A Year Since MH-17 Tragedy

[ESay]

Can anybody explain me what Russian “patriots” want? A couple of times they have been told that if Russia considers that the investigation is biased and the idea of a tribunal is weird, then Russia can take some actions in order to change the things – Russia can organise an international investigation team, all those prominent lawyers and others who support Russia’s position can fill lawsuits in international courts, Russian diplomats can look for allies in the UN in order to adopt some resolutions concerning Russia’s position and so on and so forth.

But again and again the same statements, accusations, complaints about the hypocritical West and at the same time almost no deeds from official Moscow.

What do they want? What are we supposed to do reading all of that?

 

[Tehon]

You don't understand what they want because you have taken up the West's cause and can't entertain any other thought process. Fairness..... that is the answer to your question. The West had implicated Russia and the Eastern Ukrainians in the tragedy within hours of the event and to this day not one shred of credible evidence has been provided to substantiate the claims. People just want an objective investigation into the crash and despite what you may believe a tribunal does not promise one.

 

[ESay]

You don't understand what they want because you have taken up the West's cause and can't entertain any other thought process. Fairness..... that is the answer to your question. The West had implicated Russia and the Eastern Ukrainians in the tragedy within hours of the event and to this day not one shred of credible evidence has been provided to substantiate the claims. People just want an objective investigation into the crash and despite what you may believe a tribunal does not promise one.

Thanks for the answer.

Maybe I failed to convey my thoughts properly in the previous post, so I will try to do it again.

It may well be that Russia is completely right about the case, it may well be that the West is lying about the tragedy. But what is unclear for me is why Russia has done virtually nothing in order to support its point of view. Yes, there have been plenty of statements, interviews with a wide range of people who support Russia’s stance. But in my opinion it is not enough, it is – I don’t know even how to call that – a childish level or so. Where are actions? Who forbids Russia to organise a Russia-led investigation team, who forbids Russia to prepare various resolutions about all of that and try to get support from other countries in the UN, for example?

You are claiming that there has been no evidence in support of the West’s stance, that their accusations are absolutely groundless. Okay, let’s consider that it is the case. But do you have any doubts what will be in the final report, and who the investigators will point a finger at? I have only a few doubts about that. And after the final report is released, the West will say “Look! We have known that from the very beginning! And the investigation team has proved that we have been completely right!” But what will Russia do after that. There will be again the same statements and interviews and the like? It is ridiculous.

I will ask again: Who forbids Russia to organise a Russia-led international investigation team? You may say that Russia is waiting the final report, because it is law-abiding country and other stuff. But it is bullshit, man, I am sorry. Russia didn’t wait the report when its General Staff was releasing its version with Su-25, it didn’t wait when Russian propagandists were (and still are) blaming Ukrainian army in the shooting. Besides the version with Su-25 there is also a version from Almaz-Antei. Russia has already received a draft version of the report. So, there are plenty of materials for a possible investigation team. Do something, guys. Take some actions. But what do we see again and again – statements, interviews and so on.

 

[Tehon]

You don't understand what they want because you have taken up the West's cause and can't entertain any other thought process. Fairness..... that is the answer to your question. The West had implicated Russia and the Eastern Ukrainians in the tragedy within hours of the event and to this day not one shred of credible evidence has been provided to substantiate the claims. People just want an objective investigation into the crash and despite what you may believe a tribunal does not promise one.

Thanks for the answer.

Maybe I failed to convey my thoughts properly in the previous post, so I will try to do it again.

It may well be that Russia is completely right about the case, it may well be that the West is lying about the tragedy. But what is unclear for me is why Russia has done virtually nothing in order to support its point of view. Yes, there have been plenty of statements, interviews with a wide range of people who support Russia’s stance. But in my opinion it is not enough, it is – I don’t know even how to call that – a childish level or so. Where are actions? Who forbids Russia to organise a Russia-led investigation team, who forbids Russia to prepare various resolutions about all of that and try to get support from other countries in the UN, for example?

You are claiming that there has been no evidence in support of the West’s stance, that their accusations are absolutely groundless. Okay, let’s consider that it is the case. But do you have any doubts what will be in the final report, and who the investigators will point a finger at? I have only a few doubts about that. And after the final report is released, the West will say “Look! We have known that from the very beginning! And the investigation team has proved that we have been completely right!” But what will Russia do after that. There will be again the same statements and interviews and the like? It is ridiculous.

I will ask again: Who forbids Russia to organise a Russia-led international investigation team? You may say that Russia is waiting the final report, because it is law-abiding country and other stuff. But it is bullshit, man, I am sorry. Russia didn’t wait the report when its General Staff was releasing its version with Su-25, it didn’t wait when Russian propagandists were (and still are) blaming Ukrainian army in the shooting. Besides the version with Su-25 there is also a version from Almaz-Antei. Russia has already received a draft version of the report. So, there are plenty of materials for a possible investigation team. Do something, guys. Take some actions. But what do we see again and again – statements, interviews and so on.

