General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMH17 was the, "Wrong plane," says Ukrainian fighter pilot after shootdown.
This is fascinating new information, provided by an eye-witness on the Ukrainian military air base from which fighter jets were operating at the time of MH17's destruction. Those of you who still have an open mind and who are interested in finding the truth regarding the tragedy will appreciate this article. Those of you who have closed your minds to additional evidence, or who merely want to continue your endless Russia-bashing should stop reading now, and post your own OPs for such purposes. Thank you.
Journalists look at parts of the Malaysia Airlines plane Flight MH17 as Dutch investigators (unseen) arrive at the crash site near the Grabove village in eastern Ukraine. (AFP Photo)
Russia to probe media reports that Ukraine military shot down MH17
Russia’s Investigative Committee is to investigate a Russian newspaper report alleging that a Ukrainian military jet shot down Malaysian Airlines passenger plane MH17 over the rebel-held eastern part of the country last summer. “The Investigative Committee has taken interest in today’s publication in ‘Komsomolskaya Pravda’ newspaper. Naturally, the information they report citing a Ukrainian citizen is of much interest, since it touches upon the committee’s ongoing criminal investigation into the use of banned weapons and warfare tactics [in Ukraine],” said spokesman Vladimir Markin. “We will get in touch with the newspaper’s editor-in-chief and journalists to establish how genuine this source is and get his contacts for a subsequent interview,” he added.
A witness, who chose to remain anonymous, told Komsomolskaya Pravda (KP) daily that a pilot of a Ukrainian Su-25 fighter jet was behind the MH17 flight downing on July 17. He claimed that the pilot used air-to-air missiles to shoot down the Malaysian Boeing, which he concludes was probably mistaken for a military plane.
“About an hour before the catastrophe, three fighter jets took off [from Dnepropetrovsk]. One of the planes was an Su-25, which was equipped with these kind of [air-to-air] missiles,” the witness told KP in an interview, adding that he was on the airport grounds at the time. Once the surviving pilot got out of the plane, he looked “very frightened.” The Ukrainian pilot’s first words as he got out of the jet were: “Wrong plane,” the alleged witness claimed. Later in the evening that same pilot also reportedly stated: “The plane happened to be in the wrong place at a wrong time.”
While the daily could not immediately verify the interviewee’s claims, its readers soon discovered the allegedly involved pilot – Vladislav Voloshin – is real, and has been awarded for his role in Kiev’s so-called “anti-terrorist operation” in eastern Ukraine.
(snip)
Read more, and view related videos, at: http://rt.com/news/216871-ukraine-military-mh17-report/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hack89
(39,171 posts)
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)You already know what you are going to believe.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)and disregard any other information because you say we should.
Were you here yesterday posting good vibes toward Putin?
Seems like a very similar style of bull shit.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays 
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)awful tragedy.
This article is late on the story.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)that defies basic aerodynamics and evidence from the airliner's wreck.
WillYourVoteBCounted
(14,622 posts)[link:
|
I've been at DU for years, years. I've am a progressive.
BUT I do read the news, not just the corporate manufactured consent manure that passed for news in the US
media and television.
I get my news from multiple sources around the world.
Putin has high approval in HIS country. He's not perfect but they love him because he puts
their country first and is building it back up after. He's a big improvement over the drunken Boris Yeltzin who privatized everything putting public goods into a few oligarch's hands.
Russia has its own unique geopolitical history and culture, as do other countries.
The mistake people in the US make is in believing that our way is the only way and we will bomb, invade, occupy and
even destroy other countries who don't mold themselves in our images.
MattSh
(3,714 posts)They snooze. You think it's news.
hack89
(39,171 posts)
Cha
(297,659 posts)know it.
I read the Guardian and check other sources (worldwide) as I have time. If I want to know the official US position (non-GOP) I check Wash Post or NYTimes.
WillYourVoteBCounted
(14,622 posts)Cui Bono? Who benefits? Not Russia. But most certainly NATO (who wants more weapons and war) and the newly
installed govt of Ukraine, put in place by a violent Nazi fueled coup.
Democracy Now:
Major Countries Agreed Not to Disclose Key Details in Downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17?
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/9/5/did_major_countries_agree_not_to
Ukraine is being allowed to investigate the event that it likely caused.
MH17 disclosure agreement' re: causes of MH17 crash:
This was confirmed at a briefing in Kiev under the auspices of the office of the Prosecutor General Yuri Boychenko. In his words, the results of the investigation will be published once completed only if a consensus agreement of all parties that have signed the agreement prevails. "
http://www.sott.net/article/284428-Cover-up-in-progress-Ukraine-Netherlands-Australia-Belgium-signed-non-disclosure-agreement-re-causes-of-MH17-crash
WillYourVoteBCounted
(14,622 posts)Major Countries Agreed Not to Disclose Key Details in Downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17?
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/9/5/did_major_countries_agree_not_to
Ukraine is being allowed to investigate the event that it likely caused.
MH17 disclosure agreement' re: causes of MH17 crash:
This was confirmed at a briefing in Kiev under the auspices of the office of the Prosecutor General Yuri Boychenko. In his words, the results of the investigation will be published once completed only if a consensus agreement of all parties that have signed the agreement prevails. "
http://www.sott.net/article/284428-Cover-up-in-progress-Ukraine-Netherlands-Australia-Belgium-signed-non-disclosure-agreement-re-causes-of-MH17-crash
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)RT is about as credible as ENENews or The National Enquirer.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)is going to hire OJ Simpson to find the real killers.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
Trekologer
(997 posts)OJ Simpson, PI can only tackle one case at a time.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Keep an open mind.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)
reorg
(3,317 posts)Among the babble in this thread, several sources have been mentioned and apparently posters have difficulties telling them apart.
RT (state-financed like BBC International) cites a privately funded tabloid, Komsomolskaya Pravda:
http://www.kp.ru/daily/26323.5/3204312/
Short version in English:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=98d_1419284463
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7dc_1419295378
The RT news report appears to be a fair summary in English of what KP reported in Russian. As always, I might add, they are reliable in what they are doing: translating international news for an English speaking audience which otherwise doesn't have access to these news.
