Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military Transportation United States

Russia Prepares For Internet War Over Malaysian Jet 503

Posted by samzenpus
from the it's-going-to-be-a-long-night dept.
An anonymous reader writes The investigation of a Malaysian passenger jet shot down over Ukrainian rebel held territory is heating up. U.S. and U.K. news organizations are studiously trying to spread the blame, Russian ITAR, which, just earlier today was celebrating the downing of a large aircraft by rebel missiles in Torez (Google cache) is reporting that the rebels do not have access to the missiles needed for such attacks. The rebel commander who earlier today reported the downing of the aircraft has also issued a correction to earlier reports that they had captured BUK air defense systems with Russian sources now stating that the rebels do not posses such air defenses. The Ukrainian president has been attempting to frame the incident as a "terrorist attack". President Obama made contact with Vladimir Putin and has been instead treating it as an accident, calling it a "terrible tragedy" and saying that the priority is investigating whether U.S. citizens were involved. With control of the black box and its own internet propaganda army Russia may be in a good position to win the propaganda war.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russia Prepares For Internet War Over Malaysian Jet

Comments Filter:
  • by justcauseisjustthat (1150803) on Friday July 18, 2014 @08:14AM (#47481449)
    Why haven't all airplanes been upgraded so the black box data is streamed to satellites/ground stations? It's so dumb to have to search for a airplane to find the data, that should be the fallback plan. Hey FAA, you listening?
    • by acoustix (123925) on Friday July 18, 2014 @08:23AM (#47481497) Homepage

      My guess is cost. Sending data via satellite is very expensive, and there's a lot of data recorded. As for ground stations, I'm not aware of any plane-to-ground data communications currently in use (other than radio for voice) so that would need a completely new infrastructure built.

      • by justcauseisjustthat (1150803) on Friday July 18, 2014 @08:27AM (#47481511)
        So we can put Wifi internet on airplanes, but not a virtual black box?
        • by acoustix (123925) on Friday July 18, 2014 @08:34AM (#47481565) Homepage

          That's a good point, but its a small percentage of flights that have Internet access. Even in the US.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18, 2014 @08:39AM (#47481605)

            That's a good point, but its a small percentage of flights that have Internet access. Even in the US.

            The US is not always the best indication of what is possible or reasonable (or sane) in regards to mass transportation.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Charliemopps (1157495)

            That's a good point, but its a small percentage of flights that have Internet access. Even in the US.

            Even in the US? I've never seen internet access on a US flight. Flying across Europe, the middle east and Africa, pretty much every plane I got on either had direct internet access or the plane offered streaming data you could pay for (i.e. it had internet, just no wifi) The lack of internet access in the US is entirely due to the FAA being stuck in the 1950s.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18, 2014 @09:12AM (#47481803)

        My guess is cost. Sending data via satellite is very expensive, and there's a lot of data recorded. As for ground stations, I'm not aware of any plane-to-ground data communications currently in use (other than radio for voice) so that would need a completely new infrastructure built.

        Nope. Sorry to interrupt your speculation, but the reality is that there is technology available for that. It's been used in corporate private aviation etc. many decades already. It costs some money, it will cost something to install and operate, but it's not too expensive any more. The reasons why it isn't been used in commercial airliners is mainly it's just not been a requirement to install, there have not been accidents which would had it made a requirement and because airline operators are business trying to make money they avoid any extra costs they can.

        There is a very good summary of the state of this in Science Friday May 30, 2014 story [sciencefriday.com] following previous Malesian Airlines plane case.

        ac

        • by Kythe (4779) on Friday July 18, 2014 @10:06AM (#47482237)
          It's not a matter of technology. It's a matter of satellite bandwidth, given the number of flights in the air. One possible solution has been developed that predicts imminent disaster and rapidly commences data upload. I'm not sure whether that would work in the case of a missile attack, though.
          • by Sobrique (543255)
            Unless the aircraft is destroyed out right by the explosion, it'll be damaged and start to crash. I would hope that the onboard monitoring would notice that damage and start warning the pilots, which is a really good cue to start uploading your black box data. Anything where the black box actually survives, there's something to notice 'things going wrong'.
      • My guess is cost. Sending data via satellite is very expensive, and there's a lot of data recorded. As for ground stations, I'm not aware of any plane-to-ground data communications currently in use (other than radio for voice) so that would need a completely new infrastructure built.

