: 22 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      There can be only one problem on the strings - with this calculation in the photo and this place of blasting, it can be seen that the Dutch made a CREW that does not coincide with the real situation. Suggest or guess yourself? Hint - the right wing and fuselage, as well as the left engine.
    2. opus 31 January 2020 22: 33 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Quote: Andrey Komkov
      Suggest or guess yourself? On the

      tell me. I am a sucker in these matters, although according to the outline 5 it was difficult for me to consider 3D on 2 D

      Quote: Andrey Komkov
      Hint - the right wing and fuselage, as well as the left engine.

      the right wing and the left engine are not in the photo that I showed.
      Hope we understand friend-friend? Right - this is on the right hand of the "driver"


      Threat. they have an engine there, a chic fragment. I do not remember the "left" / "right" look?
      hi
    3. Andrey Komkov 31 January 2020 23: 33 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Ok, I’ll try it easier. The Dutch, forming their calculation of the strings, forgot to indicate that there is not a point impact from a single point, but a whole fragmented field of complex conical shape (the shape of the fragmented field is presented in the report of Almaz-Antey, the developer of these missiles). at this angle of approach of the rocket, as the Dutch say (10 degrees from Snezhny), the scalpel will hit not only the fuselage, but will also pass OVER the fuselage and strike the right wing, which will also be basically a fragmentation field (which is exactly what you see) . And the right engine will get it. However, neither on the right wing, nor in the right engine, the Dutch did not find a single hole from the GGE.

      To make it clear what I’m talking about here is a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=Se1N_lq7IA0&feature=emb_logo. It was not me who built the models, the guys from the air forum built taking into account the real dimensions of the liner and the conical fragmentation field of the 9M38 rocket. It is clearly seen that when considering the Dutch model: 1) the right wing and the right engine fall into the main fragmentation field (the relative speed of the liner at 300 m / s versus the speed of 1700-2000 m / s expanding GGE can be neglected with a sufficient approximation) - in reality, neither on the right wing, nor in the right engine are any holes from the GGE, the Dutch carefully searched; 2) The left engine is practically not in the fragmentation field of both the GGE and the secondary fragments of the 1, 3 and 4 rocket compartments - in reality there are openings from the GGE and a bunch of holes from the secondary rocket fragments 3) The keel of the plane does not fall into any fragmentation field at all - neither from GGE nor secondary rocket fragments - in reality, the keel is damaged by secondary rocket fragments and pieces of the cockpit.
      That is why the fact that this calculation is crap is complete, Oleg Storcheva first said in a letter to the Netherlands Security Council. And I am inclined to agree with him, because there is no arguing against physics.
    4. opus 1 February 2020 00: 02 New
      • 4
      • 6
      -2
      Quote: Andrey Komkov
      that there is not a point impact from one point, but a whole fragmentation field of complex

      muhablyaha .....
      there are TWO holes in TWO planes, spaced apart from each other, relative to the axial line of the plane, we draw a straight line (string)
      and so N-times.
      if all the strings converge at one point in space .. MEAN sho?
      Conclusion, I will probably leave Vlodka2u (he has 5ku in mathematics)
      Zy. whatever would be a “scalpel”, at such a distance the initiator of expansion can be taken as a point.
      Quote: Andrey Komkov
      the form of the fragmentation field is presented in the report of Almaz-Antey, the developer of these missiles

      mmmm. I do not agree. there’s a lot of “sort of like that”, damn it if the report was BEFORE the “crucified boys”, Su-24 and so on Kiselev’s
      Quote: Andrey Komkov
      and at such an angle of approach of the rocket, as the Dutch say (10 degrees from Snezhny)

      I'm generally pass. I will not say anything. it’s so with the “kandachka is not solvable” epic, as someone “above” said “this task for the summer air defense troeshnik” is nonsense

      Quote: Andrey Komkov
      TA can clearly see that when considering the Dutch model: 1) in the main

      Yes???? You just show me screenshots (photo), no words needed
      Quote: Andrey Komkov
      That is why the fact that this calculation is crap is complete, Oleg Storcheva first said.

      Oleg Georgievich?
      he’s like a VIP driver.
      Its competence in air defense / SAM / striking elements tends to zero.
      You brought him in vain.
      Let's uzhd "golovan jack" in argumentators, the best
    5. opus 1 February 2020 00: 48 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      impressive

      one- Mitya65, well, that’s understandable, he- vicious, then the number 3 comma14Further dor
      hi
      / I will throw a complaint /, I’m waiting for Mitya No. 65. I’m waiting .. next week I need to work (for me).
      the second is Ezekiel (or rather, he is the first), mutantbut I’m not familiar with him.
      A THIRD minus XTO?
      what
    6. Mityay65 1 February 2020 02: 44 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Not my Antosh "-" was 4, and then I accidentally noticed that you mentioned me in vain ... and decided to put it.
      If it seems to you. that I’m minus you, then this is an obsession, you need to get rid of it.
      Do you think that you are being persecuted? This is not always true ... Although yes, the paranoid have enemies ... but I’m not honest, I’m not minus you, because I never read, because I consider your writings info garbage. wassat
    7. opus 1 February 2020 03: 05 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: Mityai65
      Not my Antosh "-" was 4, and then I accidentally noticed

      it’s not worth whispering, and after presenting evidence, look left out.
      Come on like this:
      write to the moderator: "how many minuses have you put to me," a request, so to speak.
      copy to "me", screenshot to "here"
      (otherwise you are 65 years old, when you know how to use photos?
      and we look "by chance" or "just like that" you played cards ...
      Threat. Chuvchёёёk- I know that.
      Yeah.
      Put, if your libido, from this "rises" -I pinned-and you pierced.
      Opera so l000kh bred.
      Do you check? are you monitoring

      Quote: Mityai65
      If it seems to you. that I’m minus you, then this is an obsession, you need to get rid of it.

      damn mutant- I know for sure!
      Do you want to crap one’s pants completely? - I’ll give you statistics!
      Quote: Mityai65
      Do you think that you are being pursued?

      diarrhea haunts you
      Quote: Mityai65
      but I’m not honest, I’m not minus you,

      Prove a liar?
    8. Mityay65 1 February 2020 03: 20 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: opus
      so I will give statistics

      Antosh. You see, I ignore you and carefully avoid because of your constant lies.
      See what’s the matter? It is in this.
      You were caught too many times on data manipulation, lies, fake news and other crap ... well, you know ... including I caught ... you are of little interest.
      I personally will be satisfied if such an empty person like you just lags behind me and does not begin to mention me in vain. Here it needs to be done - is that clear?
      P / S / Yes publish cheny, why not? If there are ideas. Having fun ... It only seems to me that again chatter and emptiness ... as always ...
      You will not be offended if I do not continue to communicate with you? Nothing personal.
    9. opus 8 February 2020 00: 57 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Mityai65
      Antosh. you see i ignore you and diligently

      oh you don’t need to make a mess - you’ll be fucked up: a request to administrators — how many minuses have you set — write an article that I’m acquiring
      Quote: Mityai65
      You've been caught too many times on data manipulation, lies, fake news and

      do not crack the tongue liar-give facts. Your broomstick is always sweeping sweet / smooth, the language is working
      Quote: Mityai65
      P / S / Yes publish cheny, why not?

      hottsa to hear / read you
      whether it’s the 65th region, in which I am confused, but rather 65 years of production: no brains, no merit, one malice
      Quote: Mityai65
      You will not be offended if I do not continue to communicate with you? Nothing personal.

      you put your pants on and run the minuses, you stick out of this. Is that right, mutt?
      And verbal diarrhea, what are you talking about is for you a darling, a kamasutramozha.
      UO-it helps, I have seen you in my 53 many
    10. The comment was deleted.
    11. opus 8 February 2020 01: 56 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Mityai65
      Antosha, you’re still a weird type. Or is he drunk again?

      hot topic.
      And you are in trouble, sorry to control, my every word, therefore I am right:

      and I don’t really want this, but I’ll turn to the admins, let you lying boar muzzle poked in the truthat that
      But to you "like water from a goose"? right?
      The product of the vital activity of organisms - it does not sink?
      Quote: Mityai65
      Let's cross and talk like men

