Increased Kremlin propaganda indicates final DSB report mentions something Russia does not like
There is an increase in the propaganda by Kremlin on the MH17 investigations in the last couple of weeks. This cannot be a coincidence as the final Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report will be published in the first half of October 2015.
Especially Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Lavrov expressed a lot of criticism on the DSB and the JIT.
At August 24 Lavrov added some more criticsm. He told the DSB told the Russian delegates that 7 months ago some possible BUK parts were found. The DSB people did not want to show the parts however. JIT also did not want to tell where they found the parts.
Also Kremlin financed news agencies as Russia Today and Sputnik news are releasing news each and every day trying to discredit the DSB and JIT investigations. Like this article MH17 Tragedy Is Being Probed by ‘Incompetent’ Investigators – US Analyst (Sputniknews)
Russia is a so called Accredited Representative in the Dutch Safety Board team investigating the shot down. Russia has been invited to join the team by the DSB to provide information on request. The quantity of information Russia can provide is however limited.
Besides Air Traffic Control recordings there is not much additional expertise Russia can add. The aircraft and engines were not made in Russia, the reason the VS and UK are part of the investigation team.
So including Russia is the DSB team was likely for political reasons. If Russia was excluded Russia would even have more criticism for being excluded. Adding Russia to the DSB team will not provide them insight in the secret results of the JIT (the criminal investigation) results.
Russia as member is supposed to have full knowledge of the draft final report of this terrible accident. Their responses after they where given the draft final version was that the report has more questions than it provides answers.
The increase of criticism by Russia on the investigation can mean two things:
- they do not like what is concluded in the final DSB report
- they miss information so Russia fears the blame will continue to be on Russia for the time being.
Lets start with some background.
There are two major investigations on MH17.:
- One on the circumstances of the accident. This investigation is conducted by the Dutch Safety Board (DSB). Experts from Russia, Malaysia, Ukraine, UK, VS and Australia are involved as well. The task of any investigation undex Annex 13 of the ICAO is to find the circumstances and cause of the accident. Not to blaim.The final report of the DSB is expected to be made public in the first half of October 2015.
- One of the who is responsible. This is the criminal investigation done by the Joint Investigation Team. Results of this investigation will be made public in the court case.
Russian criticism
In this post I focus on the DSB investigation This is because Russia recently expressed a lot of criticism on this investigation.
Especially Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia, Lavrov had a lot of comments. He expressed those at a conference in Malaysia. For example in this interview.
Some of his statements are listed below
- Russia is the only country that provided the data from its radars for investigation, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov notes (Tass)
- The Russian participants are not receiving all information, which has been distributed among some other participants in this group (RbtH)
- The participants in the investigation did not contact the Russian corporation Almaz-Antey, the manufacturer of the Buk surface-to-air missile system, which, as Kiev and some Western countries claim, was used to down the plane (RbtH)
- The investigation is not independent, not comprehensive and not truly international. (Russia Today)
At Monday August 10, 2 additional statements on the DSB report and method of investigation were released by Russian Foreign Ministry’s official spokesperson Maria Zakharova
“The fact that ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) does not participate in the investigation of MH17 crash in east Ukraine causes confusion and raises questions in Moscow, she told Rossiya 24 TV channel on Monday” and published by
“I am not even talking about plane parts that were left in the field. Our questions on why not all debris were collected, we were told that what had been collected and transported was enough. But this is not right,” she stressed.
What could be in the final report that makes Russia nervous?
The final report will be published in October. Nobody outside the investigation knows the content yet. Russia does know as member of the DSB team.
We know one thing for sure since this pressrelease of the Dutch prosecutor. The DSB final report will mention the possible BUK fragments which were found.
My prediction on the content of the final DSB report is here.
DSB and many other people have said the scope of the investigation is a technical one with goal of establishing the cause of the accident. I use the word ‘accident’ on purpose. The report will not mention who was responsibile for the accident.
However DSB will have to explain the cause. As the Dutch prosecutor made public at August 11 possible parts of a BUK missile were found, it is likely DSB will mention a BUK was used.
Russian media have always been stressing an Ukraine SU-25 shot down MH17. So now the DSB investigation confirms a BUK, the likelyhood Russia was involved in increased.
CNN at July 16 reported the DSB report will mention that a “Russian missile” was used to down MH17. The title suggests the missile was shot by the state Russia however likely the title must be read as ‘ DSB report mentions a Russian made missile downed MH17′
CNN also reports the location where the missile was fired is mentioned in the report.
I highly doubt this. I do not think Russia is nervous about the DSB report because it mentions the location the missile was fired from.
Is Russian criticism on the DSB report reasonable?
The short answer: mainly no however Russia has a single valid point.
A few of the statements are impossible to check on facts. We do not know if the DSB didn’t contact Almaz Antey, the manufacturer of the BUK missile. But it would be not very logical. Dutch prosector had send a juridical request for help to Russia. Russia denied in March 2015 it had received such a request. (source.) At April 8 and 9 2015 a delegation of the Dutch prosector and Duth police went to Moscow to talk about this request. This visit was confirmed by the Dutch minister of Justice and Safety (source)
Is Russia right in saying they do not get all the information other participants in the DSB investigation get? Also very unlikely.
One thing for sure is nonsense. The DSB investigation is done according Annex 13 of the ICAO. It is written in the DSB preliminary report. ICAO never ever made a statement the DSB investigation is not right.