        Quoting wikipedia.org's entry on Gogo Inflight Internet [wikipedia.org],

        Air-To-Ground (ATG) Gogo's ATG network is a cellular based network that has more than 160 towers in the continental U.S., Alaska and soon, Canada. The towers are cellphone towers that have been outfitted to point their signals at the sky rather than along the ground. The aircraft picks up the signal through a receiver installed on its underside. When it reaches the aircraft, the data signal is distributed throughout the cabin via a Wi-Fi system.

      • Data is sent by satellite in some newer aircraft. Recall the French jet that went down in the South Atlantic. When abnormal events occurred the aircraft sent some text messages to the airline. Full telemetry would be very expensive. However occasional texts for abnormal events, and maybe an occasional gps coordinate, would be reasonable.

        That said, black boxes and such telemetry would be of limited to no value in the Ukrainian shoot down case. The black box won't tell us what type of missile destroyed the
    • by AHuxley (892839)
      Its the decades of “tombstone technology” when there are enough tombstones the cash will the found to stream data to satellites/ground stations.
      Until then you hope to get to the data as stored in time. Not too toasty for too long or down too deep.
      (tombstone technology may relate to a DC-10 that crashed outside Paris, France in 1974, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org] )
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by FireFury03 (653718)

      Why haven't all airplanes been upgraded so the black box data is streamed to satellites/ground stations? It's so dumb to have to search for a airplane to find the data, that should be the fallback plan. Hey FAA, you listening?

      Because there's probably way too much data for that to be a reasonable idea. Have you any idea how many planes there are flying at once?

      • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Friday July 18, 2014 @09:44AM (#47482029)

        Why haven't all airplanes been upgraded so the black box data is streamed to satellites/ground stations? It's so dumb to have to search for a airplane to find the data, that should be the fallback plan. Hey FAA, you listening?

        Because there's probably way too much data for that to be a reasonable idea. Have you any idea how many planes there are flying at once?

        And how much data does the flight recorder capture? 56k? and it doesn't even need to send it all. Location and some very low quality audio of radio communications would solve 99% of the problems we're having. It's kind of like the brain implants they've built for the blind in recent years. The first one they put into a guy only had a resolution of about 20 x 20 pixels. When asked how it was to see with such terrible resolution he said "I don't mind. If it stops me from getting hit by a car, I'll worry about being able to see a sunset for another day.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dfn5 (524972)
      Because the pilot union doesn't want that data to be available for anyone to look at outside of an accident situation. Consider if your car had a black box, which it should. But in addition to collecting the data was transmitting that information continuously to the government for them to peruse any time they wanted. One already gets speeding tickets automatically when your fast lane toll pass records you traveling between toll plazas faster than you should be. Imagine if that was all the time.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Charliemopps (1157495)

        Consider if your car had a black box, which it should.

        No it shouldn't. It's my car, go to hell. If I drove a buss or something, that would be different. But you can't preemptively determine that at some point in the future I will break the law, cause an accident and therefor put a surveillance system in my car. By your logic I should be required by law to have video cameras in my home filming me just in case I murder someone so the police can come along later and watch the video.

        One already gets speeding tickets automatically when your fast lane toll pass records you traveling between toll plazas faster than you should be. Imagine if that was all the time.

        Why does everyone always think "Where I live, things are like X, therefor things a

    • by c (8461)

      Why haven't all airplanes been upgraded so the black box data is streamed to satellites/ground stations?

      In general, I don't entirely disagree. In this case... I'm not sure how useful the black box would be in the event of a missile strike. I wasn't aware the civilian aircraft had the kind of gear to track a missile, or that the kinds of collision sensors they have would be fast enough to catch it. It's definitely not going to be able to tell who shot the missile or where it came from. Heck, I'd be surprised

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18, 2014 @09:42AM (#47482021)

      It wouldn't matter in this case. We know where the plane is and what happened to it. The most you would see is a big acceleration or yaw as the missile detonated, might hear the explosion on the voice recorder, or whatever before it stops recording as the plane came apart. The US is reporting their military surveillance saw the missile radar light up as it tracked the plane.

      There are now reports of monitored chatter among the separatists where they figured out it was civilian instead of military after the shoot down. There was also the tweet by the separatist general where he celebrated shooting down another Ukrainian plane and then deleted it. It really looks like it was the separatists who did it, using Russian weapons.

