Russian Missile Parts Found At MH17 Crash Site 249
An anonymous reader sends this report from the BBC: Fragments of a suspected Russian missile system have been found at the Flight MH17 crash site in Ukraine, investigators in the Netherlands say. They say the parts, possibly from a Buk surface-to-air system, are "of particular interest" and could help show who was behind the crash. But they say they have not proved their "causal connection" with the crash. ... Ukraine and many Western countries have accused pro-Russian rebels of shooting down the plane, saying they could have used a Buk missile system supplied by Russia. Russia and the rebels deny any responsibility and say the Ukrainian military was to blame.
Say Russia did it for the purpose of argument... (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems unlikely the West's censure of this behavior would cost the Russians a kopeck, let alone the World Cup or some pricey sanctions. Europe will still purchase Russian petroleum products this winter, and the exploitation of Ukraine for its strategic location and natural resources will continue unabated.
Putin has seemingly waited past the World's collective attention span. Care and concern for Ukraine is waning in the West.
Re:Say Russia did it for the purpose of argument.. (Score:5, Insightful)
What would the consequences be if irrefutable proof was uncovered in the wreckage?
Lawsuits for compensation filed by the families of the victims against the Russian government.
Similar to Pan Am 103 [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably similar to the consequences of someone in Den Haag tried to get a US serviceman to the International Criminal court. Remember that the US made a law to make it possible to invade the Netherlands if anyone from the US was attempted to be prosecuted there.
Oh, how many US people have been prosecuted for torturing people in Europe again? What's that ? No one ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My kids try the same thing when they're caught. It's an attempt at distraction in order to circumvent blame.
"Why did you do that?"
"My sister did it last week, and she didn't get in trouble"
Re:Say Russia did it for the purpose of argument.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless there was evidence of deliberate targeting of the civilian airliner because it was a civilian airliner, rather than an accidental shoot down through misidentification, then it would probably be more like that of Iran Air Flight 655 [wikipedia.org], which the US has never apologised for and only paid a settlement after Iran took them to court. Indeed, President Bush (the first one) even said "I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy" when referring to the issue.
Re:Say Russia did it for the purpose of argument.. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Strategic location and natural resources"? Look, I'll be the first to argue that Ukraine has great future potential, if it can get past its huge problems of endemic corruption and end the situation with the Russian paramilitaries holding a chunk of the country. But as it stands, Ukraine is a basket case. Their per-capita GDP is under $3100 per year - that ranks it between the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Palestinian Territories. Their largest source of economic activity is just letting Russian oil pass through their country.
They're doing a lot to try to remedy the situation, and in the future - given enough time period of stability without corruption - it has great potential for agriculture, manufacture, and energy production. But that's not going to happen any time soon. And probably would never happen under a scenario of the country being run by Russian puppets.
As for "strategic location", it depends on whose perspective you look at it as. Russia considers it "strategic" because they want to have a "buffer zone" and think in spheres of interest. The US and Europe however tend to think in terms of "hot spots" and having accessibility to those "hot spots" that they're heavily involved in, be they Afghanistan, Syria, etc. Ukraine isn't particularly useful in any of these regards. Nor is it a major energy producer (always a concern to the west), just an energy transporter from Russia - it's in neither side's interests to block the flow of energy, since Russia needs to sell it and the west needs to consume it. So what's the great strategic value?
Europe had a lot of interest in bringing Ukraine more into their sphere as a sort of "New Poland" - that is, a country that starts out as poor which can provide host to low cost manufacturing labor and low-cost raw goods, benefiting the wealthier countries while also allowing the new country to grow. Poland once served that role (along with a number of other Eastern European nations), but they've gotten too expensive as their per capita income has risen. But if there's anything the EU cares about more than economic growth, it's "not getting involved in potentially icky military action". There's no growth potential for a Ukraine with a simmering war inside its borders, but there's a lot of risk. Which, of course, Russia knows well; the Donbas conflict basically neutralizes their ability to get significant European investment. It also pretty much keeps them out of NATO, as NATO isn't going to accept a country that would cause an immediate Article 5 invocation against the country with the world's largest number of nuclear weapons.
