Sam Bullard for the Saker Blog
There are MH17 dots that should be connected but aren’t, possibly because the right questions haven’t been asked. This article examines existing evidence and follows where it leads from the perspective of a bad state actor. The results are unexpected but plausible.
Historical context is essential for understanding MH17, including the US-Russia proxy war, the pre-MH17 fighting at Donbass, past behavior as a predictor of future behavior, the known performance of anti-aircraft weapons against large airliners, and patterns of public disclosure following airline disasters.
This article rejects false beliefs that the downing was accidental, that the Militia or Russia had anything to do with it, and that a Buk missile destroyed MH17. Letting go of false beliefs frees the mind to consider other possibilities.
MH17 crashed in Militia-controlled territory. Because the Militia provided access when conditions were relatively safe, independent researchers probably have more hard evidence than they were intended to have. The downing of MH17 most likely didn’t follow the plan.
To figure out the original plan, put on your machiavellian hat and think like a government (or an oligarch if you prefer) plotting to destroy an airliner and pin the blame on someone else. Your plan will include things to do, things to avoid, what weapons you’ll use to get the job done and what weapons you’ll use either to sow confusion or to fake a Buk missile attack. You decide which weapons were likely used and which were avoided.
The fighting between July 1, 2014 and July 16, 2014 went badly overall for the US and its proxy, Ukraine. They needed a game changer to turn the project around.
The small benefits the US derived from MH17 weren’t worth the cost and risk. What other benefits could they have seized by executing the perfect plan perfectly? The question makes us think about the actual plan and what limited its success.
The evidence points to a plan for MH17 to crash at the Southern Cauldron near the Russian border. Many Ukrainian troops were there. They would have controlled the debris field, not the Militia. MH17 was downed just 3-4 minutes flight time from the TAMAK waypoint, which was on MH17’s flight plan and is located in the Southern Cauldron.
The plan was flawed. The glitch was that Dnipropetrovsk (“Dnipro” in the balance of this article) ATC did not participate fully in the plot. Dnipro ATC promptly relayed to MH17 a request from Rostov ATC to change course from TAMAK to RND. The course change would have missed the Southern Cauldron and headed instead toward a concentration of Militia forces.
MH17 was shot down a few seconds after acknowledging the course change. The US and Ukraine settled for a very reduced set of benefits because of the glitch. Now the Dutch prosecution is caught in a false narrative, forced to pursue a show trial of four men accused of providing a Buk that didn’t exist according to Dutch MIVD intelligence professionals.
Forward: Why me, and why now?
Cain spoke to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” And the LORD said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground. (Genesis 4:8-10, English Standard Version)
Until this day the blood of 298 victims cries from the ground between Rozsypne and Hrabove in the Donetsk Oblast of Ukraine – or in Donetsk People’s Republic, if you prefer. There are many unanswered questions about MH17. The answer to one question is known with certainty. “Does the Lord hear their cries?” Yes, He hears them.
I’m indebted to independent journalists, analysts, historians, bloggers, aviators, soldiers, engineers and other experts. They have shined light into the darkness, dug up facts and added insight. Some of them have walked the fields and village streets where Malaysian Flight MH17 fell. They’ve mostly been ignored, harassed or threatened for their work.
I sit in an arm chair and follow the evidence. I have delayed writing this article for too long. I hoped one of the experts would write an article like this. Then I realized that many of these experts have reputations to uphold. They must resist the temptation to assemble puzzle pieces and write articles that, whether on target or not, can’t be proven.
Articles like this one come from left field. I have no expertise relevant to the investigation of MH17. I have only secondary research skills and an inquiring mind. I am not burdened with defending a reputation. I am willing to write an article about MH17 which could be truth or fiction or some of both. Much MH17 fiction has already been produced and distributed by official sources. My goal for this article is to contribute understanding, not add to the fiction.
The US and JIT countries have done well for themselves using mainly fiction and a megaphone. Likewise Russia has obfuscated, although with less finesse. They all are keeping the truth in a cage.
But for how long? The truth isn’t satellite and radar images, black box data, ATC recordings and other hard evidence that is denied to the public. Those things will merely add details and confirmation to what already is reasonably clear. The truth is the who, what, when, where, why and how of the murder of MH17. Perhaps much of the truth can be set free by other means. We won’t know if we don’t try. Remaining passive only invites more abuse. I’ve had enough.
Historical context part 1: consequences of ignoring history
Although much has been documented about MH17, not enough effort has been made to show the event in its historical context. The disaster makes less sense when it is considered apart from the flow of the fighting at Donbass between June 20 and July 17. It makes less sense without an understanding of the damage caused by various anti-aircraft weapons.
Past behavior is a powerful predictor of future behavior. Everyone knows what happens when an airline disaster is relatively free of political complications. The investigation is swift and reasonably transparent. It produces reports that provide closure. However, when powerful interests debate what happened, we get lengthy politicized investigations and unsatisfying reports. We get disasters like TWA Flight 800, Itavia Flight 870 and MH17.
The past behavior of anti-aircraft weapons is a predictor of their future performance. We are told that MH17 started disintegrating almost immediately after an attack at 33,000 feet by a single Buk missile. The history of Soviet-made and Russian-made missile strikes on airliners shows that this outcome is not likely.
Good people want to believe that MH17 happened as a result of mistaken identity, a training accident, or a missile that missed its intended target before locking onto MH17. They want to believe that their government and allied governments had nothing to do with it. They stumble over beliefs like these that make them feel good but aren’t true. They want to believe because believing is easier than researching the event’s historical context.
Why do bad things happen to good people? One reason is that good people let bad people get away with murder. In the modern era false flag events should be as useless as buggy whips. Yet they remain a plague. False flags won’t stop until an event like MH17 explodes in the faces of the evil people who planned it, implemented it and kept the truth covered.
Historical context part 2: a strange convergence of narratives
MH17 flew over one of the most closely monitored conflicts on earth. Beyond a doubt what happened to MH17 is known to Ukraine, Russia, the US and several NATO countries. What the global public sees is high stakes political theater.
Early on, points of disagreement between Russians and western authorities included details such as MH17’s flight path, whether or not Ukraine had operational radar at the time, whether or not Ukraine had fighters in the area, and whether or not the Separatists had a functional Buk TELAR launcher.
Now there is a strange convergence between the respective narratives. Both sides agree that MH17 was flying in corridor L980 heading toward waypoint TAMAK. They agree that the strike occurred at about 13:20:03 UTC. Although Russia’s military has never endorsed the Buk theory, major Russian media including RT and Sputnik have accepted it and dispute only the missile type and launch location. This Russian acceptance opens the door for Ukraine to say that the alleged Buk launch was a tragic accident or the work of a rogue nationalist militia unit. Dutch intelligence (MIVD), who is very well informed, said neither Russia nor Ukraine had Buk systems within range, that the Buk TELAR in Militia hands was too damaged electronically to function, that Russia did not train Militia to operate Buk systems and that no Buk crossed the Russian border into Donbass. Ukraine’s Border Guard who was on high alert said no Buk crossed the border. Russia’s Ust-Donetsk radar shows neither a fighter near MH17 nor a missile approaching MH17. And yet we know that there was at least an external attack. Russia, Australia and the Netherlands held secret trilateral consultations regarding MH17 which began in March, 2019 and lasted until Russia withdrew in October, 2020.
Sabers have stopped rattling over MH17. Both sides are actively keeping the global public in the dark. The public has no way to confirm independently the points where the narratives agree. Convergence is not evidence of truth. Convergence means only that both sides are telling the same story. Both sides have a mutual problem, the global public. Not the many who like the darkness, but the few who don’t.
The theory could be correct that hard evidence is being withheld to preserve the peace. Yet non-kinetic fighting (propaganda and economic sanctions) continues. The people of Donbass continue to die. Wars begin with lies, are sustained with lies, and are explained after the fact with lies. The uneasy peace that most of us have is built on lies. Isn’t it infinitely more desirable to have peace built on a foundation of truth, justice and forgiveness?
Historical context part 3: public disclosure of airline disaster information
The ways that airline disasters are publicly disclosed follow patterns that are repetitive and therefore useful. From the way that we’ve received information about MH17 it should be possible to determine the basic nature of the disaster. Mechanical failure? Pilot error? Weather? Dangerous cargo? Criminal behavior? Terrorist attack by a non-state actor? Accidental downing by a state actor? Downing by a state actor due to mistaken identity? Premeditated murder by a state actor? Unclear cause? Combination of causes? Let’s see what the history of airline disaster investigation teaches.
Mechanical failure, pilot error, weather, dangerous cargo: I’ve combined these causes because of the absence of intent to kill, because they often occur concurrently and because the disclosure of information is similar. These causes often result in incidents, not crashes. When the result is a crash the airliner usually does not break up in the air, and black boxes usually are recovered. If the wreckage is found quickly and no human error or negligence is involved, then the investigation proceeds swiftly to a credible report. Suspicion of human error or negligence will make the investigators take more time because they need to be sure. But they won’t compromise the report just because there could be embarrassment or lawsuits. Only when a state actor uses one of these causes as a cover will the investigation drag on and reach a conclusion that fails the sniff test.
Criminal behavior, terrorist attack, mental illness: An example of criminal behavior is Continental Airlines Flight 11 which crashed as a result of a suicide bomber who intended to commit insurance fraud. The bomb succeeded, but the fraud didn’t. Germanwings Flight 9525 is an example of a crash caused by mental illness. Metrojet Flight 9268 is an example of a terrorist attack by a non-state actor, although recent analysis suggests other possibilities. Crashes caused deliberately by non-state actors typically are investigated quickly and accurately. The cause often is known to the public even before the formal report from the investigators. However, state actors can blame foul play on these causes, resulting either in long and unsatisfying investigations or in investigations that are too short and too sweet.
Unknown cause: Some accident investigations begin with an unknown cause. Air France Flight 447 is an example. The flight went down in the Atlantic ocean while flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris. Some wreckage and bodies were recovered within 5 days, but it took almost 2 years to recover the black boxes. It took another year for the investigators to follow the evidence trail to mechanical failure combined with human error. These investigations can take a long time before arriving at the causes and producing credible reports. The worst cases are when the crash site location is unknown or difficult to reach. Consider Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370. Foul play looks likely. Whether the bad actor was a state or not remains to be determined.
Shot down by state actor accidentally or due to mistaken identity: An example of an accidental downing was Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 that was shot down by a Ukrainian S-200 missile that was aimed at a drone target. An example of mistaken identity is Ukraine Airlines Flight PS752 which was identified in error as either an enemy drone or a cruise missile. When state actors are involved the investigation may or may no go swiftly, and it may or may not produce satisfying results. For example, the crash of Aeroflot Flight 902 was reported initially as due to a stall or spatial disorientation or a fire in the passenger cabin. Eventually there was an unofficial confirmation that a missile went astray from a nearby air defense training exercise. Ukraine was slow to admit their error in the case of Siberia Airlines Flight 1812. Iran admitted without much delay that they shot down Ukraine Airlines PS752 in error. When there is an accident or mistaken identity, the offending state’s intent was not to kill innocent civilians. The state actor was guilty mainly of making a mistake. The admission may be accompanied with compensation for the victims and, depending on the character of the offending state’s leader, a formal apology. The truth emerges because although the cause is embarrassing, it is not a justification for war.
Premeditated murder by a state actor: The general understanding among nations is that you don’t shoot down another nation’s airliners. That only invites retaliation. Premeditated murder can be the work of an oligarch with access to military resources or a rogue agency or political leadership. From the public’s perspective the results are murdered innocents, an investigation that drags on endlessly, and official reports that fail the sniff test. Itavia Flight 870’s McDonnell Douglas DC-9 jet had the misfortune of looking similar on the outside to Muammar Gadaffi’s plane. That downing happened in June, 1980. The cause remains disputed to this day. Italy’s Palermo Court of Appeal ruled in 2015 (35 years later!) that Flight 870 was destroyed by 2 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles with expanding rod warheads. The UK’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch said it was a terrorist bombing. So far 13 people associated with the disaster have died under mysterious circumstances. One can quibble and say that Flight 870 was shot down due to mistaken identity. However, the intention of the state actor was murder. The state actor has not confessed and most likely never will.
What kind of disaster was MH17?
MH17 was shot down 6 years ago. I write “shot down” because nobody has made a credible case for mechanical failure, pilot error, meteor strike, lightning strike, exploding cargo, suicide event, etc. That narrows the field to an accidental downing by a state actor, a downing by a state actor due to mistaken identity, or a premeditated murder by a state actor. It is important to answer correctly. To say incorrectly that it was an accident or that MH17 was mistaken for an enemy aircraft lessens the crime and perverts justice. I do not write “shot down” to imply weapon types. Bombs don’t “shoot down” in the literal sense, but they cause murders nevertheless.
The preponderance of evidence points to premeditated murder by a state actor. If it was an error such as an air defense training accident then whoever did it would have admitted it by now. The bad actor would not have the support of other states who withhold hard evidence.
There was no mistaken identity. Dnipro ATC and Rostov ATC were never in doubt about MH17’s identity. Anyone flying a fighter over Donbass knew who he was attacking. Fighter pilots don’t accidentally murder civilians in 4 storey apartment complexes. They don’t accidentally shoot down commercial airliners flying in broad daylight above the cloud cover.
There has been more than enough time to admit an error or mistaken identity if either was the case. Instead of an admission of error we have a multinational cover-up that may last for decades. A lot of hard evidence is withheld. Fake evidence and accusations have been fed to the public from the beginning. Some of the fake evidence was prepared before the attack. The official investigations have been characterized by delays, secret agreements, withholding of hard evidence, unsupported accusations, delayed and minimized Malaysian participation, mostly denied Russian participation, secret trilateral consultations and the avoidance of evidence that would disprove the false narrative. News media have amplified the false narrative.
False audio evidence was spliced together the day before the event. More false evidence was released while the debris of MH17 was smoking on the ground. Because of the eagerness to mislead we can be sure that the downing of MH17 was not due to a training accident. It was not due to a missile that missed its intended target and then locked onto MH17. The false evidence was prepared in advance and released in haste.
To date we have a dead fighter pilot, Capt. Vladislav Voloshin, who allegedly shot himself in the chest with a Makarov that has no serial number. His body, which was potential evidence of a crime, was quickly cremated. In the tradition of murdered people, Voloshin left no suicide note. We also have a disappeared Dnipro aircraft controller named Anna Petrenko. We have a disappeared Carlos Barrios Sánchez who, regardless of his actual occupation, appeared to know too much and tweet too much for his own good. We have allegations that a Sgt. Vyacheslav while assigned to a mortar element of Ukraine’s military unit A1556 witnessed all or a portion of MH17’s downing and captured images with his Apple iPhone 4. Sgt. Vyacheslav mysteriously died from a sniper bullet when he was outside the combat zone. Whatever photos or video he allegedly recorded remain inaccessible. One person was killed and another seriously injured when Vladimir Borisovich Tsemakh was drugged and extracted from his home. An unknown number of witnesses have remained silent because they fear that they could become another “book” in “the library”. And rightfully so considering the high price others have paid because of MH17.
What kind of disaster was MH17? Consider John Kerry’s wild accusations that never were supported by satellite or radar imagery. Consider the confiscation of ATC recordings by Ukraine. Consider the eagerness of the OSCE monitors, FBI and Ukrainians to take the black boxes away from Malaysia’s Col. Sakri. Consider the black box data that likely will never become available for independent analysis. Consider the laughable claims that Ukraine had no fighters flying, no radar working, and even no Buks to launch because they sold them all to Georgia. Consider the manipulated audio recordings, the photos and videos of unknown provenance that lack metadata and even a clear focus. Consider the fortuitous fire on October 29, 2015 at Svatovo, Ukraine that destroyed Buk missiles. Consider the second fortuitous fire on October 9, 2018 at Ichnia, Ukraine that destroyed much of Ukraine’s remaining Buk inventory and all their Buk records. Consider the misleading and seriously incomplete reconstruction. Consider the eye witnesses who saw or heard fighters near MH17 whose testimony has been totally ignored. Consider the contents of JIT documents that have been leaked and are confirmed to be genuine. Consider the numerous requests for MH17-related information that have been denied by the government of the Netherlands. Consider the debris of MH17 kept under covers at Gilze-Rijen Air Base. Consider the secrecy of the agreement that formed the JIT. Consider the secret trilateral consultations about MH17 that involved Russia, the Netherlands and Australia. Consider Ukraine being allowed to investigate itself and to veto any unfavorable public disclosure from the investigation. Consider the evidence of witness tampering. This disturbing list of considerations is far from complete.
Obstruction on such a massive and ongoing multinational scale does not happen when a state actor kills accidentally. It is impossible to categorize the destruction of MH17 as anything other than a premeditated murder by a state actor.
