United States Assessment of the Downing of Flight MH17 and its Aftermath
Source: U.S. Embassy in Kyiv
We assess that Flight MH17 was likely downed by a SA-11 surface-to-air missile from separatist-controlled territory in eastern Ukraine. We base this judgment on several factors.
Over the past month, we have detected an increasing amount of heavy weaponry to separatist fighters crossing the border from Russia into Ukraine. Last weekend, Russia sent a convoy of military equipment with up to 150 vehicles including tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery, and multiple rocket launchers to the separatist. We also have information indicating that Russia is providing training to separatist fighters at a facility in southwest Russia, and this effort included training on air defense systems.
Pro-Russian separatist fighters have demonstrated proficiency with surface-to-air missile systems and have downed more than a dozen aircraft over the past few months, including two large transport aircraft.
At the time that flight MH17 dropped out of contact, we detected a surface-to-air missile (SAM) launch from a separatist-controlled area in southeastern Ukraine. We believe this missile was an SA-11.
Intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian government indicate the separatists were in possession of a SA-11 system as early as Monday July 14th. In the intercepts, the separatists made repeated references to having and repositioning Buk (SA-11) systems.
Social media postings on Thursday show an SA-11 system traveling through the separatist-controlled towns of Torez and Snizhne, near the crash site and assessed location of the SAM launch. From this location, the SA-11 has the range and altitude capability to have shot down flight MH17.
Ukraine also operates SA-11 systems, but we are confident no Ukrainian air defense systems were within range of the crash. Ukrainian forces have also not fired a single surface-to-air missile during the conflict, despite often complaining about violations of their airspace by Russian military aircraft.
Shortly after the crash, separatists including the self-proclaimed Defense Minister of the Donetsk Peoples Republic Igor Strelkov claimed responsibility for shooting down a military transport plane on social media.
In an intercepted conversation that has been widely posted on the internet, a known-separatist leader tells another person that a separatist faction downed the aircraft. After it became evident that the plane was a civilian airliner, separatists deleted social media posts boasting about shooting down a plane and possessing a Buk (SA-11) SAM system.
Audio data provided to the press by the Ukrainian security service was evaluated by Intelligence Community analysts who confirmed these were authentic conversations between known separatist leaders, based on comparing the Ukraine-released internet audio to recordings of known separatists.
Video posted on social media yesterday show an SA-11 on a transporter traveling through the Krasnodon are back to Russia. The video indicated the system was missing at least one missile, suggesting it had conducted a launch.
Events on the ground at the crash site clearly demonstrate that separatists are in full control of the area.
Read more: http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/asmt-07192014.html
(Since this isn't a commercial site, I've exceeded the 4 paragraph quote rule. I will shorten it if req.)
ellenrr
(3,864 posts)Amonester
(11,541 posts)Leads you to: Kyiv city, Ukraine.
MattSh
(3,714 posts)It's how the Rada (Ukraine's parliament) thinks English speakers should spell Kiev.
ellenrr
(3,864 posts)JVS
(61,935 posts)Technically Киïв vs Киев
Similarly Luhansk is Ukrainian, Lugansk is Russian.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Transliteration is the conversion of one alphabet to another. We in the West use the Latin Alphabet, which goes as far east as Poland. Most Slavic languages (Poland and Czech are the two biggest exceptions, but there are others) use the Cyrillic Alphabet. Thus not only to you have to translate words, but actual letters of the Alphabet (and that means translating sounds those letters represent).
On top of the problems with transliteration, is the Slavic Languages have what is called an "Iodation" and "Palatal approximat". These involve consonants and involved Y when it is a consonant, not a vowel (Thus in English the Y in you is a consonant, while the Y is Sky is a vowel, in the Cyrillic Alphabet Y means the vowel after it has a different sound then if it was alone)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iotated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatal_approximant
In simple terms Ye and Yi (Cyrillic иï, In Ukrainian and ие, in Russian) are the same sound. The better translation would be to just the letter i, thus Kiv should be the better transliteration (In older papers you will see Kief, when the v sound is a f sound in English so if that v is an f sound, it should be transliterated as Kif).
On the other hand tradition does kick in and Kiev is how the name was translated into English for Centuries. Since the break up of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainians have tried to make Kyiv the official English transliteration (NOT translation but transliteration, the actual name of the City did NOT change just how you write in down in English).
Please note, this is unlike Bombay and Peking, where a more precise translation of the actual name became preferred, Mumbai and Beijing replacing Bombay and Peking. The older names were English names for the same cities, but do to weaknesses of the English translators of the 1700s, a less then accurate translation occurred. In recent decades a more accurate translation of the actual name into English has occurred, and thus we use Mumbai and Beijing instead of they older English names.