You're absolutely right that it doesn't matter what they find in the wreckage. There will always be a Russian spin, and their media control will always allow them find a way to present that to their public as God's Own Truth. Even if they found a hand-signed letter from Putin to Igor Strelkov, with his DNA on it, praising Strelkov for his actions in Donbas and announcing the delivery of the Buk system, and a reply from Strelkov announcing the date, time, and location that they were planning to use it to try to take down an airplane... it still wouldn't make a whit of difference. I mean, given that Strelkov already publicly announced shortly after taking down the plane that they had just taken down a plane and there's videos of the rebels talking about the takedown, cheering, then slowly coming to the realization that it was a passenger liner... really, what effect could any more evidence have at this point?
Lastly, a minor correction: you're thinking of winter deliveries of natural gas, not petroleum. Beyond this, last year's mild winter left gas stocks high, and Europe has been working hard to increase their independence from Russian natural gas. Russia doesn't have nearly the leverage that they use to, and ongoing European efforts are only going to decrease this. They got complacent before and left themselves vulnerable, but they are adapting.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice writeup, thanks -
Re: (Score:2)
Fine try this. The Ukrainian government first claimed that a Buk missile system had been stolen by the rebels and provided photographic proof of the stolen system. This was considered problematic because they did not inform civilian aviation authorities of the missing system and so they later denied that it was stolen. The US government also claimed to be aware of the medium range ground to air missile in the region but also did not inform civilian aviation authorities. No one saw a 10 kilometre long missi
Re: (Score:2)
As for "strategic location", it depends on whose perspective you look at it as. Russia considers it "strategic" because they want to have a "buffer zone" and think in spheres of interest.
The strategic location of Ukraine is not Ukraine in its entirety. It's Sevastopol and the land between it and Russia. It's all about port capacity.
Russia's total port capacity is roughly 5,181,000 TEU. Of that 2,900,000 comes through the Baltic basin. Of that figure 2,250,000 passes through St. Petersburg. The Far East segment of port capacity accounts for 1,389,000 TEU the majority of which passes through Vladivostok. The Black Sea ports account for 761,000 TEU with most of it passing through Novorossiysk.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
should Crimea and the other areas become part of Russia
Newsflash, Crimea is part of Russia since 2014. (And they will probably build a bridge.)
Re: (Score:2)
As for "strategic location", it depends on whose perspective you look at it as.
Seriously? "Southern access to the Atlantic" is one of Russia's longest-running strategic concerns.
Europe had a lot of interest in bringing Ukraine more into their sphere as a sort of "New Poland" - that is, a country that starts out as poor which can provide host to low cost manufacturing labor and low-cost raw goods, benefiting the wealthier countries while also allowing the new country to grow. Poland once served that role (along with a number of other Eastern European nations), but they've gotten too expensive as their per capita income has risen.
Poland per capita GDP went from $5,000USD to $22,000USD since 1990. You don't think Ukraine would be better off like that?
Re: (Score:2)
What? Have we run out of shit bricklayers again?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Say Russia did it for the purpose of argument.. (Score:5, Informative)
If not for the sanctions, Russia would have the Mistrals today. Now they have to launch their own design program. It's tenatively scheduled to be done in 2020, which knowing Russia, means in reality somewhere between 2025 and Never.
The sanctions have also caused Russia to dramatically curtail their production estimates for new weapons systems like Armata.
Re:Say Russia did it for the purpose of argument.. (Score:4, Informative)
"Battleships", LOL. "Battleship" is not a synonym for "warship". Bismarck was a battleship. Hint - eight 15" guns, over 40,000 tons. Nobody has built a battleship in 70 years.
The Mistrals are "amphibious warfare ships". Puny in size, slower than shit, with next to no armament, they can carry 16-35 helicopters and no more than 450 troops except 900 for short duration.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just as an aside, the English catch-all term would be "Warship." A "Helicopter Gunship" refers to a specific type of helicopter, such as an AH-64 Apache. The specific term for a ship like this would be Amphibious Assault Ship, or Helicopter Carrier, depending on which aspect you wanted to play up.
