Military Review

MH17 case: The investigation failed to confirm the launch of a rocket from Snezhnoye

201
MH17 case: The investigation failed to confirm the launch of a rocket from Snezhnoye

The investigation into the crash of the Malaysian Boeing MH17 in 2014 does not have specific data indicating that the ground-to-air missile was launched on a liner from the Snezhnoye or Zaroshchensky area. This was stated by the Dutch prosecutor Theis Berger during the trial.


According to the prosecutor, the investigation carefully examined satellite images before and after the MH17 survey, trying to identify changes that indicate the use of rockets from the Snezhnoye and Zaroshchenskoye areas. Witnesses were also interviewed, other materials were studied, but it was not possible to establish a specific place for the use of the rocket.

We conducted an investigation of this area (Snezhnoye and Zaroshchenskoye), based on satellite images, photographs, testimonies of witnesses, telecommunications information and other sources of evidence. The investigation reached the interim conclusion that there are no specific indications of the launch of a ground-to-air missile on July 17, 2014

- said the prosecutor.

In addition, Berger said that the radar data do not confirm the detection of a fighter or rocket at the time of the crash of the liner in 2014 over the Donbass.

Earlier it was reported that the United States refused to provide the Dutch prosecutor with satellite data on the launch of a rocket that shot down a passenger airliner performing an MH2014 flight in 17. In turn, Ukraine did not provide primary data from the radar in the crash case.

Ukraine practically did not provide primary radar data. Ukraine explained to the Dutch Security Council that no primary radar data were recorded since the radar was not working at that moment

- Berger told the court.
201 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. military_cat
    military_cat 9 June 2020 18: 05 New
    -51
    There is an even more interesting story - the Dutch accepted from Russia documents on the transfer of the Buk missile with the found number to Ukraine and studied them. It turned out that the assembly date, marked on the found fragment with the serial number, does not coincide with the date that was indicated in the documents of the Ministry of Defense (15.12.86 and 24.12.86). From this, the Dutch concluded that it is impossible to consider the document from the Ministry of Defense reliable evidence.



    1. dvina71
      dvina71 9 June 2020 18: 22 New
      74
      Since when should the assembly date and the date of the acceptance certificate coincide? *
      For example, the date of assembly of the car does not coincide with the date of registration of the Title.
      1. Insurgent
        Insurgent 9 June 2020 18: 34 New
        21
        We conducted an investigation of this area (Snezhnoye and Zaroshchenskoye), based on satellite images, photographs, testimonies of witnesses, telecommunications information and other sources of evidence. The investigation reached the interim conclusion that there are no specific indications of the launch of a ground-to-air missile on July 17, 2014


        The nuance is that on July 17, 2014 Snezhnoe was ours, and in Zaroshchensky, near Shakhtyorsk, there were dill ...

        Is it that the Dutch-Dutchmen have thus "equalized"?

        And a note - Snizhne, some kind of city, and Zaroshchenskoe - a village, where "two houses, one of them is a toilet"...
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 9 June 2020 18: 58 New
          12
          the end justified the means and not the other way around - the sanctions imposed and held Russia back. the "burdock" prosecutor will retire without proving the guilt of the Russian Federation - and the Outskirts market has left the EAEU
        2. Alex20042004
          Alex20042004 10 June 2020 18: 01 New
          0
          Here's the rocket launch from Buk:

          https://youtu.be/nM5ws9UAQJo


          The launch of a rocket both day and night is clearly audible within a radius of 6-8 km.

          And that no one heard or saw anything ????????????
          1. Andrey Komkov
            Andrey Komkov 10 June 2020 18: 57 New
            0
            There at that moment there was low cloud cover, and to people at a distance of 6 km the start sound came in 18 seconds, when the rocket had already gone into the clouds. So even if they turned around, the maximum that they saw was a smoky trail. This is if they paid attention and specifically watched. That's when there was an explosion - another thing. But then again - it's all beyond the clouds, his hell knows what exploded there.
      2. military_cat
        military_cat 9 June 2020 18: 36 New
        -27
        Quote: dvina71
        Since when should the assembly date and the date of the acceptance certificate coincide? *
        For example, the date of assembly of the car does not coincide with the date of registration of the Title.
        The Dutch say that the date in the documents is the build date, not the date of the acceptance certificate. They specifically clarified that they consulted with Russia, what notes mean what. This moment, starting at 35:20.

        1. Grandfather
          Grandfather 9 June 2020 18: 45 New
          10
          MH17 Case:
          they will soon ask: what is it? Where is it ? and when is it? otherwise they will be completely forgotten.
        2. dvina71
          dvina71 9 June 2020 18: 55 New
          30
          Quote: military_cat
          Dutch say date in documents

          I don’t know what they’re saying .. but the FINAL date of the document is highlighted in the photo. By signature of the responsible person. The date of manufacture there is NEVER indicated. There is a separate column for this. And the production date is not certified by a personal signature.
          1. military_cat
            military_cat 9 June 2020 18: 59 New
            -33
            You are thinking "how it should be". The Dutch say that they asked Russia "what it is," and Russia explained to them in detail.
            1. dvina71
              dvina71 9 June 2020 19: 02 New
              37
              Quote: military_cat
              You reason

              I do not reason. The procedure for processing documents .. in general .. is identical both in Europe and in the world .. If the Dutch do not understand the obvious things .. questions arise about their competence ..
              1. Insurgent
                Insurgent 9 June 2020 19: 04 New
                30
                Quote: dvina71
                The procedure for processing documents .. in general .. is identical both in Europe and in the world .. If the Dutch do not understand the obvious things .. questions arise about their competence ..

                Rather, questions about their intention to establish the truth.
                1. Alex777
                  Alex777 10 June 2020 09: 03 New
                  +4
                  IMHO, however, those who needed it are already known.
                  Ukraine did not provide primary locator data.
                  The dispatcher who drove the plane and instructed the MH-17 to drop was gone.
                  The Su-25 pilot, flying out with 2 air-to-air missiles, and arriving at the airport without them, was killed.
                  And the solution to the investigation will be simple - they did not prove anything.
                  You can shrug and disperse.
                  Carla del Ponto has already told everything about international "investigations". And who pays, and what kind of music orders. hi
              2. military_cat
                military_cat 9 June 2020 19: 14 New
                -34
                Quote: dvina71
                The procedure for processing documents .. in general .. is identical both in Europe and in the world .. If the Dutch do not understand the obvious things .. questions arise about their competence ..
                So how should the Dutch assess the document from the Ministry of Defense? By the "generally identical" order of registration and "obvious things"? Or the way Russia itself explained it to them at specially organized consultations?
                1. dvina71
                  dvina71 9 June 2020 19: 18 New
                  22
                  Quote: military_cat
                  So how do the Dutch need to evaluate a document from the Ministry of Defense?

                  I don’t know .. For fake reasons, they didn’t accept a lot of data from Russia .. the same primary radar data .. not that encoding ..
                  1. Avior
                    Avior 9 June 2020 19: 48 New
                    -13
                    They accepted them
                    In both standard and non-standard encoding
                    There are no other aircraft except Boeing in that area on them
                    1. dvina71
                      dvina71 9 June 2020 21: 27 New
                      22
                      Quote: Avior
                      They accepted them

                      and clowned .. First, the encoding is not the same.
                      Then they experienced difficulties with decoding, but stubbornly did not turn to the Rosaviatsia for help ... and three months later they said that they had decoded ...
                      In general .. did everything to make this data in court .. not useful.
                      1. Liam
                        Liam 9 June 2020 21: 32 New
                        -14
                        Quote: dvina71
                        Quote: Avior
                        They accepted them

                        and clowned .. First, the encoding is not the same.
                        Then they experienced difficulties with decoding, but stubbornly did not turn to the Rosaviatsia for help ... and three months later they said that they had decoded ...
                        In general .. did everything to make this data in court .. not useful.

                        Why did you need little? These data from Russian radars refuted the statements of the Russian Defense Ministry that the Boeing was shot down by another plane because the radars showed that the Boeing was flying alone in that area.
                      2. dvina71
                        dvina71 9 June 2020 21: 33 New
                        11
                        Quote: Liam
                        refuted statements by the Russian Defense Ministry that Boeing

                        Please .. give a link to the official statement of our MO on this?
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. dvina71
                        dvina71 9 June 2020 22: 00 New
                        15
                        Quote: Liam
                        The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation saw the Su-25 of Ukraine next to the Boeing
                        July 22 2014

                        I requested a link to the statement of our MO that the Boeing was shot down by the Ukrainian Su-25 ..
                      5. Avior
                        Avior 9 June 2020 22: 29 New
                        -7
                        SKR voiced this version, as expected
                        The TFR announced the fall of the Malaysian Boeing as a result of an air-to-air missile hit

                        According to the official representative of the department, this version is confirmed by examination and testimony

                        https://www.interfax.ru/russia/453986
                        https://tass.ru/politika/1669247
                        The Defense Ministry initially confirmed that the Ukrainian plane was there, but then, speaking about the situation in the air, it simply excluded the Ukrainian plane from the list.
                      6. dvina71
                        dvina71 9 June 2020 23: 38 New
                        +6
                        Quote: Avior
                        MO initially confirmed

                        What are you doing .. juggling and juggling. MO is MO, and TFR is TFR .. do not mix them ..
                      7. Avior
                        Avior 9 June 2020 23: 43 New
                        -7
                        Read carefully.
                        I do not distort or juggle anything.
                        Moscow Defense Ministry said that the Ukrainian plane was there, and SKR- that it was he who shot down a Boeing.
                        I did not write anything else.
                      8. dvina71
                        dvina71 10 June 2020 00: 23 New
                        0
                        Quote: Avior
                        SKR - that it was he who shot down a Boeing.

