Ukraine knew the first (Russian) BUK entered Donetsk before or on July 17, 2014. It might protect large equipment (vehicles) which massively passed the Russian border. Ukraine certainly must have realized this could be the beginning of an invasion. Then, closing the airspace for civil aviation was the wrong strategic measure, because then Ukraine would have eliminated any risk for the separatists of shooting down civil aircraft instead of military airplanes. So it looks like Ukraine had no choice as to continue civil aviation because otherwise they would have lost Donetsk definitely, for they would have lost all military airpower above Donbass. They must have noticed civil aviation did not prevent the infiltration of earlier BUKs, GRADs and MANPADs. Then, the longer this invasion would take the more vulnerable Ukraine would become in a moral sense by not closing its civil airspace on time. They had to undertake some action. So, what could they have decided? They experienced a terrible dilemma: They could not stop civil aviation, but also they could not continue their immoral politics of keeping open their airspace. The only possible way to stop civil aviation AND the infiltration of BUKs at the same time was by the downing of a civil aircraft. So, they might have been forced to do such a terrible thing. Then they would have found the perfect way to stop the invasion of Russian BUKs into Donetsk, since no BUK dares to enter Donetsk nowadays. Of course I have no proof. But I do know the SBU had real-time intelligence of phone calls between separatists, so in principle they could have interfered. Also at July 17, 2014 the separatists were out of spotters for Grad. Also we know they had no information about the MH17; they even did not use Flightradar. Then someone MUST HAVE GIVEN THE SEPARATISTS THE WRONG INFORMATION which led to the allegedly shooting down of the MH17. But only Ukraine or a faction within the army had real-time information about Ukrainian military aircraft which could be controlled and was to be trusted by the separatists. And we know a separatist spy would never have let this disaster happen. Only a caught separatist spy at a Ukrainian airbase could have been forced at gunpoint to be a double spy and could have given wrong information about an allegedly Ukrainian military plane to the separatists. Now, taking a Russian crew they would have been experienced and not drunk. Then, we cannot say they were stupid any longer and did not understand what they were doing. But then there could have been a language barrier with the separatists and they could have been misinformed more easily by the SBU. So remember, with a Russian crew we run into quite a different scenario. Then we must skip the spy and the double spy, since the Russian crew likely did not know anybody. Maybe they had contacts with the separatist commander in chief. But more likely they acted on their own. Then it would have been very easy for the SBU to misinform the crew of the BUK, since their cellphone numbers were known to them. In general, we are looking to signals of the scaling up of the civil war by Ukraine. For example, we know from the earlier bombing of Snizhne, probably by Ukraine. It was a severe aggravation of the civil war. Maybe they thought to have detected a BUK, maybe not. But there are lots of earlier war crimes from the Ukrainian side.
In retrospect it is clear Ukraine was losing moral self-control and this exceeding of moral limits must have been noticed by the Ukrainians themselves in the first place. They must have understand that this was a dead end. They had to think about other definite measures. And here they possibly got the idea of a false flag but remember, this is an unproven scenario. Bombing Snizhne was just the scaling up of one of their previous crimes against humanity. Therefore, important for our investigation is to note that Ukraine has been proven to be willing to commit war crimes in advance of the downing of the MH17. What is not the same as they were the perpetrators, only that they were in the mood to undertake such terrible and desperate actions. Anyway we conclude Ukraine lost our respect by not protecting civil aviation. Then it could have been just a little step to the worst war crime scenario ever in civil aviation. And that not for the first time… Counter-espionage with MH17 (Part I) http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/mh17-what-i-believe-26-months-later/#comment-20813
Speculating here a bit but the main reason the standalone BUK
might have been supplied was likely to target transport planes on higher
altitudes. From what I understood the main vulnerability for Kiev
became the problem of resupplying the troops. In a few documented cases
they got seriously, massively isolated and ran out of gas, ammunition,
medical supplies, some basic electronics etc. Without these transports,
the war could have been lost pretty quickly, so it was truly paramount
to get something there to turn the tides. The pro-Russian militias did
not suffer that problem with the Russian borders so nearby.
