MH17 trial will test Netherlands for fairness of justice


A few days remained before the start of the trial in The Hague on the July 17, 2014 crash case in the sky over the Donetsk region of Ukraine of a Malaysia Airlines Boeing-777 aircraft operating on the MH17 flight from Amsterdam (Netherlands) to Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia).


In this terrible disaster, 298 people were killed.

Court hearings cover with a veil of secrecy


The trial of MH17 will begin on March 9 at the Schiphol trial complex. It is called a maximum security court, because the building has enhanced security measures. Four judges were appointed to hear the MH17 case, one of them was reserved (so that, for example, in case of illness of one, the case would be continued without interruption). Judge Hendrik Steingayus became the chairman. And the process promises to be a test for objective justice for a country that has decided to deal with this lawsuit.

Experts do not expect a quick verdict of judges. Most likely, the process will drag on for years. Indeed, in the case of more than 30 thousand pages. This mass of material has to be disassembled in the most thorough manner. Since the evidence and other evidence collected by a special investigation team, cause mixed opinions of experts and lawyers.

The Dutch prosecutor’s office did not bother with these doubts. I simply filled out the collected material in the form of an indictment and submitted it to the court. Although not. The prosecutors not only supported the controversial version of the investigation team, but also decided to cover it with a cover of secrecy.

On Tuesday, the Dutch television and radio company NOS, citing a bill of indictment, said that 13 witnesses in the case of the crash of the Malaysian Boeing-777 in Donbass will remain classified. The Netherlands Prosecutor's Office believes that the health and safety of these people are at risk. At the same time, as noted by NOS, one of them was denied anonymity, since it is “almost impossible” to guarantee it.


What “baggage of evidence” did the prosecutor bring to court?


Admittedly, the situation around the process was not simple. However, not to the extent that there is a real threat to the participants in the hearing. The prosecutors need a veil of secrecy in order to be able to manipulate the MH17 case, which from the very beginning acquired an international political character.

The Dutch prosecutor's office has a special role in it: to organize a demonstration trial of pre-appointed defendants. Their names are famous. These are three Russians - the former “Minister of Defense” of the DPR Igor Girkin (Strelkov), Sergey Dubinsky (call sign Khmuryy), Oleg Pulatov (Gyurza), and Ukrainian citizen Leonid Kharchenko (Krot).

There is also a “former commander of the DPR air defense” Vladimir Tsemakh. Last summer, the investigation team retrained him from witnesses to suspects. After that, the Security Service of Ukraine stole Tsemakh from Donetsk Snezhnoye and arrested.

Apparently, Tsemakh did not present a great value for the Dutch investigation. In the fall, he was transferred to Russia for the exchange of prisoners. For decency, the Dutch were indignant, but quickly turned the arrows to Moscow.

“Russia's insistent demand to give Zemakh to her testifies to the fact that Moscow confesses its guilt in the crash of the Boeing-777 of flight MH17,” local media outlets replicated the version of the authorities. New variations were launched about how the Russian Bug complex entered the territory of Ukraine and then fired at a Malaysian civilian airliner.

Actually, this is the main accusation of the investigation team, supported by the prosecutor's office. Its meaning is to confirm Russia's involvement in the death of the liner and to justify all subsequent political and economic sanctions that have been imposed on our country.

The bias of the investigation outraged the authorities of Malaysia - the owner of the dead ship. Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has publicly stated that the main task of this investigation was not initially to establish the truth, but to accuse Russia of the death of the Boeing-777 of flight MH17.


What did the investigation not recognize?


Malaysians de facto left the process after the investigation completely ignored the materials submitted by Russia. Among them were satellite observations made at the time of the disaster, documents confirming the Ukrainian identity of the rocket that shot down the plane, and other materials.

Doubts about the impartiality of the investigation appeared in the Netherlands themselves. The country's parliament demanded that the government investigate the role of Ukraine in the crash of the Malaysian Boeing. Deputies drew attention to the fact that Ukraine did not close its airspace due to military operations in the area of ​​international air routes.

They also asked where the records of the negotiations of the Ukrainian dispatching services had gone, and the dispatcher himself, who had tracked the flight of МН17.
The initiative of the deputies did not find government support. Questions in Ukraine remained unanswered.