Lets have a look at another statement: investigation is not independent, not comprehensive and not truly international.
Another lie of Kremlin. All participants of an aviation crash are part of the investigation. States which are recommended according Annex 13 of ICAO are state of occurance (Ukraine), state of registry (Malaysia), state of manufacturer (US plane and US for engines). Australia and Russia are invited by DSB because of expertise.
So the investigation is for sure international. When the final report is published we can judge if the report is independant and comprehensive.
What is a valid point?
It is a fact that some debris relevant for the investigation are still in Eastern Ukraine. In June 2015 a filmcrew of Russia Today visted the crashsite. RT interviewed someone who found parts of the roof near the cockpit. Some parts clearly show damage of shrapnel. The parts were brought to the office of the mayor of Petropavlivka. The mayor told RT that she is in contact with the Dutch recovery mission (likely lead by the Dutch Army). However the latest contact was in May 2015 and no date was set to collect newly found debris.
All the details of the found debris are here.
Russia Today then reports that the in recovery of the parts. It is very unlikely DSB contacted RT though. The RT video clearly shows where the parts are located. My guess this RT item is another attempt to discredit the DSB investigation.
DSB said in a response it does not comment on who they contact during the interview.
Summary
Russia is for sure speading lies. The statements the DSB investigation is not done by ICAO is a pure lie. If a state tells this, people have to doubt about the credibility of other Russian statements.
Here is Lavrov statements:
http://www.mid.ru/en/maps/my/-/asset_publisher/k60GNNCKhMNn/content/id/1635111
Can’t judge if your criticism is validation the moment. Didn’t read ICAO regulations. But what about the UN resolution? Is Lavrov correct?
Accidentally bumped into a peculiar statement from Kiev authorities
http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/214339.html
Apparently they wanted to claim that black boxes are with them. (Rob wanted to know when Kiev lied ever). Peculiar thing is that according to Kiev their forces were far away from the site and they were not attacking. One, like me, would speculate that this statement indicates that certain Ukr forces were tasked to get to the site by all means and get the boxes. But they were repelled by rebels, as was claimed by rebels later. Just a food for thought.
One of the main parts of the MH17 investigation team’s job is to gather evidence. It’s clear now that they’ve made very little effort to do that. Many important pieces of evidence from the wreckage are still lying around in East Ukraine. Much of that was still there nearly a year after the crash
when the DSB released the draft of their final report.
So it’s completely believable that they didn’t bother contacting Almaz Antey either. And if they really did contact AA, it’s surprising that they haven’t denied Lavrov’s public allegation that they didn’t.
Brendan:
They obviously didn’t contact Almaz Antey, as AA had to reconstruct the fragment damage themselves from photographs. If they had contacted Almaz Antey, the first thing any competent engineer would have asked for is access to data on the damage to the plane.
You would think allowing an objective investigation by the manufacturer of a complex weapon with the capability to simulate the effects of the warhead strike might be of interest to the investigators.
Similar to this, the leaving behind of large pieces of debris is appalling. The key evidence that could very well be on some piece left rotting in a field. In other crashes like TWA800, great care was taken to get every single piece and reconstruct the plane as much as possible.
Of course, if you are of the mind that the crash was solved within 2 hours by the SBU, then none of the above steps are necessary as they have already been tried and convicted by being declared culpable. You can proceeed directly to the execution of the declared guilty parties as soon as they are caught.
The relevant part of ICAO Annex 13:
“5.23 Any State which on request provides information, facilities or experts to the State conducting the investigation shall be entitled to appoint an accredited representative to participate in the investigation.
5.25 Participation in the investigation shall confer entitlement to participate in all aspects of the investigation, under the control of the investigator-in-change, in particular to:
a) visit the scene of the accident;
b) examine the wreckage;
c) obtain witness information and suggest areas of questioning;
d) have full access to all relevant evidence as soon as possible;
e) receive copies of all pertinent documents;
f) participate in read-outs of recorded media;
g) participate in off-scene investigative activities such as component examinations, technical briefings, tests and simulations;
h) participate in investigation progress meetings including deliberations related to analysis, findings, causes and safety recommendations;
and
i) make submissions in respect of the various elements of the investigation.
However, participation of States other than the State of Registry, the State of the Operator, the State of Design and the State of Manufacture may be limited to those matters which entitled such States to participation under 5.23.”
Normally Russia as a state that provided information would be equally entitled to access to all evidence (Participation in the investigation *shall* confer entitlement to participate in all aspects of the investigation).
Obviously the exception mentioned in the last sentence of the passage I quoted, which allows to bar Russia, was applied by the responsible for the investigation.
Now Russia complains that this contradicts the call of UN Resolution 2166 for a true international and independent investigation.
Do you know why the DSB issued a press release (the one from August 11th) in the name of the JIT if the two investigations are independent of each other?
Ole, you expand the powers stated with conflicting statements.
“5.23 Any State which on request provides information, facilities or experts to the State conducting the investigation shall be entitled to appoint an accredited representative to participate in the investigation.”
And – ‘(Participation in the investigation *shall* confer entitlement to participate in all aspects of the investigation).’
Why did you add ‘in all aspects’ ?
5.23 is specific, it does not say in all aspects.
Just that they can participate, but certain items might be withheld from nations that are not under the clause for – Did you own the Plane, Did the disaster happen in your nation, Did you have passengers on the plane, Did you manufacture the main parts of the plane are the ones that get full access to DSB investigation.