On another note, I doubt the Russians would ever classify it as that officially, because of the Montreaux convention. Essentially, they've
Re:Say Russia did it for the purpose of argument.. (Score:4, Insightful)
As for Putin succeeding at waiting it out... yes, the general American and European public have the attention span of a gnat, but even still, Russia's poll numbers have plunged around the world. Even Germany, Russia's "bridge" to the EU, is something in the ballpark 70% negative 20% positive in the last Gallup poll. Even if they're not closely following the conflict, they're no longer so willing to just put up with Russia's behavior.
The question comes as to what's going to happen next. Obama has been playing Ukraine with a very soft hand - they need (among countless other things) modern anti-tank weapons and long range counter-strike radars, but the most "provacative" things the Obama administration has been willing to provide are trainers and short-range radars not useful against most equipment used by the paramilitaries. Russia has some of their best tank and artillery models in Donbas, way better equipment than Ukraine has. But the Obama administration has been very cautious about "provoking" Russia. But whoever takes the White House next may choose a different strategy. The same applies to the ever switching governances in Europe. Some entities want to offer Ukraine whatever military equipment they want. Others want to throw Donbas, Crimea, and pretty much whatever else Russia wants to Russia and renormalize relations. These people are in a minority in Europe, but in certain parts of Eastern Europe they stand a chance at winning, and even one pro-Russian government can become a very big headache for the EU. There are even already a few moderately pro-Russian elements, such as the current governments of Greece and Hungary.
Of course, the whole game changes if Russia ratchets things up elsewhere. Belarus, formerly Russia's biggest European pal, suddenly seems to want to run away from them as fast as they can (although Europe doesn't seem to be in a rush to embrace them). If Russia involves Little Green Men in Belarus, the situation could escalate. And it most definitely would escalate if they involved them in NATO states like Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you, a new member of house Slytherin?
What proof do you have that anything would happen at all if Russia "ratchets up" anything? Syria used chemical weapons on civilians and fuck-all was done about that by anyone.
Why is it different with Russia, who everyone cares quite a lot more about not antagonizing than Syria? Russia shot down a jetliner full of quite a lot of civilians, and absolutely nothing will be done about that either.
All the counter you have is calling me names; when you seem like you
Re: (Score:2)
And regarding Iran, you missed the agreement, right? Or are you one of Netanyahu's lapdogs?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What would the consequences be if irrefutable proof was uncovered in the wreckage?
Pretty much nothing.
Some outrage, some threats of this and that, some media coverage...and then nothing, because Kim Kardashian's ass will make another appearance and everyone will forget all about some plane that went down somewhere in some country that none of us has ever been to.
Re: (Score:2)
Care and concern for Ukraine is waning in the West
TBH I think it never existed. That is the problem with the Russian conspiracy theories (ie, that the US hired a sniper to start the whole thing, etc): the US doesn't care enough about Ukraine to hire a sniper.
The general attitude in the west is, "Russia, why are you doing stupid things?" Then go back to reading our newspaper or arguing about abortion or healthcare or our own favorite countries to harass, like Iran. Ukraine is just that country that half of us can't even find on a map.
(Of course, sometim
Re: (Score:2)
Care and concern for Ukraine is waning in the West
TBH I think it never existed. That is the problem with the Russian conspiracy theories (ie, that the US hired a sniper to start the whole thing, etc): the US doesn't care enough about Ukraine to hire a sniper.
Ukraine was specifically mentioned in Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997:
Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasion chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn into debilitating conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who would then be resentful of the loss of their recent independence and would be supported by their fellow Islamic states to the South.
And just how much the USA actually cared about who is in power in the Ukraine we know from the phone call [youtube.com] (commented transcript [bbc.com]) between Victora Nuland [wikipedia.org] and Geoffrey R. Pyatt [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
And just how much the USA actually cared about who is in power in the Ukraine we know from the phone call [youtube.com] (commented transcript [bbc.com]) between Victora Nuland [wikipedia.org] and Geoffrey R. Pyatt [wikipedia.org].
That's actually really great, I appreciate the transcript.
