MH17 Crash In Ukraine. Known info in OP.

  • Thread starter Dennisch
  • 1,285 comments
  • 59,844 views
Rage Racer
They just mean it wasn't the 9M38M1 (as the Dutch say) - it's the missile they call "more modern". The "old" one is the 9M38. Perhaps they just "didn't see" the butterflies hit the Boeing.

I suppose, the key point is:
If the missile was 9M38, then it's Ukrainian, because in Russia, all missiles of this type are decomissioned.
If the missile was 9M38M1, then it doesn't prove anything, because it's used by both Ukraine and RF.
Click to expand...

Are the 9M38 really decommissioned?

2015 Chita 9th May parade - 9M38 missiles on a burning launcher.
Sure the ones on the parade could be outdated very well made mock-ups.
CGhHXUfUgAARBi6.jpg


2013 Armenia 2nd December - On the photo with President Putin, in the background stands a launcher with both 9M38 and 9M317 missiles.

CGhOt8PVIAAG6N4.png


16 August 2014 photos from Reuters showing trucks carrying "caskets" with 9M38 missiles. (And a crane truck that was also seen on a video with 53rd Russian AA brigade)

r

9M38M1.jpg


And photos from a Russian AA brigade from 2012 show 9M38 missiles still in use.

XJd7i_H_dPE.jpg

EDIT: Okay, this one above ^ looks like a training missile (учебно-действующий) training-working.

And from 2015 (EDIT: probably same training models)

eQv77ApNqP8.jpg


Bellingcat sure made a lot of work tying stuff together. Sounds believable, but are those real or training variants or what... I'll wait for the official criminal investigation report for conclusions.

(heh, reminds of a joke about certain soldiers that quit the military and joined rebels, so they are not real soldiers now, but only volunteers.
 
Last edited:
unit-one
Are the 9M38 really decommissioned?
Click to expand...
By the decommissioned missiles I mean the old 9M38 but not the 9M38M1. The latter one is used by both Ukraine and Russia (on your container pics, you can see the codes starting with "9M38M1..." and not just "9M38").
By the exterior look, you cannot tell whether it's 9M38 or 9M38M1, they have the same "long" feathers. And only 9M317 (that Russia has but Ukraine doesn't) has different feathering.
blogpost.jpeg


The Russian experts are trying to prove that the missile wasn't the 9M38M1... and I don't know why, because this model is used by Buk-M1 systems that Ukraine does have (Ukraine even exported them to Georgia and they were used in the 2008 South Ossetian war), so it doesn't prove it was Russian. Jeez, even a couch expert like me knows it.

Sources:
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/550589.html
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бук_(....BE.D1.80.D1.83.D0.B6.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.B8
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/9М38#....B8.D1.84.D0.B8.D0.BA.D0.B0.D1.86.D0.B8.D0.B8
 
@Rage Racer ookay, I think things get more clear now. 6_9 (Yeah, I knew the difference between 38 and 317)

By the way, I added to my prev post that the missiles on the last two photos seem to be a training models. (учебно-действующая)

So, let me summarize:

Russia: -The missile was a 9M38 that doesn't have "butterflies". It's decommissioned in Russia but in service in Ukraine. Was launched from "Zaroshenskoye".

Nedherlands: -The missile was a 9M38M1 that does have "butterflies". It's in service in Russia and in Ukraine. Was launched from "Sneznoye".

EDIT: interesting thing- Almaz-Antey says that last 9M38M1 was made in 1999, 3 years before Almaz-Antey was founded, so they say that those are not their missiles as the company haven't shipped them to Ukraine.

Also back in June Almaz-Antey said that the missile was definitely exclusively a 9М38М1 model but they changed the number in the last presentation! That's why I got confused.
 
Last edited:
I hadn't been aware of this sub-story, I'm sorry to say, a really bittersweet read. An Australian couple whose three children died when Flight MH17 was shot down have a new daughter.

BBC.
 
More white noise from Russia. In 2014 they said that their monitoring systems located a Su-25 near the airliner.
Now they say that their radars didn't see any other aircraft except for the airliner itself and their Orlan-10 UAV, but their radars could only see from the east side. What happened on the west side only the west knows.

Just before the serious report or whatever will happen on 28th of September.
 
It's confirmed. The JIT says that all evidence points towards a Russian Buk shot from separatists held territory.
 
Dennisch
If it's true, Russia needs to man up and take blame. Pay off whatever is asked and be done with it. It's not the first time someone shot down a plane that didn't need to be shot down.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be the first time that a country paid out for shooting down a civilian aeroplane without apologising for it either.

Or even the first time that Russia was involved in such an incident.

I am awaiting Russia's official response to this but don't be surprised if they brush it off with typical Russic indifference; tampered evidence, persecution complex and so on.
 
