Crash of MH17: why Ukraine did not want to disclose data from radars


On June 9, 2020, during the first court hearing of the Hague District Court (Netherlands) in the case of the crash of the Malaysian Boeing 777 (flight MH17) in 2014, it turned out that Ukraine refused to disclose the primary data from the radars on the day the plane crashed. This was reported by the Dutch prosecutor Theis Berger.


According to him, the Ukrainian side explained the failure to provide investigators with primary data of three radars at once as follows. The first one in Donetsk was turned off and at the time of the crash was in Kiev-uncontrolled territory. The second radar in Artyomovsk (Bakhmut, Donetsk region) turned out to be faulty. The third, in Chuguevo (Kharkov region), at that moment was undergoing scheduled maintenance.

In this regard, Ukraine provided only secondary radar data. But they, as indicated by the prosecutor, register only civilian airplanes in the air and transmit exclusively their signals.

Investigation of data from Ukrainian civilian and military radars has provided limited information

- emphasized Berger.

Meanwhile, the Dutch prosecutor drew attention to the fact that the information received from the Russian radar in Ust-Donetsk (Rostov Region) turned out to be more informative. Although this radar is located at a considerable distance from the scene, it is closest to the Russian ones. However, experts could not identify any traces of the launch of the rocket, nor the presence of a military aircraft near the Malaysian Airlines airliner flying from Amsterdam (Netherlands) to Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), on board of which there were 298 people.

The absence on the (Russian) radar of traces of rocket launch does not indicate its absence

- specified Berger.

It should be added that Russia transmitted not only radar data from Ust-Donetsk. She also provided exhaustive information that the missile with which the airliner was shot down and the Buk air defense system from which this missile was fired belong to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Moreover, the Buk air defense system was located at the time the rocket was launched in the territory controlled by Kiev.

At the same time, Dutch investigators initially ignored this information. But on the first day of the court’s hearing, the prosecution confirmed that it had received and is already studying the information received from the Russians.

Obviously, Ukraine did not want to disclose the data of its primary radars, since they were in the immediate vicinity of the place of events and recorded everything perfectly. For Kiev to provide this information is to commit a war crime.
Photos used: Ministerie van Defensie / wikimedia.org
Ctrl Enter

Noticed oshЫbku Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

46 comments
Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in

  1. Bakht Offline
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 9 June 2020 18: 33
    +5
    • 6
    • 1
    And they always assured me that Ukraine transmitted radar data ...
    1. Warrior Offline
      Warrior 11 June 2020 13: 54
      +2
      • 2
      • 0
      The main GUILTY is Ukraine anyway, because:
      - Ukraine allowed the passage of passenger planes over the territory of active hostilities in the Donbass, instead of the FORBIDDEN, as ALL countries do, because it was Ukraine that was responsible for the safety of the MH-17 flight over its territory;
      - specially changed the course of flight MH-17 and sent it to the Donbass, where there were active military operations;
      - changed the flight altitude of flight MN-17, reducing its altitude level to a minimum, that is, it specially set it up so that it could be shot down.
      And also why the Ukrainian dispatcher, Anna Petrenko, who directly operated the MH-17 flight, did not explain.
      She must be immediately summoned as a witness, or maybe as an accomplice in the murder, to a Dutch court to testify on the above issues.
  2. Dear sofa expert. 9 June 2020 19: 43
    +4
    • 6
    • 2
    There is no doubt that the downed airliner is a carefully thought-out action by the Americans, and was executed either by themselves or by the hands of their Ukrainian vassals.
    Russia, as the main defendant in the MH17 case, lacks a very important legal component - the motive.
    The motive is directly related to the goal. The motive determines the behavior of a person (or in this case - the state) not by itself, but only in connection with the goal. Motive and goal are closely related concepts, but not identical. The motive answers the question of why someone performs this or that action, the goal determines what the offender strives for when committing the crime.
    One must not be friends with one’s head in order to believe that the goal of Russia was to provoke a wave of indignation of the world community, and the sanctions that follow.
    But other states, in particular America and Ukraine, had such a goal.
    It was they who needed to convince the Europeans to support the sanctions against Russia. This means that it was they who had the motive.
    In my opinion, this was obvious from the very beginning. All this is understood in Europe, but so far they continue to play along with the Americans.
    The key word is bye. Everything is slowly coming to the point where the USA will lose the support of Europeans, and the truth will come out. But even in this case, Ukraine will be the “whipping boy”, and not the Americans themselves.
    1. Natan bruk Offline
      Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 9 June 2020 20: 07
      -8
      • 2
      • 10
      Again the same nonsense. What could be the motive if the Boeing was shot down by ERROR by the “business travelers” who mistook it for the Ukrainian transport? It is clear that no one was going to shoot him down intentionally. The evidence for this is already full and the investigation is slowly but surely approaching its logical conclusion. Russia no longer knows what to come up with - now, it turns out, there were no military aircraft or missiles nearby. Now, then, planted a bomb? And the conclusions of Almaz-Antey now urgently need to be forgotten? Or maybe they are going to return to the "stale corpses"?
      1. Natan bruk Offline
        Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 9 June 2020 20: 10
        -7
        • 2
        • 9
        Yes, a breakdown also occurred with the “transferred Ukrainian missile” - the production date on the wreckage does not coincide with the data transmitted by the Ministry of Defense. In general, the Kremlin has finally become entangled in its lies.
        1. Natan bruk Offline
          Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 9 June 2020 20: 16
          -7
          • 2
          • 9
          Well, at least somehow agreed between their departments. Moscow Defense Ministry claims that it was a Ukrainian missile and they have evidence of this, and the station in Ust-Donetsk - that there were no planes or missiles. So, someone is lying, there can be no other way. Or both lie, which, most likely, just did not agree on lies.
          1. Dear sofa expert. 9 June 2020 21: 14
            +3
            • 6
            • 3
            Or they both lie, which is most likely just not agreed.