      This shoot down and the loss of innocent life is the direct result of Vladimir Putin's reckless behavior and fomenting violence in the Ukraine as he injects weapons, advisors, and military to try to take the Ukraine over. This rests squarely on his shoulders. He might as well have killed those 290 people with his own hands.

      The black box really won't provide anything not already known. What we need are radar tracking and satellite photos that show the position of the missile launcher before the missile was fired. That is the smoking gun needed to hang that communist megalomaniac bastard.

      • Why is there that talk that it's all Putin fault.. The whole thing started with the US backing national-socialists to make a putsch. Ukrainian nazis did atrocious crimes like torching buildings with the people inside and preventing them from escaping. So by your rhetoric, it's like Barack Obama and Victoria Nuland personnally suffocated and burnt to death dozens of people while grinning and laughing.

        That said I'm not saying that to downplay Putin's cynicism and duplicity or what atrocity the russian Ukraini

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18, 2014 @08:14AM (#47481451)

    meanwhile overnight it's been reported by the telegraph.co.uk that a mobile launcher was seen headed back toward the russian border with two of it's four missiles missing, short video clip provided of one on the move at the website.

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      meanwhile overnight it's been reported by the telegraph.co.uk that a mobile launcher was seen headed back toward the russian border with two of it's four missiles missing, short video clip provided of one on the move at the website.

      I can't find your reference. Please provide a link.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      There is video of the Buk system crossing the border from Russia with 4 rockets two days ago and crossing back into Russia this morning with one missing. These rockets are large and wouldn't just go missing. The rebels are correct, they don't have these weapons, the Russians do and it looks like they let the rebels borrow one.

      • What is the video of Buk crossing the border from Russia? The one video that I'm aware of that predates the attack shows a Buk driving around somewhere close to the area where the plane was shot down; it's not the border.

        Also, the rebels themselves boasted of capturing two Buks from an Ukrainian military base that they took over recently. Ukrainian side has confirmed that the base was taken over, and that it had Buks in it, though they dismissed the threat saying that those Buks are "deactivated" and "inope

    • The Telegraph screwed up the link within their site. Google turned it back up: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... [telegraph.co.uk]

    • by Joe Gillian (3683399) on Friday July 18, 2014 @09:05AM (#47481751)

      The question is, was this really a launcher that the Russians gave the rebels? I looked up the Wikipedia page for the BUK missile system last night, and there was a link on that article to a report from Jane's that said Ukraine had some in their possession from their days as a Soviet satellite state. It makes me wonder if the BUK (being a Soviet-era weapons system dating back to 1979) wasn't just misplaced somewhere - if the National Institutes of Health can misplace 300 vials of deadly diseases and biological weapons, it's not a stretch to think that the Ukrainian military might've had a BUK somewhere and forgotten about it.

      To me, this almost sounds like the Twitter messages from the rebels claiming that they captured a BUK were correct - the Russians didn't directly lend the rebels a BUK, but they're helping them cover it up after the fact in order to stop any news coming out that goes against their message of the rebels being poor, oppressed ethnic Russians who need protection from their "home country".

      • by OzPeter (195038)

        To me, this almost sounds like the Twitter messages from the rebels claiming that they captured a BUK were correct - the Russians didn't directly lend the rebels a BUK, but they're helping them cover it up after the fact in order to stop any news coming out that goes against their message of the rebels being poor, oppressed ethnic Russians who need protection from their "home country".

        What sort of "rebels" would have the training an ability to set up and operate a crew served weapon? I severely doubt that such a system is "point and shoot" as it has 3 separate, independent mobile systems.

        • by Xest (935314) on Friday July 18, 2014 @09:41AM (#47482007)

          Janes suggests that whilst training is needed, the launcher can operate in stand alone mode and even be set to fire autonomously at anything approaching it:

          http://www.janes.com/article/4... [janes.com]

          I suspect setting it in this mode could be done by a Ukrainian military defector, a Russian operative, or possibly even just by a smart operative being told over the phone or whatever how to set it into this mode. I doubt there's something mystical about it that stops someone being able to be talked through it, people have been talked through how to land aircraft before over comms with zero experience so it seems reasonable.