Last edited:
Liquid
It wouldn't be the first time that a country paid out for shooting down a civilian aeroplane without apologising for it either. Or even the first time that Russia was involved in such an incident.

I am awaiting Russia's official response to this but don't be surprised if they brush it off with typical Russia indifference; tampered evidence, persecution complex and so on.
Click to expand...

Korea Air 007

It was shot down by a soviet fighter jet after it crossed soviet airspace as they thought it was a US spy plane.
They also hampered search and rescue and impeded the investigation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007

This was during the USSR period and cold war.
So massive paranoia.


Another one where the plane was shot, but the plane landed safely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_902
 
Russia's lawyer changes tack during an ICJ hearing:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...oes-off-script-in-mh17-hague-hearings/8338252

Instead of sticking to the blanket denials made by the Kremlin, he is arguing that there is no evidence that whoever supplied the missile did so for the purposes of shooting down a civilian airliner, but rather that the separatists acquired the missile as a response to increased Ukrainian military activity in the area. It's not an admission that Russia supplied the missile, and it doesn't address the fact that the separatist movement was an insurgency, but it's a pretty significant change in the rhetoric nonetheless and probably represents as much ground as Russia is willing to concede.
 
The Ukrainian pilot blamed by Russia has 'committed suicide'. BBC.

EDIT: Thanks @UKMikey, I should have put that in quotes, circumstances are seemingly unclear
 
Last edited:
No surprise to be honest but Putin trolls would suggest otherwise. If Russia was innocent of wrongdoing they would not veto a international investigation by the UN.
 
In another spectacular irredentist claim, I am painfully holding back laughter when, looking over the notes of this shootdown again, the Russian government holds Ukraine responsible for the incident and subsequent developments because the plane was shot down over "Ukranian territory" even though Donetsk is an area Russia has all but annexed. So if it is Ukranian airspace as recognised by Russia, aren't they kind of admitting that it isn't their territory even though they're funding groups which claim that it is?

I just shake my head at it all.

It appears to be irrefutable that Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 was shot down by a Russian SAM 'sourced' from the Russian military. The question now is who exactly shot it down and who allowed that to happen? I'm wondering what it was that led to whoever shot it down to mistakenly believe it was a military aeroplane.

If that isn't the case the possibility of a deliberate shootdown is quite haunting but there is, according to the Independent article @Scaff linked, audio of the militants panicking in a phone call to their superiors that the plane shot down was commercial and not military.
 
It was just on the radio that they have a list of about 100 people who are directly or indirectly involved.

Of course the Russians will make up another pile of fake stories and excuses to deny their responsibilities.
 
Dennisch
It was just on the radio that they have a list of about 100 people who are directly or indirectly involved.

Of course the Russians will make up another pile of fake stories and excuses to deny their responsibilities.
Click to expand...

youre-eating-russian-propaganda-oh-dear-golly-pooh-thats-not-1218855.png


you-amp-039-re-eating-russian-propaganda
 
Liquid
In another spectacular irredentist claim, I am painfully holding back laughter when, looking over the notes of this shootdown again, the Russian government holds Ukraine responsible for the incident and subsequent developments because the plane was shot down over "Ukranian territory" even though Donetsk is an area Russia has all but annexed. So if it is Ukranian airspace as recognised by Russia, aren't they kind of admitting that it isn't their territory even though they're funding groups which claim that it is?
Click to expand...
Clearly you have no idea of what you're talking about.

Please link me that statement where RF officially claims Donetsk and Luhansk regions as its own territory. Or whatever makes you think so.
 
TenEightyOne
If Russia funds the separatists in those regions and recognises their visas then surely that's a good case for what @Liquid is saying?
Click to expand...
No.

First, the RF didn't even recognize the independency of the rebelling republics. And what do you mean by "visas"? Ukrainian citizens (which means, all people with Ukrainian passports, including those who live on the rebel-controlled areas) never needed any visas to travel to Russia. Perhaps you mean the documents issued by the authorities of the unrecognized republics (passports, school certificates, etc). Well, that's a logical move so the owners of such documents could be legit guests on the RF territory, isn't it?

Second, @Liquid misinterpretes the things he hears/reads on the media. Or they were misinterpreted when he heard/read them.
He says,
Liquid
the Russian government holds Ukraine responsible for the incident and subsequent developments because the plane was shot down over "Ukranian territory"
Click to expand...
...although the Russian officials claim the missile was launched from Ukraine-controlled territory. Which means a part of the Donetsk region that is under control of the armed forces of Ukraine, and doesn't admit anything else. Then, he called this region "annexed" by the RF (with Ukrainian troops present on it), but I explained that already.

With your logic, one could say that the US, the UK and France annexed some parts of Syria, because they back the insurgents and, reportedly, have their troops over there (the US surely have).
 

Latest Posts

Back