            The Ukrainian side is lying. Lying is in her interests. Because if the version with the missile “catching up” to the explosion is correct, then this missile was launched for a double purpose. The first is to launch an investigation on a false trail, directing it to Russia. The second - if the first fails, send it to the Ukrainians. Well, the Americans will not substitute themselves?)) Are you so naive, comrade Ukrainian)
            1. Natan bruk Offline
              Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 10 June 2020 10: 06
              -3
              • 1
              • 4
              No, I'm not naive and not even Ukrainian, but the fact is that it was the Russian side that was lying. All the evidence suggests that the Boeing was shot down precisely by mistake and it was the Russian "business travelers." Yes, you read the article itself - how one contradicts the other. Or I don’t notice that I don’t like it?
          2. Bakht Offline
            Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 9 June 2020 22: 25
            +5
            • 7
            • 2
            You need to read the text carefully.

            Meanwhile, the Dutch prosecutor drew attention to the fact that the information received from the Russian radar in Ust-Donetsk (Rostov Region) turned out to be more informative. Although this radar is located at a considerable distance from the scenebut closest to Russian. However, experts were unable to identify any traces of the launch of the rocket, nor the presence of a military aircraft near the Malaysian Airlines airliner flying from Amsterdam (Netherlands) to Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), on board of which there were 298 people.

            The absence on the (Russian) radar of traces of rocket launch does not indicate its absence

            If there were no missiles, then the Russian side had nothing to do with it. And Ukraine, along with its curators, initially lied.
            1. Warrior Offline
              Warrior 11 June 2020 15: 35
              +2
              • 2
              • 0
              Russia fixed a Ukrainian plane near the Boeing 777 of flight MH-17 at the time of its crash, as the Chief of Staff of the Russian Air Force Lieutenant-General Igor Matushev said at a briefing:

              During this period, there were three passenger aircraft in the air, including a Boeing 777. In addition, Russian airborne controls recorded a climb to the Ukrainian Air Force, presumably the Su-25, in the direction of the Malaysian Boeing. The removal of the Su-25 from the Boeing was three to five kilometers.
      2. Dear sofa expert. 9 June 2020 21: 02
        +3
        • 5
        • 2
        Now, then, planted a bomb?

        Yes, there is such a version. Most likely blew up. A missile finished off to launch an investigation on a false trail. Or do you think that some fools are sitting in the American intelligence agencies developing such operations?
        1. Natan bruk Offline
          Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 10 June 2020 10: 09
          -3
          • 1
          • 4
          Oh how. But what about the conclusions of Almaz-Antey? Then, probably, they planted a bomb, and in Ukraine they launched a SU with a BUK attached to it. Then everything converges :)))
          1. Dear sofa expert. 10 June 2020 11: 25
            +1
            • 2
            • 1
            But what about the conclusions of Almaz-Antey?

