Civil war in Ukraine

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,247
I can dozens of similar sites with an alternative point of view to find. The website is biased. Good media is able to manipulate the mind of readers, to turn black into white.
I have read DSB ,Russian report and a lot of alternative report . also went to Bellicat analysis but they did not do any cross verification nor they seem to have expert on Radar and missile technology. I personal found believe that important info has been missed from both the side .I have done my conclusion on data available in open source which verified by expert who have worked in this field . Some say it was cannon fire or a air to air missile or Buk missile.But please tell me which data will you believe
1.It is in open source and has been cross verified
2.Supplied by unknown source and not verified
These all inconsistency come to fact that the data from both side is not fully released >This report is no different .
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
10,521
Likes
5,557
Country flag
The commission relied on classified info which is still a secrete ,the report cannot be cross verified.

Sir I read about the new release from multiple sources and saw both the presentation.What was claimed was that there was not missile fired from The rebel area according to the data mash by both the military and civilian radar.If you want to refute the claim please give the data.And the military aircraft is still there in both the presentation .Su 25 was claimed on initial flight reports .There are claims for presences of both Su 25 or any ither military plane .What was said that a aircrft close to the MH 17 had its transponder off which only military aircraft can do.
Well for starter I give a link for a small report ,I add more report with more evidence ,if you find a mistake please tell me
http://russia-insider.com/en/military/novaya-gazeta-report-mh17-shootdown-actual-proof/ri6645
I don't know if you really has been following this issue closely but if you did you would have noticed from the Sept. 26 press conference of the Russian Defence MInsitry that there was no longer an SU-25 in the Russian radar data. MH17 also did not anymore allegedly deviated from its flight. What the Russian Defence Ministry is now saying is that based on their radar data they should have seen the Buk missile going up against MH17 on their radar but they did not.

Here's a report of RT (I'm citing Russian sources here just so you will not accuse me of posting biased reports) on the press conference:


Res ipsa loquitor.
 

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
6,257
Likes
2,917
Country flag
I have read DSB ,Russian report and a lot of alternative report . also went to Bellicat analysis but they did not do any cross verification nor they seem to have expert on Radar and missile technology. I personal found believe that important info has been missed from both the side .I have done my conclusion on data available in open source which verified by expert who have worked in this field . Some say it was cannon fire or a air to air missile or Buk missile.But please tell me which data will you believe
1.It is in open source and has been cross verified
2.Supplied by unknown source and not verified
These all inconsistency come to fact that the data from both side is not fully released >This report is no different .
I immediately said that this was a missile from the "Buk". Only confident nne could tell which side she arrived - from the Ukrainian troops or militants. However, based on reasoning, I do not see the need for a complex of Ukrainian troops. Russia has begun to use airstrikes on the territory of Ukraine (Mi-24 and 35) only in the beginning of August 2014. Before that Ukrainian subdivisions did not even MANPADS at the front. Here are just a Ukrainian aircraft dealt a severe blow to the militants and they supplied a lot of Russian air defense complexes.
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
10,521
Likes
5,557
Country flag
And for comparison this is the July 21, 2014 Russian Defence Ministry press release:


The Russian's main claim that time were:

1. MH17 deviated from flight path;
2. There was unusual radar activity in Ukraine side in the area before MH17 was shot down; and,
3. Prior to MH17's shot Russian radar picked up a Ukrainian aircraft,an SU-25, climbing towards MH17.


This is a picture of their crucial presentation on their alleged radar data (actually only a graphic ppresentation) allegedly showing a Ukrainian SU-25 (an F-111 on the picture) on an intercept course with the MH17:



I remember Putin-huggers here pushing so hard this Russian lie about the Ukrainian SU-25. I got even suspended by a mod after several heated exchanges.

Now of course I am vindicated. The Russians themselves exposed their own lie without even an apology.
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
10,521
Likes
5,557
Country flag
After the Russians abandoned their early silly claim (they can only fool Russian idiots and Putin-huggers with that claim) that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian SU-25 which they claimed they saw on their radar, the Russians have now changed tactic to claiming that there was no missile flying towards MH17 from the Snizhne direction based on their radar data.