Historical context part 4: war in the Donbass
The plan to shoot down MH17 is better understood in the context of the war at Donbass which started in April, 2014. Donbass Separatists wanted to leave Ukraine and join Russia. The initial sparks of civil unrest led quickly to fighting with losses on both sides.
The Donbass war is a continuation of the proxy war between the US and Russia. During the Cold War the Eastern Bloc countries functioned as a buffer between NATO countries and Russia. Promises made in 1990 that NATO would not expand eastward were broken. The list of NATO countries has grown from 16 in 1990 to 30 today. As NATO expanded eastward, so did missile deployments that threaten Russia. Ukraine is in play. A glance at a map is all you need to see why expansion into Ukraine could be good for NATO and bad for Russia.
Ukraine’s hostility toward Russia could have resulted in Russia losing a deep warm water port at Sevastopol in Crimea. Russia annexed Crimea in March, 2014. The US and EU responded with economic sanctions. Russia was the EU’s third largest trading partner. The sanctions were a greater burden on the EU than on the US. In the first half of July, 2014 the US wanted another round of sanctions, but the EU preferred diplomacy and mediation.
The early months of fighting were characterized by chaos on both sides. The Separatists had shortages of manpower and equipment, and they lacked centralized command and control. Their political ambitions had to adjust when Russia showed no interest in annexing the region. They had no air force and limited defensive weapons for repelling Ukraine’s air power.
Kiev’s government entered the conflict with big advantages in manpower and equipment. Ukraine already had a standing army and an intelligence organization, the SBU. Ukraine was more mechanized than the Separatists. But Ukraine also lacked a unified system of command and control. Its “anti-terrorist operation” included oligarch-financed volunteer units who regarded support of the regular army as optional. Ukraine relied on its mobility and strength in manpower and equipment. They launched offenses which, when successful, were followed by more offenses. Much of their effort was aimed not at taking and holding territory but at killing and driving out the ethnic Russian population. Ukraine underestimated the Militia and failed repeatedly to consolidate and fortify freshly gained territory.
The maps of the fighting in June and July changed rapidly. The war was hard to follow in real time because of the fog of war and because western media in general wasn’t very interested in the fighting. Alternative media filled the information void, sometimes working long hours to translate from original Russian language sources. The fronts weren’t as clearly defined on the ground as they appeared on maps. The situation was fluid.
A pattern of fighting developed that I’ll call cauldron warfare. You may know it as pocket warfare or as encirclement or Kesselschlacht. The pattern would begin with an advance by Ukraine’s mechanized army, utilizing local roads. They would press deep into territory that was previously under Militia “control”. The more they succeeded the farther they extended the thrust. But then the Militia would cut off the route behind the Ukrainian soldiers, trapping them in a pocket called a cauldron. At this point Ukraine’s soldiers needed to break out while surviving on existing supplies. More supplies could be air dropped, but MANPADs made that a risky and inadequate endeavor. The Militia had to keep Ukraine’s soldiers contained in the cauldron, maintain continuous pressure to shrink the cauldron, and prevent supplies from reaching the trapped soldiers. Over time the trapped soldiers were “cooked” in the cauldron, most either to be wounded, killed or captured. A few soldiers might slip away, but large equipment fell into the Militia’s hands. The captured “trophies” would be restored for use against Ukraine’s army and volunteer units.
The mismanaged war was very costly in manpower and equipment to Ukraine. The Militia grew in numbers, equipment, training and coordination. Although Russia did not formally support the Separatists, materials and volunteers crossed the border into the Donbass. By the end of June Ukraine wanted very much to take control of the border and cut the Donbass in half, so that Donetsk and Lugansk could no longer support each other.
Historical context part 5: the fighting between June 20, 2014 and July 16, 2014
A cease-fire went into effect on June 20th. The cease-fire was repeatedly breached with each side accusing the other of violations. On June 22nd Ukraine’s President Poroshenko said that he had a detailed kinetic “Plan B” for regaining control if the cease-fire failed. He called off the cease-fire on June 30.
Poroshenko’s Plan B was a July offensive that began July 1 with attacks on Kramatorsk, Slavyansk and nearby towns and villages. Another Ukrainian offensive extended from the south to seize territory along the Russian border. Ukraine’s territory along the border extended to about Dolzhans’kyi. It looked like Ukraine intended to encircle Donetsk and Lugansk. Slavyansk, which had been a symbol of resistance, fell to Ukraine on July 5. On July 10 there was fighting at a strategic height called Saur Mogila and at the villages of Dmitrovka and Stepanovka. Much fighting continued also at Donetsk and Lugansk, particularly at their airports. Militia withdrew from Kramatorsk, Druzhkovka and Konstantinovka in order to defend Donetsk. The situation looked grim for the Separatists.
On July 7, 2014 Separatists (red color) were nearly encircled by Ukraine’s forces (blue color). Aid from Russia (black color) would be cut off if Ukraine completed the encirclement.
Map source: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/russo-ukraine.htm
Battle plans are seldom reliable. On July 11 a major battle was fought near Lugansk, where a Su-25 was shot down. Much of Ukraine’s 79th Brigade was destroyed near Lugansk, and the militia didn’t say where they obtained the Grad MLRS that were decisive in that battle. Ukraine’s 24th Mechanized Battalion met a similar fate. By July 14 Ukraine’s forces along the southern border – between 3,000 and 5,000 soldiers – were trapped in what was called the Southern Cauldron. Ukraine sent 3 armored columns to resupply them, but the armored columns met stiff resistance. Both sides were claiming victory at the hotly contested airport at Lugansk. Near Lugansk an An-26 transport plane was shot down by the militia probably with a MANPAD. Ukraine claimed, and possibly believed, that a Russian fighter shot down the An-26 with an air-to-air missile. This happened just 3 days before MH17 was destroyed.
On July 15 at 6:30 a.m. local time Ukraine’s aircraft struck a 4 storey apartment complex at Snizhne. The building was demolished, 11 civilians were killed and many more wounded. Ukraine’s Defense Ministry denied that any of its planes were flying sorties at that time. Also on July 15, Ukraine continued to bomb Saur-Mogila and Ilovaisk. Militia destroyed the communications tower at Donetsk airport, which deprived Ukraine of a landmark used for airdropping supplies and ammunition to its forces at the airport. Militia captured and fortified Alexandrovsk, while Ukraine’s army withdrew from a position near Krasnodon and also left Aleksandrovka and attempted to leave Izavarino. Ukraine’s withdrawals were due to heavy losses and supply problems. Militia at the Sverdlovsk area shelled Ukraine’s 72nd Brigade with artillery and mortars. At Karlovka the militia held its ground against forces from Right Sector, Dnepr and Donbass Battalions, and the Cascade unit consisting of Polish mercenaries. Ukraine tried and failed repeatedly to lift the blockade of some elite troops who were surrounded at Lungansk’s airport. The Southern Cauldron was almost completely sealed, and some of Ukraine’s army tried to escape the cauldron in the area of Kozhevnya.
By July 15, 2014 the Militia recaptured territory along the Russian border (green line). The Southern Cauldron was forming but not completely sealed.
Map source: https://kot-ivanov.livejournal.com/2014/07/22/
The morning of July 16 Ukraine had 5 units struggling in the Southern Cauldron: the 79th separate aero-mobile brigade, territorial Battalion Shakhtersk, the 24th separate aero-mobile brigade, Battalion Azov, as well as the 72nd separate Kiev mechanized guard brigade of the Red Banner. The situation inside the Southern Cauldron was chaotic, with everyone looking for a weak spot where they might escape. The Southern Cauldron’s terrain is relatively flat and mostly agricultural, so there was nowhere for large groups to hide. Ukraine’ assault was fruitless at Saur-Mogila. A smaller cauldron was formed near the border at Izavarino. Ukraine’s forces also were encircled near Krasnodon. Nowhere was the fighting going well for Ukraine. On July 16 the Militia captured Marinovka and firmly sealed the Southern Cauldron.
The morning of July 17, 2014 Ukraine had much manpower and equipment trapped in the Southern Cauldron. Map source: https://kot-ivanov.livejournal.com/2014/07/22/
A lot happened between July 1 and July 17. Ukraine used the June 20-30 cease-fire to rebuild and plan an offensive on multiple fronts. The Militia didn’t have enough resources to cover all these fronts, so they made controlled withdrawals from nonessential locations. Ukraine’s forces as usual charged as fast and far as they could, inflicting as much damage as possible on infrastructure and civilian populations. Ukraine didn’t bother to consolidate its gains and didn’t react in time when it was obvious that their forward positions couldn’t be held. Maybe around July 9 or 10 the Militia acquired Grad MLRS systems powerful enough to wipe out entire armored columns. The tide clearly had turned by July 11. Ukraine suffered massive losses of manpower and equipment, and would surely lose more soon at the Southern Cauldron. Ukraine had failed again to provoke Russia into a direct military intervention. Ukraine also failed to convince the world that something must be done to stop a nonexistent Russian invasion. The world slept though much of this fighting, and today seems unaware that the war continues to smolder.
Means, motive and opportunity
Even arm chair detectives know that to narrow the list of suspects in a crime you should focus on those who have the means, motive and opportunity to commit the crime. Let’s see how Russia, the Militia, the US and Ukraine look based on this reliable test.
Russia apparently decided to avoid war and to reveal only enough information to cast doubt upon the accusations against them. The result so far has been the release of some satellite images, Ust-Donest radar data, declassified specifications of 9M38 and 9M38M1 rockets, declassified Buk manufacturing records and data from a field experiment to analyze a Buk’s impact on the forward cabin of a decommissioned IL-86. Russia is rightly accused of holding back evidence. But the countries making accusations hope that Russia won’t release everything they have. The accusing countries are thankful that Russia’s media have enabled Ukraine to say eventually that their army or a volunteer unit made a tragic mistake.
What we know about Russia is enough. Russia had nothing to gain from downing MH17. Russia also lacked the opportunity according to Dutch intelligence (MIVD) who has access to US and NATO intelligence. MIVD wrote that Russia had no Buk missile systems within range. Russia scores only 1 for 3. They possessed the means, but they didn’t have the motive and the opportunity.
The MIVD also wrote that destroyed electronics in the Militia’s captured Buk made it inoperable. Ukraine’s officials also said that the Militia’s captured Buk was inoperable, but they contradicted themselves later. Ukraine’s Border Guard said that a Buk TELAR could not have crossed Russia’s border – twice – without being detected by them. Ukraine at that time was very eager to prove that Russia was invading. The Border Guard was on high alert. The MIVD also issued a report on the day MH17 was shot down that they could find no evidence that the Militia had powerful anti-aircraft systems. The MIVD found no evidence that the Militia received training from Russia to operate a Buk. Separatist civilians and Militia were being attacked from the air, so they were motivated to shoot down Ukraine’s fighters, transports and helicopters. But they didn’t have the means or the know-how to destroy targets at medium and high altitudes. Like Russia, the Militia score 1 for 3. The Militia was motivated but lacked the means and opportunity.
Combined the Militia and Russia score only 2 for 3. Neither had the opportunity.
On July 17 the Militia and Russia were in a relatively good position. Some territory was lost, but lives were preserved. The Militia became more numerous, better equipped, more concentrated and unified in command. A few leaders were purged because of their back channel discussions with Kiev about surrendering. Donbass Separatists were hit with Ukraine’s best shot, and then Donbass Militia landed powerful counter punches. Although they lacked the strength to take the battle to Kiev, they had cauldrons to “cook”, trophies to refurbish, and local territorial goals within reach.
On July 17 the US and Ukraine needed a game changer badly. In addition to the losses described above, the war wasn’t popular in western Ukraine. The US and Ukraine needed to delay and blunt the Militia offensive that could follow their successes. The EU’s support for sanctions still sagged. Russia gave NATO no grounds to intervene.
Add it up. The US and Ukraine alliance score 3 for 3. They were motivated. They had the opportunity because the air space was still open above 32,000 feet. They had the means. Granted, the MIVD said Ukraine had no Buk systems within range. But the MIVD did not say that Ukraine lacked fighters that could get the job done air-to-air. Numerous witnesses also reported the presence of one or more fighters at the time MH17 was shot down.
The planning to destroy MH17 was underway when anyone could see the totality of Ukraine’s defeat in this round of fighting. Much was at stake, and there was much to be gained if the world could be convinced that the Militia and Russia had to be stopped.
At stake was the Donbass with its people, industry, rich farm land, coal and potential fracking wealth. Its location is a very brief missile flight to many Russian targets.
It is likely that planning was underway months before the event and driven by political motivations. The faked photo, video and audio “evidence” point not to the guilt of the Militia or Russia but to the premeditation of other state actors.
Hard facts in the public domain
The debris of MH17 does not deceive. Pictures of the debris entered the public domain before the Ukrainian army could shell the crash site, before the DSB finally retrieved barely half of the wreckage and before the DSB erected a misleading partial reconstruction.
The distribution of the debris also is in the public domain. We know the GPS coordinates where many pieces fell. We know the order in which the debris fell, starting from the northwest of Petropavlovka and ending south of Grabovo (Hrabove). Hint: If you want to know about the attack, then start where the debris field started.
We’ve been told that MH17 was torn open almost instantly. We saw in the images from the Ust-Donest radar station that within one 10 second sweep of the radar MH17 went from controlled flight to three primary returns. We’ve been given the GPS coordinates of the alleged last FDR position. But we’ve seen debris over 3 km north-northwest of the alleged position that, due to their weight and aerodynamic properties, were not carried that far by the wind and did not defy the Boeing’s forward momentum.
The damage to individual pieces and the distribution of wreckage point clearly to destruction by means that haven’t been officially disclosed. The hard evidence points to a sophisticated attack. It does not look like it was exclusively the work of a second rate military power using Soviet era weapons. Especially not when seen in the context of the official mismanagement of information following the event.
We know for a fact that multiple governments are withholding hard evidence. We know for a fact that the black boxes survived, and that their contents are not independently verifiable.
It is likely that what we’ve known from the beginning is more than we were intended to know. There probably was a glitch in the plot to destroy MH17. We keep asking what happened when we could learn much by asking what went wrong.
How to get away with mass murder and capitalize on it
To figure out what likely happened, imagine you’re a state actor who wants to destroy a large airliner and pin the blame on an enemy. How do you pull it off? The answers to this question will lead you to a list of dos and don’ts:
1. Do kill it fast. The crew must make no distress call. The black boxes must stop recording.
2. Do destroy it utterly. There must be no survivors.
3. Do kill it out of sight.
4. Do kill it for sure. Use weapons that definitely will work exactly when, where and how you wish. Use multiple weapons as needed.
5. Don’t attack from the ground regardless of your cover story. People on the ground must not see the actual weapon. This consideration alone rules out a Buk missile which can be heard from a distance of 10 km and produces a thick white smoke trail that is visible from 15 km and lingers for several minutes.
6. Do sell it. If you want to accuse an enemy of shooting it down with a Buk missile then “missile damage” must be seen. The launcher must be seen. Phone taps must be heard. What the public sees and hears doesn’t have to be real.
7. Do control the crash site. Ideally you will down the plane over water. If you must destroy it over land, then the last thing you want is for your enemy’s people to have access to the debris, bodies and black boxes. The destruction of MH17 broke this rule, which indicates that something went wrong.
8. Do prepare in advance incriminating false evidence that your enemy was responsible. The official narrative about what happened is all yours to establish, maintain and dominate.
9. Do plan secretly. The various actors in the plan must know only their tasks. The less they know about the big picture the better.
10. Do anticipate what can go wrong, and make contingency plans. In the case of MH17 something went wrong that was not anticipated.
11. Do control the hard evidence. The public must know only how horrific and despicable the murder was. Allow no direct access to the debris, bodies, high resolution photographs, black box data, autopsy data, radar and satellite data, etc. Reveal only what helps sell your story.
12. Do control the media. The media focus must remain on emotions and on your fake evidence, not on actual hard evidence. Your media assets must either ignore or ridicule any scenario other than your “official” scenario.
13. Do keep the enemy and interested third parties off balance after the fact. Wear them out with an endless stream of false evidence and accusations for them to process. Every rabbit hole you dig reinforces your narrative while draining the energy of independent investigators.
14. Do tie off loose ends. Bit players who know too much are a threat. Better for them to die of an illness, have a tragic accident, commit suicide or disappear.
15. Do clean up after yourself. Destroy documents. Make sure no bread crumbs lead to you.
16. Do scream bloody murder! Insist on a confession from the enemy. Heap punishment on them. Use the event to move the uninvolved and undecided to your side of the conflict.