There is no doubt that the Ukrainian Ambassador cares about Ukraine. It's his job. It's kind of Victoria Nuland's job, too. And of course Brzezinski thinks we should care about eastern Europe. He's Polish. If America cared about "limiting Russian power" then Romney would be president right now, probably trying to push back Russia from Ukraine. Frankly, after the end of the cold war, it's hard to take Russian threats very seriously. Russia is not tr
Re:Say Russia did it for the purpose of argument.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
LMOL, ummm no thanks for playing. Nobody trusts Putin.
What about Steven Seagal?
http://www.theguardian.com/fil... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well this should be fun (Score:5, Interesting)
Literally no-one on this thread will be who they claim to be. Not even me.
Re: (Score:2)
Literally no-one on this thread will be who they claim to be. Not even me.
What, you're not Oxygen99, but H2S?
Re: (Score:2)
Literally no-one on this thread will be who they claim to be. Not even me.
Oh yeah? Well, I am the real Slim Shady.
Re: (Score:2)
... bitch, where's my fifty bucks?
Rebels didn't use planes (Score:4, Informative)
Rebels didn't use planes, so Ukraine didn't need to bring anti air missile systems in there, let alone, shoot them down.
On the other hand, Igor Strelkov's ("rebel leader" and, coincidentally, Russian citizen) wrote shortly after the plain was shot down:
"AN-26 plane was shot down near Torez, it fell somewhere near "Progress" mine. ... without hitting peacefull people.
Warned them, do not fly in "our sky".
Here is a video proof of yet another "birdfall".
Birdy fell
There is also information about another plain, probably Su"
http://news.bigmir.net/ukraine... [bigmir.net]
For quite a while Russia was trying to push "it was shot down by uklrainian Su-25" despite the fact that even creator of the plane denied it was possible.
Incidentally, Russia has vetoed creation of MH17 Tribunal in UN.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Ukraine wasn't using planes, so the pro-Russian rebels didn't need to bring anti air missile systems in there, let alone, shoot planes down.
FTFY
More like BTFY... The Rebels had been shooting Ukraine planes down in the weeks leading up to MH17. Hard to shoot down planes if Ukraine isn't using them.
Ukraine was using planes. (Score:2)
Ukraine was using planes and a number of them was shot down by "the rebels".
"IL 76 was shot down near Luhansk, 49 Ukrainian military are dead"
http://ru.tsn.ua/spetstemi/v-l... [ru.tsn.ua]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Rebels didn't use planes (Score:5, Informative)
Strelkov's VK and Twitter accounts had long been the official social media mouthpieces [interpretermag.com] of the DNR and had never been questioned. Strelkov can be heard making the same boast in a video [dailymail.co.uk]. Russian media embedded with the rebels also echoed their shootdown claim [google.com], adding “Ukrainian military claim that the losses were caused by actions by Russia. The militia refuted this information, correcting that they had shot down the plane from a ZRK ’9K37M1 (better known as a Buk).” Numerous Russian news sources, even ITAR-TASS [google.com], carried the story.
After the fact that it was a civilian plane came to light, Strelkov switched to conspiracy theory mode - still not changing from "we shot down the plane", but rather to the plane wasn't actually full of civilians but rather a bunch of already-dead bodies [yahoo.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Thank dog for that. Have you seen the nonsense that comes out of the GA?
Re: (Score:2)
holy shit, i thought people were joking about the russian astroturfing :) this is awesome.
The victory dance might have been hasty (Score:5, Informative)
Smoking Guns: Russian Separatists Shot Down Malaysian Flight MH17 [forbes.com]
Unfortunately there are no "take backs" on this.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you even skim it? They have captured audio recordings from the day of the disaster between pro-Russian separatists and their Russian handlers, with the separatists asserting that they had shot down the plane just like they had shot down the two other Ukrainian air force planes in the days prior, before realizing that the plane wasn't a Ukrainian military transport, but was rather a civilian aircraft.
han imperialists (Score:4, Funny)
will sometime this century take back what was stolen from them in their century of humiliation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
and russia, having absolutely no friends because of their neoimperialist thuggery today, and a broken economy, and a rusting military, won't be able to do anything about it
russia is a nuclear power you say?
oh, don't worry: china won't invade, no war will be declared
local freedom fighters will revolt (the area already has huge chinese minorities) and china will simply provide "humanitarian" aid to local chinese. russia will complain the "local" revolutionaries have the latest chinese military tech and will claim some are in fact chinese army
china won't care about the complaints. the world won't care about the complaints
the irony will be delicious
georgians and ukrainians, you will be avenged
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you ever grow tired posting this stupid shit in every topic that has anything to do with Russia?