In other words, they are now insinuating that if it was indeed a Buk missile that shot down MH17 then it could have only been shot by the Ukrainians from the opposite direction.


This is another silly claim. But for a lot of gullible Russians and Putin-huggers all over the World who will parrot every lie that Moscow produces this is already good enough explanation that it was really Ukraine that shot down MH17, never mind that the Russian Defence Ministry have been zigzagging in their seriously idiotic disinformation campaign.
 

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,247
I don't know if you really has been following this issue closely but if you did you would have noticed from the Sept. 26 press conference of the Russian Defence MInsitry that there was no longer an SU-25 in the Russian radar data. MH17 also did not anymore allegedly deviated from its flight. What the Russian Defence Ministry is now saying is that based on their radar data they should have seen the Buk missile going up against MH17 on their radar but they did not.

Here's a report of RT (I'm citing Russian sources here just so you will not accuse me of posting biased reports) on the press conference:


Res ipsa loquitor.
Sir it is common mistake , even I did
1.The data from secondary radars are also include so a plane with off transponder will disappear as the transponder does not give height, speed and coordinates to locate on map, they early one use only data from primary radar..To know the exact location for the military aircraft , triangulation must be done by 3 promay radar
2.Well if did not deviate from flight path then it remain invisible to Buk launcher
Much has been made by the US and its media of MH17 being shot down and crashing in “the rebel-held area”, but few are aware of just how small the said area actually is. The Ukrainian military had already isolated the rebel area which Kiev and Washington insist a rebel-controlled BUK SAM missile battery had fired on the passenger jet. The actual size of this rebel-held patch is only 50 miles wide, with MH17 approaching on a southeastern route over Horlivka, the frontline of this rebel-held zone, towards Snezhnoye (Snizhne). Cruising at 580 mph (933 kmph), MH17 would have only been visible for a very short time – just over 1 minute (if Kiev had not ordered MH17 to alter its course and altitude then it would not have been visible at all), from the vantage point of the alleged rebel firing position.

According the Janes Defense, the alleged culprit – an SA-11 (NATO code name) or ‘BUK’ missile system, requires 5 minutes set-up active targeting, followed by an additional 22 seconds ‘reaction time’ for target acquisition and firing. As the MH17 was only visible for 70 seconds above this rebel-held area surrounding Grabovo, unless the alleged rebel firing position was specifically tracking MH17 long before it entered the rebel-held airspace and could distinguish it from other military civilian aircraft also in the general vicinity, Washington’s theory and Kiev’s accusation – that rebels shot down this aircraft becomes even weaker. Considering these factors, the probability increases greatly that targeting MH17 would have had to be premeditated far in advance of the 70 seconds it was visible above this particular rebel-held area
 

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,247
After the Russians abandoned their early silly claim (they can only fool Russian idiots and Putin-huggers with that claim) that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian SU-25 which they claimed they saw on their radar, the Russians have now changed tactic to claiming that there was no missile flying towards MH17 from the Snizhne direction based on their radar data.

In other words, they are now insinuating that if it was indeed a Buk missile that shot down MH17 then it could have only been shot by the Ukrainians from the opposite direction.


This is another silly claim. But for a lot of gullible Russians and Putin-huggers all over the World who will parrot every lie that Moscow produces this is already good enough explanation that it was really Ukraine that shot down MH17, never mind that the Russian Defence Ministry have been zigzagging in their seriously idiotic disinformation campaign.
Well there something we Gulf of Tonkin ,Iraq( both gulf war ),Libya and Syria chemical attack,then it if MSM all take same line and accuse some one in first 10 min ,do not trust them.
 

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,247
Fraud Alleged in NYT’s MH-17 Report
by Robert Parry, for Consortium News

Forensic experts are challenging an amateur report – touted in The New York Times – that claimed Russia faked satellite imagery of Ukrainian anti-aircraft missile batteries in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, the day that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot out of the sky killing 298 people.