I gave you my opinion. I knew it wouldn't satisfy you because you are out to prove a point but my opinion doesn't change. When the final reports are released we can judge by what weight of evidence they try to accuse Russia. The burden of proving guilt is upon the West, Russia owes you nothing.
You should realize by now that those people on that plane died either as a result of an accident or a propaganda stunt. The value of the propaganda seems to be endless for one side.

 

[Camp]

You don't understand what they want because you have taken up the West's cause and can't entertain any other thought process. Fairness..... that is the answer to your question. The West had implicated Russia and the Eastern Ukrainians in the tragedy within hours of the event and to this day not one shred of credible evidence has been provided to substantiate the claims. People just want an objective investigation into the crash and despite what you may believe a tribunal does not promise one.

Credible evidence has been available since the very beginning. Those cell phone intercepts are evidence. And intercepts are credible when they can be backed up. The fact that Russia nor the separatist will not allow those participants to testify is further evidence of a conspiracy to hide the truth.
Photo's of missile being tracked and traced is also evidence. Photographers not being able to travel to locations to duplicate photo for proof of locations is also effort to hide truth.
Separatist refusal to allow international inspectors/investigators and crash experts immediate access to crash site is also evidence of cover-up.
To say not one shred of evidence exist is not accurate. Some may even say that is a lie. Normally investigators collect evidence, but the evidence is not declared or certified as accurate or true by the investigators. That determination is made by a formal court or tribunal. Without a tribunal ruling on the validity of evidence presented the guilty parties can always proclaim their is "no proof" or "not a shred of evidence".

 

[ESay]

I knew it wouldn't satisfy you because you are out to prove a point but my opinion doesn't change.

I am not sure that I have understood this properly, but I am not trying to prove you anything. You can believe in everything you want.
What I try to understand is what Russian “patriots” want to achieve by posting all of that at the same time when the Russian state is doing virtually nothing in order to support its stance.

Russia owes you nothing.

It is a very strange statement. Isn’t it the Russian General Staff that accused Ukrainian army in the downing after a week after the crash?

 

[Tehon]

I knew it wouldn't satisfy you because you are out to prove a point but my opinion doesn't change.

I am not sure that I have understood this properly, but I am not trying to prove you anything. You can believe in everything you want.
What I try to understand is what Russian “patriots” want to achieve by posting all of that at the same time when the Russian state is doing virtually nothing in order to support its stance.

Russia owes you nothing.

It is a very strange statement. Isn’t it the Russian General Staff that accused Ukrainian army in the downing after a week after the crash?

You think Russia should have to prove it's innocence. That's bullshit, they have yet to be proven guilty. Russia is allowing the investigations to run their course. It seems only logical. The preliminary report was released so that the countries involved could make recommendations before the final report was released. We still await that final report on the cause of the crash. Then we have to wait till the end of the year for the release of the report on responsibility for the crash. Russia has maintained that they want to work with the international community on the investigation, not sure why you think they should switch course now and work independent of the international community.
Russians are not wrong to question the objectivity of the West and it's media during the course of said investigations. There is a bias.

 

[ESay]

You think Russia should have to prove it's innocence. That's bullshit, they have yet to be proven guilty.

I have a question – What do you think about accusations related to a Ukrainian Su-25?

The preliminary report was released so that the countries involved could make recommendations before the final report was released.

Not only a preliminary report, but a draft version of the final report has been sent to a number of countries, including Russia. So, Russian officials (top-level ones, at least) are already aware what will be in the final report, and considering their statements it is not those things which they have wanted to see there.

We still await that final report on the cause of the crash. Then we have to wait till the end of the year for the release of the report on responsibility for the crash.

I asked it a couple of posts above and I will ask it now.
Let’s imagine that the investigators will point the finger at Russia. What should Russia do next?

Russia has maintained that they want to work with the international community on the investigation, not sure why you think they should switch course now and work independent of the international community.

Do you understand Russian? I can try to find a link on the article where Churkin claims that the Dutch-led team is virtually hindering Russian investigators from participating in the investigation. He also said that the investigation has been conducted virtually without Russian specialists. Also, there were claims from Russian officials that the investigation is biased.
Considering this, I think it is quite illogical that Russia is trying to stick to the Dutch-led investigations.

Russians are not wrong to question the objectivity of the West and it's media during the course of said investigations. There is a bias.

It is not wrong that they are questioning the objectivity of the West. But what about their own objectivity and accusations? Isn’t it a bias?

 

[Tehon]

I have a question – What do you think about accusations related to a Ukrainian Su-25?