Besides, Georgians had it coming since 1991. Tried some ethnic cleansing back then, but failed. If you root for them then you are just as a stupid racist bastard arsehole as they have been the whole time.
Re: (Score:2)
china might grow "concerned" about the treatment of their han ethnic minorities in russian lands at the hands of corrupt local russians. and send "humanitarian aid". no need for direct war, "local" freedom fighters can do the fighting
the playbook is all there, written by moscow
Those of us who remember what happened [wikipedia.org] in the 1930s [wikipedia.org] and 40s [wikipedia.org] know that the playbook [wikipedia.org] was written by none other than Adolf Hitler, and has been merely translated and updated by Uncle Vlad.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't forget, I just figured I'd already made the obvious connection and didn't see any need to beat it into the ground.
And you're right about it having been done before, but Machiavelli doesn't strike a chord with folks in the 21st Century the way the Nazis still do, as there are still plenty of folks around who remember them first-hand.
Re: (Score:2)
agreed and well said
and sad that russians are living today under the same cult of personality and neoimperialist ultranationalist policy that, wielded against them, their grandparents fought and died for. russia has looked into its history and decided to become an old enemy. the rest of the world looks on in disgust. pathetic
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's the Russians themselves who say something like, "Study your enemy and learn him well; eventually, you will come to be like him."
Re: (Score:2)
i learned it as "you don't defeat your enemy by becoming him"
i hope the russian saying is supposed to be a warning
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
russia carving up smaller and weaker neighbors because its pride is hurt doesn't bother you?
Re: (Score:2)
Not enough to use the damn shift key, though.
How is it Ukraine's fault (Score:5, Insightful)
If Ukraine was the only one who had helicopters and jets, why would they need anti-aircraft weapons against farmers and miners (the term Putin has used to refer to his troops in Ukraine)?
If the plane was coming from the West, meaning it was flying into Ukrainian airspace from a known location, why would Ukraine, if it had anti-aircraft weapons deployed, target then shoot down an aircraft not coming from the East?
How does Russia and their proxies explain the fact postings were made on known Twitter accounts and radio intercepts recorded of Russian proxies bragging about shooting down a Ukrainian jet?
Why is it that pictures of a Buk missile system [bellingcat.com] were taken near the shoot down site, the same system which was then tracked on its way back to Russia AND which had one missile missing?
How does Russia and its proxies explain that people in the area witnessed the launch of the missile from territory under Russian control? Not just one person, but several, all pointing to the same general area?
Why did Russia and its proxies prevent investigators from entering the crash site for days afterwards? What evidence were they trying to hide?
If Russia or its proxies did not shoot down the civilian airliner, why did Russia veto a UN resolution to fully and openly investigate the incident? If Russia is innocent they should have been happy to have an investigation to prove their innocence.
It is quite clear Russian troops and/or their proxies shot down a civilian airliner, then bragged about it, yet beyond all reasonable comprehension they stubbornly cling to the fantasy they are not criminally responsible. It's as if the they've learned nothing over the last 100 years since the coup.
Re:How is it Ukraine's fault (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
reality fuel can't melt steel propaganda yo
Re: (Score:2)
That is very likely the single most intelligent comment I've ever see you make. Keep up the good work--you might soon have one less Freak that way.
Re:How is it Ukraine's fault (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with that idea is twofold. While the heat from the burning fuel may not have gotten hot enough to melt the steel, it was sufficient to heat the metal and cause structural deformation.
Further, these conspiracy folks completely ignore all the other combustible material inside the buildings which WERE hot enough to warp the beams and pull them laterally from the sides of the building (see this sheet [skeptic.com], numbers 8 and 9 for a further explanation) which then precipitated the pancake effect we all witnessed.
Thus, the reference to not being able to melt an airliner.