A Malaysia Airways’ Boeing 777 like the one that crashed in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. (Photo credit: Aero Icarus from Zürich, Switzerland


In a Twitter exchange, Dr. Neal Krawetz, founder of the FotoForensics digital image analytical tool, wrote: “‘Bad analysis’ is an understatement. This ‘report’ is outright fraud.”


Another computer imaging expert, Masami Kuramoto, wrote, “This is either amateur hour or supposed to deceive audiences without tech background,” to which Krawetz responded: “Why ‘or’? Amateur hour AND deceptive.”

On Saturday, The New York Times, which usually disdains Internet reports even from qualified experts, chose to highlight the report by arms control researchers atarmscontrolwonk.com who appear to have little expertise in the field of forensic photographic analysis.



The Times article suggested that the Russians were falsely claiming that the Ukrainian military had Buk missile systems in eastern Ukraine on the day that MH-17 was shot down. But the presence of Ukrainian anti-aircraft missile batteries in the area has been confirmed by Western intelligence, including a report issued last October on the findings of the Dutch intelligence agency which had access to NATO’s satellite and other data collection.

Indeed, the Netherlands’ Military Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD) concluded that the only anti-aircraft weapons in eastern Ukraine capable of bringing down MH-17 at 33,000 feet belonged to the Ukrainian government, not the ethnic Russian rebels. MIVD made that assessment in the context of explaining why commercial aircraft continued to fly over the eastern Ukrainian battle zone in summer 2014. (The MH-17 flight had originated in Amsterdam and carried many Dutch citizens, explaining why the Netherlands took the lead in the investigation.)

MIVD said that based on “state secret” information, it was known that Ukraine possessed some older but “powerful anti-aircraft systems” and “a number of these systems were located in the eastern part of the country.” MIVD added that the rebels lacked that capacity:

Prior to the crash, the MIVD knew that, in addition to light aircraft artillery, the Separatists also possessed short-range portable air defence systems (man-portable air-defence systems; MANPADS) and that they possibly possessed short-range vehicle-borne air-defence systems. Both types of systems are considered surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). Due to their limited range they do not constitute a danger to civil aviation at cruising altitude.

I know that I have cited this section of the Dutch report before but I repeat it because The New York Times, The Washington Post and other leading U.S. news organizations have ignored these findings, presumably because they don’t advance the desired propaganda theme blaming the Russians for the tragedy.

In other words, the Times, the Post and the rest of the mainstream U.S. media want the Russians to be guilty, so they exclude from their articles evidence that suggests that some element of the Ukrainian military might have fired the fateful missile. Such “group think” is, of course, the same journalistic malfeasance that led to the false reporting about Iraq’s WMD. Doubts, even expressed by experts, were systematically filtered out then and the same now.

DISHONEST JOURNALISM
Further, it is dishonest journalism to ignore a credible government report that bears directly on an important issue, especially while running dubious Internet analyses and accepting propaganda claims from self-interested U.S. officials seeking to make the case against Russia.

For instance, the Dutch report contradicted The Washington Post’s early reporting on MH-17. On July 20, 2014, just three days after the crash, the Post published an article with the title “Russia Supplied Missile Launchers to Separatists, U.S. Official Says.”

In the article, the Post’s Michael Birnbaum and Karen DeYoung reported from Kiev that an anonymous U.S. official said the U.S. government had “confirmed that Russia supplied sophisticated missile launchers to separatists in eastern Ukraine and that attempts were made to move them back across the Russian border.”

This official told the Post that Russia didn’t just supply one Buk battery, but three. Though this account has never been retracted, there were problems with it from the start, including the fact that a U.S. “government assessment” – released by the Director of National Intelligence on July 22, 2014, (two days later) – listed a variety of weapons allegedly provided by the Russians to the ethnic Russian rebels but not a Buk anti-aircraft missile system.