Considering the above, the BUK would be there specially to target eg
the Antonov 26 at Monday July 14. As for shooting at any Su-25, that
might have been more like defense since these jets seem to have been
particularly targeting the roaming BUK and perhaps other heavy
equipment. Just to hunt for Su-25’s using some spread out set of modern
MANPADs could suffice. Plus, one needs to know where to place that one
single BUK. Not likely unless it’s known where the Su-25 would try to do
something. But the A-26 targeting without radar network (assuming some
Russian radar was not helping) would be a bit easier if insurgents knew
or estimated the narrow supply route in advance and could place the BUK
where the Antonov was expected to fly over.
If that was indeed the case, one can see the MH-17 accident waiting
to happen. They’d be waiting exactly for a big target like that, flying
as high as possible on a specific route. Some intelligence then somehow
erred and bang!
Now for the importance of the possible related Su-25 attacks: some
might have been targeting the traced BUK all along but this would have
to remain classified as these missions would unravel the whole case for
Ukraine. They would be charged as equally responsible for this
particular air war at higher altitudes. Or perhaps even messing with
intelligence?
Short reply: Russia (mainly the media stimulated by the Kremlin)
has done nothing but spread lies, confusion and non-factual information
about MH17. For the unbiased observer this is all clear: Russia shot
down MH17 We will know more at September 28 but even then the trolls will tell all kind of rubbish.
You are biased about Russia:
– USA lied what it has satellite image of launch from russian BUK;
– Image “experts” lied about analyses;
– Witnesses lied about mh17;
– Ukraine and SBU lied about satellite images (by Ru MoD) and create faked data. And many more.
But you are see only Russia guilt in that information flows. From
that wrong position you can’t to see whole picture of mh17 tragedy.
Admin, let me correct it for you:
Much of the international media and blog world has done nothing but
spread lies, confusion and non-factual information about MH17.
Surprisingly even in Russia! For the unbiased observer it’s very likely a BUK was involved in the
MH-17 incident which probably came from Russia to support the
insurgence. Questions to be resolved:
– who authorized to send one or more BUK
– who authorized the specific shot
– what where they trying to hit and why
– how much did Ukraine know or withhold about the dangers
Hugh Eaven, the matter is that ONLY pro-Russian (including many
far-left and far-right) media “spread lies, confusion and non-factual
information about MH17”. The only widespread lie of “pro-Western” media
was that those were “separatists” who shot down MH17, while actually the
crew of the Buk consisted of Russian servicemen. Many of the sources
did not simply translate the incorrect information, but lied for fear of
accusing the Russian military of the war crime, the more so that
statement greatly raised the probability that downing the airliner was a
deliberate act.
“all of this is circumstantial evidence clearly pointing in one direction.”-
By spending so much time with BCs [Bellingcat] , it’s seems like Arnold contacted their disease of making conclusions out before research and thus being blind to the consequence of the evidence he discovered.
Ar least from what he collected it is clear that rebels didn’t intend to shoot MH17. Also they were sure that they hit Ukrainian jet or transport plane. From 2 years of looking into the problem everyone should come yo the conclusion that individual 9A310M1 (telar) is useless and will be easy pray for SU-24/25 after the first time it switches on the radar. For any practical use it had to be supported by TAR. and there was absolutely no technical problem for Russian TAR across the border to provide that support. Now the obvious question will be why did Russian TAR identified the approaching military plane which never existed? If you combine this question with question -Who benefited from the tragedy?-, you might start realising true circumstantial evidence. Of course I imply that no matter how biased towards Russia you can be, you will not assume that they would want to shoot the airliner.
'JIT was not able to find a motive for the shot down. Most likely because the motive is something which should not be made public. My guess Ukraine somehow provoked the launch of a missile.'