I don't know, I am not trained to understand radar or jet fighter capabilities. Why would my opinion be relevant? Russia submitted radar purporting to show the existence of fighter jets in the area of MH17. Has this been addressed officially?

Not only a preliminary report, but a draft version of the final report has been sent to a number of countries, including Russia. So, Russian officials (top-level ones, at least) are already aware what will be in the final report, and considering their statements it is not those things which they have wanted to see there.

Yes, the draft report was handed out and each participating country had 60 days to make final arguments or recommendations. We still await the final report.

I asked it a couple of posts above and I will ask it now.
Let’s imagine that the investigators will point the finger at Russia. What should Russia do next?

And I thought I addressed your question. I have no doubt the reports will point a finger in the direction of Russia. Russia's next step should depend on the weight of the evidence used to make the accusations.

Do you understand Russian? I can try to find a link on the article where Churkin claims that the Dutch-led team is virtually hindering Russian investigators from participating in the investigation. He also said that the investigation has been conducted virtually without Russian specialists. Also, there were claims from Russian officials that the investigation is biased.
Considering this, I think it is quite illogical that Russia is trying to stick to the Dutch-led investigations.

No, I do not understand Russian but you can post the article anyway, google often translates them for me.
Churkin's claims, do they have merit?
And I find it illogical to conclude that Russia has a choice not to stick to Dutch-led investigations. If Russia acted outside of these investigations, that in itself would be used against them, unless they were able to present indisputable evidence. The reality of the situation is that there probably is no way to positively verify who shot down MH17, a plane that was flying over an active combat zone. Don't be surprised if nothing comes of these investigations, public perceptions aside. It's a propaganda war, the West being the obvious winner.

It is not wrong that they are questioning the objectivity of the West. But what about their own objectivity and accusations? Isn’t it a bias?

Of course they are biased but then again they are not representatives of governments or journalists. I wouldn't presume the general public to be unbiased. Journalists on the other hand should be more objective and government representatives should be more constrained in their accusations unless they are willing to present indisputable evidence.
That being said, our Russian friend's complaints about a lack of Western objectivity has merit, don't you think?

 

[ESay]

Has this been addressed officially?

Can an official press-conference of representatives of Russian General Staff be called ‘this has been addressed officially’?

No, I do not understand Russian but you can post the article anyway, google often translates them for me.
Churkin's claims, do they have merit?

In my opinion a pile of shit has more merit than Churkin’s claims. But he is a top level Russian diplomat and he expresses Russia’s official position.
Here is a link. It is very small article, but it gives proof of what I wrote above.
- -

And I find it illogical to conclude that Russia has a choice not to stick to Dutch-led investigations. If Russia acted outside of these investigations, that in itself would be used against them, unless they were able to present indisputable evidence.

I don’t understand why it may be so. If Russia claims that the investigation is biased, is conducted without taking into consideration Russia’s opinion, then I don’t understand what a reason is for Russia to go on taking part in such an investigation.

I am not talking about that Russia should have started an investigation without international participation. On the contrary - it should have gathered as many participants as it could. Russia thinks that the West is hiding culprits? Okay, organise an international team with, for example, official representatives of the BRICS countries or so.

Unfortunately, you don’t understand Russian. I have found a video of Russian state-controlled channel Rossiya 1. In these video journalists accuse the Dutch that they had done virtually nothing in order to investigate the case. That the West was virtually hiding the culprits – of course, on the journalists’ opinion the culprit is Ukraine. Look at the date the video was posted and you will see that after two months after the downing the Russians accused the West in all they are accusing now. And all this year the Russians have been doing nothing and waiting a biased report (in their opinion)? I am sorry I don’t see any logic in that at all.

Here is a link on the video
777 -

That being said, our Russian friend's complaints about a lack of Western objectivity has merit, don't you think?

What I can say about it is that there are two completely different points of view about the tragedy. And while the one side is slowly but firmly preparing ground for their claims, the other one is just waiting and continually complaining. Is that an answer to your question?


P.S.
Camp, you were right. The investigators were unable to reach the crash site in the course of two months after the crash. And even a preliminary report was released without the examination of the crash site. I have completely forgotten about it. The video I posted above says about it, so even Russian propaganda may be useful sometimes.) But it is quite understandable that the propagandists claim that it was Ukraine that was putting obstacles.

 

[Tehon]

Can an official press-conference of representatives of Russian General Staff be called ‘this has been addressed officially’?

Why not, you called it such.
Is there any reason to believe that the radar and satellite images were not transferred to the investigators?

In my opinion a pile of shit has more merit than Churkin’s claims. But he is a top level Russian diplomat and he expresses Russia’s official position.

Is that your unbiased opinion?

I don’t understand why it may be so. If Russia claims that the investigation is biased, is conducted without taking into consideration Russia’s opinion, then I don’t understand what a reason is for Russia to go on taking part in such an investigation.

