MH17 crash: Big Buk missile part found in Ukraine

[Eugene]

Source: BBC

International investigators have published a photo of a large Buk missile component found at the MH17 airliner crash site eastern Ukraine.

The Joint Investigation Team (JIT) image shows a "Venturi", which emits propellant gases, like a car exhaust.

Dutch prosecutors want more information from Russia about the Buk, which they say killed 298 people aboard Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 in July 2014.

The West and Ukraine say Russian-backed rebels fired the Buk missile.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36462853

---

6 June 2016 Europe


[font size=1]Experts say this exhaust debris was found at the crash site and came from a Buk missile[/font]

[SkyDaddy7]

1. OUCH!!!

[jpak]

2. Putin Troll Patrol in 3...2...1....

[geek tragedy]

3. I'm the complete opposite of a Putin flunky/Truther on this, but either

this was discovered only recently (how) or it's only now being revealed (why).

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. It does not say "recently."

It could have been picked up wth other debris when the crash was investigated.

[geek tragedy]

6. point being this is the first we're hearing about it, curious as to why

that is

there's zero reasonable doubt that it was the separatists who shot down the plane

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. "The JIT interim report explains the progress of the criminal inquiry. The experts are studying a"

The JIT interim report explains the progress of the criminal inquiry. The experts are studying a mass of tiny fragments retrieved from the crash site.

They removed as much of the wreckage as possible. They may have just discovered it as they put all the pieces together to figure out what happened.

It may have been timed to put more pressure on the Russians to cooperate.

[geek tragedy]

8. that's one hell of a jigsaw puzzle to put together, wow.

thanks for the info

[csziggy]

10. Maybe they are trying to pressure the Russians

From the article linked in the OP:
"But the JIT interim report says more technical and operational details about the missile are needed."

They probably want those details to better model the launch location of the missile or to verify who had that particular missile. They've known what took the plane down, they are trying to tie up the loose ends.

[NutmegYankee]

14. It takes time to go through the debris.

[joshcryer]

15. Look at the pic on that site.

Or just Google "airline crash aftermath."

It's a wonder they actually found something that ... complete.

[Major Nikon]

4. This can't possibly be true. RT said it was a Ukrainian fighter jet

[dynamo99]

11. It's always been pretty clear that it was a missile

Of course, everybody in the area (Ukranian, Russian, and separatist) had Buk missiles, what with the area all being in the former USSR. So while the fighter jet story was always bogus, the fact that it was a Russian (made) missile probably doesn't tell much about who launched it. Unless they can demonstrate that the part is from a newer version of the missile, made after Ukranian independence. But that's not too likely.

[arendt]

9. This reminds me of our search for "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq

The provenance of this debris after two years is completely unbelievable, as is the cover story that they had it all along. Its not like the West doesn't have Buks they could fire and then "find". It took them two years to realize something this obvious? Puh-leeze.

Why would anyone buy this obvious propaganda? This whole "investigation" has been bullshit since day one. The Russians presented evidence which we dismissed immediately. Now, two years later, the West presents evidence which the Russians will immediately dismiss. We are back to Cold War attitudes of distrust. Neocon mission accomplished.

The timing of this story is suspect. It is an attempt to ignore the horror stories of corruption, bankruptcy, and neo-Naziism coming out of Kiev. It is an attempt to re-demonize the Russians (who have done nothing in the region for over a year, except try to get Minsk 2 enforced) It is an attempt to justify the NATO build-out on the Russian border (to counter Russian "aggression&quot - a build-out that is destabilizing to the max, worse than any provocation since the Germans massed on the Russian border in 1941. It is an attempt to distract from the on-going rape of Syria by "moderate rebels" by offering a bogus smear to Russian support for the legitimate Syrian government.

Your tax dollars at work - for the neocon warmongers.

[FrodosPet]

16. The Ukrainians are assholes. And so are the Russians.

When it is bad guy vs bad guy, who do you root for?

In any case, unless you are claiming that Ukraine smuggled a rather large mobile missile launcher deep into separatist territory, fired, and then snuck it out quickly, it looks pretty likely that this was a Russian / separatist missile.

[jmowreader]

12. How come it looks like it came off an old car that's been rotting in a field fifty years?

I can live with it being the nozzle off either an SA-6 or SA-11 missile (SA-11 is what they're calling the Buk; SA-6 is its predecessor) and there's no question MH17 was shot down with an SA-11, but there's no way in hell that nozzle was fired only two years ago.