                        Lies ... your lies.
                      9. Avior
                        Avior 10 June 2020 00: 43 New
                        -2
                        Man, something you rolled into an insulting tone.
                        Have I been rude to you?
                        I gave you links to interfax and tass, where it says what you called a lie, but for some reason mine.
                      10. dvina71
                        dvina71 10 June 2020 00: 53 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Avior
                        just for some reason mine.

                        Because TFR has not stated such a thing ... you are lying. And this is not an insult .. a statement of fact.
                  2. Olgovich
                    Olgovich 10 June 2020 10: 35 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Avior
                    Read carefully.
                    I do not distort or juggle anything.

                    You do just that, MOVING ACCENTS.

                    Here's WHAT the TFR said:.
                    INTERFAX.RU - The Investigative Committee of Russia has information that the Malaysian Boeing was shot down over the Donbas by an air-to-air missile, experts believe that she was a non-Russian production.

                    "The main thing for usto be carefully considered all versions of what happened, in any case, this is how the Investigative Committee always investigates criminal cases, "- said to Interfax the official representative of the ICR Vladimir Markin.

                    "With regard to the priority version then we have data, including those based on the results of examinations, that the plane was shot down by an air-to-air missile.


                    There is only one VERSION and it is stated that ALL versions need to be checked

                    WHERE statement about the downing of an explosive rocket, as you wrote?
                  3. Avior
                    Avior 10 June 2020 11: 37 New
                    -3
                    There is only one VERSION and it is stated that ALL versions need to be checked

                    This is already 2015. other versions besides this are voiced there?
                    Interfax interpreted this statement unambiguously
                    The TFR announced the fall of the Malaysian Boeing as a result of an air-to-air missile hit

                    According to the official representative of the department, this version is confirmed by examination and testimony

                    If Interfax interpreted incorrectly, give a link where TFR indicates to Interfax an error.

                    But this is 2014.
                    The investigation obtained evidence of the involvement of the Ukrainian military aircraft in the crash of the Malaysian Boeing 777

                    https://sledcom.ru/news/item/886815/?print=1
                    where is there at least some other version?
                    TASS made an unambiguous conclusion from this statement.
                    SK: the investigation received evidence of the involvement of the Ukrainian aircraft in the crash of Boeing

                    The Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation is ready to provide materials on the collapse of the international commission

                    give a link to the official source; what other versions did the TFR have, besides this one, I also read.
                    and if not, then you should have a claim to Interfax, and not to me.
                    Success.
        3. Mikhail Tynda
          Mikhail Tynda 10 June 2020 00: 22 New
          +4
          Bbc? I have no more questions.
      3. Avior
        Avior 9 June 2020 21: 49 New
        -6
        The municipality said this in such a way that there were no foreign objects near the plane, in September 2016
      4. dvina71
        dvina71 9 June 2020 22: 06 New
        11
        Quote: Avior
        MoD said it in this form

        Have you carefully listened to these experts? THERE is black and white .. Doppler radars ... that is, they see objects changing the distance with respect to them .. if the aircraft moves so that the distance to the radar does not change - it is not visible. They also voiced the conclusion from this information. The Buk rocket launched from Snezhny would be reflected in the radar data .. but for some reason you see what you need ..
      5. Avior
        Avior 9 June 2020 22: 39 New
        -8
        you seem to be asking about the su-25?
        I wrote to you.
        as for the missiles or missiles, the radar did not find them, he actually, not at all for these purposes.
      6. dvina71
        dvina71 9 June 2020 23: 37 New
        +6
        Quote: Avior
        you seem to be asking about the su-25?

        And how does the Su-25 differ from other aircraft? Does he have gravity motors?
      7. Avior
        Avior 9 June 2020 23: 45 New
        -6
        Su-25 also did not find there at all.
        like rockets.
      8. dvina71
        dvina71 10 June 2020 00: 26 New
        +6
        Quote: Avior
        Su-25 also did not find there at all.

        They explained how and why Doppler radars, and even civilian aviation radars, can’t see the aircraft ... but they chose this radar against the launch version of Zur Buk from Snezhny ... that something tells me there are other radars ..
  2. Andrey Komkov
    Andrey Komkov 10 June 2020 19: 03 New
    0
    Why did you need little? These data from Russian radars refuted the statements of the Russian Defense Ministry that the Boeing was shot down by another plane because the radars showed that the Boeing was flying alone in that area.

    At the same time, our people clearly said:
    1) the radar is not seen below 5000 m
    2) the radar does not see targets that go either perpendicular to the radar beam with a low radial speed or are lower and behind the Boeing.
    So if the plane makes a slide and launches a rocket, being perpendicular to the beam at a lower speed, the radar does not see it by itself. As he does not see the missile coming from the same zone (and the missile from Zaroshchensky, by a strange coincidence, actually went perpendicular to the beam).
  • 4ekist
    4ekist 9 June 2020 20: 47 New
    16
    ..... Ukraine practically did not provide primary radar data. Ukraine explained to the Dutch Security Council that no primary radar data was recorded since the radar was not working at that moment ......

    What a lie !!!!! How, then, was the control and control of aircraft in this area by the dispatching service of Ukraine.
    1. military_cat
      military_cat 9 June 2020 21: 00 New
      -14
      According to secondary radar?
      1. 4ekist
        4ekist 9 June 2020 22: 16 New
        +8
        What does it mean according to the readings of secondary radars? It happens on the screens of automated control systems of automated control systems, and the situation from the radar is only primary.
      2. military_cat
        military_cat 9 June 2020 22: 45 New
        -10
        Primary radar works by reflecting radio waves from objects, and secondary - by emitting transceivers (transponders) at objects.
      3. Cristall
        Cristall 9 June 2020 23: 13 New
        -5
        Quote: 4ekist
        What does it mean according to the readings of secondary radars? It happens on the screens of automated control systems of automated control systems, and the situation from the radar is only primary.

        Attorney Tice Berger. By the way, he gave a detailed interview according to radar data.
        Primary Ukraine was absent (did not work / captured / repair)
        Primary RF did not transmit for a long time / non-standard format / transferred in 2016
        The secondary ones confirmed the Bukov version and denied the Extermination.
        The data from Ustov Rostov were better quality than Ukrainian. But all of them did not fix a rocket or fighter.
        China claims to have no satellite at that moment.
        The United States showed the prosecutor and referred to confidentiality.
        With data from different countries, it’s still a mess.
        They give it, they don’t give it, they give it late, then the formats ...
        patience must be had.
        Here are the Ukrainian secondary data from the report.
      4. dvina71
        dvina71 9 June 2020 23: 56 New
        10
        Quote: Cristall
        The secondary ones confirmed the Bukov version and denied the Extermination.

        How.? Do you even look at the wiki what is econdary surveillance radar (SSR) ..
        He cannot confirm anything, except that the defendant works for the aircraft ..
  • military_cat
    military_cat 9 June 2020 22: 06 New
    -7
    I found a frame from the presentation of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation regarding this document, where it is written that 24.12.86 is exactly the release date of the 9D131 engine, is in the corresponding column.



    But this is the 9D131 engine itself, when it was first shown at a briefing by the investigation team. Moreover, the release date on it could be considered even then, nobody closed it.

    1. dvina71
      dvina71 9 June 2020 22: 16 New
      15
      Quote: military_cat
      I found a frame from the presentation of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation regarding this document, where it is written that 24.12.86 is exactly the release date of the 9D131 engine, is in the corresponding column.



      But this is the 9D131 engine itself, when it was first shown at a briefing by the investigation team. Moreover, the release date on it could be considered even then, nobody closed it.


      Yes .. release .. release from the manufacturer, and the date of the ASSEMBLY is indicated on the engine .. that is, the end of production .. For you, is not Russian native or what? Dutchman?
      The engine is not just produced, it is tested .. and only then they sign the acceptance certificate .., which allows you to release the product from the factory.
      1. military_cat
        military_cat 9 June 2020 22: 57 New
        -7
        Here's a document (one of the ones that the Dutch showed today), called, final information assembly (not about acceptance and not about release).

        Date is 24.12.86

      2. military_cat
        military_cat 9 June 2020 23: 36 New
        -7
        Here is the briefing itself. At 4:18, Konashenkov says December 24th is exactly the date assembly engine, and on the same day he was mounted on a rocket.

      3. asv363
        asv363 10 June 2020 08: 24 New
        +1
        Where did you see 15.12.1986/01.11.1986/XNUMX? On the nozzle flashed the date of manufacture or acceptance of XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX, and what's the big deal?
      4. military_cat
        military_cat 10 June 2020 11: 27 New
        +2
        Quote: asv363
        Where did you see 15.12.1986/XNUMX/XNUMX?

