It is very unlikely Russian BUKs were stationed near Kuybyshevo in mid July 2014
Photos released by a Twitter account named show Russian BUKs near the Russian-Ukraine border in an area called Kuybyshevo . These photos were made in a period June-December 2014 according to .
Ukraineatwar published the photos and stated ‘The exact date of the satellite images is not revealed, but falls within ‘a number of weeks of July 17th’.
Some people like the blogger of Ukraineatwar thought about a theory that these BUKs could have been connected to a Russian BUK located near Snizhne. This would could have shot down MH17. The radar signal for the BUK could have been provided from radar systems located in Kuybyshevo. Ukraineatwar also suggested “That shows the command to launch the rocket must have come from Russian territory.’
However searching satellite photos on Terraserver show that in July 2014 there were no BUKs in the area of Kuybyshevo. So a command from Russia to shot down MH17 is also not very likely and based on not a single piece of evidence..
It is very likely only around October 2014 Russia started to deploy BUKs in the area of Kuybyshevo.
Lets have a look at the photos
The first photo showing the exact location as released by . Terraserver shows the date of when the photo was made: October 6 2014.
Left is the Terraserver photo. And next to it the photo as published by and Ukraineatwar
Photos dated back from October 2014 do not show the BUKs nor many vehicle tracks which could be produced by BUK systems.
This photo shows the situation at August 8 2014.
So it is very likely Russia started to deploy BUKs in October 2014 and not earlier. In this post at Ukraineatwar a photo is seen of a BUK missile loader. The photo is supposed to be taken at October 18 2014.
Much as I don’t like ad-hom, FinrisWolf has a long and chequered history in fringe topics centred around Bellingcat in a number of forums.
Your analysis is correct. However the take-home item is that FinrisWolf is at the very low end of credibility but regrettably at a a too high level of visibility.
I noticed he was one of the first who sent the photo of the BUK at Snizhne. He must be part of an inner circle.
admin, in making this statement –
‘However searching satellite photos on Terraserver show that in July 2014 there were no BUKs in the area of Kuybyshevo. So a command from Russia to shot down MH17 is also not very likely and based on not a single piece of evidence..’
You are even more deceptive and making a statement that is unprovable using TerraServer.
There dates for 2014 are only 3 dates, and they are from Aug 8, September 14 and October 6.
So therefore you cannot make any conclusions about July 17.
From the earliest photo there I see tracks in the field that are heavy machinery and I do not think it is some kid doing donuts with his combine.
They look like tank tracks of some sort.
I will agree with you the headquarters there were set up between the August and September dates they have.
So it is not conclusive that there was a BUK there before the map that Yandex has and the October date at TerraServer, although with the September dates you can see some vehicles hiding among the tree lines out of satellite view.
Also, on the Google Earth Pro from September 13 and Terraserver September 14, it is very plain to see there are about 30 vehicles that were parked in field you identified above, that had been parked there long enough to prevent vegetation from growing.
No, I do not see a July 17, 2014 camp being set up there.
However with the tracks in the field you cannot say 100 percent sure that a BUK system or regiment were not there and hiding in tree lines and other areas.
The town of Kuybyshevo is big enough to hide a BUK squad if you wanted.
And you could find them if you had dates that were before August 8 2014, which you and I do not have.
Unlikely, but not completely impossible to have a BUK regiment in the area and it is close enough to the road they can get a regular supply of diesel fuel.
And reading through their statements, they were completely right, the camp was set up somewhere in the June to December time frame, and as we see with the full camp being set up on September 13, 2014, that is withing ‘weeks’ of MH17 being shot down.
And the images the used were from in that time frame. I imagine the June ones are the larger zoomed out images and December, who knows.
Maybe they were vague enough and maybe those were two of the three dates they had, who knows.
I am no satellite image analyst.
So I might be wrong in my assumptions, but to categorically state no BUK’s in that region on July 17 from just 3 satellite images all AFTER August 8, makes you just as guilty of twisting facts to fit your narrative as you accuse Finriswolf and Ukraine of being.
At least they said UPFRONT from the beginning, all these images are from somewhere in the range of June to December, which they were.
So what do we know, Camp is set up sometime before September 14.
The BUKs in full view are there at October 6.
August 8 has some possible signs of military activity, but not conclusive.
Although they COULD be hiding in trees, they could have been deployed and packed up in a couple days, they could be in another nearby location.
We just do not know.
And you making a GIANT leap of faith making that conclusion for that WHOLE REGION from three images ALL at least 3 weeks after July 17th from one small section of a farmer’s field.
.