However, these same folks ignore incidents such as this one [nytimes.com] where a tanker fire directly under a bridge was able to melt steel beams. It's the way conspiracy theories work. Ignore anything which contradicts your point of view or explain them away as not relevant to their rantings. Just like Russia and their proxies have done trying to claim their innocence at shooting down the civilian airliner.
Re: (Score:2)
russian propaganda is basically alex jones herp derp conspiracy theorizing. it's same kind of content. being a paranoid schizophrenic in today's world means you are going to have a miserable institutionalized life, or you will be chief writer of a large media organization
Re: (Score:2)
russian propaganda is basically alex jones herp derp conspiracy theorizing. it's same kind of content. being a paranoid schizophrenic in today's world means you are going to have a miserable institutionalized life, or you might just get to be President-for-Life of a former Soviet Federated Socialist Republic.
TFTFY. :D
Re: (Score:2)
Except that structural steel is routinely weakened in fires. It's normal.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
" It's as if the they've learned nothing over the last 100 years since the coup."
They haven't. A lot of russians have an even more bunker cut of from the world mentality than a mid west survivilist. Most of the last part of the 20th century has passed them by, never mind the 21st. They're still in denial about their place in the world - sure , they're a superpower , but only because of some aging nuclear weapons. Their conventional military is worn out and their economy is in the toilet even with the oil an
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Ukraine has shot down a civilian airliner once already, due to gross incompetence of their armed forces, and their president commented that with "shit happens, there are worse tragedies than that" back then.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the US has shot down a civilian airliner once already, and their president commented "I don't care what the facts are. I will never apologize for the US.".
Moral of story: If you shoot down a civilian airliner, there's no such thing as a good comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Admitting that a mistake was made and apologizing for it would be a reasonably good comment, but, alas, that never happened in any of civilian airplane shoot downs. The only time I can think of that came closest to that was the El Al flight shoot down over Bulgaria many decades ago - they have at least apologized after a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok.
This is a battleship:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
No country has built any of these things for several decades, and the last examples were retired from service in the 1990s, because they're expensive and their military value was reduced to almost zero by anti-ship missiles and modern aircraft. They'd only be of use if your enemy has neither of t
Re: (Score:2)
The Russian answer to all your questions:
The Americans made it all up to humiliate Russia and they probably claim (internally) to oppose the investigation resolution because it would be populated by American proxies who would blame Russia regardless of the truth. You see, when you really believe the entire world is out to get you (or your country), no lie is too transparent to believe as long as it supports the narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Because it's pretty simple ... it plays well with the local media and to the people who want to believe it, it muddies the waters, and allows you to pretend reality is different than it actually is.
The people doing this may well know they're lying, but by keeping up the facade either your domestic audience keeps believing you're the good guys, or you hope to deflect and pretend it never happened.
If you don't
Re: (Score:2)
russia is nothing more than an insecure mafia goon. their pride is hurt so they have to thug on their small neighbors. impenetrable walls of lies. immature evil bullshit
but this pisses off everyone. russia has zero friends left in the world
greece could have stuck a middle finger at the eu and gone into the hands of russia. but even greece is like "i'd rather be under germany's thumb than russia's"
and it's not like russia has the economic clout to peel greece off from the eu
feeble russia will continue to dec
Re: (Score:2)
"I have never understood the blatant lies coming out of the Russian military or their proxies ..."
Did you miss (pretty much) everything about the Soviet Union from 1923 until 1991? The entire system was based on the premise of the "big lie".
It is a major, persistent technique used by governments generally but elevated by Russians to an art form. I'm not sure if it's their cultural history of totalitarianism, some desperate nationalism that makes their people particularly gullible, or more likely a Slavic
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer the more concise version, courtesy of none other than super-spy James Bond:
Governments change... The lies don't.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If Russia or its proxies did not shoot down the civilian airliner, why did Russia veto a UN resolution to fully and openly investigate the incident? If Russia is innocent they should have been happy to have an investigation to prove their innocence.
To be fair, even if Russia weren't responsible for MH17, they might not want UN investigators poking around and finding all kinds of other stuff that they've been doing in the area. Being innocent of this particular crime doesn't necessarily make them innocent.
Re: (Score:2)
If there's no evidence there's no proof. If there is evidence, it's proof of a frame up by the Western imperialists.