On top of the Yi and Ye transliteration problems, you have the additional problem if I or Y for the Cyrillic letter "и". This is a minor problem compared to the above Ye and Yi transliteration but it is a factor. Thus the letter "и" appears in both the Ukrainian and Russian names for Kyiv/Kiev but is made a when Ukrainian is preferred or I in the case where Russian is preferred (Thus the Yi and Ie differences between the Russian and Ukrainian printed name for the same City).
The Cyrillic "и" (Which is a Vowel) can be viewed as a Latin "i" or a "y". Polish uses the Latin Alphabet, thus Polish Names ending in an "i" sound always end in an i, for that is how such names are written in Polish. Russian Ukrainian names are traditionally written in the Cyrillic Alphabet and thus when converted to the Latin by changing Cyrillic "и" to a Latin "Y", through it is the same sound. Thus Russian names ending in the Sound "i" are transliterated as ending in "y" instead of "i".
Thus the sound represented by the letter Cyrillic "и" can be either I or Y in English.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_(Cyrillic)
It is called a "close front unrounded vowel":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_front_unrounded_vowel
Cyrillic "ï" becomes
Cyrillic "ï" vs "е" represent different vowels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_(Cyrillic)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo_(Cyrillic)
Thus "ï" vs "е" by themselves represent different vowels, but remember Yi and YE are even more different sounds.
kiri
(789 posts)You wrote an excellent description.
Only to add that various spelling reforms have taken place (not in English!) to improve connection between vocalizations and written letters that denote the sounds. For example, the "myanki znak" and "tvordiz znak" (soft/hard signs).
Even German older than 100 years is hard to read because so many spellings changed. ß anyone? still used, but "th" went to 't'.
And we Americans with a god-given alphabet would never spell "Congre" or use Þ (thorn) for "ye olde".
And about these and umlauts, o vs ö. And è, é, ê,ë, æ.
Heaven forbid. There are some who can't even grasp the difference between too and to, between there, their, and they're.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)My German book in high school used the old spelling. I still have it.
Igel
(35,274 posts)Almost every place name and more than a few personal names come in two languages, and they freely translate between them.
Kyiv vs Kiev was pointed out. As was Luhansk vs. Lugansk.
The two languages started off as a series of dialects that were very, very similar. They've gone different ways in the last 1000 years or so. Sort of like Portuguese and Spanish. Different sounds from 800 AD give different results.
Russian g, Ukrainian h. Ru Gorlovka, Ukr Horlivka.
Russian i, usually Ukrainian y. (There were two i in 800 AD; they merged in Russian, stayed separate in Ukrainian). Ru Lisichansk, Ukr Lysychansk.
Russian e can be Ukrainian e or Ukrainian i. The rule is simple: If the Russian e, when stressed, stays e then it's a Ukrainian i. Otherwise it's a Ukrainian e. Ru Kiev, Ukr Kyiv. Ru Makeevka (pronounced ma-KE-yivka), Ukr Makiivka (pronounced ma-KI-yivka). Ru leto 'summer', Ukr lito.
Russian o sometimes comes out as Ukrainian i. This happens when there was an old e --> o change (see previous paragraph) in Russian, but also for most o that were in closed syllables. Ukrainian has pairs of words: doba 'day', dib 'of the days'. Ukr striy 'series, row' but stroyu '(in a) row'.
Then there are the bits that Russian has because it reborrowed words. Old short a > o in East Slavic languages like Russian and Ukrainian. But Russian "decided" to stay true to the Greek originals of names and reverted them to Greek, while Ukrainian stayed Slavic: Ru Andrei 'Andrew Ukr Ondrij. Ru Aleksandr, Ukr Oleksandr. Old sequences of o+r or o + l + consonant became "oro" and "olo" in E. Slavic. Russian sometimes reverts them. Ru gorod 'town' also has Stalingrad 'Stalinton'. Ru Vladymir is Ukrainian Volodymyr.
Central Russians--up Moscow way--tend to think of all of these as Ukrainian features, even if some are also Southern Russian. Some are easy to guess at if you're Russian, but they still make some mistakes; but to get others right requires knowledge of what Russian was like before about 1200-1400 when changes to how consonants were pronounced were reinterpreted as changes in the vowels. When the Ukrainian reports say that some fighters have a Russian accent, this is the kind of stuff they're talking about. You can sort of fake it, but it's like faking a Southern accent in the US. Even if you both speak the same language, they sound very different. In fact, Ukrainian was spoken widely enough that it's even altered how some Russian vowels and consonants in Ukraine's Russian are pronounced. Those are even more subtle and Ukrainian speakers have an easier time spotting them than monolingual Russian speakers do.
This didn't used to be political, and in most ways it isn't. The Ukrainian newspapers and media choose which is necessary depending on language. You'd never say "Kyiv" if speaking Russian, even if you're an ardent pro-union Ukrainian. For Ukrainians, personal language choice isn't a big deal except in official Ukrainian government use. For the separatists it is. In Crimea the new local government boasted that they wouldn't allow Ukrainian-language films to be shown, sparing them that "offensiveness." That is the view of only the most extreme Right Sector folk. In E. Ukraine, more Ukrainian speakers have been beaten and kidnapped for being traitors and spies just for speaking Ukrainian on the street in the last few months than Russian speakers in the rest of Ukraine for the last year.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin
Amonester
(11,541 posts)jakeXT
(10,575 posts)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/white-house-syria-assessment_n_3896774.html
I was just asking if the new assessment was done by the embassy and not by the White House and obviously not by the intelligence community.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)without the green light from the W.H., but it's just speculation from where I stand.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)...
But that statement fell far short of asserting that all the elements of the intelligence community had approved the paper in question, or even that it had gone through anything resembling consultations between the primary drafters and other analysts, and opportunities for agencies to register dissent that typically accompany intelligence community assessments.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/18702-obamas-case-for-syria-didnt-reflect-intel-consensus
Amonester
(11,541 posts)Also.
"So?"
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html?_r=0
Amonester
(11,541 posts)send other people's kids to die in Iran for his portfolio.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)White House given plan days before Sept. 11
WASHINGTON, May 16, 2002 President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News.
The document, a formal National Security Presidential Directive, amounted to a game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the earth, one of the sources told NBC News Jim Miklaszewski.
The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity.
In many respects, the directive, as described to NBC News, outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans off the shelf, Miklaszewski said.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4587368/ns/us_news-security/t/us-sought-attack-al-qaida/
In 2007/2008 we had warnings and some incidents
...
Most stunning and disturbing was his description of a plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran. It would, he suggested, involve Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a defensive US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. [Emphasis added].
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2007/02/brze-f02.html
We had the Brits under Blair floating around with inaccurate maps in Iranian waters, maybe something could have developed there
...
Iranian Revolutionary Guards seized 15 British personnel in the northern Gulf in March sparking a 13-day standoff that ended when Iran's president freed them, a day after Larijani spoke to a senior adviser to then Prime Minister Tony Blair.
...
"We conclude that there is evidence to suggest that the map of the Shatt al-Arab waterway provided by the government was less clear than it ought to have been," the report said.
"The government was fortunate that it was not in Iran's interests to contest the accuracy of the map."
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/07/21/uk-britain-iran-idUKL2144590520070721
And then we had the US Navy harassment by a monkey
On Jan. 6, five small Iranian boats approached two U.S. Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz off the coast of Iran. At the same time, the U.S. ships received a threat over the radio: "I am coming to you." After 20 seconds, the voice continued: "You will explode in a few minutes."
The threat came over Channel 16, the universal radio channel for seafaring ships, and a transmission on Channel 16 could have come from anywhere in the region. The U.S. Navy has not officially attributed the radio threat to the Iranian boats. But a video of the incident released by the Pentagon includes audio of the radio threat mixed in, suggesting, to some, that the Iranian boats were the source.
A report in the now raises another possibility. The threat could be the work of the "Filipino Monkey," the racially derogatory handle given to any number of pranksters voicing profane comments or threats over Channel 16. Mariners remember hearing insults and other inappropriate chatter from various radio operators who got dubbed "Filipino Monkey" as far back as the early 1980s.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18086931&sourceCode=RSS
Cha
(296,821 posts)I appreciate it.
On Rachel's Friday night she had a clip of NATO General Phillip Breedlove from 2 weeks ago.. "warning that Russia was training Ukrainian separatists how to use sophisticated anti-aircraft surface-to-air weapons."
Maddow: NATO warned in June about Russian-trained anti-aircraft gunners in Ukraine
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/19/maddow-nato-warned-in-june-about-russian-trained-anti-aircraft-gunners-in-ukraine/
Marksman_91
(2,035 posts)When there's enough evidence to conclude it was them, all of Europe (and most of the world, really) will be on Putin's ass. Am I the only one here that good ol' Vladi is the biggest threat to world peace right now? The asshole wants to reestablish hardcore Russian imperialism again. He's a goddamn ex-KGB agent, for crying out loud, he's nostalgic for the Soviet-era days.
7962
(11,841 posts)But just get accused of being a war monger or right winger or "troll" or some other such childish nonsense.
Marksman_91
(2,035 posts)They're just as bad, if not worse, than the US in terms of human rights records and invasion of privacy. And they're only interested in increasing capital and trade with other nations, something that the US is very much interested in doing as well. But now with this whole Ukraine situation, it's kind of clear which entity is the least trustworthy, at least as long as Vladi is the head is state
7962
(11,841 posts)They blame the CIA for Ukraine. The US is always accused of being the most racist country, most anti woman, you name it. Yet if you mention the human rights records of Russia or, heaven forbid, the Muslim world, you're accused of being everything short of a kitten killer.
Sure, we have our bad moments. But if its so damn bad and unfair here, why does everyone STILL want to come HERE??