Which, for a certain segment of that audience, is a very disturbing experience, apparently.
Now, I know nothing about the above mentioned tabloid, Komsomoskaya Pravda. You have probably never heard of them before, either. Nor of the Russian TV channel mentioned by other posters and confused with RT and/or KP. So, WTH are you even talking about?
Response to another_liberal (Reply #10)
Post removed
newfie11
(8,159 posts)However I thank you for posting this.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Please tell me how a BUK warhead works, my guess is you have no frickin idea. I have worked on air defense systems for 30 years to include the SA-11.
Nazi's in Kiev, That tell me everything about you. Which pro-Putin poster were you before
Boreal
(725 posts)And I've read quite a bit about the BUK system, thank you.
Now go shoot some defenseless ducks, tough guy.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)is slang for air defense artillery soldier. We do not shoot down defenseless planes unlike the pro-Russian seperatists.
I also assume you have read quite a bit about the plane you think shot down MH17 and that it does not even fly as high as MH17 was but the BUK with it's proximity warhead that breaks up to thousands of small steel penetrators or bullets can go twice as high as MH17. It is also designed to explode in the path of the target fired on, in other words the cockpit would be the the area it would impact
By the way, I am not a "tough guy", name calling does not help your argument.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)due to hidden post.
I have been called worse so it does not bother me much.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an apology.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Usually does not happen
MattSh
(3,714 posts)and you obviously don't know much about Nazis. OR Kiev.
I live in Kiev, and I've seen them. I guess you have no frickin idea about that, now do you?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)who bleat the same pro Nazi, anti Russia bullshit on all of these threads. Ignore them and keep posting for those who care about the truth.
You better be ready to name names, because calling someone pro-Nazi is a pretty goddamn serious accusation.
And that's not even addressing the blatant factual errors. An Su-25's maximum ceiling is anywhere between 16 and 22,000 feet, depending on weapons load, and MH17 was flying at 33,000. An Su-25 is a CAS fighter, not air superiority or intercept; the report's claim is as ridiculous a saying a Warthog shot down the airliner.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)"racist neocons"
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)You know what they put in that?
That specific brand was original developed by the NSA as a training tool for monkeys to detect Russian agents. It is now marketed to generations of children to get them to recognize yellow as meaning "OBEY". Serious, why do you think school buses are yellow?
Keep an OPEN MIND!
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Until Obama forced them to add pink. Because communism.
Igel
(35,356 posts)And we know that during the last 100 years, no official organ or "chlen" of a Russian communist party has ever lied or skewed the facts. They all deserve our absolute belief.
Meh. What do you call it when you have a chlen v RTu? ('organ in (your) mouth'). Helping Putin through a rough patch.
Ratings down, there are negotiations going on, time for some distraction.
I was taught that "belka" is the Russian word for "squirrel". However, apparently if you need to shout "squirrel!" in the Russian media, the current buzzword is "MH17!". Much clumsier, I'd have thought.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)includes both moose and squirrel.
WillYourVoteBCounted
(14,622 posts)given that the US media are all stenographers and real journalism is punished then sometimes the only
way to get the truth is to pay attention to media AROUND the world
I watch news from China, South Korea, South America, Russia, Al Jazeera, Press TV,
I also watch in the US: The Young Turks, Democracy Now and more.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Putin is always so modest in these sorts of things. He really wants none of the credit for himself.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)No matter how much personal feelings may lead one to imagine otherwise.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Anschluss?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)They most likely say, "Anschluss."
The term has become associated with a particular incident in history.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)And RT is full of Dermo.
Archae
(46,346 posts)"While the daily could not immediately verify the interviewee’s claim..."
Translation: Russia Today is still lying it's ass off.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Can you offer a link?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,198 posts)Late on 14 November, Russia's state-controlled Channel One TV broadcast what appeared to be a satellite photo of a passenger plane and a jet fighter in the skies above Donetsk, a separatist stronghold in Ukraine. It was, the report said, the moment the Ukrainian jet fired a missile at MH17.
This theory has long been promoted by pro-Kremlin media, and it came to the fore again as President Vladimir Putin was preparing to meet world leaders at the G20 summit in Australia. He is widely expected to face some tough questions over Russia's alleged role in the Ukraine crisis and the downing of MH17.
****
But shortly after the broadcast, many web users concluded that the image broadcast by Channel One was a crude forgery rather than a solid piece of evidence.
Several commentators pointed out that the "Malaysia" logo on the plane from the photograph was in the wrong place. Maksim Kats, a Russian blogger, said the plane in the picture looked like a slightly altered version of the one that tops the search results if you Google "Boeing view from above" in Russian. It also happens to be a publicity photo of a Boeing 767, not a 777, which was shot down over Ukraine in July.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)You understand why statements like, "yet to be verified" are employed, right?
Is MSNBC responsible for what FOX reports when it runs a story on those reports?
Archae
(46,346 posts)Channel One and Russia Today are.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Both points are, I mean.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)
FSogol
(45,526 posts)
pampango
(24,692 posts)If you really, really want to believe something (or to at least pretend you do to create doubt and confusion), it is not difficult to find a 'media report' or 'study' that says what you want it to say.
Of course, climate change deniers will accuse those who do not agree with the "media report" (from "a witness, who chose to remain anonymous"
or "study" that they worked so hard to fund or find of not having an 'open mind' or of not being "interested in finding the truth". That is the way the game is played so this RT story is not a surprise.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Some people tell lies, I guess. What's your point?
pampango
(24,692 posts)I certainly agree.
If the purpose is "to create doubt and confusion, it is not difficult to find a 'media report' or 'study' that says what you want it to say. Disinformation is not hard to find or create. The climate change deniers do it all the time.