JIT has different rules and they have the right to restrict info and evidence that is collected by DSB investigators that should not be released to ‘the suspect’ since their investigation is more of a criminal investigation.
Similar to the public can have access to an autopsy report of a murder, but they cannot know of the evidence collected therein.
There are aspects of the two investigations, the murder and the autopsy that overlap, but the release of the autopsy is controlled by the criminal investigators so their evidence does not get released and encourage the murder suspect to be aware he or she is under investigation.
Why did you add that to your statement – ‘in all aspects’ ???
As to your question to the admin, there might be some glimmer of an answer in what I say above.
Asking the admin why someone else does something might be best asked to the person that made that statement, if they would respond.
Anything the admin or others would suggest are just logical guesses.
Fare thee well
Is ‘in all aspects’ considered in normal IACO investigations?
And because of Annex 13, which all states agreed to, it is different?
And that is what your saying the Kremlin doesn’t like?
They think Annex 13 was added after the fact during the vote for UN2166 and the UN 2166 states – in all aspects?
I am just not sure what your trying to put out there.
Fare thee well
And Ole, to your final question, I think it can be answered in their final statement on August 11.
‘The JIT conducts the criminal investigation and the DSB the investigation into the cause of the crash. Both investigations are conducted separately but JIT and DSB occasionally share material. In its final report the Dutch Safety Board will report on the discovered parts. ‘
http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2049/investigation-crash-mh17-17-july-2014/onderzoek/1650/investigation-into-possible-buk-missile-parts#fasen
“Both investigations are conducted separately but JIT and DSB occasionally share material.”
Obviously they are not only sharing material but also press releases, which seems to be nonsensically if they conduct there investigations separately.
I think the last sentence is the most interesting, and may be why it was a joint statement.
– In its final report the Dutch Safety Board will report on the discovered parts. ‘
So BOTH the JIT and DSB reports will include info about these fragments.
And that may be why it was a joint statement.
One would assume specific missile parts found and classified evidence would be more part of the criminal investigation, I believe.
Thank you for the clarification, I missed that in 5.25.
My guess is the part about the investigator in charge has to do with limiting access to certain people as he sees fight.
They have the entitlement or the right to access to all parts of the investigation, but the investigator in charge has the right to limit those rights, if I read it correctly.
I am guessing the DSB investigator in charge, is somewhat subject to the jurisdiction of the JIT investigation.
So with their input, he can make the decision what gets released in relation to the DSB report and DSB investigation, but can be limited to what is released that is not pertinent to the DSB public report.
Fare thee well
Fit not fight – typo.
And I apologize for giving you the impression I was presuming to speak for the JIT and DSB and the admin.
It was just some logical guesses.
The admin could definitely weigh in at any time and I did
Why I pointed that out was it is like asking a police officer what a murder suspects motive is.
The LEO may have some guesses for motive but, as I suggest, the motive may be directly different if you asked the murder suspect.
The LEO may suggest theft interruption by the victim as the motive.
And the suspect may say I just did not like his hair cut.
Two widely different motives for murder, and both may be correct.
Anyways, I did not intend to seem rude.
I think the admin’s, mine, and your’s ideas of motive (or why interrogative) may be from an outside observers POV and that it may be best to contact a rep from DSB about it since they are available.
Fare thee well
English is not my native language but I don’t think my understanding is that bad.
In his article wrote:
“The DSB investigation is done according Annex 13 of the ICAO.”
I quoted a relevant passage of the Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation:
5.23 states who has the right to appoint an accredited representative to participate in the investigation.
5.25 states that participation in the investigation *shall* confer entitlement to participate in *all aspects* of the investigation.
5.25 also opens the possibility to “downgrade” an accredited representative such that he is barred from the privileges he normally is granted by this 5.25
Telling people whom to ask what is not considered polite where I live, I think may have more information than I (something you obviously consider unthinkable) so why don’t we leave him speak for himself?
After reading Annex 13, I would add that according to ICAO DSB was not entitled to leak information to either press or to JIT. The later exchange before DSB finishes the investigation is clearly stepping beyond the assigned boundaries.
ALso, DSB was supposed to distinguish following scenario of the incident: 1) plane failure (manufacturer or service problem); 2) pilot mistake; 3) Act of God (lightning strike, hail, etc); 4) wrong instructions from ATC; 5) damage to the plane from inside (bomb); 6) damage to the plane from outside.
DSB made an assessment that #6 is at play. However, they provided limited evidence justifying that judgment. The judgement is given from the height of authority, similar to Catholic church insisting that the Earth is flat. They could make a conclusion on #6 if external objects were found in the bodies and parts of the plane, and those objects were clearly identified, through geometrical and chemical analysis. But if it was done then they shouldn’t talk about high speed objects.
We have to understand the position of DSB and JIT. They cannot tell what they know for several reasons. One of the reasons is that DSB want the cooperation of Russia. I guess Russia has to sign the final report as well.
Also DSB cannot release info to the public yet because Russia will claim the conclusions come to early. And now they claim the investigaion is too slow.
I am not sure but I believe in Annex 13 is written that the investigation lead decides what information is released to the public and when. Like in the Germanwings information information was provided during the investigation and before publication of the final report.