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)as an explicit part of their ideology have always rooted for dictators in Moscow.
Which is why Fidel Castro immediately accused the Ukrainian government of taking down the plane.
Opposing the United States is paramount, even if it means rooting for a rightwing fascist like Putin.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Even Kissinger pointed out you do not spend billions of dollars on the WInter Olympics Games to show you are one with Europe (and even agree to stop executing prisoners to appease Europe and Putin has kept that pledge) and then throw that all away by taking over the Crimea and having a fight with the Ukraine.
Putin has been reacting to crisis-es not causing them. The White House does NOT like how Putin has handled those crises, but Putin's actions were reactions to other things NOT something Putin started.
Did Putin send in troops to take over the Crimea? Putin did not have to, by treaty Russian troops were already in the Crimea. It was those troops the drove out the Ukrainian forces (And the lack of support for those Ukrainian forces from the local population made and resistance to the Russian take over pointless).
In many ways, the take over of the Crimea is something Washington wants to undo, for by taking over the Crimea and having the people of the Crimea to join Russia, Putin ended up with all the Ukrainian Claims to deep Black Sea oil. The Law of the Sea says any off shore oil right up to 200 mile off shore (and that includes ALL of the Black Sea) belongs to the country the oil is off shore of UNLESS another country 200 mile limit extends into that area, then the division is equal distance from each country. By this rule Crimea is the borders for ALL of the Ukraine claim to the Deep Black Sea oil and thus the coup that installed the present Government of the Ukraine became meaningless, if the goal was to get access to those Black Sea Oil Deposits.
Under the rules the US imposed on Serbia in the 1990s, the Crimea is a free of the Ukraine. The US is now claiming no one can succeed from another country, without that country's permission. The problem is that is what Kissoff did in the 1990s, left Serbia without Serbian Permission. The law is one way or another, not what you want it to be when it is convenient to you. This is what Putin is counting on as to the Crimea.
Remember Putin did NOTHING till the Coup that overthrew the Government of the Ukraine,. The old Government was overthrown, and Putin moved into the Crimea. One of the things the new Government wanted was to end the Russia Lease to Sevastopol. The lease was good for at least another 20 years, but that does not prevent a country from ending such a lease early. Thus Putin moved in to protect his fleet, Putin did not take over the Crimea for any other reason. You threatened the Russia Fleet, expect a reaction Washington did not think Putin would react the way he did and have NOT forgiven him for not giving up his fleet. Washington also does not like the fact Putin gets more oil from the Black Sea.
As to the Eastern Ukraine, the present Government of the Ukraine has refused to make any offers to appease them. 1/3 of your country is rejecting your Government, and the only thing you do is threatened them with FORCE? Lincoln refused to do that in 1861, Lincoln even had Congress pass proposed Constitutional Amendment that clearly protected Slavery to appease the South (The proposed amendment was never approved by any state, even the Southern States). Lincoln's proposal for unity, included leaving the Southern states alone except for supporting the Confederacy and Slavery (and even then, if you were in Union Occupied Southern States, when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, it did NOT apply to any Slave in areas held by the North, nor technically any Slave who did NOT escape their Masters till after the area they were in Union Hands). Reconstruction became an effort not only to suppress the South's resistance to the changes imposed on them by the Civil War, but also to accommodate them and what they wanted. Thus confiscation of property was limited.
I bring up the US Civil War for you have NO ONE of the side of the Present Government of the Ukraine, even thinking of compromising with the Rebels. People do not revolt because they want to, they revolt because they think they have no other choice (Look at the Declaration of Independence, it list the problems we had with England and out attempts to work out those problems with England, but England refused to even consider our concerns, thus we were force to fight for out Independence).
Again, the revolt of the Eastern Ukraine, reflects a rejection of the coup that installed the present rulers of the Ukraine. What has the Present Government of the Ukraine done to appease the Rebels? Nothing, for the present Government of the Ukraine needs the support of the most radical anti Russian groups in the Ukraine and dare NOT turn them off from the Government (These radicals are just a small part of the ruling coalition, but because they are radicals are willing to fight, thus what they want must be appeased, thus the present government is caught between two groups that it must appeased, but to appease one is to offend the other. Thus this war continues with no effort being made to address the concerns of the Rebels.
Going back to the US Civil War, Maryland had an election in 1865 to abolish slavery. The vote was counted (this was BEFORE we had the Secret Ballot) and when counted the law was defeated, until the votes from the men in the Union Army came in and was so overwhelmingly to abolish slavery that the bill passed. Why? The people most opposed to Slavery were in the Army, while those that supported slavery, in a state that did NOT succeed, had stayed home. The same with the present crisis in the Ukraine, the people who want to punish the East are in the Army and MUST be appeased thus the Ukrainian Government keeps rejecting Putin's proposal for a federation. A federation is the best way to resolve this dispute without further bloodshed, but it appears it is blood what the radicals supporting the present government wants.