[NutmegYankee]

13. Ever see steel left to the elements?

I work in a shipyard and can see the stuff rust in a matter of hours.

[jmowreader]

17. Of course I have...

There is a difference between steel rusted over hours and steel rusted over decades. The Soviet Army live-fired SA-11 missiles in training in the Ukrainian SSR for a lot of years, so there would be a lot of missile parts lying around the countryside.

[NickB79]

19. Hell of a coincidence to find a nozzle from the exact model missile in a debris pile from the jet

That crashed and try to claim the piece didn't come from the missile that downed the jet that day.

I mean, Ukraine is a BIG country; it's almost the size of Texas. I don't think the Soviets were chucking around THAT many BUK missiles in the 80's.

[jmowreader]

20. Do you have witnesses to the find?

[happyslug]

21. The issue is NOT that BUK but what generation of BUK

The "Beech" Anti-Aircraft missile (Buk is the Russian name for Beech), called by NATO "Gadfly" and the US SA-11 has been in service since 1979, thus finding one is no big deal. The issue is whose missile it was. Russia says by 2000 it had replaced all of its older BUK missiles by newer ones, but the Ukraine retained many of the older BUKs. Thus if this is an older BUK it is of Ukrainian sources, if it is a newer BUK Russian.

The problem with all of this is the most likely the BUK had been Ukrainian but it and its crew defected to the rebels at the start of the Civil War. In the days before the shooting down of the Malaysian air liner, the Rebels had used BUK missiles against Ukrainian combat aircraft. Based on overheard radio transmission that was what the rebels thought they had shot down until they discovered the debris. The BUK is a very good medium range AA system, but its radar is limited as to range and what it can detect. The BUK is designed to operate on its own (and this appears how it was used by the Rebels) but also as part of a larger integrated AA defense system. The Higher level Radar systems of the Russians could have provided the BUK with information on what it was shooting at, even when the BUK's own radar could not.

What I suspect happened, is the BUK was Ukrainian but in the hands of Rebels. The crew had defected with the weapon, so you had a well trained crew (Thus the success in the days before the shooting down of the Malaysian air liner). On the other hand it was NOT integrated with the Russia Air Defense system, thus it was blind as to long range targets. The Russian Army decided NOT to integrate the Missile with its AA defense on the grounds that the Rebels were NOT Russian military units and integrating it would have been a violation of Russia official neutrality in the Ukrainian Civil war.

When the Malaysian air liner was shot down, everyone was shocked, this included the Rebels and the Russians as while as the Ukrainians. Putin stepped in and told the rebels to turn over the BUK to the Russian Army, and the Rebels did so. The Russians either have the actual BUK that fired the missiles buried some place deep inside Russia OR destroyed by now.

With the removal of the BUK from Rebel hands, the Russians and the Rebels came up with various other explanations for the shot down, but none given officially so that time will run and they could see which of the stories is working and which are NOT working. Thus the various stories issued by the Russians and Rebels as to who shot what down.

This is a case of a mistake, not a deliberate action, but it affected someone outside of the Ukraine. It has been used for propaganda purposes by people who oppose the rebels and for that reason alone the rebels are NOT willing to come out and said what happened. The Russians and the Rebels have decided to ride this story out as oppose to stating what happened and then stating that this is the type of unplanned and unfortunate mistake the occurs in warfare. The Rebels and Russians have decided that riding the story out is the better option then admitting a mistake occurred.

The US decided to admit it made a mistake when it shot down Iranian Aircraft 655 in 1988, but the Iranians use it to this day as an example of US hostility to Iran. I bring this up to show, admitting to a mistake may be worse then ignoring it for the Rebels and Russians appear to decide the better option is to ignore who shot down the Air Craft. More on Iranian Flight 655:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

[Blue_Tires]

24. And how much worse would things have been if the U.S.

did some half-assed cover-up and was still denying responsibility almost 30 years later? You think the Iranians would be hating us less??

