MH17 down near Donetsk
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
From: Moscow region
Some more considerations.
A few days ago the Ukrainian government and armed forces announced a non-flying zone regime above the rebel-controlled territories. This is because they were thinking that Russian military airplanes were flying there (actually, they were not). Could it happen that a Buk (SAM) military personnel pulled the trigger thinking that it was a russian plane breaking this warning? Why not, IMHO. Paranoia is in the red zone, everything may happen.
N.B. Buk systems (SA-17), as well as SAM-10/12 are regular arms of the Ukrainian army, none of the unit was smuggled by the Russians into the Ukraine territory to support the rebels. The rebels just do not need such systems. All their threats, such as attack Su-25s and helicopters fly low enough and could be shot with man-carried devices.
The rebels (again, they are the Ukrainians, not the Russians) could do it as well, theoretically. There were the rumors that they took some Buks from the army personnel who left their bases and dispersed. But this alternative seems less likely for me, because such systems are not easy to operate. Second, before running away from a military base and leaving such arms to separatists, the (Ukr.) army would definitely make them inoperable (just a matter of a hammer and 1 min to do the job). Third, the Ukrainian General Attorney has withdrawn statements (yesterday evening) that the rebels got Buks.
Statements here in this thread addressing the Russians to shoot the plane down from their territory are beyond the common sense. They could only do it with a huge C-300, which are easily traceable, visible, etc.. For me it sounds the same unlikely as if a USN ship would do it while in the Black Sea. And Russia is the least interested side in doing such a thing.
So, at the moment the option that seems the most likely to me (IMHO) is that the Ukrainian army did it erroneously.
A few days ago the Ukrainian government and armed forces announced a non-flying zone regime above the rebel-controlled territories. This is because they were thinking that Russian military airplanes were flying there (actually, they were not). Could it happen that a Buk (SAM) military personnel pulled the trigger thinking that it was a russian plane breaking this warning? Why not, IMHO. Paranoia is in the red zone, everything may happen.
N.B. Buk systems (SA-17), as well as SAM-10/12 are regular arms of the Ukrainian army, none of the unit was smuggled by the Russians into the Ukraine territory to support the rebels. The rebels just do not need such systems. All their threats, such as attack Su-25s and helicopters fly low enough and could be shot with man-carried devices.
The rebels (again, they are the Ukrainians, not the Russians) could do it as well, theoretically. There were the rumors that they took some Buks from the army personnel who left their bases and dispersed. But this alternative seems less likely for me, because such systems are not easy to operate. Second, before running away from a military base and leaving such arms to separatists, the (Ukr.) army would definitely make them inoperable (just a matter of a hammer and 1 min to do the job). Third, the Ukrainian General Attorney has withdrawn statements (yesterday evening) that the rebels got Buks.
Statements here in this thread addressing the Russians to shoot the plane down from their territory are beyond the common sense. They could only do it with a huge C-300, which are easily traceable, visible, etc.. For me it sounds the same unlikely as if a USN ship would do it while in the Black Sea. And Russia is the least interested side in doing such a thing.
So, at the moment the option that seems the most likely to me (IMHO) is that the Ukrainian army did it erroneously.
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
From: East of Eden
@skridlov
Well, actually, it is supposed to be far harder to make such a mistake from a warship with far more radar and radio equipment, satellite support, etc. By contrast, the mobile SAM operator has none of it, is mostly on his own, especially in a proxy war, does not have other defenses that the warship has. If he hesitates when he should be shooting, he will be bombed to dust.
But, logic never is an obstacle to good propaganda story and winding up masses to call for blood in support of our beloved leaders, who in face of a "grave threat" suddenly can play heroes and not seem like retards that they are.
There is no essential difference between these two disgraceful events except in the way they have been depicted in public discourse.
But, logic never is an obstacle to good propaganda story and winding up masses to call for blood in support of our beloved leaders, who in face of a "grave threat" suddenly can play heroes and not seem like retards that they are.
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
From: Canada
All we know for sure at this point is that every side is pushing propaganda which supports their interests. I don't trust any of them.