In other words, two days after the Post cited a U.S. official claiming that the Russians had given the rebels three Buk batteries, the DNI’s “government assessment” made no reference to a delivery of one, let alone three Buk systems. And that absence of evidence came in the context of the DNI larding the “government assessment” with every possible innuendo to implicate the Russians, including “social media” entries. But there was no mention of a Buk delivery.

The significance of this missing link is hard to overstate. At the time eastern Ukraine was the focus of extraordinary U.S. intelligence collection because of the potential for the crisis to spin out of control and start World War III. Plus, a Buk missile battery is large and difficult to conceal. The missiles themselves are 16-feet-long and are usually pulled around by truck.

U.S. spy satellites, which supposedly can let you read a license plate in Moscow, would have picked up these images. And, if for some inexplicable reason a Buk battery was missed before July 17, 2014, it would surely have been spotted during an after-action review of the satellite imagery. But the U.S. government has released nothing of the kind.

In the days after the MH-17 crash, I was told by a source that U.S. intelligence had spotted Buk systems in the area but they appeared to be under Ukrainian government control. The source who had been briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts said the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile was manned by troops dressed in what looked like Ukrainian uniforms.

At that point, the source said CIA analysts were still not ruling out the possibility that the troops might have been eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms but the initial assessment was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers. There also was the suggestion that the soldiers were undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site, the source said. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “What Did US Spy Satellites See in Ukraine?”]

Subsequently, the source said, these analysts reviewed other intelligence data, including recorded phone intercepts, and concluded that the shoot-down was carried out by a rogue element of the Ukrainian government, working with a rabidly anti-Russian oligarch, but that senior Ukrainian leaders, such as President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, were not implicated. However, I have not been able to determine if this assessment was a dissident opinion or a consensus within U.S. intelligence circles.

Another intelligence source told me that CIA analysts did brief Dutch authorities during the preparation of the Dutch Safety Board’s report but that the U.S. information remained classified and unavailable for public release. In the Dutch reports, there is no reference to U.S.-supplied information although they do reflect sensitive details about Russian-made weapons systems, secrets declassified by Moscow for the investigation.

AN NYT PATTERN?
So, what to make of the Times hyping an amateur analysis of two Russian satellite photos and reporting that they showed manipulation. Though the claim seems to be designed to raise doubts about the presence of Ukrainian Buk missile batteries in eastern Ukraine, the presence of those missiles is really not in doubt.


A photograph of a Russian BUK missile system that U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt published on Twitter in support of a claim about Russia placing BUK missiles in eastern Ukraine, except that the image appears to be an AP photo taken at an air show near Moscow two years earlier

So, what to make of the Times hyping an amateur analysis of two Russian satellite photos and reporting that they showed manipulation. Though the claim seems to be designed to raise doubts about the presence of Ukrainian Buk missile batteries in eastern Ukraine, the presence of those missiles is really not in doubt.

And it makes sense the Ukrainians would move their anti-aircraft missiles toward the front because of fears that the powerful Ukrainian offensive then underway against ethnic Russian rebels might provoke Russia to launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Shifting anti-aircraft missile batteries toward the border would be a normal military preparation in such a situation.

That’s particularly true because a Ukrainian fighter plane was shot down along the border on July 16, 2014, presumably from an air-to-air missile fired by a Russian plane. Tensions were high at the time and the possibility that an out-of-control Ukrainian crew misidentified MH-17 as a Russian military jet or Putin’s plane cannot be dismissed.

But all this context is missing from the Times article by reporter Andrew E. Kramer, who has been a regular contributor to the Times’ anti-Russian propaganda. He treats the findings by some nuclear arms control researchers at the Middlebury Institute for International Studies as definitive though there’s no reason to believe that these folks have any special expertise in applying this software whose creator says requires careful analysis.

The new report was based on the filtering software Tungstene designed by Roger Cozien, who has warned against rushing to judge “anomalies” in photographs as intentional falsifications when they may result from the normal process of saving an image or making innocent adjustments.