17. Do implement a strict double standard. Cooked up evidence, social media and unfounded accusations are perfectly legitimate for you and your allies. But hold your enemies to a higher standard. Make them show hard evidence. Even then accept only evidence that you can use to support the predetermined story. Ignore the rest or find fault with it or its source.
18. Do control the investigation either directly or by friendly government proxies. Controlling the investigation is the reason why you will get away with the murder. You “own” the investigation now and forever. You control now and forever the outcomes of any criminal or civil proceedings. You decide what physical evidence will be stressed, ignored or hidden. You decide whose voice will be heard, not heard, downplayed or silenced. You decide whether the investigation is completed in weeks or drags on for years.
19. Do end the investigation when you have obtained the desired results. You must rule that every appeal to re-open the investigation is without merit no matter who makes the appeal or what grounds for an appeal they cite.
You get the idea. It isn’t necessary to execute the plan perfectly. It is okay for your story to smell fishy to a few keen noses. But don’t give up enough pieces for anyone assemble the puzzle. Doubters will know that your story doesn’t pass the sniff test, but they can’t do anything about it. You can dismiss them as false flag conspiracy theorists with ulterior motives. You have the megaphone. Use it!
Historical context part 6: the performance of anti-aircraft weapons against airliners
Continue to think like a government wishing to destroy an airliner and pin the blame on your enemy. Multiple weapons are available. You don’t have to limit yourself to one type of weapon. What will you use? You may choose one or more weapons to deliver the fatal blow and other weapons either to sell your story or to sow confusion as to what happened. If you’re a state actor then you have professionals who can make the selections for you.
You’re not a state actor. Your best option is to review aviation history, especially commercial aviation disasters that were caused by governments, terrorists and criminals. I’ve done the work. I reviewed reports about 32 jet airliner disasters dating back to 1962. Some disasters such as Itavia Flight 870 and MH17 remain controversial. However, in most disasters the type of anti-aircraft weapon is identified and the inflicted damage is known.
Use the following summaries to choose your weapons. No pressure. The following summaries won’t make anyone a weapons expert. It doesn’t matter if your selections don’t match what the real bad guys chose. The point of the exercise is seeing which weapons best satisfy the list above of dos and don’ts. I can’t stress too much that this task should be approached with an open mind. It is true that evil is stupid and ultimately self-destructive. However, in the short run we must never underestimate what evil minds can invent.
Autocannon: The history of autocannon used against commercial aircraft is thin. The only incident I found was Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 (LN114) which due to a sandstorm and a faulty compass entered airspace above the Israeli-occupied Sinai Peninsula. The airliner went down intact but burning after being shot at about 5,000 feet altitude with 20 mm autocannon which struck the starboard wing root. The B727-224 crash landed in the desert among sand dunes. There were 5 survivors including the copilot. This downing caused a heated international debate and conflicting reports. The details above are based on a source who cited ICAO Working Paper C-WP/5764.
The 30 mm autocannon was highly effective against heavy WWII bombers like the B-17 and B-24. A few rounds could destroy a bomber. A single round could destroy a fighter. Modern autocannon have greater accuracy, higher muzzle velocity, and a higher rate of fire.
30 mm rounds deliver 3 to 4 times the high explosive incendiary (HEI) payload of 23 mm rounds. The big payload makes 30 mm HEI round very effective against large aircraft. A single 30 mm HEI round weighs 390 grams (13.75 ounces) and exits the muzzle at 890 meters per second (2,900 feet per second). HEI rounds deliver both kinetic and chemical energy. They penetrate and then explode inside the cabin in a grenade-like manner, sending irregular-shaped fragments in a cone-shaped pattern to enlarge the damage area. They produce blast pressure from 48.5 grams of high explosive incendiary mix to damage the aircraft’s structure from the inside. Just 3 to 5 rounds can destroy a large aircraft. An autocannon that fires 1,500 or 3,000 rounds per minute can devastate an airliner in a split second. You can ensure accurate fire with a laser range finder or laser sight. A large airliner making no effort to evade is easily and quickly destroyed. Nobody will survive. You can manipulate the damage pattern by alternating high explosive and armor piercing rounds.
The rounds fired by an autocannon are larger than the strike elements from a missile’s fragmentation warhead. The same fighter can have 23 mm and 30 mm guns. The damage to the airliner’s skin will vary with the guns selected, the mix of rounds you use and with how and where the rounds strike. The general public knows very little about damage patterns inflicted by missiles or autocannon. Almost everyone will believe whatever the experts say. Given cloud cover the autocannon will work unseen by people at ground level.
MANPAD: There have been 10 airliner downings involving Man-Portable Air Defense (MANPAD) missiles. In every successful MANPAD attack the plane has gone down intact. In 3 of the 10 attacks the plane landed safely. MANPADs are useless against aircraft flying at 33,000 feet due to a lack of range. Take them off your list along with all other ground-based short range missile systems.
Air-to-air missile: This missile type can seek and strike a large airliner with ease. However, air-to-air missiles usually are made for smaller targets such as fighters and helicopters. There are only 2 undisputed examples of air-to-air missiles striking commercial airliners.
Korean Air Lines Flight 902 made an emergency landing on a frozen lake after a strike by a R-60 missile. The missile caused rapid (not explosive) decompression, killed two passengers and wounded several others.
Korean Air Lines Flight 007 was struck at 35,000 feet by two K-8 air-to-air missiles, striking about 2 seconds apart. Each K-8 missile had a 40 kg fragmentation warhead. The missile strikes caused rapid (but not explosive) decompression and caused damage that limited the crew’s control of the tail. The black boxes continued to work for 104 seconds after the strikes. The plane remained intact and flew under limited control for about 10 minutes. Then control was lost resulting in the Boeing 747 exceeding its design limits, breaking up in the air and crashing into the ocean. All 269 persons on board died instantly of blunt trauma. The downing was highly controversial, but the above facts are not challenged.
No air-to-air missile has ever caused a large airliner to disintegrate within seconds . An air-to-air missile with a fragmentation warhead and cube-shaped strike elements could make a pattern of damage that resembles Buk missile damage. Given cloud cover an air-to-air missile attack will not be seen from the ground.
If you want an air-to-air missile to imitate Buk damage then the missile ideally should have a similar homing system, fusing to detonate the warhead close to the airliner, and a fragmentation warhead with preformed strike elements similar in size and shape to strike elements in a Buk warhead. Not every air-to-air missile is mechanically and electronically compatible with every fighter. As a state actor you have access to multiple types of both fighters and air-to-air missiles. You also have allies and suppliers who can expand your options. The investigators and media will sell the Buk cover story to a public who is motivated to believe you.
Surface-to-air missile (mid range and up): There are 4 clear examples of large airliners struck by powerful surface-to-air missiles. All resulted in crashes with loss of all life.
Only 1 of the 4 strikes resulted in disintegration in the air. That was Iran Air Flight 655 flying at 13,500 feet when it was struck by two US-made SM-2 Block II surface-to-air missiles. The missiles struck 1 second apart. Each missile had a Mk 15 high explosive fragmentation warhead weighing 115 kg. The plane disintegrated immediately in the air. The debris landed in water. Note that 2 warheads weighing 115 kg each produce a 230 kg combined punch, more than 3 times that of a single Buk missile with a 70 kg high explosive fragmentation warhead. Also, the SM-2 Block II missile was made for navy ships only. It was not exported to Ukraine.
Aeroflot Flight 902 remained intact in the air after a strike caused by an air defense training mission that went bad in 1962. The exact missile type is unknown to me. The accident predated the S-200. The likely surface-to-air missile system was either a S-75 Dvina or a S-125 Neva/Pechora. The missiles employed by these systems had fragmentation warheads. The warhead weight would have been 60, 70 or 200 kg, depending on the exact missile. Before the flight crashed the copilot made an incoherent emergency call with unusual noise in the background.
Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 was destroyed by an S-200 missile due to a Ukrainian training exercise that went bad. The missile had a 217 kg high explosive fragmentation warhead. The strike was not instantly fatal. The pilot’s last words were, “Where are we hit?” The Tu-154 went down intact. Experts believe the people onboard were killed by the plane’s impact with the Black Sea. Ukraine initially denied but later admitted their error. It was an error. The S-200’s missile is about twice as long as a Buk missile, ten times as heavy as a Buk missile and has a warhead that is over three times as heavy as a Buk warhead. The S-200 was designed to counter large targets such as the B-58 bomber and the U2 spy plane. Even so, it did not shred the Tu-154 which was cruising at 36,000 feet at 850 km/h.
Recently Ukraine Airlines Flight PS752 went down in flames but intact after being struck by two Tor M1 missiles. The missiles had 15 kg fragmentation warheads. This downing happened predawn in a populous area near Tehran. Very soon after the event, videos went online of PS752 being struck by the missiles. The cause of the crash was plain to see even if you lived on the other side of the world. Iran admitted the error within a few days. It was an error. Note two key differences between PS752 and MH17. PS752 really was attacked by surface-to-air missiles. It really was an accidental downing. There is no way to hide the use of a surface-to-air missile in a populous area. The 9M330 missiles fired by the Tor M1 system are only half the size of a Buk 9M38 missile. It was dark outside at the time of the strikes. Even so the missiles were seen globally.
Surface-to-air missiles are accurate and deadly. However, Soviet and Russian versions don’t have a history of shredding airliners. If a Soviet or Russian missile causes no major fire at high altitude and if the fall doesn’t exceed the plane’s design limits, then the plane likely will crash intact. Where it will crash is anyone’s guess. There is no assurance that black boxes will stop immediately or that the crew will be killed instantly.
Of all the anti-aircraft weapon choices for state actors, surface-to-air missiles are by far the least stealthy. For example, a Buk missile is large, heavy, fast, extremely loud and makes a thick white smoke trail that lingers and points back toward the launch site. You wouldn’t actually use a Buk for a false flag attack unless you’re sure you can deceive 100% of thousands of people that your enemy launched it. The odds of pulling that off during daylight hours are practically zero.
The lack of stealth presents a reverse problem. The only way you can pin the blame on an enemy who has no air force is to claim convincingly that they launched a powerful surface-to-air missile. How can you create the illusion that this happened in an afternoon when there are thousands of people outdoors who should see the missile but don’t, should see the smoke trail but don’t, should hear the powerful rocket engine but don’t, should take pictures and videos but don’t? How can you create the illusion when there is no satellite or radar data showing your enemy’s phantom surface-to-air missile approaching the airliner? One must be arrogant, stupid or a state actor to even consider selling the story that a phantom Buk missile all by itself caused Flight MH17 to disintegrate within seconds.
As a state actor you can stifle “incorrect” voices while amplifying the voices of friendly governments, investigators and witnesses who support your story. Ownership of the narrative matters more than the hard facts, provided that you also own enough of the hard facts and keep them out of sight.
Bomb: Bombs have proven to be the most effective means of destroying a large airliner swiftly, with the loss of all life on board, and often with nearly immediate interruption of black box recordings. Out of 11 disasters clearly caused by a bomb, 10 resulted in aircraft disintegration in air. A bomb in the forward cargo bay will kill power to the black boxes and swiftly cause the forward section of the fuselage to tear off at the weakest structural point. A bomb placed near the rear will cause the tail to separate.
Only Daallo Airlines Flight 159 landed safely after a terrorist bomber killed himself only; Flight 159 was not at cruising speed and altitude when the bomb punched a large hole in its fuselage.
Airliners at cruising speed and altitude with pressurized cabins have practically no chance of surviving or making a distress call. The list of flights utterly destroyed by bombs includes Continental Airlines Flight 11, JAT Flight 367, TWA Flight 841, Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, UTA Flight 772, Avianca Flight 203, Siberia Airlines Flight 1047, Volga-AviaExpress Flight 1353 and Metrojet Flight 9268.
Missiles are less capable of making a kill characterized by immediate structural failure. Missiles are designed to explode near aircraft, not inside aircraft. Airliners are built to withstand external stresses such as air resistance and high speed strikes by large birds.
At cruising altitude the skin of an airliner’s fuselage is already under tension due to its internal pressurization system. Airliners are not built to contain the additional intense pressure caused by a bomb. If you want to tear apart an aircraft swiftly and surely then do it from the inside. The external weapon that may produce bomb-like results is a 30 mm autocannon loaded with HEI rounds that explode inside the fuselage.
Bombs are easy for state actors to make and conceal. There are ways to deal with airport security. The threat of bombs is the reason why air travelers are constantly warned to keep an eye on their luggage and to refuse to accept anything from a stranger. Explosive residue can linger even when exposed to the elements. Remember you will control the investigation. Most people will believe official investigators who say no residue was found or that it was found but was due to an exercise for training bomb sniffing dogs. Most people will believe official autopsies that report deaths by other means.
You can add evidence of an external attack to a target that is large and defenseless. Tell everyone that a surface-to-air missile’s strike elements and shock wave, combined with explosive decompression and natural forces tore apart the airliner almost instantly. Nearly everyone will believe you. Call anyone who says fighters did the job a disinformation agent, and call anyone a lunatic who suggests the kill weapon was a bomb.
The state actor who planned the destruction of MH17 did so with a clear understanding of what various weapons can do to airliners. They would not have based their selections on a hope for a lucky shot. Hope and luck are for little people. State actors go with a sure thing. Now try to forget for a minute everything you have believed about MH17. Decide how you would murder a high flying airliner. Decide how you would pin the blame on an enemy who has MANPADs, no air force, and no powerful ground to air missile systems.
Historical context part 6: who benefited, and in what ways?
The downing of MH17 produced no benefits for Russia or the Militia. To the contrary, the event put a harsh global spotlight on them. The Separatists’ civilian and military leaders were already hard pressed just to fight off Ukraine’s army, provide for numerous displaced civilians, repair infrastructure and provide health care for many wounded by the intense fighting. The last thing they needed was to deal with the bodies and wreckage of a large airliner scattered over a 50 sq. km. location close to Ukrainian artillery positions. The last thing Russia needed was more sanctions and wild headlines about “Putin’s Missile”.
Ukraine has very little to show for the event. They never managed to seal the border to cut off support from Russia. They never split the Donbass in half or captured a major city. Their economy continued to suffer. They received global sympathy for a while which may have helped them acquire some loans and military aid. Although they continue to rant about it, Crimea will not be returned. The Donbass remains independent, vigilant, militant and beyond the reach of outsiders who would extract its wealth. Ukraine probably knows that if intense fighting resumes then the outcome will not be another Minsk agreement. Ukraine remains in limbo, estranged from Russia and also outside of NATO and the EU. New Russian pipelines bypass them. Ukraine is saddled with a false flag narrative to maintain and JIT partners who demand dedicated investigators and help finding and persuading witnesses to testify in a show trial. Ukraine’s people got what proxies and colonies of the US often get: nothing. Actually less than nothing considering its poor post-Euromaiden economy and shrinking working age population.
By the end of July, 2014 the United States got an increase of anti-Russian sanctions imposed by the previously reluctant EU. More sanctions were added between then and June, 2015 by Canada, Japan, Australia, Norway, Switzerland, the United States, and the EU (again). The sanctions remain in place. It is difficult to assess which of these sanction increases would have occurred anyway or how long they would have lasted. Bulgaria and the EU raised opposition to the South Stream Pipeline which was under construction, so Russia had to abandon the project.
Wars are fraught with uncertainty, and this is true of economic warfare. There can be counter-sanctions and unintended consequences. Economic sanctions are painful in the short run. In the long run the sanctioned country becomes more self sufficient, develops new trading alliances and builds monetary independence. Russia has done all of these things. Russia replaced the South Stream Pipeline with TurkStream which has the potential to be extended to central Europe by the proposed Tesla Pipeline. Russia is countering efforts by the US to use the sanctions to block the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline’s construction. Crimea remains firmly and happily united with Russia. The Donbass is as out of reach as ever. MH17 did not drag Russia into a direct intervention. Russia continues to pursue its defense goals on a budget that is 9% of the US defense budget. Russia is pragmatic and probably will renew trade ties with the EU after sanctions have expired without renewal. But the EU probably can forget about doing deals with Russia denominated in petrodollars.
The sanctions continue to harm the EU, who is far less enthusiastic than the US about replacing cheap Russian gas with costly LNG from the US and Israel. The cost of maintaining the official MH17 narrative falls mainly on the Netherlands, Ukraine and Australia. However, the US doesn’t get a free ride. On March 23, 2020 a Dutch court ordered prosecutors to produce the US satellite images that allegedly show a Buk launch from Militia territory. The court request was repeated November 3, 2020. Although it doesn’t cost the US much to say no, there is a price to pay for coming between Russia and its EU trading partners. There is a price to pay for upholding John Kerry’s bogus claims and the official, still-flimsy US Government Assessment of July 22, 2014.