      To be honest, I’m not even going to sit with you, in ONE field. BUT! if you want

      You know how and where to write, write, cross, what really there.
      and isho
      Waiting for an article
      Quote: Mityai65
      You were caught too many times on data manipulation, lies, fake news and other crap ... well, you know ... including I caught ... you are of little interest.

      you have to go, yoksel moxel.
      You aren’t enough for the curious, you’re not from Sakhalin, but just an old fellow, write about me, or so many years / winters and without an article?

      such(and I) potency potential disappears ...
  • Andrey Komkov 1 February 2020 08: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "mukhablyaha .....
    there are TWO aperture in TWO planes, erected from each other, relative to the axial line of the aircraft, we draw a straight (string) "
    What are you saying? Fine. Almaz-Antey (AA) likewise takes THREE holes in aircraft structures (casing and two successively punched frames), holds a string and ...... it turns out to have a completely different explosion point. Moreover, he has more of such strings and for some reason everyone points to a completely different point. After which the Dutch say that heavy GGEs cannot move like that, because they CHANGED their direction of motion (ricocheted) after passing through the liner’s thin skin (yeah, 60 degrees or more, all in one), so we can’t accept the AA model ( such as Boeing material is denser than IL-86 material, so the full-scale experiment is not suitable). But on our Dutch model of GGE, they did NOT CHANGE any direction, so we draw the string through two holes - sheathing + 1 hole in the cabin floor. And two consecutive holes in the frames - it all seemed to you, there isn’t such. And someone here after this will talk about the "professionalism" of DSB along with JIT ??
  • opus 8 February 2020 01: 05 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Andrey Komkov
    What are you saying? Fine. Almaz-Antey (AA) likewise takes THREE holes in aircraft structures (casing and two successively punched frames), holds a string and ....

    1.A-A: I didn’t take the string, you’re an AA report, at least read it, but better than the 2a report
    Quote: Andrey Komkov
    two consecutive holes in the frames - it all seemed to you, there isn’t one. And someone here after this will talk about the "professionalism" of DSB along with JIT ??

    2. I didn’t even understand what you are broadcasting, are there soaps, calculations? Show address - where to send

    Quote: Andrey Komkov
    Quote here from https://www.5-tv.ru/

    I will dodge. 5tv quote is cool
    Quote: Andrey Komkov
    Well, yes, of course, the developer and manufacturer of the anti-aircraft missile knows less about the fragmentation field of its missile than the opus blogger named Anton.

    1. I'm not a “blogger” - I’m a blogger in general
    Do I have the right thought to slip out? Yes, you need to bring the Constitution of the Russian Federation?
    2.My VUS is the K3V operator, S-200 * SAM, incl. I'm not really "AndreyKompkov"
    3.From the wing "left" almost nothing is left
    4. Like it not, but initializing the warhead missiles at such a distance is taken as a point, and the strings are a characteristic indicator / pointer
    ===============
    I don’t blame anyone, just the facts, and to hear Solovyov / Kiselyov / Olya Skabeeva and Zhenya Popov, and to believe that this is nonsense.
  • Andrey Komkov 1 February 2020 08: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "Oleg Georgievich?
    he’s like a VIP driver.
    His competence in air defense / SAM / striking elements tends to zero. "

    By itself, but your relationship in the Federal Air Transport Agency and in the competence of other people just rolls over.
    The quote is from here https://www.5-tv.ru/glavnoe/broadcasts/508859/227/ "Our team consisted of experts in various fields of civil aviation, including military. These are experts on airspace and investigation aviation accidents and incidents, metal research, aircraft debris research, as well as military representatives of the Almaz-Antey NGO and the Ministry of Defense of the Research Institute, that is, our commission was one of the most voluminous, and we proposed participation of our experts in conducting all the research.At the first meeting, which took place in February, we drew the attention of the Dutch side to the fact that we are ready to take part in the research, so that our experts together with international experts carry out these studies, so that the investigation acquires objective, we also submitted to the commission an additional expert from the Almaz-Antey NGO, as the first version was that the aircraft was shot down by a rocket Buk, but to our question: "Do you have an idea about the characteristics of this rocket?", We received a negative answer. "

    "mmmm. I don’t agree. there is a lot of" such-and-such ", damn it if the report was BEFORE the" crucified boys ", Su-24 and so on, Kiselevsky, yes"

    Well, yes, of course, the developer and manufacturer of the anti-aircraft missile knows less about the fragmentation field of its missile than the opus blogger named Anton. Moreover, the Dutch then use this field from the AA report to build their model without any twinge of conscience. At the same time, bashfully, the strings do not indicate the GGE, which should fly over the fuselage and hit the right wing with the right engine with such an arrangement and such an angle of approach of the rocket to the target. "So there aren’t them, they just didn’t reach the wing, since there are no holes. Therefore, they didn’t fly there." (this is all sarcasm). And to admit for a second that they simply made a mistake with the approach angle and with the point of impact - no, it’s impossible, the rocket could fly only this way, and not otherwise. Because otherwise the owl wouldn’t be pulling the globe .... I mean, you won’t drag the militia to the downing, you’ll have to return the money to the customers for the “investigation”, so much trouble.
  • Andrey Komkov 1 February 2020 07: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    You can play with the fragmentation field yourself and see what parts of the aircraft will be in this field. Here - https://www.geogebra.org/m/FP58nKZJ
  • Evil Booth 30 January 2020 15: 36 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    the question is, why aren't you in the trenches? after all, a solid fighter
  • svd-xnumx 30 January 2020 12: 32 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Here is an analysis of the "material evidence"
    1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 12: 41 New
      • 0
      • 21
      -21
      A wonderful video made me put on three foil caps.
      1. SPARKS 30 January 2020 15: 45 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Do not forget about lead cowards, pan Svidomo. From you and carries dung and sour borsch.
  • tihonmarine 30 January 2020 09: 08 New
    • 9
    • 2
    +7
    Quote: Mar. Tira
    But only to no avail. Over the hill, this news was washed away

    There is no doubt in Western justice, at least remember how the most humane condemned Milosovic.
  • Andrey VOV 30 January 2020 11: 01 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Not the approximate, but the exact number of the rocket, the date of manufacture, storage location and so on
  • Evil Booth 30 January 2020 15: 34 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    it was on TV and on the newspaper on wikipedia not.
  • Finches 30 January 2020 08: 02 New
    • 10
    • 3
    +7
    The independence of the court is determined by the measure of its interest ...
    1. vvvjak 30 January 2020 08: 24 New
      • 9
      • 1
      +8
      Quote: Finches
      The independence of the court is determined by the measure of its interest ...

      Who are the judges? - For antiquity
      To a free life their enmity is irreconcilable,
      Judges draw from forgotten newspapers
      The time of Ochakovsky and the subjugation of the Crimea (C) A.S. Griboedov
  • Vladimir_2U 30 January 2020 08: 48 New
    • 10
    • 4
    +6
    Let’s see, the Hague court has more honor than the German court in 1933 in Leipzig, in the case of the burning of the Reichstag, or less. And how the representatives and the government of Russia will behave, in comparison with
    (At that time, the so-called “journalistic conflict” unfolded in Soviet-German relations, including the arrest and search of Soviet journalists (including representatives of TASS) on September 22 while trying to get to the Leipzig process [9]. September 23 Soviet the government decided to recall Soviet journalists from Germany and expel German journalists from the USSR within three days, which was an unprecedented measure in diplomatic practice. Germany backtracked and on November 4, 1933, Soviet journalists attended the court for the first time in Leipzig.)
    Hoping for the best.
    1. tihonmarine 30 January 2020 09: 17 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Let’s see, the Hague court has more honor than the German court in 1933 in Leipzig, in the case of the burning of the Reichstag, or less.