As the authorities ignored, the film investigation of the Dutch journalist Max Van der Werf about the Malaysian Boeing disaster, in which the journalist presented inconvenient for the investigation evidence that Russia was not involved in the disaster.

The other day Van der Werf again became a troublemaker. He published a letter dated September 21, 2016 to the Netherlands military intelligence, sent to the country's prosecutor's office. The document provides information on the location on the day of the crash of the Buk air defense system belonging to the Russian Federation and Ukraine. Intelligence wrote to the prosecutor’s office: “It becomes obvious that MH17 flew out of range of all detected Buk-M1 deployed air defense systems.

The journalist did not rule out that data on Ukrainian systems may not correspond to reality. “It is striking,” writes Van del Verfa, “that the Dutch military has detailed information about the positions of the Russian Buk systems that were not at their bases, but most Ukrainian Buk systems did not leave their bases according to the document. Is it possible to believe that during the "anti-terrorist operation" Ukraine left its air defense systems at the bases, instead of deploying them in positions? "

The doubts of the Dutch journalist were shared by Russian experts. This is what the famous military expert, reserve colonel Viktor Murakhovsky said in an interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda. “You have to understand that the Dutch have no space intelligence satellites,” said Colonel Murakhovsky. “But they have access to the NATO database.” Satellite images of the state of this area the day before the crash of the Malaysian Boeing have already been published. There you can clearly see the positions of the Buk air defense system of the Ukrainian division, which was much closer to the crash site of flight MH-17 than 66 km reported by the Dutch. Within the radius of the lesion. "

With all these arguments, rejected by the investigation, the court will now have to deal with it. We will find out whether he will be as engaged and biased as a special investigative group, or find the strength within himself to withstand political pressure - we will find out in the near future. The trial in The Hague awaits trial for justice.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67 28 February 2020 10: 49 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    MH17 trial will test Netherlands for fairness of justice
    If someone hopes for it, then in vain. The culprit has already been appointed and there they will simply try to justify it, once again ... based on the "secret" data and witnesses
    1. Orel 28 February 2020 11: 01 New
      • 7
      • 23
      -16
      Quote: svp67
      If someone hopes for it, then in vain. The culprit has already been appointed and there they will simply try to justify it, once again ... based on the "secret" data and witnesses


      It’s been said a hundred times and for a long time everything is clear, his militiamen mistakenly shot down, which is already, the first data is the most reliable, I personally saw Strelkov’s video that they shot down a Ukrainian plane, crashed there, on that day only MH-17 fell, what’s already , it’s better not to justify oneself, but in general to not spread any news, it looks silly, like a child who can be seen to be lying, but continues and continues, funny and frivolous for a big country
      1. svp67 28 February 2020 11: 06 New
        • 8
        • 1
        +7
        Quote: Orel
        It’s been said a hundred times and for a long time everything is clear, his militias shot down by mistake

        Are you not their number 13 "secret witnesses"?
        1. Orel 28 February 2020 11: 11 New
          • 3
          • 9
          -6
          Quote: svp67
          Are you not their number 13 "secret witnesses"?


          I can confirm under oath that on the day of the disaster the site of the “Russian Spring” had a video indicating Strelkov that they shot down a transport plane of Ukraine, crashed somewhere behind Torez (I don’t remember exactly, but I checked that the area coincides with MH-17). Then the video was deleted, but it went on the network and already appears in the case materials. At the expense of the rest - I do not know, there is no evidence that Russia was involved - in my opinion, but with the militia everything is clear. Ukraine’s wines are also there, but if they are divided as a percentage, then it is least of all - the sky has not been closed, I consider this approach to be objective according to the facts. Everything else, both “pro-Russian” and “pro-Ukrainian,” I consider unproven propaganda and misinformation.
          1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 28 February 2020 11: 36 New
            • 1
            • 7
            -6
            I can already say now: the "objective" decision will be that the Boeing did not shoot down the Russian Buk, but "biased," "politicized," "pre-designated" —that the Russian Buk was shot down. What will be shown as evidence will not have absolutely any value, you can get to anything in the form of "but prove that it is not a fake ... but prove that your evidence of genuineness is not a fake (...)" and so on to infinity. There are no options that people with the position "well, let’s prove to me, and I’ll dig into everything that you show me," will reconsider their position. They will simply reject everything, it is very simple to do. They demanded witnesses yesterday, and today they say that witnesses were bought for Dutch citizenship.
            1. Doctor 28 February 2020 11: 41 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              What will be shown as evidence will have absolutely no value

              It depends on what witnesses will be.
              1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 28 February 2020 11: 42 New
                • 0
                • 7
                -7
                Never mind. Any witnesses will be declared deceivers in order to obtain Dutch citizenship.
                1. Doctor 28 February 2020 11: 47 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Never mind. Any witnesses will be declared deceivers in order to obtain Dutch citizenship.