Putin is NOT going to stand still and watch people be killed on his border. Putin will do something. Putin has REFUSED to send in troops and has asked the Russian Du ma to withdraw any authorization to do so. Putin appears to have supplied weapons to the Ukraine forces, but many of the weapons used by the former Soviet Union had been produced in that part of the Ukraine in the first place thus how much is local production and how much is being shipped in.
As to the Anti Aircraft missile that took down this plane, it appears to have been fired from Rebel Held area of the Ukraine. Thus no evidence it was fired by any "Russian" crew. No evidence has been produced that this was NOT a unit captured by the Rebels (The regular Ukraine Army has several of these units and given the break down in that army, some may have defected to the rebels). The Missile may have been fired by a Russian crew or may not have been. We have no EVIDENCE either way.
My point, unless you think Russia should just accept US domination, Russia has NOT done anything that can not been taken as defensive. Even the taking of the Ukraine can be seen as defense of the Russian Navy. We have NO evidence of Russian assistance to the Rebels, but I have to agree it is easy to hide such assistance given the Russian ability to detect US Spy Satellites and that the border is like the border between Ohio and Indiana, one farm right against another with farmers crossing that border all of the time.
Putin is NOT a big factor in Syria and has little affect on Iraq. Russia has sent a ship to Venezuela but that was just to show the flag, nothing more. Russian has sold weapons all over the world, but so has the US.
Putin has long said, that he will NOT tolerate any US forces in what he and his fellow Russians, call the "near abroad", those areas that border Russia. Russia considers that the US broke its word when the Soviet Union broke up. At that time President Bush agree to such a non expansion when the Russians pulled its troops from Eastern Europe. The next thing you know Poland and the Baltic Countries are joining NATO. Russia could do nothing about that it clearly put Russia on the Defensive. Remember Russia is one flat country with no real defensive position. Thus it has been invaded by Sweden, Germany, Poland, Lithanian, Persia, and even Turkey. China tried to rule Russia via the Mongols, but did fail. Thus Russia is alwasy worried about who is on its borders AND WHO THEY ARE ALLIED WITH. Latvia and Estonia were used by the Germans in WWII and during the Crusades. Finland, Latvia and Estonia were used by the Swedes in the 1700s. Thus Russia worries about these countries. Findland, Latvia and Estonia are to small to invade Russia itself, but allied with someone who can, a.k.a. the US, are great bases for such an attack.'
The Ukrainian was the base for the Polish and Lithanian Invasion of Russia in the 1600s and was used by the Turks as a base to attack Russia (Before Russia took over the Ukraine in the 1700s). Poland was the base Napoleon used to attack Russia in 1812. Hitler did the same in 1941.
For Comparison, what did the US do when Russian Troops appeared in Cuba? Cuba is a concern to the US for it is the base one needs to take New Orleans. Cuba was the base the British used to attack New Orleans in 1815, and the US pulled a lot of supplies out of Cuba (While NOT technically using it as a base) when Union Forces took New Orleans in 1862. When the Spanish took over New Orleans in 1763, while the turn over had been agreed to by the Spanish and French Government, the Spanish used Cuba as its base to take over New Orleans.
I bring up Cuba, for it is much like the Ukraine, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithanian and Poland to Russia, bases one can use to attack Russia. Any of them being hostile to Russia is no big deal, Russia can live with that for none of them, by themselves (with the possible exception of Poland and the Ukraine) can attack Russia with any hope of success. Thus those areas with foreign troops in them is a direct threat to Russia, and Russia will NEVER permit such a threat to last for any length of time. This explains why Putin took the Crimea, it was telling the Ukraine it had step over the line and Russia would react.
Thus again, Putin was reacting not acting. Putin does NOT want to go to war, but he will also NOT permit anyone to be in a position to put a gun to his head. Nuclear weapons are to destructive to be of any value today, the US only adopted MAD because the US had no hope of every attack Russian and being successful. Thus destruction of Russia became the US Policy.
Today, destruction of Russia would cause more problem then it would solve, thus Nuclear weapons are useless. Europe needs Russia Oil and Natural Gas, thus destruction of Russia would mean the destruction of Europe, even if the Russia used NO nuclear weapons itself. The shortage of Natural Gas and Oil would see the price of both skyrocket and destroy the world economy. Putin knows this thus I suspect he was surprised by the Coup in the Ukraine, for such coup would break up the Ukraine, something even Putin opposes.
My point is Putin is NOT causing the problems in the world today. He is reacting. The problems are being caused by the US for the US wants to remain the dominate world power, while control of energy slips from the Control of the US (The US has controlled world wide energy since WWI, when English Coal started to be replaced by US Oil, in the 1970s US Oil was replaced by Persian Gulf Oil, but the Persian Gulf nations were all allied with the US. One of the reason the US hates Iran is that when the Iranian Revolution throw out the Shah, the US lost control of Iranian Oil. The same with Venezuela, the US hates the present Government for it retains control of its own oil, instead of leaving the US control who gets it).