          Besides, it was only the other day the rebels were gloating about having shot down an actual Ukrainian transport at that sort of altitude, so they've already admitted they have the capability to launch this sort of missile anyway so that's not even in doubt at this point either way.

          It's not as if they haven't been able to launch massively succesful MLRS attacks in the last week either. There's clearly some extremely skilled military players working for the "rebels". I say rebels in quotes because the entire lineup of the rebels top team are actual Russians, or Ukrainians who have served with the Russian military I believe without exception. They're more actual Russian than they are Ukrainian rebel or separatist.

      • by budgenator (254554) on Friday July 18, 2014 @01:26PM (#47484143) Journal

        When I was in the US Army, I was a Hawk Missile and Launcher repairer [wikipedia.org], and work in IGLE, Internal Guidance and Launch Equipment back in 1974-78 and I can say with pretty good authority that the technology available in that era required pretty much constant maintence. The Guidance packages was all electron tubes except for one transistor, the microwave reciever was klystron [wikipedia.org] based so everything drifted constantly. When something drifted out f spec it's not amatter of twisting a reostat either, you have to take it apart, unsolder a fixed resistor, and replace with a resistor of different value, potentiometers would never hold their value durring launch G's or after bouncing acrost the grond on top of a tracked vehicle. It's highly unlikely that the rebels could have just stubled upon a lost or abandoned weapon system and have gotten it working with out highly trained support personnel and operators. It takes a lot of finesse to work the old stuff, modern systems just work or not.

      • Read these links in order, paying close attention to the dates of each article (use Google/Bing/Yandex Translate if you don't know Russian, it's good enough to understand the meaning). They pretty much answer all the questions: who did it, what they did it with etc. Note that ITAR TASS is the Russian official state media, so while it is obviously propaganda, in this case it only gives credence to the claims, since the result is strikingly not in their favor:

        http://itar-tass.com/mezhdunar... [itar-tass.com]
        http://itar-tass. [itar-tass.com]

    • by invid (163714) on Friday July 18, 2014 @09:29AM (#47481901) Homepage
      The only way the Russian's can "win" this propaganda war is if they can somehow convince those Europeans who make decisions about sanctions that they had nothing to do with the downing of the passenger jet. People will want to know where that Buk missile launcher came from, who gave the order to shoot, and where that missile launcher is now. If there is any evidence that the Russians had any direct involvement with this, no amount of propaganda will help them outside of the regions where they have complete control of the media.
  • by EasyTarget (43516)

    .. Nationalism: the single biggest source of evil on this planet.

    • Not really. Look at the vicious atrocities of the Mongols. They were hardly what we would call nationalistic. Sadly, it is human nature that devalues the Other and makes it possible to rationalize anything.
      • by EasyTarget (43516)

        Yeah, my bad. You are on the money there; I should really have said: .. Nationalism: currently the single biggest excuse for evil on this planet.

        • by Bengie (1121981)
          Only a few hundred years ago it was religion. Flavor of the century. Ass holes will always be assholes, they just use whatever is the current popular tool to accomplish their misdeeds.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18, 2014 @08:21AM (#47481485)

    Counter propaganda is rife, backpedaling at the speed of light by the ukrainian "rebel" commander (who's actually Russian) and hordes of incoherent babblegaffers vehemently denying everything and making it even more painfully obvious what's plain for everyone to see.
    Ukraine did not shoot down the Malaysian passenger jet, the rebels did, and boasted about it (then quickly removed the post).
    Just watch what happens in this thread.
    It will be very enlightening

  • 04.10.2010 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Russia already has a history of, at the very least, being a prime suspect for taking down a plane. The only difference now is that the world is actually watching this show more carefully.

    • Both Russia and the USA have a history of supporting rebellions and shooting down passenger jets. America's was an Iranian Airbus.

    • Re:04.10.2010 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rasmusbr (2186518) on Friday July 18, 2014 @08:42AM (#47481621)

      Russia already has a history of, at the very least, being a prime suspect for taking down a plane. The only difference now is that the world is actually watching this show more carefully.

      So does the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... [wikipedia.org]
      And Ukraine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]

      The only real lesson is that surface to air missiles are way to dangerous to be put into the hands of the military. Now think about putting them into the hands of rednecks and other idiots who fancy themselves rebels. In retrospect it is pretty obvious that this had to happen sooner or later.