            Almaz-Antey announced only a version about the use of a rocket in its “zone of responsibility”. No more.
            As I wrote earlier, the plane was most likely blown up by a bomb laid in it, and a rocket could be launched with the aim of:
            1) Finish off the plane, while “lubricating” the true cause of the crash.
            2) Launch an investigation on the “Russian trace”.
            3) In case of failure, blame Russia, transfer the arrows from yourself (USA) to Ukrainians. On the principle - you do not mind.
            4) In the case, the role of other participants in the tragedy, complicating the evidence base, is still unclear. There is a lot of speculation about them too.
            Conclusion: The operation was carefully prepared. There are so many questions from here today. Moreover, the main goal of the Americans - to defame someone, and to remain with nothing at all - so far succeeds.
            1. Natan bruk Offline
              Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 10 June 2020 11: 43
              -2
              • 1
              • 3
              What is another “version”? Almaz-Antey gave an unambiguous conclusion about the defeat of a Boeing missile from a BUK, and ruled out the impact from the inside. But shying the Russian side from one version to another is already becoming like a convulsive attempt to glue at least something believable.
              1. Dear sofa expert. 10 June 2020 12: 13
                +2
                • 2
                • 0
                Boeing missile from beech ...

                - read carefully everything I have written. Delve into the meaning of what I have written. Serve on your nose everything that I have written. For I speak the truth, and you carry some nonsense. This is Military Review, a guy, not a clown platform.
      3. Dear sofa expert. 9 June 2020 21: 38
        +2
        • 4
        • 2
        Was the Boeing shot down by ERROR by the “business travelers” who mistook it for a Ukrainian transporter? It is clear that no one was going to shoot him down intentionally

        You are a regular visitor to the Military Review, which means you must perfectly understand the topic. You can shoot down a civilian plane with Buk only specially. Even if the transponder was turned off for some reason, it is impossible to confuse it with the military. There are too many factors. Russia had no purpose or motive to specifically shoot down a passenger plane. I already wrote the rest.
        1. Natan bruk Offline
          Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 10 June 2020 10: 21
          -3
          • 1
          • 4
          It can be seen which of you is a “specialist." So that you know that you can shoot down any plane with the same BUK and mix up a transport carrier with a civil one, it is also quite possible, especially if the calculation does not have very good qualifications, plus the plane went north of the international route - the Boeing commander and dispatcher requested this allowed. So the route runs south, between Mariupol and Berdyansk and crosses the Sea of ​​Azov. But in the area where he ended up, earlier Ukrainian transport sides were shot down, albeit at a lower altitude, but 10000m for the BUK, of course, is not a problem. Is there some more. Girkin's Facebook, where he immediately joyfully crowed about the downed AN-26. Then, of course, he erased and declared that it was not his account at all. Of course, as soon as it happened, the account became fake :)))
          1. Dear sofa expert. 10 June 2020 11: 30
            +1
            • 2
            • 1
            It can be seen which of you is a “specialist." So that you know, you can shoot down any plane with the same BUK and confuse a transport carrier with a civil one too.

            If you are a Beech specialist, you know that the launcher’s own radar field of view is only 1,5 °.
            This means that by chance, you (given your vast experience)) from Buka you won’t even get to heaven)
      4. Dear sofa expert. 9 June 2020 21: 44
        +1
        • 3
        • 2
        who accepted him for the Ukrainian transport

        Less to you as an air defense expert. The Boeing 777 is a huge, 300-ton aircraft, with two engines, about 4 meters in diameter!
        A huge hot engine is visible in the thermal imager and two engines (instead of four on the IL-76) made it possible to reliably distinguish a passenger Boeing from a Ukrainian transporter.
        1. Natan bruk Offline
          Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 10 June 2020 10: 26
          -2
          • 1
          • 3
          You must say this to the calculation of “specialists” - vacationers. Yes, and so you know, marking on the radar, distinguishing between planes is not so easy, not every specialist can do this.
          1. Dear sofa expert. 10 June 2020 11: 14
            +1
            • 2
            • 1
            ... marking on the radar, distinguishing between planes is not so easy, and not every specialist can do this.