You may have to fund a 'study' that reaches the conclusion that you want or you may have to use a 'media report' that relies on "a witness, who chose to remain anonymous". (FoxNews does the latter all the time.) Then RT (and the climate change deniers) will recommend that we should all "keep an open mind" and be "interested in the truth" if we seem not to buy what they are selling.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)If a Ukrainian pilot did shoot down that airliner, shouldn't he be punished? Shouldn't those who ordered him to attack also be punished?
I know that line of thinking may likely interfere with the standard scenario as accepted in some circles, but hurt feelings here and there don't matter much when it comes to being sure those truly guilty are punished for this horrific crime.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)with a maximum ceiling nowhere near MH17's cruising altitude managed to shoot it down in such a way that the impact would resemble the use of an aspect lock proximity fuse missile and not the aircraft's own infrared homing missile.
This story is so full of bullshit it defies description.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)The important thing is to empanel such a group and begin a genuinely even-handed investigation. There are several aspects of the incident as generally reported in Western media which I find dubious in the extreme.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Ballistics specialist and senior lecturer at ANU Strategic Defence Studies Centre Stephan Fruhling told Fairfax Media the damage pattern confirmed it was a surface-to-air missile such as an SA-11.
...
“This very much looks like damage from a fragmentation warhead. The fact that it has struck the cockpit rather than an engine also argues for a radar-guided rather than heat-seeking missile,” Dr Fruhling said.
...
“Air-to-air missiles tend to be heat-seekers, that go for the engine and hit the plane directly rather than fragmenting. Those tiny fragmentations looks just like the surface-to-air SA-11 to me,” Dr Blaxland said.
Seriously, the case on this shit has long since been closed.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)No, Mr Posner, the case is not closed. The US refusal to release its evidence suggests that the evidence fails, at least as of now, to show what they would like it to show. I'd rather see all the evidence released than rely on dueling experts who are basing their conclusions on internet photos.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/08/09/mala-a09.html
Malaysian press charges Ukraine government shot down MH 17
By Alex Lantier
9 August 2014
A Thursday article in the New Straits Times, Malaysia’s flagship English-language newspaper, charged the US- and European-backed Ukrainian regime in Kiev with shooting down Malaysian Airlines flight MH 17 in east Ukraine last month. Given the tightly controlled character of the Malaysian media, it appears that the accusation that Kiev shot down MH17 has the imprimatur of the Malaysian state.
The US and European media have buried this remarkable report, which refutes the wave of allegations planted by the CIA in international media claiming that Russian president Vladimir Putin was responsible for the destruction of MH17, without presenting any evidence to back up this charge.
<edit>
The New Straits Times cited several sources to substantiate its position. One was testimony by a Canadian-Ukrainian monitor for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Michael Bociurkiw—one of the first investigators to arrive at the crash site. Speaking to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on July 29, Bociurkiw said: “There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pockmarked with what almost looks like machine gun fire; very, very strong machine gun fire.”
<edit>
Finally, the New Straits Times and Parry both cite retired Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko, who has pointed to photographic evidence of MH17 wreckage suggesting that cockpit panels were raked with heavy machine gun fire from both the port and starboard sides. “Nobody before Haisenko had noticed that the projectiles had ripped through the panel from both its left side and its right side. This is what rules out any ground-fired missile,” Parry wrote.
more...
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)That is exactly what is to be expected from a surface-to-air, radar guided, proximity fuse, blast fragmentation missile as fired by an SA-11, which detonates close by an aircraft and uses its shrapnel to cause rapid decompression and shred it apart, with the shrapnel damage in the cockpit area if it was leading the aircraft, and the exact opposite of what it is to be expected from an infrared homing air-to-air missile, which goes for a direct impact on the aircraft, specifically its engines, and blows it apart in the air.
What's even more ludicrous is suggesting that an Su-25 could even get into guns range with MH-17. The Su-25 couldn't even get into missile range, much less close enough to use its guns on it.
Complete bullshit.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)deciding what happened. NATO shills and internet experts provide insufficient grounding for any conclusion.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)and my own knowledge as a former RJ backender over Robert Parry and an anonymous source published in Russian state media.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)refuses to release? The air controller tapes Ukraine refuses to release? Their faith in the good word of the leaders of the USA? Their desire to keep their careers on an upward climb? I'll take conclusions based on the evidence (should all that slam dunk evidence ever be released). And the sources of the New Strait Times (not a component of the Russian state media last I checked) weren't anonymous, by the way.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)
That's from the cockpit. Those are shrapnel holes consistent with a fragmentation burst missile that shreds its targets.
Fuck, I don't even know why I bother wasting my time on this shit anymore.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)Not about why you bother wasting your time as that's an issue of personal choice, but about how to interpret the photo you posted. All the more reason for the release of the evidence.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/german-pilot-speaks-out-shocking-analysis-of-the-shooting-down-of-malaysian-mh17/5394111
<edit>
I recommend to click on the little picture to the left. You can download this photo as a PDF in good resolution. This is necessary, because that will allow you understand what I am describing here. The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of speculation: The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likely that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile. The edge of the other, the larger and slightly frayed exit holes showing shreds of metal pointing produced by the same caliber projectiles. Moreover, it is evident that at these exit holes of the outer layer of the double aluminum reinforced structure are shredded or bent – outwardly! Furthermore, minor cuts can be seen, all bent outward, which indicate that shrapnel had forcefully exited through the outer skin from the inside of the cockpit. The open rivets are are also bent outward.
In sifting through the available images one thing stands out: All wreckage of the sections behind the cockpit are largely intact, except for the fact that only fragments of the aircraft remained . Only the cockpit part shows these peculiar marks of destruction. This leaves the examiner with an important clue. This aircraft was not hit by a missile in the central portion. The destruction is limited to the cockpit area. Now you have to factor in that this part is constructed of specially reinforced material. This is on account of the nose of any aircraft having to withstand the impact of a large bird at high speeds. You can see in the photo, that in this area significantly stronger aluminum alloys were being installed than in the remainder of the outer skin of the fuselage. One remembers the crash of Pan Am over Lockerbie. It was a large segment of the cockpit that due to the special architecture survived the crash in one piece. In the case of flight MH 017 it becomes abundantly clear that there also an explosion took place inside the aircraft.