        Here:


        Quote: asv363
        The nozzle flashed the date of manufacture or acceptance

        It says what the date is.
      5. asv363
        asv363 10 June 2020 13: 36 New
        +1
        Thanks. Unfortunately, "RUPTLY" does not allow me to make out anything.
      6. military_cat
        military_cat 10 June 2020 13: 42 New
        +1
        Found the same frame without an inscription.

  • dvina71
    dvina71 9 June 2020 23: 44 New
    +7
    Quote: military_cat
    Date is 24.12.86

    You distort again. The date is indicated when the document was written .. And even it says - the product after the final installation of block C .. is checked for leaks .. Which does not ambiguously indicate .. the time lag between the production of the product and its release ..
  • military_cat
    military_cat 9 June 2020 23: 46 New
    -7
    Please see the Defense Ministry briefing. I inserted a link to the video and the time when Konashenkov talks about assembling an engine and a rocket.
  • dvina71
    dvina71 10 June 2020 00: 09 New
    +7
    Quote: military_cat
    Please see Defense Ministry briefing

    Leave it behind the talking head .. Better carefully consider the screen photo of the final assembly of the product ..
    Where it is written right away ... the product 9d131 is finally installed in the product 9M36 ... and after the final installation of block C it is checked for leaks.
    That is, 24.12.86/9/36, a document was prepared on the final assembly ed 9m131, and not on the production ed. XNUMXdXNUMX ..
    Signed - Director, Controller and Customer Representative ..
    In civilian life, this is called the act of acceptance ..
    Actually what I wrote about in my first comment ..
  • military_cat
    military_cat 10 June 2020 00: 30 New
    -7
    Here is just the previous page, where the nozzle was still being installed on the engine, also dates to December 24th. That is, everything that is between these two events, from the installation of the nozzle (and control of this operation) to the acceptance of the engine already installed on the rocket, fit on one day, December 24th.
  • dvina71
    dvina71 10 June 2020 00: 35 New
    +8
    Quote: military_cat
    where the nozzle was still installed on the engine

    Block C .. what do you think?
  • military_cat
    military_cat 10 June 2020 00: 44 New
    -9
    Nozzle.
    So what do we have as a result? In section 3, the nozzle is mounted on the engine. In section 4, the engine as part of the rocket is accepted for control after leak testing on the same day. The final assembly with acceptance took place on the same day, December 24th.
  • dvina71
    dvina71 10 June 2020 00: 55 New
    +6
    Quote: military_cat
    So what do we have as a result?

    Really what?
    Where is the date of manufacture ed. 9d131?
  • military_cat
    military_cat 10 June 2020 00: 59 New
    -8
    Obviously, this date is somewhere between the final assembly assembly (section 4) and the acceptance of some assembly phase before the final assembly (section 3). And since both of these stages occur on the same date 24.12.86/XNUMX/XNUMX, we have little choice.
  • dvina71
    dvina71 10 June 2020 01: 21 New
    +5
    Quote: military_cat
    Obviously

    Obviously, the document ... the screen of which we are discussing ... to the date of manufacture of the engine has nothing to do. We can only guess, in the absence of an engine acceptance form .. But it is obvious that the engine was produced earlier than 24.12.86/24.12.86/XNUMX .., if only because after assembling the engine, it should be checked for leaks and only after that it will be accepted ... not too many operations on XNUMX ..?
  • military_cat
    military_cat 10 June 2020 01: 33 New
    -4
    Quote: dvina71
    to the date of manufacture of the engine, has no relation

    The date that the Dutch are talking about is the date assembly. It is indicated by the marking on the engine.

    In section 3, they signed up for the acceptance of the intermediate stage assembly ("certificate of assembly product 9D131 "), and in section 4 - the final assembly ("information about the final assembly products 9D131 "). Acceptance of the intermediate stage of assembly, completion of the final, acceptance of the final - all this was done in one day, according to the documents.
  • dvina71
    dvina71 10 June 2020 01: 42 New
    +5
    Quote: military_cat
    ("certificate of assembly of product 9D131"

    Assembly ... assembly ... not manufacture. We made it to different stages of assembly. Because we are talking about assembling ed 9d131 ed. 9m36 .. all this is written in documents. The screens of which we are discussing.
    They do not say a word about the date of MANUFACTURE ed.9d131 ..
  • military_cat
    military_cat 10 June 2020 01: 46 New
    -4
    Quote: dvina71
    Assembly ... assembly ... not manufacture. We made it to different stages of assembly. Because we are talking about assembling ed 9d131 ed. 9m36 .. all this is written in documents. The screens of which we are discussing.
    They do not say a word about the date of MANUFACTURE ed.9d131 ..

    Well, the fact of the matter is that the Dutch point to the discrepancy in the date assemblyrather than manufacturing.
  • dvina71
    dvina71 10 June 2020 10: 10 New
    +1
    I re-read the whole night discussion in the morning ... Now the Dutch mechanism of action is understandable ... stupidly mowing down as idiots.
    I summarize.
    Screenshots of documents relate to the assembly ed. 9M36, somehow the Dutch tied them to the build date ed. 9d131 ...., which was used in the assembly of 9m36. This is either illiteracy or so conceived ..
  • military_cat
    military_cat 10 June 2020 10: 57 New
    0
    Quote: dvina71
    Screenshots of documents relate to the assembly ed. 9M36, somehow the Dutch tied them to the build date ed. 9d131

    Here is the document from which screenshots are taken. It says what product it is about.

  • Olgovich
    Olgovich 9 June 2020 22: 51 New
    +3
    Quote: military_cat
    I found a frame from the presentation of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation regarding this document, where it is written that 24.12.86 is exactly the release date of the 9D131 engine, is in the corresponding column.

    What did the Russian Defense Ministry answer Dutch comments?

    Is it really nothing?

    I think that everything is explained simply by a different understanding of the same objects: that which is obvious to ours is a technical hitch ...
  • kot423
    kot423 9 June 2020 19: 39 New
    13
    Or, as Russia herself explained to them in specially organized consultations?

    And where did you get the idea that they were explained EXACTLY exactly as they say? Have you personally been there as an observer? No? With the same success, I can say that I saw your signature on the payroll of the State Department, your neighbors said that this is not so, you could not sign it, because did not leave their apartment for 1 year. So I’ll declare publicly that you signed the net payrolls a year ago in order to save on travel and avert suspicions that you are working for the State Department. Is the analogy clear? Now refute my words.
  • Lekz
    Lekz 9 June 2020 22: 43 New
    +4
    The manufacturer has the documents for the product in Russia and Ukraine has the form / passport since attached to the issue of rocket ownership is quite simple. Traces of this missile are in the Ministry of Defense in Grau and the corresponding department of the Carpathian HE / Grau of Ukraine (you can look at the archives of the 223rd anti-aircraft missile brigade). It would be a desire ...
    1. Avior
      Avior 9 June 2020 23: 25 New
      -7
      The Dutch checked.
      in the archives of 223 brigade information about the arrival of the rocket was not found.
      1. Mikhail Tynda
        Mikhail Tynda 10 June 2020 00: 28 New
        +4
        Where does the information come from?
      2. Andrey Komkov
        Andrey Komkov 10 June 2020 17: 43 New
        0
        Managed to destroy as part of a special operation conducted by the SBU to conceal evidence?
  • forpost
    forpost 9 June 2020 19: 17 New
    +9
    Does Russia know what they asked Russia?
    1. military_cat
      military_cat 9 June 2020 20: 31 New
      -6
      If the Dutch said something about Russia that is so obvious and easily provable contrary to reality, moreover, in the process of testifying in court - this is an excellent occasion for Russia (or the defense) to come forward and convict the investigation of lies and fraud. The ball is on the Russian side.
      1. dvina71
        dvina71 9 June 2020 21: 20 New
        16
        Quote: military_cat
        The ball is on the Russian side.

        Yeah .. as whom the Russian side is present at the trial?
        1. military_cat
          military_cat 9 June 2020 21: 30 New
          -8
          Russian lawyer Elena Kutina represents the interests of Russian citizen Oleg Pulatov in court. Not to mention that nothing has ever prevented the Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation from gathering briefings and voicing their position there.
          1. dvina71
            dvina71 9 June 2020 21: 31 New
            +9
            Quote: military_cat
            Russian citizen Oleg Pulatov

            ...? Is that a goalkeeper?
          2. Olgovich
            Olgovich 9 June 2020 22: 55 New
            +8
            Quote: military_cat
            Not to mention that nothing has ever prevented the Foreign Ministry and the Russian Ministry of Defense from collecting briefings and voicing their position there

            the position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Defense is voiced MILLION times!

            Russia. Besides. not a member of this farce.