      Yes there is no difference between Leipzig and The Hague, whoever is appointed is the one guilty. The only difference is that the distance between Leipzig and The Hague is 560 km.
      1. Vladimir_2U 30 January 2020 10: 13 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Well, I don’t know, those appointed guilty in Leipzig were acquitted, this is a fact. A Nazi court acquitted the Communists, for reference.
  • Siberia 75 30 January 2020 09: 25 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    You can even try to consider this court as a court only if the United States transmits its satellite data at the time of the crash (and they are there, the stripes themselves do not refute this). And also full data Ukrainian. dispatching service.
    1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 January 2020 09: 33 New
      • 2
      • 16
      -14
      Quote: Siberia 75
      This trial can even be tried as a court, only if the United States transfers its satellite data
      Do you think that in this case they will not be declared a fake exactly at the same second?
  • 1959ain 30 January 2020 09: 32 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    First, they will destroy Russia, and then they will justify. In the midst of a summer of unhurried news life, a British scientist made a sensational statement in the Opinion column of the Russian media company RT. He wrote that the former leader of Yugoslavia, under whose leadership the country unleashed the conflicts of the 90s in the Balkans, was acquitted of a special UN tribunal in The Hague, dealing with wartime crimes. Slobodan Milosevic, who died in the cell of this same tribunal a decade ago, was accused of being the inspirer of these wars, which led to massive war crimes and crimes against humanity.
    1. tihonmarine 30 January 2020 10: 24 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: 1959ain
      He wrote that the former leader of Yugoslavia, under whose leadership the country unleashed the conflicts of the 90s in the Balkans, was acquitted by a special UN tribunal in The Hague,

      Posthumously acquitted. First hanged and then acquitted.
      1. A.Lex 30 January 2020 13: 05 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        .............. that's just Yugoslavia itself is not there and a lot of victims during the destruction of the country .....................
        1. tihonmarine 30 January 2020 13: 53 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: A.Lex
          that's just Yugoslavia itself is not there and a lot of victims in the destruction of the country

          Yes, not only Yugoslavia, a lot of what is not, and what else will be.
          1. sevryuk 1 February 2020 01: 26 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Yugoslavia will be! wink
            1. tihonmarine 1 February 2020 01: 28 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I want to hope !!!
              1. sevryuk 1 February 2020 01: 30 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Soviet Union! )))
  • Evil Booth 31 January 2020 18: 11 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Yes, everything is clear like God's day
  • Van 16 30 January 2020 07: 21 New
    • 8
    • 3
    +5
    What can you expect from a completely biased court? It seems to me no objectivity there and does not smell close ..
    1. Evil543 30 January 2020 07: 49 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      The practice of these international courts shows that perpetrators are always appointed and, accordingly, convicted.
    2. tihonmarine 30 January 2020 10: 26 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Van 16
      It seems to me no objectivity there and does not smell close ..

      Not for this, they have been humiliating for 6 years to find the culprit.
  • WILL 30 January 2020 07: 24 New
    • 10
    • 7
    +3
    Let's hope that the truth is revealed and the perpetrators will be held accountable.
    Well, if the Court begins to turn into a Judicial Court over Russia, then why the hell do we need such a court, PACE and other Euro-organizations? Let's see how they say!
    The work is hard, I hope the team of Lawyers will not let you down!
    1. Uncle lee 30 January 2020 07: 33 New
      • 7
      • 3
      +4
      justice in the Hague will truly triumph


      A certain eccentric is still fighting for Truth, -
      True, in his speeches - the truth on a broken penny:
      -Pure Truth will triumph over time,
      If it does the same as a manifest Falsehood.
    2. tihonmarine 30 January 2020 09: 24 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Quote: ANIMAL
      Let's hope that the truth is revealed and the perpetrators will be held accountable.

      I do not believe that the West will find the guilty, he will simply appoint them. Now the main thing is the upcoming elections in America.
  • carstorm 11 30 January 2020 07: 26 New
    • 8
    • 5
    +3
    yeah. of course. justice in the Hague will truly triumph. SHCHAZZZ! someone else believes in such a thing?))) the perpetrators have been appointed for a long time. the court is just a petty legal necessity for the end of this circus.
    1. tihonmarine 30 January 2020 09: 30 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: carstorm 11
      justice in the Hague will truly triumph. SHCHAZZZ! Does anyone else believe in this?

      It is not necessary to believe. An example old and long sucked, this is the end of the First World War, as "in fairness" the whole world was shredded with axes alive. And so far no one has condemned, or at least just said. What justice is there?
  • knn54 30 January 2020 07: 28 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    But weren't their "guys" collecting evidence under Tehran?
  • rocket757 30 January 2020 07: 47 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The Hague is preparing a trial under MH17: on the current situation

    Court? The trial ... roles assigned, money paid!
  • Ravil_Asnafovich 30 January 2020 08: 09 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    The Nuremberg trials almost ruined due to such judges.
  • parusnik 30 January 2020 08: 26 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    It seems that the perpetrators have already been appointed ... And the verdict has been drawn up, it remains to read out ..
  • Adam Khomich 30 January 2020 08: 29 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Personally, I would not trust the state where drugs and prostitution are officially allowed!
  • Guards turn 30 January 2020 08: 33 New
    • 9
    • 1
    +8
    Ex-SBU employee Vasily Prozorov said the authorities of Ukraine are responsible for the death of a passenger airliner.

    Recall that the Boeing 777 flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur crashed in the Donbass in July 2014. Killed 298 people. The West considers Russia to be the culprit. According to a 2015 report from the Netherlands Security Council Commission, the plane was shot down by a ground-to-air missile from the Buk anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) belonging to the 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade deployed in Kursk.

    Kiev is ready to repeat the scenario of the crash of MH17 - experts on the “Russian trace” have already been laden with Iran

    In the film "MN-17. In Search of Truth, ”Prozorov calls not only Ukraine guilty of the Boeing’s downfall, but also addresses issues of involvement in concealing the crime of other parties. Confirming his words, Prozorov showed the public official documents of the SBU. The film also has exclusive eyewitness interviews.

    The author’s conclusion that the evidence gathered during his journalistic investigation allows us to conclude that there was a pre-planned provocation, which was systematically implemented by special services of several states.


    For several years, the West has been trying to unprovenly blame Russia for the crash of a Malaysian airliner. They do not perceive other arguments there. In particular, the so-called International Investigation Team did not even take into account the facts published by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, indicating that the missile launched on the plane belonged to Ukraine. At the same time, the former SBU lieutenant colonel, who went over to the side of Russia, in the sensational documentary revealed new, previously unknown details of the plane crash, referring to documents of Ukrainian special services.

    Source: News-Front
    1. GenNick 30 January 2020 09: 01 New
      • 0
      • 5
      -5
      Guards turn, I read your comment twice, but didn’t understand when the air defense missile was launched before the Boeing was hit by the air / air missile or after?
      As you write, ... ... according to the statement of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation ... ''. The Ministry of Defense stated that the Boeing of the Ukrainian Air Force landed and that there were eyewitnesses, we read the witnesses ...
      1. Guards turn 30 January 2020 09: 17 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        GenNick, I read your comment 1 (one) time, in order to understand, I recommend watching the film of Ex-SBU officer Vasily Prozorov “MN-17. In Search of Truth ”, so everything is sorted out according to facts.
        1. GenNick 30 January 2020 09: 39 New
          • 0
          • 6
          -6
          I’m not going to argue, much less to expose. But first there was the WORD !!! You need to answer for the words, in any case, they taught me as a child on ... the street.
          A little lower, Michman is looking at the root and I completely agree with him.
        2. Octopus 30 January 2020 11: 13 New
          • 1
          • 10
          -9
          Quote: Guards turn
          Ex-SBU employee Vasily Prozorov

          And where is Mr. Prozorov? Not in Moscow, an hour?
          1. Serzh 31 January 2020 20: 55 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Octopus
            And where is Mr. Prozorov? Not in Moscow, an hour?

            and where should he be in the circumstances? in Kiev?
            whoever gave him his mouth to open there, and if he found a way to say it, he wouldn’t be anywhere now. in heaven. there the pancake is killed for much smaller "sins" before the regime.
  • midshipman 30 January 2020 08: 56 New
    • 18
    • 1
    +17
    It is necessary to bring to court a dispatcher (girl) from Dnepropetrovsk, who drove this plane on a tablet. But the owner of the airport Kolomoisky immediately sent her on vacation, and then hid it.
    In general, according to ICAO rules, civilian flights over the territory where military operations are conducted are prohibited. Ukraine is responsible in this disaster. Prior to this, the Ukrainian Armed Forces had been shot down twice by civilian aircraft and the world community was silent. But it was necessary to judge.
    1. Andrey VOV 30 January 2020 11: 06 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      There is no that dispatcher alive ... and for a long time ... from the word completely
  • Ros 56 30 January 2020 09: 00 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    There is no court in The Hague, there is a political theater where political clowns frolic. stop fellow hi
  • tihonmarine 30 January 2020 09: 04 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    This court has real chances to turn into a “process of the century”, but only on one condition - if, unlike the “investigation” that lasted several years, it will be objective and pass without political engagement.
    After 1917, there can be no objectivity from the west. We already know who the “guilty” person will be “appointed”. The Western court now looks like amateur performances in our village "hut reading room."
    1. rocket757 30 January 2020 09: 21 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      Quote: tihonmarine
      After 1917, there can be no objectivity from the west.