In an interview in Time magazine, Cozien said, “These filters aim at detecting anomalies. They give you any and all specific and particular information which can be found in the photograph file. And these particularities, called ‘singularities’, are sometimes only accidental: this is because the image was not well re-saved or that the camera had specific features, for example.

The software in itself is neutral: it does not know what is an alteration or a manipulation. So, when it notices an error, the operator needs to consider whether it is an image manipulation, or just an accident.

In other words, anomalies can be introduced by innocent actions related to saving or modifying an image, such as transferring it to a different format, adjusting the contrast or adding a word box. But it is difficult for a layman to assess the intricacies involved.

To buttress the new report, Kramer cited the work of Bellingcat, a group of “citizen journalists” who have made a solid business out of reaffirming whatever Western propaganda is claiming, whether about Syria, Ukraine or Russia.

Bellingcat’s founder Eliot Higgins also had raised doubts about the Russian photos – using Dr. Krawetz’s FotoForensics software – but those findings were subsequently debunked by Dr. Krawetz himself and other experts. While Kramer cited Higgins’s earlier analysis, the Times reporter left out the fact that those findings were disputed by professional experts.

Dr. Krawetz also found the new photographic analysis both amateurish and deceptive. When I contacted him by email, he declined an interview and noted that Bellingcat fans were already on the offensive, trying to shut down dissent to the new report.

In an email to me, he wrote: “I have already seen the Bellingcat trolls verbally attack me, their ‘reporters’ use intimidation tactics, and their CEO insults me. (Hmmm … First he uses my software, then his team seeks me out as an expert, then he insults me when my opinion differs from his.)”

If it’s true that the first casualty of war is truth, the old saying also seems to apply to a new Cold War.

[For more on Bellingcat and its erroneous work, seeConsortiumnews.com’s “MH-17 Case: ‘Old’ Journalism vs. ‘New.’”]
https://off-guardian.org/2016/07/21/fraud-alleged-in-nyts-mh-17-report/
 

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
6,257
Likes
2,917
Country flag
Can you tell the date of closing of the air space for commercial planes ?
There's no fixed date. When the militants were MANPADS "Igla" (beginning of June) closed a height of 3500 meters. When there MANPADS "Verba" and Strela-10 - up to 4500 meters in the beginning of July there were SAM "Osa"
There is a version that Putin wanted to make a great provocation and shoot down Russian "Boeing", which then flew to Rostov, to create a casus belli. However, I do not believe it. Ukrainian army began to apply the MiG-29 and Su-27, against which the SAM militants were powerless. Therefore, the Kremlin sent here, "Buck".
 

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,247
There's no fixed date. When the militants were MANPADS "Igla" (beginning of June) closed a height of 3500 meters. When there MANPADS "Verba" and Strela-10 - up to 4500 meters in the beginning of July there were SAM "Osa"
There is a version that Putin wanted to make a great provocation and shoot down Russian "Boeing", which then flew to Rostov, to create a casus belli. However, I do not believe it. Ukrainian army began to apply the MiG-29 and Su-27, against which the SAM militants were powerless. Therefore, the Kremlin sent here, "Buck".
Well I do not understand if it was know to Ukraine that Buk was there then why did all commercial plane still fly Zince it responsibility of the nation to provide safe passage to commercial plane why were plane still allowed there ?
For eg ,or relationship with Pakistan have gone down so we have already stopped International flight of Indian commercial plane to their airspace ,Why wait for a disaster where one side may be by mistake shoot an civilian aircraft .It can case of criminal negligence and lead to court case to.
 

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,247
Why Ukraine needs Russia more than ever
Nicolai Petro


With country at risk of becoming a failed state, Kiev must recognise that economic survival depends on Moscow not the west



Activists wave a Ukrainian flag on Independence Square in Kiev in February. Photograph: Sergei Supinsky/AFP/Getty Images
Wednesday 9 March 2016 11.00 GMTLast modified on Wednesday 30 March 201615.39 BST




In January Ukraine’s president, Petro Poroshenko, congratulated the country on surviving its first winter without buying Russian gas. It had instead bought European gas which, as Poroshenko pointed out proudly, was 30% more expensive.