  • Active ops (Score:4, Interesting)

    by eddy (18759) on Friday July 18, 2014 @08:22AM (#47481491) Homepage Journal

    Seeing a lot of pro-russian "psyops" on one local forum attached to a news outlet focused on economics, so much so that it's pretty obvious that it's organized. Massive amounts of downvotes on anything negative to the pro-russian side, and weak conspiracy theories written in broken english moderated up.

    Not sure why they're wasting their time, but there you go. I guess the proud Cheka men have nothing better to do than troll forums.

  • by Rhywden (1940872) on Friday July 18, 2014 @08:23AM (#47481493)

    That kind of propaganda might help them inside Russia where Putin has almost complete control over the press. But outside? With all the incriminating stuff that's already turned up?

    I really don't think that the other major players will be impressed by Russian propaganda. The Ukraine certainly won't. The US won't as well, due to their longstanding tradition of mistrusting Russia, in addition to having lost citizens in the crash. Neither will several states in the EU - the Netherlands won't be happy with an "accident" explanation, particularly in light of the fact that an anti-air missile cannot really be considered an accident.

    • by bhcompy (1877290)
      Then you read sites like Reddit and Twitter and see all the Russian apologists, just like the Hugo Chavez apologists that used to exist. The problem is that the news agencies now quote/source directly from those sites. Eventually, you get a 9/11-Afghan War situation where you're damned if do and you're damned if you don't
      • by Rhywden (1940872)

        Yes, they're quoting from those sites. However, they're quoting from both sites. For instance, SpiegelOnline has been very careful to treat such material as moderately unreliable.

    • by Rei (128717)

      I really don't think that the other major players will be impressed by Russian propaganda. The Ukraine certainly won't.

      But what about the Crimea - will they listen to the America or the Russia? I mean, I'm writing here in the Iceland and we're not exactly a big player, but I imagine Americans of all stripes, from those in the California to those in the Florida, want to be sure that all of the relevant players in the Europe and the Asia don't fall victim to Russian propaganda.

    • I agree with your post in general, but I want to point out a couple of exceptions. In English you're supposed to say "Ukraine" and not "the Ukraine" since Ukraine is an independent country and not a part of the USSR. The only people who know the difference and insist on "the Ukraine" are Russian sympathizers, so you're actually picking a side you may not wish to pick by saying "the Ukraine". Rules for languages other than English may be different. Don't agree with me? Then go to a website for a Ukraini
      • by Rhywden (1940872)

        I agree with your post in general, but I want to point out a couple of exceptions. In English you're supposed to say "Ukraine" and not "the Ukraine" since Ukraine is an independent country and not a part of the USSR. The only people who know the difference and insist on "the Ukraine" are Russian sympathizers, so you're actually picking a side you may not wish to pick by saying "the Ukraine". Rules for languages other than English may be different. Don't agree with me? Then go to a website for a Ukrainian embassy in an English speaking country and you will see that they only say Ukraine and not "the Ukraine". I've been to Ukraine. I know.

        Sorry, but I'm not a native speaker and such intricacies sometimes elude me. Seems strange to me that such a little article makes all the difference, because after all, you yourself call other countries "the US" or "the Netherlands".

        And last time I looked both the US and the Netherlands were independent countries.

        • by OzPeter (195038)

          Sorry, but I'm not a native speaker and such intricacies sometimes elude me. Seems strange to me that such a little article makes all the difference, because after all, you yourself call other countries "the US" or "the Netherlands".

          And last time I looked both the US and the Netherlands were independent countries.

          The US and the Netherlands are special cases. For example in English you don't say "The Australia", "The Brazil" or "The Canada".

          • by Rhywden (1940872)

            Whatever. As I said, I'm not a native speaker and to determine affinity towards one side or the other merely through the usage of an article strikes me as foolishness at best.

            It actually reminds me of the Jehovah-scene from Life of Brian.

        • by Talderas (1212466)

          And last time I looked both the US and the Netherlands were independent countries.

          America is an independent country but the United States are not. Netherlands is an independent country but the Netherlands is not.

          The key is that "the" is referencing a portion of country or grouping. So with the United States of America the article 'the' is reference the individual states which constitute America. The same thing applies for the Netherlands except you're dealing with an overloaded term. The Netherlands is a constituent member of the Kingdom of Netherlands which also includes Aruba, Curacao,

    • The US [...] in addition to having lost citizens in the crash.

