Arrest Blair’s Mate

Written By: - Date published: 8:45 am, September 29th, 2016 - 303 comments
Categories: class war, crime, International, law and "order" - Tags: , ,

At last there is confirmation that the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was a war crime. Pro Russian rebels, using a Russian supplied ground to air missile, shot down the commercial jet, probably believing it was a Ukrainian military aircraft.

The investigation found:

  • The missile was fired from an arable field 6km south of the town of Snizhne, an area was under the control of pro-Russia fighters.
  • The Buk came from Russian territory into eastern Ukraine and was later transported on a white Volvo truck. Witnesses, photographs and video show it escorted by several other vehicles and by “armed men in uniform”.
  • Around 100 people have been identified who can be linked to the downing of MH17 or the transport of the Buk.
  • Witnesses at the launch site near the village of Pervomaiskyi reported hearing “a very loud noise” and “a high whistling sound”. They also saw a plume of smoke.

As Russia slides from authoritarian to totalitarian, we can expect more crimes like these from the mafia state. We have got used to almost daily atrocities by Russia and its proxies in Syria. The world has effectively shrugged as Russia annexed Crimea against the wishes of the Ukrainian people and against the tenets of international law.

I see a grim irony here. Former British PM Tony Blair is accused of committing war crimes by misleading Parliament into backing the invasion of Iraq. It’s said that Britain had no right to go to war against Saddam Hussein because there are only two circumstances in which it is permissible to wage war under the UN Charter: in self-defence or with the explicit approval of the Security Council.

Blair can’t claim either was the case. But, then, Vladimir Putin cannot say that Ukraine was threatening Russia, not that the UN had granted a mandate for the invasion.

So why aren’t we hearing calls for the citizen’s arrest of Vladimir Putin?

Is it because Tony Blair is a soft target? A former democratically elected politician in a liberal country, now out of Parliament and coining it as an after dinner speaker and friend to despots worldwide, Blair is relatively accessible. Putin is not. He’s a crypto fascist, determined to reintroduce all the worst aspects of the Soviet era, while failing to deliver the better parts of socialism. Housing, healthcare, jobs and inflation are blighting the lives of the Russian people. But the massively wealthy Putin doesn’t care.

The Putinist oligarchy of ex KGB agents has privatised the economy and the Kremlin routinely silences any voices of opposition. Speak up in Russia and you are likely to end up jailed, beaten or killed.

Technically, Russia is a democracy. But elections are far from free and fair. The media is slavishly pro-Putin. Any serious candidate from outside Putin’s party is likely to suffer for their independent stand. Putin may have just seen his party re-elected in the Duma, but that parliament is now a pointless mechanism for the rubber stamping of whatever mad adventure Putin fancies.

Vladimir Putin will continue to coordinate the most awful war crimes. He’ll continue to use proxies to maintain deniability, He’ll continue to keep Russia on a war footing, because without the distraction of an appeal to Russian nationalism, the reality of just how bad life is in Russia would be laid bare.

Tony Blair may be many things; weak, vain, greedy, for example. But he isn’t a war criminal and while he didn’t have a security council mandate for the invasion of Iraq, the UN swiftly recognised the authority of the UK and the US to manage Iraq once the invasion was complete. Blair and Bush can claim some kind of retrospective endorsement. Putin cannot do the same.

So here’s my challenge. Arrest Putin. I’ll donate $500 to anyone who successfully performs a citizen’s arrest on Vladimir Putin. Anywhere, any time.

Any takers?

 

UPDATE: Added an animated video of the route the missile launcher took (actual photos and a brief video of the BUK launcher at around 3.15 in the animation):

 

303 comments on “Arrest Blair’s Mate ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. One Anonymous Bloke 1
    29 September 2016 at 8:57 am

    Blair has apologised for his ‘mistakes’. If I make ‘mistakes’ that cause deaths I’d expect to end up in court.

    Arrest them both.

  2. Colonial Viper 2
    29 September 2016 at 8:58 am

    The Kiev authorities re-directed the doomed MH17 plane from its original flight plan to fly directly over a known war zone where aircraft had previously been shot down.

    That’s the act of criminal negligence on behalf of the US backed unconstitutional Ukranian government which directly led to this tragedy.

    I am surprised that the author of this post did not mention that international aviation rules require countries to ensure the security of the airspace that it sends civilian airliners through.

    Ukranian authorities were criminally negligent on this point.

    And this should have been mentioned in the post.

    Further, the several thousand foot high missile trail of the BUK launch in the middle of the day would have seen by thousands of people and would have been visible for up to half an hour after the launch – yet there was not a single mobile phone photo or video of the missile launch from that date.

    • Aaron 2.1
      29 September 2016 at 10:02 am

      Thankyou CV. The US is conducting a propaganda war against Russia so I was immediately suspicious of this news item – nice to see some relevant info come up

    • lprent 2.2
      29 September 2016 at 1:15 pm

      If an aircraft is at 38k feet, could you please explain how it was involved in a local war on the ground? Was there any evidence of carpet bombing or remote air launched missile attacks?

      As far as I am aware, even the Russians and their local Ukrainian sock-puppets only claim close range tactical air attacks.

      So there would have been little to suspect that some criminal morons fighting at low altitudes would have launched an attack on a high altitude civilian airliner.

      //———–

      If I understand the mechanics of the solid fuel missile used, there wouldn’t have been much visible exhausts at low altitudes except close to the immediate launch site.

      At higher altitudes it is likely that would have been a missile vapor trail.

      So why would people be filming or taking photos of high altitude vapor trails in a continental area where there are typically hundreds of them visible on most days? These aren’t NZ skies – there are contrails everywhere over much of Europe most of the time.

      //————

      Your logic shows no reason why anyone apart from a complete idiot would fire at that plane.

      Based on the evidence about the missile from the official investigations and ignoring the obvious propaganda aimed at credulous fools, that appears to be

      1. An insurgent/covert commander in Russian controlled eastern Ukraine
      2. The Russian morons who gave them a high altitude anti-aircraft missile battery.

      No amount of dumb repetition of propaganda from RT is likely to change my assessment on that.

      • Colonial Viper 2.2.1
        29 September 2016 at 4:18 pm

        If I understand the mechanics of the solid fuel missile used, there wouldn’t have been much visible exhausts at low altitudes except close to the immediate launch site.

        There are lots of videos of BUK missile launches on youtube. The rocket motor exhaust trails are large, long and very visible during day light.

        Your logic shows no reason why anyone apart from a complete idiot would fire at that plane.

        So there would have been little to suspect that some criminal morons fighting at low altitudes would have launched an attack on a high altitude civilian airliner.

        Yep, agree completely. Especially considering that the BUK ground to air missile system needs a highly trained military crew to operate, and such crews do not get given orders to launch at anything and everything which passes by.

        So the one option that you did not consider, assuming that a BUK missile was used, is that the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 operating at cruising speed and altitude was knowingly and deliberately targeted, fired upon and shot down out of the skies by the operators of the missile system.

    • Chooky 2.3
      29 September 2016 at 2:09 pm

      +100 CV…one wonders why the Dutch report is so incomplete…have the Dutch been leaned on in some way or insentivised/bribed to blame the Russians?

      …and RT gives another perspective

      ‘Solid facts? 5 flaws that raise doubt over int’l MH17 criminal probe’

      https://www.rt.com/news/361006-mh17-jit-report-questions/

      ‘MH17 int’l probe’s only sources are Ukrainian intel & internet – Russian MoD’

      https://www.rt.com/news/360963-mh17-probe-ukraine-internet/

      “The international investigators relied only on data provided by the Ukrainian military and from the internet, a Russian military spokesperson said Wednesday. He added that no Russian missile systems have ever crossed into Ukraine…

      • Psycho Milt 2.4.1
        29 September 2016 at 4:33 pm

        In the German-language article, the pilot speculates that the projectile damage around the cockpit and the undamaged (by projectiles) rest of the plane suggests a fighter aircraft fired its on-board cannon at the cockpit, rather than the plane being hit by a missile, which would have hit the middle of the plane and then exploded. The article is from 2014 – since then, the wreckage has been reconstructed and the projectile damage shown to be from a BUK missile exploding near the cockpit. The German expert can be forgiven for not knowing that in July 2014, but what’s your excuse for not knowing it now?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.4.1.1
          29 September 2016 at 5:29 pm

          Chooky kennt kein Deutsch?

        • Liberal Realist 2.4.1.2
          29 September 2016 at 8:21 pm

          +1. I watched a video back when this happened of locals being interviewed, they claimed to see two fighter jets in the vicinity of MH17 just before it went down.

          I don’t understand how anyone can give the Ukrainians any credibility? Their current government came to power by a US sponsor violent coup.

          Where is the evidence that Kerry immediately claimed the US had? That has never been made public.

          I just don’t see any benefit for Russia allegedly supporting this and the rebels carrying it out. On the other hand, this sort of thing is right out of the empire’s playbook – Ukraine shoots down a commercial airliner then blames Russia. Queue MSM quislings shouting from the rooftops “Russia did it, Russia did it”. Everything bad in the world these days seems to be ‘Russia’s fault’.

          It’s pretty clear to me that quite a few parts of the US government are just itching for a war with Russia. The rhetoric coming out of a compliant US MSM is the most dangerous I’ve ever heard.

          • Chooky 2.4.1.2.1
            29 September 2016 at 8:28 pm

            +100 Liberal Realist..I watched that video too…people on the ground were adamant they saw fighter jets alongside the airliner or tailing it

            …there was no advantage to the Russians in shooting a civilian airliner down, quite the contrary

            …so who benefits?

            … Ukrainians and mates black ops setup trying to blame the Russians?

            …and the fact that the airliner was diverted from its original route over a far riskier war zone, says it all imo…a setup

          • Psycho Milt 2.4.1.2.2
            29 September 2016 at 9:51 pm

            I watched a video back when this happened of locals being interviewed, they claimed to see two fighter jets in the vicinity of MH17 just before it went down.

            The locals saw two fighter jets in the vicinity of MH17 at a height of 10,000 meters? Fucking sharp eyesight on those locals, I must say. Funny though that the air crash investigators kept pulling pieces of a BUK ground-to-air missile out of the wreckage, almost as though the plane were shot down by a BUK rather than fighters.

            On the other hand, this sort of thing is right out of the empire’s playbook – Ukraine shoots down a commercial airliner then blames Russia.

            Oh, you mean like all those other times that happened? Just refresh our memories, would you?

  3. Psycho Milt 3
    29 September 2016 at 9:10 am

    Ukranian authorities were criminally negligent on this point.

    And this should have been mentioned in the post.

    It should? There’s civil aviation authorities failing to give an aircraft the flight path you think it should have been given, and there’s shooting down an airliner with an anti-aircraft missile. I know that you’re a master of false equivalence, but surely that one’s a bit much even for you?

    • Richard Rawshark 3.1
      29 September 2016 at 9:21 am

      38 miles up, I doubt I could tell civil to military from the ground.

      There was a point about the flight path it was never mentioned, almost, deliberately, ? not saying that’s the sole reason but CV is right in stating it should have been mentioned as a contributing factor, unless, you had an agenda to lay as much blame in Russia’s direction as possible and leave them no wriggle room

      As for Putin,

      IF he comes to NZ i’ll remember this. I’ll Citizens Arrest him.

      • Colonial Viper 3.1.1
        29 September 2016 at 9:40 am

        To hit a target at 38,000 feet the BUK ground to air missile system needs to have its radar vehicle on active tracking/locking mode pinging out radar signals.

        Both US/NATO AWACS and Russian AWACS systems would have seen these missile guidance radar signals from hundreds of kilometres away.

        Did this investigation review that proof, if it exists?

        Also the US monitors every inch of the Russian border with spy satellites. Let’s see evidence of this BUK carrier moving across the border, shooting down MH17 and being moved back across to Russia.

        • Richard Rawshark 3.1.1.1
          29 September 2016 at 9:48 am

          I’m not arguing that point CV, take a chill pill. Not arguing as i’m not arguing with you.. get it.

          My point is, Putin old, ex KGB sneaky as a fox and not to be trusted either.

          Just a fact.

          • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1
            29 September 2016 at 10:01 am

            Yes I certainly agree that Putin has the background of a devious Cold War professional

            But these exist on both sides of the Atlantic

        • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.2
          29 September 2016 at 9:48 am

          I suggest you read the Dutch report then. Well known shills for the military industrial complex, the Dutch 🙄

          • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.2.1
            29 September 2016 at 6:40 pm

            And all the wars they fought beside the US in: Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.2.1.1
              30 September 2016 at 6:28 pm

              I’m sorry: you obviously think your drivel can persuade me of something, whereas I’m just expressing my contempt for your self-aggrandising bullshit.

              Don’t forget now.

        • RedLogix 3.1.1.3
          29 September 2016 at 9:53 am

          I’m inclined to take the JIT evidence at face value for the time being. There is a high probability that indeed a BUK missile was launched when and where they say it was.

          The big unknown question the JIT report does not address is why? Given MH17 seems to have been re-routed it seems hardly likely the Russians moved the launcher into position days in advance, just to shoot this particular plane down. I struggle to think of a non-tin foily explanation of why they’d want to shoot down a civilian airliner in general.

          Was this just a fuckup? Like Iran Air 655?

          • Psycho Milt 3.1.1.3.1
            29 September 2016 at 10:38 am

            It was a fuck-up. The Russians provided them with anti-aircraft weapons to use against the Ukraine air force. They initially thought they’d brought down a Ukraine AF military transport, then the BUK was sent packing tout suite when they found out what they’d actually done.

            • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.3.1.1
              29 September 2016 at 10:53 am

              So let’s see the US recon photos of this BUK being moved in and out of position and back over to Russia. Instead of just “social media” posts.

          • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.3.2
            29 September 2016 at 11:46 am

            I’m inclined to take the JIT evidence at face value for the time being. There is a high probability that indeed a BUK missile was launched when and where they say it was.

            Such a launch happened in the middle of a fine day.

            Go to youtube and see the exhaust trails left by the practice firings of the BUK missile system.

            The exhaust trail is thousands of feet high and can be see for miles around.