Bottom line, the downing of MH17 imposed significant and ongoing costs on everyone involved. All of them, including Russia, will continue to pay for keeping the global public in the dark. All of them feel the ever-present threat that the global public and families of the victims will become better informed about the downing. The net benefit to the United States is not great. In time it could turn negative.
The likely plan and benefits lost
Why go to so much trouble for so little? False flag attacks are not cheap. The cost of planning and carrying out the plan is only the beginning. The greater cost is the cost of maintaining the narrative while covering up the mistakes and keeping the truth out of public view for decades.
Augustine observed, “The truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.” In contrast, lies require a vigorous and ongoing defense. Having set a false course, liars must stay on the course to maintain credibility no matter how ridiculous it gets. Hence we have a show trial of 4 men charged with providing a Buk TELAR that the prosecution’s own intelligence professionals say never existed. Following the false course is perceived as less costly than admitting the truth or saying that MH17 was a tragic accident. The cost rises as people who reject the lies become better funded and less impeded by geography, language barriers, etc.
If you were the state actor who premeditated the murder of MH17, would you willingly settle for the meager benefits described in this article? Wouldn’t you want to wring from it benefits that more than compensate for the costs and risks involved? How could the planners have maximized the benefits of pinning the murder of an airliner on the Separatists and Russia? What would have been the perfect, most profitable plan? These are the questions that point inquiring minds to the truth.
The likely answer is simple: crash MH17’s wreckage into the Southern Cauldron. This is not a new idea. Russian Col. Alexander Zhilin concluded likewise on July 23, 2014. He was misled by false transponder data, but his observation about the Southern Cauldron stands firm to this day.
Consider some far greater benefits that this debris field location would have provided:
• Russia could be accused of firing across the border.
• Trapped Ukrainian troops would become guardians of the debris.
• Kiev and NATO would have control over and access to the wreckage.
• Ukraine’s troops would testify that they saw a missile flying overhead from Russian territory.
• Separatist officials would be forced to open a humanitarian corridor for investigators to enter, bodies to be removed, etc. The Militia wouldn’t shell the area where wreckage fell unless seriously provoked.
• Through the relief corridor supplies also could flow to Ukraine’s troops in the cauldron.
• NATO countries could justify dropping troops into the cauldron to “stabilize the situation”.
• Ukraine could get a lock on this territory along Russia’s border.
• Ukraine would be better positioned to split the Donbass in half.
• Ukraine would be in a stronger position to join NATO and the EU.
Technically there was no problem with the idea. The airspace was open to commercial traffic above 32,000 feet. Multiple means were at hand to destroy an airliner. The Southern Cauldron was a large target. Prevailing winds would prevent lighter debris from blowing into Russian territory. Western media would quickly get in line and support the narrative.
It appears that dropping MH17’s debris into the Southern Cauldron was actually planned. MH17 was proceeding per its flight plan to waypoint TAMAK at 47.85667N, 39.21833E. That location is in the Southern Cauldron. MH17’s flight path has received more attention, but it is the flight plan that tells us more about the event as it unfolded.
What went wrong?
Everything was set. MH17 was just 3-4 minutes of flight time from the Southern Cauldron. So what happened? The answer is in the transcript of conversations between Dnipro ATC, Rostov ATC and MH17. The conversation was released by the Dutch Safety Board in their Preliminary Report on page 15. The noted UTC times are when each conversation began.
What went wrong was that Dnipro ATC did their job when Rostov ATC requested a change of course due to air traffic at Russia’s nearby airspace. The waypoint known in 2014 as RND (“ROMEO NOVEMBER DELTA” in the transcript) is now called URRR and ROV. It is the old Rostov on Don airport. The coordinates are 47.26389N, 39.81889E. Dnipro’s ATC controller probably wasn’t read into the plan because the controller didn’t need to know.
The planners didn’t anticipate Rostov’s request. They had to make a snap decision!
A course change toward RND would have been very undesirable. The debris would land on Militia-controlled territory. The closer MH17 got to the border heading toward RND, the stronger the Militia’s concentration of forces. Whether or not a decision could have been made to abort possibly hinged on the likelihood that the plan would be discovered after the fact. Perhaps there was evidence on board that would have been found. Maybe a decision to proceed was made because the false flag attack was needed urgently. Maybe there wasn’t enough time to think it though.
The decision was made to destroy MH17 immediately. The order to attack was given at 13:19:45 according to Col. Alexander Zhilin. That is the time when the phone conversation concluded between Rostov ATC and Dnipro ATC. MH17 was murdered at about 13:20:03 UTC. The false narrative and false evidence prepared in advance remained useful in part after this change of plans.
Below is a Russian language war map that shows the situation on July 17, 2014. Ukraine’s troops were firmly sealed in the Southern Cauldron. The green line is the border with Russia. I’ve annotated the map to show the last four minutes of MH17’s controlled flight, the alleged last FDR (Flight Data Recorder) position, the Southern Cauldron, the course to TAMAK, and the approved course change to RND.
Map by Kot Ivanov. Source: https://kot-ivanov.livejournal.com/2014/07/22/
Stephen R. Covey wrote, “Begin with the end in mind.” The best way to understand MH17 is to begin with the end that the planners had in mind. I’ve done that as well as I can from an armchair after many hours of secondary research. If any of this article proves to be useful or true, then to God be the glory.
The false MH17 narrative should be scorned by all who love the truth. Lies die when the public doubts. The lies concerning MH17 can die even if the hard evidence is never released. Playing it safe by keeping quiet or accepting lies only encourages more false flag events.
The global public is giving oxygen to official lies about MH17. It is time for the public to cut off the oxygen supply.
Afterword: Filling the Void
MH17 was utterly destroyed in the air within a few seconds by one or more state actors by premeditated means that did not include an external attack. No Buk missile was launched, and even if there was a launch the external explosion of a Buk missile’s 70 kg warhead isn’t powerful enough to cause disintegration within 10 seconds. Radar from the Ust-Donetsk station showed no fighters within the effective range of autocannon. Air to air missiles lack the power to cause the nearly immediate disintegration in the air of a Boeing 777-200.
The leading theories are lame, and the Buk theory is the lamest of them all. This is a lot to swallow. We cling tightly our pet theories. Our minds hate an information void. We demand to know, “If MH17 wasn’t destroyed by missiles or autocannon, then how was it destroyed?”
Aviation history proves that bombs are the gold standard for destroying air liners at cruising speed and altitude within a few seconds. Bombs are not known, however, for causing external patterns of damage that look like the work of missiles to some and like the work of autocannon to others. Such a bomb is more sophisticated than the bombs that have destroyed air liners in previous decades.
To establish bombs as the cause requires first of all the recognition that the “evidence” supporting the Buk scenario is in fact only evidence of premeditation. Second, one must examine closely hard evidence including but not limited to the distribution of the debris, the earliest photos of the debris and pieces of the debris that were ignored by the official investigators. The investigator who has made the most progress is a Russian named Yuri Antipov. He is far ahead of whoever is in second place, and he has already released a substantial body of work.
My article illuminates somewhat the destruction of MH17 based on secondary sources that have received too little attention since the crash. A patient and careful reading of Mr. Antipov’s work based on primary sources will add considerably more light. To facilitate that effort I’ve written an introduction to Yuri Antipov’s work that includes brief article descriptions and links to nearly everything that Mr. Antipov has released to date.
BIO: Sam Bullard co-owns and operates a mom and pop office furniture dealership at Charlotte, NC. His business degrees are from the U. of GA and the U. of SC. He wrote the afterword in John Helmer’s book The Lie That Shot Down MH17. After the pandemic Sam looks forward to returning to Ballantyne Presbyterian Church and singing in the Charlotte Master Chorale.
A bomb would be a novel but implausible theory, because it does
not accord with well documented fragmentation damage around the
cockpit. If you wanted nearly 100% certainty of success an excellent candidate
is the Python missile which is known to be lethal, with a high
probability and reliability of striking its target, and a reputation for being
able to take down large aircraft. We know that the pilots were a bloody mess
from the detonation of the warhead close to the cockpit. It might be that instantaneous
loss of control of the aircraft stressed the fuselage beyond its design limits.
interestingly the majority of passengers were heading to a conference. they all worked for the clintons AIDS foundation . certainly from the clintons perpective expendable.
According to Jane B. Six key people in the AIDS research world killed in the MH17 crash, including Joep Lange and his wife Jacqueline van Tongeren from the Amsterdam Institute for Global Health and Development. and Glen Thomas a researcher on Ebola
Lange was called a “giant” in the AIDS research field, which means that he almost certainly knew that the HIV vaccine is a bioweapon causing AIDS. He would, therefore, have understood the implications of unleashing Ebola not just on Africa but on the world through experimental vaccines as the Wellcome Trust has recently demanded.It is possible,
in fact, highly likely, ´that Glen Thomas had become aware of the dangerous threat that the current Ebola outbreak coupled with the International Health Regulations represents. It is possible he decided to move from being a passive spectator to doing something to stop plans to use weaponized Ebola to kill large numbers of people.
The revelation that WHO media officer Glenn Thomas and six AIDS researchers died in the mysterious MH 17 plane crash in the Ukraine bolsters fears they were assassinated. It is possible, in fact, highly likely, ´that Thomas had become aware of the dangerous threat that the current Ebola outbreak coupled with the International Health Regulations represents. It is possible he decided to move from being a passive spectator to doing something to stop plans to use weaponized Ebola to kill large numbers of people.
Six key people in the AIDS research world killed in the MH17 crash, including Glenn Thomas and Joep Lange and his wife Jacqueline van Tongeren from the Amsterdam Institute for Global Health and Development.
Lange was called a “giant” in the AIDS research field, which means that he almost certainly knew that the HIV vaccine is a bioweapon causing AIDS. He would, therefore, have understood the implications of unleashing Ebola not just on Africa but on the world through experimental vaccines as the Wellcome Trust has recently demanded.
This was informational sensory overload, i must read this a few times to get a grip🤷♂️
My eyes are watering, so it must continue tomorrow.
Thank you Hr Bullard.👍
Excellent and extremely well laid out.
Yes the BUK theory is the lamest (and yet would be the easiest if it happened).
I can see the US (or Holland) planting the bomb(s). But I can’t quite see how the evidence on the ground fits with it.
I also don’t get how instructions to MH17 by radio at 13.19.49 to change course actually lead to a changed course (with changed momentum) by 13.20.03
I wondered about the timing too, Michael. However on second thoughts you see that the decision to blow up the aircraft could have been made immediately listeners heard the request from Rostov-na-Don which was uttered probably about 13:19:35.
They might not have waited until Dnipro actually sent the instruction, or it was acknowledged. (Although I would have thought that prudent).
Even as it is, one has to imagine an operative listening to the radio in real time, and immediately pressing a button as soon as the request from Rostov was heard. I would have thought they might take a minute or two to discuss it.
Unless everything was pre-programmed: “And you, Ted, if you hear any suggestion that the plane is going to change course, hit the botton immediately”.
Lastly, we must consider an Agatha-Christie type “adjustment” to some clocks somewhare along the line.
It really is brain-stressing when everything must be questioned and doubted.
The decision to blow – yes.
But it is the pilot turning the plane and the plane actually being on the new course within those few seconds I find odd. Surely it would take a lot longer at cruising speed to manoeuvre.
Negative. One only turns a button on the autopilot and the aircraft turns immediatly.
Tom, it is so true that we must question and doubt everything, including our personal ideas and assumptions.
For what it is worth I did not mean to imply that MH17 actually initiated a course change. The flight data recorder didn’t record a change – not that I fully trust FDR data that can’t be independently verified.
The threat of the course change was sufficient to cause the premature detonation.
Now image how much this timing disaster messed up the plan. A Buk missile that was intended to fake everyone out could not be launched due to the lack of time. “Witnesses” on the ground who were supposed to record the launch and flight of the missile had nothing to record. Now a credible false launch location had to be cooked up with appropriate evidence like a smoke trail, witnesses and chemical residue in the soil. The chemical evidence, by the way, does not exist. Heck, they didn’t even find evidence of a 35 ton Buk TELAR’s caterpillar tracks in the soft soil at the burned field. Remains of a missile had to be “found”. After 5 arena tests conducted at Ukraine and Finland I imagine that finding Buk remains was rather easy.
Keep in mind that false flag events have a habit of defying the laws of physics…
I could write a really long article explaining ad nauseum why a Buk is the lamest of the lame scenarios.
Russia ANNEXED Crimea?! Get your head out of the sand. Your investigative effort of this crime, commited by CIA and their Ukie proxies is commendable but never again refer to the Crimea re-joining Mother Russia through people’s REFERENDUM as an annexation!! You immediately lose any validity or credibility of whatever you write after that. Do not repeat that nonsence again if you want to be taken seriously.
My apologies Katerina. I did not mean to imply that joining Russia was contrary to the will of the vast majority of the people living at Crimea. The historical record of that referendum speaks for itself.
I think the term annexation is quite correct. It was legally annexed after the referendum in Crimea and decision of the Russian parliament.
The term annexation does not necessarily mean
Krimea and The Federal City of Sevastopol, two separate entities on the same island, were NOT annexed in any way. After the dual referendums both entities asked for and were granted admission to Russia. There was no annexation in any way, shape or form, and if you were to come to my Sevastopol and make such a statement, you might well go for a harbor swim. Don’t worry, no sharks and no tide so the swim would be enjoyable.
Same comment to you as to Katerina friend Auslander. What would be the correct word to use in a one-sentence referral? You’re the wordsmith here. I explained this to my bankster neighbor and he also used ‘anexión’. My comment to him was ‘Sí, pero la anexión sin violencia y por acuerdo.’ i.e., without violence and by accord or agreement. And we both agreed that was indeed so – in Spanish – same word.
What would be the correct word to use?
Often, some words can not be reduced to another single word. The way I described it was the way it happened, a referendum and then a formal request to join Russia. Using the word ‘annexation’, regardless of it’s Oxford Dictionary meanings, is generally construed to mean a ‘forced joining’, which the events of March 2010 were anything but.
However, using the word ‘annexation’ gives the author a little wiggle room if needed as in this case, but the vast majority of those not aware of what happened and why will follow the West MSM shrieks of ‘Russian stole Krimea’, or more generally ‘Russia annexed Krimea’. Actually, it’s rare to see the two entities, The Autonomous Republik of Krimea and The Federal City of Sevastopol, referred to separately outside of Russia, both are lumped together as ‘Krimea’ which again is far from reality.
Yes, the maps are still a problem. The electronic maps (Google and Apple which is a big map provider if people did not know) still show Crimea either as a disputed territory or something else. This was so still at the end of last year and I’ve not checked recently. Both of these map providers had an agreement with Russia to show Crimea as part of Russia inside of the territory, but outside of the territory, we see it differently on the electronic maps.
This was the situation still in November last year. (It’s a political piece from the BBC, so, ignore the politics, just take in what is happening to the maps – it is similar to most other technical pieces regarding the electronic maps). It is difficult to find Crimea and I am not sure what is meant with Sevastopol as a ‘separate unit’.
“When Google Maps is viewed from Ukraine, the maps show no clear border between Crimea and Ukraine but also no border between Crimea and Russia, according to BBC Monitoring.”
No wonder people can’t find places on the maps. They are as dirty as anything else in our electronic domain. My kingdom (lol) for a correct Crimea map.
Amarynth, my dear lady,
There are two territorial entities on Krimea. One is The Autonomous Republik of Krimea, capitol Simferopol. Second is The Federal City of Sevastopol, one of three Federal Cities in Russia. As such, Sevastopol and the Republik of Krimea are two completely separate political and geological entities on what is in essence one island. Krushchov’s decree to give the administration, and ONLY the administration, of The Autonomous Republik of Krimea to Ukraine SSR in the early ’50’s had nothing to do with, and made no mention of, Sevastopol. Not even he would dare irritate the citizens of Sevastopol.
That description helps a lot! Thanks Auslander. I did not understand that historically Sevastopol was not included in Krushchev’s decree.
My pleasure, my friend. I have some years ago read the entire document (thanks to my in house translator, VCO) and besides Krushchov’s actions being illegal under SSSR law under which the citizens of Republik of Krimea had to vote on the transfer first, which did not happen, the glaring omission of Sevastopol from the document stands out. It was Krushchov’s ‘transfer of administration’ that the orcs decided gave them the entire Krimea after SSSR was no more. In light of what happened in ’14, methinks the orcs were mistaken.
RE-admission is good.
The real problem is the use of Russia as subject and an active verb and then Crimea as subject.
Crimea moved to join up with Russia. The motivation was Crimean. Russia accepted Crimea’s request.
Crimea joined Russia.
Annexe in English strongly implies an unwillingness by the subject.
I believe reintegration is more proper.