Thus the dispute with Putin is over the fact he is the largest source of energy NOT allied with or controlled by the US. Iran and Venezuela is also on that list for the same reason. China is NOT on that list for it is a net oil IMPORTER, but with China's growing power China may be able to challenge the US, starting with those oil exporters NOT allied with or controlled by the US. Thus the present fight is over oil and it appears to be the US who is the aggressor. Putin is just reacting and how he is reacting is what the US is objecting to.
Billy Budd
(310 posts)The key question remains, of course, cui bono? Only the terminally brain dead believe shooting a passenger jet benefits the federalists in eastern Ukraine, not to mention the Kremlin.
It Was Putins Missile?
http://www.popularresistance.org/it-was-putins-missile/
Educate! Russia, Ukraine, Wars and Militarism
By Pepe Escobar, www.rt.com
July 20th, 2014
Malaysian crash site Source Reuters by Maxim Zmeyev
A simple search reveals that MH17 was in fact diverted 200km north from the usual flight path taken by Malaysian Airlines in the previous days and plunged right in the middle of a war zone. Why? What sort of communication had MH17 received from the Kiev air control tower? Kiev has been mute about it. Yet the answer would be simple, had Kiev released the Air Traffic Control recording of the tower talking to flight MH17; Malaysia did it after flight MH370 disappeared forever. And then theres the curiouser and curiouser story of Carlos, the Spanish air traffic controller working at Kievs tower, who was following MH17 in real time. For some Carlos is legit not a cipher; for others, hes never even worked in Ukraine. Anyway he tweeted like mad. His account not accidentally has been shut down and he has disappeared. His friends are now desperately looking for him.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)approach a case of mistake. The rebels had plenty to gain by shooting a Ukrainian plane down-they were just reckless in not trying very hard to make sure it was a legitimate target. They may have been drunk.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)The Malaysian flight that crashed in Ukraine was on the same route it flew every day
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/17/the-malaysian-flight-that-crashed-in-ukraine-was-on-the-same-route-it-flew-every-day/
...data from airline data firm FlightAware shows that particular flight - Malaysian Flight 17 - runs daily and always goes through Ukranian airspace. In other words, today's flight does not appear to have deviated from the paths of previous flights in any significant way.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/17/the-malaysian-flight-that-crashed-in-ukraine-was-on-the-same-route-it-flew-every-day/
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)Amonester
(11,541 posts)NYT?
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)Amonester
(11,541 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Look at the graphics provided at your link. The claimed "identical" route of "today" (July 17, day of shootdown) is FAR to the north of the routes followed on the prior days.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)Down South, and strong winds coming in from below. Maybe that's why the route was changed.
Will wait for more infos, if any.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Those recordings will soon go missing.....
IronGate
(2,186 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 20, 2014, 12:22 PM - Edit history (1)
Your agenda is very clear here, blame the Ukranian govt for this atrocity while defending Putin at all costs.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)"your"
You're is a contraction of "you are"
IronGate
(2,186 posts)Amonester
(11,541 posts)Without Radar, Missile May Not Have Identified Jet
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/07/19/world/europe/ap-eu-ukraine-plane-missile.html?ref=aponline&_r=0
IOW, shoot first, ask questions later... Quite a bunch of fuckups you're supporting here...
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)IronGate
(2,186 posts)which you damn well know, but we all know your agenda here, defend the Pootie Poot's pro Russian terrorist at all costs while attempting to blame the Ukranian govt for this atrocity.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)However, I am not blinded by Putinophobia. Do you think Putin purposely ordered a civilian plane to be shot down?
IronGate
(2,186 posts)It's pretty clear that you're doing everything you can to defend Pootie Poot's fascist pro Russian terrorists while blaming the Ukraninian govt for this atrocity.
All one has to do is read your comments and know where your sympathies lie.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)I am also not into name calling out of anger... Such as "pootie poot".. Such name calling makes us sound like freepers.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)you're for your truth, which is on display here for all to see.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)IronGate
(2,186 posts)Nobody has to read your mind, your comments are here for all to see, and it's crystal clear whose side you're on.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)IronGate
(2,186 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Always follow who benefits...
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)at the civilian craft, as the audiotape seems to show. In that case, the mistake was Russia's in giving these weapons to a bunch of drunken nincompoops.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Given what looks like the break up of the Ukrainian Army that started BEFORE the coup (I suspect the coup succeeded for the Ukrainian Army was split so badly that it could NOT be used to suppress the protesters, thus the Army could NOT stop the coup). The problem is the split within the Army that prevented the Ukrainian Army putting down the Coup also prevents it from putting down the rebels in the Eastern Ukraine. When an Ukrainian Airborne unit took its Airborne Armored Personal Carriers to Rebels lines, that shows how split the army was. I suspect the formation of the Ukrainian National Guard was do to the break up of most Regular Ukrainian Army Units. Most stayed loyal to the Government, but how united they are in putting down the rebels is an open question. It could be the regular army units just are NOT capable of putting down the rebels do to a split within the ranks (to many want to defect to the Rebels for the Ukrainian Government to risk sending them into combat).