You might also missed the following from Annex13
Exceptions to the protection of safety information should only be granted by national
national laws and regulations when:
a) there is evidence that the occurrence was caused by an act considered,in
accordance with the law, to be conduct with intent to cause damage, or conduct with knowledge
that damage would probably result, equivalent to reckless conduct, gross
Negligence or wilful misconduct;
b) an appropriate authority considers that circumstances reasonably indicate that the
occurrence may have been caused by conduct with intent to cause damage, or conduct with knowledge that damage would probably result, equivalent to reckless conduct, gross negligence or wilful misconduct; or
c) a review by an appropriate authority determines that the release of the safety
information is necessary for the proper administration of justice, and that its release
outweighs the adverse domestic and international impact such release may have on
future availability of safety information.
However, there are still topics that DSB can perform on behalf of ICAO and under annex 13. They need to investigate if air traffic control lapse led to the disaster. Still UN resolution clearly identified ICAO leading role, not DSB or JIT. The later is clearly against the resolution.it could only be established after DSB conclusions.
admin, I think the lead investigator has the right about letting information get to certain members of the investigation committee or the public.
The right of public viewing and sharing of evidence would more then likely be a group type voting of the investigative bodies group, and they take into suggestion the suggestions by various governments that contributed evidence as to whether or not they release it, but he has the right to make a final decision.
IF it will cause the death of a CIA agent by his name being released or a Ukrainian, or harm, they can retract that from being public information.
If it reveals national defense secrets of a nation, they can withhold the evidence but not the conclusion from the evidence.
You may be right, in some aspects the DSB head investigator once all the hoops have been jumped through can release certain items to the public and the concerned families of victims of MH17.
This is a crazy investigation, because one of the main suspects is a nation with enough nukes to end life on the Earth as we know it.
And to that, I think a Tribunal is definitely in order.
Fare thee well
Boggled, you are wrong. The moment the external damage was identified as a cause all the information justifying that conclusion was supposed to bE released to the security council, as per resolution. It is not a standard situation and the process was identified and agreed on by all parties. It doesn’t matter who is suspected of what. The evidence that led to the conclusion was supposed to be released to SC. ICAO was then can only focus on safety related issues: in this case it was to give recommendations regarding ATC in war zones. That recommendation would have to be made based on comparison of instructions given by ATC to different airlines at that time and on state advisory to those airlines regarding the issue. Bottom line is that ICAO, not DSB, was supposed to report findings to SC in timely and transparent manner. What DSB and unauthorised JIT (initiative of 4 countries) are doing is violation of the resolution. And that is what Lavrov is pointing at. Obviously, I agree with him
Nope Antidyatel, nothing in the resolution
http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2166.pdf
states that one once it is determined it is determined to be a ‘downing’ by an act inflicted on it, ie external event, does the DSB owe the UNSC first dibs at the report.
Is there another resolution I missed?
ICAO gets it report from DSB once it is finished with the review period with the nations that have active investigators, then they submit it to the UNSC.
So once the ICAO gets the DSB report, then they can explain to the UNSC members what the DSB investigation, which follows ICAO Annex 13 guidelines, found.
IE the DSB is a direct extension or representative of the ICAO in relation to this ‘downing’.
BUT the ICAO is the governing body.
The JIT is there to determine if a crime is involved, and all the criminal aspects of that.
And to gather the investigation needed to provide prosecutors the full collection of data they need to prosecute those crimes.
There is nothing that I have seen that once they determine it is an external event, such as bombing, combat targeting like KAL007, or a BUK, it must stop what it is doing, report to the UNSC and then let the UNSC decide if further investigation is needed.
Or to establish new guidelines and set up a Tribunal at that point.
Nothing, so which hat did you pull that out of?
So I sincerely disagree with your point, and I see you giving the UNSC more control then it actually has in the investigation.
Is this some sort of new doublespeak that only you and the guys in Moscow understand?
Create laws as you go?
Fare thee well
Let me quote ICAO see point 10.7.2 ofhttp://www.icao.int/secretariat/legal/LC34_Docs/LC_SC-NET_Report_en.pdf
“In ICAO, it has been
widely understood that the aviation security instruments which criminalize certain acts are not applicable
to military activities. The provisions would therefore be considered as declaratory in nature, i.e. to explicitly codify what had been implicit in the past.”
After military action against aircraft is established ICAO general rules are not applicable, including Annex 13 and Annex 17. The investigation had to be given back to the authority of security council. Of course ICAO had to present evidence in regards to their conclusions
BUT Antidytal, they have not identified it as a military action, they just have identified it as high energy impact.
They from what I have heard, not codified it as such.
SU25 is still on the table, BUK is still on the table and other things are still on the table ALSO according to the DSB.
JIT may have other evidence though that points to a military action.
That we shall see.
For the DSB and ICAO, those are or were still on the table until the final report, which the public will have to wait to see.
I imagine many of the UNSC already have seen the non redacted report before the review is finalized.
Until it is released to the public, the members who view it have to keep the report away from the media.
Fare thee well
I’m not Admin but I’ll answer the final question: Both the DSB and the Dutch Public Prosecution in the name of JIT simultaneously published the same joint statement.
http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2049/investigation-crash-mh17-17-july-2014/onderzoek/1650/investigation-into-possible-buk-missile-parts
https://www.om.nl/actueel/nieuwsberichten//investigation-into/
admin and others.
I just noticed a thing that popped up on twitter, and if the statement is true, then it could dramatically change what is known about and what everyone’s analysis is about the MH17 ‘accident’.