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 561
Likes: 1
From: over the rainbow
U.S. intelligence confirms pro-Russian rebels shot down Malaysian plane
U.S. intelligence confirms pro-Russian rebels shot down Malaysian plane - The Washington Post
Obama to speak on Ukraine
U.S. intelligence confirms pro-Russian rebels shot down Malaysian plane - The Washington Post
Obama to speak on Ukraine
Last edited by roving; 18th July 2014 at 14:50. Reason: addition of last line
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
From: uk
'A Van', for the Ukrainians to be responsible 'erroneously' there would need to be some target they actually intended to hit with such a missile. I don't believe there is any credible evidence of any such target, despite eager but absurd suggestions it was aimed at Putin.
A hefty weight of evidence already points to this being a cock-up by separatists. Why fake evidence of an *accidental* shoot-down? Russia's role looks like the old Cold War coat-holding role that CIA types also so often played: archetypally a briefcase full of banknotes and a few greasy spare parts, on the assumption that the beneficiaries of this largesse don't have it in them to screw up so catastrophically that a host of enraged non-ally nations start demanding a full reckoning.
A hefty weight of evidence already points to this being a cock-up by separatists. Why fake evidence of an *accidental* shoot-down? Russia's role looks like the old Cold War coat-holding role that CIA types also so often played: archetypally a briefcase full of banknotes and a few greasy spare parts, on the assumption that the beneficiaries of this largesse don't have it in them to screw up so catastrophically that a host of enraged non-ally nations start demanding a full reckoning.
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 192
Likes: 3
From: sussex
SadPole observed:
"Well, actually, it is supposed to be far harder to make such a mistake from a warship with far more radar and radio equipment, satellite support, etc. By contrast, the mobile SAM operator has none of it, is mostly on his own, especially in a proxy war, does not have other defenses that the warship has. If he hesitates when he should be shooting, he will be bombed to dust. "
I didn't make the point adequately. If the USS Vincennes and its supposedly highly trained crew managed to make this mistake (a couple of big assumptions there) it's considerably less surprising that a similar mistake could be made by intoxicated knuckle-draggers using Soviet era hardware.
BTW roughly equivalent number of victims killed in current Gaza "operation", including children. But that's "business as usual" so less newsworthy.
I didn't make the point adequately. If the USS Vincennes and its supposedly highly trained crew managed to make this mistake (a couple of big assumptions there) it's considerably less surprising that a similar mistake could be made by intoxicated knuckle-draggers using Soviet era hardware.
BTW roughly equivalent number of victims killed in current Gaza "operation", including children. But that's "business as usual" so less newsworthy.
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
From: Moscow region
To Roving:
First, according to the URL you put "The U.S. official cautioned that the assessment is not final and that U.S. analysts are still investigating".
Second, I wonder how such a statement could be proved. First, the rebels and the regime army units are mixed in the region - one village is in the hands of one side, the neighboring one is in the hands of the other, and so on. Second, the Buks are mobile. Thus, to say such things for sure would only be possible if the (independent third party) intelligence is chasing and monitoring the activity of the particular Buk complex. This is only possible on the ground. Neither AWACS, nor satellites could do that. They could only roughly estimate the point of fire and the type of a missile.
Third, if this is coming from the same US officials that earlier were saying that the homeless Ukrainian refugees were relocated to the neighboring/adjacent Russian region to breathe the fresh mountain air (actually all this area is flat and dirty cause of coal mines) or that the US should move its fleet to the shore of Belarus (which well is isolated from the sea), then arguments make no sense.
First, according to the URL you put "The U.S. official cautioned that the assessment is not final and that U.S. analysts are still investigating".
Second, I wonder how such a statement could be proved. First, the rebels and the regime army units are mixed in the region - one village is in the hands of one side, the neighboring one is in the hands of the other, and so on. Second, the Buks are mobile. Thus, to say such things for sure would only be possible if the (independent third party) intelligence is chasing and monitoring the activity of the particular Buk complex. This is only possible on the ground. Neither AWACS, nor satellites could do that. They could only roughly estimate the point of fire and the type of a missile.