This sums up the core problem facing the Ukrainian economy. It is not corruption, a serious issue about which little can be done in the short term, but the ideologically driven choice to sever all ties with Russia, the country that has historically been its major trading partner and chief investor.

In little over a year, living standards in Ukraine have fallen by half, the value of the currency has slumped by more than two-thirds, and inflation has skyrocketed to 43%. Yet, even as the economy has collapsed, the government has insisted on economic policies that can only be termed suicidal.

By tearing up contracts with Russia in 2014, Ukraine’s defence and aviation industries lost 80% of their income. Once the pride of Kiev, airline manufacturer Antonov was liquidated and it assets transferred to another state-owned conglomerate, while rocket engine producer Yuzhmash is now working just one day a week.

By severing banking ties with Moscow, Kiev has denied itself investment and a vital economic lifeline – the remittances sent back home by zarobitchane, Ukraine’s migrant workers. Up to 7 million Ukrainians have sought work abroad, sending back $9bn in 2014 – three times the total foreign direct investment Ukraine got last year.

Reckless government borrowing has exacerbated the problem. The government was able to write off 20% of its Eurobond debt last October, allowing it to negotiate for the next IMF loan tranche which was expected in December but still not been received.

But the draconian terms imposed for this small beer are often overlooked. Ukraine will be repaying this debt until 2041, with future generations giving western creditors 40% of the value of any GDP growth over 4%, should it ever reach that level.




Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko followed by Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko and Russian president Vladimir Putin after talks in Minsk. Photograph: Grigory Dukor/Reuters
There is a common thread that links the government’s irrational economic behavior – the understandable desire to spite Vladimir Putin. Alas, it is the average Ukrainian citizen who pays the price.

There can also be no doubt that Poroshenko approves of this approach. In his first speech of 2016 he announced new priorities for the Ukrainian economy. The government intends to end subsidies to manufacturing and industry, and instead promote investment in information technologies and agriculture.

It is not at all clear, however, where he will sell this produce, since by signing a free trade agreement with the EU, Ukraine lost its preferential access to its largest market, Russia.

Meanwhile, EU rules restrict Ukraine’s exports to Europe, which fell 23% in 2015 despite the preferential tariff regime that was in place for most of last year. For example, only 72 Ukrainian companies are allowed to export food of animal origin to the EU: 39 of the licences are for honey. While that may sound like a lot of honey, Ukraine exported its yearly quota for honey in the first six weeks of 2016. A similar story holds for other commodities.

Nor is it clear how Poroshenko plans to make Ukrainian agriculture globally competitive when, as his own agriculture minister points out, four out of five state-owned agricultural companies are bankrupt. It is also unclear who will pay foragricultural machinery, 80% of which is imported.

Such policies have led to a steady erosion of government popularity, with 70% of Ukrainians saying the country is on wrong track and 85% say they do not trust the prime minister. Poroshenko’s popularity is now lower than that of his predecessor, Viktor Yanukovich, on the eve of the Maidan rebellion that ousted him.

But while less than 2% describe the country as “stable,” a new revolt does not seem imminent. So far, the regime has been able to provide explanations that deflect attention away from its own role in Ukraine’s economic demise.


Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Man holding a Russian flag during the celebrations for the first anniversary of the annexation of Crimea in Sevastopol. Photograph: Maxim Shemetov/REUTERS
The first is Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the rebellion in the east, which are commonly cited as reasons for the fall in GDP. While it’s true that these caused significant economic damage, it has been exacerbated by the government’s own policies which, despite insisting Russophone eastern regions are part of Ukraine, has cut them off from economic ties and punished the population for siding with Russia.