I know there could be mistakes by interns, problems with translation, English is not the easiest language to learn all the grammar for, etc. but this seems like it is a statement that needs clarification.
The statement is – .: We’ve been clear about our assessments. #MH17 was shot down by missiles fired from separatist-controlled territory in east Ukr.
If it was based on what everyone is assuming, it should read –
.: We’ve been clear about our assessments. #MH17 was shot down by A MISSILE fired from separatist-controlled territory in east Ukr.
The missiles part really strange thing to see, no one before has suggested more then one missile was fired.
Does this mean they detected two or more launches at MH17?
Suggesting an intentional targeting?
Does it suggest 2 were launched at different targets?
I am not sure.
I think someone who could get a response from them, like you or some other media organization should ask for clarity on this because I think it is that important for what is known.
I doubt if they would answer me or someone without some kind of ‘VIP’ status, so I ask point it out here and ask you.
It would certainly change a lot of what is known if it is true.
I do not think it is, but if it is, OMG.
Fare thee well
Of course missiles not just one missile. There are plenty marks on the wreckage, suggesting a different source of fire. Multiple attack on boeing is the unique hypothesis which can explain all known facts.
That statement originates from the daily press briefing by the US department of state:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/08/245937.htm#RUSSIA
I’m absolutely sure it’s a blunder of a former rear admiral who’s been a spokesman for the Navy and Pentagon but has never been a diplomat or a journalist to keep control on his tongue. Mind his next words: “…the MH17, we believe, was shot down by surface-to-air missiles fired by – or fired from, rather, separatist-controlled territory in eastern Ukraine”. That “fired by – or fired from, rather” says much. Obviously the US know something more about the perpetrators they can’t make public for the moment — possibly because it’s not provable “beyond any reasonable doubt” in a criminal proceeding as of now.
Good catch Ole, I had not seen it elsewhere.
August 11, 2015.
Yesterday. So most likely a copy paste on the tweet from the embassy.
Thank you, and that still makes the question of ‘missile – s’ an important one to clarify if it is coming from US Department of State press spokesperson.
Which tends to carries even more weight in my opinion then the tweet.
Was it a slip of the tongue because the leading question mentioned missiles?
Or was it them releasing some evidence they know.
Thank you Ole very much for your work.
Fare thee well
Interesting indeed. We need to keep this one in mind.
I listened to the recording several times. It can be seen and heard here
http://video.state.gov/en/video/4415117290001
At around 17:30 a lady reporter asks the question. At 18:00 the spokeman clearly says ‘A missile ssss’ (he kind of lisps).
The A was not in the transcript!
Remarkable the reporter asks if the US adds additional sanctions because Russian missile parts were found. She really thinks the parts found were fired by Russia.
The Dutch prosecutor presslease never mentioned the word Russian made BUK in its pressrelease.
Framing in the US!
Thanks for the video, it is interesting all the items you pointed out.
And yes, they should be called to task on those statements.
It is amazing how different a transcript versus video is, and how you can gauge speaking tone and other items missed in shorthand.
To the reporters question, yes, she implied Russian missiles fragments.
I am not quite so sure she made the statement they were FIRED by Russians though.
She states they are Russian fragments from Russian SAMs.
And although she alleges investigators state that in her wording, she is putting words in their mouth.
Kind of like you admin stating she is saying they fired by Russians.
She just alleges the fragments that investigators found are Russian fragments from a Russian SAM, in my viewpoint a very bad reporter asking the wrong question.
She also made the mistake about claiming missiles.
Thanks for sharing the video, I am happy to an ‘A’ was in his statement, but upset it was not in the transcript.
Those briefings are long, and he has a lot to cover, but should have corrected her question I think and they need a new transcript writer!
It is amazing how important a little letter like ‘a’ can be.
So yes, the reporter should be fired, or highly reprimanded for stating falsely what the press release said.
The spokesman should be reprimanded for not correcting her.
The court reporter doing shorthand should have her or his mistake pointed out to them.
I think by watching the spokesman for the State Department, he did lisp or did an involuntary add the ‘s’ because she used it.
One of those subliminal things.
I am not so sure of framing just because a inept reporter asked a leading question like that.
But I can see where others would think it.
Don’t get me wrong, I do not like a lot of things the State Department does, such as Billary’s missing 6 billion dollars that is unaccounted for during her 5 years in office, and other decisions she made.
I mark this incident up to a lot of ineptness that should have repercussions, not frame up.
Ultimately to me, the reporter was the problem in that part of the discussion, and should be fired for the question she asked.
Fare thee well
I’m confused as to whether admin was writing about Russian complaints in general or Lavrov’s complaints in particular, or what. Admin mentioned Lavrov’s interview twice, Maria Zakharova’s statement once, and Russia Today once.
I don’t understand why admin wrote, “One thing for sure is nonsense. The DSB investigation is done according Annex 13 of the ICAO. It is written in the DSB preliminary report. ICAO never ever made a statement the DSB investigation is not right.”
I have seen the interview with Lavrov and read a transcript of it. He never mentioned Annex 13. Maria Zakharova’s statement does not mention Annex 13. An article written by Russia Today about receiving an e-mail from DSB spokesperson Sara Vernooij does not mention Annex 13, and neither does the RT video on this topic. Nothing at all was said about Annex 13. So why does Admin write in this context, “One thing for sure is nonsense”? Nothing said is neither sense nor nonsense.