My guess as well. And they made it with help of USA. That is why all parties are throwing feces at each other instead of providing tangible and verifiable evidence. Practically leadership of all 3 countries (Dutch government behaviour might indicate that not just USA but NATO structures are involved as well) should be put on independent trial – impossible situation.
However it is another indication Ukraine feared the usage of SAM systems
like BUK in Eastern Ukraine. It is another strong argument that
Ukraine should have closed its airspace.
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attibution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence.
.jpg)
Ukraine knew the first (Russian) BUK entered Donetsk before or on July 17, 2014. It might protect large equipment (vehicles) which massively passed the Russian border. Ukraine certainly must have realized this could be the beginning of an invasion. Then, closing the airspace for civil aviation was the wrong strategic measure, because then Ukraine would have eliminated any risk for the separatists of shooting down civil aircraft instead of military airplanes.
So it looks like Ukraine had no choice as to continue civil aviation because otherwise they would have lost Donetsk definitely, for they would have lost all military airpower above Donbass.
They must have noticed civil aviation did not prevent the infiltration of earlier BUKs, GRADs and MANPADs. Then, the longer this invasion would take the more vulnerable Ukraine would become in a moral sense by not closing its civil airspace on time. They had to undertake some action. So, what could they have decided?
They experienced a terrible dilemma: They could not stop civil aviation, but also they could not continue their immoral politics of keeping open their airspace. The only possible way to stop civil aviation AND the infiltration of BUKs at the same time was by the downing of a civil aircraft.
So, they might have been forced to do such a terrible thing. Then they would have found the perfect way to stop the invasion of Russian BUKs into Donetsk, since no BUK dares to enter Donetsk nowadays.
Of course I have no proof. But I do know the SBU had real-time intelligence of phone calls between separatists, so in principle they could have interfered. Also at July 17, 2014 the separatists were out of spotters for Grad. Also we know they had no information about the MH17; they even did not use Flightradar.
Then someone MUST HAVE GIVEN THE SEPARATISTS THE WRONG INFORMATION which led to the allegedly shooting down of the MH17. But only Ukraine or a faction within the army had real-time information about Ukrainian military aircraft which could be controlled and was to be trusted by the separatists. And we know a separatist spy would never have let this disaster happen. Only a caught separatist spy at a Ukrainian airbase could have been forced at gunpoint to be a double spy and could have given wrong information about an allegedly Ukrainian military plane to the separatists.
Now, taking a Russian crew they would have been experienced and not drunk. Then, we cannot say they were stupid any longer and did not understand what they were doing. But then there could have been a language barrier with the separatists and they could have been misinformed more easily by the SBU. So remember, with a Russian crew we run into quite a different scenario.
Then we must skip the spy and the double spy, since the Russian crew likely did not know anybody. Maybe they had contacts with the separatist commander in chief. But more likely they acted on their own. Then it would have been very easy for the SBU to misinform the crew of the BUK, since their cellphone numbers were known to them.
In general, we are looking to signals of the scaling up of the civil war by Ukraine. For example, we know from the earlier bombing of Snizhne, probably by Ukraine. It was a severe aggravation of the civil war. Maybe they thought to have detected a BUK, maybe not. But there are lots of earlier war crimes from the Ukrainian side.
In retrospect it is clear Ukraine was losing moral self-control and this exceeding of moral limits must have been noticed by the Ukrainians themselves in the first place. They must have understand that this was a dead end. They had to think about other definite measures. And here they possibly got the idea of a false flag but remember, this is an unproven scenario.
Bombing Snizhne was just the scaling up of one of their previous crimes against humanity. Therefore, important for our investigation is to note that Ukraine has been proven to be willing to commit war crimes in advance of the downing of the MH17. What is not the same as they were the perpetrators, only that they were in the mood to undertake such terrible and desperate actions.