            That exhaust trail would still have been sitting there in the air for tens of thousands of people to see, when the first reports of MH17 crashing into the country side started coming in.

            Where are the live videos/photos/smartphone footage of this missile exhaust trail from that hour of that day.

          • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.3.3
            29 September 2016 at 11:48 am

            RL this is what a BUK missile launch looks like

        • Richard Rawshark 3.1.1.4
          29 September 2016 at 9:55 am

          Not that i’m an expert on missile guidance system or even the Buk CV, are you?

          However since it’s a tool for war, it would be a bit stupid to have a radar system that the enemy can pin point..being Russia too i’d imagine it’s far more highly complicated a tracking system than a plain old radar. Constantly changing freq etc. short wave lengths maybe microwave, who knows!!!!

          IF awacs can track it, it may not be in their interests to announce it either.

          IDNK, like I say nothings straight forward when dealing with War mongering US or the sly Bear Russia.

          However History has shown me one thing.

          the USA is not to be trusted, as in after the second world war read up on how the US behaved for the time they were the only Nation with the Atomic bomb and how it got SO out of hand, US scientists gave Russia the answer so they could build their own bomb.

          Says a lot about the US>

          Arseholes.

          • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.4.1
            29 September 2016 at 10:57 am

            Not that i’m an expert on missile guidance system or even the Buk CV, are you?

            However since it’s a tool for war, it would be a bit stupid to have a radar system that the enemy can pin point..

            Not an expert, but a few basic facts are obvious.

            The BUK missile truck needs full integration with its fully active radar tracking truck to hit a fast moving target at 30,000 plus feet. The missile launcher and the missile itself cannot perform that kind of tracking.

            And of course, US AWACs systems are designed to pick up, identify and classify the strong radar signals from well known and older Russian missile systems like the BUK.

            • McFlock 3.1.1.4.1.1
              29 September 2016 at 11:49 am

              lol

              those “basic facts are obvious”, eh?

              How about the idea that these amazing detection systems that are “hundreds of kilometres away” with a margin for error in minutes or seconds (rather than degrees) might be off by tens of kilometres on the ground?

              I love it: you make categorical statements about forward air control, satellite surveillance, and now signals intelligence and electronic warfare, while being the most vocal supporter of the US’ geopolitical opponents. If you met yourself online, you’d call yourself a CIA agent provocateur…

              if you weren’t so patently ignorant about everything you google or get fed by RT.

              • Colonial Viper …
                29 September 2016 at 11:57 am

                Look it up for yourself. The BUK missile in flight does not carry the radar systems required to track a fast moving high altitude target.

                The missile has to be guided by signals from the active radar missile truck in order to successfully track and hit such a target.

                Further only a crew of fully trained military operators can conduct such an operation.

                Your average former farmer Donbass rebel who picks up an AK47 cannot operate a BUK system in this way.

                • McFlock …
                  29 September 2016 at 12:17 pm

                  Lol

                  Nothing of what you said contradicts my comment about the accuracy of the plotting from “hundreds of kilometres away”.

                  And that’s even if they made a radar system t effective up to 140km but was itself detectable at a range several times that, and if that was the only radar operating on that band in the entire region (i.e. southeastern Europe and northwest Asia ) so there were no other radars to complicate the plot, and indeed it was on a band that had no atmospheric signal attenuation issues (think “rain fade” on satellite TV).

                  Basically, these are all RT arguments you’d be parroting if such surveillance actually existed, was released, and pinpointed the launch location with the accuracy of literally all the other evidence uncovered by the JIT. Of course, if the margin for error in the plot overlapped even slightly unoccupied Ukrainian territory, you’d grasp at that straw like it was a parachute harness.

                  As for “fully trained military operators”, well – that flies in the face of Russian military development, but whatever, chief. You’re the one with the Tom Clancy book collection.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    29 September 2016 at 12:33 pm

                    AWACS systems can pinpoint radar emissions down to metre level accuracy for the targetting of precision munitions.

                    Your Sky decoder does fine sifting through the electromagnetic soup to find the signals that it wants, and that’s just a $50 TV decoder, not a hundred million dollar AWACs plane.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 September 2016 at 1:09 pm

                      AWACS systems can pinpoint radar emissions down to metre level accuracy for the targetting of precision munitions.

                      From hundreds of kilometres away?
                      Total bullshit.

                      Firstly, that means that the entire suite of anti-radar missiles is redundant: HARM, Shrike etc. Just whack ’em with a lobbed JDAM.
                      Secondly, if they were that accurate they wouldn’t fucking tell you.
                      Thirdly, radar/radio bearing is much more difficult than range because physics.

                      Digital communication signals are designed to be separable, but even then you need to have the dish pointed in roughly the right direction.

                      Try again, Mr Clancy.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 September 2016 at 3:29 pm

                      McFlock, just saying that US AWACs aircraft can provide extremely precise targetting information, down to the scale of metres. And particularly if one AWACs were also operating with other real time networked surveillance assets, either another AWACs or satellite data.

                      Triangulation of radio emissions is a very old technology McFlock, two guys with two coat hangers and you are half way there.

                      The AWACs is far more sophisticated.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 September 2016 at 3:47 pm

                      Triangulation is old, but it’s still limited by the laws of physics. You know, math. It also involves multiple points of observation, so now the ubiquitous surveillance you attribute to the US is by multiple aircraft lol.

                      The wavelength matters, attenuation matters, the physical layout of the receiver array matters.

                      The error is measured in degrees, minutes and seconds of arc. The farther away the observation was made, the bigger the box. At what range can AWACs locate a radar emission to within ten metres? link pls.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 September 2016 at 4:10 pm

                      Triangulation is old, but it’s still limited by the laws of physics. You know, math. It also involves multiple points of observation, so now the ubiquitous surveillance you attribute to the US is by multiple aircraft lol.

                      You really don’t understand how AWACS can very quickly and very accurately triangulate point radio sources, do you?

                      You have the basics, but you’re not thinking it through and applying those basics to how an AWACs actually works in the air.

                      Give it a bit of thought and you’ll quickly understand how powerful the AWACS platform is.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 September 2016 at 4:43 pm

                      No link to back up your bullshit, I note.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 September 2016 at 4:49 pm

                      You’ve already told me that you understand enough about radio energy behaviour to understand how a single AWACS plane in flight can precision locate a point radio energy source hundreds of kilometres away in seconds (or say up to a minute or two).

                      Think it through, McFlock, you too can get it if you apply yourself.

                      Cluetip: don’t treat the AWACS as a single stationary receiver 😉

                    • McFlock …
                      29 September 2016 at 5:23 pm

                      And you’ve yet to figure out the minimal effect on angle that even moving completely tangentially to the randomly-acquired target will have from a distance of “hundreds of kilometres”. The missile crew could have gone home to dinner by the time “metres” accurate fix might have been made.

                      At 576km/hr “a minute or two” would maybe take the aircraft 20km tangentially to the target. Assuming that the distance at each observation point is 500km, then the aspect change from the aircraft to the target is 2.2 degrees. Math. It’s your friend.

                      So what’s your degree margin for error at 500km again? Oh, wait, you haven’t even demonstrated that one was in the region yet, let alone its theoretical accuracy. Hell, the entire conflict zone is only a few hundred kilometres square.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 September 2016 at 7:32 pm

                      They can get a space probe to locate the Earth, point its antenna back to base and send messages back and forth from 1.2 billion kilometres.

                      In comparison, 2.2 degrees is a gaping wide hole, over four times wider than the full moon in the sky.

                      With the right equipment you can waltz an elephant through that cavernous gap and have room for the rest of the circus.

                      Come now McFlock, its not like you to lose faith in science and technology. Sharpen up, man.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 September 2016 at 11:14 pm

                      lol

                      it takes more than “a minute or two” to estimate a probe’s position, though. And the diameter of the earth’s orbit helps.

                      But no, I try and reduce the amount of “faith” I have in science and technology. It’s “knowledge”. You have faith in the ubiquity and omniscience of US airborne surveillance. I’m simply asking what you base that faith on. Do you have any tech manuals, analyses or sources beyond RT that specify even minimum levels of accuracy for plotting a position “within metres” from “hundreds of kilometres” away? Because if they turned the radar off immediately after the aircraft was shot down, your “one or two minutes” is more daydreaming.

                      BTW, you do realise that a tangential path is the absolute best case scenario for plotting the position? If the imaginary airplane was travelling towards the Ukraine at the time of the imaginary detection, there was no imaginary aspect change and your masturbation sorry speculation is even more bullshit.

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    29 September 2016 at 12:54 pm

                    On the ‘fully trained operators’ CV is correct – if a BUK were built from the ground up today it might be a different story – but the BUK crew were serving Russian regular officers detached from their duties and attached to the Russian insurgency in the Ukraine. They were there in support of a similarly detached tank unit.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 September 2016 at 1:17 pm

                      Frankly, I can go either way on that. Haven’t seen much for either possibility.

                      I mean, I’m not saying you can just find one and make it work, no training required, but I’d be intrigued as to what a solid week’s training would do, especially if you didn’t have to load or maintain it over the long term.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      29 September 2016 at 1:55 pm

                      It’s nothing like a Stinger.

                      BUKs operate in concert with tank formations to protect them from fighter bombers. The crew require years of training because efficiency requires very rapid locks and firing. This is because the BUK itself is a priority target for ground attacking aircraft. Once the BUKs are gone the tanks can be destroyed almost at leisure.

                      A BUK locking on an attacking aircraft has a very short interval (perhaps 2 seconds) before it is itself destroyed. So the pressure under which mistakes might be made is certainly present. BUKs were prevalent throughout the former eastern block and compulsory military service means there are enough former BUK offficers or those who served in formations protected by them around to have outlined their operational role and capacity fairly solidly.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 September 2016 at 3:03 pm

                      True, but if the threat environment doesn’t require optimum response times (or you only need to have a couple of launchers in the disputed zone to act as plausible cover against casu belli while you sit just over in Russia plinking away at Ukrainian aircraft), then the required training level goes right down.

                  • The New Student …
                    29 September 2016 at 2:03 pm

                    I was just thinking this. All a bit too Clancy up in here.

                    I guess what works in theory always works in practice hey

            • Richard Rawshark 3.1.1.4.1.2
              29 September 2016 at 12:57 pm

              isn’t the fast moving target your talking of actually mean, supersonic jet fighters? Jeez a bloody cargo plane, frankly an air liners a heavy cargo plane. Plodding along like a turtle compared to a missile’s rocket speed.

      • aj 3.1.2
        29 September 2016 at 7:12 pm

        Just a small point, but the cruising altitude of commercial airliners is not 38 miles.
        Or 38km.
        More like 10-12km

        Oh – I see CV has it right.

  4. Colonial Viper 4
    29 September 2016 at 9:17 am

    Worth remembering that in the last 17 years, Russia has brought itself back from the brink of a crippling economic implosion.

    This crippling dismemberment of Russia was engineered by western financial authorities with the help of the Russian billionaire oligarchs who had stolen massive state property from the Russian people under the incompetent and drunk rule of Boris Yeltsin.

    Some background to what Putin did to put the post-Communist collapsing country back on track, and the background for why the west is so bitter about Putin’s effectiveness in opposing their neoliberal hegemony can be found in this doco.

    • Richard Rawshark 4.1
      29 September 2016 at 9:24 am

      I wouldn’t call putin good at anything CV. He’s crooked as the days long and makes John Key look like an alter boy.

      Putin another ex KGB has been living in the past.

      The worlds suffers because of leaders just like him.

      • Colonial Viper 4.1.1
        29 September 2016 at 9:33 am

        In just 17 years, Putin took a massive, unfit, bureaucratic, failing state which had adopted western backed neoliberalism holus bolus and which was about to implode into a mess of chaotic balkanized territories, and restored its economic, social and security integrity.

        Putin another ex KGB has been living in the past.

        That’s an unjustifiable comment.

        Just look at the 3 to 4 hour long annual press conference he does live, no teleprompters, in front of both Russian, European and global world media.

        Have you seen any US President, UK PM, or even NZ PM do anything similarly open and transparent?

        How is that KGB like? Or the fact that Putin’s political party United Russia is quite a bit more popular than the old fashioned USSR-fancying Russian Communist party?

        In reality, it is the west who cannot shake themselves free of the Cold War past and see that the world is heading in a multi-polar direction where English speaking countries are not going to have the same overwhelming dominance that they had in the latter 20th century.

        • Richard Rawshark 4.1.1.1
          29 September 2016 at 9:45 am

          KGB like he’s EX KGB, well known.

          “Putin was a KGB foreign intelligence officer for 16 years, rising to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel before retiring in 1991 to enter politics in his native Saint Petersburg” -Wikipedia, I know editable, but this is true.

          old school KGB..living in the past.

          I refreshed a conversation you and a few standardista’s had with a Konstatine etc, in 2014? Very interesting points of view.

          I don’t like Putin but in that far right Nazi’s are causing trouble in the Ukraine means to me this is a cold war battleground forming/created.

          This story is complicated, it involves high level politics from tricky Nations and none of what we receive as information should be taken at face value.

          • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.1
            29 September 2016 at 10:52 am

            Putin is a former KGB foreign services officer, yes, but that’s a long shot from stating he is somehow “living in the past” of KGB and USSR days.

            In fact, every bit of evidence shows that Putin is totally focussed on the future of Russia in a multi polar world.

        • Huginn 4.1.1.2
          2 October 2016 at 1:09 am

          What are you talking about?
          Russia’s GDP is less than Spain’s.

      • D'Esterre 4.1.2
        1 October 2016 at 11:40 pm

        Richard Rawshark: “I wouldn’t call putin good at anything CV. He’s crooked as the days long and makes John Key look like an alter boy.”
        Looks as if you’re in thrall to propaganda there. Uncle Sam wants you to believe these things:that’s the point of the relentless anti-Russian rhetoric from the white house, the state department and uncle Tom Cobbley and all. Those of us who’ve been around a while can remember the exact same things being said about the USSR and whoever was in charge at the time.
        You’re right that he makes the PM look like an altar boy, but not in the way you obviously have in mind: more in the sense of making Key look naive and unsophisticated.
        CV is right about Putin and you are wrong. What you claim about him is propaganda; you certainly aren’t alone in being sucked in by it, however. In the msm, it’s difficult to find anything else.
        Putin has been remarkably forebearing in the face of relentless western aggression, in eastern Europe in particular.
        He isn’t the first Russian leader to take a more sophisticated approach than western equivalents. You may be too young to recall the Cuban missile crisis: I surely am not! It was not until relatively recently, reading Noam Chomsky, that I learned the truth about how that played out. We have Krushchev to thank for nuclear war being averted. We believed it was Kennedy’s doing, because that was what we were told by the media. It was not. And not the hotheads in the Pentagon, either. It’s a story worth reading: I recommend it to you.