And on that note, I will let you know a little thing I found interesting.
Is on Sept 14 2014 at this part of TerraServer and others,
http://www.terraserver.com/view.asp?cx=38.87445833333334&cy=47.84274166666667&proj=4326&mpp=0.75&sdrt=jax
The long line of cars, waiting for gas I bet – maybe a gas or diesel shortage.
And all the tracks in the fields North of that which are around Repyakhovatyy.
Fare thee well
Boggled: So basically the way you think is this:
someone presents photos of BUKs. And someone creates a blog suggesting the BUKs were there at July 17 and connected to the TELAR.
I proof these photos were not taken at July 17 so we are back at start: there are no BUKs until proven otherwise
You keep on argumenting that there could be BUKs.
This reminds me of a quote of Mark Twain: “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Did they suggest those BUK’s targeted MH17?
NO, all they said in the article here is a group of BUK’s and how a base would look that is a command station, that potentially a lone BUK could hook up with.
Finriswolf made NO statements at all regarding it.
Just said here are some BUKs and a command base from 2014 inside Russia along the Ukraine border.
IF you had read his statements there, that is all he said.
Petros put his own spin and analysis on what finriswolf presented.
BUT the biggest connection to MH17 is –
‘The exact date of the satellite images is not revealed, but falls within ‘a number of weeks of July 17th’.’
That is it.
He alleges that this needs looking into with someone who has deep enough pockets to pay for the detailed images.
BUT he makes no statement that for a fact this is the command station that controlled the BUK that launched a missile at MH17.
Only that it should bear some more scrutiny.
‘So this personal attack on him and finriswolf is without basis.
I think that the biggest fault I see in the article by Petros is that he should correct it to read to show his intent clearly in this statement.
Remember: when BUKs are within operational range to connect and communicate with each other, it would be very illogical NOT to make such a connection. It is safe to assume that if they could connect, they indeed did.
That shows the command to launch the rocket must have come from Russian territory.’
Should read – ‘Remember: when BUKs are within operational range to connect and communicate with each other, it would be very illogical NOT to make such a connection. It is safe to assume that if they could connect, they indeed did.
That shows the command to launch the rocket must have come from Russian territory IN THIS SCENARIO.’
Now to your statements, two of which I have problems with.
Read – ‘ However searching satellite photos on Terraserver show that in July 2014 there were no BUKs in the area of Kuybyshevo. ‘
To which I say, you have no images, not a single one, from July 17 2014 for making that statement.
You have images from August, September and October, one a day.
And the other statement – ‘It is very likely only around October 2014 Russia started to deploy BUKs in the area of Kuybyshevo.’
I showed you and the rest of the readers, that September 14 2014 image
plainly shows a base already set up and the large amount – 30!!! – of vehicles that were parked in the field.
The BUKs were imaged on October’s image standing out in the field all together saying here we are satellite, take our photo!
Before that, attempts were to be hidden in the region.
That is all
Fare thee well
The base you refer to was not there in August and shows up in September after the Minsk accord. The likelihood is then it is entirely unrelated to events in Ukraine as by mid-September there was no fighting anywhere near the area. Russia’s bases set up in the summer nearer to Donetsk Russia were right out in the open – it was not as if she was hiding her presence.
So find a location from during the time of active fighting.
Now, if you would like to see a large group of examples of how a large group of people manipulate a story, then I encourage you to read Ukraine’s recent blog from August 24 2015.
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2015/08/russian-mortar-may-have-killed-russian.html
There are many examples of the lies of Kremlin sponsored media and fabricated stories for global media and for the Russian public to consume who do not know any better and are easily brainwashed.
Enjoy!
FreeSavchenko!
Seeing as you are trying to discredit Mr Petros some, I think this blog deserves mention for the amount of THOROUGH analysis he does do, which is a considerably better then what I see above.
Fare thee well
So really, how unlikely is it for a nation that was mobilized for war to set up a group of BUK units connect them in less then a day, work for less then a week, then move to another region as part of first training, and second a part of defense cover for the separatists that were getting hammered by military jets and the supply of arms to them.
Not to mention the various slow low flying helicopters that hover.
This is what they train for, quick mobilization and deployment.
And as Andrew was so nice to remind us, winter wheat began being harvested around late June and the farmers would have been turning over fields and covering up tank tracks.
Fare thee well
Admin:
Thanks for posting this thread.
To Rob, Boggled, and any other contenders of this theory, I think I and others would be more than happy to entertain your theory of the use of Russian BUK’s in the Kuybyshevo area between early July and mid August if you can use any satellite photography available of the area from around that time and find some BUK’s on the Russian side of the border. I believe there is space photography available for July 16 in some of this area as well as August 8. As Admin has said, all theories are welcome with evidence. As of right now, your theory is just a hypothetical assertion.