Tank destroying mix of ammunition
So what could have happened? Russia recently published radar recordings, that confirm at least one Ukrainian SU 25 in close proximity to MH 017. This corresponds with the statement of the now missing Spanish controller ‘Carlos’ that has seen two Ukrainian fighter aircraft in the immediate vicinity of MH 017. If we now consider the armament of a typical SU 25 we learn this: It is equipped with a double-barreled 30-mm gun, type GSh-302 / AO-17A, equipped with: a 250 round magazine of anti-tank incendiary shells and splinter-explosive shells (dum-dum), arranged in alternating order. The cockpit of the MH 017 has evidently been fired at from both sides: the entry and exit holes are found on the same fragment of it’s cockpit segment!
Now just consider what happens when a series of anti-tank incendiary shells and splinter-explosive shells hit the cockpit. These are after all designed to destroy a modern tank. The anti-tank incendiary shells partially traversed the cockpit and exited on the other side in a slightly deformed shape. (Aviation forensic experts could possibly find them on the ground presumably controlled by the Kiev Ukrainian military; the translator). After all, their impact is designed to penetrate the solid armor of a tank. Also, the splinter-explosive shells will, due to their numerous impacts too cause massive explosions inside the cockpit, since they are designed to do this. Given the rapid firing sequence of the GSh-302 cannon, it will cause a rapid succession of explosions within the cockpit area in a very short time. Remeber each of these is sufficient to destroy a tank.
more...
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Fine, I'll humor you.
Yes, from the shrapnel of a fragmentation burst missile exploding near the nose, what a radar guided missile would do if it were leading the aircraft.
Yes, and this is called explosive decompression, where air violently forces its way out, bending metal on its way.
Which rules out any sort of infrared homing missile that would have targeted the aircraft's engines, and rules in a radar guided missile that would have struck close to the nose.
Birds, not shrapnel from a missile designed to take down aircraft, including ones protected against BASH hazards.
Not surprising at all, as they were likely conducting ground attack operations against rebel forces, exactly what the aircraft is intended to do.
And how exactly do you expect an Su-25 to come into guns range of an aircraft flying much higher than its ceiling? Su-25s flying around a hot area don't fly out empty; they're typically armed for whatever ground attack operation they're carrying out. Missiles add a significant amount of drag and weight to any aircraft, which drastically reduces its operational ceiling. The Su-25, at best, and in the case of only one variant that primarily serves as a target tug, has a ceiling of about 32,000 feet unloaded, and much closer to 14 or 15 thousand loaded, which puts it tens of thousands of feet below MH-17 at 33,000.
So, no, an Su-25 could not have possibly shot down MH-17 with either missiles or guns. Chances are the rebels locked onto MH-17 while trying to lock onto the Su-25 and fired.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)info that undermines the oligarchy government. Judith Miller & the NY Times equals credibility. WSWS equals crackpot. Sure.
Here's a good discussion that goes over a number of the possibilities surrounding the fate of MH 17 (you will like the original post, but the comments are more interesting). Nothing like freeing up the suppressed evidence to know for sure, but until then...
http://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/can-the-su-25-intercept-and-shoot-down-a-777/
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)Ya know, that's the first time I've heard that and it makes a lot of sense.
Thanks for your well reasoned and informed posts in this thread.
reorg
(3,317 posts)"The Su-25 ... has a ceiling of about 32,000 feet unloaded" ... but only a single sentence later we're back to "an Su-25 could not have POSSIBLY" ... just because you feel they are "typically armed for whatever ground attack operation they're carrying out".
Well, the ground operation may have been over and done with already, the remaining air-to-air missile(s) not weighing all that much and the daring pilot hell-bent for some reason to trigger the BIG SURPRISE the "rebels" had been promised a few days earlier.
&feature=player_detailpage#t=26
Too slow? Hm, maybe, maybe not.
But then you may well be correct and the Ukrainians used their BUKs instead to deliberately target the airliner.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)An SU25 with missiles will not get to the altitude of MH17. Missiles equal drag. Drag lowers aircraft ceiling and speed. Even in perfect empty conditions, the SU25 could not go to the altitude of MH17.
h4364r
(1 post)1. You may want to learn about the term 'service ceilling'. Hint: it does not mean, the plane can't get higher
2. The Ukie Army uses a number of improved SU-25 M1 with a service ceilling of about 33.000 ft.
3. If it had been a Buk, it might well be one of the about 30 from the Ukies and not the one the NAF captured from them that is not working.
4. There is no proof given from neither side till today.
5. The Dutch-led investigation including the Ukies as possibly guilty, with a right of the latter to veto the publication of findings, and with exclusion of Malaysia smells like cover-up.
Merry X-mas
No, it doesn't mean that. Service ceiling is the maximum usable altitude of an aircraft, but just because an aircraft could possibly go higher than that, doesn't mean it's in any way wise to do so, as performance is drastically affected when exceeding it.
As long as you're telling us to look up terms, you may want to brush up on drag physics and what a clean configuration is. Yes, the M1 variant can reach 32,000 feet--but on a clean configuration, i.e. with possibility of drag reduced to its lowest point. Adding missiles or any sort of armaments to the outside drastically affects that number, and no Ukrainian Air Force fighter in a hot area is going to flying out unarmed.
Brush up on your own knowledge of aerobatic is before you lecture others. Every single point you tried to make about the Su-25 has been explained and/or debunked elsewhere in this thread.
gopiscrap
(23,765 posts)
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Again.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)The fairy tales coming from RT have officially crossed over from mildly amusing to fucking hilarious.
Sid
from the very parties involved in overthrowing the elected government of Ukraine have no more credibility than when they were peddling Iraq had WMDs to start THAT war.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)
blackspade
(10,056 posts)This 'eyewitness' account on it's face has so many holes in it, that I'm not sure why it should be given any credence at all.