    • Psycho Milt 4.2
      29 September 2016 at 10:56 am

      Relevance? Under Putin the trains run on time, true. Please explain the bit where that premise leads to the conclusion “Putin didn’t send military personnel and equipment into Ukraine to support ethnic Russian separatists there.” Or is your argument “Putin made the trains run on time, so the occasional neighbour invaded or airliner shot down is a small price to pay.”

      • Colonial Viper 4.2.1
        29 September 2016 at 11:22 am

        NATO/US were determined to unconstitutionally regime change Ukraine and use the entire country against Russia by bringing NATO right up to Russia’s borders.

        And yes, Russia has assisted the people of the Donbass to resist attacks on civilian areas from Kiev government military forces and paramilitaries.

        • Psycho Milt 4.2.1.1
          29 September 2016 at 11:29 am

          The question was, what is the relevance of all this to the shooting down of this airliner? The actual topic of the post? Are you claiming it has substantive relevance to the incident in question, or are you posting it as exculpatory material?

    • Stuart Munro 4.3
      1 October 2016 at 12:04 pm

      Don’t repose all your faith in the ‘foreign bankers crippled Russia’ argument, Soviet things were notoriously dysunctional.

      An illustration – deepsea fishing vessels

      Japanese 67m crew 29 processing capacity 360 tonnes a day.
      English/NZ 88m crew 35 processing capacity 180 tonnes a day
      Russian 105 m 80 crew processing capacity 120 tonnes a day.

      (The example is an average Russian vessel – the worst had a crew of 88 and struggled to process 30 tonnes a day)

      Russian vessels had sound heavy engineering but inferior factories. Oddly, in spite of rock bottom labour prices in Russia their ships are frequently refitted in Busan. It’s faster and thus cheaper.

  6. mikesh 6
    29 September 2016 at 9:56 am

    I cannot see why Russia would be interested in shooting down a commercial airline. Of course the Ukranian rebels may have downed it by mistake but, even if that’s true, Putin and/or Russia can not reasonably be blamed. But, in any case, Russia claims that the area from which the missile was fired was not under the control of the rebel forces.

  7. Stuart Munro 7
    29 September 2016 at 10:14 am

    In fact this is quite old news – the evidence has been out for years on Bellingcat.

    https://www.bellingcat.com/tag/mh17/

    Some of the best early evidence was (quickly deleted) facebook posts from the crew who shot it down. The whole topic of journalism by open source net mining has become quite promising as Bellingcat had identified the perpetrators within days.

    This is not the first time Russia has shot down a civilian airliner either.

    Probably it was a mistake – but Russia cheerfully makes such mistakes. And it never apologises for them.

    On the whole the current bombing of Syrian non-combatants is probably a more serious war crime. There is no mistake there, and it is a pattern of activity, not an isolated event.

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      29 September 2016 at 10:18 am

      The BUK is a Russian manufactured missile system, also in service with Ukranian forces, but that is quite different to saying that Russia shot down MH17, and also completely different to saying that President Putin ordered the shoot down of MH17.

      • Psycho Milt 7.1.1
        29 September 2016 at 10:46 am

        The fact that the Ukraine military is also kitted out with BUKs is a red herring – Putin didn’t provide any air support for the rebels because it would kill plausible deniability, so there was no air threat for Ukraine to defend against. I expect that if people can construct a conspiracy theory that has the US government responsible for the WTC attack, they can construct one in which the Ukraine government downs an airliner to make Russia look bad, but Occam’s Razor has an objection to raise about that.

        Also: has anyone suggested Vladimir Putin ordered the shooting down of any airliner, ever? Sounds like a straw man to me.

        • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1
          29 September 2016 at 12:04 pm

          …but Occam’s Razor has an objection to raise about that.

          Merely mentioning Occam’s Razor is neither argument nor proof.

          • McFlock 7.1.1.1.1
            29 September 2016 at 12:21 pm

            Actually, it is an implied argument. And given that Occam’s Razor is about drawing the most likely conclusion amid a lack of certainty, it doesn’t deal with “proof”.

            It’s about drawing the conclusion that is most likely to be correct in the absence of proof, in fact.

            • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1.1.1
              29 September 2016 at 3:53 pm

              It’s about drawing the conclusion that is most likely to be correct in the absence of proof, in fact.

              No, really, it isn’t. It’s about choosing between competing theories saying that you should choose the one with the least assumptions and the most evidence.

              And it certainly doesn’t prove that the more complex theory is the wrong one.

              • McFlock …
                29 September 2016 at 4:03 pm

                Agreed, it proves nothing.

                It just says which hypothesis it is reasonable to select as the most likely.

          • Psycho Milt 7.1.1.1.2
            29 September 2016 at 12:25 pm

            Then let me spell out the issue Occam’s Razor has with your conspiracy:

            Theory 1 (cock-up): The Ukrainian separatists were given fancy anti-aircraft weaponry by their Russian backers so they could shoot down government military transports, but took out a commercial airliner by mistake. Russians promptly confiscated the weaponry before these loons could do any more damage with it.

            Evidence for Theory 1: the JIT report is full of it, but much of it comes down to intercepted communications of the perpetrators and eye-witness reports.

            Theory 2 (conspiracy): The Ukrainian government concocted a dastardly plot to shoot down a commercial airliner and blame it on the Russians. The conspiracy maintained 100% secrecy, the execution of it went perfectly as scheduled, and all evidence of Ukrainian government involvement was successfully hidden from the investigating teams.

            Evidence for Theory 2: personal conviction of Putin supporters that this must be what happened.

            One of these theories involves far greater complexity than the other to explain the same result and has no evidence to support it (hint: it’s Theory 2). Occam’s Razor says that one should be biffed as unlikely to be useful.

            • Cemetery Jones 7.1.1.1.2.1
              29 September 2016 at 1:39 pm

              I think the motivation you seek for Theory 2 would hinge not on some kind of tinfoily false flag attack to bring down an airliner and blame Russia. Rather, I would look to the suggestion that Vladimir Putin’s flight back from the BRICS summit in Brazil was passing through the region; we know that two Ukranian jets were nearby, and that they were close enough to observe a white airliner with blue and red livery – a colour scheme shared by Russia and Malaysia Airlines. Very different shades of blue close up, but a very similar stripe pattern at c.35-40,000 feet?

              A request to close several lanes of airspace over Eastern Europe had been made by Russia, so this information was out there for Ukraine to make use of. It’s still a bit tinfoily, but if we’re shooting for Occam, there remains the question of how Russia managed to train a bunch of skinheads and coal miners in operating an incredibly complex guided missile system which ordinarily takes a long period of operational training to use. Ukraine already had people capable of operating this system – and a motivation to use it on the day. This could far more easily be the result of a tactical masterstroke going beyond pear shaped. And given that the state department had overconfident idiots like Victoria ‘fuck the EU’ Nuland in charge, I’d say that there’s both motivation and likelihood far in excess of ‘noob rebels with deadly toys done fucked this one up’.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                29 September 2016 at 3:46 pm

                It’s still a bit tinfoily, but if we’re shooting for Occam, there remains the question of how Russia managed to train a bunch of skinheads and coal miners in operating an incredibly complex guided missile system which ordinarily takes a long period of operational training to use.

                One wonders just how difficult it is to use. I imagine the process is something like this:

                * Detect aircraft via radar
                * Select target on the radar screen – probably using a mouse
                * Click fire

                Now, before you get all up in arms about that, consider that you’re using that incredibly complex machine on your desk to read and write to this blog. The majority of people don’t bother with a long period of operational training to use said incredibly complex machine and, in fact, it’s been made so that people can use it without such training.

                • Cemetery Jones …
                  29 September 2016 at 4:01 pm

                  I’m going to assert based on the very limited footage that I’ve seen that operating a BUK is most definitely not as simple as

                  * Detect aircraft via radar
                  * Select target on the radar screen – probably using a mouse
                  * Click fire

                  I’d imagine that knowing *how* to ‘detect aircraft via radar’ probably doesn’t go like this:

                  1. turn on radar
                  2. click mouse on dotty bit
                  3. ??????????????????????
                  4. MH17 disaster is Putin’s fault

              • Psycho Milt …
                29 September 2016 at 4:17 pm

                A Ukrainian plot to assassinate Vladimir Putin is way too tinfoilly for me.

                The propaganda tends to portray the Ukrainian separatists as ordinary civilians having taken up arms for their homeland etc, but a lot of them had done military service and there were plenty with previous combat experience, as the Ukrainian military’s defeats at Donetsk airport and other places showed. There’s nothing to say that locals were completely incapable of operating BUK launchers.

                • Cemetery Jones …
                  29 September 2016 at 4:47 pm

                  The airport defeat was the kind of stuff I’d expect – a mixture of having the nads to go door to door under fire combined with some basic advice from the Russians on how to kettle enemy pockets and grind them out. A large militia seasoned with some ex-ncos who can give them a quick run through basic small unit tactics, a bit of rifle discipline to avoid fragging one another, or even enough drill to competently operate mortars and light artillery is more than a league or two shy of getting up and running that kind of equipment though.

                  But as noted above, that’s based on my *assumption* that acquiring a target with that gear would be very difficult without extensive training, and even harder to do if we assume that they were out to take down those Ukrainian fighter jets which were up at the time. If you fuck around with radar that powerful without really knowing what you’re doing, I’d imagine that a couple of Sukhois on the prowl up above are going to notice that they’re being pinged and respond by jamming and/or going on the offensive well before you’ve got a lock.

                • Stuart Munro …
                  29 September 2016 at 8:34 pm

                  The cockup theory works better.

                  For some reason lending aircraft to Russian backed Ukrainian insurgents was considered an undesirable escalation – perhaps because it might have triggered US air intervention. The Ukraine had fielded one or two military aircraft at unpredictable rearm/repair intervals. The BUK was there to remove them from play.

            • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1.2.2
              29 September 2016 at 3:33 pm

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

              n science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic technique (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models, rather than as an arbiter between published models.[1][2] In the scientific method, Occam’s razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion.

              Bold mine.

              • Cemetery Jones …
                29 September 2016 at 3:58 pm

                I’m not sure how my post would be interpreted as a suggestion that it was irrefutable or scientific? I was offering an alternative to one of Milt’s two options.

                But I’m glad you took the time to do whatever it is you were doing there.

              • Psycho Milt …
                29 September 2016 at 4:07 pm

                Sure it’s not irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result – but if you’re trying to decide which of two explanations for something is more likely, it’s a fucking handy piece of kit.

        • mikesh 7.1.1.2
          29 September 2016 at 10:04 pm

          There was also a suggestion, albeit speculative, that whoever shot down MH 17 thought that it was carrying Vladimir Putin who was returning from a conference in Europe about that time.

      • Stuart Munro 7.1.2
        29 September 2016 at 12:21 pm

        Pitifully weak distraction.

        The Russian unit concerned performed victory aerobatics and bragged about it on facebook immediately afterward. Only later did they discover they’d downed a civilian craft and take it all down.

        You really need to read the evidence. RT will only make a fool of you.

        • Colonial Viper 7.1.2.1
          29 September 2016 at 12:28 pm

          The Russian unit concerned

          If it really was a “Russian (military) unit” they would not be posting operational information on Face Book.

          According to the investigation report they were busy immediately packing up their missile system on to a Volvo truck to take back to Russia.

          • Stuart Munro 7.1.2.1.1
            29 September 2016 at 12:34 pm

            Your assumptions notwithstanding in fact they did.

            But they didn’t depart quite immediately – initially they thought they had downed a Ukranian fighter – they’d’ve been quite happy to get another.

            • Stuart Munro 7.1.2.1.1.1
              29 September 2016 at 2:06 pm

              It should be borne in mind that for Russian regular forces the Ukraine has been like Iraq 1 – the Turkey Shoot as they called it. The strictest military discipline was not observed initially.

              It’s another war, and infantry are not a prestige service like BUKs, but Chechen resistance fighters regularly bought guns from serving Russian soldiers. The professionalism of Russian forces is not uniformly perfect, particularly well outside the theatre of conflict.

            • Colonial Viper 7.1.2.1.1.2
              29 September 2016 at 3:22 pm

              But they didn’t depart quite immediately – initially they thought they had downed a Ukranian fighter – they’d’ve been quite happy to get another.

              How would you know what they thought? From that same Face Book post which was actually posted by – who knows?

              What kind of Ukranian fighter jet operating in the Donbass conflict cruises at 30,000 feet? The ground attack SU25s that Kiev had been using against the rebels do not operate at 30,000 feet.

              And the BUK missile system cannot lock on to a target that high without its integrated radar truck.

              • Stuart Munro …
                29 September 2016 at 8:48 pm

                Russian language discussion CV.

                Prior to the discovery that it was MH17 they were pretty relaxed.

                ’30 000 ft’ The BUK was fully set up. They were essentially an ambush for one of the Ukranian planes if one showed up. The ‘Rebels’ (detached Russian regular forces) did not usually have attached BUKs.

                Put yourself in the shoes of the BUK commander – the blip is not friendly. You have about two seconds to fire if it’s hostile or it will get you first. It’s flying at an unusual altitude or on an unexpected course – you might easily attribute that to a failed enemy ruse.

                The radar profile of a commercial airliner is a little easier to acquire than that of a fighter/bomber – reflective surface area would be substantially greater – this might extend ordinary target parameters somewhat.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  29 September 2016 at 10:07 pm

                  A fully set up BUK installation can identify the size and type of plane, the number of engines, etc.

                  A plane on a non evasive course travelling 900 km/h at 30,000 feet on a heading from Ukraine into Russian airspace is not any kind of threat to ground forces.