      And before that, the "foreign" were honest and fair in relation to Russia ???
      Recall, for example, who called Ivan the Terrible a bloody tyrant? Could it be that they were “convicts” whose hands weren’t to the elbow in their blood, but at the very top ... there are still many examples of “true” ones!
      We do not need to complex and justify ourselves, but to poke those "true-minded, guardians" in their guano and more often!
      1. tihonmarine 30 January 2020 10: 20 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: rocket757
        And before that, the "foreign" were honest and fair in relation to Russia ???

        They were never honest, but after 1917 their "justice" went wild.
        1. rocket757 30 January 2020 10: 25 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: tihonmarine
          They were never honest, but after 1917 their "justice" went wild.

          This is understandable. Because since then the fear has come that they might happen something like that !!! And this is more terrible than the “palace” coups and everything else like that.
          1. tihonmarine 30 January 2020 10: 44 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: rocket757
            Because since then the fear has come that they might happen, something like that!

            But fear does not pass, but is constantly increasing.
  • cniza 30 January 2020 09: 18 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Well, it is entirely possible that justice in the Hague will indeed triumph - contrary to all efforts made to ensure that this does not happen.


    Very weak hope ...
    1. rocket757 30 January 2020 11: 13 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The options are not many.
      Either ignore, or fight back ... anyway, have to attend. Perhaps personally even better. But who should I send there, is that a question?
      1. cniza 30 January 2020 11: 41 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        If they accuse Russia, of course, it is necessary to be present and something tells me that we have a trump card up our sleeve ... hi
        1. rocket757 30 January 2020 12: 05 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Trumps in the sleeve, this is good, it is NECESSARY ... it is important who with these "trumps" will be able to set their brains on them, so specifically what would b!
          1. cniza 30 January 2020 12: 22 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: rocket757
            Trumps in the sleeve, this is good, it is NECESSARY ... it is important who with these "trumps" will be able to set their brains on them, so specifically what would b!


            I really hope that it is intended for the brain.
  • businessv 30 January 2020 09: 35 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Well, it is entirely possible that justice in the Hague will indeed triumph - contrary to all efforts made to ensure that this does not happen.

    I'd love to, but hardly! A lot of effort and money was spent on this event by our overseas "partners". Nobody will search, and they will not find either the Dnepropetrovsk dispatcher who set the course of the aircraft, or the technician of the military airfield that equipped the fighter. I think they hid them so securely that you can’t dig them out.
    .
  • IvanT 30 January 2020 09: 53 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The truth will not be there, it will not be! Not for this all this concert started.
    1. Nick 31 January 2020 06: 23 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: IvanT
      The truth will not be there, it will not be! Not for this all this concert started.

      Russia does not matter. What is there in The Hague to decide is not our business. Russia is not in the jurisdiction of the Hague court. In addition, Russia was not allowed to participate in the investigation.
      1. IvanT 31 January 2020 10: 27 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I partially agree. But when they begin to arrest our assets behind the hill, referring to the decision of the Hague, what shall we do ?!
        1. Nick 31 January 2020 19: 27 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: IvanT
          I partially agree. But when they begin to arrest our assets behind the hill, referring to the decision of the Hague, what shall we do ?!

          Arrest everything and everyone who is at least involved in the region. In a word, grab everything and everyone where Moscow’s hand can reach.
  • bycharashkO 30 January 2020 10: 28 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    "Well, it is entirely possible that justice in the Hague will indeed triumph - contrary to all efforts made to ensure that this does not happen." - I DO NOT BELIEVE!
  • Andrey VOV 30 January 2020 11: 00 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Court in The Hague and justice are two completely incompatible things!
  • xomaNN 30 January 2020 11: 31 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    When it is necessary in politics to “throw logs into the fire”, it’s not a pity to ditch the passenger Boeing. At least Malaysian in 2014, at least South Korean in 1983. The goal has been achieved - once again to present the USSR (or RF) as an "empire of evil." Guilty in advance winked
  • Octopus 30 January 2020 11: 32 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    I have to note that most commentators are right (and the author is not).

    If suddenly an honest judge appears in the Netherlands, then this shed will be closed instantly, for procedural reasons. The investigation, in principle, cannot be carried out satisfactorily: fixing the crime scene, interviewing witnesses and suspects, etc.

    In the best case for abstract justice, an investigation will be launched into obstruction of justice and possibly treason against the leadership of the Netherlands: this is, first of all, Prime Minister Mark Rutte, and then and now. But I do not believe in such courage of the Dutch judges.

    Most likely, you should expect a meaningless political booth, in the style of the notorious Hague. But the justice of the victors is good after victory in the war, as with Yugoslavia, and not before victory, and even more so not instead victory.
    1. Rumata 30 January 2020 16: 53 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Duck. Europe in the person of Psheks, Labuses and Ukrainians, believe that Russia has already been defeated and require contributions and reparations. True, victory in court does not mean victory on the battlefield. Only they do not understand it. But essentially: bring down the target at an altitude of 9-10 km. one SOU SAM Buk, without SOC, as claimed in The Hague, is unlikely. But the fully deployed air defense systems of the Armed Forces of Ukraine could easily do this.
      1. Alexander Seklitsky 30 January 2020 20: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        It’s quite possible to bring down a civilian airliner heading on course. The self-propelled gun has its own radar. But why should Russia bring down a civilian aircraft ???? But to repel attacks by attack aircraft, one self-propelled gun has the same efficiency as a reed-gun. There is no all-round visibility, there is no possibility of reloading, and it cannot attack on the fly. For such purposes, the tunguska lib shell is suitable. Or TOP
        1. Liam 30 January 2020 20: 51 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          Quote: Alexander Seklitsky
          But to repel the attacks of attack aircraft, one self-propelled gun has the same efficiency as a reed gun.

          But will he be able to bring down a military transporter?
          1. Alexander Seklitsky 30 January 2020 21: 01 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            him and Pzrk knock. At the worst, the wasp. It has a radar all-round visibility and is more light and mobile. To knock down a transporter is not the level of a BUK. The BUK complex is imprisoned for other purposes and certainly not for operating autonomously with one machine. It covers the area where armies or large objects are concentrated. A bulky thing I can tell you. I served in the military division of the 1st division 140 divisions. Just the same in beech m 1
            1. Liam 30 January 2020 21: 05 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              Quote: Alexander Seklitsky
              him and pzrk knock

              On the echelon?
              1. Alexander Seklitsky 30 January 2020 21: 10 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Have you ever seen the AN-26 ship for 10 thousand? By the way, on the eve of the Dnieper, the ukrov transport carrier was filled up with shilka. They usually do not gain more than three thousand in height
                1. Liam 30 January 2020 21: 19 New
                  • 0
                  • 4
                  -4
                  Quote: Alexander Seklitsky
                  Have you ever seen the AN-26 ship for 10 thousand

                  No he is parking by 7000. In this connection, I wanted to find out from an experienced air defense worker how
                  him and pzrk knock