From the beginning it is clear that the 'eyewitness' is just asking shit up. How does he know that the pilot was behind the plane? What evidence is there that missiles were fired?
How was the source close the the pilot on repeated occasions to 'overhear' his conversations?
Assuming that he did overhear, the pilots statements can be taken in several ways, from the way that RT is spinning it to the pilot being freaked out because he just watched a plane full of people get shot by a missile that might have been aimed at him....
My point is that this is not a very well vetted story. It's like a faux news story that starts with "some people say".......
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)"A witness, who chose to remain anonymous"
Oh, yes, of course, an anonymous person on the internet said so.
I like the "closed mind" bit in the OP.
You know what...
Creationists accuse me of being "closed minded" because I have made up my mind that they are full of shit.
Flat Earthers criticize my "unwillingness to consider" their evidence.
randome
(34,845 posts)It's simply wrapped around the biggest bowling ball in the universe.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
reorg
(3,317 posts)whereas the witness cited in the OP showed his passport to his interviewers who, according to their report, could verify he wasn't an actor.
Of course, he could be lying. Or maybe he doesn't. His claims seem very specific and are apparently so disturbing that the usual suspects have quickly arrived: muddying the waters, I believe it is called.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I realize that the go-to instinct of the propagandist is to make personal commentary about those who raise questions, but this is an anonymous source advancing a factual proposition. No sale.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)MH17 was cruising at 33,000 feet.
An Su-25 is a close air support fighter with limited anti-air capabilities.
An Su-25 has a maximum unloaded ceiling of 22,000 feet, dropped down to 16,000 with weapons loaded.
How the hell does a CAS fighter shoot down an aircraft traveling at twice its own ceiling? That's like saying United 93 was shot down by an A10.
reorg
(3,317 posts)Or how exactly do you know which kind of SU25 may have been used?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5995975
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Because no variant has the capability to reach anywhere near 33,000 feet loaded down with weapons.
Ukraine purchased UMB and MB1 variants, the first being a trainer and the second a target tug, not air superiority or interceptors.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)that destroy his own theory
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)...what do an air defense specialist and a Rivet Joint backender whose job partly depended on knowing which kind of aircraft could pose a threat to his platform know that someone with Google doesn't?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts) reorg
(3,317 posts)PERFORMANCE
Service ceiling, m 5.000-10.000 (if fitted with R-195 engines)
http://www.redstar.gr/Foto_red/Eng/Aircraft/Su_25M1.html
It is your creative speculation that the plane was "fully loaded" or "loaded down with weapons". To shoot one missile you don't need more than one or two, I'd venture to guess.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Adding any sort of weapons to any aircraft drops that ceiling significantly.
Your hypothesis hinges on the idea that the Ukrainian Air Force is fucking stupid and doesn't know the capabilities of their own aircraft. Why the hell would any competent airforce send a dedicated ground attack aircraft to intercept a target at over 30,000 feet when it has air superiority aircraft like the Su-27 or MiG-29 with maximum ceilings of closer to 60,000 feet?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)your highest number 10,000 meters if fitted with those engines. 33K is still above that. Not to mention even one missile causes drag and will lower that number. So lets go with the middle, 7000 meters. Amazing, same as the other sources, about 23 K feet. Way below MH17. Thanks again for disprooving your own theory.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Do tell?
From your own links.
The combat aircraft Su-25M1 - is a modernized version of the first serial aircraft Su-25 with the new set and completed equipment and has similar performance, operational and other characteristics.
Maximum speed: Mach 0.8 (975 km/h, 526 knots, 606 mph) at sea level
Combat range: 750 km (405 nmi, 466 mi) at sea level, 4,400 kg (9,700 lb) weapons and two external tanks
Service ceiling: 7,000 m[107] (22,965 ft) clean, 5,000 m (16,000 ft) with max weapons
Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11,400 ft/min)
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)but am not holding my breath that I will get that answer.
reorg
(3,317 posts)what you cited clearly refers to planes fitted with with two engines R-95SH, not the upgraded version SU25M1 with "similar" performance:
http://www.redstar.gr/Foto_red/Eng/Aircraft/Su_25M1.html
POWER-PLANT: Two jet, R-195
Service ceiling, m 5.000-10.000
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)7000 nominal, 10000 empty or in other words 'NO MISSILES"
reorg
(3,317 posts)Look, I'm not a member of the destroying forces as some of you admittedly are, never fired a missile, never even fired a slingshot at human beings, so a bunch of posters here clearly have me at an advantage experience-wise.
I take it from the picture below that on such a plane you can fit quite a few bombs and missiles? So, when it says "Empty aircraft, kg 9.500"; "Normal take-off, kg 14.600", "Maximum take-off, kg 17.600", we can get an idea about the possible weight of such a load, something between 5 and 8 tons? And can we also agree that the weight of an air-to-air missile is relatively insignificant in comparison?
SU25 with lots of bays for bombs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-73_%28missile%29
Air-to-air missile, 102 kg
And you are seriously trying to tell me a plane that can fly - without weapons - as high as 10,000 meters cannot fly high enough - if loaded with one or two 100-kg missiles - to shoot said missiles at a plane travelling at similar height? Try again.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Specifically focus on sections about drag physics and fineness ratios.
NickB79
(19,268 posts)And BTW, did you notice that the missile you posted about was a heat-seeker that would zero in on engine emissions?
Such a weapon, fired from a fighter jet coming up from below, would pepper the belly of the plane with shrapnel around the engines and wings.
Whereas whatever brought down MH17 detonated near/alongside the cockpit, not the engines: http://theaviationist.com/2014/07/24/mh-17-puncture-marks/
More like it had a proximity fuse warhead, like a BUK missile uses, coincidentally.
And how close has an Su-25 to be in order shoot a missile at an airliner?
The Wikipedia description also says about that particular missile:
"It can be targeted by a helmet-mounted sight (HMS) allowing pilots to designate targets by looking at them."
The German version of the Wiki description also mentions that the R-73 has a proximity fuze: "Kommt das Flugziel in den Ansprechradius des Näherungszünders, wird der Splittergefechtskopf gezündet."