                  The SU25 ground attack craft that the Kiev regime had been using conduct their ground attack missions do so from under 10,000 feet, and cannot even fly at 30,000 feet.

                  It makes me believe that if MH17 was indeed shot down by a BUK system, the highly military trained BUK crew deliberately and knowingly targetted a commercial airliner with the aim of bringing it down on Ukranian territory and killing everyone onboard.

                  • Lloyd …
                    1 October 2016 at 12:43 am

                    So the US Navy would never shoot down an Iranian Airbus airliner from one of their sophisticated Aegis ships? After all the Aegis ships had better radar than any BUK launch system. The US Navy could never mix the radar signal of an airbus for a MIG fighter, could they?
                    Whoops, sorry about that….

                    And while we are talking about Occam’s razor, why would a bunch of untrained Ukrainian irregulars be given the operation of a BUK system when trained Russian “volunteers” could do the same job?

                    Past history has shown that trained men in stressful situations will interpret data that may or may not be a threat usually as a threat, and act accordingly. Even if the radar showed a civilian airliner, the Russian BUK crew appear to have assessed the aircraft as either a Ukrainian fighter or as a Ukrainian transport/reconnaissance aircraft and therefore a “legitimate” target.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      1 October 2016 at 1:30 am

                      The US Navy could never mix the radar signal of an airbus for a MIG fighter, could they?
                      Whoops, sorry about that….

                      What do the actions of an overly aggressive US Navy Captain have to do with the Russian armed forces?

                      why would a bunch of untrained Ukrainian irregulars be given the operation of a BUK system when trained Russian “volunteers” could do the same job?

                      Or Ukranian military or paramilitary specialists. Or foreign military specialists.

                      Past history has shown that trained men in stressful situations will interpret data that may or may not be a threat usually as a threat, and act accordingly.

                      What “stressful situation” are you referring to?

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      1 October 2016 at 6:40 am

                      What do the actions of an overly aggressive US Navy Captain have to do with the Russian armed forces?

                      Let me spell it out for you: it totally refutes your claim that operators of sophisticated anti-aircraft systems wouldn’t mistake a civilian airliner for a military aircraft.

                      Or Ukranian military or paramilitary specialists. Or foreign military specialists.

                      If there were any evidence at all for that, sure. Only, there’s no evidence for that.

                      What “stressful situation” are you referring to?

                      You may be under the fanciful impression that you’d not find it stressful to be operating an anti-aircraft system in a combat zone in which the enemy has 100% air superiority, but the rest of us are less delusional.

                    • D'Esterre …
                      1 October 2016 at 11:03 pm

                      Lloyd: “The US Navy could never mix the radar signal of an airbus for a MIG fighter, could they?”

                      In virtue of what would you suppose that they did? Do you believe what the US says about that incident being a mistake?

  8. mauī 8
    29 September 2016 at 10:23 am

    So how come one side (Ukraine) is one of the 5 nations on the Joint Investigation Team that ran the investigation, while the other side, Russia is completely excluded. Fair, unbiased investigation, yeah right.

    But yeah this post is a good swipe at CV and the rest of the far-left communists so well done…

    • te reo putake 8.1
      29 September 2016 at 10:29 am

      According to Russia it was nothing to do with them, so why would they be on the investigation panel?

      • mauī 8.1.1
        29 September 2016 at 10:45 am

        I’m not saying they should be, just pointing out the unfairness of the investigation. Considering Russia designed/made the BUK missile murder weapon you would think it would be a good idea to atleast get some cooperation with them if you’re truly trying to find the answers.

        • te reo putake 8.1.1.1
          29 September 2016 at 11:19 am

          But that assumes a BUK was involved. That’s something Russia denied at the time, claiming it was more likely MH17 had been shot down by the Ukrainian military. So we go back to my original point, why would a country completely uninvolved in the killings want to be on the investigation panel?

          I understand Russia did cooperate with the investigation and that may have included technical advice about the weapon used to shoot the plane down. But clearly, they were never going to just admit what happened. Which, to my mind is that they gifted the BUK to the rebels, expecting it to be used against the Ukrainians. And once it was realised it had been used against a civilian plane, they took the gift back pronto.

          So cock up, rather than deliberate. Manslaughter, rather than murder? But still Russia’s responsibility.

          • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1.1
            29 September 2016 at 11:40 am

            But that assumes a BUK was involved. That’s something Russia denied at the time, claiming it was more likely MH17 had been shot down by the Ukrainian military. So we go back to my original point, why would a country completely uninvolved in the killings want to be on the investigation panel?

            The Dutch investigation panel concluded 18 months ago that it was a BUK transported from Russia that shot down MH17.

            At that point, Russian technical specialists should have been brought in to confirm or disprove those findings.

            • McFlock 8.1.1.1.1.1
              29 September 2016 at 12:04 pm

              That’s like saying that you need a representative from Smith & Wesson to confirm the murder weapon used in a shooting.

              The JIT compared the debris from the crash site with BUK missiles and the debris thereof, even doing their own explosions of said missiles. What would the Russians do: argue that their widely-sold air defense system can’t even shot down a civilian airliner flying a planned course?

              • Colonial Viper …
                29 September 2016 at 12:25 pm

                That’s like saying that you need a representative from Smith & Wesson to confirm the murder weapon used in a shooting.

                No one has more data on the characteristics, types, and models of BUK missiles and warheads than the designers and manufacturers of the missile system.

                Despite what you say, to me that would seem to be valuable and useful knowledge to a full and impartial investigation.

                • McFlock …
                  29 September 2016 at 12:52 pm

                  Or you could just buy your own and make the comparison. Which they did.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    29 September 2016 at 3:20 pm

                    OK then I’ll bite, after obtaining a missile, how did the JIT correctly simulate the effect of a BUK warhead exploding on a civilian Boeing 777 travelling 900km/h at 30,000 feet?

                    • McFlock …
                      29 September 2016 at 3:33 pm

                      What “effect” are you demanding they simulate?

                      If they were just after size and composition of missile fragmentation to compare with the fragments they picked out of the pilots, four of your characteristics are irrelevant to the study.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 September 2016 at 6:36 pm

                      So they weren’t actually bothering to realistically test anything? Just draw up some bullshit protocol to say that they had done it, even though it matches nothing of the conditions of what happened to MH17?

                    • McFlock …
                      29 September 2016 at 10:56 pm

                      Dunno, I have read as much or the report as you have (none).

                      Would you suggest they fill the aircraft with civilians as well? I suspect they were merely seeking to examine one small aspect of the incident, rather than duplicate the entire tragedy.

            • Stuart Munro 8.1.1.1.1.2
              29 September 2016 at 12:24 pm

              Unnecessary – BUK damage is readily discernable from the physical evidence. No cannon holes – single event catatrophic destruction of airliner – not the fighter Russia photoshopped into early videos.

          • mauī 8.1.1.1.2
            29 September 2016 at 12:36 pm

            So we go back to my original point, why would a country completely uninvolved in the killings want to be on the investigation panel?

            That’s interesting in terms of Ukraine. Why was one country that was involved in conflict in the area investigating a probable war crime while the other side was excluded?

            You don’t seem to want to acknowledge that.

      • Colonial Viper 8.1.2
        29 September 2016 at 10:49 am

        Western media fingers pointed at Russia while the wreckage was still burning.

        So this is a somewhat disingenuous reply which doesn’t explain why Russia’s requests to be a core party to the investigation was turned down.

        Given that the BUK is a Russian made system co-operation with the Russians in truly determining whether a BUK was involved in the shootdown would have been critical.

  9. TheExtremist 9
    29 September 2016 at 10:34 am

    Yeah…but Hillary!!!!

  10. Cemetery Jones 10
    29 September 2016 at 10:35 am

    “The Putinist oligarchy of ex KGB agents has privatised the economy”

    Ummmmm, ever heard of (Clinton & Bush’s) comrade Yeltsin?

    • te reo putake 10.1
      29 September 2016 at 11:10 am

      Yes. That’s the bloke who initially made Putin Prime Minister, then President. What’s your point?

      • Cemetery Jones 10.1.1
        29 September 2016 at 11:21 am

        I think you know, but I’ll spell it out.

        You said, “The Putinist oligarchy of ex KGB agents has privatised the economy”.

        Reality said, “Yeltsin’s program of radical, market-oriented reform came to be known as a “shock therapy”. It was based on the recommendations of the IMF and a group of top American economists, including Larry Summers.[55][56] The result was disastrous, with real GDP falling by more than 40% by 1999, hyperinflation which wiped out personal savings, crime and destitution spreading rapidly.[57][58]”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia#Transition_to_market_economy_.281991.E2.80.9398.29

        See subheading on Economy, Russia, Market, Transition to, 1991-98. We can then compare this to your claim about Putin, Vladimir, Russia, Prime Minister of 1999-2000; President of 2000-2008, 2012-present), and how his ‘oligarchy of ex KBG agents’ were the ones who ‘privatised the economy’.

  11. james 11
    29 September 2016 at 11:03 am

    “So here’s my challenge. Arrest Putin. I’ll donate $500 to anyone who successfully performs a citizen’s arrest on Vladimir Putin. Anywhere, any time.”

    And what do you think would happen to anyone who tried to collect on this?

  12. Morrissey 12
    29 September 2016 at 11:20 am

    Te Reo, as you are well aware, the United States and its vassal states (United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Turkey) have armed and diplomatically supported Al Qaeda in Syria since 2011. Russia—for whatever reason— is supporting the constitutional and democratically elected government against a bloody, fanatical insurrection.

    There is a wide range of informed writing on this that you, like everyone else, can instantly access, yet you for some reason continue to channel the crudest propaganda.

    You have made the wrong choice here, my friend, just as you did with your lionization of Tony Benn’s foolish renegade son.

    • Psycho Milt 12.1
      29 September 2016 at 11:31 am

      Relevance to the OP? I’ll grant you, it does tangentially refer to Putin’s war crimes in Syria, but the post is about the JIT report on the downing of MH17.

      • Colonial Viper 12.1.1
        29 September 2016 at 11:34 am

        That the MH17 investigation and in fact the whole Ukraine coup is part of a larger effort to destabilise those countries which believe in a unipolar world which isn’t run by US neocon exceptionalists.

        • Psycho Milt 12.1.1.1
          29 September 2016 at 12:08 pm

          Those damn lizard people! They even got to the air accident investigation teams!

          • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.1.1
            29 September 2016 at 12:17 pm

            it’s not an “air investigation team”, “air investigation teams” have no knowledge about tracking military vehicles and intercepting mlitary communications.

        • Stuart Munro 12.1.1.2
          29 September 2016 at 12:18 pm

          Your denial of Russia’s proven involvement in the shooting down of MH17 only establishes your credulity.

          The evidence has been in for years.

          None of the fake stories Russia invented have any credibility.

          Not the “It was a plane” line.

          Not the “Ukrainians have BUKs” line.

          And certainly not the “It’s all a US plot” line.

          You have to start from the truth – Russia shot down MH17. Only then do you get to decide what is propaganda.

          • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.2.1
            29 September 2016 at 3:11 pm

            In fact its been so clear for so long that Russia shot down MH17 on Putin’s orders, because CNN/Pentagon said so.

            Amazing if its so clear to you why it’s taken the investigators a full 27 months from the shoot down of the plane to come up yet again with the same story that they had told the media they had decided on more than a year ago (April 2015 if not before).

            • Stuart Munro 12.1.1.2.1.1
              29 September 2016 at 9:09 pm

              Right – because everything that happens in the Ukraine was made to happen by the US – the Russian regular force ‘rebels’ were only there by coincidence.

              The US does busily promote its interest in some places. So does Russia. A nuanced interpretation would identify the principal activities of each of them.

              The delay is the legal proceedings lag. The main facts were in within a few weeks – but they must be compiled exhaustively because the guilty party, Russia, maintains its innocence and launches new distractions almost monthly. But they blew it early by releasing outrageous lies like the photoshopped fighter footage – few can take them seriously after displaying such a blatant disregard for truth.

      • Paul 12.1.2
        29 September 2016 at 11:36 am

        There is a propaganda war going on over the Ukraine.
        You didnt know that?

    • Paul 12.2
      29 September 2016 at 11:34 am

      Interestingly Checkpoint channelled such crude propaganda – this time on Syria – a couple of days ago.
      Would expect better from RNZ.

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/201817604/-russia-does-not-need-to-win-these-wars,-it-just-can't-lose

      • Morrissey 12.2.1
        29 September 2016 at 11:48 am

        John Campbell’s indolence is really bothering me. A couple of months ago, in a fawning interview with Helen Clark, he said, in a deadly serious tone of voice, “Russia is the world’s problem child”.

        I also heard his little performance on Tuesday, Paul, and I was appalled by his lack of knowledge as well as his trademark feigned compassion.

        • Cemetery Jones 12.2.1.1
          29 September 2016 at 1:41 pm

          Yeah, that interview was the pits. The motivations that American muppet ascribed to Vladimir Putin were absolutely hilarious.

          EDIT: Or, would be hilarious, if so much wasn’t riding on it being uncritically swallowed by a journalist who once upon a time wouldn’t let Key or Clarke get their bs past him, let alone some neocon think-tanker.

    • Liberal Realist 12.3
      29 September 2016 at 8:43 pm

      + 100

  13. Paul 13
    29 September 2016 at 11:30 am

    Te Reo, was this post mainly written for the purpose of provoking cv?
    Not sure your support of the neo-con agenda is defensible.
    After what we know from Iraq and Libya, I would have thought you’d be a little more circumspect in your cheerleading for the US.

    • te reo putake 13.1
      29 September 2016 at 11:47 am

      Get a grip, Paul. I don’t support the ‘neo con agenda’ whatever that might be to you. And the US doesn’t even get a mention in the post, let alone a cheer. Please don’t stray into telling authors what to write territory or put words in my mouth. Ok?

      • Colonial Viper 13.1.1
        29 September 2016 at 11:54 am

        FYI

        the neocon agenda is the demonisation, destablisation and eventual destruction of all current and potential geopolitical rivals to the USA as the uncontested unipolar world power.