Thus it is possible that the missile system was Ukrainian to begin with, but in the hands of rebels. If that the case Russia made no mistake, Russia never gave them the missiles. Given the sophisticated nature of that weapons system, I do NOT see the Russian giving them any, thus I suspect it is a captured or turned over to the rebels missiles system, but of Ukrainian origin not Russian. I concede I may be wrong, but given the situation in the Ukraine anything is possible right now.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)didn't leave any of these when they withdrew. OTOH, there are satellite photos of these systems being moved back into Russia after the attack -- one of them with only three out of four missiles in place. If Russia didn't give them the missiles, why are they allowing them to be moved back into Russia?
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The Missiles MAY have been moved, or MAY NOT have been moved, it is amazing that when someone says they have moved, no one produces the evidence showing such movement. With modern Satellite, it can be shown where the missiles where and how they were moved. Now exact route can NOT be so determined, Satellites fly over the area for just a few minutes and then continue on their orbit around the earth. On the other hand the photos are good enough to show where the missiles were when the spy Satellites flew over. No such photos have been produced for the simple reason the CIA and/or NSA do NOT have such photos for the Missiles were moved, but not out of the Ukraine.
As to these being ex-Ukrainian missiles, nothing in your story shows that to be untrue. I suspect the Ukraine Regular Army is so divided, units like this one could switch sides and no one would report it. That would provide such a missile system in the Ukraine with a crew who knew how to use it and STILL not be given to the rebels by Russia. I just do not see Putin giving the Rebels such a sophisticated missiles system for he would also have to send in a crew to operate the system (and for actual Air Cover Putin could keep the system in RUSSIA under his control and still cover most of the area in rebellion). Thus I see no advantage to Putin to give such a system to the Rebels, but I can see the Rebels obtaining such a system from the Regular Ukrainian army, along with a crew who knows how to operate it and the rebels themselves shooting down this plane (remember it was the third plane shot down in the last week, the first two were Military planes).
Sorry, I know enough about such systems to doubt Putin giving them to the Rebels, Putin does NOT need to for such missiles to provide air cover for the Rebels, such missiles can provide that cover while in Russia itself. Thus I suspect it is an Ukrainian crew that defected to the Rebels. The Ukrainian Government does NOT want to admit how bad such defections have been, and at the same time unwilling to dissolved its Regular Army units, to prevent the Russian Speakers going over to the rebels.
On paper, the Ukrainian Army is large enough to put down this rebellion in maybe a week at most. The reason it has not, implies to me that the commanders do NOT trust their troops for the commanders fear many would defect to the rebels. If the Ukrainian army was reliable, it could take these rebels cities within a week and put down this revolt. That the Ukrainian Army has not, and the present Government of the Ukraine decided it had to form a "National Guard" to supplement the Army, is further evidence of problems within the regular Ukrainian Army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_Ukraine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Ground_Forces
Divisions of the Ukrainian Army:
The 13th Corp is Orange, the 8th Corp is Green and the 6th crop is blue.
To see the location of Ukrainian units, before the Rebellion go to the above site for the Ukrainian Ground forces site above
The Sixth Army Corp, roughly the same borders as what the Rebels hold, no reports that these units were repelled, thus may have all defected:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_Army_Corps_(Ukraine)
The Sixth Corp did have an AA unit:
1039th Anti-Aircraft Artillery
Please note, the Soviet Union had a policy of assigning units close to where they were recruited from. When the Ukraine became independent it just changed the name of the units within the Ukraine. Other changes have occurred since, but I suspect most of the Sixth Corp was Russian Speaking (if not all Russian Speaking) and defected enmass.
The Crimea was also within the Sixth Corp area of Control. The failure of any troops coming to the Aid of the Ukrainian forces in the Crimea, implies the Sixth Crop did NOT oppose the take over (or it was so divided in loyalties that it could not move).
Just a comment that this AA missile system did exist in the Eastern Ukraine and it is possible it was a Ukrainian Missile not a Russian Missile.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)so only the rebels could have shot them off. Also, there is an audiotape that has been identified as containing voices of rebel leaders.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The question was Putin's control, and all I was pointing out is that Putin is allied with the rebels and supplying them with supplies and other support, but we have NO EVIDENCE Putin gave this missile system to the Rebels.
All I was pointing out was the same missile system was in use by the Ukrainian Army that had bases in that part of the Ukraine that is in revolt, thus it is possible that the missile that took down the plane had no connection with Russia, since Russian sold the system to the Ukraine.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)boarder back to Russia. If Russia hadn't been involved, why would they have allowed that? And why is Russia allowing the rebels to keep international observers out of the area?
happyslug
(14,779 posts)I have checked, I can NOT find them on the net. I keep on READING REPORTS of such movement, but no actual PHOTOS.