            What is incomprehensible to anyone?
          3. forpost
            forpost 10 June 2020 00: 26 New
            +3
            Do they represent the interests of the Moscow Region or the government of the Russian Federation?
      2. Mikhail Tynda
        Mikhail Tynda 10 June 2020 00: 29 New
        +3
        How is the weather in Vinnitsa?
  • Hagen
    Hagen 10 June 2020 06: 15 New
    +5
    Quote: military_cat
    The Dutch say

    They have a lot to say. They also say and are silent that the United States and Ukraine are sabotaging the investigation and providing the requested materials. Despite the fact that in some cases they confirm that they really are. This is another judgment seat. This is the answer to the question why the amendments to the constitution are being adopted so quickly. And then, in order to have foundations without leaving international organizations, Russia could send some of them "in the forest". Or does anyone have doubts about the results of this "investigation"? The Libyan scenario of "pulling an owl on the globe" is being prepared. Everything worked out with Libya. What will happen this time will show the near future ... This is my opinion.
  • Deniska999
    Deniska999 9 June 2020 19: 21 New
    -1
    I believe that the truth is probably known to all parties that are somehow related to this incident. Since no one advertises the true version, then perhaps it substitutes everyone at once and everyone is involved in this matter.
    1. 4ekist
      4ekist 9 June 2020 20: 49 New
      +1
      I have no doubt about that.
    2. Olgovich
      Olgovich 9 June 2020 22: 57 New
      0
      Quote: Deniska999
      Since no one advertises the true version, then perhaps it substitutes everyone at once and everyone is involved in this matter.

      come up with this amazing version, substituting .... two / three sides. belay
      1. Pavel73
        Pavel73 10 June 2020 06: 47 New
        -1
        Easy. The Boeing was shot down really by Buk, indeed from the territory controlled by the Donetsk rebels. But this Buk itself is Ukrainian, with a Ukrainian crew. Allegedly sided with the rebels. But in fact, sent by the Ukrainian side to carry out this provocation from the territory of the rebels. Remember the reports about the capture of Buks by the rebels in the Ukrainian military unit a couple of weeks before the disaster. Then the answer from the Ukrainian side was that "yes, there is a Buk, but it is not working." And then the official denial of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine that "they did not capture anything, and all military equipment was withdrawn from this military unit." Conclusion - the Buk was there, but the Armed Forces of Ukraine deliberately planted it to the Donetsk people as a "Trojan horse", along with the crew. Here is the version according to which everyone is to blame. The Ukrainian side carried out this provocation and shot down a Boeing, the Donetsk people overshadowed the enemy under their noses, Russia did not think to warn them, and the West shields its charges.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 10 June 2020 07: 47 New
          +1
          Quote: Pavel73
          Conclusion - the Buk was there, but the Armed Forces of Ukraine deliberately planted it to the Donetsk people as a "Trojan horse", along with the crew. Here is the version according to which everyone is to blame. The Ukrainian side carried out this provocation and shot down a Boeing, the Donetsk residents overshadowed the enemy under their noses, Russia did not think to warn them, and the West shields its charges.

          There ALL-former Ukrainian and former Ukrainian.

          In your version the residents of Donetsk are definitely to blame. APU-nothing to do with it.

          What's wrong.
          1. Pavel73
            Pavel73 10 June 2020 08: 35 New
            0
            In my version, everyone is to blame. But the degree of guilt is different. The maximum is for those who shot, and who gave the order to do so.
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 10 June 2020 10: 56 New
              +1
              Quote: Pavel73
              In my version, everyone is to blame.

              APU-pure and white in your version and there is nothing to attract them: in your version-shot DNR.

              But are the former Urains real or the new Deneerites real there
              1. Pavel73
                Pavel73 10 June 2020 11: 07 New
                0
                This is called a setup. That is how many crimes are committed: it must be committed so that the other is to blame. And if we put aside morality, then such a provocation should be done just like that. Shoot innocent people from enemy territory and from weapons that the enemy has. Then the enemy will be to blame, and not the one who actually shot.
            2. Alex Justice
              Alex Justice 10 June 2020 11: 31 New
              +1
              The maximum is for those who shot, and who gave the order to do so.

              The maximum is for those who allowed the passage in the war zone, where many planes had already been shot down before. The lawsuit should be to Ukraine.
        2. Pathos
          Pathos 10 June 2020 10: 00 New
          +1
          Not at all No. it is unrealistic to fill up an airplane at such an altitude with one installation to aim at a target like ???? AS???? It has a pendyurk radar, it is designed to cover battle formations, and here the broads and such a boar can be overwhelmed. Beech is essentially a stupid launcher that works in a complex. Former air defenders immediately said that Ukraine had flown over the plane. They filled up the Black Sea stupidly over the negligence of officers, launching a rocket was always a sight, and the officer jumped out to see how the missiles were fired, and the operator unattended and awoke.
          1. Pavel73
            Pavel73 10 June 2020 10: 38 New
            -1
            So they had target designation from other Ukrainian radars. Moreover, they could do very cunningly: within a few days before the disaster, study the air traffic along the corridors and indicate the Buk crew the exact launch direction for a particular place and a specific air corridor. And immediately on the day of the planned provocation - turn off all radars, except for the radar on the launcher itself. She stood in ambush, and launched a rocket through the first suitable aircraft in the indicated air corridor. Simply put - Beech was standing under the air passage and was waiting for the victim.
            1. Pathos
              Pathos 15 June 2020 08: 46 New
              0
              Yes, no one turned off the radar is a fairy tale. Again, target designation gives the azimuth to the altitude, the target is high-altitude or not, high-speed or subsonic, everything is divided into squares every day the secretaries change the number of squares i.e. they erase everything from the tablet and apply the square numbers in a new way. There the whole complex just like that for such a purpose doesn’t matter because there is no shot, the missile has forgotten the radar, it needs to be driven, it can be in the final section and it has a target self-capture, I won’t say it because I don’t know. The beech complex of the battlefield will knock everything indiscriminately over the battlefield for war, but in this case, I'm sorry it's just stupidity. It turns out they stupidly poked a button and the rocket itself hit the plane, figurines so it doesn’t happen that the rocket needs to be carried out by the operator relying on means of monitoring the target. Something like this request
              1. Pathos
                Pathos 15 June 2020 09: 13 New
                0
                Not a single mat you still accuse me of rascism in some rascal
              2. Pavel73
                Pavel73 15 June 2020 09: 23 New
                +1
                Beech fires a rocket from a self-propelled firing system having its own radar. The missile’s homing is semi-active: the target is highlighted by this radar, and the missile is homing at the reflected signal. This radar has limited range and bearing. However, this installation is able to independently detect the target and destroy it. In the situation under consideration, the SOU Buk (according to the Dutch technical report) was located directly under the air corridor and launched the Boeing rocket directly in the forehead, as soon as it was within its reach. This was not an accident, but a deliberate launch.
          2. military_cat
            military_cat 10 June 2020 14: 14 New
            +1
            Quote: Paphos
            and here the broads and fill such a boar

            In fact, the larger the target, the easier the job for the radar.
            1. Pathos
              Pathos 15 June 2020 09: 09 New
              0
              In fact, the larger the target, the easier the job for the radar.


              Exactly yes But the operator is not stupid, he sees the mark of the target, which target is fast or subsonic and naturally the mark / highlight of the target on the screen, such a boar is difficult to confuse with an attack aircraft or a fighter. And again, as far as I know, on any complex complexes there is always protection from the fool, which means when the bullets knew what they were doing.
              1. military_cat
                military_cat 15 June 2020 09: 40 New
                -1
                People make mistakes, sometimes oh-oh-very dumb, and the operators are the same people. There is, of course, protection from the fool, it is a "friend or foe" system. The problem is that if the target does not have a military transponder "friend or foe", it is automatically determined as "foe",
                1. Pathos
                  Pathos 15 June 2020 11: 09 New
                  0
                  This is what turns bullets into the white light from a flashlight? and hit. There the same corridor flew 3 more sides why the rest did not shoot down? And again, the question is one missile, one target, as a rule, two missiles are launched on target for sure. A suspicion creeps in that some kind of lump flew on this board that needed to be covered up and written off for an accident.
                  1. military_cat
                    military_cat 15 June 2020 12: 35 New
                    -1
                    If two missiles are launched as standard, and one is launched, it means that they were launched non-standard. Standards for conventional warfare are written, and not for hybrid operations under the guise of miners, when you have to pretend that all the weapons in the mine were found.
                    1. Pathos
                      Pathos 15 June 2020 16: 18 New
                      0
                      Oh well at the beech mine belay with a height of 70 cm laughing
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 9 June 2020 19: 46 New
    -2
    When you do not want to accept everything is suitable. Matching the answer.
  • svp67
    svp67 9 June 2020 20: 04 New
    12
    Quote: military_cat
    It turned out that the assembly date, marked on the found fragment with the serial number, does not coincide with the date that was indicated in the documents of the Ministry of Defense (15.12.86 and 24.12.86).

    It’s normal practice while the product went through the entire verification, calibration and acceptance procedure by military acceptance ...
    1. Liam
      Liam 9 June 2020 21: 37 New
      -14
      Quote: svp67
      Quote: military_cat
      It turned out that the assembly date, marked on the found fragment with the serial number, does not coincide with the date that was indicated in the documents of the Ministry of Defense (15.12.86 and 24.12.86).

      It’s normal practice while the product went through the entire verification, calibration and acceptance procedure by military acceptance ...

      Do not play an Internet investigator. You do not have the appropriate education for this. The question has been investigated by real investigators and the answer is clear.
      Finally, it was investigated the allegation that the missile, which was allegedly shot down by Boeing, was transported to Ukraine in 1986, where it has since been. In the course of this investigation, according to the prosecutor, it turned out that the Russian missile records did not fully correspond to the Ukrainian records of the corresponding unit and that the various parts of the Russian documents did not match what was revealed during the investigation
      1. svp67
        svp67 9 June 2020 21: 45 New
        13
        Quote: Liam
        You do not have the appropriate education for this.

