Another Malaysian airliner crashed in Ukraine
- Thread starter Fingers
- Start date
Citizen66 said:
As I understand it, non-state actors can in theory be prosecuted for war crimes. Or at least for some.
But as with all international law cases, particularly those concerning the laws of war, whether a prosecution is feasible is a massively political question.
Citizen66 said:
I don't think that makes a difference. I know of no "serves you right" exception.
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Unless you take up arms civilians are protected, and,even if you take up arms your entitled to to protection under Geneva if you carry them openly. If you blunder into a war zone and get hit it may be a warcrime it really depends if who ever shot you can prove they tried to avoid hitting civilians.
I more mean that surely a distinction is drawn between friendly fire / it happening accidentally after incorrect identification and deliberately targeting them.
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
War crimes trials tend to be victors justice so depends if they want a real trial or not.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
Do they? Which trials are you thinking of? I wouldn't say that about Nuremberg, would you? Or Milosevic?
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Well normally only defeated get put on trial.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
Think it was more ignorance rather than a desire to maintain profits none of the combatants had used anything like the buk before so it was considered "safe at high altitude
2hats
Dust.
Reuters report recent interviews with several villagers in Chervonyi Zhovten who describe clearly seeing a SAM launched nearby on 17 July and downing the aircraft. Chervonyi Zhovten is just over 1km away from the suspected launch location identified much further up the thread, well inside 'rebel' territory both then and now. The villagers indicate that they hadn't spoken previously for fear of retribution by 'rebel' elements. In the same report there are comments from a former 'rebel' fighter who confirmed the presence of a Buk battery close to the village.
Photos have also surfaced from the northernmost debris field (actually NW of the areas mainly searched thus far) which includes shots of damage to an (what is most likely the left) engine nacelle which are more consistent with the Buk scenario (HE fragmentation device to the left and above the cockpit area, not R60 or cannon fire) - eg:
Photos have also surfaced from the northernmost debris field (actually NW of the areas mainly searched thus far) which includes shots of damage to an (what is most likely the left) engine nacelle which are more consistent with the Buk scenario (HE fragmentation device to the left and above the cockpit area, not R60 or cannon fire) - eg:
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
2hats
Dust.
The international Joint Investigation Team (criminal investigation, not air accident) have issued a request for any witnesses to Buk transportation and launch around the time of the incident to come forward:
2hats
Dust.
Whoops! Ta. Now moved to the correct thread and substituted with something relevant.
Last edited:
2hats
Dust.
The Dutch investigative team are reported to have found many more human remains across the crash site in the latest search, a significant number of personal effects and plane parts.
In a lecture, a member of the victim identification team made it very clear that forensic analysis points to the victims having been in close proximity to an explosive device, located just outside the airframe, ie a missile, and none had been killed by ammunition.
In a lecture, a member of the victim identification team made it very clear that forensic analysis points to the victims having been in close proximity to an explosive device, located just outside the airframe, ie a missile, and none had been killed by ammunition.
2hats
Dust.
Interesting change of tack; it seems someone has given up with the Su25 story at last...
Some Russian media have published claims from a leaked report (source vague though attributed to 'various Russian defence experts' - hopefully not the same experts who analysed the previously provided comedy satellite imagery) which provides analysis and evidence that MH17 was shot down by a Buk M1 missile. The report goes on to claim that the Buk missile was operated by the Ukrainian military.
However the analysis is misleading in its simplistic ballistic assumptions; the same flawed method used to rule out a launch site in 'rebel' held areas around Snizhne, also rules out their suggested location of Zaroshchenske (claimed to be Ukrainian held territory) taking no account of terminal guidance.
Some Russian media have published claims from a leaked report (source vague though attributed to 'various Russian defence experts' - hopefully not the same experts who analysed the previously provided comedy satellite imagery) which provides analysis and evidence that MH17 was shot down by a Buk M1 missile. The report goes on to claim that the Buk missile was operated by the Ukrainian military.
However the analysis is misleading in its simplistic ballistic assumptions; the same flawed method used to rule out a launch site in 'rebel' held areas around Snizhne, also rules out their suggested location of Zaroshchenske (claimed to be Ukrainian held territory) taking no account of terminal guidance.
Sirena
Don't monkey with the buzzsaw
2hats
Dust.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
I would . The perpetrators of Hiroshima and Nagasaki , Dresden etc certainly weren't put on trial . While nazis were hung for human lampshades US troops regularly used Japanese body parts as trophies . Even their president Roosevelt once found himself presented with a letter opener made from a human leg bone ...he didn't accept it .
And Milosevic wasn't found guilty of anything , he ably rebutted every charge made against him. In a court which the united states flat refuses to allow its personnel to be subject to . The very definition of victors justice .
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
The Russians have now produced and named a witness, one Evgeny Agapov, of the Ukrainian air force . An armaments mechanic, he claims to have been present when a Ukrainian jet returned from a mission minus it's missiles . And that he witnessed its pilot , a captain by the name of Voloshyn , discussing with other pilots how he'd shot down the wrong plane . He also names the others who were present when this conversation/admission allegedly occurred .
In the days before the crash the Ukrainian government were openly talking about Russian aircraft violating their airspace and carrying out attacks . And on the day it happened they were going to the UN to make a formal complaint about it . They changed their tune immediately afterwards .
In the days before the crash the Ukrainian government were openly talking about Russian aircraft violating their airspace and carrying out attacks . And on the day it happened they were going to the UN to make a formal complaint about it . They changed their tune immediately afterwards .
2hats
Dust.
Welcome back. Catching up on the last 7 months? I don't know if you have noticed but now every other day the Russian media is going with their own Buk theory (got to tune that option in time for the DSB report) instead of the increasingly-hard-to-substantiate Su-25 comedy option (top marks to the Kremlin for persevering with trying to confuse the story).
Furthermore, Almaz-Antey, the Russian state manufacturer of the SA-17 (Buk) even held a press conference yesterday:
('quick' summary here) where they announced they had investigated the incident and concluded a Buk had indeed brought MH17 down. Based on photos they identified the missile variant used as a 9M38M1 (they describe the damage to the aircraft structure as identical to that inflicted by a 9M38M1, in particular a feature unique to that warhead whereby it fragments into 'H' shaped elements known as 'scalpel'):
Unfortunately they were a little economical with the truth - they went on to claim that the 9M38M1 is only in use with Ukraine armed forces and not Russian (and thus by implication the Ukraine forces must have fired the missile). Except that type of missile has been seen in use at various Russian events over the last 5+ years. For example here Putin is seen visiting the 102nd Russian military base in June 2014 - 9M38M1's in the background:
Compare the above to the more recent 9M317 (reportedly a rod type warhead so ruled out by the debris images) which only the Russians possess - the main body fins are much shorter on the 9M317:
The 9M38M1 type has also been clearly visible being shipped to Russian BUK TELARs, located in Russia a few miles from the Ukraine border, photographed here in August 2014:
(More from Bellingcat on that here).
The 9M38M1 is clearly still in the Russian arsenal.
Almaz-Antey go on to make claims about the launch location as being near Zaroshchenske (as previously) however the satellite imagery purporting to support a Buk battery being located there has been discredited before and more recently by Bellingcat here. The geometrical analysis they present would also be inconsistent with proximity fusing - it doesn't make sense for a HE fragmentation warhead (additionally it should be pointed out that they are working from photos and not a 3D reconstruction of the airframe).
Furthermore, Almaz-Antey, the Russian state manufacturer of the SA-17 (Buk) even held a press conference yesterday:
('quick' summary here) where they announced they had investigated the incident and concluded a Buk had indeed brought MH17 down. Based on photos they identified the missile variant used as a 9M38M1 (they describe the damage to the aircraft structure as identical to that inflicted by a 9M38M1, in particular a feature unique to that warhead whereby it fragments into 'H' shaped elements known as 'scalpel'):
Unfortunately they were a little economical with the truth - they went on to claim that the 9M38M1 is only in use with Ukraine armed forces and not Russian (and thus by implication the Ukraine forces must have fired the missile). Except that type of missile has been seen in use at various Russian events over the last 5+ years. For example here Putin is seen visiting the 102nd Russian military base in June 2014 - 9M38M1's in the background:
Compare the above to the more recent 9M317 (reportedly a rod type warhead so ruled out by the debris images) which only the Russians possess - the main body fins are much shorter on the 9M317:
The 9M38M1 type has also been clearly visible being shipped to Russian BUK TELARs, located in Russia a few miles from the Ukraine border, photographed here in August 2014:
(More from Bellingcat on that here).
The 9M38M1 is clearly still in the Russian arsenal.
Almaz-Antey go on to make claims about the launch location as being near Zaroshchenske (as previously) however the satellite imagery purporting to support a Buk battery being located there has been discredited before and more recently by Bellingcat here. The geometrical analysis they present would also be inconsistent with proximity fusing - it doesn't make sense for a HE fragmentation warhead (additionally it should be pointed out that they are working from photos and not a 3D reconstruction of the airframe).
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
So essentially your saying that this guy wasn't a witness and should thereby be discounted . Based on what ?
2hats
Dust.
No I didn't type that at all.