                  And if a member of the administration Poroshenko?
                  1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 28 February 2020 11: 49 New
                    • 1
                    • 7
                    -6
                    This will be declared a lie in the first place, if his testimony does not like the evaluator. And not even for citizenship, but out of pure Russophobia. Weird question.
                    1. Tatyana 28 February 2020 12: 01 New
                      • 2
                      • 1
                      +1
                      Malaysian Boeing brought down Ukraine from Washington’s filing. And they need to evade responsibility for this crime, blaming themselves on Russia, not involved in the tragedy.

                      Moreover, it was not just a provocation of Ukraine / USA against Russia, but it was Washington’s attempt on Ukraine’s Presidential Airport 1, at which Putin was supposed to fly from abroad when he returned to Russia.
                      Ukrainians simply identified as airliners. The sizes on the radars of the Malaysian and the Russian presidential airliner are the same, the colors of the airliners are also similar. The Presidential Russian airliner only has 4 engines, while the Malaysian one has only 2. The Ukrainian pilot Voloshin reported this error when he became close to the Malaysian Boeing.
                      See details on video from 5:00 minutes

                      ATTEMPT ON PUTIN: Kiev wanted to kill Putin, but shot down MH17.
                      Posted: 4 June 2019
                      1. Tatyana 28 February 2020 12: 08 New
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        +3
                        It is a pity that the video and sound recordings that were immediately published on the Internet after the crash of the Malaysian Boeing, now the Internet does not show - does not find.
                        And so I remember the recording of a conversation between Kolomoisky and a Ukrainian official about the shooting of a Malaysian Boeing.
                        In an intercepted conversation, Kolomoisky was informed that the plane turned out to be completely different from the one they had previously assumed.
                        It is noteworthy at the same time that in the conversation there was a restrained attitude to this message on the part of Kolomoisky himself. It was clear that Kolomoisky was aware of the upcoming operation, but apparently he didn’t really agree with its implementation, but someone still insisted.
            2. victor50 28 February 2020 13: 06 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
              They will simply reject everything, it is very simple to do.

              It is impossible to draw conclusions without having studied the materials of the case, you cannot send the case to court, having an unrebutted alibi. We were taught that way. Therefore, from my point of view, the position (and principles of the investigation) of those who accuse Russia is no better than the one you described above, which describes Russia's attitude. I don’t know the materials in detail, my information is only from the media, I make corrections for bias, but I still wonder - what about Strelkov (do I have little idea of ​​the role of others in the conflict in the Donbass)? What is his specific fault in this episode? Or (to bind specific individuals) assign a criminal community? request Blame it already that belonged to him ?! Then where are a number of Russian officials? In general, from my point of view, regarding Strelkov, to put it mildly, unconvincing.
              1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 28 February 2020 13: 41 New
                • 0
                • 8
                -8
                Quote: victor50
                It is impossible to draw conclusions without studying the case file
                It is possible if you are not a court, and your conclusions do not entail legal consequences. No one can forbid anyone to draw conclusions, and to draw conclusions is, in fact, a normal occupation for a thinking person. Moreover, in fact, this always happens in conditions of incomplete information, this is also normal. The ability to draw adequate conclusions in the face of incomplete information is analytical ability. I also don’t know what exactly Strelkova will be charged with, this does not prevent me from drawing conclusions about the existing arguments that Buk, which brought down the Boeing, came from the 53rd air defense missile near Kursk.
                1. victor50 28 February 2020 13: 57 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
                  It is possible if you are not a court, and your conclusions do not entail legal consequences. No one can forbid anyone to draw conclusions, and to draw conclusions is, in fact, a normal occupation for a thinking person.

