Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The report did not go into finding out who did it. Both sides own BUKs. It is very difficult to find the truth because all sides are pumping out propaganda. Even the United States is manipulating what we hear for their own political and economic gains.

Here an subtle but strong example : http://www.sott.net/article/302911-Sott-Exclusive-Full-unedi...

Did both sides have the ability to position a BUK launcher so that it was capable of hitting an airliner at 33kft at that precise location, 50 miles towards Russia east of rebel-controlled Donetsk? How seriously are we meant to take this particular controversy?

There were plenty of state controlled land east/south of Donetsk. You can check map here http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27308526

The maps you're linking to further implicate the rebels (see again the video reconstruction, which illustrates the trajectory the missile took from its launch site, which is not the same as the crash site, placing the missile launch even further from areas of Ukrainian control and even closer to Russia.)

Further, to even entertain this question, you have to believe that Ukraine positioned BUK launchers in the most heavily contested part of the country, in areas which were apparently held by rebels just weeks earlier.

This does not look like a serious controversy. The rebels shot the plane down.

If it is so obvious why do you think the report does not say that?

The report answers that question.

The direct quote from the article: the report does not say who fired the missile

You ask why the report doesn't say who fired the missile. The report explains why. You are right: the report does not say who fired the missile. It merely makes it obvious who did.

They had few seconds to shoot it down. They had to coordinate very well to achieve this.

> It is very difficult to find the truth Well, not for me. I was monitoring the war at that time and I saw a report by Lifenews (pro-Kremlin media) that the rebels shot down Ukrainian AN-26. It wasn't actually that shocking since it wasn't the first time it happened. But then the word about the Boeing came down and, oh my, I've never seen people erase their tweets and videos so fast. But it's the internet, not goverment controlled media, can't really erase everything. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsmVZmSBaEg

> Both sides own BUKs.

Only the Russian side has these BUKs. One of the key findings is which specific warhead version was used. The report doesn't spell out who did it, it does however conclude that a BUK missile from the Russian military shot down the plane. That BUK may have been stolen or on holiday in eastern Ukraine.

> Only the Russian side has these BUKs.

How is that even logical?

These are discontinued older model BUK missiles.

Meaning only a place like Ukraine would have them in any significant numbers.

Both russia and Ukraine operate the specific older SAM (BUK-M1-2) and the missile in question (9M38M1) but I was under the impression that there were different types of warheads and that the warhead in question was only fielded by russia. This seems incorrect though, the entire system in question is still used both by Ukraine and Russia. So the warhead+missile identification does not rule out Ukrainian BUK, however the claim that Russia do not use BUK-M1-2 with 9M38M1 missiles is easily falsifiable, so it's really a very stupid thing to try from the russian side -- recent photos of this system in Russian duty are easy to find. These are discontinued in manufacturing, not in field use.

According to Russian media it's quite the opposite. They say Russia doesn't use the 9M38 missiles any more, Ukraine does.

They are full of it. There are pictures of Putin at Russian military bases standing in front of 9M38M1 missiles!

Those pictures are of Putin on a military base in Armenia that runs joint operations. Both Armenia and Ukraine use 9M38M1, Russia stopped production in 1999 and begin phasing it out.

I'm sure there are a few of these still around here and there, but no one is lying about the production stop that happened 16 years ago (that can be verified many ways).

Those pictures are sourced from - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/19731

And they are still up.

It's not much of proof of anything.

As far as the other 2 whole pictures at parades, etc, well, that's proof of itself that these missile models are dwindling in numbers and are a rare sight.

I guess I'm having trouble following the logic that says recent pictures of the Russian military displaying these missiles is evidence that the Russian military no longer has them.

The logic is that 3 pictures, with 1 likely being a prop (for use in parades or as a display unit) and 1 likely held by a foreign joint military in Armenia - are not proof of the Russian-side lying.

For every 1 of these decommissioned missiles that Russia still posses, Ukraine probably has 100 (considering it's always been a weapons depot for this type of older Russian and Soviet-era gear).

I think we're moving the goalposts here. Is there any controversy over whether Ukraine has BUK launchers, or use 9M38M1 missiles? Both Ukraine and Russia clearly do.

Nobody forced in anyone in Russia to make the easily falsified claim that they didn't have any 9M38M1 missiles. The only reason it's interesting to establish that they did is that it harms an alibi they weren't forced to offer.

The Dutch report, and a lot of other open-source evidence, makes it pretty unlikely that the Ukranians launched the missile. This is a missile system that consists of several vehicles, one of which is a giant lumbering missile launcher. The missile was launched within an 100km^2 firmly controlled by the separatists. The Ukranian military didn't spirit a missile launcher convoy to a wheat field just a few km south of Snizhne --- a town that Ukraine was bombing --- spectacularly down a jetliner, and then somehow spirit that convoy back to Ukranian-held territory. That is not a reasonable narrative.