            Out of place again. Firstly, in addition to the “mark on the radar”, there is also a “television optical sight" (on modern versions, a heat-television sight (electron-optical system), which can still be used with low cloud cover. More can be seen on it than " points on the radar. "
            Secondly, according to your versions, the plane was shot down by a single BUK launcher. And in order to work with one machine, you need to be some other experienced specialist, or knowing in advance the route and characteristics of a moving target - wait, aim (at 1,5 ° of the launcher’s radar field of view), catch it, and instantly use the moment the target enters a very short affected area. So there could be no chance here.
            1. Natan bruk Offline
              Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 10 June 2020 11: 32
              -2
              • 1
              • 3
              These "experienced specialists" were sent on the same machine. And here is a minus to the whole Russian sloppiness, and not to me.
              1. Natan bruk Offline
                Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 10 June 2020 11: 37
                -2
                • 1
                • 3
                Yes, and yet - how do you comment on the statement of the Ust-Donetsk Knot that no planes or missiles were seen near the scene, and how do you reconcile this with the MO information about the Ukrainian missile, as well as with the conclusions of Almaz-Antey ?
              2. Dear sofa expert. 10 June 2020 12: 07
                +1
                • 1
                • 0
                minus the whole Russian sloppiness

                Save your primitive trolling for others)
      5. The comment was deleted.
    2. Igor Pavlovich Offline
      Igor Pavlovich (Igor Pavlovich) 9 June 2020 20: 55
      -7
      • 1
      • 8
      ... Until July 16, 2014, Russia did not impose any restrictions whatsoever on flying over its regions bordering the conflict zone. But on the night of July 17 - 17 hours before the Boeing disaster - Russia forbade flying in regions adjacent to Ukraine at an altitude below 16 km. In essence, this means closing the airspace for civilian vessels.
      In response to a request from the Dutch side, the Federal Air Transport Agency did not explain why the restrictions were imposed on the night of July 17 and why the minimum allowable flight altitude so exceeded the measures introduced by Ukraine.

      - coincidence ??? I don’t think so ...
      1. Dear sofa expert. 9 June 2020 21: 09
        +4
        • 6
        • 2
        But on the night of July 17 - 17 hours before the Boeing disaster - Russia forbade flying in regions adjacent to Ukraine at an altitude below 16 km.

        This is fake information.
        1. Igor Pavlovich Offline
          Igor Pavlovich (Igor Pavlovich) 9 June 2020 21: 27
          -6
          • 2
          • 8
          The Netherlands court does not consider Fake, and the Russian versions do not pull for more ...
          1. Dear sofa expert. 9 June 2020 21: 33
            +2
            • 4
            • 2
            Feyki the Dutch court does not consider

            - read the article. There is just about that.
            1. Igor Pavlovich Offline
              Igor Pavlovich (Igor Pavlovich) 9 June 2020 21: 35
              -5
              • 2
              • 7
              ... At the request of the Dutch side, the Federal Air Transport Agency did not give an explanation ...

              - read court proceedings. There is just about that.
              1. Dear sofa expert. 9 June 2020 22: 27
                +2
                • 4
                • 2
                read court proceedings.

                I, in principle, are not interested in sittings of this biased court today. Time will tell.
      2. Bakht Offline
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 9 June 2020 22: 28
        +5
        • 7
        • 2
        Link. The first time I heard that Russia was closing airspace. There, I remember, and the passenger plane flew. Russian.

        Especially amused at altitudes below 16 km. Can you tell me which passenger plane flies at an altitude of 16 km?
  3. Bakht Offline
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 9 June 2020 22: 48
    +5
    • 7
    • 2

    A similar picture was in the American media. MN-17 purposefully displayed over the combat zone.
    In general, it's all tired and solid bullshit. There are no key witnesses. They either disappeared or committed suicide. The investigation team accepted only the evidence to which Ukraine consented. That which did not suit Ukraine was removed from the case. Whatever decision the court makes, this has nothing to do with Russia. Ukraine brought down, even if she understands.

    As MH17 moved into Ukrainian air space, it was moved approximately 300 miles north of its usual route - putting it on a new course, flying directly over a war zone - a dangerous area that's hosted a number of downed military craft over the previous 3 weeks.