Anyway we conclude Ukraine lost our respect by not protecting civil aviation. Then it could have been just a little step to the worst war crime scenario ever in civil aviation. And that not for the first time…
Counter-espionage with MH17 (Part I)
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/mh17-what-i-believe-26-months-later/#comment-20813
Considering the above, the BUK would be there specially to target eg the Antonov 26 at Monday July 14. As for shooting at any Su-25, that might have been more like defense since these jets seem to have been particularly targeting the roaming BUK and perhaps other heavy equipment. Just to hunt for Su-25’s using some spread out set of modern MANPADs could suffice. Plus, one needs to know where to place that one single BUK. Not likely unless it’s known where the Su-25 would try to do something. But the A-26 targeting without radar network (assuming some Russian radar was not helping) would be a bit easier if insurgents knew or estimated the narrow supply route in advance and could place the BUK where the Antonov was expected to fly over.
If that was indeed the case, one can see the MH-17 accident waiting to happen. They’d be waiting exactly for a big target like that, flying as high as possible on a specific route. Some intelligence then somehow erred and bang!
Now for the importance of the possible related Su-25 attacks: some might have been targeting the traced BUK all along but this would have to remain classified as these missions would unravel the whole case for Ukraine. They would be charged as equally responsible for this particular air war at higher altitudes. Or perhaps even messing with intelligence?
====================
– USA lied what it has satellite image of launch from russian BUK;
– Image “experts” lied about analyses;
– Witnesses lied about mh17;
– Ukraine and SBU lied about satellite images (by Ru MoD) and create faked data. And many more.
But you are see only Russia guilt in that information flows. From that wrong position you can’t to see whole picture of mh17 tragedy.
-
Hugh Eaven //
September 3, 2016 at 11:18 am //
Admin, let me correct it for you:
-
Slozhny //
September 3, 2016 at 1:25 pm //
Hugh Eaven, the matter is that ONLY pro-Russian (including many
far-left and far-right) media “spread lies, confusion and non-factual
information about MH17”. The only widespread lie of “pro-Western” media
was that those were “separatists” who shot down MH17, while actually the
crew of the Buk consisted of Russian servicemen. Many of the sources
did not simply translate the incorrect information, but lied for fear of
accusing the Russian military of the war crime, the more so that
statement greatly raised the probability that downing the airliner was a
deliberate act.
================Much of the international media and blog world has done nothing but spread lies, confusion and non-factual information about MH17. Surprisingly even in Russia!
For the unbiased observer it’s very likely a BUK was involved in the MH-17 incident which probably came from Russia to support the insurgence.
Questions to be resolved:
– who authorized to send one or more BUK
– who authorized the specific shot
– what where they trying to hit and why
– how much did Ukraine know or withhold about the dangers
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/arrival-of-the-separatists-at-the-crash-sites/#comment-21084
By spending so much time with BCs [Bellingcat] , it’s seems like Arnold contacted their disease of making conclusions out before research and thus being blind to the consequence of the evidence he discovered.
Ar least from what he collected it is clear that rebels didn’t intend to shoot MH17. Also they were sure that they hit Ukrainian jet or transport plane. From 2 years of looking into the problem everyone should come yo the conclusion that individual 9A310M1 (telar) is useless and will be easy pray for SU-24/25 after the first time it switches on the radar. For any practical use it had to be supported by TAR. and there was absolutely no technical problem for Russian TAR across the border to provide that support. Now the obvious question will be why did Russian TAR identified the approaching military plane which never existed? If you combine this question with question -Who benefited from the tragedy?-, you might start realising true circumstantial evidence. Of course I imply that no matter how biased towards Russia you can be, you will not assume that they would want to shoot the airliner.
======================================
“My guess Ukraine somehow provoked the launch of a missile.”
>“My guess Ukraine somehow provoked the launch of a missile.”
=======================================
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/ukraine-asked-u-s-for-tech-to-counter-russias-jet-killers/
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attibution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence.