Россия сознательно подтасовывает факты катастрофы маоазийского Боинга рейса MH17, чтобы выйти сухой из воды. Об этом пишется с статье издания «Нью Йорк Таймс» — «Почему у России альтернативная история рейса MH 17». В частности обозреватель американского издания указывает на те факты, что на протяжении всего расследования российская сторона постоянно меняла свою версию событий, которая в итоге в корне отличается от выводов нидерландской комиссии. В частности согласно голландским специалистам, Боинг 777 был сбит ракетой российского производства с помощью комплекса «Бук». В то время как российская сторона «внезапно» с 12 октября начала утверждать, что ракета украинского производства и с 2011 года снята в России с вооружения. Однако эти факт польностью не соответствуют выводам голландской комиссии.
Однако на протяжении всегорасследования Москва посредством своих адвокатов и с помощью различных экспертиз собственного производства продолжала оказывать попытки влияния на комиссию, отстивая версию, что самолет сбила Украина. Последняя версия Кремля — Бук находился на украинской территории, контролируемой украинскими войсками.
The Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 fuselage at Gilze-Rijen Air Base in the Netherlands on Oct. 13, 2015.CreditDean Mouhtaropoulos/Getty Images
On Tuesday, the Dutch Safety Board issued its long-awaited report on what brought down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. Speaking at Gilze-Rijen Air Base in the Netherlands, Tjibbe Joustra, the safety board’s chairman, announced that after meticulous study — including the plastering the charred scraps of the plane onto a skeleton model of the Boeing 777, which sat behind him as he spoke — the boardconcluded that the plane was brought down by a missile from the Russian-made 9M38 series, fired from a Buk surface-to-air missile system in eastern Ukraine. It exploded less than a yard from the left side of the plane’s cockpit. The high-energy fragments flung out by the missile perforated the plane’s nose and caused it to tear off, leading to the breakup and crash of the plane about a minute later, which killed all 298 passengers onboard.
The report didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know or strongly suspect: that the cause of the crash was a Russian-made missile fired from an area hotly contested between Russian-backed separatists and the Ukrainian military, killing hundreds of people who had nothing to do with the conflict. Though the report didn’t specify who fired the missile, Joustrasaid it was launched from rebel-held territory. This was, again, what we already suspected — and a scenario for which independent outfits, like the citizen-journalism website Bellingcat, have rustled up much convincing evidence.
A lot, however, comes down to who “us” is here. We in the West saw the presentation of one report, while Russians saw another: Almaz-Antey, the Russian state corporation that produces the Buk systems, held a competing news conference on Tuesday in Moscow, featuring its own report. Almaz-Antey’s accounting of the incident, which included footage of an exploding missile near the nose of a decommissioned Russian plane, reached subtly different conclusions. Sure, it was a Russian-made Buk that downed the plane, Almaz-Antey’s director Yan Novikov said, but those missiles have not been in use in Russia since 2011. Moreover, Novikov said, it was fired not from Snizhne, in rebel-held territory, but from near Zaroschenskoe, which was held by the Ukrainian Army. Novikov’s conclusion? Those 298 people were killed not by Russians, but by Ukrainians.
There’s a lot riding on this conclusion — for instance, the costly Westernsanctions imposed on Russia in the wake of the crash. And so, from the day the pieces of the plane rained down on Ukraine’s sunflower fields, Moscow has advanced its own theories about what brought down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. From early claims that it was a Ukrainian attempt to bring down Vladimir Putin’s presidential plane to later, more technical explanations, the Russian media and Almaz-Antey have acted like defense attorneys in a criminal trial, deliberately muddying the waters, fastidiously creating as much reasonable doubt as possible to lead the scent away from their client.