        This is who told you this ... I'm not an investigator, I'm a practitioner who has served in various military posts for 27 years and say what I know ...
        Quote: Liam
        The question has been investigated by real investigators and the answer is clear.

        In what, I, as I think, and our lawyers have a HUGE Doubt ... Let us look further at what will happen.
        Or are you a supporter of PRESSURE ON THE COURT. I recognize people from one of the very MALAYA TERRITORY lands ...
        1. Liam
          Liam 9 June 2020 21: 56 New
          -16
          Quote: svp67
          I'm not an investigator, I'm a practitioner

          In this case, you act as a couch theorist who did not see these documents in your eyes.
          Quote: svp67
          In what, I, as I think, and our lawyers have a HUGE Doubt

          Reminds a fable. We plowed)
          Quote: svp67
          I recognize people from one of the very RESTRICTED regions

          Which once again confirms that you are just a couch theorist fixated on Ukraine). By the way, I’m not a Ukrainian and have never lived and never been in Ukraine. Rather, I traveled somehow back in 2000 from Chernivtsi to Lvov)
          Such a biased negative and often offensive attitude towards Ukraine does not honor you either as a person or even as a moderator
          1. svp67
            svp67 9 June 2020 22: 05 New
            15
            Quote: Liam
            In this case, you act as a couch theorist who did not see these documents in your eyes.

            Why then? You contradict what you have already posted. And if I myself did not come across a similar thing when receiving "some" "products", then I would not say. Once again I will repeat to you that this is a common practice, the Military Acceptance accepted the "product" only after all checks and elimination of the identified deficiencies, and not at the time of assembly, and only after that it was received at the expense of the Ministry of Defense ...
            Quote: Liam
            Such a biased negative and often offensive attitude towards Ukraine

            For Ukraine and Ukrainians, hardworking and very smart people, I do not feel any bias and negative feelings, especially since I myself am from there. But to some of its representatives who think too much of themselves and are not very friendly, yes, I don’t feel any affection.
            Quote: Liam
            not even as a moderator

            You know, if you have any complaints about my work - contact the administration, behave like a European, and do not just throw words, this makes you very much related to some very "noisy" part of my fellow countrymen.
            1. Liam
              Liam 9 June 2020 22: 18 New
              -14
              Quote: svp67

              Why then? You contradict what you have already posted. And I myself have not come across a similar thing when receiving "some" "products", then I would not say. Once again I will repeat to you that this is a common practice, the Military Acceptance accepted the "product" only after all checks and elimination of the identified deficiencies, and not at the time of assembly, and only after that it was received at the expense of the Ministry of Defense

              This is verbiage. In reality, there is a specific missile that shot down a Boeing, there is an engine from this missile with a serial number that the Dutch presented, and there is a clumsy attempt by the Russian Defense Ministry to present a fake copy instead of the original factory register, according to which this engine supposedly belonged to a missile transferred to military unit in the Ukrainian SSR in 1986. This clumsy attempt was easily refuted by the Dutch investigators with various examinations and comparisons with the original logbooks of the very missile part
              Quote: svp67
              For Ukraine and Ukrainians, hardworking and very smart people, I do not feel any bias and negative feelings, especially since I myself am from there. But to some of its representatives who think too much of themselves and are not very friendly, yes, I don’t feel any affection

              This is nothing more than a screen that covers people like you.
              Quote: svp67
              there are some complaints about my work

              Firstly, I do not consider this occupation to be work, secondly, I have more pressing problems than mouse fussing with tapping your administration. Thirdly, this is my personal opinion about you as a person and not a reprimand entered in the work book
              1. svp67
                svp67 10 June 2020 05: 55 New
                +6
                Quote: Liam
                . In reality there is to

                In reality, there is a court, where there is a prosecution, which, in my deep opinion, is engaged in frank "pulling an owl on the globe" and there is a defense that, in your opinion, is doing the same ... let the court decide. You still won't convince me with your attacks.
                Quote: Liam
                Firstly, I do not consider this occupation a job

                Then WHAT CLAIMS are you trying to present now?
                1. Olgovich
                  Olgovich 10 June 2020 07: 51 New
                  +1
                  Quote: svp67
                  ..Let the court decide.

                  This is not a court, but the court of an INTERESTED, unbiased party.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 10 June 2020 07: 56 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Olgovich
                    This is not a court, but a court of INTEREST

                    Nevertheless, our lawyers work there and so far I work well ...
                    1. Olgovich
                      Olgovich 10 June 2020 08: 09 New
                      -1
                      Quote: svp67
                      Nevertheless, our lawyers work there and so far I work well.

                      When did this stop the biased judge whose bias is predetermined and unpunished? request
              2. Andrey Komkov
                Andrey Komkov 10 June 2020 17: 58 New
                0
                Quote: Liam

                This is verbiage. In reality, there is a specific missile that shot down a Boeing, there is an engine from this missile with a serial number that the Dutch presented, and there is a clumsy attempt by the Russian Defense Ministry to present a fake copy instead of the original factory register, according to which this engine supposedly belonged to a missile transferred to military unit in the Ukrainian SSR in 1986. This clumsy attempt was easily refuted by the Dutch investigators with various examinations and comparisons with the original logbooks of the very missile part

                Magazines from the military unit of Ukraine are not represented in court. Plus, if the rocket is in stock, why wouldn’t it be necessary to present parts of it so that there are no discrepancies? Photo of the protocol by investigators. However, not a word about this. Instead, they try to pass off the restored register (about which there is a corresponding record) as a fake, on the basis of which a profound conclusion is made about the falsity of all data on the rocket received from the Russian Federation. And further. And what expertise determines the falsification of an accounting journal from the Russian Federation? What was it compared to? With the accounting journal of the Ukrainian part? Which was not represented there at all and the Dutch did not conduct an examination of its authenticity? Those. we again see that everything from Ukraine is a priori true and accepted without any checks as a standard, and everything that from the Russian Federation is subjected to a full verification and if there is even the slightest discrepancy with the standard, it is rejected as false. And after that, someone says something about the impartiality of the court?
        2. Cristall
          Cristall 9 June 2020 23: 23 New
          -3
          Quote: svp67
          Or are you a supporter of PRESSURE ON THE COURT. I recognize people from one of the very MALAYA TERRITORY lands ...

          by the way about the birds.
          I came across the words of a political scientist
          “If we talk about the process, today official Kiev adheres to the strategy of depoliticization, including the trial. This position may seem different from the situation of the time of Poroshenko. Vladimir Zelensky has a different strategy - the trial is ongoing, Ukraine officially supports this process, but there is no emphasis on strict politicization, there is no emphasis on using this process in difficult situations with Russia, ”says Alexey Yakubin. :

          Zelensky was repeatedly accused of not conducting Poroshenko’s tough policy on all these matters. Zemach sent for example.
          In general, he has other approaches.
          But the glow or pressure was not noticed. The news itself is second-rate and casual.
  • Nyrobsky
    Nyrobsky 9 June 2020 20: 39 New
    10
    Quote: military_cat
    There is an even more interesting story - the Dutch accepted from Russia documents on the transfer of the Buk missile with the found number to Ukraine and studied them. It turned out that the assembly date, marked on the found fragment with the serial number, does not coincide with the date that was indicated in the documents of the Ministry of Defense (15.12.86 and 24.12.86). From this, the Dutch concluded that it is impossible to consider the document from the Ministry of Defense reliable evidence.

    Doesn't it bother you that the paint on the stencil looks much fresher than the general shabby background, on which, moreover, traces of abrasive action are visible? Apparently they were being tailored to fit the Dutch "investigators".
  • Igoresha
    Igoresha 9 June 2020 20: 46 New
    -6
    The censor No claims that the Russian Ministry of Defense refused to transmit the source images of the BUK (Ukrainian) pictures in Zaroschensky, which it itself showed on TV in 2014.
    From whom to trust the tradesman?
    1. military_cat
      military_cat 9 June 2020 20: 56 New
      -7
      There really was such a moment today. The Dutch investigator said the investigation team turned to Russia for the originals of the images, but they were told that they had not been preserved. Therefore, the investigation team analyzed the copies that were shown at the briefing in 2014.
      1. Igoresha
        Igoresha 9 June 2020 20: 57 New
        -10
        that they did not survive.
        what a shame! and could poke right into Russophobian Dutch faces
        1. Cube123
          Cube123 9 June 2020 21: 29 New
          11
          Quote: Igoresha
          that they did not survive.
          what a shame! and could poke right into Russophobian Dutch faces

          A dirty trick for suckers. You give the originals, and then you can hang on to all sins. And so - they didn’t seem to refuse. But even at the right time, the originals can be found. And the prosecution will be forced to behave much more carefully.
          1. Igoresha
            Igoresha 9 June 2020 21: 31 New
            -2
            Perhaps you are right, they gave black boxes without a hitch, saying that we have nothing to hide
          2. Andrey Komkov
            Andrey Komkov 10 June 2020 18: 10 New
            +1
            And once our already done such a trick. I’m talking about the primary data of the airborne radar that were suddenly found, which the Dutch did not want to accept because of the allegedly incorrect encoding. After that, I realized that our people have a bunch of aces in their sleeves, but so far they have been hiding them for the time being.
  • Car factory
    Car factory 11 June 2020 09: 30 New
    0
    As a person working with VP for 15 years, I can say: the date of assembly should not coincide with the date of acceptance, because the product must also pass the quality control tests of quality control.
    In short, this is not a court, but a complete and shameless bullshit.
  • iouris
    iouris 9 June 2020 18: 13 New
    +8
    An explosion aboard a charge installed in the Netherlands, sorry, in the Netherlands, becomes the main hypothesis.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 9 June 2020 18: 19 New
      +3
      Where did you read this?
      1. iouris
        iouris 9 June 2020 22: 02 New
        +3
        I have not read it anywhere. I made a conclusion myself: if there was no launch from the ground, then this version becomes the main one due to simple logical constructions. Su-25 disappears, because the cockpit is affected, not the engine. In addition, it is unlikely that a melee missile with a TGS hitting the engine would instantly put the crew out of their formation. The Su-27, most likely, was not there either. And if the launch of the long-range missile "V-B" was made, it would only be in the rear hemisphere, which would also not lead to instant death of the crew. The subsequent awarding, and then the murder of the Su-25 pilot disguised as a suicide, who was allegedly near the airliner at the time of its death, was caused by an attempt to send public opinion down the wrong path in case the hypothesis that the Buk was the cause was rejected ... Thus, if the "investigation" or the "court" consider that there was no "Buk", then there are no options.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 9 June 2020 23: 22 New
          0
          There, or a rocket hit the ground, air or an explosion. And it is easy to determine.
        2. Cristall
          Cristall 9 June 2020 23: 25 New
          -5
          Quote: iouris
          I have not read this anywhere. I made a conclusion myself: if there was no launch from the ground, then this version becomes the main one due to simple logical constructions. Su-25 disappears, because the cockpit is affected, not the engine. In addition, it is unlikely that a melee missile with a TGS hit the engine would instantly put the crew out of the line. The Su-27, most likely, was not there either. And if the launch of a long-range missile "V-V" was made, then only into the rear hemisphere, which also would not lead to the instant death of the crew

          all "non-Buk" versions were rejected a long time ago.
          They were also checked.
          Everything is in the report - why rejected fighter and versions of the attack on board / malfunction, etc.
        3. Andrey Komkov
          Andrey Komkov 10 June 2020 18: 18 New
          -1
          The version of launching from the ground is, as it were, the main thing, it’s another matter that they lead to the fact that there were no regular means of air defense of the army around (although I personally do not understand why they believe that the complex, located on July 16, 2014 according to the report (by the way, and where did the report come from, data from the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine?) at a distance of 75 km from the launch site in Zaroshchenskoye and recorded there by witnesses, could not come on July 17 on platform-type transport, launch a missile, curl up and leave?), so only a freelance could launch the missile BEECH, which was supposedly only one - BEECH, brought from Russia. Well, let’s set aside that he physically couldn’t leave for Russia from there, because on the route of his passage a lot of bridges simply couldn’t stand him physically b. But that's why they are stubbornly trying to pass off the Ukrainian version of the BUK installation as the Russian one from the Kursk brigade - this is not clear to me.
          Personally, my version is this:
          This was done by the Ukrainian Armed Forces because of Zaroschensky, playing a map of the air defense attack of the militias on the Armed Forces plane. Perhaps the SBU officers received information that the militiamen had restored the BUK captured in Donetsk (a duck launched by the militia in order to somehow reduce the intensity of the air attacks of the Armed Forces), and they tried to provoke the restored BUK to a shot by launching a bait plane (from where and witness testimonies about Ukrainian planes, and they are different, and two. The planes flew below 5 km so that the radars from Russia did not see them and that Osa could visit them). But the militiamen didn’t shoot at the bait with a BUK, which they simply didn’t have, but with something like the Wasp (moreover, they fired with two missiles, which is prescribed according to the instructions, this makes such a thick track). At the time of the launch of the Wasp missiles, the crew of the AFU BUK, standing at the position near Zaroschensky, receives an order to bring down the passenger liner, which is within their reach. And at its misfortune closest to Zaroshchensky at that moment was MH17. After it was shot down, the crew of the AFU Buk quickly leaves the position, the trained photographer takes a smoky trail of Wasp missiles flying on a decoy plane (deliberately cutting off the upper part, where the missiles could have begun to maneuver and the duality of the trail became visible), passing him off as an inverse trail of the missile BEECH on the liner (from here the difference between the time the liner was shot down and the time when the photo was taken) and it started r ... but through the pipes. All who were involved in all of this were the pilots of the bait plane (I have a suspicion that the bait was just Voloshin’s plane, which performed the anti-aircraft maneuver) and the fighter covering it (according to some reports, it was the SU-27 that took off from under Chugueva), the BUK crew, witnesses who shot the real BUK missile on the video and on the cellular launch - the SBU was quickly eliminated (even a special operation was carried out to conceal evidence, there are documents).
    2. Doliva63
      Doliva63 9 June 2020 18: 47 New
      -4
      Quote: iouris
      An explosion aboard a charge installed in the Netherlands, sorry, in the Netherlands, becomes the main hypothesis.

      On March 8 of the same year, another Malaysian Boeing of Kuala - Beijing flight disappeared. But he disappeared somewhere on over the sea, sort of. So the problem, perhaps, is not at all the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in the Donbass, but the Malaysians?
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 9 June 2020 18: 51 New
        +5
        If an anti-aircraft missile exploded, then enough fragments will be enough for all investigators in the world .... and they are very specific.
        1. Andrey Komkov
          Andrey Komkov 10 June 2020 18: 23 New
          0
          At the same time, for some reason, in the body of the ship commander, i.e. the man at the left window of the liner, which just hit the scalpel in the version of the Dutch approach, of the 29 fragments, only one had a shape close to a butterfly. When as if it were a 9M38M1 rocket, then about 80% of the butterflies would be in the scalpel and there would be not one, but 25-26 of 29 in the body of the commander of such butterflies.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 10 June 2020 18: 26 New
            0
            I read .... but this also needs to be refuted or confirmed .... this is information from third-party sources.
            1. Andrey Komkov
              Andrey Komkov 10 June 2020 18: 27 New
              0
              What is the information about? The prosecutor at the trial said this, voicing the results of the examination.
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 10 June 2020 18: 36 New
                0
                I read just an interview with an expert .... if the prosecutor said this, I don’t even know why they collected such a booth ....?
                1. Andrey Komkov
                  Andrey Komkov 10 June 2020 18: 47 New
                  0
                  What do you mean why? Only for one thing - what can be brought under the accusations of Russia of shooting down MH17 legislative base.
                  1. Zaurbek
                    Zaurbek 10 June 2020 19: 14 New
                    0
                    And where did the remaining fragments come from? Not an I-beam?
                    1. Andrey Komkov
                      Andrey Komkov 10 June 2020 19: 17 New
                      0
                      And here the devil lies, which, as you know, is in the details. And if the remaining fragments are parallelepipeds or close to this, then how? And then the prosecutor and the company sit in a huge puddle, because the old modification of the 9M38 missile, which remained only with Ukraine, could not have been on the Kursk installation from the Russian Federation. With all desire.
      2. Insurgent
        Insurgent 9 June 2020 18: 53 New
        +8
        Quote: Doliva63
        So the problem, perhaps, is not at all the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in the Donbass, but the Malaysians?

        Or maybe in The Boeing Company ?
      3. iouris
        iouris 9 June 2020 22: 04 New
        +3
        They will try to make the Malaysians extreme in order to get the special services of Great Britain and Holland out of attack.
      4. Andrey Komkov
        Andrey Komkov 10 June 2020 18: 21 New
        0
        As Voloshin said, "the plane was in the wrong place at the wrong time." According to my version, he simply was not lucky to be the closest passenger liner when the BUK crew near Zaroshchenskoye received an order to shoot down the liner.
    3. forpost
      forpost 9 June 2020 19: 17 New
      0
      I like
    4. Avior
      Avior 9 June 2020 19: 17 New
      -4
      There is no such hypothesis and cannot be
      Traces of glass with zirconium, a rare combination, were found on the striking elements that fell into the crew members.
      The windshield in the cockpit of a Boeing is just with zirconium.
      That is, the elements first flew through the glass, which eliminates the internal explosion.
      1. iouris
        iouris 10 June 2020 12: 30 New
        -1
        Quote: Avior
        found traces of glass with zirconium, a rare combination.

        What they "found" there is unknown to science. It doesn't matter at all now, since the investigation into the causes of the serious accident was disrupted due to the fault of those who were assigned to conduct this investigation. They can no longer prove anything.
        The purpose of the demonstrative destruction of a passenger plane with people is always the same: the destruction of the state, i.e. very big money. And now we are tensely thinking: which state is to be destroyed, who is destroying the state in this way. Anglo-Saxons always use proven schemes, to which "public opinion" has already been accustomed.
    5. Oleg Zorin
      Oleg Zorin 9 June 2020 20: 57 New
      -1
      Unless in your head.
  • knn54
    knn54 9 June 2020 18: 33 New
    0
    ... the purpose of this explosion in the cockpit was to simulate the external impact of the explosion of the mythical "Buk".
    Yuri Antipov, article "Disaster MH17: Was there an explosive device in the cockpit?"
  • Lunic
    Lunic 9 June 2020 18: 36 New
    +9
    "the radar was not working at that moment"
    Is it normal for the radar to work? How successful, just at the right time.
    1. Insurgent
      Insurgent 9 June 2020 18: 55 New
      +5
      Quote: Lunic
      "the radar was not working at this moment"
      Is it normal for the radar to work? How successful, just at the right time.