If he thinks he has something relevant to contribute then he should provide evidence to the Dutch Safety Board and the criminal investigation. However the story has long since moved on from the fantasy Su-25 scenario (do try to catch up); the Su-25 chief engineer confirmed that that plane isn't capable of such and now even the manufacturer of the Buk has identified it as the culprit.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
Unfortunately they were a little economical with the truth - they went on to claim that the 9M38M1 is only in use with Ukraine armed forces and not Russian (and thus by implication the Ukraine forces must have fired the missile). Except that type of missile has been seen in use at various Russian events over the last 5+ years. For example here Putin is seen visiting the 102nd Russian military base in June 2014 - 9M38M1's in the background:
Compare the above to the more recent 9M317 (reportedly a rod type warhead so ruled out by the debris images) which only the Russians possess - the main body fins are much shorter on the 9M317:
The 9M38M1 type has also been clearly visible being shipped to Russian BUK TELARs, located in Russia a few miles from the Ukraine border, photographed here in August 2014:
(More from Bellingcat on that here).
The 9M38M1 is clearly still in the Russian arsenal.[/QUOTE]
Could you outline for me exactly were this firm claims Russian forces dont possess the missile ? I haven't seen that claim anywhere else . All I can see is they've stated that missile went out of production in 1999 . Therefore they couldn't have sold it to anyone as they didn't start producing BUKs until 3 years later . The purpose of their press conference being a challenge to their inclusion on the EU sanctions list . Not selling them to the Russian military , because they dont make them, and claiming the Russian military don't possess them are 2 different things entirely .
Compare the above to the more recent 9M317 (reportedly a rod type warhead so ruled out by the debris images) which only the Russians possess - the main body fins are much shorter on the 9M317:
The 9M38M1 type has also been clearly visible being shipped to Russian BUK TELARs, located in Russia a few miles from the Ukraine border, photographed here in August 2014:
(More from Bellingcat on that here).
The 9M38M1 is clearly still in the Russian arsenal.[/QUOTE]
Could you outline for me exactly were this firm claims Russian forces dont possess the missile ? I haven't seen that claim anywhere else . All I can see is they've stated that missile went out of production in 1999 . Therefore they couldn't have sold it to anyone as they didn't start producing BUKs until 3 years later . The purpose of their press conference being a challenge to their inclusion on the EU sanctions list . Not selling them to the Russian military , because they dont make them, and claiming the Russian military don't possess them are 2 different things entirely .
2hats
Dust.
I'm surprised you haven't gleaned it from Russia Today, who clearly got the message (as did numerous other news outlets): "These [9M38M1] missiles are widely deployed by a number of post-Soviet states, including Ukraine, but have been replaced by a newer model in Russia".
Almaz-Antey clearly implied it several times throughout their presentation. Referring to the characteristic warhead design: "the missile [9M38M1] is no more in use therefore the customer, the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, has lifted this secrecy" - ie the Russian military no longer use the missile.
They went on to state "this missile (9M38M1) is out of production back in 1999. After 1999 the missile was not in production. So neither the Antey company nor any other enterprise could supply those missiles to anybody in the 21st century. But at the same time we have strong evidence that this types of missiles are available in the Ukrainian armed forces. Back in 2005 our company had provided a pre-contract extension of lifecycle of such missiles in the Ukraine and during that time the amount of such missiles in the Ukrainian armed forces were 991 missiles."
RT journalist present at the press conference:
Reuters also got the message: "Such missiles have not been produced in Russia since 1999 and the last ones were delivered to foreign customers, it [Almaz-Antey] said, adding that the Russian armed forces now mainly use a 9M317M warhead with the BUK system."
(edited to add RT tweet).
Last edited:
2hats
Dust.
Here are two more active Russian 9М38M1 equipped Buk transporters (one, rather alarmingly, on fire), part of a May Day parade in Russia last month:
- contrary to the statement at the Almaz-Antey press conference "only the newer BUK-M2 systems with 9M317 missiles take part in modern parades".
The Almaz-Antey rep did however state "even an untrained eye can tell the two apart". Here, a handy spotters guide - from top to bottom - 9M38M1, 9M317 and 9M317ME missiles:
Last edited:
pocketscience
Well-Known Member
Any chance of those rockets going off if the fire had spread out of control?
2hats
Dust.
Any chance of those rockets going off if the fire had spread out of control?
Depends how hot the fire got. Solid motors need very high temperatures to ignite, so not likely an issue. Though apparently they are at least 16+ years old (we learned recently) so it's hard to know how stable they are. The vehicle fuel tank and perhaps the warheads might be a more immediate concern.
On the plus side, possibly there is one less Russian 9М38M1 equipped Buk transporter in the armoury.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
Any chance of those rockets going off if the fire had spread out of control?
burning of the propellant? yes. detonation of the warheads? pretty unlikely - militaries are very aware of the dangers of fire, and most expolsives won't detonate just because they're on fire. they'll burn, but they won't explode.
Similar threads