      Last I heard they hadn't.

      BBC article [bbc.com]:

      Netherlands: 189
      Malaysia: 44 (including 15 crew)
      Australian: 27
      Indonesia: 12
      UK: 9
      Germany: 4
      Belgium: 4
      Philippines: 3
      Canada: 1
      New Zealand: 1
      Unverified: 4

  • by Qbertino (265505) on Friday July 18, 2014 @08:28AM (#47481517)

    Slavian Farmers Militia ("Seperatists") bored and trigger-happy and with easy access to Russian military hardware. To dumb to doulbe-check their targets or to dumb to care. Wether this is Ukranian seperatists or not is of no significance - there all just pawns in a Game. I think Putin has since this begun weighing the risks of supporting seperatists and making russia fell big again - whatever that is - and keeping a low(er) profile. This could shift sentiment considerably.
    Either way, I don't trust the guy but I don't consider east-ukranian militia folks rational enough to be under any usefull control by russian. When push comes to shove, they'll do whatever they feel like doing, as long as they've got enough ammo and toys and enough dumbwits who support their cause - whatever that's supposed to be.

    • by Rei (128717)

      The militias controlling Donbas have repeatedly complained about how little material support they've gotten from the locals and how few people have enrolled (although it supposedly varies a great deal from place to place). They get more than enough cheers and pats on the back (pre-conflict polling suggested about a quarter to a third would rather be a part of Russia than Ukraine and a majority are unhappy with Kiev - and I'm sure the remainder know well enough to keep their mouths shut), but the percent wil

  • by Katatsumuri (1137173) on Friday July 18, 2014 @08:29AM (#47481529)
    Too much evidence this time. Now it's only a matter of due diligence, and choosing to put them on trial as war criminals, or as terrorism sponsors, or both.
  • Coz we're wayyyyy ahead of them
  • by ArcadeMan (2766669) on Friday July 18, 2014 @08:31AM (#47481543)

    Hell, they were even able to enlist "Weird Al" Yankovic [wikimedia.org].

  • Russia has no choice (Score:4, Interesting)

    by conquistadorst (2759585) on Friday July 18, 2014 @08:36AM (#47481587)
    Russia has no choice, they have to do everything in their power to stem the international avalanche of disdain that would otherwise befall them. Think about it:
    1. 1. Russia denies wanting to annex eastern Ukraine
    2. 2. Russia denies supporting rebels
    3. 3. Russia denies arming rebels
    4. 4. Rebels then shoot down an international civilian aircraft using the very weapons they weren't supposed to have

    If the rebels are ever confirmed to have shot down the plane all of Russia's denials fall apart like a house of cards. Caught red handed. Except now there's international blood on their hands instead of just Ukrainian. Unfortunately for Ukraine, nobody really cares about them except their neighbors. So on that note, you can be guaranteed they will stop at nothing to prove rebels were not at fault. I have no doubt there will be people that will be "silenced". The stakes are simply too damn high.

    • by ericloewe (2129490) on Friday July 18, 2014 @08:47AM (#47481653)

      It's not like their denials were ever worth anything.

      Putin denied having a single Russian operative in Crimea... until after the annexation, when he admitted that was a lie.

      Given all the evidence of Russian involvement, denials are pure soviet-style bullshit.

    • by AlterEager (1803124) on Friday July 18, 2014 @09:25AM (#47481881)

      Putin has effectively already admitted that the rebels did it:

      The state over whose territory this occurred bears responsibility for this awful tragedy.

      -- Vladimir Putin.

      Note that he doesn't say "Ukraine did it", he says "It's Ukraine's fault", i.e. that it would never have happened if Ukraine hadn't made such a fuss about having its territory annexed.

      Classic victim blaming. "You made me do it, it's your fault".

    • by Kagato (116051) on Friday July 18, 2014 @09:50AM (#47482063)

      I think you are putting too much value in Russia actually caring what the rest of the world thinks. The EU and US have zero treaty obligations to the Ukraine. It was never going to be a Military altercation with the West. It was always going to be a series of trade and diplomatic sanctions. All Russia has to do is weather the sanctions until the Winter and then bend over Western Europe who needs Russian Natural Gas to survive.