Third, if this is coming from the same US officials that earlier were saying that the homeless Ukrainian refugees were relocated to the neighboring/adjacent Russian region to breathe the fresh mountain air (actually all this area is flat and dirty cause of coal mines) or that the US should move its fleet to the shore of Belarus (which well is isolated from the sea), then arguments make no sense.
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 221
Likes: 2
From: Hampshire, UK
“...because of the technical complexity of the SA-11,” it was unlikely that the separatists could have effectively operated it on their own. “We cannot rule out Russian technical assistance”
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 62
From: 51.50N 1W (ish)
For those suggesting anyone other than pro-Russian rebels shot down MH17, please could you give me a plausible explanation why immediately after the crash, a rebel leader went live to boast about shooting down a Ukrainian military transport, and this was immediately repeated by 2 Russian news agencies.
These internet announcements were rapidly erased, but too late for them to be stopped going around the world.
Intercept calls between rebel leaders confirm they thought they had downed a military transport, and their consternation when they found they had made a dreadful mistake.
It was clearly a massive error, but only tin-foil hat comspiracy theorists are mad enough to think this was planned by the Ukrainians and faked.
These internet announcements were rapidly erased, but too late for them to be stopped going around the world.
Intercept calls between rebel leaders confirm they thought they had downed a military transport, and their consternation when they found they had made a dreadful mistake.
It was clearly a massive error, but only tin-foil hat comspiracy theorists are mad enough to think this was planned by the Ukrainians and faked.
FX Guru
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 901
Likes: 0
From: Greenwich
The video I posted earlier of the Buk launcher with a missile missing was taken near Krasnodon on the border with Russia. Russia has sent military convoys into Ukraine through this town, July 12 was the latest one and may well have included this launcher. The launcher was heading back towards Russia.
I've been watching Ukraine very closely since it all kicked off and many on here have not.
Putin is in this up to his eyeballs, even although he's been trying to keep it at arm's length.
Fitter - +1. I've been saying this for over 24 hours now.
PS - If you see any internet conspiracy theorists ranting about a guy called Strelkov, ignore them. This bloke is the DPR's so-called Minister of Defence and is saying the plane was full of dead bodies and that Ukraine deliberately crashed the plane to harm the rebels' cause.
I don't speak Russian but am told the following is a report with more recordings of the rebels discussing their plans for the Buk system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgdqdklrqDA#t=99
I've been watching Ukraine very closely since it all kicked off and many on here have not.
Putin is in this up to his eyeballs, even although he's been trying to keep it at arm's length.
Fitter - +1. I've been saying this for over 24 hours now.
PS - If you see any internet conspiracy theorists ranting about a guy called Strelkov, ignore them. This bloke is the DPR's so-called Minister of Defence and is saying the plane was full of dead bodies and that Ukraine deliberately crashed the plane to harm the rebels' cause.
I don't speak Russian but am told the following is a report with more recordings of the rebels discussing their plans for the Buk system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgdqdklrqDA#t=99
Last edited by angels; 18th July 2014 at 15:36. Reason: Edited to add YT link.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Joined: Dec 2002
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 16,699
Likes: 54
From: Lincolnshire
A Van,
Dear Ivan, it may be said that the lady doth protestesth too much.
What you say is plausible but to go on to exonerate the Russians and blame the Ukrainians is too much.
A high altitude SAM is needed by the one in case of attack by the other. To say the rebels don't need it as the Ukrainians only use SU25 is nonsense as they might fly higher. The Russians may pose a high level threat either directly or in support.
So anyone could have done it. The question therefore remains who and why.
Dear Ivan, it may be said that the lady doth protestesth too much.
What you say is plausible but to go on to exonerate the Russians and blame the Ukrainians is too much.
A high altitude SAM is needed by the one in case of attack by the other. To say the rebels don't need it as the Ukrainians only use SU25 is nonsense as they might fly higher. The Russians may pose a high level threat either directly or in support.
So anyone could have done it. The question therefore remains who and why.
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: UK
Here's a version with English subtitles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,876
Likes: 3
From: Canada
That's about as far as Obama is prepared to go so far. He has just stated that the US is sure the aircraft was downed by a SAM from rebel-held territory. They are not confirming who fired, from which system, or why, at the moment.