Along with this, it would also be good to get a plausible explanation for why Russia would undertake the risk of sending a BUK into Ukraine via Lugansk and Donetsk to purposefully shoot down MH17 when she could just as easily have done so from just across the border with Ukraine to the south of Saur Mogila with no risks while simultaneously making it look like Ukraine to has done the deed. After all, as you say, Russia moved artillery equipment briefly over the border in this area to fire at Ukraine. Why not move a BUK over the border to fire at MH17 on purpose without undertaking a needlessly long journey? Would that not be simpler and with less risk?
Admin:
Along with the lack of evidence for a BUK command post and KUPOL radar near Kuybyshevo, could we also note the total lack of evidence for a BUK moving over the border from Russia other than the assertion of the SBU?
Russia denies it, the US has stated it does not have evidence of that happening, there are not photos or videos of the movement. The whole theory hangs on a thread.
Andrew: you really have to explain this statement in bold :
“Russia denies it, the US has stated it does not have evidence of that happening, there are not photos or videos of the movement. The whole theory hangs on a thread.”
Admin:
There are no photos or videos of any movement of a BUK across the border. In fact, when the SBU tried to present such photos, it present the infamous BUK 312 photo from March 2014. There is of course a string of photos/videos seemingly of a BUK moving from Donetsk to Snizhne. That is of course towards the border not across it.
Also, see this statement from the Pentagon:
http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Transcripts/Article/606897
Q: Have you seen, there is some video out there, I don’t know that you’ve seen the particular video, have you seen evidence that an SA-11 or Buk missile system went across the border at some point from Russia into Ukraine?
And what can you tell us about that system and the sophistication and training that would be needed by Russian separatists to actually be able to operate it effectively?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: I don’t have any specific information about a Buk system making that transit. We’re not ruling anything in or out at this point.
It is a — it is a sophisticated — that said, it’s a sophisticated system. The missile itself, the SA-11, which is the one we believe was used to down Flight 17, is a sophisticated piece of technology.
And it is — it — it strains credulity to think that — that it could be used by separatists without at least some measure of Russian support and technical assistance.
Q: They didn’t just do it on their own?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: I said it strains credulity to think that they could do this without some measure of Russian support and assistance.
Q: Do you have evidence of that?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: I — look, there’s a lot that’s gonna be investigated, and I think we want to — we want to let investigators do their work. I don’t have an indication now that — that a system was brought over. And we don’t exactly know who is responsible for firing that missile, or with — or with what assistance. What I’m saying is that that system is fairly sophisticated.
….
Q: So then are we to believe that it was just a coincidence that the president announced sanctions directly on the marker of this Buk system just a day before?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: I won’t get into the thought process behind the president’s specific decisions, but clearly these are another round of targeted sanctions designed to change the calculus and President Putin’s behavior and his decision making.
What your — I seem to think what you’re suggesting is that — that the — I have no information that that’s the case.
….
Q: But I thought you also said that you were not aware of any mobile vehicle SAM systems going across the border?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: That’s correct.
That’s correct.
….
Q: Prior to this week, was there any belief in this building that the separatists possessed this kind of weaponry?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: We — without getting into — I mean, first of all, we don’t have perfect visibility into every capability that — that the separatists have. We certainly knew that this was a capability that we had reason to believe that this was certainly a capability that they aspired to having access to.
Q: With vehicle-borne, or just the Man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS)?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: I would say both.
Q: Both.
Q: To be clear, have you seen any anti-aircraft weapons cross the border to Ukraine?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: I have no information about specific anti-aircraft systems crossing the border into Ukraine.
What we have said is we have seen tanks go across. We’ve seen armored vehicles go across. Trucks of all sorts. We have seen major equipment move across the border into Ukraine from Russia. I don’t have any specific indications of air defense systems or surface to air missile systems.
Q: Not to take you too much into the realm of the hypothetical, but these kinds of systems could’ve crossed the border potentially covered up out of U.S. satellite view, could they not?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: It’s — it’s not out of the realm of the possible, Barb, but again I just don’t have any more information on that.
With all those statements Andrew, it is no wonder Rear Admiral Kirby stepped down back in February.
Reading the transcript he sounds like a glorified spokesman that could not tell a BUK from an AK47.
Also he is a Navy guy, how much does he really know?
Wouldn’t a NATO spokesperson’s statements be more official?