Another favourite argument of the current government is that Ukraine simply has no choice but to respond to Russian aggression by imposing its own sanctions. The beauty of this argument is that, while it may not make economic sense, it makes a great deal of political sense for those now in power.

The destruction of Ukraine’s industrial base, which is heavily concentrated in the east, shifts the balance of economic and political power to the western regions, permanently marginalising opposing political voices. The advantages are clear. Fostering a sense of perpetual crisis allows the current government to argue that it must remain in power, to see its policies through. The only uncertainty is whether such a strategy can bear fruit before the country’s economy collapses.

This is not a policy that the west can endorse. Regardless of political sympathies, no western government should tolerate the deliberate impoverishment of the population for political gain. The risks of Ukraine becoming a failed state, and adding millions more to Europe’s burgeoning refugee crisis, are simply too high.

The best way to avoid such an outcome is to recognise that Ukraine’s economic survival depends not on western bailouts but on the renewal of Russian investment there. Western policymakers should insist that economic rationality take precedence over economic nationalism, and make that a condition of assistance.

Until that happens, it is hard to imagine anyone investing in Ukraine’s future, including its own people.

Nicolai Petro is an academic specialising in Russian and Ukrainian affairs, currently professor of political science at the University of Rhode Island. He spent 2013-2014 as a US Fulbright Scholar in Ukraine

• This article was amended on 11 March 2016. An earlier version said that, in little over a year, “the currency has lost 350% of its value”. In an interview, Viktor Yushchenko referred to Ukraine’s national currency losing 350% of its value, by which he is understood to have meant that the dollar-to-hryvnia exchange rate had increased by about 350%. The article was further amended on 16 March 2016. An earlier version said EU certification allowed only 72 Ukrainian companies to export to the UK; that figure applies to exports of food of animal origin. It also said the Ukrainian agriculture minister had said four out of five Ukrainian agricultural companies were bankrupt; he was referring to state-owned agricultural companies. The article was further amended on 24 March 2016. An earlier version said up to 7 million Ukrainians had sought work in Russia; that figure relates to Ukrainians working abroad, not just in Russia. The article was further amended on 30 March 2016. A statement that Ukraine’s defence and aviation industries lost 80% of their income by tearing up contracts with Russia was amended to make clear that this figure relates to a potential loss of income for companies managed by Ukraine’s State Space Agency. A reference to Antonov going bankrupt was also clarified; and a statement that, under the terms of IMF debt restructuring, Ukraine would pay as much as half of the country’s GDP growth, should it ever reach 4% a year was clarified to say that Ukraine would pay 40% of the value of any GDP growth over 4%.
 

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
6,257
Likes
2,917
Country flag
Well I do not understand if it was know to Ukraine that Buk was there then why did all commercial plane still fly Zince it responsibility of the nation to provide safe passage to commercial plane why were plane still allowed there ?
For eg ,or relationship with Pakistan have gone down so we have already stopped International flight of Indian commercial plane to their airspace ,Why wait for a disaster where one side may be by mistake shoot an civilian aircraft .It can case of criminal negligence and lead to court case to.
Ukrainian intelligence did not know that there is a "Buk". You understand, MANPADS may shoot any moron. For SAM "Buk" to learn. At the beginning of summer in Ukraine were not regular units of the Russian army. Artillery and air attacks on Russian army committed from its territory. Therefore, the appearance of this complex was a surprise.
 

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,247
Ukrainian intelligence did not know that there is a "Buk". You understand, MANPADS may shoot any moron. For SAM "Buk" to learn. At the beginning of summer in Ukraine were not regular units of the Russian army. Artillery and air attacks on Russian army committed from its territory. Therefore, the appearance of this complex was a surprise.
So how one on the eve of crash did you blame Rebel for crash in 5 minutes ,you did not know even exist ?Yes I know you need training to shoot a Buk and to shoot it will require a well trained crew as time was around 70 sec .That means only proper Russian solider or Ukraine solider operated it which is difficult as both will have data given by other radar so they knew about civilian and military plane .My thoughts are some one wanted to shoot this plane down because shooting it by mistake looks almost out of the question.
 