I agree that “ICAO never ever made a statement the DSB investigation is not right”, but to be fair ICAO has made no statement that endorses the DSB investigation. Perhaps admin interprets silence as approval. I interpret silence as silence.
Lavrov’s complaint in the interview was clear and made repeatedly. His complaint that is relevant to the ICAO is that UN Security Council Resolution 2166 has not been implemented and that Russia’s efforts to enforce Resolution 2166 have been blocked at the UN. The language in Resolution 2166 that is specific to the ICAO is “Stressing the need for a full, thorough and independent international investigation into the incident in accordance with international civil aviation guidelines, noting in this regard the crucial role played by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in aircraft accident and incident investigations, and welcoming the decision by ICAO to send a team to work in coordination with the Ukrainian National Bureau of Incidents and Accidents Investigation of Civil Aircraft in this investigation, following a request for assistance by Ukraine to ICAO and others,”
Note in the paragraph above that Resolution 2166 notes “the crucial role played by the International Civil Aviation Organization”. It recognizes that Ukraine also asked “others” for assistance, but does not describe the role of others as crucial. In contrast to the language of Resolution 2166 the accident investigation has been lead by “others”, the DSB to be specific. The ICAO has had very limited participation and certainly not a lead role. This is what Russia is complaining about. Nobody can deny that the ICAO is not playing the lead role in the investigation.
Resolution 2166 passed unanimously. The ICAO has the resources, professional experience and most importantly the neutrality needed for the credibility of the leader of this politically charged investigation. It is the ICAO itself that has credibility in this context, not Annex 13. Resolution 2166 demands a full and thorough investigation, but the DSB admits the investigation has been neither full nor thorough. Much evidence sits on the ground in eastern Ukraine. The DSB admits that even more evidence sits unexamined in two hangers at Gilze-Rijen Air Base, and that the reconstruction in a third hanger is very limited. Lavrov’s complaint is well grounded.
Admin asks, “What could be in the final report that makes Russia nervous?” The answer is clear. Russia is not nervous, and nothing in the final report can make Russia nervous. Russia has been sanctioned by western governments and condemned in the media on the basis of social media and no hard evidence that the public can confirm independently. A full-on assault was made against Russia’s currency and economy perhaps in hopes that it would stir up unrest in Russia. The assault has failed. Russian can now ask the West, “Is that all you got?” The West is fresh out of significant “consequences” that it can impose for Russia’s yet-to-be-proven crime. There are parties to this accident investigation who are nervous. They aren’t Russian.
IsThatSo, you statement –
‘ Russia has been sanctioned by western governments and condemned in the media on the basis of social media and no hard evidence that the public can confirm independently.’
Makes the rest of your comment worthless to read.
If you think that the leaders of major governments would cost their economies 100’s of billions of dollars, give loans and free money in billions of dollars to Ukraine, would cause the price of oil to crash and cost them billions of dollars also, and sanctioning INTERNATIONAL businesses from doing business with Russia just because all their intelligence is gathered from social media, then you sir are woefully not in touch with reality.
There is a reason there is classified intel that is not released to the public, there are reasons each government of all nations spend A LOT OF money on intelligence gathering.
The public does not need classified info to make decisions, the leaders of those governments do.
The public gets it usually a lot later down the road and there is a reason for that.
The rest of your comment has little value as well.
Fare thee well
Boggled,
Oh, you must mean hard evidence like that cited multiple times by John Kerry. He said, “We saw the takeoff. We saw the trajectory. We saw the hit. We saw this airplane disappear from the radar screen. So there’s really no mystery about where it came from and where these weapons have come from.”
http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/08/230525.htm
We have Victoria Nuland’s and Marie Harf’s firm assurance that the US has turned over all relevant evidence to the investigators.
http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2014/dec/235495.htm
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/06/243134.htm
We have Fred Westerbeke who is the lead prosecutor saying that he has seen this evidence, and the evidence is not conclusive. The same evidence that Kerry described in such vivid terms.
http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2014/12/19/geen-satellietbeelden-van-neerschieten-mh17/
And now we have a claim from the State Department that notwithstanding what they’ve been saying for over a year, MH17 was struck by more than one missile.
You, sir (or ma’am if that is the case) have confidence that the right decisions are being made for the right reasons? On what basis? Got any hard evidence that can be independently verified?
If not then you’re in no position to challenge my credibility.
We’re in the same place whether you feel comfortable with that thought or not. We are in the dark, and we are being fed, well, you know. Both sides have shoveled out mountains of it. Don’t you think it smells the same whether the source is east or west?
I recommend we agree to cut the ad hominem attacks and get back on the subject.
Kerry made the statement of a POLITICIAN with classified clearance and how he interpreted what he saw.
Westerbeke made a statement as an INVESTIGATOR that has to look at all possibilities and only make statements on what he can PROVE.
Westerbeke saw other possibilities and wanted to give the world the fact that he is looking into all possible reasons for the destruction because all the facts were not analyzed and conclusions not made yet by all the researchers.
The missiles statement was an error in writing the transcript.
I hear most of the changing stories and propaganda, and all of it has come from Kremlin sponsored media, the Kremlin politicians, and their false narrative of what the Western sources have said.
I stand by my comment above.
Fare thee well
My bad. I see I boggled you with too many details and led you too close to the trees to see the forest.