I imagine a satellite image of a BUK on a loader with netting over the missiles or no missiles on it would almost look identical to a tank.
So maybe it is no wonder they did not see it.
IF RF gave the Separatists a BUK, don’t you imagine it would have been planned to happen at night and at a time the RF knew a USA satellite would NOT be passing overhead?
I think it is a stretch of the imagination to say because the USA did not announce they saw it, that it is proof it never happened.
Fare thee well
I can accept that Andrew, as I said, I admit it was unlikely but not impossible for a mobile command base to be have set up.
It could have been done quickly and removed, and then covered up by a farmer.
I have no evidence right now pointing to that happening.
There is valid evidence it was there September 14, 2014 to me though.
But not in the August image.
Although one must question where they were before then?
I am not a satellite analyst with all the images that were taken or the ability to sift through them all in a set period of time.
But I will keep my eyes out.
The BUK crossing point is mention by the SB in a lot of detail, and novayagazeta expands with their own intelligence they collected from informants and others.
So I would not discount a BUK coming from Russia, some of the supporting evidence has the potential to be reality, if novayagazeta offered up some of its source material, or the SBU theirs.
I would expect this avenue is one that is being pursued vigorously by the JIT as well, but we will not know for a while what comes of that.
As to the point of a reason for the route taken.
One plausible reason would go to the AA statements.
That Russia does not train with or field BUK M1 or M1-2 technology.
IT is all later then that.
So those older BUK’s are mothballed, for sale on the black market, in hands of private collectors, for sale to other nations, etc.
Sure, they will use them for parades, demonstrations, etc, but actual defense use? I am not sure, my guess would be no.
Therefore, most of the money is around Moscow and I am guessing most of the Military Surplus or ‘storage centers’ or museums are there as well.
BUK M1 or M1-2 comes from Moscow, or some other storage center up there.
might have a couple M2 and a couple M1 missiles to send along, I do not know.
I doubt the military allows private citizens inside Russia to have armed missiles, but I could be wrong.
From various images of Moscow with a BUK there, it is plain and common knowledge they have the older missiles and the older BUK’s able to be accessed.
So that would be one of my guesses why the Northern route was taken in a little detail as opposed to the Southern one.
I think in the South it is going to be mainly M2’s and later versions of the BUK.
They took the most direct, but as covert as they could be, route from the BUK storage location (possibly from the missile storage location which could be separate) into the area Strelkov et al discussed with the Moscow elite when they met with them the week prior to July 17th 2014.
One last point I will leave as a question for someone more informed, can a BUK M2 and later unit link up with a M1-2 or M1 solitary BUK?
Is it like with Playstation and some games you just cannot use with later hardware? You might have a crossover for PS1 and PS2, but you cannot play PS1 on PS3.
Fare thee well
Here is some evidence of a very well established base just west of Kuybyshevo.
It was there on the August 8 2014 image.
This type of base just does not spring up overnight, although it could with enough manpower I guess, but it looks like to me a project that took a few days in scouting, a few days in planning the setup, a few days in getting the logistics and vehicles and tents together, etc.
Look up 47°48’54.79″N 38°52’0.76″E
No BUKs in sight, but lots of trees to hide from aerial and satellite surveillance and a clear view for communication between them and a lone BUK.
Probably just an active training camp for sending ‘little green men’ into Ukraine to get lost, I am not sure what to look for as far as a radar emplacement that can
1) communicate with an antique BUK.
2) One that has capabilities to look far enough to be better then the solitary BUK’s own targeting radar.
To my eyes, I see potential for it, but I have not the military expertise to say yeah or neigh.
The July 15th image I looked at did not have the base, but it did have a lot of heavy traffic passing in the area.
And like I said, lots of forests to hide in from prying eyes.
Fare thee well
And if you look at the September image, the base is vacant, did they relocate to the other site of town?
You make that call.
Fare thee well
Interesting, I post information of a fully operational RF base to the West of Kuybyshevo set up 5 weeks at most, before the other base was set up, and a shorter period then 3 weeks, after MH17’s destruction, with close to thirty vehicles visible, and not one single comment about it.
And as far as the Charles Wood comment generator, anyone can do just a slight amount of research and see what a conspiracy theorist artist he is from his statements.
He professes to be from Australia, but if you look on the web, only one guy from there shows up and it ain’t him.
You can broaden the search to New Zealand, but he ain’t there either.
Matter of fact, for a guy that claims all his does in past employment and his specialties, he has no web history proving any of it.
It is almost like it was created for just MH17 or promoting conspiracy theories.
I guess he could be using an alias, but why use one with both a English first and last name and profess that is his name that name has a history behind it, which it doesn’t?