But it does imply it, therefore creates an opportunity to exploit misunderstanding. Term, best to be avoided. In the spirit of the authors words “The global public is giving oxygen to official lies about MH17. It is time for the public to cut off the oxygen supply.”
The word is incorrect, not correct.
It has been used as propaganda.
What happened, legally, constitutionally, was a “return”.
The peninsula and all its inhabitants returned home.
They expressed in referendum, for the third time since the end of the USSR, that they wanted to return home.
No one annexed them or the ground they stood on.
Russia accepted their request to return to Mother.
So, the word was incorrect and obfuscates the actual history and process of that “return”.
Don’t continue to rationalize the error. Not a pebble on the peninsula was annexed by Russia.
So, you would propose that ‘when Crimea returned to Russia’ is the correct geo-political term?
If so, and if that is correct, and if the author asks me to, I would make the edit.
I’m not asking these questions because I have a ‘bee in my bonnet’. I would like the correct terminology as well so that people can stick to the topic here and stop complaining.
One could say ‘When The Autonomous Republik of Krimea and The Federal City of Sevastopol returned to Russia.’ As I’ve said, and should be clear in a post in review, The Republik and The Federal City are two entirely separate political and territorial entities occupying one shared island.
Two points of argumentation:
1. The word annex is incorrect regarding the return of Crimea. Here are some synonyms that clarify why the verb is totally wrong. “take over, take possession of, appropriate, expropriate, arrogate, seize, conquer, occupy, garrison; usurp”.
The return action originated with the will of the people and the reality of the Federal status of Sevastopol that never changed from when the Ukraine was “gifted” Crimea in 1954, unconstitutionally by way of the USSR constitution.
The people, in three referenda alway voted to return by well over 90%. The vote in 2014 was 95+%.
2. Russia “accepted” the return. It was a Russian Federation right to accept or reject. It corrected the wrong done in 1954. It corrected the wrong done in 1991 when Ukraine and the West denied the return and the Russian Federation leadership was too weak to do anything about that wrong.
Crimea never belonged to Ukraine legally. The people suffered from 1991 until 2014. They were held hostage to Russophobia. They broke loose of their chains and returned. No one annexed anyone. Ukies and Tartars who wanted to stay with Ukraine were welcomed to leave, and many did.
Never repeat the canard of annexation. It’s an insult and wrong.
I went with my wife when she voted in the referendum of 2014. The ballot question was simple and very clear, which she translated for me:
Yes or No. Sevastopol will return to Russia.
That’s it. It is my understanding that The Autonomous Republik of Krimea had almost the identical ballot.
The election was held by Sevastopol rules. Every citizen of Sevastopol has an ‘internal’ passport listing name, DOB, current registered address and work history. I have one, too, but since I’m a permanent resident, not a citizen (mine is blue, residents are red), of course I could not and did not vote. To vote, you went to your local voting precinct and presented your passport to the election worker at the desk that was for the first letter of your last, family, name. If you were not registered at that precinct, and it’s up to the voter to make sure beforehand that they are indeed registered, you were politely invited to go to the proper precinct and given directions to same.
The worker checked your passport, made a copy of it, checked you off on the voting list manually, and only then were you handed a ballot. Like everyone else we saw at the polling place, the local school not far from our house, my wife didn’t bother to take the ballot to one of the five curtained voting booths, she simply checked ‘go home to Mother’ on the ballot, held it up for all to see to smiles and cheers, didn’t even bother to fold it and deposited it in to the meter high, clear plastic, sealed and with armed guard ballot box in the center of the room, the entire room under the watchful eyes of what must have been ten cameras in every corner and directly over the ballot box.
I’ve been on this rock for a long time and I’ve never seen an election like the one held in Sevastopol that day. Several local women had set up long tables outside the school doors and every resident arriving to vote, including my charming bride, put something on the table, be it pastries, freshly baked bread, butter, cold cuts, sliced vegetables, various sauces for vegetables and meats, positively vats of hot tea, you name it and it was there except alcohol which is forbidden within 100 meters of the polling place. It was quite the to do and everyone was happy and smiling and congratulating each other, and me, on the return to Mat Rossiya, Mother Russia.
There was one ‘armed’ guard outside the voting area door, a young ‘Militsiyaneer’ who looked every bit of maybe 19 if that, and I noticed that his service pistol in it’s holster did not have a magazine in it. It was chilly that day, think colder than a mother in law’s kiss, so we ended up dragging the poor child over to the table, he was posted 10 meters away from the door in the cold outside the building, and fed him whilst making sure he had a constantly full cup of hot tea. Some of the children even got to try on his winter fir cap as everyone was smiling and talking, laughing and joking.
‘Annexation’? After that vote and party? Hardly, it was more like ‘Mother, you will take us back or else’. Mother already knew what our ‘or else’ was, having witnessed what happened to the orcs who came down to us whilst the coup was still in process. It weren’t pretty.
What a fine review and perview! It will never reach North Atlantisists’ controlled mainstream media: Just try!
Larchmonter, I understand the seriousness of this and we all lived through those times, and we know the power of words here and we know the lies and the actual legal situation. Yet, I know that this writer is not using a ‘canard’ and did not set out to use a ‘canard’. Goodness gracious 11,000 words and he gets lectured that he has his head in the sand on one word .. which he already explained.
I don’t like ‘re-admission’ for some reason – probably because there never was a legal ‘un-admission’.
It is for all of that that I’m insisting – give the correct nomenclature then. It will help all of us. So far, I really like ‘re-integration’, and it fits in Spanish as well, yet ‘reintegration with’, or ‘reintegration into’ causes language problems. I do not know if it is correct. It changes the meaning somewhat. In my home language, it works. So, I speak three languages and another one somewhat. So, we’re checking Spanish, my home language, German which I have some ‘Krim mit Russland reintegriert’ which is neutral.
Not to worry for now. I sent out an sos for Russian speakers to give us what they call it, and what is a reasonable English depiction.
I suggest we stick with what the Crimean citizens said and did.
I suggest also, it doesn’t matter much since anyone who thinks Crimea can be removed from the Russia Federation is delusional.
Its small profile on the globe belies the fact that it is the most defended and armed piece of Earth on the Planet.
Though NATO and the Ukies drool over the thought of taking Crimea, they understand that their nations will no longer exist if they try. Likely, a few hundred nukes will head toward anyone who attempts an attack.
It’s Russia. It always was Russian. It has not reintegrated. It returned, embraced, hugged to the bosom of Mother.
Any other description is an Infowar contrivance.
I’ve always respected your views and believe that you’re on the right track. However, the fact that Krym never left the Russian Federation is just incorrect. Khrushchev appointed Krym to be administered by Ukrainian SSR and when the Soviet Union collapsed, Krym de facto became a part of Ukraine as an autonomous republic, due to the fact the it was recognized by the Yeltsin administration. Had Yeltsin objected to Krym being part of the new state of Ukraine, then you would be correct, but he didn’t. Therefore, if you want to blame this circumstance, Yeltsin is the one to blame. Furthermore, return certainly can be used, however, it was up to the Russian Federation to accept Krym’s petition to rejoin the Russian Federation. Thus, by granting this petition, and accepting Krym into the Russian Federation a more correct term in English would be reintegration, as it was up to the Russian Federation to accept Krym.
Lastly, this is all semantics. The most important thing is that Krym is back where it belongs. Too much Russian blood was spilled to first acquire and then to defend this piece of land.
I believe the response to the droning on about the ’annexation of Crimea’ in the Ziomedia should in fact be keeping the ’A’ word but prepending it with two qualifiers:
To forestall the cynics and their contemptuous sneers is, in fact, very easy. Stick to the above, and eventually it will dawn upon them that the benevolent, requested annexation of Crimea is no irony but a most serious perception (and an accurate one at that if they are enough open-minded).
I believe the response to the droning on about the ’annexation of Crimea’ in the Ziomedia should in fact be keeping the ’A’ word but prepending it with two qualifiers:
To forestall the cynics and their contemptuous sneers is, in fact, very easy. Stick to the above, and eventually it will dawn upon them that the benevolent, requested annexation of Crimea is no irony but
Geez Katerina, that is a bit over the top no? Annex is a fine word, technically a correct word. It does not imply force but it can imply force. What other one would you have used? Appended? Referendumed? Annexed by Referendum? What word would be a clean word for you? To declare the rest of this very good analysis not valid and devoid of credibility because you yourself assign value to a word is over the top and not fair to this writer.
This in my mind is a very good exposition and analysis. I usually glaze over when we start talking about the technical aspects here as I do not have an engineer’s curiosity on these things. But this writer actually kept my attention from the beginning to the end.
While I understand your anger, Katerina, it might be best if we do not quarrel among ourselves. Mr Bullard has performed a vast amount of work and I, for one, am deeply grateful to him.
If we insist on getting angry with everyone who differs from our views in any way, we can never form a united body of opinion. I don’t believe that anyone is always perfectly right about everything – not even myself.
That said, it was gracious and helpful of Mr Bullard to apologize and explain.
OK, after many old Lavrov and Zakharova videos, reading a bunch and finding what the best descriptor is, what is used most frequently in English is ‘reunification’.
And now, once I got that word, I feel quite stupid that I did not get it automatically before now. My mind must need a oil change or something. And thanks for all the other suggestions.
Spanish – reunificación
German – Wiedervereinigung
Reunification? Yes? Perfect? Geopolitically correct and used in the professional circles.
OK, good enough.
My Colonel at 5RVR was a David Bullard; a lovely man, a barrister, married with if I remember correctly 12 children. He was also later head of Victoria’s RACV.
I think you have done a marvellous job collecting the various data and then putting it in a recognisable sequence. In fact I would hazard a guess and say that you have assembled a ‘Prima Facie’ case against the Ukrainian government, regardless of the role played by the CIA and the American government of the time.
However there is one more step to continue this logic and that is the MO or rather the Modus Operandi, but to have a MO there needs to be more than one instance, and in this matter there is.
If you broaden your outlook and consider MH370, you would have an American attempt to put NATO into the Crimea shortly after the Ukrainian coloured revolution and before Russia could intervene.
You have also stated that things may not have gone directly to plan as MH17 possibly crashed in the wrong zone. Again with most psy-ops, and indeed with most military planning not everything goes according to plan, and frequently that is where the various clues may be found.
There was only one other area that you might have looked at and that was Malaysia and their Prime Minister Najib Razak, who was later replaced by Dr Mahathir, and Razak was charged with various cases of corruption, but very little was mentioned of the monies ($1B) he received from the Saudi Royal family.
Again though, an excellent coverage of a most interesting psy-ops.
Thank you for your kind and encouraging words.
I didn’t go into MH370 because the scope of the article is already so great and because what I’ve learned about MH370 lacks sufficient depth for me to make a meaningful contribution to a knowledgeable community. I’m so thankful that we are able to comment, clarify, correct and stand corrected at this blog.
As for MO, I think rather broadly about the signs of false flag events and other official misdeeds. What I see so often is logic violated, a radical and unexpected change in behavior, and the laws of physics defied, either singularly or in combination. The official accounts of both MH370 and MH17 both fail the sniff test, and indeed both have the same odor. They smell like the Cold War that never really ended and the unceasing drive to expand NATO eastward.
As for Prime Minister Najob Razak, I was astonished and dismayed when the Malaysians handed over the black boxes. I knew then that it will be a long time before we will have a believable explanation for both MH17 and MH370.
Let’s remember that in all these cases we don’t need 100% of the facts to cut off 100% of the oxygen supply.
The Covey and Antipov links are broken.
I prefer to stay with the version that MH17 was shot down by Ukranian fighter jets. Acting for a well known rogue nation.
Prime Minister Mahatir (Malaysia) made a clear statement: “No proof Russia is to blame”. “Russia being made a scapegoat”.
I met Mahatir personally I am convinced he is a decent and bright man.
I would not be surprised to learn that the destruction of MH370 was done by the same rogue nation as with MH17.
Cheers from France.
G’day to France from Australia!
I have written extensively in regard to MH370.
That particular psy-ops was planned by General David Petraeus, with Lt. Colonel Paula Broadwell his liaison officer between the CIA and the FBI’s Intelligence, terrorism and anti-terrorism office of James Yacone. (Director Robert S. Mueller named James F. Yacone Assistant Director for the Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG) on March 24, 2013.)
The FBI team that was in KL on the following day could only have that of James Yacone’s CIRG team, and thus we have that connection.
The initial report of two Iranians travelling on stolen passports was then squashed by a person calling himself Kazem Ali, who I have identified as Ari ben Menarche aka Joe Vialls initially of MI6 and often seconded to the CIA.
And then MH370 was seen by a passenger on the Saudi flight SV2058. Raja Dalelah was able to see MH370 floating half submerged in the waters off the Andaman Islands, and for a week afterwards, the search team led by James Yacone was searching on the other side of Malaysia in the South China Sea.
And the Russian Intelligence aka a firm in South Australia,GeoResonance, says its research has identified elements on the ocean floor consistent with material from a plane. “The technology that we use was originally designed to find nuclear warheads, submarines… our team in the Ukraine decided we should try and help,” David Pope from GeoResonance said.” Of course they were ignored. The term; ‘our team in the Ukraine’ is simply referring to Russian Intel from Sevastopol.
What was the purpose of the MH370 hijacking by the CIA? To give a purpose for NATO via Britain to attack Iran, and to use bases in the Crimea as the staging ground for that enterprise, and thus bring the newly formed government in Kiev into the NATO fold.
The target for this psy-ops were the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, honeymooning in the Maldives. Why Prime Minister David Gordon had already booked his presentation in the Israeli Knesset for the 12th March, but was unable to give his prepared presentation, as things hadn’t gone as planned.
And to buy all of this Najib Razak received $US 681M from the Royal House of Saudi, but then strangely enough that amount was increased to $US1B in July 2014.
I do not think that the Ukraine could have induced the Saudi Royal family to fork out that much money, but they have been doing such deeds for the CIA for years.
And that is the reason France has always perceived England as ‘Perfidious Albion’.
The passanger airplaine thet left Tehrân for the Ukraine (or properly: Turkey — due to millitants aboeard) got shot down due to truing to pass thru an alternative passway thru the Elburtz mountains nort´rt of Tehrân. I know ’cause I was among those who installed the radars (Swiss Fledermausen) there in the years of the Shah. The plane departed from its normally prescribed course to cross the mountains otherwhere.Four miles abberasion is no small deviation jut a few minutes after off-take (levitation). Who instucted such a deportation from normal proceedings?
Hello Mario Medjeral. Please try the Covey link again. It is working this morning.
When you click on the Antipov link you land on a page where there is an additional link to click. I should have checked that more carefully because of all the links in the long article the Antipov link is THE most useful to anyone who wants a more forensic analysis.
I think this link will take you directly to my Introduction to Yuri Antipov:
SU-25’s, Kolomoisky, Israel, Python missiles, cannon fire, Eyewitness accounts of “fighter jets” in area, Putin’s plane in region coming back from conference, rumors of a returning SU-25 (Ukrainian) empty of ordinance and shaken pilot saying “wrong plane”. I read that Su-25’s could reach those altitudes of 10 kilometers+ for short periods with pilot oxygen.
As a combat vet I was totally taken by the Maidon and events and how Nuland, Piatt, Kerry, Obama Admin orchestrated that coup and war. That period had my full attention. As my son is a senior Boeing engineer and pilot I am very familiar with airliner construction and history. I agree, no Buks involved. Bomb VERY possible. Pythons and cannon fire VERY possible also. Destroy flight deck and wing roots and that plane will decompress and come apart pretty quickly if it loses aerodynamics at 550MPH.
I don’t think Putin was the target but……….the OP was designed to pull in Russia vs NATO?
I followed the ground combat 24/7. The stone courage of the Donbass heroes was soul stirring. “My” war was as a conscripted 19 year old grunt in Viet Nam 66′ whose motivation was loyalty to my platoon mates and surviving. I was humbled by those Donbass heroes on home soil fighting the Empire to a standstill.
The author may be a “Mom and Pop” furniture salesman but his well thought out view of that MH17 travesty adds to the quite widely held view that it was another “Bright Shining Lie”
Getting up to 32000 feet requires nothing special for oxygen. A hand held bottle will work fine. That said you don’t need to be at the same altitude as the target to fire a missile -the Python 5 has a range of 12 miles -that is over 60,000 feet so I don’t believe launching from the normal ceiling of an SU-25 is an issue. The only same height restriction would be the cannon fire only hypothesis.
Very simple to see, what happend
A foto, a picture showing a grazing shot on a MH 17 wing.
And a german detective found same cause.
He did pay some Millions €uro for this search-result.
His customer was very enjoyed.
These can*t be bullet impacts.Simply compare these impacts with known bullet shots through airplane alloy (a very tough alloy which always produce output craters on bullet shots).