      For the outskirts, not only of that period, but also of the pre-war, this is the norm when something did not work, or did not work as it should ...
      1. Oleg Zorin
        Oleg Zorin 9 June 2020 21: 00 New
        +3
        The big question is was there any radar laughing Did the crap warrant officer of the Armed Forces of Ukraine give it to scrap metal a year earlier?
    2. Avior
      Avior 9 June 2020 19: 20 New
      -6
      There were five primary radars, two of them under the DPR — one also damaged, they did not work, one was on prevention in Ukraine, and two in Russia, to which the crash fell.
      Took readings from secondary radars in Ukraine.
    3. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 9 June 2020 19: 21 New
      10
      Quote: Lunic
      Is it normal for the radar to work? How successful, just at the right time.

      When the thieves robbed the store, at that moment the camera did not work. How familiar this is.
    4. Nyrobsky
      Nyrobsky 9 June 2020 20: 47 New
      11
      Quote: Lunic
      "the radar was not working at that moment"
      Is it normal for the radar to work? How successful, just at the right time.

      The radar didn’t work, they couldn’t find the dispatchers (there is a version that they weren’t alive), the person who was probably involved in the Boeing’s destruction was suicidal, the mattresses refused to show satellite imagery - it’s a bit too many dubious moments that the investigation really wants to find the real culprit.
      1. Cristall
        Cristall 9 June 2020 23: 32 New
        -5
        Quote: Nyrobsky
        they cannot find dispatchers (there is a version that is not alive)
        The Russian channel apparently called Petrenko

        21 one word, 2 phrases uttered to her are in all records that in the Dnieper that in Rostov.
        These towers were transferred immediately. There's nothing there. in Black Boxes the same.
        There is no sense in it.
        The version of Voloshin itself was put forward by the Russian Federation itself and denied.
        A commission from the Netherlands likewise checked and rejected.
        1. Nyrobsky
          Nyrobsky 10 June 2020 00: 19 New
          +8
          Quote: Cristall
          Quote: Nyrobsky
          they cannot find dispatchers (there is a version that is not alive)
          The Russian channel apparently called Petrenko
          However, in brackets I have indicated (there is a version ...) i.e. I did not claim that it was uniquely eliminated.
          Nevertheless, madam, you are trying to sell a very stale product from 2015 in order to prove that she is alive and well as of 2020. Where is Petrenko now? After the disaster, literally the next day, Petrenko "went on vacation" from which she did not come out. Call her in Dnepropetrovsk on Shcherbina str., 2 * apt. 1 ** and tell Anna Mikhailovna that due to the "long vacation" all the vacancies of dispatchers at the airport are closed. If you can’t stop by, then call. Do you need a home phone?
        2. Andrey Komkov
          Andrey Komkov 10 June 2020 18: 26 New
          +1
          But they didn’t ask her, according to what radar data did she fly this plane - on primary radars or secondary ones? And somehow the version of the lack of primary radar data, the control of the dispatcher, and suddenly suddenly idle radars in LDN are not beating.
  • taiga2018
    taiga2018 9 June 2020 18: 56 New
    +7
    This is called "twisting, twisting, I want to confuse you." The main thing by any means is to "pull" Russia under this case.
  • Motorist
    Motorist 9 June 2020 18: 58 New
    +3
    The corollary ... does not have specific data

    Perhaps the textual description of the images of US satellites turned out to be written in small, illegible handwriting ... what
  • APASUS
    APASUS 9 June 2020 19: 09 New
    +7
    Whether the investigation has evidence or not, it doesn’t matter. It’s the sanctions imposed for MH-17. Even if they prove that it was the AFU that brought down the Boeing, it practically does not change anything, remember the Jackson-Venik amendment
  • ANB
    ANB 9 June 2020 19: 09 New
    +5
    Ukraine is starting to slowly drain, it turns out. The United States did not give the photo, the prosecutors who "looked" did not dare to lie too blatantly.
    Now new campaigns have come out about incorrect dates in the documents.
  • Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 9 June 2020 19: 10 New
    27
    Beauty. The airspace is not closed, "the radar did not work", but allowed the dispatcher (by the way, where is he?) To change the course and altitude of the aircraft, satellite observation data "is available, but we will not show them to you." Conclusion - Russia is to blame laughing laughing laughing
    1. Anastezia
      Anastezia 9 June 2020 19: 20 New
      +3
      Quote: stock buildbat
      Beauty. The airspace is not closed, "the radar did not work", but allowed the dispatcher (by the way, where is he?) To change the course and altitude of the aircraft, satellite observation data "is available, but we will not show them to you." Conclusion - Russia is to blame laughing laughing laughing

      Time is dragging on until Ukraine is completely plundered (the fertile land remains) .. And then they will surrender and throw it at the feet of Russia .. You sort it yourself! And there are debts and devastation of $ 100 billion.
      I think such a plan! And all the culprits will no longer be available ..

      That will be a problem for us .. What to do with them
      1. pmkemcity
        pmkemcity 10 June 2020 05: 29 New
        +1
        Quote: Anastezia
        And then they’ll surrender and throw at the feet of Russia .. Sort it yourself!

        Nooo! They will cling to the throat for the ground!
    2. Terenin
      Terenin 9 June 2020 19: 23 New
      +7
      Quote: Stroibat stock
      Conclusion - Russia is to blame

      More about the Skripals, the record did not end ... winked

      Where is this lady now?
      1. Anastezia
        Anastezia 9 June 2020 21: 21 New
        +2
        Quote: Terenin
        More about Skripaley the record did not end ... winked

        Where is this lady now?

        Soon he will come out in a new circle ..
        They have something like a training manual, a little Russia is trying to explain something .. There is a new charge, and so it can go on forever .. hi
        Seycham Efrem will begin to discuss and save, with all sorts of selfies and flash mobs (pah, I hate these words ..)
        We would like to support the blacks .. For example, the film "Uncle Tom's Cabin" or about the oppressed Indians !!!! Good films, if translated into English .. grammatically hi
        1. Igoresha
          Igoresha 9 June 2020 21: 30 New
          0
          For example, the movie "Uncle Tom's Cabin" or about the oppressed Indians !!!!

          Django released in the first place))

      2. Alex Justice
        Alex Justice 10 June 2020 11: 40 New
        0
        In the news, the Skripals moved to New Zealand.
    3. Incvizitor
      Incvizitor 9 June 2020 22: 40 New
      +4
      The controller probably then fixed the idle radar when the Boeing suddenly changed course laughing
  • Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 9 June 2020 19: 26 New
    +2
    it seems that the court may be objective .... but does not find anyone guilty due to the lack of direct evidence and evidence that clamped the United States ...
  • gurzuf
    gurzuf 9 June 2020 19: 33 New
    0
    Berger said that the radar data did not confirm the detection of a fighter or missile at the time of the crash of the liner in 2014 over the Donbass. I would like to recommend to the Dutch prosecutor to try to find the attack aircraft and it is possible that he is there.
    1. Linxs
      Linxs 9 June 2020 21: 57 New
      +1
      The one that Almaz-Antey denied and designated as fake?
      1. Andrey Komkov
        Andrey Komkov 10 June 2020 18: 33 New
        0
        And when did Almaz-Antey refute it and designate it as a fake attack aircraft?
        1. Linxs
          Linxs 10 June 2020 19: 12 New
          0
          Quote: Andrey Komkov
          And when did Almaz-Antey refute it and designate it as a fake attack aircraft?

          When I confirmed the version with a beech from outside in Ukraine
          1. Linxs
            Linxs 10 June 2020 19: 15 New
            +1
            https://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/articles/2015/10/13/612577-almaz-antei-mn17

            Is this enough or will you continue to talk further about the version of Messerschmitt and the pilot Voloshin?
          2. Andrey Komkov
            Andrey Komkov 11 June 2020 10: 08 New
            0
            It’s interesting, but where to put those numerous witnesses who saw the APU aircraft above Torez at the time of the destruction of the liner? Even in one video, this plane flashed. Do not believe them either just because the Dutch said so? As if the Ukrainians did not deny the obvious, but their planes (and not one, but two) were there and flew. Another thing is that they flew low (for one specific reason) and therefore Utes-M simply did not see them.
            1. Linxs
              Linxs 11 June 2020 17: 59 New
              0
              Andrey Komkov (Andrey Komkov)
              You confuse warm with soft.
              Even the BUK manufacturer has written and confirmed this to you.
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 9 June 2020 19: 45 New
    +3
    They would better investigate other areas, those where Ukrainian Buki stood, and even better, they would investigate the damage and maybe establish the real cause of the damage, such as an air-to-air missile or an internal explosion.
  • aleks.29ru
    aleks.29ru 9 June 2020 20: 00 New
    0
    Well, finally the mountain gave birth to a mouse.
  • Avior
    Avior 9 June 2020 20: 02 New
    -5
    ... The investigation came to an interim conclusion that there are no specific indications for the launch of a surface-to-air missile on July 17, 2014

    Can someone explain why the quote refers to an intermediate conclusion? At the trial it is more logical about the final, the investigation is already formally completed, since the case is in court.
    1. Liam
      Liam 9 June 2020 20: 13 New
      -5
      Quote: Avior
      Can someone explain why the quote refers to an intermediate conclusion?