[happyslug]

27. That is a decision every country has to make...

As to Flight Iranian shoot down, Omani forces had clearly reported the US ship had been in Omani waters and then Iranian waters. Omani, Saudi Arabian as while as Iranian Radar showed where the missile came from, thus the US had little choice but to accept the fact it had shot down a Civilian Plane. Please note the Captain and the Crew all said they fired at an attacking Iranian F-14, everyone else who had radar said the US ship fired at an Airbus. The US could NOT deny it had shot down the Iranian Plane, to many witnesses outside US or Iranian Control (The US could always denounce the Iranian reports as propaganda, but the US could NOT do that for the other radar being used in the area). Please note not only was the US operating ships in the area so was the Soviet Union, Britain and France (and I suspect also India, Japan and China, all were interested in that part of the world at that time period). Furthermore this was over the SEA, which is a flat surface, easy to determine where the missile came from, and that was from the USS Vincennes.

Thus the US NEVER had the option of denying the US fired the missile. In the case of the BUK missile being fired, you have many less radars in use. First this is over LAND, and as such any NON-Ukrainian Radar has to have a good picture from outside the Ukraine. Given the location of the Shoot down, only Russia had that capability (from outside the Ukraine). Any US Radar would have had to be in the Black Sea BEYOND the Crimea. Now the Ukraine had radar capability over the area in question, it is in the Ukraine, but knowing where the missile was fired from does NOT tell us who fired it for this system was fired from a location NOT known to Radar before the Missile was fired (Unlike the Iranian Shoot down where the USS Vincennes was on everyone's radar when it fired the missile).

My point is in the case of Flight 655, the US could not deny it shot down Flight 655 with any hope of being believed. In the Case of the Malaysian Flight over the Ukraine, not only could the Russian deny they fired it but so could the rebels on the grounds no one had a radar image from the launcher to the target for the launcher was below anyone's Radar till AFTER it was fired (Crews are trained to stay under cover if they can, i.e. under trees, in valleys etc, that ground base radar has a problem reaching.

Thus, unlike the US with Flight 655, the Rebels have the ability to deny they fired the weapon for with the possible exceptions of the Russians, no one has any radar image showing the missile being launched. Radar would have picked up the firing of the missile as its attitude increased, but only that a missile had been fired and about from about where it was fired, BUT not to any particular launching system. Thus the Rebels can blame it on the Ukrainians.

Please note the Ukrainians had shot down a Russian Plane in 2001 by accident when a S-200 long range missile had been fired at a target drone, but then a S-300 BUK destroyed the drone, which caused the S-200 to look for another target and locked on a flight from Israel. This occurred in the Crimea, but it was a 100% Ukrainian drill, but Russia did have observers with the Ukrainians and defended the Ukrainians from attacks that they had shot down the plane:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812

Please note the above Wikipedia site mention the Putin had denied that a missile took out the plane, but that was a comment made right after the shoot down and the next sentence Putin said was people should wait for the official report as to the cause. When the official report came out, it was clear it was a Ukrainian Missile that had shot down Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 and while the Ukraine maintains it was a terrorist on the plane that cause it to blow up, the Ukraine did pay damages.

[Blue_Tires]

30. Please... There are lots of "undeniable" acts that countries still deny to this day

I'm well aware of the Siberia 1812 incident, air crashes are kind of a thing of mine, and I've read the reports of pretty much every major and minor one since the 1950s...

You're forgetting that Buk was launched from Russian I mean "rebel"-controlled territory, and the Ukrainians already had air superiority, so there can be no doubt which side fired it... And while I don't think the shootdown was intentional, I'd like to think that 'defectors' from the Ukrainian Air Force could discern between a military aircraft and a B-777 which has no military applications, unless they were in full-on "free-fire" mode... But that's moot because the Russian military has hundreds of Buk systems, and it's well documented that they were regularly moving armor and anti-air vehicles in and out of Eastern Ukraine. So even if your 'defector' theory hold true, any vehicles they handed over to the Russians would have been in a MUCH poorer state of maintenance and disrepair than anything they already had... (You will also note that for a bunch of illiterate farmers, the "rebels" seem to have top-notch battle skills, superior tactics and advanced equipment, given the relative ease they were able to brush off a Ukrainian army with supposedly superior training and firepower)...

You're also forgetting that the Russian media (and their useful idiots on the left) initially pushed hard for the theory of some rogue Su-25T from the Ukrainian Air Force shooting it down, because of reasons -- Only when the Buk was officially confirmed did they finally kill that bit of agitprop... Nevermind the fact that no investigator was allowed by the rebels to even see the crash site for 72 hours, and it was a full week before they were given complete access... So the Russians/Rebels have spent a whole lot of energy trying to disassociate themselves from something they supposedly had nothing to do with...