        • te reo putake 13.1.1.1
          29 September 2016 at 12:00 pm

          Cheers. Clearly, I do not support the neo-con agenda as described, even if it’s just an unproven fantasy.

        • Paul 13.1.1.2
          29 September 2016 at 12:06 pm

          Sounds mighty like the script of this post.

          • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.2.1
            29 September 2016 at 12:14 pm

            The US spends billions overthrowing the Ukranian govt – that Russia has to deal with the resulting mess on its doorstep is Russia’s fault.

            That US spends billions overthrowing the Syrian govt – that Russia has to deal with the resulting mess on its doorstep is Russia’s fault.

            The US spends billions overthrowing the Libyan govt – that Russia has to deal with the resulting mess on its doorstep is Russia’s fault.

            The US spends billions overthrowing the Iraqi govt – that Russia has to deal with the resulting mess on its doorstep is Russia’s fault.

            And so on.

            • Psycho Milt 13.1.1.2.1.1
              29 September 2016 at 12:35 pm

              US contribution to the Libyan civil war: imposition of a no-fly zone and some air strikes, reluctantly at the behest of their European allies.

              US contribution to the Syrian civil war: fuck all until recently.

              US contribution to the overthrow of Russia’s guy in Ukraine: a willingness by local US staff to take more credit for it than is warranted.

              It’s like someone who sees the invisible hand of the Illuminati in everything that happens.

              • Paul …
                29 September 2016 at 1:16 pm

                You’re kidding right?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  29 September 2016 at 3:05 pm

                  Psycho Milt has now created a whole new category of warfare: “reluctant airstrikes.”

                  We can add this to the US concept of “humanitarian war.”

              • Liberal Realist …
                29 September 2016 at 8:55 pm

                Seriously? Who do you think controls NATO? Who bombed the shit out of Libya? The empire did, along with it’s compliant vassals.

                Syria. Who organised the transfer of weapons from Libya to Syria? The empire. What happened next? Proxy pipeline war. Assad must go because he said no. The Gulf Emirs must have been enraged.

                Ukraine. US $5,000,000,000 spent. Nuland & Payette had a nice chat didn’t they. Who was it Nuland wanted? ‘Yats’, he’s our guy. Svoboda an openly fascist party in government. Bandera worship from the nicest sort of people eh?

                Nothing much invisible than perhaps the copious amounts of koolaide that must have been consumed to believe the empire and it’s media quislings.

  14. Colonial Viper 14
    29 September 2016 at 11:32 am

    From Forbes Magazine

    The Joint Investigation Team (JIT), comprised of investigators from Belgium, Australia, Ukraine, Malaysia and the Netherlands, is charged with bringing the “perpetrators of the attack on MH17 (Malaysian Airlines Flight 17) to justice.”

    The JIT has issued a YouTube video that traces the path of the BUK missile that allegedly shot down MH17 from its entry from Russia into eastern Ukraine, to its location near the crash site, and to its hasty retreat back into Russia.

    Except that Forbes published this in April 2015.

    It seems that this particular investigation had already decided long ago what had happened to MH17.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2015/04/02/is-the-mh17-joint-investigation-team-avoiding-the-question-of-kremlin-guilt/#4d27ad274974

  15. JonL 15
    29 September 2016 at 11:55 am

    Well, a year and a half and this is what they ca
    me up with! Struggling to somehow pin the blame on Russia in a credible way…..it’s a wonder they didnt claim Putin drove the getaway truck in this US and NATO directed mishmash in it’s continued onslaught on Russia. If there was any hard evidence from the US it would have been plastered over the media within hours-there wasn’t. The whole disgusting episode is purely political and western authorities don’t give a damn about the victims other than as pawns in their disgusting power games…which currently centre around the Russian Bogeyman who won’t give in and accept Western domination

    • Colonial Viper 15.1
      29 September 2016 at 3:03 pm

      July 2014 was when MH17 was shot down.

      So this is what they have taken ~27 months to come up with.

      Of course they had already decided earlier last year that it was a BUK missile system which had driven from Russia, shot down the plane, then driven back across to Russia immediately afterwards.

  16. Morrissey 16
    29 September 2016 at 12:00 pm

    If you are interested in informing yourself about the propaganda war being run by the United States and the United Kingdom, you will not simply accept what you hear mouthed by the likes of John Campbell, Greg Boyed or [insert name of any vacuous television/radio newsreader here].

    If you are serious, you will read the work of serious scholars and serious journalists. There is none better than Glenn Greenwald….

    https://theintercept.com/2015/10/26/bbc-protects-uks-close-ally-saudi-arabia-with-incredibly-dishonest-and-biased-editing/

  17. DISTURBED 17
    29 September 2016 at 12:18 pm

    Agreed Colonial viper.

    Guess the author didn’t see RT responses yesterday?

    https://www.rt.com/news/360963-mh17-probe-ukraine-internet/

    The long awaited Russian Government report also came out yesterday showing evidence that the evidence released by the Dutch report showed only old (unconfirmed -their words) pictures of the wrong equipment of BUK missiles that were not in production at the time of the aircraft downing so this evidence was very suspect.

    So if you are now siding with the Germans who are in charge of this campaign to go to war with Russia please remember the past that Germany wanted this all along to be a war to rid Russia finally.

    The old NAZI guard is still active in Germany according to DW TV the German foreign TV service so don’t fall into their trap and waste our soldiers lives based on lies and propaganda.

    https://www.rt.com/news/360963-mh17-probe-ukraine-internet/

    MH17 int’l probe’s only sources are Ukrainian intel & internet – Russian MoD
    Published time: 28 Sep, 2016 15:36
    Edited time: 28 Sep, 2016 16:37
    The international investigators relied only on data provided by the Ukrainian military and from the internet, a Russian military spokesperson said Wednesday. He added that no Russian missile systems have ever crossed into Ukraine.

    Members of a joint investigation team present the preliminary results of the criminal investigation into the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 , in Nieuwegein, on September 28, 2016.© Emmanuel DunandMH17 shot down by rebels using Buk system brought from Russia – int’l investigators
    “No Russian missile systems including ‘BUK’ have ever crossed the Russian-Ukrainian border,” spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry Major-General Igor Konashenkov said.

    The official reacted to the findings of the Dutch-led Joint Investigative Team (JIT), which issued its report earlier on Wednesday. The JIT claimed that the Malaysian Boeing was downed by a BUK surface-to-air missile launched from a rebel-held area in eastern Ukraine and that the respective missile system had come from Russia.

    That theory was countered in today’s presentation by the Russian BUK producer Almaz-Antey, who stressed that three of its experiments showed the most likely launch site was in the area held by the Ukrainian Army.

    Konashenkov also cast doubts over the sources used by the JIT.
    “All the data that has been presented today at the briefing of the investigative group comes from two main sources: the internet and Ukrainian intelligence services. Therefore, the objectivity of the information and, consequently, the basis for their conclusions cannot but raise doubts.”

    READ MORE: Int’l investigators allowed Ukraine to fabricate MH17 evidence – Russia

    Konashenkov stressed that the claims made by the JIT on Wednesday require rock-solid proof.

    “The serious findings that have been made public require serious argumentation and – what’s more important – facts.”

    The Defense Ministry spokesperson also demanded from the international investigators the release of the radar data from the Ukrainian side.

    “On Monday, we revealed to the global public the Russian radar data on the situation in the air on the day of the disaster on July 17, 2014. This data cannot be refuted by anything – only confirmed by the similar data of the air situation from the Ukrainian radars,” Konashenkov said.

    Konashenkov signaled that Moscow is willing to contribute to the inquiry.

    “We are very interested in conducting an objective investigation to identify the real perpetrators of the incident on July 17, 2014.

    “And we will continue to provide all the necessary assistance,” he said.

    • Psycho Milt 17.1
      29 September 2016 at 12:41 pm

      So if you are now siding with the Germans who are in charge of this campaign to go to war with Russia…

      Seriously, what the fuck?

      “We are very interested in conducting an objective investigation to identify the real perpetrators of the incident on July 17, 2014.

      Maybe Konashenkov should contact OJ so he can get some tips on maintaining a vigorous and unceasing search for the real killer.

      • DISTURBED 17.1.1
        29 September 2016 at 2:13 pm

        The NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg is a relative of a German officer in the NAZI Party during the Hitler war.

        He is the one rattling the sword and massing 40 000 NATO troops around western Russia’s border right now,

        Do you want war?

        Not me

        I did my Army time, and know what to expect of war, do you?

        I said Germans are edging everyone on to start a war with Russia!

        I am not on Germany’s side, they cant forget how Russia cost them the last war loss.

        • Colonial Viper 17.1.1.1
          29 September 2016 at 2:57 pm

          If the Germans had any brains, they would understand that a combination of German high technology and industrial capacity, and Russian raw materials and energy resources, would deliver a combination transforming the two of them into the prime global economic powerhouse of the world.

          The United States cannot afford for this strategic partnership to happen however, so ratcheting up tensions and sabre rattling it is.

          • Psycho Milt 17.1.1.1.1
            29 September 2016 at 3:32 pm

            If the Germans had any brains, they would understand that a combination of German high technology and industrial capacity, and Russian raw materials and energy resources, would deliver a combination transforming the two of them into the prime global economic powerhouse of the world.

            Fortunately, the Germans are not short of brains. There are very few of them who’d be keen on rejecting their fellow liberal democrats in western Europe so they could forge an alliance with a right-wing nationalist authoritarian dictatorship in pursuit of global domination. Bad memories and all that.

        • Psycho Milt 17.1.1.2
          29 September 2016 at 3:26 pm

          The NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg is a relative of a German officer in the NAZI Party during the Hitler war.

          Quite possibly – it would hardly be surprising. Likewise, Russia is full of relatives of Red Army officers who were in the COMMUNIST Party during WW2. It’s a true but useless piece of information.

          He is the one rattling the sword and massing 40 000 NATO troops around western Russia’s border right now,

          “Massing” 40,000 troops? You do know how long Russia’s western border is, right? Hitler put upwards of 1,500,000 Axis troops on that border in June 1941, and it was a woefully inadequate force. Still, if Stoltenberg one day does arrange for another 1,460,000 NATO troops to head for the border, that would be pretty fucking suspicious.

          …they cant forget how Russia cost them the last war loss.

          Let me guess – you haven’t met many Germans, have you?

  18. JonL 18
    29 September 2016 at 12:42 pm

    Te Reo Putake……your knowledge of Russian history and psychology is abysmal…..did you glean it all from Fox news and all of it’s ilk. It is certainly bereft of facts.

    • te reo putake 18.1
      29 September 2016 at 3:53 pm

      Hey, bud. I’ve been there, though not for many years. I speak a smattering of the language (badly) and I’ve been a keen Russophile since I was a kid. One thing I know for sure is that there is no ‘Russian psychology’. They’re way too diverse a country for there to be a common way of seeing the world.

      • Colonial Viper 18.1.1
        29 September 2016 at 5:37 pm

        If you have been any kind of Russophile for years, then you’ll understand how Russia has suffered from major western invasions of their land from Europe, and how they are not going to tolerate German and French troops on their doorstep again.

        Also, you’ll understand the conservative nature of Russian society which stems back to both Islamic and Orthodox influences stretching centuries ago.

        • Te Reo Putake 18.1.1.1
          29 September 2016 at 6:25 pm

          Yeah, nah. As I said above, there is no single anything in Russia. And they’re absolutely going to have to tolerate German and French troops on their doorstep, because there’s nothing they can do about it. They’re strong enough to bully the little states around them, but they’re never going to challenge the west directly.

          • Colonial Viper 18.1.1.1.1
            29 September 2016 at 6:34 pm

            You’re an odd kind of Russophile, just like you’re an odd kind of Marxist.

            You should check the meanings of those words, I don’t think they mean what you think they mean.

            • te reo putake 18.1.1.1.1.1
              29 September 2016 at 6:49 pm

              I gracefully accept your intellectual surrender, CV. You might like to read some Marx yourself, it might do you some good. But as a bourgeois businessman with a profound hatred of working people you might want to skip Lenin because his recipe for dealing with righties like yourself is just a wee bit challenging. But that’s Russki’s for ya. Not much subtlety when it comes to sorting the wheat from the chaff.

              • Colonial Viper …
                29 September 2016 at 7:43 pm

                No really, you’re actually quite shit at the things that you claim to be good at or pretend to be into.

                These current examples serve to make my point.

                You do know that being a Russophile is supposed to mean that you have an appreciation for those things Russian, and that being a Marxist means that you are supposed to support the ideas and concepts of Marxism, right?

                You’re not supposed to sell out on them or despise them or belittle them. Because that’s like, the OPPOSITE, of what you claim to be.

                Just checking, because I don’t think these words mean what you think they mean.

                • te reo putake …
                  29 September 2016 at 9:03 pm

                  You probably should look both words up. Russophile does not mean uncritical devotion and it doesn’t preclude disliking the government of the day. You’re hopelessly wrong. And with regards to Marx, I’m hardly going to take advice from someone who hasn’t read a word of the man, let alone understood the politics. Stick to fleecing the gullible.

          • One Two 18.1.1.1.2
            29 September 2016 at 9:08 pm

            “They’re strong enough to bully the little states around them, but they’re never going to challenge the west directly”

            It takes a confused soul to make a statement such as this

            Dear oh dear

            • te reo putake 18.1.1.1.2.1
              29 September 2016 at 9:50 pm

              And yet the statement remains factually correct. How confusing for you 😉

              • One Two …
                29 September 2016 at 10:12 pm

                In your opinion how/why is the statement “factually correct”?

                What was your angle for the statement as compared to the bias of the article itself?

                One and the same thing perhaps

                • te reo putake …
                  29 September 2016 at 10:34 pm

                  The statement remains factually correct. Russia has never directly attacked a western country, because Putin knows what the result would be. He prefers fighting through proxies.

                  The post is unbiased and based on the facts as we know them. I am pretty biased against fascists, as it happens, but I tried to keep that out of the post 😉 I think I was reasonably successful, but your mileage may vary.

  19. Richard Rawshark 19
    29 September 2016 at 1:13 pm

    Whatever imagery you can fake, we can fake better.

    This is turning into a circus really, and turning into a cold war battleground, don’t let ideology get in the way of facts guys, what little facts their are anyone can rely on.