      Worst case, 5 years down the road North American liquified Nat gas might be able to replace Russian pipeline shipments... Maybe.

      • There are many other gas suppliers in the region - Azerbaijan is the most obvious one, but then there's Turkmenistan, and hell, why not, even Iran. The trick is building new pipelines such that they don't end up on Russian territory. But that is already in progress.

  • Will they continue to? This will be interesting.... And how the heck did Russia end up with the block boxes?
  • Wrong priority! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aethedor (973725) on Friday July 18, 2014 @08:37AM (#47481595)

    ... the priority is investigating whether U.S. citizens were involved.

    Seriously, is that really what matters now? What an arrogant *****. What really matters is who did it and why. What's the risk for other planes. If it were the rebels, how did they get their hands on such advanced weaponry. 298 people died. Who they were is something to find out by the airliner company. A president, and specially one from the USA, should really have other things to worry about.

  • Casualties (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Celarent Darii (1561999) on Friday July 18, 2014 @08:51AM (#47481681)

    "In war, the first casuality is truth".
    Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC)

    Res eo magis mutant quo manent.

  • by steveha (103154) on Friday July 18, 2014 @09:13AM (#47481807) Homepage

    From the summary:

    U.S. and U.K. news organizations are studiously trying to spread the blame

    WTF? Is this intended to somehow suggest that the USA and/or UK share some portion of blame?

    The article linked in that part of the summary is a CNN article making the case that shoulder-fired missiles cannot reach 33,000 feet, so it must have been military gear. That's it... it even notes that both Russia and the Ukraine have such missiles.

    This is news, and a news organization is reporting on it. Go figure. "trying to spread the blame"? "studiously", even! Really?

    • by Guppy06 (410832)

      I think the poorly-written sentence (on Slashdot?) is trying to say that US and UK media generally isn't trying to pin the blame on one party or another (yet).

    • by Cederic (9623)

      shoulder-fired missiles cannot reach 33,000 feet, so it must have been military gear.

      Where can I get me one of these civilian shoulder-fired SAMs?

  • To whoever did this (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Rashdot (845549) on Friday July 18, 2014 @09:14AM (#47481827)

    To whoever is responsible:

    You make think that you're a big balled freedom fighting hero, but in fact you are the worst kind of coward. Instead of admitting what happened, and apologizing, and turning yourself in to the International Crimes Court, you're trying to put the blame on others.

    You're a despicable coward. I hope you'll never be able to have good night's sleep for the rest of your stupid life.

  • by xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) on Friday July 18, 2014 @09:28AM (#47481895)

    Russia: guns, oil, money and thousands of practicing hackers
    US: very, very peezed bloggers and president "with a pen and a phone"

    Unfortunately, my money here is on Putin...again.

  • by DarthVain (724186) on Friday July 18, 2014 @09:30AM (#47481917)

    As someone pointed out in the first thread of this tragedy, this is not the first time something like this has happened.

    Obama may be being diplomatic so as to not call the kettle black so to speak. The US accidentally did the same to Iran years ago, except they were in Iran air space, the weapons were fired from a warship, by professional soldiers. Consequently rebels accidentally (and I have no doubt they did) shooting down an airliner, using stolen unfamiliar technology with little or no training by militia in the middle of a civil war seems rather less bad.

    Also it dredges up the result which was all dead, and the USA not admitting any blame or fault, and instead writing a check for a few million to throw at the hundreds of victims families.

  • by mi (197448) <slashdot-2012@virtual-estates.net> on Friday July 18, 2014 @03:30PM (#47485047) Homepage

    That Russia's officialdom is lying is a given. What is truly troublesome is that the vast majority of citizenry not only accept these lies, but are passionately spreading them around. Decades ago this phenomenon was blamed on the "Iron Curtain" — which no longer exists. Though Russian ISPs are blocking certain sites [golos-ameriki.ru], most of the Internet is perfectly accessible to Russians. But they choose to believe the TV instead — and independent TV-channels no longer broadcast in Russian Federation.

    It would seem, neither the Iron Curtain nor even the Great Firewall are necessary — as long as the government controls the media, whatever foreigner enemies, spies, and subversives may say on the Internet will be derided and discarded.

Those who do things in a noble spirit of self-sacrifice are to be avoided at all costs. -- N. Alexander.

Working...