I am not talking about that Russia should have started an investigation without international participation. On the contrary - it should have gathered as many participants as it could. Russia thinks that the West is hiding culprits? Okay, organise an international team with, for example, official representatives of the BRICS countries or so.

Yeah and Russia should have gathered the black boxes and all the debris and plane pieces also. Or do you think the West will give Russia unrestricted access to these things for their personal investigation.

What I can say about it is that there are two completely different points of view about the tragedy. And while the one side is slowly but firmly preparing ground for their claims, the other one is just waiting and continually complaining. Is that an answer to your question?

It is a public opinion war and it remains to be seen how solid the ground will be that the West is preparing.

 

[Sonc]

And all this year the Russians have been doing nothing and waiting a biased report (in their opinion)? I am sorry I don’t see any logic in that at all.

Why nothing?
12 33


Investigation of Almaz-Antei.

 

[Sonc]

39:10
40:57
43 45
44 35

1:20 - Алмаз Антей подали в суд-

This means that Antey legally responsible for the accuracy of the investigation.


antey is the company that created the BUK.
1:16 interesting question - why in the time of the tragedy were active Ukrainian radars, if the separatists do not have military aviation.

 

[ESay]

Why not, you called it such.
Is there any reason to believe that the radar and satellite images were not transferred to the investigators?

You mean the radar and satellite images related to the Su-25? I don’t know. It may well be that all that has been transferred to investigators.

Is that your unbiased opinion?

You think it is too biased? )
After the fairy tale about a “crucified” boy in Slavyansk broadcast by state-controlled Channel One, I can believe neither Russian official journalists nor Russian officials.

Yeah and Russia should have gathered the black boxes and all the debris and plane pieces also. Or do you think the West will give Russia unrestricted access to these things for their personal investigation.

No, it shouldn’t.

Okay, let’s imagine a situation. I sincerely hope that will never be the case, but let’s imagine that you are accused for some crime you haven’t committed. You are completely aware from the very beginning that the investigation is biased and that the investigators will put a finger at you. What would you do in such a case?

it remains to be seen how solid the ground will be that the West is preparing.

I agree with you about this.

 

[ESay]

Why nothing?

Is it a rhetorical question? If it is not, then you had better read again what I have written in this thread. By the way, in some post I mentioned about Almaz-Antei. It may well be that you disagree with me, but I am not going to write the same once more.

interesting question - why in the time of the tragedy were active Ukrainian radars, if the separatists do not have military aviation.

I have a question. Does Russia have active radars on its territory? And if it has them, which regions they are situated in?

 

[Sonc]

Is it a rhetorical question?

No. I brought proof that Russia has made the most of an open investigation.

What would you do in such a case?

Say you are.

 

[Sonc]

I have a question. Does Russia have active radars on its territory? And if it has them, which regions they are situated in?

This military radars. When such a radar starts it becomes very vulnerable. because it is known of his whereabouts.

It can be destroyed by artillery, mortars, and MB21.

Military radar is like a fuse on the rifle. It included only when they want to shoot. Otherwise, it will just be destroyed before the shot. =)

 

[ESay]

No. I brought proof that Russia has made the most of an open investigation.

Yeah. So it remains to find out which of Russia’s versions – Almaz-Antei’s or the General Staff’s – is true.

Say you are.

I am sorry, man, I addressed the question to another person. I will wait an answer.

This military radars. When such a radar starts it becomes very vulnerable. because it is known of his whereabouts.

It can be destroyed by artillery, mortars, and MB21.

Military radar is like a fuse on the rifle. It included only when they want to shoot. Otherwise, it will just be destroyed before the shot. =)

If understand correctly your chart, Russia has several active radars on its territory (btw, the chart gives information only about RLS Kupol, so it may well be that a total number of active radars is higher).

Why does Russia use them? There are regions in Russia where rebels are using air forces?

 

[Tehon]

Okay, let’s imagine a situation. I sincerely hope that will never be the case, but let’s imagine that you are accused for some crime you haven’t committed. You are completely aware from the very beginning that the investigation is biased and that the investigators will put a finger at you. What would you do in such a case?

I would try to prove my innocence, duh. But if there is not enough evidence to prove my innocence and I am being railroaded by the prosecution then I am probably going to jail, as many innocent people do. All Russia stands to lose though is public opinion polls.
http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2015...r-Russia-Image-Report-FINAL-August-5-2015.pdf
They are already paying economically and haven't been proven guilty of anything.

 

[ESay]

I would try to prove my innocence, duh.

I apologise for my importunity, but I want to ask one more question for clarifying – Would you try to take actions as soon as you became aware of that or you would wait until the police has released its false report and a biased trial begins?

They are already paying economically and haven't been proven guilty of anything.

Have you heard something about Crimea?