[NutmegYankee]

25. It wouldn't be this intact.

The damage make sense given that it collided at high speed and exploded a warhead.

If it was old the rust would have consumed it by now.

[Blue_Tires]

18. Moscow should feel free to come clean anytime now...

[happyslug]

22. About what? That the Rebels shot down a plane the Rebels thought was hostile?

That appears to be what happened, the rebels thought the plane was part of the Air craft attacking their positions so they shot it down. The Rebels only found out it was a civilian aircraft when the debris hit the ground.

[Blue_Tires]

23. And who taught the rebels how to operate such complex machinery?

Either way, since Russia is coordinating the "rebels", they should have a pretty good idea of who fired it, right?

[happyslug]

28. I suspect this was Ukrainian troops who had defected to the Rebels.

Such defections are common in Civil Wars, often the defections go with equipment. The Ukrainian Army had ended the draft some years ago, opting for a volunteer army, but recruiting people into units that spoke Ukrainian and Russian. Thus it is very possible this was a former Ukrainian BUK system whose crew defected WITH THE MISSILE AND ITS LAUNCHER. Thus the crew had been trained by the Ukrainian Army (Many of the Officers that fought for the South in the US Civil War had been trained by the US Army, furthermore in the US you saw massive shipments of Arms from Northern Locations to the South after the 1860 election but before Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861, this included shipments of Cannon in addition to Rifles, some of these transfers of weapons was stopped by local who protested the movement, one such blockade of Weapons occurred in Pittsburgh in 1861).

There were reports in 2014 of defections from the Ukrainian Army to the Rebels and that was reported on DU, at least five armored vehicles defected from the Ukrainian Army to the Rebels in April 2014, other were claimed and I suspect did occur, but the only confirmation I saw were Five Air mobile armor vehicles flying rebel flags in 2014:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014781340

Some airborne units defected, implies to me others did to, with equipment and that can explain the BUK being in rebel hands with a well trained crew.

Here is from a paper on Pittsburgh and the Civil War, about the shipment of Cannon from Pittsburgh to New Orleans on Christmas Day 1860, for it is typical for arms to be shipped around as a civil war begins:

This fury manifested itself on Christmas day, 1860. Morning newspapers reported Secretary of War John B. Floyd's order that 124 heavy cannons and other guns and ammunition should be shipped from the Allegheny Arsenal down the rivers to Galveston and New Orleans. But many Pittsburghers questioned why the government was sending arms down the Mississippi, and instantly questioned whether the Secretary of War was treasonous. The Pittsburgh Dispatch wrote:

"The plain object of shipping guns South at this juncture is to put them in the hands of enemies of the United States, and it must not be permitted. It is not enough that we are to be sold out to the secessionists— the administration would bind us hand and foot, deprive us of arms and deliver us tied neck and heels to the traitors who would destroy the Union. It has already ordered 124 heavy guns from our Allegheny arsenal to the far South—not to defend the stars and stripes, for which our skillful mechanics made them, but to batter it down under the pirate flag of some Lone Star or Rattlesnake government."

The city's leaders met and formed a committee to wire President Buchanan asking that he countermand Floyd's order. The city also appealed to Edwin M. Stanton, Buchanan's attorney-general, formerly a popular Pittsburgh attorney. Pittsburgh was in a strange position. A Pittsburgh Post Gazette reporter in 1961 wrote, "Everyone knew the South was planning rebellion but the Federal Government had not yet declared that rebellion existed. Thus, technically, Floyd was not treasonous in sending guns South. Yet Pittsburgh would be in rebellion if, with force, she resisted a Federal order."

On January 3,1861, Pittsburgh received word that, thanks to Attorney General Stanton, Floyd's order had been rescinded, and, at President Buchanan's request, the Secretary of War had resigned. In many ways, the City felt it had won a victory for the Union.13

http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=shr

[Blue_Tires]

29. So if it's "Ukrainian defectors"...

Why has Russia blocked a U.N. tribunal, and why were Russian hackers trying to tamper with the Dutch Safety Board's investigation?

I mean, that's an awful lot of obstruction from a country who supposedly had nothing to do with it...

[GoneFishin]

26. Bullshit. The finger pointing over that episode has been furious from the first second.

If this evidence was available within any reasonable time frame it would have been used during the height of the pissing match.

I call bullshit. This could have come from anywhere.