    Where does the guilt lie? Where/when did it all start who is responsible, cause and effect can go back a long way on this.

    The planet sometimes really does need a good old God to pop down and bitch slap a few souls once in a while. Pity he doesn’t exist.

  20. Puckish Rogue 20
    29 September 2016 at 1:15 pm

    Well that’s an easy one to answer

    Is it because Tony Blair is a soft target? – Yes

  21. Ralf Crown 21
    29 September 2016 at 2:19 pm

    Everyone seems to agree that it was a Russian BUK missile which downed the plane. It has already been determined that only two parties, Kiev and Russia had access to and was able to use the complex BUK system. It has also been determined that the particular type of missile that downed the plane was of an older type only Kiev had access to. So what we now are fed is that Russians secretly crossed the border and fired a missile only Kiev had access to, to down the plane. It reeks of American slick propaganda. The yanks pulling the strings in the back room again to deceive the world.

    • Stuart Munro 21.1
      29 September 2016 at 2:45 pm

      No old stock missiles in the whole of Russia? That would be surprising.

      There are before and after photos of the vehicle and eye witness accounts.

      https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/17/new-images-of-the-mh17-buk-missile-launcher-in-ukraine-and-russia/

      The BUK launcher’s path has been tracked from the early days.

      Just because the US was aggressively pursuing their interests in the Ukraine it does not follow that they are the authors of everything that happened there.

      Modus operandi bears thinking about. Biden works for preference through financial mechanisms. Putin secured his presidency by the invasion of Chechnya.

    • Colonial Viper 21.2
      29 September 2016 at 2:48 pm

      In theory the Russians could have pulled an old or obsolete system out of the manufacturers warehouse or some old military storage depot.

      Then taken it across the border, shot the Malaysian flight down and immediately driven it back across the border into Russia.

      All the while hoping that no one would see the big missile system loaded on to the back of a Volvo truck even after all the locals saw and heard the BUK missile go off and reports of flaming debris started coming out on the news.

      And why would Russia want to do any of this???

      • McFlock 21.2.1
        29 September 2016 at 3:14 pm

        Because the russian forces in the Ukraine were still pretending to be ukrainian separatists, but Ukrainian air support and troop deployments via air were making life difficult.

        Problem: how to shoot down Ukrainian aircraft without obviously declaring war
        Solution: make it look like Ukrainians did it
        Complication: the folks you give the weapons to fuck up and mistake an airliner for a troop transport.

        • Lloyd 21.2.1.1
          1 October 2016 at 12:59 am

          Did the Russians actually give the weapons to anyone or isn’t it apparent that regular Russian force “volunteers” were operating their normal equipment in Ukrainian territory as part of the Russian invasion of the Ukraine?

          • Colonial Viper 21.2.1.1.1
            1 October 2016 at 1:26 am

            What Russian invasion of Ukraine? Please link to photos of Russian armour or formations “invading” Ukraine.

      • Kevin 21.2.2
        29 September 2016 at 3:27 pm

        Thats what I don’t get about this whole episode CV.

        Why would the Russians be so obvious about it?

        The route in and out were hardly direct and they seem to have gone out of their way to be noticed.

        If you re NOTt trying to be noticed:

        1. Drive in and out at night only.
        2. Unload at the point of delivery not in the model of a town 6kms away.
        3. Use comms over secure encrypted channels. Cellphones? Really?
        4. Why a civilian airliner, not military?
        5. Motive? Whats the end game they were after?

        • Colonial Viper 21.2.2.1
          29 September 2016 at 5:01 pm

          Why would the Russians be so obvious about it?

          The route in and out were hardly direct and they seem to have gone out of their way to be noticed.

          I appreciate the fact that someone here is asking actual questions.

          DId you notice that the Russians must have run out of tarps and camo netting because they couldn’t even be bothered to properly cover or conceal the BUK unit being transported on the back of the Volvo truck.

          • Stuart Munro 21.2.2.1.1
            29 September 2016 at 9:24 pm

            The need for secrecy developed post facto.

            If the Buk had killed a Ukrainian fighter bomber the world at large would not have paid much attention.

            It was only after they hit MH17 that Russia worked out they’d opened a can of worms.

            They didn’t have their stories straight and ran a mixture of fabrications and denials that made it abundantly clear that they were lying.

            • Colonial Viper 21.2.2.1.1.1
              30 September 2016 at 8:50 am

              ?????

              You’re saying Russia did not feel any need for secrecy when rolling heavy missile systems across the border in to Ukraine?

              Please explain.

        • Lloyd 21.2.2.2
          1 October 2016 at 1:05 am

          Kevin, the answer to your question – Arrogance..
          They thought they could shoot down Ukrainian planes without anyone else getting worried about it.
          They Russians fucked up by shooting down a Malaysian aircraft.
          The Ukrainians fucked up by not recognising that the Russians could be so dumb, and continued to let dozens of civilian aircraft fly over the area of conflict. Lets face it dumb decisions are par for the course in a land that brought you Chernobyl.

          • Colonial Viper 21.2.2.2.1
            1 October 2016 at 1:19 am

            How about the land which brought you Three Mile Island?

          • Colonial Viper 21.2.2.2.2
            1 October 2016 at 1:24 am

            They Russians fucked up by shooting down a Malaysian aircraft.

            Walk me through how you think this error was made by the BUK crew (who would have been military specialists – but on whose side we do not know currently).

      • Stuart Munro 21.2.3
        29 September 2016 at 10:52 pm

        Russia has suffered enormous economic problems over the last few decades – one of the results of this is that not all its military units have the very latest munitions upgrades.

        It clearly wasn’t obsolete because it destroyed MH17 handily.

        You probably don’t remember but Exocets were considered virtually obsolete at the time of the Falklands conflict – that war revised the assessment. Tigerfish torpedos went the other way.

  22. save nz 22
    29 September 2016 at 2:55 pm

    Personally think what Tony Blair did was a war crime. Maybe he didn’t expect what happened to happen but in his happy go lucky way quite happy to Fuck over the people of Britain who protested widely against Britain entering the war. It was always going to end badly.

    The bigger problem is that the UN and security council have now let the Uk get away with it, now they can’t exactly lecture any one else. Chaos has now reigned just like the Israel situation. If the international community wants to be respected they need to have one law for all and tough consequences for those that breach them, including arresting the PM or anyone else who breaks the rules no matter who that is and what country they come from.

  23. One Two 23
    29 September 2016 at 3:10 pm

    ‘Confirmation’….No it is nothing of the sort

    Not a single author or commentator on this site can do anything other than speculate as to what went on , no matter which ‘report’ or ‘position’ ones own prejudice or confirmation bias attaches itself to

    One can speculate if this authors articles are designed as click bait due to large number of responses most of the articles garner, or perhaps it is the personality/beliefs of the author on display…

    Who knows! So all I have is speculation

    • McFlock 23.1
      29 September 2016 at 3:50 pm

      well, you also seem to have some pretty good drugs.

    • ropata 23.2
      29 September 2016 at 3:54 pm

      That is a fucked up attitude but sadly all too common amongst uneducated idiots. Are you a Young-Earth Creationist as well?

      Young-Earth creationists actually embrace a philosophy that says nothing can be known about the world around us.

      Appearances and measurements lie. Trees lie. Carbon lies. Bones lie. The stars in the heavens lie. And nothing at all can be trusted from what we deceive ourselves into imagining we’re learning from observation, study, experiment and measurement.

      Their claim is even more audacious than that. It has to be. They want to say that they’re only disputing the honesty of “science,” but if that were the case, then we could easily test their claim by, say, switching on the light or looking at this page on the Internet. Science seems to work. And thus the epistemological anarchists of young-Earth creationism cannot simply be asserting the unreliability of science, they must also assert the unreliability of seeming. If a universe that seems ancient is not ancient, then both the universe and our seeming must be lying. Nothing we think we see, hear, touch or measure can be trusted. Nothing can be known.[…]

      • One Two 23.2.1
        29 September 2016 at 5:19 pm

        ” Uneducated Idiots”

        No, Ropata.
        That is the reserve of types who attach themselves to subject matter as if they ‘know’ what is ‘going on’

        At best, you might be aware of what’s ‘going on’ in your immediate sphere of influence (in front of your face), but even then there will be variables outside of your ability to perceive and interpret ‘accurately’

        Translating your immediate evenvironment in ‘facts or truth’ will be a challenge which I doubt you have ever seriously considered

        Makes taking positions based on ‘stories’ told to you by 3rd parties a little foolhardy eh!

  24. Garibaldi 24
    29 September 2016 at 6:24 pm

    I find the hatred of Russia on TS, by otherwise intelligent people, very sad. Your attitudes are similar to that horrible woman trying to be the President. The gullibility of you folk accepting western propaganda without questioning it is the very thing leading us towards nuclear conflict. How you can believe anything emanating from American interests, when you know their track record of lies ,obfuscation and deceit in all corners of the world over the last 70 years , is astounding.
    We used to admire and love the Americans when they helped so ably in WW2, but history shows that even then the Deep State had taken control and their record since has been appalling. They (USA) are not a benign Empire ‘ doing good ‘ all around the world – they are quite the opposite.
    Russia is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination , but they are rank amateurs compared to the USA .

    • Colonial Viper 24.1
      29 September 2016 at 6:31 pm

      People also forget that Russia was undergoing a catastrophic neoliberal economic and political implosion not even 20 years ago.

      Millions of Russians died early deaths as cold, starvation, violence and substance abuse wracked the nation.

      They had to take strong medicine to right the ship of state and put their society back on a sustainable footing. And they haven’t forgotten the west’s role in that period of their history, and the broken promises of NATO/USA.

      • Stunned mullet 24.1.1
        29 September 2016 at 7:01 pm

        Ha ha..so it was ‘mericas/the west/neoliberalism (insert another buzzword) fault that the USSR was a shambles overseen by an increasingly senile and out of touch ruling elite that eventually failed….mmmm OK.

        I s’pose China was better off under Mao as well.

        • D'Esterre 24.1.1.1
          2 October 2016 at 12:10 am

          Stunned Mullet: ” Ha ha..so it was ‘mericas/the west/neoliberalism (insert another buzzword) fault that the USSR was a shambles overseen by an increasingly senile and out of touch ruling elite that eventually failed”
          No. It was Russia in the 90s that was almost wrecked by neoliberalism. Putin has been in large measure responsible for rescuing the country and the economy.

      • DISTURBED 24.1.2
        29 September 2016 at 9:17 pm

        10% CV

        Most are buying good old “red in the bed” cold war US propaganda again sadly.

      • Stuart Munro 24.1.3
        29 September 2016 at 9:30 pm

        You forget that Russia taught the DPRK its current level of respect for truth.

        You must analyse Russian utterances – taking them at face value is beyond naive.

        Have you worked with Russians? I have. They have the Persian tendency.

      • Psycho Milt 24.1.4
        29 September 2016 at 10:11 pm

        Strong measures were necessary to restore order to society, following the decadent chaos wrought by the Weimar republic! Sorry, wrong country. I guess it would be too much to ask that Russians might figure out that the people to blame for the appalling state of Russian society over the last century have all been Russian (in the broadest sense, ie including residents of Russian imperial possessions, like Mr Djukashvili). It’s much easier to blame foreigners for it.

    • Chooky 24.2
      29 September 2016 at 8:44 pm

      +100 Garibaldi

    • Liberal Realist 24.3
      29 September 2016 at 9:04 pm

      +1

    • Psycho Milt 24.4
      29 September 2016 at 10:02 pm

      How you can believe anything emanating from American interests, when you know their track record of lies ,obfuscation and deceit in all corners of the world over the last 70 years , is astounding.

      One could ask the same question about anything emanating from Russian interests, when you know their track record of lies, obfuscation and deceit in all corners of the world over the last 100 years. Becoming a sponge for propaganda is indeed a bad idea, which is exactly my problem with the Putin sycophants on these comments threads.

    • Red 24.5
      30 September 2016 at 3:32 pm

      Cuckoo alert

  25. muttonbird 25
    29 September 2016 at 7:07 pm

    Animated video. You know animation is pretend, don’t you?

    • te reo putake 25.1
      29 September 2016 at 7:46 pm

      The bits at around the 3 minute mark aren’t.

      • One Two 25.1.1
        29 September 2016 at 9:36 pm

        As you were not involved in the ‘investigation’ or creation of the ‘animated story’, it is not possible for you to know either way..

        So why pretend that you do?

  26. adam 26
    29 September 2016 at 8:41 pm

    Just an observation…About the Irony comment.

  27. Chooky 27
    29 September 2016 at 8:42 pm

    Putin is Blair’s mate…i don’t think so!

    ( bullshit skew)

  28. Chooky 28
    29 September 2016 at 8:52 pm

    ‘Int’l MH17 crash investigation ‘politically deficient, defective by process’ ‘

    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/360942-mh17-investigation-jit-russia/

    “The Dutch-led investigation into the MH17 crash was politically motivated; its goal was to determine why Russia was responsible instead of finding out who actually downed the plane, says Joaquin Flores, an Editor-in-Chief at Fort Russ news…

    • Stuart Munro 28.1
      29 September 2016 at 9:31 pm

      RT is not a credible source on this issue.

      • Colonial Viper 28.1.1
        29 September 2016 at 10:35 pm

        Bullshit. RT is a necessary, though insufficient, source on this topic.

        • Stuart Munro 28.1.1.1
          29 September 2016 at 11:03 pm

          RT produces no evidence but lots of smear.

          Still waiting for the Nemtsov shooter.

          As with any hostile witness RT ‘evidence’ must be treated critically.

          As the principal belligerent engaged in invading the Ukraine (albeit through a catspaw) Russia is not by any stretch of the imagination a neutral party in this matter.

          Russia has proliferated a shitstorm of wild theories – but the clincher is the barefaced lie – the manufacture of a Ukranian jet shootdown of MH17 video. This was an official Russian release. They lied. Officially.

          But that’s ok – CV doesn’t mind Russian lies.

          It can’t be a BUK – but it was.

          It was a Ukranian jet – but it wasn’t.

          The neo-liberals did it – nope – they’re bankers, wouldn’t know a BUK if it bit them.