                  I agree. But with a reservation - if the information that I am based on is true. One had to face in life when the situation, which seemed obvious, ceased to be such when thoroughly examined. With this reservation in mind, Buk is very similar to authenticity. But there is evidence that contradicts the guilt of the militias. And I did not see their refutation. Maybe because I didn’t dig so deep into resources. Yes, and no desire. I know that only one distorted word, even intonation, and an innocent person, in your eyes becomes guilty. Until you get to the bottom of this distortion. And so - draw any conclusions you want. But they can only matter to you. As an entertainment, gymnastics of the mind.
              2. Crystal of Truth 28 February 2020 15: 11 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                And who were the shooters at the time of the downing of the Boeing?
          2. Siberian54 28 February 2020 11: 54 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Strelkov’s statement was that the plane crashed in this area .. They saw the plane crash, they passed it on the authority, and since they couldn’t bring anyone down above 5000 meters, here’s AN24 for you ... There’s only a small nuance: the plane fell from the AFU-30 -40 km distance, and Potroshenko made OFFICIAL confirmation of the downed Boeing at the moment when the last wreckage had not yet fallen.
            1. Avior 28 February 2020 12: 11 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              [quote] Potroshenko made OFFICIAL confirmation of the downed Boeing at the moment when the last wreckage had not yet fallen. [/ quote
              can you give a link? interesting to see exactly when was the statement?
              1. Tatyana 28 February 2020 12: 55 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Quote: Siberian54
                Only here is a small nuance:
                airplane crash from the positions of the APU-30-40 km distance, and Potroshenko made OFFICIAL confirmation of a downed BOEING at a time when the last wreckage had not yet fallen.

                I also remember this discrepancy. Namely, that Poroshenko announced the downed Boeing, when the plane was still calmly in the air. In my opinion, about an hour before its fall. The media drew attention to this.
                Poroshenko for some reason issued a “false start” with his message about this news in the media. Reported earlier than the event itself.
                1. Tatyana 28 February 2020 13: 09 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Quote: Tatiana
                  about an hour before it falls.

                  about 1/4 hour before it falls to the ground.
                2. Avior 28 February 2020 14: 29 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  I heard that too
                  Somehow I was looking for a duck or not, but I did not find one
                  So I wrote, I thought someone will give a link
                  Just a search gives a completely different time of the first appeal Poroshenko
                  Presidential Address on the Malaysian Airlines Plane Tragedy
                  July 18, 2014 - 00:45


                  https://web.archive.org/web/20171201044642/http://www.president.gov.ua/ru/news/zvernennya-prezidenta-z-privodu-tragediyi-z-litakom-aviakomp-33262

                  Let me remind you that Boeing fell on July 17 at 16.20 Kyiv time, that is, more than 8 hours have passed since the plane died
          3. victor50 28 February 2020 12: 52 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Orel
            Ukraine’s wines are also there, but if they are divided as a percentage, then it is least of all - the sky wasn’t closed

            Wow - "least"! Some were shot down by mistake, according to your version, while others did not do what they had to do to prevent this error, or rather, did everything so that it could happen. The wines of Ukraine are obvious and priority, regardless of whose rocket hit the plane. Even with your proposed scenario. And it’s just monstrous if Ukraine was hit. Here it is almost impossible to hide behind a mistake. Well, except for the classic for the Ukrainian rulers: "You think it happens. And there is nothing to do tragedy."
          4. Vladimir B. 28 February 2020 13: 54 New
            • 8
            • 1
            +7
            Quote: Orel
            I can confirm under oath that on the day of the disaster there was a video on the site of the "Russian Spring" indicating Strelkova

            Are you talking about this video?
          5. CSKA 28 February 2020 16: 57 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            Quote: Orel
            I can confirm under oath that on the day of the disaster the site of the “Russian Spring” had a video indicating Strelkov that they shot down a transport plane of Ukraine, crashed somewhere behind Torez (I don’t remember exactly, but I checked that the area coincides with MH-17). Then the video was deleted, but it went on the network and already appears in the case materials.

            So if he went online, put it here.
      2. ZAV69 28 February 2020 11: 07 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Quote: Orel
        shot down by mistake his militia

        Shot down from a slingshot?
        1. Orel 28 February 2020 11: 14 New
          • 1
          • 5
          -4
          Quote: ZAV69
          Shot down from a slingshot?

          SAM "Buk". Trassalogy is on the wreckage. And the news "That Bukov was not there" was interpreted by everyone as if it had not been at all, but it was said that there were no Russian Buks and Ukrainian, there was no question of militias. For the militia itself claimed that they had Buki, therefore, Ukraine is also blamed for not having closed the sky. It is necessary to read the information correctly.
          1. ZAV69 28 February 2020 11: 24 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            If they have beeches then where are they now? You never know what the militia said, no one saw the militia beech later, the OSCE searched everything there more than once, and not only the OSCE. If there were at least one spare part from the beech, they would have found this news not once.
            Quote: Orel
            It is necessary to read the information correctly.

            That's it. It is necessary to read it, not to invent it.
            1. Orel 28 February 2020 11: 50 New
              • 0
              • 4
              -4
              Quote: ZAV69
              If they have beeches then where are they now?


              Who cares? Of course it would be nice to find him, but this is not the main thing, because you can’t say that there was no murder if you didn’t find the knife?))) And the criminal case will be sentenced, there is other evidence
            2. Orel 28 February 2020 11: 52 New
              • 0
              • 3
              -3
              Quote: ZAV69
              That's it. It is necessary to read it, not to invent it.


              What’s simpler, Strelkov lives in Russia, interrogate what he meant when that video was recorded, but no one does it, so there’s no real explanation about the sale of the Ukrainian transport plane, and it’s clear what else you can think of, it’s not explain, except as he said it, here is the whole story, everything is clear
              1. ZAV69 28 February 2020 12: 48 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Well, Strelkov will say that the video was recorded with the aim of misinformation and a surge of fear on Svidomo. That's all
            3. Igoresha 28 February 2020 12: 26 New
              • 0
              • 3
              -3
              You never know what the militia said, no one saw the militia beech
              Buk of the militia was seen by the one that captured (and boasted on the Internet) children in the stadium in Donetsk region
              1. ZAV69 28 February 2020 12: 47 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                In our digital age, when everyone has a mobile with a camera in their pocket, the photos of these beeches would lie on all photo hosting sites in three layers. And where are these pictures?
                1. Igoresha 28 February 2020 12: 51 New
                  • 0
                  • 2
                  -2
                  https://mr-7.ru/articles/104461/
                  and over against the background of garages
                  1. ZAV69 28 February 2020 15: 00 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Transport loading machine. Without target designation on shoots.
                    1. Igoresha 28 February 2020 15: 01 New
                      • 0
                      • 2
                      -2
                      so with pine forest pictures and gathers
                      1. ZAV69 28 February 2020 15: 23 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        If there were real pictures then in all the news feeds they would already be lying. And this .... these are not pictures. Incidentally, this was discussed in hot pursuit. What they captured couldn’t shoot. Otherwise, where did the version about the import of beech from the Rostov region come from? I remember for a long time they discussed one little photo, such as a beech being taken. As a result, the version was not dragged by the ears. And the fact that the Ukrainian beech could be fired, which was nearby for some reason, everyone forgets. And here’s a riddle for me, why didn’t F. F. Berezin be taken as an accused? He is an LDNR activist, at that time he was in the militia and, most importantly, a professional anti-aircraft gunner, he studied and exploited a beech at one time .. It seems to me personally that an anti-aircraft gun officer will undo their business on a professional level.
                      2. Igoresha 28 February 2020 15: 28 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        I would love to read the point of view of a real anti-aircraft gunner if it couldn’t shoot like that on the net, because there weren’t enough spare parts / personnel, an objection to the Ukrainian beech is that the damage on the Boeing’s cabin is from the side from which the DPR’s territory would be fired, pictures Of course, they can be a throw in hot pursuit, however, in court this will need to be refuted with facts in hand
                      3. ZAV69 28 February 2020 15: 36 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Well, maybe the professionals will answer. It was only once written that in order to shoot a plane that goes 10000 meters, you need a + command post + radar + fire engine. Something like this.
                    2. Crystal of Truth 28 February 2020 22: 55 New
                      • 0
                      • 2
                      -2
                      I remember for a long time one photo was discussed, such as a beech being driven ....
                      Actually, there’s more than one photo .. There are a lot of these photos and videos from different places .. According to which the route of this beech was made there and back.
                    3. Andrey Komkov 29 February 2020 23: 00 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      What are you saying? And even made up the route back? Is it okay that there are a bunch of bridges and even one dam with a limit load of 25 tons? A BUK weighing 37 tons with missiles cannot even go over, and even more so with a tractor weighing 14 tons, which in general is 49 tons - even more so. Or do you have what BUK learned to fly? And how there, so you can safely throw out one video in Zugres, it was shot a MONTH before the events, the operator himself announced this.
                    4. Crystal of Truth 1 March 2020 12: 06 New
                      • 0
                      • 3
                      -3
                      You’ll explain everything to the court .. Your tales about bridges are not very interesting to me
    2. mikstepanenko 1 March 2020 00: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      If they have beeches then where are they now?
      They had Buk, appeared a week before the events from one local military unit. Defective, recovery was not possible.
  2. Siberian54 28 February 2020 12: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    FOR VILLAGERS EVERYTHING ON THE SIDE OF THE FRONT OF THE OCEAN ..
  3. Avior 28 February 2020 12: 13 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    no, in the paper that everyone tells, it is written that the Dutch intelligence does not have information about the presence of beeches.
    you understand, such an answer will be if they simply did not have data, regardless of whether the Bukee were there or not.
    1. Orel 28 February 2020 12: 21 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Avior
      no, in the paper that everyone tells, it is written that the Dutch intelligence does not have information about the presence of beeches.


      I agree, it was incorrectly stated where I looked, now I checked, it’s clear that there were Buki, because there are fragments of a rocket and damage on the plane, it’s not clear whose, which, in fact, was previously clear
  4. CSKA 28 February 2020 17: 00 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Quote: Orel
    about the militias were not talking. For the militia itself claimed that they had Buki

    When and where did the militia announce this? Do not grind nonsense.
    1. mikstepanenko 1 March 2020 00: 25 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      When and where did the militia announce this?
      There was a statement a week before the events. That's just the condition of that Buk ... not only shoot from it, but at least it was impossible to drive out of the hangar. Disassembled is very softly said. And not just the chassis.
  5. Siberian54 12 March 2020 20: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Outskirts "beeches" were at a distance of 65-75 km from the radius of the point of destruction of the aircraft-60-90min there 15 minutes. shot-60-90 minutes back .. For the military elementary ...
  • Igoresha 28 February 2020 12: 23 New
    • 0
    • 4
    -4
    I also think that the militias shot down but in those days they reported every day about 2-3 downed planes, which wasn’t and couldn’t be
  • Nastia makarova 28 February 2020 12: 41 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    so it was possible to confess as Iran, to pay not large amounts and that’s all, everyone forgot about the Iranian plane
  • NF68 29 February 2020 18: 00 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Orel
    Quote: svp67
    If someone hopes for it, then in vain. The culprit has already been appointed and there they will simply try to justify it, once again ... based on the "secret" data and witnesses


    It’s been said a hundred times and for a long time everything is clear, his militiamen mistakenly shot down, which is already, the first data is the most reliable, I personally saw Strelkov’s video that they shot down a Ukrainian plane, crashed there, on that day only MH-17 fell, what’s already , it’s better not to justify oneself, but in general to not spread any news, it looks silly, like a child who can be seen to be lying, but continues and continues, funny and frivolous for a big country


    10 times it is said that Iraq had WMDs. And where is it? They are looking for Dos and cannot find everything.
  • Olgovich 28 February 2020 11: 02 New
    • 1
    • 6
    -5
    Quote: svp67
    If somebody hopes for it, then in vain. The culprit has already been appointed and there they will simply try to justify it, once again ... based on the "secret" data and witnesses

    Of course, this is stupid: these Hague "courts" have already shown their "impartiality" negative .

    DO NOT RECOGNIZE them and their "decisions" initiallyI think the most correct position.