So, if we take the Russian radar data as a basis for our speculation, such a missile might have been fired from the left (north) of the airliner, targeted at its cockpit and exploded as soon as its radar/laser proximity fuze was close enough.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wympel_R-73
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Which makes a thousand times more sense than the gymnastics you're performing to get the result that a ground attack aircraft with very limited air-to-air capability locked onto and shot down an aircraft that could not have possibly belonged to the rebels and would never have been a target in such a specific, narrow way that directly mimics the effects of a surface-to-air missile.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)You get a blip and fire at the blip. The missile locks on the heat source, IE the engine. Still might have a proximity warhead but very small designed to take out the engines of the aircraft.
reorg
(3,317 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)reasons that the SU25 theory you are pushing is not possible. That's OK. I do not think it was a proximity burst warhead but I was just explaining how even if it was, it still had an IR seeker and would not have hit the cockpit.
Sorry to disappoint again.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)is a heat seeker and would have hit one of the engines. It is quite small and MH17 would have continued to fly on the remaining engine. The BUK missile is proximity warhead and explodes in front of the targeted aircraft, in this case the cockpit.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)There's absolutely no way an Su-25 could have possibly shot down MH-17 even if it wanted to, and anyone who knows what they're talking about and isn't simply driven by Putin's agenda to legitimize his invasion knows that.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Stop it I tell you.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The quoted service ceiling is based on relatively cool and optimum standard temperature and pressure readings. The warmer the temperature is and lower the pressure, the lower the service ceiling becomes on any given day. The accident happened in July during the warmest part of the day. I have no idea what the temperature was, but it's probably a safe bet that it was higher than standard.
The service ceiling is also not a hard limit to the aircraft and one that performs at book values (not all do) should be able to actually climb higher than the service ceiling. However, from a practical point of view, it's not that simple. The closer an aircraft gets to it's service ceiling, the harder it is to maintain altitude because the flight envelope gets very narrow. The chance of an engine(s) flameout is also higher. It can also take a very long time to get there because climb performance is diminished the higher you go. So the service ceiling and the highest an aircraft will typically go in practice can and usually is quite different.
Most aircraft aren't certified to carry max fuel when the rest of their load is maxed out. So it's entirely possible (and highly probable) that a hypothetically lightly armed aircraft is going to be carrying more fuel and will therefore be closer to its max gross weight than you might otherwise think. Fighter and intercept aircraft go through a lot of fuel, so it behooves them to carry as much as practical.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Which is doubtful with any kind of load, the max speed of a CLEAN aircraft is .82 Mach, which at 33,000. The Cruising speed of the 777 at that altitude is about .85 Mach. See the problem? It is impossible for an Su-25 to even effectively intercept a 777 at that altitude and speed. The story is utter poppycock.
reorg
(3,317 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Do you know what a service ceiling is? It's the altitude at which the plane literally cannot generate enough lift to maintain a climb. The plane wallows at the service ceiling. I can tell you this, there is no fucking way the SU-25 can go over Mach 1 in level flight at 33,000 ft. That's ludicrous! I don't care what any self-styled expert says that's bullshit. It might break Mach 1 in a dive , with clean wings, but given it's wing profile, even that is doubtful except is unusual circumstances.
Do you know ANYTHING about airplanes? Because it sure doesn't seem so.
You're grasping at straws here.... Rather than trying to imagine some magic scenario where a ground attack aircraft with rudimentary air to air capability, and not even able to intercept the target in question is responsible, isn't it MUCH more likely some yahoo rebels with a Buk targeted the plane thinking it was a Ukrainian An-26?
Also, even assuming the Su-25 could shoot a couple AA-8's at the plane, the AA-8 only has a 3kg warhead. You'd need a stack of AA-8's to do that kind of damage to the 777, which is a big fucking plane.
Take 10 steps back and look at this without the hater glasses, and realize that even if you think the Ukrainians did it, THIS story is persposterous, and you're making a fool of yourself.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)
reorg
(3,317 posts)was when I visited my uncle in the small sailplane factory he worked for, many, many years ago. They built stuff like that:
And no, I know next to nothing about planes and have never pretended I do, in stark contrast to a number of posters here with their sweeping claims even I can recognize as biased, misleading and sometimes outright false.
The "self-styled expert" I was quoting is Jeffrey Ethell:
"I've flown it. And I was very impressed. I was the first Western pilot to fly the airplane. And, the reason? Nobody wants to fly it. Naah, it's a Su-25, same thing as an old A-10, who wants to fly that. ..." (9:28-9:45)
Look, I don't need to "grasp at straws", I didn't make any sweeping claims like "the SU-25 is just too slow", or that it cannot possibly reach the height of 10 kilometers and so forth. I am not the one assuming, for no reason, that the plane would have had to be fully loaded with ground attack weapons if and when it attacked the airliner, nor do I try to imagine magic scenarios like what some yahoos may or may not have been able to accomplish or what may have been on their mind at some point or other.
The issue has been debated repeatedly, the arguments on all sides are readily available for everyone who wants to know. What's new is that someone came forward who claims to have witnessed that
a) air-to-air missiles were mounted on some Su-25 that were flying sorties during the week of the MH17 crash,
b) on the day of the crash a returning Su-25 that had left with such missiles no longer had them,
c) the pilot of that plane made some strange remarks
Those who allow for the possibility that one or several Su-25 had something to do with the crash will see this as further evidence which should be investigated, those who have made up their mind obviously don't.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)But my guess would be as stated NO WEAPONS, flying in a steep dive at maximum thrust to gain that much speed for a short amount of time. Can it do that with a weapons load and climbing?
Fail again
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)And I'd love to know what kind of liberal you're another of.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)The SU-25 is designed for close air support and ground attack, not air to air combat. The SU-25's that the Ukraine operates are the older ones, so it is unlikely they have air to air radar installed. It is capable of carrying short range heat seeking air to air missiles, but that is intended for self defense, not the interception of aircraft.