          The Russians have no evidence trail – the very idea of investigative reporting is foreign to them. They invent results from whole cloth. But they cannot explain their vehicle away. They’d’ve got a better result by coming clean.

          • Colonial Viper 28.1.1.1.1
            30 September 2016 at 8:46 am

            Interesting how you note Russia as a hostile party invading Ukraine, but you omit US actions instigating a colour revolution coup in Kiev and then installing and supporting an unconstitutional, illegal government in its place.

            Which by the way, forced Russia to defend its national security interests.

            Shame you forgot to mention these critical factors yet insist on insulting me.

          • Colonial Viper 28.1.1.1.2
            30 September 2016 at 8:48 am

            “still waiting for the Nemtsov shooter”

            I’m still waiting for who shot JFK.

  29. instauration 29
    29 September 2016 at 9:12 pm

    https://www.rt.com/news/172832-snezhnoe-airstrike-residential-quarters/
    (Published 15 Jul, 2014)

    Why the hell would Ukraine allow commercial flights in this airspace less than 48hrs after this aggression upon civilians ?

    And yet Ukraine was a party to the investigations ? – when they were so evidently culpable !

    • Stuart Munro 29.1
      29 September 2016 at 9:58 pm

      So – you deny the enormous volume of physical and photographic evidence to endorse Russian smears of the Ukraine – their enemy.

      So show us the story of the Ukranian BUK. The Ukraine is riddled with Russian intelligence resources – they speak the language and have many sympathisers. The borders are permeable to them – they could track down the much smaller number of Ukranian BUKs overnight. They reason they haven’t is that they’ve learned to their cost that invented stories lose them more support by being debunked.

      So they stick to unsubstantiated sneering of the same kind they used to bury the assassination of Nemtsov.

      Russia downed MH17 as surely as it did KA 007. It’s a trope.

      • Colonial Viper 29.1.1
        29 September 2016 at 10:18 pm

        Russia downed MH17 as surely as it did KA 007. It’s a trope.

        Faith mate, you have faith. Gotta admire your certainty.

        • Stuart Munro 29.1.1.1
          29 September 2016 at 11:06 pm

          Evidence CV – deny it all you like – evidence that your infatuation with RT is no substitute for.

          Ukranian BUK? OK – there were never more than half a dozen. Find it, prove it, the data is out there. Only if that were true of course.

          • Colonial Viper 29.1.1.1.1
            30 September 2016 at 8:41 am

            Sorry mate, you’ve stopped asking questions, including noticing that this investigation committee already decided what their conclusions were 18 months ago, and have just repeated the same 18 months later.

            • Stuart Munro 29.1.1.1.1.1
              30 September 2016 at 6:37 pm

              No mate – it’s you who stopped asking questions. Nothing that looks at Putin is even considered.

              So come on – It’s a Ukranian BUK? Lets see the photos and hear the story. Putin has plenty of agents in the country, and plenty of sympathisers – it’s not a secret that could be kept.

              But it clashes with your irrational belief that Putin is the good guy.

              And as they’ve discovered, fabrications can be debunked.

              Which is also why the Nemtsov story has never emerged – a cloud of suspicion is more effective for Putin’s ends than the truth.

              So what you really mean is “It could’ve been a Ukranian BUK” which is true. There is however no evidence to support that conjecture.

              • Colonial Viper …
                30 September 2016 at 7:25 pm

                Having thought about things a bit more, it is now clear to me that a civilian airliner (which turned out to be MH17) was deliberately and knowingly targeted and brought down, possibly by a BUK anti aircraft missile system manned by a highly trained military or paramilitary crew.

                Which is also why the Nemtsov story has never emerged – a cloud of suspicion is more effective for Putin’s ends than the truth.

                That’s illogical as that means people like you can keep using Nemtsov – a has-been anti-Muslim politician who could barely get 1% of the vote – to point the finger at Putin.

      • Instauration 29.1.2
        30 September 2016 at 7:50 pm

        You miss the point Munro
        Read the link – Donetsk was under attack from this same airspace. It was a war zone.
        And yet Ukraine allowed commercial flights in this zone – just culpable ! Any alleged aerial counter measures are justified to self defence .

  30. Liberal Realist 30
    30 September 2016 at 1:07 am

    The credibility of the JIT’s report can be seriously questioned by the fact that the Ukrainian SBU had veto over release of information.

    JITs investigation relied upon incepted phone calls supplied to it by the SBU…

    Since the coup in Feb 2014 every official institution in the Ukraine belongs to an illegal government that is fighting a war against its own people who just happen to speak another major language and live in the east. This government has no legitimacy, anyone with their eyes open can see it’s a puppet.

    The SBU, the Ukrainian Intelligence Services ability to withhold information means the JIT investigation came to a conclusion on shaky and or incomplete intel therefore not credible.

    Analysis by Robert Parry:
    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/28/troubling-gaps-in-the-new-mh-17-report/

    • D'Esterre 30.1
      2 October 2016 at 12:32 am

      Liberal Realist: ” The SBU, the Ukrainian Intelligence Services ability to withhold information means the JIT investigation came to a conclusion on shaky and or incomplete intel therefore not credible.”
      Exactly. This piece comes to a similar conclusion:
      http://theduran.com/joint-investigation-team-mh17-case-still-open/
      I’m pleased to see that you posted the Parry analysis. I was planning to, if nobody else had.
      It’s worth noting that the JIT report isn’t the same as that from the Dutch Safety Board. Having read the latter, I was quite confused by this latest effort. Looks like propaganda on the part of the Ukrainians.

  31. mikesh 31
    30 September 2016 at 10:05 am

    The odd thing about the video in the update is that the missile launcher finished up at a location where it was well placed to shoot down the airliner. Given that the latter was not on its regular route, this seems a very strange coincidence. Also, it seems to indicate that this commercial airliner was in fact the intended target ie that it was not just a “mistake” as many of us thought.

  32. tom 32
    30 September 2016 at 12:21 pm

    “How you can believe anything emanating from American interests, when you know their track record of lies ,obfuscation and deceit in all corners of the world over the last 70 years , is astounding.’

    response

    ‘One could ask the same question about anything emanating from Russian interests, when you know their track record of lies, obfuscation and deceit in all corners of the world over the last 100 years. Becoming a sponge for propaganda is indeed a bad idea, which is exactly my problem with the Putin sycophants on these comments threads.”

    copied from 24.4 above.

    Having read all the comments, it seems this hits the point i wanted to make, that both sides are compulsive liers, and we all know the first casulaty of war is truth, and this is a war, even if not stated as such or escalated yet to all out war.
    You guys are arguing over indeterminable facts, i must say i cannot even bother to look into an investigation which Ukraine was part of and Russia not (have we not learnt anything from all the bullshit investigations that get done here in NZ, think of Juduith Collins investigation, GCSB report, Sherwin report, dirty poliitcs, etc etc ongoing ad infinitum) why even talk to them except to acknowledge they are set up for a controlled outcome.
    Russia ain’t the good guys, but neither are the US – who certainly assisted with a Coup in Ukraine, and that is provocative to russia, so they have some right to fight against that IMO. NATO USA have surrounded Russia and is most definately a geo political war going on to keep the russian bear down, if you corner a wild beast they will more than likely fight.
    There are no easy answers and no easy truths, but we can see the wider geo politics quite clearly and that should be a starting point to understand the conflict

    Obviously innocent people died tragically and deserve the truth, at least, but that ain’t gonna happen in this world currently, they need justice too but that won’t happen either, but the broader point here is that in the world currently there are so many war crimes going on and to be up in arms over this seems to me to buy into US propaganda to demonise Russia, take John Kerry (and our JK too) at the UN recently if you look at kerry’s speech, what he said was just as easily applied to the USA, it was total Propaganda bullshit and grandstanding of the highest order. Where are these same UN disgust and media focus on US supported war crimes in Yemen as one little example, you could go on all day with examples, Israel anyone?

    I believe as we are part of Five eyes, we need to look in our own backyard and tidy that up before you can (without being a total hypocrite) bang on about Russian war crimes. We need to be vocal about our crimes before condemning others, that seems a basic moral point to live by, and could lead to a solution, as Chomsky often says ‘ if we want to stop terror, stop participating in it’

    • McFlock 32.1
      30 September 2016 at 12:48 pm

      Yes, as individuals we might never have full 100% proof that A did B.
      That doesn’t stop us looking at what seems to be the most likely scenario, however – and the side that does the most obvious dissembling frequently has the most to evade, in my experience.

      But the main issue I have with your comment is the blatant hypocrisy – we can never know who shot down MH17, but the US “certainly assisted with a Coup in Ukraine”? Besides the semantic biases each way between “coup” and “revolution”, your suddent geopolitical certainty seems to be a bit inconsistent with your previous position.

      • Colonial Viper 32.1.1
        30 September 2016 at 1:10 pm

        Victoria Nuland of “Fuck the EU fame” pretty much confirmed that the US knew who it wanted in power in the Ukraine, constitutional elections be damned.

        And yes, it was most likely Russian secret services who bugged that conversation.

        That and admissions that the US has been pouring billions into Ukraine over years in order to destabilise the elected government of that country.

        Plus the US has form with either encouraging, funding or conducting regime change or destabilisations in countries which don’t tow it’s line. Libya and Syria obviously. But also more relevantly Georgia and Chechnya.

        In the name of freedom and democracy of course, a line that lefty liberals suck up like mothers milk.

        • McFlock 32.1.1.1
          30 September 2016 at 1:34 pm

          So “form” and bugged but apparently genuine phone calls provide justifications for claims of certainty about US actions, but not Russian?

          Thanks for demonstrating my point.

          • Colonial Viper 32.1.1.1.1
            30 September 2016 at 7:18 pm

            There’s a list of 20 or 30 countries in the last 50 years that the USA has gone in and regime changed, assassinated democratically elected leaders, crushed peoples movements, destroyed local unions, imploded functioning socialist countries, etc.

            I don’t know why you don’t know this or believe that the US has somehow changed its stripes in the last decade under “Drone King” Obama.

            • McFlock 32.1.1.1.1.1
              30 September 2016 at 8:28 pm

              lol

              Stop deflecting.
              If The US track record “certainly” confirms current or recent allegations, why doesn’t the Russian track record relating to civilian casualties and lies do likewise?

      • tom 32.1.2
        30 September 2016 at 2:28 pm

        my point was, the truth of the one small event is quite hard to get to the bottom of, especially when is a politicised event in the midst of a war, the broader geo politics is easier to see, that is my point, and i believe a fair point
        What i indicated, again, is that a one event in the midst of a war is always going to be propagandised and therefore bastardised into a semblance of truth, rather than broader geo political trends that one can paint a good picture of to see past the BS, thru good research, so no ‘blatant hypocricy’ there, maybe tone down your rhetoric to be less of a ….

        Going on about a topic that you cannot be sure has not been influenced by Propaganda to me is a waste of time unless you can take the vast time needed to get to the bottom of it, as someone noted before, i would be more likely to believe an independent investigative Journo who has had the time to look into and present that info in a clearly laid out way, and is someone who i know i can trust from prior work, such as a glenn greenwald etc, or a Chomsky, rather than RT or Fox or BS investigations, or grandstanding politicians. I am not fixed either way on this issue, just believe both sides are not to be trusted in and of themselves.

        do you really believe it was an independant, non politicised inquiry? if so why?

        Again i refer you to Kerry’s speech at UN, that shows how politicised it has been, in that US do exactly what he is condemning Russia for, so any disgust Kerry had is the ‘blatant hypocricy’ you referred to me as.

        Also as an aside, i feel the way the proponents of the US version of events are very ridiculing of the ones who disagree, talking down and scarily sure of something i believe you cannot be sure of

        also my main point was this:

        ‘I believe as we are part of Five eyes, we need to look in our own backyard and tidy that up before you can (without being a total hypocrite) bang on about Russian war crimes. We need to be vocal about our crimes before condemning others, that seems a basic moral point to live by, and could lead to a solution, as Chomsky often says ‘ if we want to stop terror, stop participating in it’’

        • McFlock 32.1.2.1
          30 September 2016 at 3:56 pm

          Do I believe that maybe a couple of the parties involved in the investigation might have had zero motive to skew the results? Of course not. It’s a freaking war zone.

          Do I believe that the findings seem to be reasonable? Yep. Firstly, some parties like the Dutch or Malaysians have no obvious direct motive to skew the investigation, so that limits the damage. Secondly, the Russians did their usual of conflicting stories and fabrications, so that points at them or their clients anyway. Thirdly, if the investigation was in fact skewed, it wasn’t over-egged – nobody is declaring malice by the Russians or their clients, just mistake and coverup. On the flipside the Ukrainians would have had a higher probability of malice if they’d shot it down, given the location of the crash and suchlike. There’s no real bonus in it for them.

          Lastly, there’s no real benefit in skewing dramatically the investigation – so what if they shot down an airliner, even on Putin’s order (not saying that at all, highly unlikely, just the worst case scenario)? They bomb hospitals and civilians routinely. Put it in the queue – why would the Ukrainians risk being caught creating a charade for so little bonus?

          As for NZ war crimes, well – there’s not a huge amount of certainty around those, either. What were the allegations again?

        • Stuart Munro 32.1.2.2
          30 September 2016 at 6:41 pm

          It is enormously useful, for a guilty party, to take the conclusions of objective investigations and reduce the conclusion to “we can never know”.

          • Colonial Viper 32.1.2.2.1
            30 September 2016 at 7:12 pm

            Of course we can know; both the USA/NATO and Ukraine have all the primary radar and sensor scans required to prove what happened on the day.

            Let’s see them.

            • McFlock 32.1.2.2.1.1
              30 September 2016 at 8:31 pm

              In that case, mr clancy, so do the russians. Let’s see them.

              • Instauration …
                30 September 2016 at 9:32 pm

                Show me that the JIT has not received an offer of such evidence from Russia.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  30 September 2016 at 9:42 pm

                  Almaz Antey announces raw radar data handed over to inquiry – Sept 2016

                  In its official statement, the company said the data in question is “the so-called initial radar images of the airspace in raw form.” That includes the registration of movements in the airspace over Eastern Ukraine on the day when the Malaysian Boeing went down in the area.