                  I also want to ask an experienced air defense worker. How does a BUK see a planes flying at 7.000 at a speed of 500 and a plane at 10.000 at a speed of 900. What are the differences between them for the
                  1. Alexander Seklitsky 30 January 2020 21: 37 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: Liam
                    how
                    him and pzrk knock
                    On takeoff, on landing, at low altitudes. In the same way that they were shot down in Afghanistan.
                    Quote: Liam
                    I also want to ask an experienced air defense worker. How does a BUK see a planes flying at 7.000 at a speed of 500 and a plane at 10.000 at a speed of 900. What are the differences between them for the

                    sees poorly. In a narrow sector of 130 degrees. I will not disclose the details because the position is not the operator of the SOW, but the head of the pes 100 and the driver who dragged this pes. I did not sit at the console, but provided combat work. For it means a platoon of material support. But I can say one thing that using only one sow to intercept is nonsense. She is helpless without security.
                    1. Liam 30 January 2020 21: 43 New
                      • 0
                      • 3
                      -3
                      Quote: Alexander Seklitsky
                      On takeoff, on landing, at low altitudes

                      That is, on the echelon, the MANPADS will not hit in any way. An air defense system with a certain interception range is needed. Like a beech, for example
                      Quote: Alexander Seklitsky
                      sees poorly

                      Exactly, the angular speed of an airplane at 10K meters at a speed of 900 and an airplane at 7000 at a speed of about 500 is approximately the same. It’s not so difficult for the operator to make a mistake in this case.
                      Quote: Alexander Seklitsky
                      She is helpless without security.

                      And the likelihood of an error increases in multiples. Is that right?
                      1. Zaurbek 30 January 2020 22: 27 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Or Thor .....
                      2. Liam 3 February 2020 23: 26 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        TOR has too small radius for such a thing
                    2. Alexander Seklitsky 31 January 2020 09: 27 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Quote: Liam
                      Exactly, the angular speed of an airplane at 10K meters at a speed of 900 and an airplane at 7000 at a speed of about 500 is approximately the same. It’s not so difficult for the operator to make a mistake in this case.
                      That is why no one in their right mind will send the sow alone. I am silent about the fact that the rockets in the sow are loaded after deployment. Therefore, they still need to be transported next.
                    3. Liam 3 February 2020 23: 21 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Alexander Seklitsky
                      That is precisely why no one in their right mind will send a sou alone.

                      How many cars in the entire caravan with the "correct" deployment? How to ensure the secrecy of the movement of the convoy of dozens of trucks with very unique silhouettes? How to ensure the "invisibility" of the operation of military radars with their specific ranges of work? How to explain where the tractor defense and miners came from the air defense division with all the assuming dues? Have you bought it at Voyentorg?
                  2. Andrey Komkov 31 January 2020 22: 48 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Wrong. An answering machine works at the civilian side, which issues a special code that the given board is civilian to irradiate the interrogator with the SDA. After that, a special mark is assigned on the SOU screen as a civilian board. A military transporter responds with a different code that clearly identifies it as a military board. This was introduced in the BUK-M1-2 and in the self-propelled guns 9A310M1. So, at the expense of 9A38, I’m not sure that they already had such a system, but did not receive data on affiliation from KP 9S470
                2. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 31 January 2020 05: 30 New
                  • 0
                  • 7
                  -7
                  poorly
                  narrow
                  nonsense
                  helpless
                  These are all subjective assessments. Subjective evaluations may be different depending on the evaluator, including those that may be different from the one who made the decision to use the JMA. Objectively, one thing can be said: self-propelled guns can detect and bring down a Boeing offline is capable of. TTX allow it to her.
                  1. Alexander Seklitsky 31 January 2020 09: 20 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Why would she shoot down a Boeing? For what purpose?
                  2. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 31 January 2020 09: 21 New
                    • 1
                    • 5
                    -4
                    By mistake. The milling machine operator does not have the goal of chopping off his fingers with a machine, but they are chopping off.
                  3. Alexander Seklitsky 31 January 2020 09: 53 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    That is, in your opinion, someone in the command of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation decided to help the militias and sent one car from the complex with missiles LOADED to it with obviously losing characteristics? Do you know that elementary missiles are loaded onto it already in a combat position? Beech missiles are located on open rails and are therefore subject to physical stress. Therefore, rockets are brought to a combat position by the battalion’s battalion battalion in closed wardrobe trunks, after the rocket is brought into a combat position and loaded onto the SOU via ROM.
                  4. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 31 January 2020 10: 20 New
                    • 0
                    • 6
                    -6
                    No need to take your thoughts and try to attribute them to another person, it doesn’t work like that. The decision maker might have ideas about effectiveness and appropriateness that are different from those that you have - because of a bunch of reasons that you may or may not know.
                  5. Andrey Komkov 31 January 2020 22: 57 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Moreover, according to the Dutch version from the Russian Federation, send a self-propelled guns with 9M38 (M1) missiles, which are generally forbidden for use in firing (except for firing ranges) back in 2011 due to the expiration of the warranty period for the operation of powder engines. Apparently, they were specially assembled at the training grounds, and the SOU crew commander is such that he deliberately put expired missiles on his own self-propelled guns, neglecting the fact that a missile can simply explode when leaving the pylon. Do you believe that? I faintly imagine such a commander of the SOU. I would have believed that they would drag their standard 9M317 missiles and shoot them. Yes, the trouble is, this rocket does not smell there.
                  6. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 3 February 2020 17: 41 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey Komkov
                    I faintly imagine such a commander of the SOU.
                    Once again I repeat the simplest, most elementary thought - do not put your head on other people and try to think for them. The decision maker might have ideas about effectiveness and appropriateness that are different from those that you have - because of a bunch of reasons that you may or may not know.
  • Octopus 30 January 2020 22: 33 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Quote: Rumata
    True, victory in court does not mean victory on the battlefield.

    You are absolutely right. But my position as a former liberal is somewhat different. I feel sad that the court is used in political games. Not the main sadness in my life, but nonetheless.
  • Zaurbek 30 January 2020 11: 36 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The liberals have a whole coven about this. Bonfires burn and dance.
    Most likely the court will not be in our favor .... the question is who and how will apply the court decision.
    In general, I get the impression that all the courts between us and Europe (commercial and criminal) need to be moved somewhere to Asia. Hong Kong, for example.
    1. Octopus 30 January 2020 13: 20 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      The liberals have a whole coven about this. Bonfires burn and dance

      There are all kinds of liberals, but I, for one, do not.
      Quote: Zaurbek
      need to be transported somewhere to Asia. Hong Kong, for example

      What's the point? Russia will begin to comply with the decisions of the Hong Kong court?
      1. Zaurbek 30 January 2020 14: 11 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Not the Russian Federation ... but, for example, Gazprom
  • BOB044 30 January 2020 12: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Somehow I don’t believe in the honesty of this court. It seems the guilty parties have already been appointed.
  • Naval 30 January 2020 12: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    International law and justice in the West has long been replaced by geopolitical expediency, so you should not expect truth from this court. As necessary, they will decide.
  • kriten 30 January 2020 12: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Is there justice in the Hague? In The Hague there is a terrible propaganda of homosexuality, pedophilia, a drug paradise and a realm of licentiousness ... There simply is no room for justice left, except perhaps somewhere in the drug squad.
    1. Octopus 30 January 2020 13: 21 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      Quote: kriten
      The Hague has an eerie propaganda of homosexuality, pedophilia, a drug paradise and a realm of licentiousness

      Well, children have been gone there for a long time, but otherwise you are right, a very pleasant place.
    2. Octopus 30 January 2020 13: 21 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Quote: kriten
      The Hague has an eerie propaganda of homosexuality, pedophilia, a drug paradise and a realm of licentiousness

      Well, children have been gone there for a long time, but otherwise you are right, a very pleasant place.
  • 123456789 30 January 2020 16: 48 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Guards turn
    Recall that the Boeing 777 flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur crashed in the Donbass in July 2014. Killed 298 people. The West considers Russia to be the culprit. According to a 2015 report from the Netherlands Security Council Commission, the plane was shot down by a ground-to-air missile from the Buk anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) belonging to the 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade deployed in Kursk.