Fare thee well
Here is another deployment on August 14 2014.
47°49’42.99″N
38°50’1.40″E
Right on the border.
To my untrained eye and the quality of the photo, it looks like either tank or SAM emplacement.
A complete command and control center if I think right.
A few launchers, a few Kamaz transport vehicles, a fuel truck, a tall shadow I think is an antenna array, and probably a loader launcher hidden a little south in the woods.
Looks like it moved around a bit.
And guess what, they are pointed towards the launch site.
More you ask?
Let’s see, there is this large base headquarters it looks like to me from August 14.
Barracks, training ranges, looks like obstacle course, tons of vehicles.
And yup, just outside Kuybyshevo.
47°48’42.74″N
38°51’5.94″E
A piece of questionable evidence coming up, but might bear looking at closer is a bunch of tracks in a field, similar to layout as the layout in the first set of coordinates I put in this comment.
No vehicles, but eerily similar in configuration.
These seem to be pointing more Northwest than west when they parked.
The tracks were there August 14 2014 and also a month later.
I wonder if they were there a month earlier?
They were not there in 2013.
How often and when were the vehicles there?
I wonder how long a BUK company can stay deployed?
I guess it could be artillery to attack a border control station, but I am not sure.
47°49’18.66″N
38°50’48.78″E
Fare thee well
If you look at my second set of coordinates in the above comment and go to a current satellite image August 26, 2015, then you will see something interesting.
Look, all that well established LARGE active base is gone.
Fare thee well
And to the veracity of SBU and Ukrainian military statement, I wonder, do they really just pull them out of the hat with their allegations?
This report is very inclusive and goes to show how much work they put into their intelligence.
So maybe the idea of a CC near Kuybyshevo, is not that much of a stretch to believe.
Read –
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vval5hz0dun6wf6/proof-eng.pdf?dl=0
Fare thee well
Let’s not forget all the identification that NATO gave us with satellite images dated July 23 2014 near Kuybyshevo.
http://aco.nato.int/new-satellite-imagery-exposes-russian-combat-troops-inside-ukraine.aspx
I just really wish I had access to July 16th images there.
Fare thee well
Boggled:
Really, the NATO/US DOD artillery photos are all the more damning. If there was a BUK to be photoed there at that time, would they not have done so and released it? If there was a BUK battery sitting near Kuybyshevo on July 16/17/18 but short one TELAR, why not show it and highlight the missing BUK? The best they could come up with was some photos of Russian artillery inside Russia.
If you want imagery, Digital Globe has a nice clear image of the Snizhne/Kuybyshevo area on July 16. Catalog number:
10300100342F0300
Why should have they released it?
RF has its own air defense and is allowed to put it wherever it wants inside its on sovereign borders.
They can however keep it for evidence, all they were showing with that article I mentions is Russian forces firing ACROSS the border into Ukraine.
And describing the transfer of equipment.
I showed where I think I found a CC center for air defense system, later.
Some of the others earlier images at DG may show different locations, regardless, they were clearly there and RF has the right to have them located on that side of the border.
The thing they will never admit is what and when those units were active.
As far as I know, the only showed that UA had its own air self defense network working at the time, and as of yet, I can not confirm or deny that claim.
They did not show RF having a network up and running, which they could have.
They have a perfect right for that within their borders top protect their citizens from various threats.
BUT they did not show which areas were up and running and satellites were around to confirm those installations.
I imagine some AWACS and other ground stations have conclusive evidence of the CC blister communicating as well.
We won’t know about that however until more evidence gets leaked or distributed from the investigation.
Thank you for the catalog number, I see a couple potential places that sync up with my previous comments for bases and vehicles.
I have not surfed through the preview images there at DG before.
Do you have an idea why they have seven tabs to select from for that particular image?
I am guessing images every two hours, and then there would be a collection of night images also, but I can and have been wrong before.
I did not see a large amount of difference noticeable from comparing the seven though.
This one has seven as well, the supposed launch site taken on July 20th 2014 with the burned field.
Catalog number : 1020010032187C00
It is amazing what they released, but more amazing is what they kept to their chest to not make an allegation, like that and the RF say, we have a right to protect our border, so what.
The missing BUK went to town to pick up a pizza or some excuse.
I think the real irrefutable proof will be the communication intercepts and whether or not there was a single broadcast to the area of the lone BUK or not.
That is about the only way we will know for sure it was in standalone mode or linked up.
And probably who it was linked up with.
RF made the accusation UA had theirs active, but I have yet to see a counter claim or a statement from UA that confirms it.
Fare thee well