                  On Thursday, the official representative of the Russian Investigative Committee, Vladimir Markin, announced that Russia will pass this fresh batch of information on the MH17 crash to the Dutch-led international investigators.

                  https://www.rt.com/news/360319-almaz-russia-mh17-crash/

                  Inquiry ignores Russian provided radar and other data – Feb 2016

                  Desperate for answers that would shed the light on who fired the BUK missile that allegedly hit the passenger plane on July 17, 2014, and dissatisfied with the slow-moving Dutch probe, the relatives have turned to the heads of several states, including Russia’s. On January 22, they sent a letter to Putin, asking about the primary data from radars and satellites, which they think is crucial.

                  “We did not impose any conditions or restrictions regarding further use and disclosure of radar data, records of phone conversations and other data we submitted to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) at its request. Moreover, Russia has stored all that data to this day, and is willing to provide it once again to the relevant authorities,” said Storchevoy.

                  While the Russian authorities were not involved in controlling the fatal flight, they still soon became de-facto participants of the investigation due to the unique information obtained from radars in Rostov-on-Don, a Russian city not far from the Ukrainian border.

                  “I would like to stress that Russia disclosed all of its available satellite data in the days immediately following the crash,” said Storchevoy.

                  https://www.rt.com/news/331833-mh17-dutch-probe-ignore/

                  • McFlock …
                    30 September 2016 at 9:57 pm

                    Fair enough – atwo years after the fact, but whatevs.

                    so what evidence do you have that the US is withholding data?

                    oh wait, the RT claim that ukraine didn’t provide data might be bullshit:

                    “The JIT has obtained sufficient radar data, both from Russia and Ukraine, which – when viewed in conjunction – provide a full picture of the airspace over eastern Ukraine. This shows that at the time of the crash, no other airplanes were in the vicinity that could have shot down flight MH17.”

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      1 October 2016 at 6:48 am

                      That’s odd – shouldn’t the Russian radar data show that Ukrainian fighter they had a satellite photo of? I wonder what could possibly explain that discrepancy?

      • Instauration 32.1.3
        30 September 2016 at 9:11 pm

        Януко́вич was 4/5ths through his electoral term when faced with a decision to persist with the status-quo of Russian paternalism – and roll-over $16B of Russian funding with substantive LNG concessions – or adopt a quasi shift to the West – with no such funding or guarantees. Yanukovych responded appropriately – the plebiscite was imminent.
        The “Nuland – let them have cake” coup intervened.

        • McFlock 32.1.3.1
          30 September 2016 at 9:59 pm

          aaaaand the bit that confirms the US “certainly assisted” is?

          • Instauration 32.1.3.1.1
            30 September 2016 at 10:15 pm

            Scots’Flockperson;
            baaaand
            US “certainly assisted”
            Please explain the context ?

          • Instauration 32.1.3.1.2
            30 September 2016 at 10:31 pm

            Ok – just did a find on this thread with “assisted”
            You still trying to defend the USA (America is not a country ) in this coup allegation ?
            It was a coup ! Who did the coup is “later”

            • McFlock 32.1.3.1.2.1
              30 September 2016 at 10:47 pm

              fucksake, read the thread.

              I’m not “defending” the US. I’m pointing out the double standard that several commenters here seem to have, where Russian complicity in the shootdown needs to be proved while (often in the very same comment) individuals claim to be certain about US covert activities.

              • Instauration …
                30 September 2016 at 11:01 pm

                FlockSake
                Well just read my comments.
                Neither position is asserted.
                I claim that any alleged “crime” by Donetsk protectors can be defended by an assertion of self defence.
                I claim that the alleged government of Ukraine in July 2014 was not legitimate as it was a perversion of the electoral will.
                I don’t give a shit about who you think this perversion should be attributed to.

                • McFlock …
                  30 September 2016 at 11:18 pm

                  Those claims are nice, thanks for finally getting to the point.

                  Why are you telling them to me, when I was talking about double standards in the comment 32 subthread? They just seem a bit random if that was your entire point.

                  • tom …
                    1 October 2016 at 1:54 pm

                    These are just a few links I could find from one of my trusted sources I haven’t looked up others as I do not have time to be someone’s personal researcher if u have an interest look up others it is not hard.
                    Links

                    http://m.democracynow.org/stories/14211

                    http://m.democracynow.org/stories/14220

                    http://m.democracynow.org/stories/14263

                    http://m.democracynow.org/stories/14172

                    http://m.democracynow.org/stories/14231

                    ALao a few headline articles back from 2004 thru till now to give a little of the broader context. Are many more available as I said above but I really don’t have the time I hope that is appreciated

                    http://m.democracynow.org/headline/3780

                    http://m.democracynow.org/headline/5493

                    http://m.democracynow.org/headline/14804

                    http://m.democracynow.org/headline/23523

                    http://m.democracynow.org/headline/37109

                    http://m.democracynow.org/headline/37586

                    http://m.democracynow.org/headline/37547

                    As I say u need to research and understand the geo politics looking for smoking guns when it comes to deep state is not easy unless a snowden comes along. Facts can b muddied thru propaganda which has been my point all along.

                    Also u were very disingenuous above about nz war crimes when I clearly said ‘as we are part of five eyes….’ my point quite obviously is that we need to stop our allies criminal behaviour before getting up in arms about our enemies. That is an obvious necessity to not be a hypocrite and to have any moral high ground. That you ignore that obvious point is as I say, disengeneous, and I ain’t playing those types of games if you want to play it that way I won’t respond in future.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 October 2016 at 11:30 pm

                      So we should stop our allies’ criminal behaviour, fair enough. Shouldn’t we also expect Russia do the same with Assad’s criminal behaviour?

                      America’s bad. So is Russia, if we judge each with the same level of evidence – and there’s much stronger evidence in the case of Russia.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      1 October 2016 at 11:33 pm

                      America’s bad. So is Russia, if we judge each with the same level of evidence – and there’s much stronger evidence in the case of Russia.

                      Bullshit.

                      The US has killed at least 500,000 Iraqi children.

                      And that was pre-GW Bush Iraq war – I figure add another 500,000 dead Iraqi children on top of that.

                      Now, where has Russia done anything similar.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 October 2016 at 3:11 am

                      Chechnya, for one.
                      And they seem keen on playng catch-up in Syria, and well-thrashing the US bombed hospital count.
                      Don’t forget 10,000 or so dead in the Ukraine, and 1.5million refugees.

                      Thing is, as your hero trump likes to complain, if the US bombs or invades someone, they tend to announce it. The Russians issue five conflicting stories of what’s going on, and claim that thousands of armed and trained soldiers all happened to shop at the same army surplus store.

                      the flipside of that is that it’s easier to spot the Russians, because they double-down on the bullshit the closer they are to actually having done something dodgy. Whereas if they actually skewed the situation in the Ukraine, it was with a softer touch than is in the Russian manual.

                      A bit like how your slogans become more shrill and diverse when you have less ground to stand on. Dead give-away.

                      And, of course, your tally is based entirely on pretending that the KGB guy running the kremlin is a completely separate and distinct political animal from the folks who ran the Soviet Union, rather than a different brand of the same generic cola drink.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      2 October 2016 at 8:10 am

                      Your linked article http://m.democracynow.org/stories/14220 provides a good breakdown of what was happening at the time and why. Funnily enough, the US government is peripheral to their analysis, most likely because it was peripheral to the events. Your certainty has a lot less basis for it than the JIT investigators’ findings in their report.

                    • tom …
                      3 October 2016 at 12:32 pm

                      response to Psycho Milt, was no reply button under your comment.
                      ‘Your linked article http://m.democracynow.org/stories/14220 provides a good breakdown of what was happening at the time and why. Funnily enough, the US government is peripheral to their analysis, most likely because it was peripheral to the events. Your certainty has a lot less basis for it than the JIT investigators’ findings in their report.’

                      Thanks you have helped prove my point, i advised you need context, and for this you need to research widely, not just on ukraine either……
                      and you referred to ONE of my links without any reference to the others at all, or the fact i advised that was a sampler and much more on that one website (under Ukraine, not to mention if searched under NATO, or multiple other countries or searches for references to similar US baehaviour) not to mention other sources like Chomsky, Pilger, Wikileaks, Snowden etc etc, etc……could keep going on and on, but seems not much point. It appears you read one link and found what you wanted and went no further.

                      That one link you referred to i placed there to give context, of the intenal politics, which is why Democracy Now put in on as well, as Amy Goodman says during it, for our US audience who do not understand the politics in Ukraine. One would do the same if the issue was about NZ, as US would not understand labour/national MMP system etc they would need the CONTEXT, but then after that you would also have a piece or pieces on the external factors, such as US complicity/influence, such as the other links i have provided.
                      so your comment ‘ the US government is peripheral to their analysis, most likely because it was peripheral to the events’ looks a little silly now once context is applied, as that had no discussion of NATO or any of the other stuff for a good reason, and not because it is not relevant to the overall situation, but as stated above was put there for CONTEXT.

                      Another link is a ex Bush CIA advisor who gives the official US (spin, i would say) line on this, and he debates with the external poliitcs expert, i placed that link here also to provide further CONTEXT, and also to provide the opposite opinion, which i beleive is important, so not to only provide links that back up my assertion, as that is the right thing to do, also that is why Democracy Now put it on, and why i like them as a resource to understand whats happening in the world, as they provide broader context without it being one sided spin like MSM. That this seems lost on you is a worry to me, and was the original reason for my post, so thanks again for highlighting exactly what i was originally saying.

                      Not to mention if one had the broader context they would understand that the US being involved in another countries politics is not new it is not the exception it is the rule, please read up on the broader context of all this to understand this important and easily defined FACT. Chomsky would be my go to on that score. Wikileaks also shows this quite clearly.

                      Also in regards the leaked tape, that person has stated it was them on that tape (that is a headline article that can be found also on the democracy now website), so is not some Russian made up smear, and especially with the deep state, evidence is hard to get, so usually context and circumstantial evidence is all you get, this lady said she said it but it didn’t mean what we think, which is handy, and not uncommon from the PR playbook (we all know that, just think about NZ politics like dirty politics, Judith Collins as one of many examples of when caught change the story and make up new story as to what the evidence is showing to defer, deflect and live to fight another day).
                      Imagine with me here, the mafia get caught saying on tape ‘ i want him to swim with the fishes’, when that is made public they come out and say it is just unfortunate he dies the next day as we were only wanting to take him swimming with dolphins, now if you had no context to understand what ‘swimming with fishes’ means you may take them at their word, and if had no context that is no dolphins in the vicinity, in fact not even water, again you may take their word, but for anyone esle with the CONTEXT it is as obvious as sin.
                      Crude example but does highlight my point.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      3 October 2016 at 1:31 pm

                      I pointed out that single one because it has a good analysis of what happened, in which the US is hardly mentioned because the US was peripheral to what happened.

                      As McFlock points out, you guys can dismiss as inconclusive an entire report on the shooting down of MH17 that’s full of evidence like intercepted phone calls, but take it as certain that the US was behind a “coup” in Ukraine on the basis of an intercepted phone call, previous “form” and endless blather from people like Pilger and Chomsky that it must have been a US coup. The double standard is laughable.

                    • tom …
                      3 October 2016 at 2:55 pm

                      ‘I pointed out that single one because it has a good analysis of what happened, in which the US is hardly mentioned because the US was peripheral to what happened.

                      As McFlock points out, you guys can dismiss as inconclusive an entire report on the shooting down of MH17 that’s full of evidence like intercepted phone calls, but take it as certain that the US was behind a “coup” in Ukraine on the basis of an intercepted phone call, previous “form” and endless blather from people like Pilger and Chomsky that it must have been a US coup. The double standard is laughable.’

                      Mate what can i say, you ignore what you want and that is no way to research a topic, it is a grand and epic fail, and i cannot waste anymore time on that, am happy to debate, but not if you will not look at anything does not fit your preconceived notion.

                      ‘ endless blather from people like Pilger and Chomsky’

                      just a foolish comment. what more can be said if you can simply disregard a whole swathe of research over 60 yrs as easily as that, by one of the most referenced people in the world, he comes in close behind Jesus and Plato on the most referenced people in the world, and not because he endlessly blathers. Wake up and smell the roses buddy, enjoy ignorance, supposedly it is blissful

              • D'Esterre …
                2 October 2016 at 12:28 pm

                McFlock: ” where Russian complicity in the shootdown needs to be proved while (often in the very same comment) individuals claim to be certain about US covert activities.”
                Good lord! If you’re referring to the Ukraine coup, there was nothing at all covert about the US involvement in it. Perhaps you didn’t follow the news at the time? The US was quite open and unashamed about its sponsoring of the coup: senators in the Maidan and all. The US political class genuinely doesn’t see anything wrong with this: they don’t make a secret of their desire to sponsor regime change in various polities. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine…. the US has been quite open about all this.
                And while I’m in the business of myth-busting, Russia did not invade the Ukraine following the ouster of Yanukovich. Despite breathless predictions to the contrary by the neo-fascist government, it has not invaded the Donbass either.
                And: the Crimea seceded following the coup: its third attempt since independence to decamp from the Ukraine. This time, citizens and government made sure it happened. Russia did not invade the Crimea, either. It had troops legally stationed there under the terms of the Black Sea Fleet Treaty. All this information is on public record.

                • McFlock …
                  3 October 2016 at 10:33 am

                  There’s a world of difference between saying who you’d like to see win and actually assisting a “coup”. Even if the distinction between “coup” and “revolution” is an irregular noun, like “terrorist” and “freedom fighter”.

  33. Sable 33
    30 September 2016 at 6:51 pm

    The investigation is hardly conclusive. I would say this is not in my view terribly convincing…….

    • Colonial Viper 33.1
      30 September 2016 at 7:15 pm

      This “investigation” already publicly decided 18 months ago that MH17 was brought down by a 1980s BUK missile system which had been driven in from Russia the same day, and driven straight back to Russia the day after.

  34. D'Esterre 34
    2 October 2016 at 5:44 pm

    A comment from a member of this household: “If the truth about TWA800 could be buried, then MH17 is potatoes.”
    Hard to argue with that, really.