He has also just stated that the US knows the Russians are supporting the rebels with sophisticated weapons and training (and that further sanctions can be expected as a result). He is not prepared to connect the two statements at the moment.
He has also just stated that the US knows the Russians are supporting the rebels with sophisticated weapons and training (and that further sanctions can be expected as a result). He is not prepared to connect the two statements at the moment.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,396
Likes: 3
From: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
That's about as far as Obama is prepared to go so far. He has just stated that the US is sure the aircraft was downed by a SAM from rebel-held territory. They are not confirming who fired, from which system, or why, at the moment.
Why? He must be waiting for more absolute evidence, perhaps copies of the tapes from air/ground/space intelligent sources. Or the evidence comes from something too secret to be reviled.
Then again, knowing President Obama, who knows?
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,876
Likes: 3
From: Canada
He was quite clear that he was specifically not "all but saying", but did intend to reveal more as soon as it could be confirmed.
Having dabbled in Intelligence, your other points are probably correct. They are probably seeking more definite evidence. They also may have confirmation from sources they wish to keep secret, and are using this data to seek other non/less-covert sources for the same evidence. For example, hypothetically, they may have evidence from spy satellites that show exactly who was driving the SAM TELAR, but they'd like to get his own Facebook posts to reveal same.
Having dabbled in Intelligence, your other points are probably correct. They are probably seeking more definite evidence. They also may have confirmation from sources they wish to keep secret, and are using this data to seek other non/less-covert sources for the same evidence. For example, hypothetically, they may have evidence from spy satellites that show exactly who was driving the SAM TELAR, but they'd like to get his own Facebook posts to reveal same.
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
From: Sydney (Aust)
All you ever wanted to know - and more - about the BUK system
9K37/9K37M1/9K317 Buk M1/M2 / SA-11/17 Gadfly/Grizzly / C????????? ???????? ???????? ???????? 9?37/9?317 ??? ?/?1/?2
showing some with very simple operator consoles.
They can track and shoot 4 at a time so the other airliners following MH17 were very lucky.
9K37/9K37M1/9K317 Buk M1/M2 / SA-11/17 Gadfly/Grizzly / C????????? ???????? ???????? ???????? 9?37/9?317 ??? ?/?1/?2
showing some with very simple operator consoles.
They can track and shoot 4 at a time so the other airliners following MH17 were very lucky.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,396
Likes: 3
From: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
For example, hypothetically, they may have evidence from spy satellites that show exactly who was driving the SAM TELAR, but they'd like to get his own Facebook posts to reveal same.
Of course there will be those that will refuse to believe that no matter how much evidence will be released. Such are the days we live in.
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
From: UK
Deadly Coincidence.
Last November (2013) the then Ukraine Government decided to strengthen ties with Russia (and away from the West). A few month later in March that Ukraine Government was overthrown. Now we have a pro-US Government installed in Kiev, using Blackwater troops, and against Russia.
Last Week the EU told the US that they would not re-sanction Russia. A few days later we have this MH17 incident, which most likely will lead to sanctions against Russia from the EU.
... step by step it seems a policy is being carried out and events manipulated.
Is it possible that Blackwater pulled the button ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-Donetsk.html
Last November (2013) the then Ukraine Government decided to strengthen ties with Russia (and away from the West). A few month later in March that Ukraine Government was overthrown. Now we have a pro-US Government installed in Kiev, using Blackwater troops, and against Russia.
Last Week the EU told the US that they would not re-sanction Russia. A few days later we have this MH17 incident, which most likely will lead to sanctions against Russia from the EU.
... step by step it seems a policy is being carried out and events manipulated.
Is it possible that Blackwater pulled the button ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-Donetsk.html
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
From: flying by night
WillowRun 6-3: despite all the sophisticated billion usd technology on board USS Vincennes, they lacked up-to-date civilian ac schedules, and they lacked the ability to call it on its assigned frequency. A simple radio, which costs nothing, and publicly available information about departure time, and frequencies, could have prevented both disasters. It doesnt take much sophistication to call an aircraft to confirm its a civilian airliner.