Secret Intelligence Service MI6 in 2017 report “Russian military supplied missile launcher that shot down MH17′
by 
In the 2016-2017 annual report of the British Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament includes a statement made by the British Secret Intelligence Service (also known as MI6) which mentions a previously unknown fact about MH17.
The report reads:
Russia conducts information warfare on a massive scale… An early example of this was a hugely intensive, multi-channel propaganda effort to persuade the world that Russia bore no responsibility for the shooting down of [Malaysian Airlines flight] MH-17 (an outright falsehood: we know beyond any reasonable doubt that the Russian military supplied and subsequently recovered the missile launcher).164
The reference number 164 refers to this line: ‘Written evidence – SIS, 30 August 2016.”
At the Joint Investigation Team pressconference in September 2016, JIT made public that the BUK TELAR missile launcher arrived from Russia and was transported back to Russia immediately after MH17 was shot down. JIT so far did not acknowledge that the Russian military was responsible for supplying and recovering the BUK TELAR.
It is remarkable MI6 publishes a conclusion JIT did not make yet. As a BUK TELAR in Russia can only be owned by the Russian military it seems logical to assume the military supplied the BUK TELAR if this arrived from Russia.
by
https://www.novayagazeta.ru/articles/2017/10/16/74192-the-purpose-is-to-bring-this-matter-to-court
-“— According to the JIT report, the Buk system was brought to Ukraine from Russia and after the shot it was smuggle out back. Does it mean that the system was Russian?
— As a prosecutor, I can only talk about what I can prove. Even if it is perfectly clear for someone whose system that was, it is still not a legally established fact. It simply does not work this way. This is what everyone unhappy with the lengthy investigation should understand. So far, we have conclusive evidence of where the system came from and where it went back. “-
The “tricks” commission with its vague statements to continue to blame Russia for allegedly not wanting to cooperate led to an ambiguous situation. A statement by the British intelligence that it is known to those responsible for the supply of beech means a violation of this UN resolution by the intelligence service, since they did not pass their evidence to the commission. If such information was transferred, but the commission did not use them, then either they are not wealthy, and then the report is propaganda, or they were concealed in my opinion in order to prevent Russia from taking advantage of the rights of the accused and continue to demand cooperation.
Is it possible to receive comments from Fred Westerbeke about this statement by SIS?