    This is just a cover for the crime of the U.K.
  • Orel 28 February 2020 12: 07 New
    • 2
    • 7
    -5
    Quote: svp67
    If someone hopes for it, then in vain. The culprit has already been appointed and there they will simply try to justify it, once again ... based on the "secret" data and witnesses


    Here is an example clearly showing where tactical success, and where strategic defeat. A recent example, Iran shot down a plane, there is a video - they recognized, punished, everything else you show, they will pay compensation. The story is tragic, but it is over. It happens, the perpetrators were held accountable, the question is closed. Tactically, the damage - yes, strategically, the losses are minimal. What is up with the MH-17? There is a downed plane, there is a video with recognition, but there is no one responsible, there is constant misinformation and an attempt to put the blame on the plane of the Ukrainian Air Force, stories about the “Spanish” dispatcher and cherry on the cake from Strelkova, that the corpses were stale and this is a NATO provocation, tactically - we dismiss at the very least, but over time it all crumbles, strategically - this story spoils our image for many years and will spoil it even longer, it was easier to say that the error, the perpetrators were punished and sentenced to be shot, here are their bodies, who is there will understand what they are died, you could even pay compensation, that's all - the question is closed, as in the case of Iran
    1. victor50 28 February 2020 13: 19 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      Quote: Orel
      Iran shot down a plane, there is a video - they recognized, punished, everything else you show, they will pay compensation. The story is tragic, but it is over. It happens, the perpetrators were held accountable, the question is closed. Tactically, the damage - yes, strategically, the losses are minimal. What is up with the MH-17? There is a downed plane, there is a video with recognition, but there is no one responsible, there is constant misinformation and an attempt to put the blame on the plane of the Ukrainian Air Force, stories about the “Spanish” dispatcher and cherry on the cake from Strelkova, that the corpses were stale and this is a NATO provocation, tactically - we dismiss at the very least, but over time it all crumbles, strategically - this story spoils our image for many years and will spoil it even longer, it was easier to say that the error, the perpetrators were punished and sentenced to be shot, here are their bodies, who is there will understand what they are died, you could even pay compensation, that's all - the question is closed, as in the case of Iran

      All this is so. But if these are still militias, then how was this to be acknowledged, given the number of lies about the absence of any fate whatsoever in the Donbass? Some kind of initially poor position .. It is incomprehensible ... It seems like smart people should do this ... Conversations are intercepted, passports are presented, only the lazy can not find the information or the zombie does not want ... But "we are not there." Stupid. Worse than with Korean Boeing. Because it still does not end.
      1. Crystal of Truth 28 February 2020 22: 50 New
        • 0
        • 4
        -4
        If it were the militias, they would have long recognized, no question .. Do not recognize because "ichtamnet"
      2. mikstepanenko 1 March 2020 00: 35 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Worse than with Korean Boeing.
        Korean Boeing special operation of the CIA. There were several American aircraft shot down, all of them military. And this Boeing was broadcasting an hour after it was “shot down” over Sakhalin. Information from the book of the French journalist (former military pilot) Michel Bruno "Sakhalin Incident." In the Donbass, too, it was not someone else's mistake, but a special CIA operation. What is worth at least a record of "intercepted" conversations. Mounted a day before the accident and posted on YouTube two hours before it.
        1. Salty 1 March 2020 00: 40 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: mikstepanenko
          Information from the book of the French journalist (former military pilot) Michel Bruno "Sakhalin Incident"

          Good book.
  • Boris63 28 February 2020 10: 58 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    They will be like sheep or stubborn donkeys to bend their line. There are docks, there are no docks ... refuted or not ... the task is given, the money is paid, it is necessary to work out ...
    1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 28 February 2020 11: 47 New
      • 0
      • 6
      -6
      If the defense side petitioned to formally affix the documents of the Ministry of Defense to the case, this would be an interesting turn. But there is doubt that she will do it.
  • Nikolay87 28 February 2020 11: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And the decisions of the Hague court are not enough for you to "test the objectivity" ?! Just go nuts, someone else is waiting for a "miracle".
  • AlexVas44 28 February 2020 11: 31 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Another farce will be played out with a claim to the rule of law, the achievement of the greatest democracy and other casuistry.
  • 1536 28 February 2020 11: 47 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    It has long been clear to everyone what the “decision” of the so-called Dutch “court” will be. And again, they will tell us that the people of the Netherlands have nothing to do with the fact that this top-selling elite of the country fulfills the will of Americans. The question is, when will this very people of the Netherlands wake up and think about how to live on in the absence of democracy, justice and the conditions of the American occupation, which is perhaps worse than the German one?
    1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 28 February 2020 11: 57 New
      • 1
      • 7
      -6
      The people of the Netherlands understand very well who shot down this Boeing.
      1. victor50 28 February 2020 13: 24 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
        The people of the Netherlands understand very well who shot down this Boeing.