I don't see any serious arguments that this was anything other than a tragic accident. No matter who launched the missile, we're all pretty sure they didn't mean to shoot down MH17. The subtext behind Russia's involvement is that they set up a barely-organized irregular separatist militia with a weapons system that was easily capable of shooting down airliners.

I've seen no conclusive evidence that the missile was launched from within any definite area and by any definite side. Both sides have access to those areas, and the control of those areas was always fluid.

The only thing I've seen conclusively is the size of the anti-Russian rederick. Which has been of such giant proportions that less than 2 hours after the crash happened, it was made out to be all Putin's fault, and every event after was spinned that way (example - Keiv was preventing the OSCE access to the area, yet media coverage claimed it was the Rebels).

The report we're commenting on right now demarcates the area, and it's not hotly contested.

Obviously, I don't know who shot the missile.

But when trying to use logic here, I don't see why would Russia shoot the plane. They had nothing to gain. Ukraine? I don't know, I refuse to believe they would deliberately kill hundreds for some advantage. My bet is on the rebels who did it mistakenly. The question is whose BUK they used. One provided by Russia or one taken from an abandoned Ukrainian base.

I don't know how to respond to this comment.

Your earlier comment parroted a line that is apparently popular in the Russian media, that Russia no longer uses the 9M38M1 SAM. But that missile is distinctive, and can been seen in recent photographs at Russian military installations.

I didn't say that Russia shot down MH17. I said that if they're claiming not to use that missile, they're lying. Why? What a weird thing to lie about, that's so easily falsifiable.

Putin's lie about "Russia does not invade Crimea" (Feb 2014) was also easily falsifiable.

Nevertheless he lied about it and his ratings in Russia did not even suffer from it.

Most evidence point in a single direction: The separatists got the BUK somehow from Russia (Stolen/Supplied/Holiday...), and that the downing of the aircraft was a mistake (As you say neither part in this conflict has any interest in downing a civilian jet).

What we should remember here is that "who did it" in this matter is more a matter of who was in command and who provided the hardware, rather than who pushed the button.

This is the most likely hypothesis but there are others. Apart from the craft being downed by Ukraine (Nothing in the report points in that direction), another hypothesis one would be actual Russian personnel, rather than Ukrainian separatists, operating from inside Donetsk. That would be hugely controversial, but hard to prove.

We'll never know 100% but Ukraine controlled the air so only the rebels had motive to shoot down planes, and had bragged about it on social media.

It's possible that Ukrainian forces or someone else had a conspiracy to frame the rebels (if you have a good conspiracy theory, Russian propaganda would love to hear it). But this is very unlikely as it's a high-risk, low pay-off strategy and even Russian leaders are usually not that evil or stupid.

They'd need more than the will to frame the separatists; they'd also have to get a big lumbering BUK launcher right into the middle of a separatist stronghold, sandwiched between Donetsk and Russia, crew it, set it up, launch the missile, and then get the thing out undetected.

> We'll never know 100% but Ukraine controlled the air so only the rebels had motive to shoot down planes, and had bragged about it on social media.

At the time, Kiev was complaining that Russia was sending out spy planes into its territory.

Knowing the state of the Ukrainian military, to me it's much more likely that they mistaken the plane for something it was not and shot it down.

I've just been ignoring news out of Ukraine as there's nobody who I trust reporting on the issues.

Does anybody have an objective news sources regarding Ukraine?

Even the link above looks like Russian propaganda.

Have you looked at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe? They have a few groups in Ukraine and post updates online, though I don't know how much it would be like a news organization's reporting. I was checking it some last year but haven't really looked since. Worth a look.

http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine. Here's the SMM's mandate:

    The monitors are mandated to contribute to reducing tensions and to help
    foster peace, stability and security. The Mission engages with
    authorities at all levels, as well as civil society, ethnic and
    religious groups and local communities to facilitate dialogue on the
    ground. The Mission will gather information and report on the security
    situation, establish and report facts in response to specific incidents,
    including those concerning alleged violations of fundamental OSCE
http://www.osce.org/om OSCE Observer Mission at the Russian Checkpoints Gukovo and Donetsk

http://www.osce.org/ukraine OSCE Project Co-ordinator in Ukraine

And here are the daily updates from the Special Monitoring Mission: http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/daily-updates

http://www.osce.org/who And to help you judge the OCSE for yourself, here's their about page. (There are 57 particpating states, including Russia, USA and Ukraine)

It seems "specialists" taught by media know all about the incindent and love to share their "knowledge" in comments.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact