MH17 two sides of the story
MH17 has two sides. The one about the shot down of MH17 and the one which made this possible.
For an obvious reason the West (politics, media) all focus on the suspect. Russia is clearly the suspect. I am 100% convinced Russia supplied BUK TELAR 332 including crew which shot down MH17.
The other side of the story has many questionmarks.
- Why wasn’t the airspace closed
- How is it possible the BUK crew selected MH17 as a target? The characteristics of the aircraft (speed, altitude, dimension) are totally different from the obvious military targets
- The speed in which video’s and photos were released and found just after the disaster
- The reputation of the Ukraine secret service
- The motive to blame Russia for this act
- The acting of Ukraine after the disaster. Advance to the crash site etc.
- the political driven DSB and JIT investigation
- Why JIT does not investigate the failure to close airspace
There are many people doubting Russia is responsible for the downing. Forget about it. Better concentrate on the role of Ukraine to get the full story!
Maybe just maybe the strong objection by Russia to the JIT results can be explained by the role of Ukraine.
by 
Yes, I kow you’re not going to make this public, but think a bit:
1) Why Russian planes did fly over the area before as well as shortly after?
2) Why does Russia not tell us? They shot it down, so they must know it the best why it happened.
3) There were networks of military spotters on both side.
4) You mean the reputation of its secret service being undercut by Russia-loyal personnel from the Yanukowitsch era
5) The motive to blame an aggressor as an aggressor? What should be wrong about it or questionable?
6) Indeed unclear
7) The world is political. What a big surprise. They still did a good job compared to the other side. Since when it is illegitimate to point the finger on the suspect just it because it also fits the political agenda?
8) That error has be named and the most plausible reason is the money Ukraine gets for this passage rights.
What you do here is another round of the suggestive Cui Bono blame game. Can it be that despite acknowledging it was Russia responsible for the shot-down of MH17, you try to find by any mean some equidistant version of the incident to fit your view of the west?
Russia already had a problem admitting they attacked Ukraine (fired Grad via the border on Ukrainian troops, delivered weapons, etc.). Was that also following the playbook of a secret western plot?
2. How is it possible the BUK crew selected MH17 as a target?
Andrei Illarionov: Three versions of the act of terror on the 17th of July 2014 (in Russian):
http://aillarionov.livejournal.com/949526.html
Was the answer really about 2014 Moscow Metro derailment?
A question at BRICS press conference by Putin, July 17, 2014 (before MH17 shotdown):
https://youtu.be/-KVVKT9BHHg
Question: A question about the Moscow metro, if I may. I am sorry, you have already offered your condolences, and an investigation has been launched. Do you think the Moscow authorities should be held responsible, as they are the ones who rally for a shift to municipal transport?
Vladimir Putin: Responsibility should always be personal. There is a classic example from criminal law called a ‘shooting tragedy’, when two hunters shoot at a bush thinking there is game there, and accidentally kill a man. Since experts cannot establish who did it, they are both set free. Liability should always be personalised.
If a certain person is found guilty, if it is established that the accident occurred through his or her fault (it was a terrible accident, and I would like to once again express my condolences to the families of the victims and my solidarity with those injured – we will do everything to help them), the investigators should expose the guilty party (I already spoke to Mr Bastrykin about this yesterday) and they should be held responsible, but only those specific individuals whose fault it was.
We should not make any general statements here or use the tragedy as a PR opportunity. Here we need the professional actions and conclusions of the relevant authorities responsible for this work, its organisation and control.
re 8
DSB investigated and stated Ukraine held liability, but Dutch and Malaysia held none for sending it there.
However, the criminal liability (if there was any) should have been expressed by DSB, it was not.
If so, they would have recommended JIT look deeper or state that they saw crimes had been committed
They did not go that far.
Another possible reason due to international law and ICAO regs is that Ukraine itself must charge its own controllers if there laws show crimes committed.
Just opinions, I have not deeply researched it and not well versed in criminal law.
Responsibility lawsuits will come.
I imagine some may come against Dutch airports as well as Malaysia Airlines as well as Ukraine for this issue.
— Even though DSB did all the finger pointing at Ukraine but stated none others were responsible because the others lacked the data that Ukraine had….
— Even though Ukraine did share some and Dutch were paying attention to the news…
—Even so, the civil courts may find Dutch and Malaysia do hold some liability
We shall see how the ambulance chasing lawyers work.
IF there was a crime committed about ‘not closing airspace in Ukraine or at least conflict zone’, I am sure DSB would have put forth that statement.
JIT (investigative body) and Dutch Prosecutors would have followed up and had to make 4 decisions
– Do they agree with DSB findings?
– Do they have any relevant criminal law statutes?
– Do they feel they can prove it was a crime (broke laws they have)?
– can they try the case in Dutch courts and Dutch laws or under some International laws at International Court?
As far as civil case, DSB stated its conclusion.
Dutch and MA hold no civil liability
and that Ukraine (not sure it personally labelled the decision makers though) does.
I do wish DSB did say. ‘There ‘was’/’was not’ a crime committed around this.’
However it may be solely a wait and see issue.
Perhaps, they do not want to hold Ukraine criminally responsible right now assuring continuing cooperation in a larger part of the investigation.
My guess is no Dutch crimes were committed but it will be held as a civil case in NL that will be tried and decided in the future as long as lawyers and victim’s families want to pursue it.
In Ukraine, they will have to check their own laws as well.
No law broken, then prosecutors won’t bring charges.
Everyone may pass new legislation if they feel there is a law that should be wrote about it (It should be a crime but we do not have a law currently to arrest with)
But I did not see where DSB recommended that either.
AS far as #2 Slozny offered a link of possible motives/scenarios.
I might add to that that possibility RU okayed or chose a target after they were sure enough USA assets were out of range (with what they know) as a reason ‘fog’ that no one knows so Russia in days after could come secure a crime scene in a plane that landed on their proxies territory until/while Dutch and International authorities got permissions.
SeaBreeze was done and AWACs were out of range by ~ 30 minutes, etc.
MH17 was semi random choice, 1st available target at the time the BUK crew was ready to go operational.
Maybe UA released enough info publicly, and privately along with USA in diplomatic channels, that stalled or prevented the RU forces from coming in, that some leading European nation’s leaders said do not go there or war will be declared.
And Putin made decision to back down.
Lots of speculation, but at this point that is much of what we the public have as far as motive.
Fare thee well