    Robert Mark, a commercial pilot and editor of Aviation International News Safety magazine, confirmed that most Malaysia Airlines flights from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur would normally travel along a route significantly further south than the route MH17 was diverted onto. Indeed, previous days' flight records see here confirm that MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur is always assigned routes much further south than the one it took that fateful day.
  4. Sergey Latyshev Offline
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 9 June 2020 23: 32
    -3
    • 3
    • 6
    All true.
    And radars, and photographs, and satellite images, and 2 dispatchers with 2 pilots shot down, and the plane was shown on TV, and Poroshenko personally supervised the downing, and the fighter’s mechanic confirmed ....

    And the state-owned TASS and others still have the news "The militants of the proclaimed DPR shot down the An-26 plane of the Ukrainian Air Force."
    1. Bakht Offline
      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 9 June 2020 23: 55
      +2
      • 5
      • 3
      There were no rockets near the Boeing. This was discussed today. But the commission of inquiry claims to have been hit by a rocket.

      Do you see the gopher? No? And he is there!

      The absence on the (Russian) radar of traces of rocket launch does not mean its absence.

      It is a masterpiece. And who is lying?
      1. GRF Offline
        GRF 10 June 2020 06: 03
        +2
        • 4
        • 2
        He shot down an invisible F-35 with his invisible missile in order to test equipment in combat conditions, or an inconspicuous super-super saboteur.
        Demonizing a demon is stupid, therefore demonizing Russians ...

        To invisible people - they can begin to write off so many wrecks that it just might not be profitable to have them ...
        1. Sergey Latyshev Offline
          Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 10 June 2020 09: 10
          -2
          • 2
          • 4
          I have never read about invisibility anywhere.
          You put forward a worthy version, modern-technological !!!
      2. Sergey Latyshev Offline
        Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 10 June 2020 09: 09
        -2
        • 2
        • 4
        Right.
        Therefore, our commissions, VO and manufacturers also stated that the rocket shot down.
        Well, purely so, they probably don’t lie.
        1. Bakht Offline
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 10 June 2020 10: 01
          +2
          • 4
          • 2
          You are a qualifier, please. Russian media are lying or not lying. You can’t be a little pregnant.
          1. Sergey Latyshev Offline
            Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 10 June 2020 12: 02
            -3
            • 0
            • 3
            You don’t need to be determined. Not in a Hollywood Bible trial.

            Now freedom and democracy. Wanted - lied. Wanted - did not lie. The media are masters of the word, however.

            PS About the so-called false pregnancy, etc. we will not mention at all ...
            1. Bakht Offline
              Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 10 June 2020 13: 35
              +3
              • 3
              • 0
              Well, you constantly refer to the Russian media and do not believe them yourself. I will not give a definition.
              1. Sergey Latyshev Offline
                Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 10 June 2020 14: 03
                -2
                • 0
                • 2
                And nice.
                My words, and so crank, I see how it impatient ..
                The definition would be clearly ..... biased.
      3. Natan bruk Offline
        Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 10 June 2020 10: 34
        -3
        • 1
        • 4
        Apparently, it was the Russian side that was lying, because the Almaz-Antey investigation irrefutably proved that the Boeing was shot down by a BUK missile launched according to Almaz-Antey’s calculations from a point controlled by the Ukrainian side.
        1. Bakht Offline
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 10 June 2020 13: 38
          +3
          • 3
          • 0
          So what's the lie? That the remote radar did not see the rocket?
          Lied Ukrainian and Dutch sides, who stubbornly argue that the Boeing was shot down by a rocket. And even showed the wreckage of a rocket and tore a vest on itself until the very half of the moon.
          If there was no rocket, then the entire tribunal was down the drain.
          1. Sergey Latyshev Offline
            Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 12 June 2020 14: 31
            -1
            • 0
            • 1
            Then Almaz-Antey comes out as a lie to order. And finding the Buk rocket where invisible hundred-meter fighters flew ....
  5. There is no need to crush the water in the mortar - the Ukrainians shot down Petka Offal on the orders of the Candy Tsar, and they ordered him to the CIA!
  6. Dmitry S. Offline
    Dmitry S. (Dmitry Sanin) 11 June 2020 13: 52
    0
    • 0
    • 0
    Will we find out the truth?