    Ha-aroshie we have anti-aircraft missiles! Where is Kursk and where is Donbass laughing Just look at the map to understand that the whole version is far-fetched!
  • BAI
    BAI 30 January 2020 17: 33 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    but only on one condition - if, unlike the “investigation” that lasted several years, it will be objective and pass without political engagement.

    And this condition is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE! The "court" was originally laid down in order to accuse Russia. Another outcome is impossible in principle. WADA has already absolutely demonstrated this.
    I don’t understand what the author hopes for.
  • trahterist 30 January 2020 20: 04 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    I would be much more grateful if your objection were to the point.

    And I would be grateful if novoregs like you, for example, did not carry frank nonsense.
  • Put__NIK 30 January 2020 20: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Most likely it will be as always. It is unlikely that something will change the detective if at all reach the court. Those who started this "play" will not allow actors unnecessary to participate. Everything is painted in it initially.
  • Chingachguk 30 January 2020 22: 51 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Mdaaaa, Hollywood with its flight of Americans to the moon, nervously smokes on the sidelines. Oscars will now be played by the creaking, downed Boeing, and the Presidents clowns from Poland and Ukraine .....
  • Larisa Byvsheva_3 30 January 2020 23: 10 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Everyone knows who “landed” the “bird”, this is never an outspoken secret.
    It’s even funny, but also sad: like the habony of thousands of people in the Donbass laid, routed cities and towns, leveled airports, but the Boeing didn’t touch, you go!
  • swzero 30 January 2020 23: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Well, it is entirely possible that justice in the Hague will indeed triumph - contrary to all efforts made to ensure that this does not happen.

    blessed is he who believes
  • koralvit 30 January 2020 23: 30 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Question: Why were MN-17 shot down? At that moment there was a need to prove that LDNR is terrorists. So, Russia supports the terrorists. Who benefits from this? First of all, the USA, but also to the West. It’s not for nothing that Merkel and K deceived Yanukovych. It was necessary to create a problem for Russia in the underbelly. Most likely this is the development of special services of the USA and Great Britain, they are masters of such things. But the performer rudely worked, not exactly according to plan. I had to remove both the dispatchers and the pilot and erase many facts. Therefore, under very great doubt that the court in the Hague will make a fair decision.
  • ALEXANDER PADOUN_2 31 January 2020 04: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    You can analyze and prove the obvious as much as you like, but !!!! - NATO shot down its Boeing with the hands of its APU, but it oversees its investigation and it will judge all this with its own court. Who do you think will be innocent? And why does this court need all the analyzes and evidence, if they know very well what and how, and why they (NATO) have done it all? Well, it didn’t work out, well screwed up. Now they need only one thing - time, time and time, so that the memory of the disaster and the desire for justice are gone. Therefore, prosecutors will change, there will be further investigations, there will be empty and endlessly inconclusive courts .... Until the power in Russia passes to the North Atlantes, then they will declare Putin completely gone by that time without a court or a court, and the question will be closed.
  • Pilat2009 31 January 2020 10: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Pessimist22
    Th something fast, 6 years of investigations of everything and already know everything.

    Do you want 25 or something? You don’t have to collect more evidence anyway.
  • Pilat2009 31 January 2020 10: 37 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: 123456789
    Quote: Guards turn
    Recall that the Boeing 777 flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur crashed in the Donbass in July 2014. Killed 298 people. The West considers Russia to be the culprit. According to a 2015 report from the Netherlands Security Council Commission, the plane was shot down by a ground-to-air missile from the Buk anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) belonging to the 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade deployed in Kursk.

    Ha-aroshie we have anti-aircraft missiles! Where is Kursk and where is Donbass laughing Just look at the map to understand that the whole version is far-fetched!

    It is enough to know that the air defense system is mobile and, during an exacerbation, is transferred to the border. And if the air defense system is actually illuminated in the Donbas ..
    1. Andrey Komkov 1 February 2020 08: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Yeah, Kursky, rabid cats have clearly proved this through photos on social networks. A BUK drove right in the middle of a white day and it said on board "I am an evil Kursk BUK, I'm going to bring down a civilian board." This is so that no one mixes up anything, especially with the Ukrainian BUK, which at that time loomed nearby, bashfully defending itself aside.
  • Pilat2009 31 January 2020 10: 43 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    [/ Quote]
    What's the point? Russia will begin to comply with the decisions of the Hong Kong court? [/ Quote]
    If the country does not comply with the court decision, then sanctions are imposed and I arrest the assets. How much did Gaddafi tremble after Lockerbie?
  • 123456789 31 January 2020 15: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: 123456789
    Quote: Guards turn
    Recall that the Boeing 777 flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur crashed in the Donbass in July 2014. Killed 298 people. The West considers Russia to be the culprit. According to a 2015 report from the Netherlands Security Council Commission, the plane was shot down by a ground-to-air missile from the Buk anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) belonging to the 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade deployed in Kursk.

    Ha-aroshie we have anti-aircraft missiles! Where is Kursk and where is Donbass laughing Just look at the map to understand that the whole version is far-fetched!

    "Do not procreate essence beyond necessary." That is, do not use, for example, complex explanations, if you can explain simply. Why drag the Buk from Kursk if the Buk of the Ukrainian Armed Forces was already there. So he shot down!
    1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 31 January 2020 16: 07 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      Quote: 123456789
      That is, do not use, for example, complex explanations, if you can explain simply.
      And how does your version explain the military convoy taken in the photo and video on the way from the Kursk region to the border with Ukraine? It doesn’t explain in any way, and here the very need arises to introduce a new entity.
      1. Andrey Komkov 1 February 2020 09: 09 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        She did not go to the border with Ukraine, she went to cover the southern regions of Russia. And then Ukrainian attack aircraft got in here to fly into our territory (https://www.ntv.ru/novosti/1190897/), and Ukrainian gunners fired at peaceful Russian cities (like here http://www.moscow-post.su / in_world / ukrainskij_snarjad_vzorvalsja_v_rostovskoj_oblasti15096 /). And then there are the voices of some inadequate Maidanites that Kuban belong to Ukraine (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INd-FaY7pjE). How can I not cover it? So our air defense also had enough tasks on the territory of the Russian Federation, they had nothing to do in the Donbass. Moreover, the militias had their own air defense systems such as the Wasp (about which for some reason everyone forgets https://www.uaportal.com/news/osa-chto-eto-za-raketnyij-kompleks-kotoryij-zametili- u-boevikov-na-donbasse-foto-video.htm). But Osa calmly shot aircraft to a height of 7000 meters, like that An-26, which was allegedly shot down by BUK the day before the death of MN-17.
        1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 2 February 2020 17: 10 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          You have some kind of wrong training manual. The correct one says that all the videos with this column are drawn in Photoshop.

          However, the conversation was originally about the non-multiplication of entities. If you agree - the facts indicate that Russian Buki was thrown from Kursk to the border with Ukraine - then for you the presence of a Kursk Buka near the area of ​​the Boeing's fall is not an introduction of a new entity unnecessarily (of course, this in itself is not proof that A Boeing shot down a Kursk Buk. More facts are needed for such a statement.)
    2. 123456789 6 February 2020 12: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      So, an ex-intelligence officer noted that through the DPR militia, which many Ukrainian anti-aircraft gunners went to the side of, found out that the Second Division 156 of the Ukrainian Air Defense Missile Regiment a few days before the crash was transferred from Mariupol to the area where the plane soon crashed.
      After that, on the page of one of the fighters of this division were published pictures of the “Buk” after launch, with scorched grass. However, after a while the frames were deleted, and the page itself was blocked.
  • NF68 31 January 2020 17: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    All these 6 years, the "investigators" tried to pull the owl on the globe. How well they succeeded, time will tell.
  • 123456789 31 January 2020 20: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: koralvit
    Question: Why were MN-17 shot down?