Two guys are standing at a corner waiting for the light to change when an accident happens right in front of them. They’re from difference backgrounds. The don’t use the same words to describe what they saw. But you expect their descriptions to be very similar because after all they saw the same thing.
Take this simple two-part test based on actual recent MH17 events. On Aug. 11 the DSB and JIT issued a joint statement saying that they are investigating several parts from a possible Buk missile system that they secured during a previous recovery mission in eastern Ukraine. The next day the DPR envoy and the DPR Prosecutor General’s Office issued statements that no missile fragments were found.
Question 1: Who is telling the truth?
A) The DSB/JIT
B) The DPR Officials
C) There isn’t enough hard information to answer the question with certainty.
Question 2: On whom should the burden of proof lie?
A) The DPR officials because they aren’t credible.
B) The DSB/JIT because they aren’t credible.
C) It is impossible for the DPR official to prove a negative, therefore the burden of proof lies on the DSB/JIT.
I’m now confused. UT is claimed that DSB is reporting according to article 6.6 of Annex 13
http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2049/investigation-crash-mh17-17-july-2014/inzage/1643/progress-of-the-mh17-investigation
There is no such article in Annex 13.
http://www.icao.int/safety/ism/icao%20annexes/annex%2013.pdf
Antidyatel, Maybe you should read something other then the 2013 Annex 13 protocols.
Like maybe the amendments to it or something.
Fare thee well
Please provide the link to the version with 6.6 point. The version that I was looking at is from ICAO website
Although I have not found it directly in Annex 13.
And your pdf file doesn’t number the points under article 6, Responsibility of the custodian of safety information
which 6.1 is shown in this one –
http://www.icao.int/Meetings/AMC/MA/Directors%20General%20of%20Civil%20Aviation%20Conference%20on%20a%20Global%20Strategy%20for%20Aviation%20Safety%20(DGCA-06)/Annex13attE_en.pdf
6.6 can be seen in this one –
http://www.icao.int/Meetings/AMC/MA/Accidet%20Investigation%20and%20Prevention%20(AIG)%20Divisional%20Meeting/AIGdiv08_WP13_en.pdf
The search I did in their own database that can be found here –
http://www.icao.int/Search/pages/results.aspx?k=6%2E6%20Annex%2013%20Sites&start1=11
I have yet to find the current version of Annex 13 to identify it specifically online but this lists a lot of the other ones including 6.6
http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/medias-media/fiches-facts/A04H0004/info_2_a04h0004.asp
Fare thee well
admin, a few things caught in the spam filter if you please.
And also thank you for your article with all the links, there are many I have not read yet and it makes for some enlightening reading.
Fare thee well
May be this man looking very scared on 18-07-2014, was reported to Detective J.Resh for the prize 30 million pounds.?
I handed the fact, which may be an example of Increased Kremlin propaganda,
therefore fits into the subject of your note.. Why you do not want to discuss it?. You are afraid something?
all references to KP articles will be deleted. I am open to any theory as long as it is reasonable. KP is propaganda.
Admin You have also deleted your own tekst . It was call for questions to the DSB. Very nice idea. I sent couple of questions by they third day are awaiting moderation.
Could you come back to this idea of stacking questions to the DSB?
I come back with this post at a later time.
“However DSB will have to explain the cause. As the Dutch prosecutor made public at August 11 possible parts of a BUK missile were found, it is likely DSB will mention a BUK was used.”
I think they found out WHAT kind of Buk it was, as has been suggested by several sources for a long time now. Ukraine might not have that type of missile?
Dan:
“Ukraine might not have that type of missile?”
All the pictures of the supposed rebel BUK show the 9M38M1 missile, which is all Ukraine has in stock.
Correct Andrew, but the M1 launcher which Ukraine has in stock can only load ONE type of missile.
The Russian only missile launcher, the M1-2 can handle both types of missile at the same time.
So it could have been a launcher that was loaded with other missiles, since it is almost impossible with all the photos to identify ALL 4 missiles.
The two different BUK launchers look identical from the outside and you can only see the differences from a very close inspection.
Andrew, you make yourself look like a propagandist if you only present ONE possible explanation and tell the person asking a question that is what it is and that is the only fact surrounding the question.
You have been around long enough to know a little more thoroughly the full truth and you should explain it like that on a question that does not have such a simple answer.
So although you are correct in your answer, you know you should have provided just a little clarity.
Or not answer the question.
Or do not be upset when someone else clarifies it for Dan a little bit.
Fare thee well
Admin:
“Russia is the only country that provided the data from its radars for investigation,”
This is possible. Ukrainian radar facilities in Lugansk, Donetsk, and elsewhere in SE Ukraine had been progressively blown up by the rebels before July 17. I wonder what actual capabilities Ukraine had working on July 17.
It is pure nonsense and cheap propaganda. The preliminary DSB report states they receieved ATC surveillance data from Ukraine ATC.
It is just another lie from Russian media and Pro Russian people. Same as that Kiev tower tapes were confiscated by the secret service. First MH17 did not have contact with Kiev tower. Secondly there is no proof for confiscating tapes.
The preliminary report is not very specific on what data was obtained from whom:
—
2.5.1 ATC surveillance data
For this investigation ATC surveillance data was obtained from both Ukraine (UkSATSE) and the Russian Federation. The data obtained was the following:
• Primary surveillance radar recorded by the Russian surveillance aids
• Secondary surveillance radar (SSR / Mode S)6
• Automatic Dependant Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B)7 ground based reception.