        Like the vast majority of the people of Russia. Only from the exact opposite position. wink Zomboyaschik everywhere and at all acts according to one principle wink
  • cniza 28 February 2020 12: 41 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    We will find out whether he will be as engaged and biased as a special investigative group, or find the strength within himself to withstand political pressure - we will find out in the near future. The trial in The Hague awaits trial for justice.


    We will soon find out everything, or rather there is a hope that we will find out, they can also organize a closed process ...
  • Ros 56 28 February 2020 13: 19 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    What kind of court is there, what evidence, the main thing for them is to shout louder and hiley likes. In the same way as with the Serbs, as with the Skripals, etc. They tired of their simplicity and stupidity, all in the style of Khokhlov’s ekserdov on our talk shows about the war with our army.
  • Maks1995 28 February 2020 13: 37 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    And, on the state TASS and others. Until now, the news is about the downing of the militias by Ann.

    And stuffing is already every day.
    1 witness, 1n journalist, 13 witnesses, a bunch of journalists ....

    Some pilots and controllers who shot down a Boeing, we counted a few pieces.

    That's why they somehow do not believe ...
  • Kelwin 28 February 2020 15: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The court will investigate, or pretend to be, with the data that the prosecutors gathered, this is understandable, let's see how it will be. Another thing is not clear - for some reason no one recalls the first Boeing, which was completely lost. It seems that there are no beeches in the South China Sea, and the three-hundred-ton liner has somehow disappeared from the echelon, and not without its oddities. Two identical aircraft of the same AK were lost for six months for some inaudible reasons, and for some reason this does not cause any questions. But after the story with 737mahs a lot of things surfaced about the Boeing’s internal kitchen. Where are the guarantees that the Malays did not get a couple of boards with some rare defect, which ultimately led to the destruction of the liners? There, we are talking about huge sums, it is possible that there is a corporation in general, and paying for a shitty process with accusing us of all our sins is a penny, it’s also politically beneficial, but no one will remember about the Boeing itself — an ideal translation of arrows.
    This is all of course IMHO, even easier, thinking out loud - well, flight 370 doesn’t stick in the picture of the world at the same time as the booth around the 17th., All this is wrong ...
  • Vladimir Mashkov 28 February 2020 17: 18 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Neither the Investigation Commission, nor the Hague Court COMPLETELY believe: they have a political task, which some have fulfilled, others will fulfill. This is a circus, a show for suckers. And MH17 shot down Voloshin with the help of anti-aircraft gunners. The question is WHEN it will be proved.
  • ANB
    ANB 28 February 2020 20: 02 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    We have hunter 1 and hunter 2.
    Recently, hunter 1 smoothed out chunk 2.
    Hunter 1 is ambushed by a wild boar.
    Hunter 2 is hunting in the same forest.
    O2 invited citizen M to hunt with him and urged him to crawl on all fours in the bushes near O1. Moreover, it was in these bushes that O1 already overwhelmed a couple of boars.
    A shot is heard, O2 calls the police and claims that O1 killed M.
    Police blame the store that sold the O1 gun.
    Well, that’s so, simplistic. In the process, it turns out that no one saw a gun at O1, while O1 took boars to a trap. But O2 had a gun with itself. And the bullet was out of the box O2, and there is a check. True O2 claim that he gave a cartridge to a friend, and O1 took them from a friend, but no one confirms this.
    And here is the court, the seller, the chief of the warehouse and the driver of the hunting store are judged.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • iouris 28 February 2020 20: 45 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    A comprehensive check of the Russian Federation on the necessity of existence is being carried out. The "process" has begun. Court in the Netherlands is only one element. The start time of the “process” was not chosen randomly. The decision is predetermined. Bargaining is not appropriate.
  • Kerensky 29 February 2020 21: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Secrecy in such matters is excessive and spoils everything.
    It would be necessary before the court (with the time left) to provide the media with the array of data that "justice" has refused. Systematize it and provide a quality translation. Various "experts" also need time to speak out. This, at a minimum, will doubt the "spectacular start of the process."