Russians (and plenty of their fellow travellers around here) are dumb enough to fall for that.
This comes as a surprise to precisely no one.. (Score:5, Insightful)
...apart from Putins clean up team. Someone is going to the gulag for leaving some fragments behind.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing in your link indicates that the news is false. If anything, it corroborates what's being said, since it agrees that the parts were found near the crash site. The only other thing it adds is that they haven't established a causal link yet, but that's basically just a politically correct way of saying, "look, we all know these missile parts for the exact same type of missile that was thought to have been used to shoot down the plane didn't fall off the back of a truck right next to the crash site, but
Russian-made, not Russian (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Russian-made, not Russian (Score:5, Insightful)
This is indeed the problem. The Russian government (and tbh, all others involved) can - and will - continue to shift the blame. First it's a Ukrainian fighter jet, then it's not a Russian-made rocket, then it's Ukrainian 'rebels', then it's pro-Russian separatists they have no control over, then it's not their fault the recently-dismissed-from-Russian-army people shot down the wrong plane, and finally what were commercial planes doing there anyway?
( Hint: That's already the debate in various lawsuits against companies and governments other than the Russian one - as even the family members of victims realize Russia's covering their ass all too well. )
So the report's conclusions - which apparently need political debate to finalize - really don't matter much.
In the mean time, Russia imposes sanctions against countries involved in investigations leading to bankruptcies left right and center (oh right, that's why the conclusions need political debate), vetoes any U.N. proposal they dislike (the U.S. does much the same in other matters.. can't blame them for that one - too bad there isn't a cap on the number of vetoes votes one can cast per given time period), and happily go about business as usual knowing that in the end, this is barely even a blip on the radar in their history - much the same as Korean Air Lines 007, Iranian Air 655, Pan Am 103 (might ring a bell under 'Lockerbie ') and many others.
US aircraft parts also found at the crash site. (Score:2, Troll)
Which is both a fact and completely useless when trying to figure out who operated the aircraft.
Now, if they found Russian aircraft parts or US missile parts at the crash site, they'd have a story.
In reverse (Score:2)
Imagine this would have happened in Iran or any other place in the middle east. Some middle eastern country would have shot down an airliner with a missile and then blamed the rebels. You really think we would be here a year later and nothing would have been done?
Re: (Score:3)
Last time this happened, the people responsible for launching the missile at the airliner got decorated. Not for launching the missile, of course, but in general.
Wow (Score:2)
Since everyone other than the complete wackos already knew it was shot down by a Russian missile, this isn't really news. The only real question is who shot it down and why (including, why was it flying over a war zone where both sides had Russian surface-to-air missiles?).
Re: (Score:2)
why was it flying over a war zone where both sides had Russian surface-to-air missiles?
As I answered above, over 300 other civilian planes flew over the area the same week. There was no "no fly" zone and flying over the area at over 32,000 feet was considered negligible risk.
It is only Monday morning quarterbacks trying to blame the victim that say they shouldn't have been flying there. If the plane hadn't been shot down, planes would still be flying over the area and nobody would say a word about it.
Buc missiles? Who has them? (Score:5, Informative)
Just about every former member of the old Soviet has Buc missiles. I want to know what MODEL of Buc missile they found at the site.
It seems that the story about two attack jets shadowing the airliner may be red herrings. So, at this point in time, the most important question is, "Which Buc missiles, precisely, were used to down the aircraft?"
If it was a model from the '70's or '80's then we blame Porkochenko and Ukraine.
If it is a modern, up-to-date model, the Putin bites the big green weenie. They haven't sold any new model missiles to Ukraine, or any of the other former client nations.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was a model from the '70's or '80's then we blame Porkochenko and Ukraine.
Yeah, how on Earth could Russia supply BUK from 70-80s, really.
Re:Buc missiles? Who has them? (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems that the story about two attack jets shadowing the airliner may be red herrings.
As was overwhelmingly obvious at the time.
So, at this point in time, the most important question is, "Which Buc missiles, precisely, were used to down the aircraft?"
If it was a model from the '70's or '80's then we blame Porkochenko and Ukraine.