Last edited:

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
6,257
Likes
2,917
Country flag
So how one the eve of crash did you blame Rebel for crash in 5 minutes ,you did not know even exist ?Yes I know you need training to shoot a Buk and to shoot it will require a well trained crew as time was around 70 sec .That means only proper Russian solider or Ukraine solider operated it which is difficult as both will have data given by other radar so they knew about civilian and military plane .My thoughts are some one wanted to shoot this plane down because shooting it by mistake looks almost out of the question.
This SAM has its own radar. It is simple, but sees the aircraft. Tragic mistakes happen. But Russia it will never recognize, because it is a direct evidence of its direct involvement.
 

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,247
This SAM has its own radar. It is simple, but sees the aircraft. Tragic mistakes happen. But Russia it will never recognize, because it is a direct evidence of its direct involvement.
How do you it Russia or Ukraine for that matter .
Yes it has its own radar but with its own radar its has only 70 sec to track, identify ,look on and shoot and bring it down ,one need a very good crew.Other radar is for early warning so the track identify and lock on quickly .
And if its a mistake then a criminal case cannot be used .Error of judgement is not criminal offences in any court just like killing in self defense in not murder.
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
10,521
Likes
5,557
Country flag
Well there something we Gulf of Tonkin ,Iraq( both gulf war ),Libya and Syria chemical attack,then it if MSM all take same line and accuse some one in first 10 min ,do not trust them.
It was a cynical deliberate lie. Putin thinks the rest of the World are like most Russians and his ogling Putin-huggers who will believe everything he says.

Notice that the July 21, 2014 Russian Defence Ministry presentation about the alleged Ukrainian SU-25 did not use actual radar footage but was only a badly made drawing. There was really no aircraft within 3-4 kilometers of MH17 at the time it was shot down as now shown by its newly released (Sept. 26, 2016) actual radar footage. Don't tell me this radar footage dating back to July 17, 2014 (4 days before the Russian defence Ministry press conference) did not exist? Yet Putin kept on peddling this delirious lie until Sept. 26, 20016 when it was becoming clear that what the Dutch-led International Joint Investigation Team was going to present a very clear report on the incident.

The Sept. 26, 2016 press release of the Russian MOD was intended to cast doubt on the JIT's report ahead of its official release with the Russians tweaking a little bit their false narrative.
 

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
6,257
Likes
2,917
Country flag
How do you it Russia or Ukraine for that matter .
Yes it has its own radar but with its own radar its has only 70 sec to track, identify ,look on and shoot and bring it down ,one need a very good crew.Other radar is for early warning so the track identify and lock on quickly .
And if its a mistake then a criminal case cannot be used .Error of judgement is not criminal offences in any court just like killing in self defense in not murder.
Shoot down civilly jet is self-defense? Where did you hear about 70 seconds? He has a constant Doppler radar. It shows only the height and speed. The operator could confuse Boeing with Ukrainian IL-76. But still. This transport plane, he does not carry weapons. So, this excess of self-defense. Every day, cross the territory of Ukraine dozens of flights, of all air defense forces are identified. Therefore, could not knock down. Especially jet fly from Ukraine to Russia, and not vice versa.
 

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,247
Where did you hear about 70 seconds?
Sir the 70 second s is the time that the MH 17 is visible to Byk radar from the alleged location of missile attack.
Shoot down civilly jet is self-defense?
To know its a civilian jet one know to have a secondary radar with friend or foe transponder .Buk does not have a secondary radar ,it would have been register as unidentified flying object.
This transport plane, he does not carry weapons. So, this excess of self-defense.
Please tell me how to differentiate a transport plane with other plane with radar only.
Shoot down civilly jet is self-defense?
Sir I said the error of judgement, I gave self defensive as example for which you cannot be prosecuted .The count cannot find any side guilty of murder unless they have proof that it was know that they targeted a civilian plane before launch of missile .
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top