Preliminary information shows that Ukrainian and Russian ATC surveillance radar identified flight MH17 as a B777-200 at FL330. Analyses of recorded ATC surveillance data is ongoing.
—
I deduce from that statement that *primary* radar data was only provided by Russia not by Ukraine. The SSR and ADS-B recordings show only aircraft with active transmitters i.e. no military aircraft.
The purpose of Lavrov is statement is clearly to give the impression Ukraine did not provide any ATC radar data.
That is not true. Although the DSB report does not provide all the details, we know Ukraine did provide ATC surveillance data.
Now we have to read the final DSB report carefully to understand if Ukraine provided primary radar data
Ole, a possibility of explanation exists in the word ‘recorded’.
Maybe they had real time awareness, but not recording capabilities of primary radar?
Not sure of the rules on ATC, but possible.
Technologically RF is more advanced and has more money to invest in this issue, is my thought.
Another interesting aspect that was not included in the report at all was in regards to military radar and what they tracked and recorded, both in Russia and Ukraine and other countries watching with allowance for surveillance aircraft to be inside Ukraine.
One would imagine that each AA base of Ukraine has its own radar setup up that is monitoring the skies at that time.
Yet no mention of any military supplied evidence from either Russia or Ukraine mentioned in the preliminary report, just ATC.
One would assume that would be just as relevant to corroborating the ATC evidence provided, or disproving it.
And should be very important for the investigators to demand to have for a thorough report.
So although no mention of it in the preliminary report, it is obvious Russia has provided some such even with their briefing by the MoD, that looked like Military and not ATC evidence.
I could be wrong.
Just because it is not mentioned does not mean it is not in their hands.
They could not mention every piece of the evidence they have because the report then would become longer then America’s healthcare bill that no politician read, but they all voted on. 2000 some odd pages.
Maybe they acquired it, and like other items they were sifting through, they had not specifically identified ALL they had in the preliminary report.
Maybe the things mentioned there are ones that are not more relevant to the JIT investigation.
As to Andrew’s last point, wouldn’t you want to corroborate something you had seen before you make a report on it? A sort of checks and balance thing or getting things signed in triplicate?
Also, there maybe a minimum standard of ATC equipment that Ukraine met to be in operation, but the former superpower of the world had a bit more advanced equipment.
Which is plain to see in the technologies UA provides its military versus the advanced newer technology RF provides for its defense.
Russia just has put more money into upgrading and maintaining its ATC infrastructure because it is important for them both militarily and civilian purposes.
Just a few thoughts.
Fare thee well
Admin:
ADS-B data is not radar data. Nor is secondary “radar”. Its a different sort of data. It is correct to call it ATC surveillance data, as the DSB does.
The Russians tend to make very specific statements that must be read clearly.
The DSB report clearly states that the only primary radar tapes provided were from Russia. Ole quotes it above. That would confirm Lavrov’s statement.
Regarding secondary surveillance data:
http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-primary-and-secondary-radar
I again suggest that the reason Ukraine has not provided primary radar is possibly that all of its primary radar facilities near Donbass including military radar at the air defense bases and the capabilities of the Donetsk and Lugansk airport towers were blown up by the rebels. This occurred between early June and mid July. The rebels had obvious reason to do so – to cripple military radar capabilities and hinder military combat operations.
Possibly the admission of permitting civilian overflight without primary radar over land is embarassing to Ukraine or perhaps aviation law makes some mention of liability this entails. I don’t know. It would obviously involve a level of risk to flights. Perhaps the loss of primary radar installations in the east motivated Ukraine it issuing NOTAM’s.
I think this is also why we will never see a radar tape from Ukraine showing the alleged aerial shootdowns by Russia of its AN-26 on July 14 and SU-25M1 on July 16. It would need to come from primary radar.
I also think the actual radar data Ukraine has available, if any, will be from its military field radar surveillance carried out as part of its deployment of BUK-M1 launchers into Donbass. The imavges on the Ukrainian TV program on July 16 show a BUK TELAR with an ST-68MU “Tin Shield” radar in operation in the field. This is a very sophisticated and capable military radar capable of scanning almost 200 km. Russia also alleges Ukraine had multiple BUK “KUPOL” radars in action covering much of southeastern Ukraine. Wouldn’t it be embarrassing to Ukraine to supply such data and confirm it had active BUK’s all over Donbass on July 17?
The ATC transcript has Dnipr control querrying Rostov if he can see MH17 on radar. Why wold he ask that if he has primary radar and can see the mark fo the plane turn into a debris field himself? At 13:22
DNP: Do you observe the Maylasian …
RST: No, it seems that its target started falling apart.
…
DNP: And we don’t see it .. its disappeaed.
…
DNP: Don’t you observe anything on primary?
RST: Yes, yes, yes, nothing. We see nothing.
Should Dnipr control be able to look at their own primary radar and see the same thing?
Correct, Russians tend to be very careful and specific in general and even more so in the case of Lavrov who speaks in an official capacity. Russians also are very legalistic, hence their ongoing concern about the lack of compliance with UNSC Resolution 2166 and their minimal involvement (for now) in the investigations.
For Russia compliance with Resolution 2166 is just as important as the push for a powerful criminal tribunal was for the West. Denied compliance with Resolution 2166, Russia reciprocated by denying the criminal tribunal.