The maximum altitude of a SU-25 with no weapons is 23,000 feet, with a full weapons load the maximum altitude is 16,000 feet. Being designed for low altitude attack missions, the engines would have been optimized to perform best at low altitudes so at 23,000 feet the SU-25 would have been SLOWER then the MH17 Boeing 777-200ER that was at a reported 33,000 feet and cruising at 560 mph, presuming no tail or head wind.
If the SU-25 was armed, it should have been armed mostly with ground attack weapons and probably a pair of heat seeking air to air missiles for self defense, which would have reduced the maximum altitude and airspeed it was capable of reaching. So how does the SU-25 see the Boeing 777? How does the SU-25 know it is not an enemy fighter? If satisfactory answers to the prior two questions exist, there remains the question how does the SU-25 get close enough to lock on to the 777 with the air to air missiles?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)that prove an SU25 could not have shot down MH17
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)satellite evidence that demonstrates conclusively it was Iraqi WMDs stolen by Putin that shot down MH 17--No. Wait. I mean satellite evidence that demonstrates conclusively it was a Vietnamese ship in the Gulf of Tonkin captained by the KGB that shot down MH 17-- No. Wait. I mean satellite evidence that demonstrates it was the Sandinista army advancing on Harlingen, Texas under Russian guidance that shot down MH 17-- No. Wait. Lee Harvey Oswald. That's who did it. End of story. So don't be coming around here with your RT links and contrary evidence and questions about why the US refuses to release its conclusive evidence because its word is conclusive and evidence to support its word would just confuse things and especially don't mention that agreement that allows Ukraine to veto the ongoing investigation if they don't like it because that's a conspiracy theory even though it was reported in the Dutch media (probably by kryptoRT journalists). Lee Harvey Oswald with a BUK in the Texas Book Depository at the demand of Vladimir Putin. No more debate. Believe. Case closed.
randome
(34,845 posts)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)or pass off a completely unbelievable story about a Ukranian CAS fighter shooting down an aircraft traveling at twice its own ceiling reeks of Gulf of Tonkin.
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)"Submit" "Comply"
DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)$Green$ for victory!
Rex
(65,616 posts)Wow did those words ever piss off the usual suspects! Thankfully they all showed up in this thread to harangue you into submission! Now don't you feel humbled by their awesome snark abilities! The instant careers in a field that knows more than you gets honorable mention for being the most amusing sub-thread in the OP!
So funny, it should be a TVEE show!
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Instant careers, Ok. Try 30 years
85-86 50 weeks of AIT, HAWK missile system
86-89 Germany Hawk missile system
90-93 Fort Bliss, TX HAWK missile system
93-97 Liason Ohio National Guard, HAWK missile system
97 37 weeks of transition training PATRIOT missile system
97-00 Fort Bliss TX, PATRIOT missile system instructor
00-01 Kunsan, Korea, PATRIOT missile system
01-05 Fort Bliss, TX, PATRIOT missile system instructor
05-08 Contractor Threat missile systems, SA6, SA8,SA11,SA15,SA7,SA14/16
08-now PATRIOT/THAAD missile system senior instructor
I think I have some training in the subject
Rex
(65,616 posts)
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)A ground attack aircraft like the Su-25 cannot shoot down an aircraft flying at twice its own ceiling, nor would a ground attack aircraft be sent to intercept a target over 30,000 feet when dedicated air superiority fighters are available and can actually reach it.
That, and this whole story comes from an anonymous source that hasn't been verified or vetted by a third party, which screams bullshit.
reorg
(3,317 posts)how ridiculous it sounds.
The source is not anonymous, his claims are going to be investigated (according to the story), and that a plane must be fully loaded in order to shoot a rocket at another plane sounds slightly off the mark, player. And who said anything about an Su-25 "being sent to intercept a target"?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)First, get your technical details right. Missiles and rockets are not the same thing, and if the pilot had managed to hit MH17 with a rocket, he's a goddamn marksman the likes of which the world has never seen.
Second, any missiles installed on an aircraft's hard points create drag for the aircraft. Even one can keep an aircraft from reaching its maximum ceiling, and since the maximum ceiling for even the highest climbing Su-25 is still below MH17's altitude at the time, there's simply no way the fighter could have had a position to fire on it. You install even one missile on an aircraft like the Su-25, it's not going to be doing 10,000 meters.
Ground attack aircraft and civilian airliners don't just happen upon each other at their very different cruising altitudes. It's clear you don't know how ATC works, but someone had to tell the Su-25 pilot about the aircraft flying at least ten thousand feet above it and direct it.
And even if Ukraine wanted to intercept the aircraft, they know the air-to-air limitations of the Su-25 and would have sortied any one of their more than 50 MiG-29s or Su-27s, their dedicated air superiority fighters, to intercept it.
So, the tl;dr version: You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
reorg
(3,317 posts)His identity is known to the journalists who interviewed him, he just doesn't want to make his name public, is all.
Here is the video and transcript of the interview:
http://www.kp.ru/daily/26323.5/3204312/
Here you can find a translation:
http://fortruss.blogspot.de/2014/12/meet-pilot-who-shot-down-malysian.html
This witness may be full of shit and trying to fool his interviewers, just like the "expert" who came up with the fake satellite image a short while ago. OTOH, nothing you have said would suggest he is wrong.
The Ukrainian army used Su-25 to attack the self-defense forces in eastern Ukraine. Some of them were shot down. We know that the self-defense forces observed or at least strongly suspected that the attackers were using civilian airliners flying above them as human shields. If the Ukrainian pilots were flying in the "shadow" of these airliners, they were apparently well informed about their flight paths.
Nobody has claimed that the air-to-air missile was fired from the exact same height or from directly behind the airliner. The Russian radar data merely suggested that a Su-25 or similar plane was in the vicinity:
“[We] would like to get an explanation as to why the military jet was flying along a civil aviation corridor at almost the same time and at the same level as a passenger plane,” he stated.
