@Lonewolf
But we do not know yet what was the involvement of Russian forces, surely they should be considered a professional force?

@1978
I do not share your belief (or estimate) that the Russians were directly involved. However, if the evidence uncovers that, I'll stand corrected.

In a cellular phone tap the TELAR receiver asked "Is it with a crew?" and got answer: "Yes, with the crew":
The Security Service of Ukraine

AP journalists (Russian-born) were confronted by the TELAR crew in Snizhne (to check that the TELAR was not photographed), they reported that the crew member talked in Russian with a non-local accent.

Lonewolf, I guess it depends on how you define "directly involved".
I personally think the Russian decided to cause havoc in the Ukraine by providing the separatists with highly capable anti-aircraft missiles and turning them loose to shoot down Ukrainian aircraft. Like you, I think it highly unlikely the Russians deliberately targeted a civilian aircraft. However, turning the separatists loose with high capability weapons, with little training and guidance, and a mindset to shoot at anything that moved - the outcome was perfectly predictable. That the Russians failed to foresee the likely outcome makes them, in my mind, ultimately responsible (and given their denials, I suspect they agree).
I see it very much like the parent that gives an 8 year old a .22 rifle and sends them out to plunk rabbits with no instruction, supervision, or safety training. While the parent didn't intend for the kid to shoot the neighbor by mistake, the fact that he did was perfectly predictable. The kid pulled the trigger, but the parent bears full responsibility.

@tdracer
Plausible, and it reminds me of the paranoia during OEF (2004ish) regarding how many Stingers were left over from Massoud and his allies fighting the Russians. Once you give it to them, they may use it in ways you didn't intend. :E My point is that I don't think any Russians pulled the trigger. However, the evidence trail may lead there (per Lena.Kiev's point).


For the industry, I would hope that the lesson learned by airline management, and perhaps even national authorities, is to give war zones a wide berth due to the lethality of modern weapons.

Adequate, tried, tested & documented procedures already exist for use by national authorities to give protection to civil traffic in areas subject to hazardous activity and are executed daily in most States including Ukraine. However in this case these were not adhered to in a manner sufficient to protect all CAT transiting the zone.

Expatrick: I wasn't suggesting more rules. Having rules and procedures didn't help in this case, as you noted, due to some flaws in execution.

With respect I think "flaws in execution' is an understatement. UKsATSE deliberately made the route available for CAT above FL320, in this situation the system requires specific & deliberate intervention.

But will the lessons actually be learned, or will it be lip service?

Whichever way it is looked at, the inevitable conclusion must be, it was an accidental shooting of a civilian airliner.If the guys on the USS Vincennes, with all their state of the art equipment and training could get it wrong, which they obviously did, what could be expected from a bunch of half wits who got their hands on this kind of lethal equipment. With three missiles remaining unlit in the tubes it could have been a whole lot worse. There were other targets to have a pop at after all.

So long as political expediency requires, regrettably, no.

Chronus, you are right, this was probably an accidental shoot down of an airliner - that should not have been there in the first place.

I was in Eastern Ukraine two days before MH17 was shot down. The war was not going well for the Russians, the Ukrainians could use air power unlike the Russians who would find it difficult to explain why aircraft were crossing the border whilst the pilots were no doubt on their holidays. Russian ground troops, on their holidays, were massed on the borders ready to invade but the Ukrainian Air Force had to be denied use of the air. Hence, the deployment of the Buks. Unlike the Russian special forces who took over government offices to start the 'rebellion', Buk operators or even tank crews on their holidays will not make any move unless it comes from their established chain of command. Any suggestion on here that anything else occurred is either extremely misinformed or in some cases deliberately misleading.

Three comments:
1. Inevitable conclusion? That requires certainty on a lot of variables. That certainty does not exist.
2. Accidental? Maybe. Maybe not. At present, motives are unknown
3. The most damning part of this event are the denials and the cover ups that followed. And continue to this day. If it truly was an accident just fess up and get it over with. That's what the Vincennes crew did.

The USA has never apologised for or ever admitted any legal liability for the shooting down of the Iran Air flight.
In fact as I dimly recall from those days the USA at the time was blasting out on all media channels that the said aircraft was descending and heading towards the fleet. In fact it was doing neither of these things.

They can't. For the simple reason that admitting the c***-up would implicate the presence in the conflict of Russian equipment (the rebels don't have Buks of their own) and personnel as well, which is something that Russia has always strenuously denied and continues to deny until the present day.

That is wholly untrue on both counts.

USN Adm. Fogarty's official review of the case and data - based on bridge data from the multiple U.S. ships - and released in a timely matter after the event, makes plain that the aircraft was acting innocently, and assesses blame on the bridge crew. It was ackowledged clearly, timely as these things go.

The U.S. settled claims and reparations on this in the early 90s.

Fine, let's say that they fired blindly into the sky.

I didn't use the word "carelessness", I said

These guys took a very powerful weapon, aimed it at a target that they did not verify, that they knew that they could not verify and yet they pulled the trigger. Any combatant should know that they are obligated to ensure that they are not shooting at civilians. Positively identifying your target is one of the most basic tenets of firearms safety and it is one of the fundamental principles of war.

You can't dress this up as an accident or a blue-on-blue gone even worse. These guys went hunting for something that they could not positively identify and blazed away regardless.

You can't misidentify something that you can't identify in the first place. The Fire Dome radar on the BUK TELAR cannot discriminate between military and civilian airplanes, it has no capability to read civilian S-band transponder transmissions. They essentially fired blind.

Regarding the USS Vincennes, you left out the bit where they challenged Iran Air flight 655 ten times to identify itself before firing at it.

dr dre - listen to what MickG0105 is saying. He seems to know his stuff!

Go back to the time of the event. Just three days earlier the rebels had downed a Ukrainian AN26 which was flying at over 20,000 feet! Of the known equipment in the region, only a BUK could do that, MANPADS haven't got a chance. No-one (apart from, would you believe, some Russian media) really picked up on this until it was too late.

The rebels were on a roll and wanted another kill. They thought they'd got one. Immediately after the destruction of the plane they claimed to have downed another AN26.

I quote from Antikvariat.ru (Google translated).

"Report from the militia. In the area of Snezhnoye an AN-26 was just shot down, it has fallen somewhere beyond the Progress coal mine."

Re personnel, this is pure speculation on my part, but I reckon there were Russians on board that launcher. I don't think rebels could be trained sufficiently to operate it and also drive it with impunity over the border.

As I say, that is my speculation. There has been no proof of this -- yet.