I stopped reading this in the sakers deny of an accident because of locking accidentally to the civil plane.
He himself gave 2 examples were this happened in this article. There is a 3rd one which an freight plane over the mediterranean sea. The fourth is MH17.
Looks like an obvious design flaw in that missile series. The rocket targets a radar echo. But every civil plane has an much more intensive “echo” with the weather and collision radars. I will give an similarity for non scientists: The “eye” of the rocket sees an civil air plane brighter than the sun. Even much brighter than the relative weak radar reflections of the weapon system. Compared this is more a scattered glow in the darkness of the X-Band and around.
Further it is nearly impossible to calculate where the plane crashes after the missile hit. So every shotdown by intention is pure speculation. The impact pattern on the airplane is also obvious. This can only be made by shrapnel from a war head. Simply to see by the material deformation and the shrapnel paths throug the plane. If you are not able to see this than you don’t have any expertise in this area of physic and mechanic.
The the missile strikes on the cone of the airplane where the radars are located. So all the parties have a reason to hide. The Ukrainian side about an launch by accident, the russion about this fucked up targeting system and the west … from the false stupid barking like a Pawlow dog against russia.
That theory fits all, my 2cts
Each time I see somebody ‘stopped reading’ I have this incredible urge to say, well, stop commenting then, because you probably do not know what you are commenting on.
Your problem. not mine. I said the things on a assumption of the saker which is false and make any further reading useless.
If you had been reading carefully, you might have noticed that The Saker is not the author of this article.
“…the russion about this fucked up targeting system…”
Why would the present-day Russian government care about defects in a prehistoric Soviet targeting system?
You expand this question to “why rely the Russian arms industry on such old companies of the former soviet regime”.
Very impressive and useful piece. I’m UK based and like most here, have followed the MH17 events closely from the very outset. This adds further to my insights and pretty much confirms my long-standing judgement, that it was a false-flag event executed by the Ukraine military and planned by the New Ukraine regime with probable encouragement and help from US/NATO intelligence.
Most persuasive for me in the article are the consequences of success at having the debris fall in the Southern cauldron. It would have been massively beneficial for both Unkraine and US/NATO and just as massively problematical for the Donbas rebellion and Russia. Equally persuasive is the unforseeable/uncontrollable fact of the Rostov ATC course change request and its effects on what would otherwise have delivered the planners aims to near perfection.
The most obvious weapon for the planners to have selected is indeed a bomb which would have to be placed in Amsterdam and would realistically have to have involved US/NATO assets to do so. My only problem with this is the celebrated picture of the lower left side portion of the debris showing multiple small projectile penetrations obviously originating from below and to the rear of the airliner. I cannot see how they could have been caused by anything other than cannon fire from a fighter; which in turn raises the problem of how a fighter jet could have been positioned to fire on that trajectory in the time between the course change and the disintegration. Maybe ‘belt and braces’ so-to-speak, with the fighter loitering to do exactly the same thing without the course change?
A bomb did not match the damage on the airplane. sShown on every photo of the wreck regardless of they were fronm the crash site or the forensic lab. I don’t now the intention of the Saker to publish such a nonsense, and i don*t want to know.
Debris falling in the cauldron could facilitate deployment of NATO troops as peacekeeping force. That would be bold. I believe there are minds capable of concocting such a chain of events but i do not believe anymore that they have the ability to pull it off.
“Most persuasive for me in the article are the consequences of success at having the debris fall in the Southern cauldron”.
And one has to ask: what were the odds of that happening?
Of course, with the ferocity of the fighting in Donbas, the Ukrainian government was very much to blame for not closing the airspace to all civilian flights.
That they didn’t just adds to the likelihood that they were involved.
Mr Bullard, for your work and dedication you have my sincerest admiration.
I don’t know where your information came from, but we had eyes on live camera shortly after the shoot down. Three soldiers of DNR were standing near the still strongly burning wreckage, one an officer, I could not tell in the vid if he was Starshi Lutanant or Kapitan, IOW three or four small stars on his shoulder rank. His words exactly, and they were the first on sight of the main wreckage.
Officer: “Who shot this one down?”
Reply from one soldier: “They did.”
Officer: “Who shot the other one down?”
Soldier: “We did.”
It is a known fact that DNR-LNR did not have a single operable aircraft of any kind in their inventory at that time. It is a known fact that three days before the shoot down the orcs sent minimum four (4) operable BUK missile launch systems to the general area of the shoot down. It is known fact that neither DNR-LNR had an operable BUK launch system in their inventories. It is a known fact that DNR had ‘captured’, read found in warehouse, an orc BUK launch system and showed it to press, included in the showing was the fact that the launcher was a parade unit with little if any remaining electronics, absolutely clearly no way to launch a BUK missile even if DNR-LNR had such a missile.
Eye witnesses clearly stated that as the airframe fell from altitude two orc Dry’s were shadowing it. Two eye witnesses said at least one Dry fired on the airframe from slightly below the right side at least two times. It is clear from images of the left side Boeing cockpit outer panel that there are entrance and exit holes of roughly 25-35 mm size in that panel. Photos of the pilot and copilot clearly show the pilot with four large entry wounds in his chest and torso.
For whatever reason, the orcs shot the plane down from altitude with a BUK and two orc Drys finished it off on it’s way down. It is unknown where the shot down Dry wreckage landed but it was surely NOT in DNR held territory.
Never The Last One, ebook edition. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ZGCY8KK A deep look in to Russia, her culture and her Armed Forces, in essence a look at the emergence of Russian Federation.
An Incident On Simonka, ebook version. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01ERKH3IU March 2014. NATO Is invited to leave Sevastopol, one way or the other.
“This consideration alone rules out a Buk missile which can be heard from a distance of 10 km and produces a thick white smoke trail that is visible from 15 km and lingers for several minutes.”
There were no claims of seeing a BUK launch for days, not until Bellingcat and others had decided exactly where the launch was supposed to have happened.
It is quite impossible for a BUK to have been launched. And if there was, then US/Ukraine/media would have announced launch site co-ordinates (true or false) immediately.
You can believe what you want. My wife and I were heavily involved in the relief operations after the fighting started in Novorossiya involving refugees trying to flee from the fighting and the numbers of wounded coming to Sevastopol and Krimu starting in late April and through the Debaltsyevo Cauldron battles in early ’15. As such we talked to quite some numbers of wounded and soldiers ‘on leave’ because of our involvements and because of our works with 35th and 30th Batteries. By late fall it was common knowledge who shot the Boeing down and how. I’ll take eyes on reports and talks shortly after the fact before I’ll take ‘investigations’ by those who were neither here nor in Novorossiya at the time or even after. As for ‘bellingcat’, who and what are they?
Never The Last One, ebook edition. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ZGCY8KK A deep look in to Russia, her culture and her Armed Forces, in essence a look at the emergence of Russian Federation.
Sevastopol, The Third Defense, ebook edition. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B079KRPLS4 Book 1, A Premonition, The Old Guard Moves South. Set against a backdrop of real events and real places, the reader is left to filter fact from fiction.
i certainly may have missed it, either in subsequent reporting or in the farce of the dutch proceedings currently on going, but I never quite understood why the Russians, who were sure to have a full set of facts, did not completely dismantle the false narrative and set forth the full and accurate picture.
I also believe that the US, with its extensive satellite coverage of the area, had the ability to set forth a full and accurate picture but of course they would not do so because it did not fit their false narrative.
I doubt there is a Buk air to air missile. Buk has a 17m proximity fuse,
one in a million shot. The Python has passive radar homing seeker and
thermal imaging matrix. Nearly 100% certainty of success, especially
with the slow boeing following an undeviating course, and with the radar
in its nose cone in continuous operation. I think it was an Obama-
Biden Northwoods operation, taking orders from even higher up(Supreme
Allied Headquarters, Belgium?). Ukraine was completely under the thumb of
the Luciferian cabal at that point and wouldn’t twitch a muscle without
Those four lines are spot on proof there were three aircraft involved in this dastardly conceived, dastardly executed and dastardly conceiled and horridly carried off horrible “incident”: Two fighter jets belonging to the US-beholden Biden-Macain-Neuländer-driven junta in Kiev and one poor Malaysian passanger airliner carrying vital human information or intelligence. I should like to see someone post the original Ukrainian or Russian language version of these four lines.
The report came July 17, 2015 from news.com.au. I don’t know whether the link still works.
The witness Lev Bulatov saw 3 fighters when MH17 was shot down. He saw Voloshin’s fighter turn and fly toward Debaltsevo. He said the other two were hit and fell. One fell in the direction of Shakhtersk, and the other fell in the direction of Torez.
Parachutes (plural) were reported. Fighter wreckage was never found to the best of my knowledge and belief. If Kiev held the territory where fighters crashed then they would be highly motivated to make sure the evidence wasn’t found.
According to the news.com.au story some Militia believed that a fighter shot down MH17 and that they shot down the fighter.
Fighters were in the area where MH17 flew beyond a doubt. Many people on the ground believed and still are convinced that fighters shot down MH17.
I don’t believe that fighters did the job. I have no quarrel with those who do. We agree that it wasn’t a Buk, and that belief is the first and most important step toward the light.
Thanks for this wonderful and convincing analysis.
Just two questions. I didn’t understand why Russia could have an interest to keep the truth out of light. To expose the truth would be helpful for Russia, lifting the sanctions, improving global reputation, and so on.
Second question : what are your explanations for the small projectiles penetrations on the fuselage of the MH17 and which type of radio controlled bomb could have been used? How could such an electronically guided device be manned and by whom?
Thanks for your answers
Guy, as regards your first question, sanctions, Russia-bashing and suchlike have nothing at all yo do with Russia’s behaviour, good or bad. They stem from an obsessive desire to harm Russia, for geopolitical purposes.
Excellent questions, Guy Mettan!
I’ve wondered about the silence of Russia for over 6 years. Not that Russia has been completely silent of course. I started an article about it, but set it aside after deciding the topic is too deep for me. It is wrong for me to impose my Western ways of thinking on the decisions of Russia’s leadership. For them MH17 occurred in the context of an ongoing war with both kinetic and nonkinetic aspects. The struggle is far greater than the single incident that has riveted my attention. Russia’s leaders don’t have infinite resources, and they don’t have a megaphone that reaches as far into the West as Western megaphones reach into Russia. They must weigh the potential impact and the consequences of what they say and leave unsaid. They must choose their battles and not allow the US and NATO make those choices for them. I suspect that despite how it appears on the surface to me, Russia has acted wisely and redirected the negative energy of MH17 in ways that are beneficial overall to Russia in the long run.
Regarding the appearance of “strikes by high energy objects” that have been drilled into our heads from the beginning, I recommend you seek answers from Yuri Antipov’s extensive work. See the last link in the article. I strongly recommend you read his work in chronological sequence rather than jump immediately to this question. Mr. Antipov has started to address your question directly, and I am looking forward to him releasing more information when he feels the time is right.
Regarding radio control of the bombs (there were 3 bombs), Yuri Antipov is in possession of strong evidence that a Su-27 was trailing MH17 at an altitude of about 7 km (which tells us something about the radar horizon of Ust-Donetsk radar in the vicinity of the alleged last FDR position). The pilot’s mission was to observe at a safe distance and report what he saw. The Su-27 may have been equipped with a relay transmitter, with or more likely without the pilot’s knowledge. For more about this Yuri Antipov is the best source. His source is former SBU officer Sergey Sokolov if I recall correctly.
You have an excellent mind for this Guy. Keep seeking, and you surely will find.
One of the most sinister aspects of the fraudulent narrative of the downing of MH-17 was kerry rushing to the networks within hours of the event stating that they had satellite coverage of the “shoot down” when in fact they evidently had none. Kerry continued in ensuing weeks with the false narratives.
“While a full investigation had yet to be completed, Mr Kerry said there was no doubt about the type of weapon used and where it had come from.
“We saw the takeoff, we saw the hit, we saw this airplane disappear from the radar screen, so there is really no mystery,” he said.”
I know, it is not even worth noting anymore when us govt officials lie with bold faces but this is just one more aspect of the neo con dominated uni party to use criminal false flags.
These lies are all part of the neo con narrative and truth will never ever come out: JFK, RFK, 9/11, MH-17, and on and on.
And Kerry is to return to politics in Biden’s team. Wonder if Lavrov will be pleased to see his “buddy ….friend” again.
I suppose it makes things slightly easier for a career diplomat when you know your opposite number is lying all the time.
Yes, Lavrov indeed, the professional that he is, tried to work with kerry, who I always considered to be an empty suit and easily controlled.
One story that came out of their meetings, I believe it was in Sochi, that they had some small agreement in principle on a bi-lateral basis. Nuland of course was part of the us party and went back to Wash where she briefed obumer and his gaggle of vicious harpies; power, rice. Very shortly thereafter, the small agreement was killed and kerry was sidelined.
A laughable aspect was a short video clip with Lavrov meeting and greeting the us delegation members, shaking hands with all. The clip was not entirely conclusive but it appeared that Lavrov snubbed nuland and walked past her without shaking her hand. The stunned expression on nuland’s face seemed to me to indicate that a snub had indeed occurred and a well deserved snub.
Just a brief additional comment in that a read is strongly recommended of the linked information provided by Mr Bullard to the work of Yuri Antipov at the end of his article; Mr Antipov’s work is beyond description in detail, diligence, and professionalism from what I could discern. I missed this link during my initial read.
It goes far as to the why the Russians have been relatively reserved in attacking the false narrative and exposing the mindless evil of this planned destruction.
I strongly recommend opening the link at the end of this article to see more fully that there are responsible players who to this day are attempting to expose this evil. They are Russian patriots and in the case of Mr Bullard, an American patriot!
Lavrov’s words about his US-An counterparts as “friends” is probably a mistranslation of some Russian word for “counterpart” (French: “homologues” — those we speak with (or against)” No more then that
Spot on, Taras 77!
The US had satellites ready to record the Buk launch that never happened. Instead they got a view of MH17 exploding from within while a Su-27 was trailing below and to the right of MH-17. Shortly after MH17 exploded the US satellites recorded a Su-25 rising above the cloud cover because Capt. Voloshin was curious about the explosions that he heard. The US never will make those images public.
There was a subtle change to Kerry’s language on the first anniversary of the event. I doubt that many people noticed. His statements in the days after the event were always “we saw” and “we know”. On the anniversary of the event he said, “…we believe that MH17 was shot down by a surface-to-air missile fired from separatist-controlled territory in eastern Ukraine.”
Mr. Kerry chose his words with care. Here he shifted from statements of fact – “we know” and “we saw” – to a statement of less than absolute certainty – “we believe”. What happened to Mr. Kerry’s certainty about the matter?
One might think that Mr. Kerry’s word choice was a fluke, but less than a month later State Dept. Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner used the same word formula saying, “I mean, we’ve been very clear about our assessments since, really, immediately following this terrible tragedy. And that is that the MH17, we believe, was shot down by surface-to-air missiles fired by – or fired from, rather, separatist-controlled territory in eastern Ukraine.”
Note Mr. Toner’s “we believe” instead of “we saw” or “we know”. Note that “surface-to-air missiles” is plural. Note that he backed away from saying by whom the alleged missiles were launched.
On 7/19/14 Victoria Nuland probably was the first to soften the language saying, “At the time that flight MH17 dropped out of contact, we detected a surface-to-air missile (SAM) launch from a separatist-controlled area in southeastern Ukraine. We believe this missile was an SA-11.” Note her “we detected” and “we believe”. Note her reluctance to specify who launched the alleged missile.
Ah, but what does the public remember? They remember “we saw” and “we know” because that was the loudest and most frequent formulation. This is how false narratives morph into “truth” in the public mind even as the political class puts distance between themselves and the most outrageous of the lies.
“Ah, but what does the public remember? They remember “we saw” and “we know” because that was the loudest and most frequent formulation….”
Indeed. As Jonathan Swift understood very well 300 years ago:
“It often happens that, if a lie be believed only for an hour, it has done its work, and there is no further occasion for it”.
– Jonathan Swift, “The Examiner”, 1715.
A couple of month ago I posted the question in the Moveable Field Cafe:”If it was not a case of mistaken identity who was on MH 017 someone wanted so desperately dead that he was willing to bring this plane down.” This piece holds on of the possible answers. Thanks Mr. Bullard.
Thank you Mr. Bullard for this very detailed and interesting analysis. I appreciate the big picture you provide about the motives and why things happened the way they did, what went wrong et cetera. It provides (sinister) meaning to something that seemed meaningless, this is extremely valuable to someone like me who is seeking truth, even though it paints a very dark picture of western governments.