“The SU-25 fighter jet can gain an altitude of 10km, according to its specification,” he added. “It’s equipped with air-to-air R-60 missiles that can hit a target at a distance up to 12km, up to 5km for sure.”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-21/russia-says-has-photos-ukraine-deploying-buk-missiles-east-rader-proof-warplanes-mh1
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)that's been debunked repeatedly by multiple people including myself, then I think we're done here. I'm not wasting anymore of my time on this nonsense.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)What a croc. They were people who took up arms against the government and that description is just a lie.
Response to reorg (Reply #87)
GGJohn This message was self-deleted by its author.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)The AH-64 Apache Longbow I flew in the Army were armed with the Hellfire missiles, Hydra 70 (70 mm, 2.75-inch) rockets and M230 30 mm chain gun, and it's a fact that those weapons will create significant drag and lower the operational ceiling of combat aircraft and lower it's speed.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)He can fill it for anyone who does!!!
?w=500&h=565
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Boy, are you in the wrong place.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)105 of the 111 link to rt.com
ETA: advanced search and 10 minutes is what it took to figure that out.
Sid
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Don't you got nothing to do?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)But Sid, don't forget we have a poster here who informed us 50 million Americans get their news from RT!!!
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I hope that job pays lots of Rubles.
Archae
(46,346 posts)The Skeptic's Dictionary has an entry on "true-believer syndrome," even faced with facts the "true believer" still will defend to the death their bizarre beliefs.
http://skepdic.com/truebeliever.html
Just look at Climate Change deniers, and creationists like Ken Ham.
In the old "Skeptic" forum on Fidonet, we called them "FTB's."
(Bleep)-ing true believers.
And in this thread we have a "Putin can do no wrong" phanboi.
On another message board I saw a dedicated Marxist-Leninist, all his heroes are Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Kim Jong whoever is in charge in N Korea, etc.
Blames the "evil United States" (even though he lives in the US,) for everything that goes wrong.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)It cannot fire radar guided missiles, only IR seekers. If an SU-25 was responsible for this, it would have have to been close enough to the plane to see it, and it would have seen it was flying the wrong direction. Further the damage would NOT have caused an in flight break up of the fuselage.
In short,this story is absolute bullshit, which is unsurprising coming from the OP.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Or maybe not. Either way, the doubts you raise only add to the reasons this report should be seriously investigated. It needs to be investigated, that is, if the truth is really what we want.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)It does NOT have an air to air radar OR the ability to carry or launch radar guided missiles with the range, power, and point of impact to cause the kind of damage this flight suffered. The Su-25 is a ground attack airplane with very primitive avionics by modern standards. It is just about the LAST combat airplane you'd send to shoot down another plane.
It can ONLY carry the AA-2 or AA-8 missiles, which are short range IR seekers.
The claim that an SU-25 was responsible for this not only inconsistent with the evidence of the damage suffered by the plane, but it's not credible on its face. If one were sending a plane to shoot down a military transport, one would simply not send an Su-25. The Ukrainian Air Force has 5 regiment of SU-27 and MiG-29's. THOSE are planes you'd send to do this kind of job.
Seriously.... this story is absolute hogwash. The "serious investigation" ends once someone laughably claimed a freakin' SU-25 did this.
If I am proven to be wrong, I will personally apologize to you in public on the forums.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)So what does the 'source' say was the "right plane"?
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)A shame more people don't care what those things are
Published on Feb 9, 2014
American Conquest by Subversion: Victoria Nuland's Admits Washington Has Spent $5 Billion to "Subvert Ukraine"
"After three visits to Ukraine in five weeks, Victoria Nuland explains that in the past two decades, the United States has spent five Billion dollars ($5,000,000,000) to subvert Ukraine, and assures her listeners that there are prominent businessmen and government officials who support the US project to tear Ukraine away from its historic relationship with Russia and into the US sphere of interest (via "Europe"
.
Victoria Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, leader of the younger generation of "neo-cons" and CO-FOUNDER of PNAC. After serving as Hillary Clinton's spokesperson, she is now undersecretary of state for Europe and Eurasia." Diana Johnstone
Hear Victoria Nuland's very concise, almost victorious speech
Victoria Nuland (Wife of PNAC Co-Founder Kagan) explains how she feels about the EU
"It's a New American Century" complete with "Regime Changes" and Torture
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)But don't let that stop you.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)EX500rider
(10,858 posts)Yes it does....
About $2.4 billion went to programs promoting peace and security, which could include military assistance, border security, human trafficking issues, international narcotics abatement and law enforcement interdiction, Thompson said. More money went to categories with the objectives of "governing justly and democratically" ($800 million), "investing in people" ($400 million), economic growth ($1.1 billion), and humanitarian assistance ($300 million).
The United States spent about $20 million on Peace Corps programs in Ukraine over the past four years. It spent about $40 million through U.S. AID on health programs in the countries since 2010 -- fighting HIV/AIDs, malaria and providing for maternal and child health. The United States spent an additional $80 million or so working on projects related to weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/19/facebook-posts/united-states-spent-5-billion-ukraine-anti-governm/
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)A year, maybe?
PeoViejo
(2,178 posts)The SU-25 was the intended target of the BUK surface to Air Missile System. The Fire Control Radar of the BUK System locked on MH-17, rather than the SU-25. The rest is History.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)BUK is kind of overkill for the SU25
PeoViejo
(2,178 posts)The BUK system in question didn't have any IFF capability. Soviet era AA systems tend to be designed to operate as an extension of a central command structure. This one couldn't run home to Mommy and get instructions. I think that's why the SU-25 Pilot said that the Heavy was in the wrong place at the right time. I would be stressed too if I realized that missile was meant for me.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)But not operational or set to any of the proper codes. You have to what selectable cans are used to mate the set with the friendly aircraft. Do not think the get mode 2 or mode 3 returns. Those are the civilian aircraft modes. IFF only gives you a friend responce or no response even if operational. If no mode 2 or 3 capability even if the system was fully operational, it would have not gotten a responce back from MH17.