      I wouldn’t trust the local translations of the prosecutor’s words here. There is a direct link to his words in the original
      1. Avior
        Avior 9 June 2020 21: 15 New
        -5
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibvtdJ3bESI
        there is a large amount of video.
        as far as I understand, he told the story of the investigation, including the stages of the investigation.
        1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Liam
      Liam 9 June 2020 21: 16 New
      -8
      That and (not) was required to prove. That's what the prosecutor actually said:
      INVESTIGATION OF BOEING DESTRUCTION IN DONETSK REGION
      JUN 9, 18:19
      Dutch investigators believe that flight MH17 could be shot down only by Pervomaisky
      According to the prosecutor Theis Berger, the investigators did not reveal facts that would indicate that the plane was shot down from the vicinity of Amvrosievka, Enakievo, Snezhnoe

      SCHIPHOL / Netherlands /, June 9. / TASS /. Investigators examined various options and concluded that the missile that shot down Malaysian Airlines' Boeing in July 2014 could only have been fired from the vicinity of Pervomaisky. Dutch prosecutor Theis Berger stated this at a court hearing on Tuesday.


      “Investigators took into account that the rocket could have been launched from another place, and not the village of Pervomaysky, - he said, speaking to the judges. - The investigation was carried out in relation to other potential launch sites, but did not reveal facts that would indicate that the plane was shot down from under the settlements of Amvrosiyevka, Yenakiyevo, Snezhnoye.Investigation into a possible missile launch from under Zaroshchenskoye showed that no rocket was launched from there, and the satellite images at the disposal of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation are incorrect or taken at a different time ". In addition, the prosecutor added, according to the calculations of the Belgian and Dutch experts, Zaroshchenskoye "is outside the zone from which the plane could have been shot down."

      With this in mind, the prosecutor's office concluded that "Flight MH17 crashed as a result of a missile launch from a field near the village of Pervomaysky," Berger summed up
      1. Alex Justice
        Alex Justice 10 June 2020 11: 44 New
        0
        the prosecutor's office concluded that "flight MH17 crashed as a result of a missile launch from a field near the village of Pervomaysky," Berger summed up

        May Day in the APU or rebel zone?
        1. Andrey Komkov
          Andrey Komkov 10 June 2020 18: 45 New
          0
          May Day is just in the militia zone, there was the only road to Saur-Mogila, where very strong battles were taking place at that time. But Zaroshchenskoye was at the border, and the place of the alleged launch of the BUK was in the APU zone.
      2. Andrey Komkov
        Andrey Komkov 10 June 2020 18: 44 New
        0
        Did the prosecutor mean Bellingcat by "Belgian and Dutch experts"? Because the phrase "according to the calculations ..... experts Zaroshchenskoye is outside the zone from where the plane could have been shot down" shows the entire level of competence of these "experts". I myself, on the GoogleMaps map, calculated the distances from Zaroshchenskoye to the liner route at the time of launching the rocket from Zaroshchenskoye and from Pervomayskoye and at the moment of hitting, and I will say that the "experts" clearly have problems with arithmetic or a Chinese calculator curve, because all points fit perfectly into the capture range and start-up of the BUK system. Just numbers - at the moment the rocket is launched from Zaroshchenskoye, the distance from the launch site to the liner is 22 km (from Pervomaysky to the liner - 34,8 km). At the time of the missile hit on the liner - from the starting position of Zaroshchenskoye to the liner 16 km (from Pervomayskoye at the time of the missile hit - 24,6 km). Well, how can I then believe the data of the Dutch?
  • Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 9 June 2020 20: 40 New
    +3
    please tell me what all the time the dumb-headed descendants of the great seafarers did, how over time not only individual people, but entire nations
  • tuts
    tuts 9 June 2020 20: 45 New
    +1
    they do not need confirmation confirmation appointed in advance, performance b ___
  • Incvizitor
    Incvizitor 9 June 2020 21: 21 New
    +2
    In turn, Ukraine did not provide primary data from the radar in the crash case.

    For six years, the investigation has been conducted without data from the radar; it’s just a kindergarten, and the dispatcher is probably in the same place as Voloshin lol
    And didn’t they accidentally launch a rocket from there?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba4Hz66OzGg
  • sergo1914
    sergo1914 9 June 2020 22: 06 New
    +7
    In broad daylight, in fine weather in the summer, a rocket from Buka is shown from a populated area. And nobody sees anything? And he doesn’t even hear? Are there some shell-shock live or was there no Beech?
    1. Avior
      Avior 9 June 2020 22: 56 New
      -5
      The Dutch said in the spring that they have witnesses of the launch
    2. pmkemcity
      pmkemcity 10 June 2020 05: 35 New
      0
      Quote: sergo1914
      In broad daylight, in fine weather in the summer, a rocket from Buka is shown from a populated area. And nobody sees anything? And he doesn’t even hear? Are there some shell-shock live or was there no Beech?

      On the ground, I think, there should still be traces of the launch.
  • Lord of the Sith
    Lord of the Sith 9 June 2020 22: 32 New
    +6
    Why argue. This is a provocation against Russia. "Western partners" and those who have attached themselves to them suffer from this garbage, so that there is a reason to declare sanctions.
    And that’s it. And ordinary people do not care about the high bell tower when it comes to big politics.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 9 June 2020 23: 25 New
    -3
    And what is the official Russian version? On this occasion.
    1. iouris
      iouris 9 June 2020 23: 55 New
      +4
      And what is the official American version? On this occasion.
      Did the "incident" take place in the airspace of the Russian Federation? The official version should be with the carrier who did not deliver the passengers safe and sound to their destination. Let him prove his innocence to the victims.
      "I respect the criminal code - that's my weakness!" (O. Bender)
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 10 June 2020 04: 32 New
        -2
        So accuse the citizens of the Russian Federation .... but there is no position!
        1. iouris
          iouris 10 June 2020 19: 14 New
          -1
          Quote: Zaurbek
          So accuse the citizens of the Russian Federation ...

          Who is blaming? Their word is against mine. There is no evidence and cannot be any more. If the regime they want is established in Moscow, then the goal has been achieved and this court is not needed. They will simply condemn just anyone and execute, while 100 billion will be claimed in favor of "Yukos shareholders" and another 50 billion as "compensation for moral harm", the country will be torn apart ... The scheme has been worked out. Gaddafi, however, "admitted his guilt" and paid compensation: he thought that they would get rid of Libya. And what is the result? The others also thought they had reached an agreement. In short, look at Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya ...
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 10 June 2020 21: 14 New
            0
            There, just the leaders were decrepit and decided to make peace with the West .... we must prepare fresh and energetic successors in time.
  • LeonidL
    LeonidL 10 June 2020 00: 27 New
    +4
    The Dutch have to look for a black cat in a black room ... which has never been there. Oh and the hard work of the Dutch investigation. Curls like a pitchfork.
    1. iouris
      iouris 10 June 2020 19: 16 New
      0
      Quote: LeonidL
      Oh, and the hard work of the Dutch investigation.

      Never mind, they can handle it. Milosevic and his associates were strangled, although they also "investigated" for a long time.
  • Kelwin
    Kelwin 10 June 2020 03: 00 New
    +7
    Only those who like to smoke tulips can talk nonsense about the shot down ZR, which no one has seen, the 17th and hammer a bolt on the blatantly "missing" 370th in the South China Sea five months before, the same AK is identical to the nut. And both had MOT two weeks before. At the same time, both completely lost all types of communication. And the photo of Ackermans was gnawed by mice?


    From this thing, a stabilizer grows. What interrupted the composite material across the stiffener? Geese?))
    1. Andrey Komkov
      Andrey Komkov 10 June 2020 18: 51 New
      0
      High-speed head at a speed of 900 km / h - it is so strange.
  • askort154
    askort154 10 June 2020 07: 13 New
    +3
    Ukraine explained to the Dutch Security Council that no primary radar data was recorded since the radar was not working at that moment.

    What a childish excuse: the US has satellite imagery, but it hasn't been available for 5 years. The supervising dispatcher - no one knows where. Who sent the civilian aircraft into the combat zone is unknown. Pilot Voloshin "quit" and then "committed suicide". Now it is already stated that the p / locator did not work at all. For six years the Dutch prosecutor's office has been looking for various "proofs of Russia's guilt" in order to smear the provocation of the CIA + SBU. It is obvious.
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 10 June 2020 08: 35 New
    0
    This proves that the launch was made from there. Do you really know that the principle of the presumption of guilt in all the bad things in the world applies to Russia?
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 10 June 2020 08: 36 New
    0
    They would have called Payel, he would have shaken the map and that’s all, the proof is indisputable.
  • NF68
    NF68 10 June 2020 16: 09 New
    +1
    Earlier it was reported that the United States refused to provide the Dutch prosecutor with satellite data on the launch of a rocket that shot down a passenger airliner performing an MH2014 flight in 17. In turn, Ukraine did not provide primary data from the radar in the crash case.


    This is to be expected.