There are still many open questions, but the possibility of a bomb (or several) I find very interesting indeed. Of course it means everything was premeditated, which it clearly was. One can also understand the behaviour of the “JIT” from this. The fox guarding the hen-house.
I am going to read this a couple of times more.
What’s also interesting regarding MH17 is the question for how long will the lowlives of Western Officialdom try pushing this nonsense? Putin isn’t leaving office anytime soon, and now there is a new Russian constitution which has a very firm grasp of the validity of Russian law vs. Western lawlessness.
One almost feels sorry for, especially, the Ukronazis. Can’t seem to do anything right. Tried so hard to show their full, amorous commitment to the AngloZioNazi cause but always came a cropper. Very nice of course with a bunch of rabid, bloodthirsty Russophobes catapulted into power, but staunch ideology doesn’t absolve a Ukronazi from delivering as per agreement. Crimea remains annexed (said tongue in cheek) with no NATO naval base; MH17 turned into a never-ending juridical farce looking ever more unconvincing, pathetic, and decaying by the day.
If there is substance to the rumours about the end of flight MH17 being a botched assassination attempt on Vladimir Putin (flying in the same airspace at the very same time aboard an airliner with similar colours on the fuselage) the obvious corollary question — in case the attempt had succeeded — becomes:
Would we still be hearing about MH17 more than 6 years later? Or, less politely: Would spreading of MH17 disinformation agitprop put bread on the table for imperialism’s presstitutes, politicos, and what passes for its servants of justice?
The answer here is: no, of course not.
Bomb? All the available evidence points to a missile fired from an aircraft, in all likelyhood a Ukrainian aircraft. Radar evidence, from several sources revealed the presence of two other planes on courses that would have intercepted MH17. Then there’s the evidence from the Spanish flight controller employed by the Ukrainians.
”16. Do scream bloody murder! Insist on a confession from the enemy. Heap punishment on them. Use the event to move the uninvolved and undecided to your side of the conflict.”
This is what I think stands out as the weakest part. Whatever the slanders, allegations, and the accompanying technical facts — hoaxes or not — I never tend to be convinced or even moved an iota by idiotic, dress rehearsed temper tantrums in public by people caring first and foremost about money, power, and privilege. So whenever there is another idiotic screamfest like the ”poisoning by Putin of dissident Navalny”, my reaction by default is one of total Schadenfreude: ”Evil, rotten filth (Putin in this case). Absolutely incompatible with your shining, spotless moral standards, thank God”.
The subject of the means of destruction must be approached with self-awareness. It is our nature to cling to an idea with some power to explain, even if it is wrong. For example I was so attracted in 2015 to the Python missile theory that I made a lightly edited machine translation of the albert_lex report in English. At that time every competing theory had to pass through my “Python missile filter”. The filter stopped working as I encountered information that the Python missile theory can’t satisfy.
Military technology is always advancing. The public is not made aware of advances in real time. Forcing all the information we have about MH17 into an obsolete box of military understanding is a real risk. Our understanding of military weapons is an initial framework, and it is better than nothing. But we must remember that defense contractors are always developing new ways to destroy and higher performing versions of well known weapons.
Last but not least, an analysis of the means of destruction must not be only skin deep. The external weapons we’re considering aren’t designed to cause damage to the skin of the target only. They’re designed to devastate deep inside the target. If we consider only the damage to the exterior surfaces of the Boeing, then we will arrive at false conclusions.
With the above three caveats in mind let’s consider missiles and autocannon. Missiles have guidance systems that gets them close to a target and one or more fuses that control warhead detonation. In the example of a Buk missile or a Python missile the warhead consists of preformed fragments of hardened steel encased around a high explosive core that is triggered by a fuse. The preformed fragments (strike elements if you prefer) are literally as dumb as shotgun pellets. They have no means of selecting what they strike. Similarly, the rounds fired by an autocannon have no intelligence. They go where the barrel points, for better or for worse.
What these munitions lack in brains is offset by numbers. The Buk 9N314M warhead has 7,840 strike elements that scatter 360°. The Python warhead has a smaller number of strike elements than the Buk warhead, but a higher percentage of the Python’s elements strike the target due to the Python’s superior guidance and fusing systems. That is, Python missiles explode closer to a target than Buk missiles. A fighter can be equipped with multiple autocannon, each spitting out 1,500 or 3,000 rounds per minute and, as if that quantity alone is not enough, HEI (high explosive incendiary) rounds explode grenade-like after penetrating the target’s skin.
Take your pick. Buk. Python. Autocannon. Or any combination. It doesn’t matter because the results and the limitations are the same. If you nail a target with any of these, then the target will suffer sieve-like destruction. I mean to everything – bodies, seats, instruments, controls, the floor of the cockpit, you name it. Dumb strike elements will make a mess of whatever they hit. Think many hundreds of holes, not only in the skin of the Boeing but also impacting everything and everyone inside the Boeing’s cockpit.
It is inside the Boeing cockpit that all these weapons fail to explain what we see. By “what we see” I mean the very earliest cockpit debris photographs taken before the bodies were collected. There is a very serious problem with the fact that the bodies of the pilot and copilot were remarkably intact. Pictures are still available online if you doubt and have the stomach for it. Not only the bodies but also the cockpit seats have nowhere near as many holes as we should see. Or consider the large horizontal instrument panel that was located between the chairs of the pilot and copilot and received not a single hole. The strike elements were designed to penetrate military targets with much stronger skin than that of a Boeing cockpit. How can a very numerous swarm strike the skin and not also strike by the hundreds the bodies and objects inside? Yes, some holes were found inside. But not nearly enough. These are dumb munitions incapable of choosing to strike some things and to avoid others. They can’t choose to expend all their kinetic energy on the skin alone. Autocannon rounds can’t strike a person without producing a grotesque result that barely looks human.
If there were many hundreds of strikes by dumb munitions on the skin of the aircraft, then where are the dozens if not hundreds of strike elements that should have been found? They’ve recovered, what, four of them? Including one “found” near the tail where it shouldn’t have been found. Why do these hardened steel elements weigh so much less than they did when packed inside the warhead? Why aren’t the recovered strike elements covered in rust, just like disc brake rotors (also made of hardened steel) that have been idle a few days? If a missile struck high on the left side of the cockpit then why didn’t we see a significant number of exit holes on the right side?
At the risk of repeating myself, how can a large airliner be broken into large pieces in barely 10 seconds by weapons that aren’t designed to do that and which have no history of doing that? Were the weapons upgraded with slicing capabilities? And if so, then where are the signs of an external means of slicing?
How can these dumb munitions be clever enough and roam far enough to knock out immediately both the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder? These recording systems are redundant in their design and very well protected even from a strike focused on the cockpit. They’re built and placed to preserve information about fatal events under very severe circumstances.
How can dumb munitions be delivered to a B777-200 flying at about 33,000 feet while the Ust-Donetsk radar station sees nothing approaching the airliner? Did someone invent a cloaking device for them? Perhaps the same cloaking device that allegedly slipped a 35 ton Buk TELAR across the border twice without detection?
I’m not asking all these questions to annoy. I’m just pointing out the lameness of the leading theories about external means of instruction. Any external means. One can’t believe in Buk or Python or autocannon theories without also believing that these weapons performed multiple feats that defy historical precedent and the laws of physics on July 17, 2014.
It seems that all the objections that Mr. Antipov applies to the theories
of Buk or Python can just as easily be applied to the bomb theory. If his
theory is that two bombs went off in the cockpit and one in the midsection then this
theory is also inconsistent with the observed damage. I might add that there
was some information I read that a large cargo of lithium batteries was carried
by MH17. Also two Tor missiles took down the airliner in Iran, so it isn’t
unusual that Mh17 was taken down by a much more lethal Python strike.
What is the source for the information that the FDRs stopped recording immediately? As
far as I know, the DSB has not released any info regarding the FDRs. The instrument panel
with no damage is a head scratcher for sure. However, the panel could be embedded further down
in the cabin than the pilots and the shrapnel could simply have passed over it. I watched the
Almaz-Antey video and the blast left the airframe intact. The only damage was the perforations
from the fragmentation warhead. It is no surprise the pilots’ bodies were intact although the
militia reported they were a bloody mess. The conventional explanation is that MH17 broke up
from explosive decompression. This is the most plausible explanation because the holes or tears from
the shrapnel create stress concentrations from which tears and fractures propagate.
Hello evilempire, thank you for commenting! Just to be clear for all readers, there were two black boxes, namely a flight data recorder (FDR) and a cockpit voice recorder (CVR). The Dutch Safety Board (DSB) reported in their Preliminary Report (page 19) that the CVR recording ended abruptly at 13:20:03 (read as 13 hours, 20 minutes, 3 seconds) and contained no indication that anything about the flight was abnormal. The DBS’s Preliminary Report also stated (page 20) that the FDR recording stopped abruptly at 13:20:03 after reporting the plane was cruising normally with both engines running as cruise power and with no detected aircraft system warnings or cautions.
The FDR is capable of keeping a 25 hour record of data for 2,500 parameters. Page 33 of the DSB’s Preliminary Report provided at most the final 3 minutes of the FDR’s recording of 9 of the 2,500 parameters. 180 seconds out of 25 hours is 0.20% of the recorded time. 9 out of 2,500 parameters is 0.36% of the of the recorded parameters. In other words, the DSB’s black box disclosure is close to nothing, and what the DSB “disclosed” is 0% verifiable independently.
The immediate stop of black box recording was one of several beliefs the DSB sought to burn into our brains. Another belief was that until that second the flight was 100% normal in every way. A third belief is that neither the CVR nor the FDR recorded anything abnormal until the recording stopped. The fourth belief is that because everything was 100% normal internally the cause of MH17’s destruction was 100% external. More than 6 years later we continue to stumble over these beliefs.
The non-anonymous witness on the ground who was the closest to the attack was Lev Bulatov. At the time he was outdoors at his home on Komarova Street at Petropavlovka. It took about 30 seconds for the sounds of the explosions at 33,600 feet to reach Lev Bulatov at ground level. Captain Voloshin was closer to the explosions. He reacted by climbing rapidly to investigate. Lev Bulatov saw Voloshin’s Su-25 climb before Lev Bulatov heard the explosions. The 3 bombs did not explode simultaneously. As Lev Bulatov described the sounds, the interval between the first and third explosion was about 2 seconds.
With this 2-second interval in mind, consider one of the only 9 FDR parameters that the DSB allegedly disclosed. That is the cabin pressure, reported by the DSB as “Cabin Altitude”. Keep in mind that what the DSB disclosed about cabin pressure was a chart they prepared, not raw FDR data. If a bomb exploded onboard then you would expect the FDR to record an increase in cabin pressure. If you zoom in on the DSB’s graph (page 33 of the Preliminary Report), then you see that the last cabin pressure recording was at 13:20:01. The DSB graph says in a side note that cabin pressure was recorded 1 time every 4 seconds. However, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) regulations specify that the pressure sensor must be polled at least once per second. You see also that because of the graph’s compressed scale the cabin pressure reading could change significantly without that change being obvious on the graph.
It wasn’t my eagle eye that caught this DSB cabin pressure deception.
Yuri Antipov gets the credit. And thanks to him, we do not need unabridged and verifiable FDR data to know for a fact that bombs exploded. There are numerous other indicators. You can see for yourself at the last link in my article. By “other indicators” I mean hard facts based on physical evidence. Mr. Antipov, unlike me, does not speculate. As he sometimes writes, facts are stubborn things. It is best to read his work from the beginning rather than jump around.
It doesn’t matter whether the alleged missile was a Python that exploded 1.6 meters above and to the left of the cockpit or a Buk that exploded about 4 meters above and to the left of the cockpit. There is no chance under either assumption that such a large instrument panel could be missed by every strike element. This absence of holes is not a mere oddity that runs counter to an otherwise clear and cohesive scene of cockpit interior destruction by missile strike elements.
Regarding destruction by means of explosive decompression, it is important to
decompression in general and explosive decompression in particular. I only hinted at the distinctions in my article. Uncontrolled decompression of air can occur gradually, rapidly or explosively. In the case of explosive decompression, air escapes the pressurized vessel (a passenger airliner’s fuselage at cruising altitude is a pressurized vessel) faster than air can escape the lungs, typically in 0.1 to 0.5 seconds. Explosive decompression can occur in an airliner, but it is more likely to happen in the cockpit of a fighter jet which has a tiny volume of air relative to the air volume of a Boeing 777-200’s fuselage. The Boeing had numerous holes, but they were small relative to the total surface area of the fuselage. Was the combined surface area of the holes sufficient for all of the Boeing’s fuselage air to escape in 0.5 seconds or less? I seriously doubt it.
There is more hard evidence to support the case of overpressure caused by internal explosions than explosive decompression. The rear pressure bulkhead suffered damage consistent with overpressure. Likewise the front pressure bulkhead. In the debris field the Boeing’s overpressure valves should have been found in the closed position. They were found in the open position. None of these can be explained away by the impact of the debris with the ground. These are only three of the facts on the ground that point squarely to destruction by means of bombs.
Many interesting points here. Thank you, Sam, for putting this together. The historical contest is particularly important and revealing. I have only one minor note. It concerns the KAL007 mention in the article. The ‘facts’ described have been challenged very seriously by Michel Brun’s investigation. His book ‘Incident at Sakhalin. The true Mission of KAL007’ will be of interest to you.
Thank you for the heads up about Michel Brun’s investigation into the downing of KAL007. I’ll look into it. I won’t be surprised when new facts and theories emerge regarding many of the incidents I mentioned.
The sinking of the USS Maine (1898) has been the subject of a half dozen investigations. All agree an explosion of the forward magazines destroyed the ship, but there isn’t agreement about the cause of the explosion. I hope that 100 years from now the history of MH17’s downing will be less cloudy.
I thought long and hard about replying to this post…..really what is the point. I dont accept the authors premise that “The downing of MH17 most likely didn’t follow the plan”. It most certainly did, if you follow all the evidence then a pattern emerges of pre-determination for exactly what hap[pen as it had been prepared months earlier.
At least someone is paying attention i guess, because no one else is. MH17 was shot down by a SU25 fighter jet and covered up by Western criminal governments. US/UN/NATO/EU are all international criminal organisations.
The author states “What other benefits could they have seized by executing the perfect plan perfectly?” and that “The evidence points to a plan for MH17 to crash at the Southern Cauldron near the Russian border.” WRONG WRONG and just Completely WRONG.
The evidence points to MH17 flight path being changed and a plan for NATO to place 9000 troops, an occupying NATO force, into the Donbass and then to retake Crimea. I could never work out why MH17’s course was deviated over a war zone. Now i know it was so that NATO could occupy the Donbass. Cold blooded premeditated mass murder, NATO purposely shot down MH17 as a cover to place 9000 troops in the Donbass.
The leading independent investigator of the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 disaster, has revealed breakthrough evidence of tampering and forging of prosecution materials; suppression of Ukrainian Air Force radar tapes; and lying by the Dutch, Ukrainian, US and Australian governments.
The Malaysian Government also revealed how it got in the way of attempts the US was organizing during the first week after the crash to launch a NATO military attack on eastern Ukraine. The cover story for that was to rescue the plane, passenger bodies, and evidence of what had caused the crash. In fact, the operation was aimed at defeating the separatist movements in the Donbass, and to move against Russian-held Crimea.
It was revealed that a secret Malaysian military operation took custody of the MH17 black boxes on July 22, preventing the US and Ukraine from seizing them. The Malaysian operation, revealed by the Malaysian Army colonel who led it, eliminated the evidence for the camouflage story, reinforcing the German Government’s opposition to the armed attack, and forcing the Dutch to call off the invasion on July 27.
Why was MH17 altitude reduced? For the record the SU25 manufacturers have indicated that a variant of the SU25 sold to Ukraine can operate at the height levels that MH17 was reduced to, that of course is the point in asking why the decrease in altitude, ie to make it within strike range of the variant SU25 sold to Ukraine.
For the damage to occur on the left side of MH17 (as it flies) it is impossible for the damage to occur as it has if it was BUK missile fired from the location indicated, ie the JIT report is complete fiction.
Also why was a large group of air defense systems deployed to the militia-held regions just before the tragedy? Especially considering that the self-defense forces have no planes. Also on the day of the crash Kiev intensified Kupol-M1 9S18 radar activity, key BUK targeting system components. Where they providing targeting information to the SU-25’s?
Historical context: The Maidan demonstrations in early 2014, which led to the overthrow of the legally elected Ukrainian government witnessed an estimated 15,000 people marching in celebration of Stepan Bandera’s 105th birthday. The neo-Nazi Svoboda Party along with the Fatherland Party of Yulia Tymoshenko both supported this commemoration of the former Nazi ally and war criminal. In the late 1930s Stepan Bandera became the leader of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) was the name of the Ukrainian partisan paramilitary force that arose from the OUN and fought Soviet armies in the 1940s. During World War II the OUN worked with the German occupation and participated in the massacre of Jews, Poles, and Russians.