    For the same reason, and in Tehran, hunted overboard number 1. I do not believe in such coincidences!
  • Serzh 31 January 2020 20: 48 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    I believe that factual errors undermine the credibility of the examination (because the expertise that I cannot double-check based on my knowledge, I assess only by the degree of trust in the expert who made it)

    Gee)))
    you will forgive me, but call off as more competent experts? probably. these are bloggers)))
    were not what Almaz Antey does?
    I am a good specialist and often “make a diagnosis” by phone. I always make a reservation that for an accurate diagnosis I need to be present to personally inspect and touch. my diagnoses in 90% of the beam are correct - this is an experience. It happens in more complex cases - according to the photo. but this is a photo, not the original, from which you can check the resistance and other technical parameters.
    so your attempt to underestimate the level of expertise Almaz Antey go forest.
    they in the photo gave a more accurate analysis based on experience. Well, certainly more precisely a certain group of bloggers, which at one time was promoted not childishly. Bloggers !!!! And what level of expert opinion are you talking about here, I don’t understand
    1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 2 February 2020 20: 37 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: SerEzh
      they in the photo gave a more accurate analysis based on experience. well, more precisely, a certain group of bloggers
      And you may ask, what do you take as a measure of the accuracy of the results from both? From what standard do you measure the miss size?

      As for bloggers, they never positioned themselves as experts in the sense that they never said "here you believe us, because we know better than you, we have knowledge that you don’t have, we have experience, which you don’t have, we have access to things that you don’t have. " They always position their investigations as something that every person with Google maps can double-check and repeat from scratch. Nobody can double-check the model of an anti-aircraft missile warhead except an extremely narrow number of people.
      1. Serzh 3 February 2020 11: 54 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
        They always position their investigations as something that every person with Google maps can double-check and repeat from scratch. Nobody can double-check the model of an anti-aircraft missile warhead except an extremely narrow number of people.

        more az - "gee")))
        You yourself write that an extremely narrow number can double-check))) And trying to prove that Almaz Antey is not included in them? Come on! But what does Almaz Antey specialize in - do not remind me?
        Bloggers positioned themselves as EXPERTS! And not just bloggers. And they called their conclusions - EXPERTS ....)))
        You are either stupid, or not at all in the subject. The benchmark case in examinations is considered a standard. A slip is a juggling of facts that break out of the picture. Diamond Antey conducted field tests. Who else did this - do not tell me? Diamond Antey practical expertise proved what angle the rocket was to inflict such damage. PRACTICAL EXAMINATION! In this case, the fact that the investigation refused to cooperate with them looks very incomprehensible (well, just in case you try to turn it off, others don’t have the opportunity to conduct such an examination, which is true, but this again indicates the level of expert opinion - the main commission does not even have such capabilities!)
        I gave you an example from my life. I solve the problems of people over the phone, and often even after the repairman came there and couldn’t do anything? How? - this is experience, I once traveled a huge number of objects and there for myself, as for a specialist, identifying the signs of a particular breakdown. This is an experience! He is the same level of expertise!
        1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 3 February 2020 13: 58 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: SerEzh
          Bloggers positioned themselves as EXPERTS! And not just bloggers. And they called their conclusions - EXPERTS ....)))
          Can you confirm this?

          Quote: SerEzh
          The benchmark case in examinations is considered a standard.
          Well, at the moment there is no generally accepted picture of what happened. Dutch investigators believe that Russia shot down, Russia denies everything.
  • 123456789 31 January 2020 20: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    Quote: 123456789
    That is, do not use, for example, complex explanations, if you can explain simply.
    And how does your version explain the military convoy taken in the photo and video on the way from the Kursk region to the border with Ukraine? It doesn’t explain in any way, and here the very need arises to introduce a new entity.

    The only version that explains the FSE laughing

    Quote: 123456789
    Quote: koralvit
    Question: Why were MN-17 shot down?

    For the same reason, and in Tehran, hunted overboard number 1. I do not believe in such coincidences!

    But on board # 1 there are so many “Presidents” that getting into it is not even easy
  • Arkon 3 February 2020 19: 04 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    justice in the hague


    The phrase itself is absurd. Let's have no illusions. And then all these enthusiastic young men, who believe that "Europe simply does not understand," are already tired. Europe understands everything. And he very much wants to destroy us. By any means. As always.
  • Serzh 4 February 2020 01: 33 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    Well, at the moment there is no generally accepted picture of what happened.

    Perhaps I’ll ask one question to put an end to it.
    Why did the investigation refuse to cooperate with Almaz Antey, who have more opportunities than the investigator?
    rubs on this question will be a comment on your quote, which is copied here.
    To deprive you of the opportunity to juggle words on this topic - cooperation with Almaz Antey would give the very picture that, according to your statement, is not. Dot. Nothing sensible can be opposed to this.
    1. Andrey Komkov 7 February 2020 10: 34 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The funny thing is different. They took from the Almaz-Antey report a moment when, using the model of the missile’s flight (but not its strike), under the initial conditions of the Dutch strike model, he calculated the launch region, which almost completely coincided with the Dutch area. And based on this, the Dutch in the report concluded that Almaz-Antey supports their version of the strike. At the same time, forgetting to say that Almaz-Antey immediately said that the model of the shock of the Dutch rocket (fragmentation model) does not at all coincide with what he has and which (Almaz-Antey model) they proved by their experiment with IL-86. So other approach angles and other pitch angles when attacking the liner. But according to his model of the fragmentation field and its angles of attack, a completely different area emerges. But the Dutch indicated this only on one line in the plate, where they directly wrote - that the AA model does not match the openings in the cockpit and on the cockpit floor, and the experiment is not suitable, because it turns out that Boeing is releasing flying battleships and fragments that theoretically pierce 2 obstacles at a distance of up to 17 meters, can not penetrate 2 cm of Boeing aluminum and at the same time do not give a rebound. And all at once. But the Dutch model, it takes these bounces into account (although it’s not clear how and where it is not clear), therefore this model is the most correct. Well, the double penetration of two spars in a row, showing that the GGE moved parallel to the axis of the aircraft, and not one GGE, but 10 or more, which fundamentally contradicts the Dutch model, was tactfully omitted in the report, forgetting to mention this.
  • ruivit1988 6 February 2020 04: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Malov is likely that what kind of justice will triumph there. The fact is that any justice in the understanding of the bourgeoisie has a price (it does not matter whether money or political dividends), because they have long been found guilty. Well, this court in Gaga is like this, just a theatrical performance in which there will be actors and spectators. The court decision will be as follows, the leaders of the Donbass responsible for the downing of the aircraft will be held responsible as they personally gave orders, and the performers took slingshots (well, or stones, for a fair trial it does not matter what kind of weapon the Donbass people chose and whether they have it) generally knocked the plane down. Well, there will be a bunch of evidence attached documents all kinds of print pictures interesting draw. Well, then, of course, they’ll take off the shot, well, what would be where the official one and yes, all the events should somehow be paid back preferably with money. That is such a fair trial.
  • Andrey Komkov 7 February 2020 10: 20 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Damn, just now I saw that for some reason my answer was not imprinted. I am writing again.

    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    This is a constant load, and the bridges are also counting on skipping a one-time load, much heavier.


    But the engineers for the operation of buildings and structures clearly do not agree with you. And also disagree with the American journalist Patrick Lancaster, who took a civil engineer and walked with his legs and traveled the route that JIT drew at his presentation. The results of his trip are visible here - . And at the moment 07:05 it is clearly seen when the reality (the bridge, designed for 30 tons, could not stand the tank weighing 40 tons, which I tried to pass through it) meets with the theoretician (your phrase). And that practice shows that none of the bridges, overpasses, or even more dams (moment 04:03 - the dam in Zegres, through which the BUK could go from Donetsk to Snezhnoye only and will be lit in Zugres on the famous JIT photo. The dam is designed for 25 tons. It stands intact, which means that no BUK installations weighing 37 tons passed on it).
    In your attempt to justify the SBU fake, you forget about one small detail - the bridges can and were designed to allow a one-time heavier load to pass. But when they were NEW. And all the bridges and overpasses in the Donbass have been standing for more than 30 years without major repairs, etc. Therefore, not a single overpass in Donbass can miss a load higher than indicated before the entrance as the LIMIT load for the bridge. The results of this misunderstanding I showed above - with the bridge at the moment 07:05.