If it is a modern, up-to-date model, the Putin bites the big green weenie. They haven't sold any new model missiles to Ukraine, or any of the other former client nations.
Even if it were old Buks Putin's still the main suspect. The idea Putin loaded up the rebels with old Soviet equipment that looks like stuff taken from Ukrainian bases is hardly implausible, I think the rebels were even claiming to have taken their Buks from Ukrainian bases!
Re: (Score:2)
Not likely. Russia had some hard times - really hard times - when they sold off everything that wasn't nailed down to come up with cash. They sold off that old inventory, or palmed it off on debtors.
The rebels are getting late-model equipment, but probably not the latest. Ukraine, on the other hand, still has huge quantities of 30+ year old military equipment.
Sorry, no, but ancient Buc missiles would clearly mark Porkochenko as the guilty party.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Whoever wrote the title is an idiot (Score:5, Informative)
Buk was developed by Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute of Instrument Design of Zhukovsky, Russia and NPO Novator of Yekaterinburg, Russia. It is produced by Novator's Kalinin Machine-Building Plant. It is a Russian missile system. Russia is not the only country to own them, but they designed, made, and still make them, including the latest updated variants not available in former satellite states.
The paramilitaries issued a "don't fly in our skies, we'll shoot you down" warning days before the attack. Immediately after the attack, they announced shooting down the plane, before deleting the announcement hours later it after it was discovered to be civilian. The plane was shot down deep in DNR territory. The missiles have a maximum range of 20 kilometers, far away from the nearest Ukrainian troops.
I know it's great to want to be skeptical, but at some point you need to come down to Earth.
Re:Whoever wrote the title is an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
So we're to believe that Ukraine smuggled a BUK deep into DNR territory to shoot at planes when the DNR had no planes, and then convinced Strelkov that he had shot it down?
Interesting, tell me more.
Re:Whoever wrote the title is an idiot (Score:5, Informative)
I'll repeat: So we're to believe that Ukraine smuggled a BUK deep into DNR territory to shoot at planes when the DNR had no planes, and then convinced Strelkov that he had shot it down?
Interesting, tell me more.
Re: (Score:2)
There are different versions of Buks and even the same version of the design might be manufactured differently with differently sourced parts. Yes, if Russia sent over old Buk systems from before the breakup of the USSR or soon after, there can be doubt. If it was a relatively recent manufacture with signature parts, its Russian.
Of course, again, as someone else said, old Buk or not, the Ukrainians would have had to have fired it from deep in DNR territory, when the rebels don't use planes. That pretty m
Re: (Score:2)
:) right? i just kinda wanna give them a hug and ask them what it's like to live in russia, and if all those dashboard cam videos are like... representative of life there.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So what you're saying is that it's the US's fault for not offering appeasment to Putin by refusing to ally with a country which isn't Russia and has never taken any military action against Russia except for defense.
The US has done many crappy things but the blame for this lies squarely with Putin. But hey blame them for no appeasement, because appeasement worked so well last time.
Re:Malaysia flew over a warzone... (Score:5, Informative)
What we must not forget, is that Malaysia decided to fly over a war zone. This does not talk the attack on the airplane right, but it creates circumstances...
Over 300 other civilian planes flew over the area the same week. There was no "no fly" zone and flying over the area at over 32,000 feet was considered negligible risk.
It is only Monday morning quarterbacks trying to blame the victim that say they shouldn't have been flying there. If the plane hadn't been shot down, planes would still be flying over the area and nobody would say a word about it.
Re: (Score:2)
This incident shows that there were 300 reckless aircraft captains, who ought to be stood down, along with air traffic controllers and all decision makers in the line.
Doesn't matter whose side, what war, nor the phase of the moon. As a civilian, I don't fucking care anymore who is fighting who. Sick of it all. They are ALL arseholes. Yes, including your side, whatever side, whatever colour, whatever politics, whatever language.
I bet if the people on board were given the choice "arrive a day later / pay more" or "possibly arrive dead, a couple of weeks' later, to be used as political footballs for some time", they'd choose the former (at a guess).
Which would you choose?
Of course after having the knowledge we have now, I would choose to go around. With the knowledge I had before, I, like everybody else, would not have been concerned about going through.
Re: (Score:2)