In 1943 Bandera’s followers massacred 70,000 Poles the majority of whom were unarmed men, women, and children. This mass killing took place in Volyn, Western Ukraine. In the spring and summer of 1943 peasants of Volyn under the leadership of the Galician intelligentsia using bullets, axes and other improvised means assassinated tens of thousands of Poles living in the villages and towns of the region. The political leadership of the OUN had suddenly realised that the Germans might lose the war. So because of the presence of the Polish population the political leadership had simply decided to get rid of that population to prevent Poland’s claim to Volyn. By 1945 the OUN had, in Eastern Galicia, killed 130,000. Many people had their eyes gouged out and were then hacked to death. After WWII the OUN kept fighting against the forces of the USSR and People’s Poland until 1949.
“To initiate a war of aggression,” said the Nuremberg Tribunal judges in 1946, “is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” From the historical reference in Volyn we can clearly see that Obama in Ukraine is using the supreme international crime as a means of preventing Russia’s claims to the Donbass.
And Poroshenko as one of Obama’s missives gave a speech where for the first time in history a Western leader boasts about targeting woman and children. Poroshenko stated….“We (Kiev regime) will have our jobs, they (Donbass, ethnic Russian East) will not. We will have our pensions, they will not. We will have care for children, for people and retirees, they will not. Our children will go to schools and kindergartens… theirs will hole up in the basements. Because they are not able to do a thing. This is exactly how we will win this war!” Keep in mind he is talking about Ukrainians, his fellow countrymen. He openly flouts international law, his militia’s use cluster and phospherous munitions against all conventions. He terrorises civilian populations. This was the RAND Corporations strategy to win the civil war, genocide.
There is substantial evidence indicating that the Poles had been participating actively in the formation of death squads in Ukraine since September 2013. Also there is substantial evidence that the Right Sector militants were trained by Donald Tusk’s government in Poland two months in advance of what was obviously a pre-planned coup. The Polish press even published the role of Donald Tusk’s government in preparing the coup where the Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski invited 86 members of the Right Sector to the police training center in Legionowo. There, they received four weeks of intensive training in crowd management, person recognition, combat tactics, command skills, behavior in crisis situations, protection against gases used by police, erecting barricades, and shooting, including the handling of sniper rifles. Donald Tusk, who is now President of the European Council, whose grandfather, Josef Tusk, served in Hitler’s Wehrmacht, has consistently demanded that the Kiev regime imposed by the US and EU deal with the Donbass people brutally, “as with terrorists”.
In spite of what Western media tells you the Maidan demonstrations, also called the “revolution of dignity” was an armed coup, extremely violent and spearheaded by Right Sector militants, who willingly placed the US appointed Yatsenyuk into power along with the US supported Neo-Nazi political front Svoboda. What followed were fraudulent elections where ethnic cleansing and genocide predictably yielded a pro US and pro EU client regime. The US and EU elites knew the OUN represented massive ethnic cleansing where Russians, Poles and Jews were targeted, but they funded and trained them to take over in Ukraine anyway. One can perhaps understand why many Russian speakers in the eastern Ukraine took up arms in 2014 when they saw the flags of the OUN proudly displayed in Kiev after the violent overthrow of the elected government.
After the Maidan the leaders of two right wing neo-Nazi organisations were rewarded with control of four ministries. For example, Andriy Parubiy, co-founder of the fascist Social National Party (SNPU), which later changed its name to Svoboda, became the new top commander of the National Defense and Security Council. (covering the military, police, courts and intelligence apparatus). The CIA renamed the organisation to “Svoboda,” meaning “Freedom,” to make it more acceptable to Americans.
Dmytro Yarosh, Right Sector commander, was second-in-command of the National Defense and Security Council. This is the man who organized and ran Ukraine’s February 22nd Coup in Kiev, and the May 2nd Massacre of Its Opponents in Odessa, for Barack Obama. Yarosh’s teams carry out the most violent operations for the CIA in Ukraine. They are responsible for the atrocities committed in the Donbass, for the crimes against humanity.
Oleh Tyahnybok, co founder of the SNPU and currently the party leader of Svoboda, A self confessed neo-Nazi. He opposed the introduction of the Russian language as the second official state language; called for the lustration of former communist officials. He also proposed recognition of the fighting role of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and Ukrainian Insurgent Army during World War II.
Washington had chosen to spearhead Neo-Nazis into positions of authority. Under a “regime of indirect rule”, however they take their orders on crucial military and foreign policy issues including the deployment of troops directed against the Russian federation, from the the US State Department, the Pentagon and NATO. From fabricating an “invasion,” to the claims of “threatened” lives, to the labeling of Russians as “subhuman,” Yatsenyuk recited fully the script of Nazism used to justify its various historical crimes against humanity. Kiev’s forces in eastern Ukraine are not fighting an “invasion,” but constitute an invading force themselves, making incursions into eastern Ukraine and holding territory only through unmitigated brutality against local populations clearly collaborating with armed self-defense forces intent on resisting Kiev’s fascism.
Its no coincidence that Victoria Nuland indicated the US had invested $5 billion on a regime change in Ukraine and its no coincidence that the CIA was in Kiev to ensure that the regime change occurred. Its no coincidence that the Rand Corporation documented the necessary steps to genocide the eastern federations prior to the events and its no coincidence that fascist organisations were enlisted to action the genocide, to ensure that a pro Russian government is not returned to power in Ukraine.
”Now i know it was so that NATO could occupy the Donbass. Cold blooded premeditated mass murder, NATO purposely shot down MH17 as a cover to place 9000 troops in the Donbass.”
Either that or the drooling, panting Ukronazis seized what seemed to be a once-in-a-lifetime moment of totally elated triumph and victory: The assassination of Vladimir Putin. That would boost their performance ratings appreciably in the eyes of the West and would be a lasting contribution to Russophobic fascist reaction.
Regardless of the ulterior motive — Putin’s life or deployment of Nazi American Terror Organization mercenaries to the Donbass and — maybe — Crimea, the downing of MH17 stands out as yet another silly cowardly crime based upon wishful thinking. The intended results have failed to materialise entirely, and so the Ukronazis still have very little to show for them. Their yearning for Bandera and his ONU makes sense particularly in this light. History tends to repeat itself; first time as tragedy, second time as farce.
“At least someone is paying attention i guess, because no one else is.”
Exactly. The murder of 298 people should not be forgotten. To let ourselves forget or be distracted by the crisis du jour only gives more latitude to the nastiest criminal organizations on earth. Why give them more oxygen when we know that they’ll do more evil with every breath? Whether my article is right, wrong or some of both is less important than sending the message that we are watching, we aren’t deceived, and we disapprove in the strongest terms.
It doesn’t matter whether the invasion plan was blunted by a requested course change from Rostov or derailed by the swift action of Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib.
Unknown to nearly everyone at the time, Najib talked to Alexander Borodai. Both men were under tremendous pressure. Najib wanted the release of the black boxes and bodies and free access to the crash site for international investigators. Borodai wanted a signed document acknowledging that that black boxes were not tampered with, and he wanted the black boxes to be kept out of Ukrainian hands. It is unclear whether the black boxes were handed over to Malaysian Col. Sakri the evening of July 21 or the morning of July 22.
On July 21 Russia’s MoD held a press conference in which they released low resolution pictures of Ukraine’s Buk battery near Zaroshchenskoye and mentioned the rapid climb of Capt. Voloshin’s fighter in the direction of the then already stricken Boeing.
Because of those 2 events, the sound of war drums dropped many decibels. On July 22 the US Director of National Intelligence released a “Government Assessment” to a few media poodles. The assessment, which remains the official position of the US, is that they don’t know who fired the alleged Buk missile. Which is very much in contrast to John Kerry’s lies on July 20 about what “we saw” and “we know”. The assessment charged Russia with creating the conditions for the tragedy.
I have searched high and low for a copy of the US Government Assessment with no luck. If anyone has a link, then please provide it.
Hi Sam, i really appreciate you taking the time to respond. “The murder of 298 people should not be forgotten.” Exactly. I understand that was the motivation for your article, respect for that.
The strongest evidence of WHO caused the attack is that no American citizens were on board the flight.
The ultimate authority who authorized the attack is the man who is currently being called “President Elect” of the United States by the media, Joe Biden.
america has never hesitated, indeed has often preferred, to sacrifice american citizens for politial convenience.
Very interesting and researched article on mh17. Congrats. But why the cause error on the Germania flight it wasn’t caused by the copilot…it’s another mh17 scenario. Why would 4 country presidents show up simultaneously with all the military ensemble to boot. At least the Russians can’t be blamed for that one!
Russia definitely knows the truth and I believe they will reveal it at some point. I think they have the responsibility to expose the darkness to the light, especially if this murderous act was performed with such malice, and they will do it when the time comes. Such disregard to human life cannot simply be ignored.
The destruction of MH17 was a key mistake of the “Whore of Babylon”, since the evil reveals itself in its true (lack of) face and appears “naked”. Of course, some classical ways to hide it is by projecting it to the other party and utilizing gas-lighting. It is an extremely hard task to approach it properly and carefully on Russia’s side, without getting contaminated by that filth that they are facing.
I like to think also that Russia will reveal more, but I don’t expect it for several reasons.
Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. Where MH17 has been concerned, Russia has disclosed only enough to deflect blame and cast doubt upon the official lies of the West.
Consider for example the Russian MoD news conference on July 21, 2014. What was Russia’s purpose for that conference? Was it to inform the global public, or was it to send a message to the US and NATO? Perhaps it was some of both, but I believe it was mainly the latter. The message to the US and NATO was unmistakable: “We know what happened, and we can prove it. If you continue beating the war drums then we’ll release more intelligence to the public. Would you like them to see our images in higher resolution? Would you like us to reveal what we know from SBU leaks? Radio intercepts? Military radar? Are you sure that you want to keep playing this game?”
Similarly, the information released by Alamaz-Antey was not intended to reveal all the truth but to cast doubt upon the Buk firing location (not that they agreed that a Buk was fired at all) and to cast doubt upon the type of warhead that was claimed by the West. The long delayed release of radar images from the Ust-Donetsk radar station cast doubt upon the Buk story and indeed upon other theories that involve an external means of attack. The release of time lapse radar showed a primary return north-northeast of the crash site for 17 minutes after the debris of MH17 was on the ground, thus disproving Ukraine’s claim that their military aircraft were all grounded. The release of Buk missile manufacturing records was the slap in the face that the JIT begged for when they released missile serial numbers.
There is an unspoken agreement among governments not to reveal each other’s intelligence operations. This behavior goes way back. Imagine you have many dark secrets known to me, and I have many dark secrets known by you. Are you going to tell on me and thus invite my retaliation in kind? Will I reveal one of your secrets, or will I think twice before doing that? We are more likely to accuse each other privately.
I do not doubt that events like MH17 figure into the ongoing global chess game, which is a deadly serious game. There is a saying that when elephants fight the grass gets trampled. It is not comfortable to realize that when governments rumble, the flying public is mere grass underfoot. We trust governments at our own peril. I trust a higher authority whose activity in history is visible but not completely understood.
I would love to be proven wrong by a future Russian revelation about MH17. The downing was indeed the pure naked evil act of a shameless whore. By our outspoken disapproval we can make revelations more likely to occur and future false flags less likely to occur. It is the least we can do for 298 innocent men, women and children. Indeed, it is the least we can do for ourselves and for everyone we love. Governments must hear loudly and clearly that the 298 victims were not pawns, and neither are we.
I know. I am late. The publication of your article is a month old now. The storm of responses has died down… But what’s a month in the victims eternal fate? I have problems with many of the things in your long article around your speculation on what, according to you, led to the tragedy. I don’t have the time to comment on all the points that I find “problematic”; it would lead to a post that is at least the size of your article; I’ll focus on this last post.
Your words: “Consider for example the Russian MoD news conference on July 21, 2014. What was Russia’s purpose for that conference?” Exactly what I wonder too. But my suggestions for an answer are different. The Russian MoD’s news conference on July 21, 2014 had 3 main points. All of them are proven to be false. The alleged “strange” deviation was contradicted a.o. by their own radar, provided in Fall 2016, the flight history as reported by Flightradar24 and the FDR data. The satellite photo’s of the positions/movement of BUK defence systems appeared to be fabricated. And they suggested the presence of SU-25 jets near MH17, provided no proof and contradicted it with their own “new” radar data that they released in Fall 2016. So what was the purpose? Deflection? Sow confusion?
Again your words: “Similarly, the information released by Alamaz-Antey was not intended to reveal all the truth but to cast doubt upon the Buk firing location (not that they agreed that a Buk was fired at all) and to cast doubt upon the type of warhead that was claimed by the West.” A good example of how this tragedy is politicised. “The West” did not claim anything here. Dutch experts are not “The West”. They analysed the damage, and the objects that were found in the wreckage, and in the bodies of the cockpit crew. They concluded on the type of warhead, they concluded on the firing location, in fact a large area with possible firing locations, leaving the assessment of the precise location to the crime investigation. Almaz Antey’s conditional conclusion “if it was a BUK” is a weird and incredible condition after their efforts to produce a full report on the type of BUK and the firing location, even including live tests. If they were convinced that it was not a BUK, their report could have been focused on that and perhaps even just one page long.
“The long delayed release of radar images from the Ust-Donetsk radar station cast doubt upon the Buk story”. Indeed it was stated that there had been no “foreign objects” near the plane. Which definitely includes fighter jets. But does that also include a missile that is several times faster and several times smaller than a fighter jet? Particularly considering the extra small reflective surface in the JIT’s scenario – a missile flying east to west, away from the radar.
The core of your article is about the “southern cauldron”. According to your theory MH17 should have crashed there. There are no facts that support that theory. In my previous paragraph I mentioned flight SQ351; it came over the “southern cauldron” almost exactly as MH17 would have done. Yet it plays no role at all in your theory. So how would you fit that flight (and actually all flights that came over that region in the hours and days before) into the story?
In this latest post, you give a link to an article that provided a radar image, according to you depicting the 17 minutes “after the debris was on the ground”. Apart from the fact that it is impossible to assess the paths and positions of planes and other possible objects over such a timespan from just one image, the image lacks information on what’s what, and at what moment. In particular which lines represent which flights. It is a known hard fact that there were two other civilian flights in the vicinity of MH17. SQ351 (aka SIA351) was just TWO minutes (30 kilometers) north-west of MH17, effectively behind the Malaysian plane. Air India flight AI113 approached from the opposite direction. SQ351 crossed the border between Ukraine and Russia at nearly the same point as MH17 would have done two minutes earlier without the deviation that was requested by RND ATC. Where are these flights? Which lines represent these flights in this image? The “T”s allegedly represent fighter jets. A flock of them, or one at various moments? These blips are not visible in the Ust-Donetsk radar images from the data that Russia provided in Fall 2016. Are they filtered out, is this image a fabrication, or is there another technical explanation? Assuming this is not a fabrication, perhaps the objects were too low for that Ust-Donetsk radar, so behind the radar’s horizon? If they would have played any role in the disaster, (so represent fighter jets), they should have been flying at a much higher altitude moments before the shoot down. So where are they in the image? I see, “after the debris was on the ground”. But no, people who know what they talk about and who have seen this image and the earlier provided radar images, stills from a video published in the DSB report, have just one plausible explanation: the blips represent falling debris. Btw, isn’t it strange that Russia has not provided the raw radar data from the radar that produced this output?
Various points. Carlos Barrios Sánchez wasn’t an air traffic controller. It’s a (proven) impostor. He was expelled from Ukraine in May 2014 for his anti Maidan activism (he had tweeted that himself). A.o. had an interview on RT Spain. In the mean time he’s been in a Spanish prison for fraud. Then showed up in Romania, where he even appeared on TV in a cooking program. The “leaked” MIVD report is about [then] known positions of BUK installations. It tells that none of THESE more or less stationary BUK’s could have been responsible for the downing. The MIVD report does by no means refute military transports of powerful weapons into the war zone. I don’t think the release of Buk missile manufacturing records was a slap in the face. For the JIT this response on TV regarding the missiles documents, after earlier request for legal assistance, was again a confirmation that Russia is not a co-operative party that could be taken seriously. What they did not speak of, was the missing logs administration of the Soviets between 1986 and 1991. If you want to use the expression “slap in the face “, I think that was more applicable to the Russian trick when they swapped Ukrainian citizen Tsemach for Ukrainian sailors, effectively keeping him out of the hands of the prosecutors.And much more. Like you said, “Governments must hear loudly and clearly that the 298 victims were not pawns, and neither are we”