    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    Traveled around.


    Well, let's say that I traveled around. Although judging by the overpass itself (05:45 video of the journalist Patrick Lancaster’s video), it’s hard to go round, to put it mildly. Let us suppose. And did he travel around the overpass between the Red Beam and the Red Kut at the moment 06:10 with a load capacity of 15 tons (!!!)? THROUGH a railway with a contact network and a suspension height of 5 meters and a voltage of 3 kV with 3 missiles? But he also appeared there on the video of rabid cats, so he could not pass this overpass, if everything was as JIT tells.

    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    and which did not see the Rostov radar.


    For the first time I see a man who will claim that he never heard that the Rostov radar of the air traffic surveillance system, the data of which was provided by Russia in JIT, has a height limit and does not see below 5000 meters. If you haven’t heard, then this will be news for you. So if both military aircraft were below the level of 5000 meters (and even more so at that time there was low cloud cover, which all the more indicates a low altitude of the aircraft), the radar might not have noticed them. But to climb briefly to the train behind the Boeing, to look at the results of the strike by BUK and then dive below them did not stop anything.
    By the way, about this height. For some reason, I’m sure that since the Kursk brigade was deployed south to Rostov, the air defense surveillance radars overlooked the sky. And there are records of these reviews. If the survey locators of the BUK 9C18 Kupol complex stood near Aleksandrovka at the border, then they calmly finished off to the crash site of the liner (they work 180 km, and from the border to the place of the missile strike 65 km) and they could perfectly see the missile. So, I think, our military has records of where the rocket actually flew from. But so far they are not putting this trump card. But when it’s already locked up, when Russia will begin to be accused of being an accomplice country of terrorism — then radar records will be shown. And then, I am afraid, both the JIT and the entire Dutch government will fly somersaults.
  • Pilat2009 7 February 2020 14: 04 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Andrey Komkov
    Damn, just now I saw that for some reason my answer was not imprinted. I am writing again.

    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    This is a constant load, and the bridges are also counting on skipping a one-time load, much heavier.


    But the engineers for the operation of buildings and structures clearly do not agree with you. And also disagree with the American journalist Patrick Lancaster, who took a civil engineer and walked with his legs and traveled the route that JIT drew at his presentation. The results of his trip are visible here - . And at the moment 07:05 it is clearly seen when the reality (the bridge, designed for 30 tons, could not stand the tank weighing 40 tons, which I tried to pass through it) meets with the theoretician (your phrase). And that practice shows that none of the bridges, overpasses, or even more dams (moment 04:03 - the dam in Zegres, through which the BUK could go from Donetsk to Snezhnoye only and will be lit in Zugres on the famous JIT photo. The dam is designed for 25 tons. It stands intact, which means that no BUK installations weighing 37 tons passed on it).
    In your attempt to justify the SBU fake, you forget about one small detail - the bridges can and were designed to allow a one-time heavier load to pass. But when they were NEW. And all the bridges and overpasses in the Donbass have been standing for more than 30 years without major repairs, etc. Therefore, not a single overpass in Donbass can miss a load higher than indicated before the entrance as the LIMIT load for the bridge. The results of this misunderstanding I showed above - with the bridge at the moment 07:05.

    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    Traveled around.


    Well, let's say that I traveled around. Although judging by the overpass itself (05:45 video of the journalist Patrick Lancaster’s video), it’s hard to go round, to put it mildly. Let us suppose. And did he travel around the overpass between the Red Beam and the Red Kut at the moment 06:10 with a load capacity of 15 tons (!!!)? THROUGH a railway with a contact network and a suspension height of 5 meters and a voltage of 3 kV with 3 missiles? But he also appeared there on the video of rabid cats, so he could not pass this overpass, if everything was as JIT tells.

    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    and which did not see the Rostov radar.


    For the first time I see a man who will claim that he never heard that the Rostov radar of the air traffic surveillance system, the data of which was provided by Russia in JIT, has a height limit and does not see below 5000 meters. If you haven’t heard, then this will be news for you. So if both military aircraft were below the level of 5000 meters (and even more so at that time there was low cloud cover, which all the more indicates a low altitude of the aircraft), the radar might not have noticed them. But to climb briefly to the train behind the Boeing, to look at the results of the strike by BUK and then dive below them did not stop anything.
    By the way, about this height. For some reason, I’m sure that since the Kursk brigade was deployed south to Rostov, the air defense surveillance radars overlooked the sky. And there are records of these reviews. If the survey locators of the BUK 9C18 Kupol complex stood near Aleksandrovka at the border, then they calmly finished off to the crash site of the liner (they work 180 km, and from the border to the place of the missile strike 65 km) and they could perfectly see the missile. So, I think, our military has records of where the rocket actually flew from. But so far they are not putting this trump card. But when it’s already locked up, when Russia will begin to be accused of being an accomplice country of terrorism — then radar records will be shown. And then, I am afraid, both the JIT and the entire Dutch government will fly somersaults.

    I’m afraid that evidence that is not part of the case is illegitimate. Otherwise, it’s a cover-up with all the consequences
  • Andrey Komkov 8 February 2020 15: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    This is what 4-year students of specialty 270206 "Construction and operation of roads and airfields" teach: Particularly heavy loads — trailers, tractors, tractors and other machines — have to be passed over bridges and other man-made structures. Therefore, in addition to calculating on columns of automobiles, it is necessary to check the designs for the passage of single heavy wheel or caterpillar loads. If you want to argue, argue with the author of the textbook.


    And you carefully read what you just posted. Where is it written about what load is installed in front of the bridge and what load was the calculation of this bridge? I read - that in the calculation it is necessary to rely not only on convoys of vehicles, but also on one-off, especially heavy loads. AND? The maximum permissible load for this bridge is indicated in front of the bridge. Let's say 25 tons. Those. or a column of machines with a TOTAL WEIGHT of 25 tons, or a one-time load of NO MORE THAN 25 tons. But not 30, 35 or more tons. When calculating the logistics of the route, they are guided by this very maximum load on the bridge (indicated in front of the bridge), and not by some of your calculations there - but what if it misses 30 tons. The specified maximum load can be reduced if, as a result of inspections of the bridge, it turns out that its wear is greater than a certain value and it can no longer withstand its passport 30 tons.

    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    And if it doesn’t come up, will you reconsider your opinion?


    Why should I review it, if this video was shot at the beginning of JUNE, the AUTHOR of this video spoke about this. NOT some obscure comrades who posted it on the network and shouted that it was removed on July 17, 2014. And the person who filmed it on June 3, 2014 and then put it on the net. Then his account was blocked, and he found his video from some left-handed comrade, who wrote under it, "Taken July 17, 2014, terrorists take out a BUK that shot down a Malaysian Boeing to Russia." And how then do this author react to all this? When they make an idiot out of him that proves a false version of the SBU.

    In general, as I look, almost all of the "evidence" of JIT (in any case the ones that were posted) is based on the materials of the SBU, which has already been caught more than once on lies, installation and fraud. And apparently these guys from the SBU even organized the necessary “witnesses” for JIT, who, under oath, confirm that they saw and even felt this BUK on the way to Russia. Oh, the most dumb SBUshnik has enough brains for that. Who is there from the JIT will check whether this "witness" told the truth or lied. It was the SBU officers at the beginning, right after the disaster, they were burning, laying out still raw materials with gross errors and traces of installation - they were in a hurry to fulfill Poroshenko’s order to organize the provocation. Then they cleaned everything up and prepared everything as it should for JIT, thinking that everyone else had brains like a snail that does not remember what it had yesterday. And who remembered, those were quickly eliminated (in particular, those military men who posted materials contradicting the SBU version into the network). Well, I say, the same Resha had the original documents about the organization of the SBU covering operation for the downed Boeing (among other materials and on the very planes that witnesses saw, etc.). Their copies leaked to the network, and the originals of part of the JIT documents were quickly removed from the bank cell and then “lost”, and Resh began to declare himself crazy and a clown (thinking that all materials were taken). But then there was silence when Resh wanted to convey part of his remaining materials in public.