Even the official US Government report show they know where the missiles were fired from, that the plane was hit and the rebels knew of the hit (and that it appears the Rebels mistook the plane as a Military Plane), but NOTHING as to where the missile system itself came from, or is.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)All the US Government has said they KNOW where the missiles were fired from, and that was in an area held by Ukrainian Rebels, which implies the rebels fired the missiles. The US also released a recording of what appears to be a cell phone conversation about the shot down, which also implies that the rebels shot the plane down (and thought it was a military plane till they viewed the wreckage).
That is ALL the Government has says, for that is ALL they can confirm at the present time. As to crossing the border of the Missile Launcher, that is a different set of alleged facts. Radar is ineffective on detecting where ground vehicles are going except at close ranges (to much ground clutter). Satellite that stay in place over the battlefield are TO far up in space to get a good photo (Spy Satellite operate at much lower attitudes to get better photos, but that means flying over the battlefield when the Russian know they are flying and the Russians can tell the launcher to hide till the Spy Satellite is out of the area).
Just a comment, NEITHER Obama nor the US Government has said the launcher has been moved across the border. The Launcher may have been, or may NOT have been, we do not know and given the nature of the use of such weapons the Rebels are making every effort so that no one knows where that missile launcher is located (Which is what ANY ground force does with its assets, including Tanks, APCs and even AA Missile systems like the one used on this plane).
Now, standard operation procedures for such missiles systems is to move as soon as it has fired a missile. The system is designed to "March Order" within five minutes of any launch. i.e. be on the road to a new firing location within five minutes of firing a missile. Given the ability to detect such systems by radar detecting the missiles after they have been fired in combat, counter system can be brought to bear on them quickly. Thus to save the system from being destroyed you move the system to a new location as quickly as possible. Thus the system was design to be on the road within five minutes.
Sorry, a typical firing situation would be as follows:
1. A plane is detected by Radar.
2. Permission is requested to fire on the plane
3. Permission is granted (if not previously granted)
4. Missile is fired.
5. The launcher (Which is a series of tubes with one missile per tube) is lowered down back onto the vehicle.
6. Any communication lines between the launcher and any Radar not on the launcher is disconnected.,
7. The vehicle the missiles are on drives away.
8. The command vehicle, once it has disconnected from each launcher AND the overall command of AA defense drives away.
9. When they get to their new launch site, they set themselves up and wait for another target.
10. Then and only then do they find out what they hit.
The above is from what I have read done within five minutes. I suspect they try to get it done within two minutes. If they were using another radar system instead of their own, two minutes maybe all they need.
Remember this Missile system has its own radar system AND is connected with other AA radars that are in operation. To avoid destruction, these radars are turned off every so often and moved. Radar is an "Active" device, i.e. it sends out signals that people can detect and use to find the Radar and destroy the Radar. The best way to defeat such detection is to turn off the radar AND MOVE IT.
The missile system used to shot down this plane is designed to be hooked up to the larger and more powerful S-300 and S-400 system of AA Missiles. The S-300 has a longer range radar system, which can cover most of the Ukraine (the US Patriot system is similar and the US Navy which has ships in the black sea has similar long ranch radars, thus why the US knew where the missiles were fired from).
Scary part the Radar that detected the Plane may have been inside Russia, but hook up to this missile system. The Missile system thus had a radar fix on this plane, but NOT from their own radar. They fired their missile, then left the firing location. Only later when they reconnected to the AA system did they find out it was a passenger plane that was taking a short cut across the Ukraine.
Just a comment that the missile launcher being moved AFTER they fired a missile is expected. The Rebels have no need to transport it across the border, they control enough of the Ukraine to hide it in a lot of places and keep its missiles ready for another chance to shot down a military plane. Thus I suspect the missile system is still in the Eastern Ukraine for the Rebels could fire missiles from it on other planes. If the Missile system was in Russia, that ability is gone for Putin will NOT permit a missile from Russia to be fired for such an act would be detected and Putin would have to admit it was fired from Russia.
Putin wants to make believable LIES, not one no one can believe because it goes against all the facts. For example, it is possible, we can NOT prove it did NOT occur, that the Present Government of the Ukraine fired that missile. Yes, that may be an out right lie, but can we prove it is a lie? The answer is no, for the missile was fired from inside the Ukraine. It was fired from rebel held territory, and more likely then not it was fired by Rebels, but given the fluid situation in the Ukraine, we can NOT PROVE absolutely that it was NOT fired by the present Government of the Ukraine. That inability to prove absolutely that that statement is a lie, is enough for Putin (and most other Politicians in that situation).
On the other hand, if the missile was fired from RUSSIAN territory, Putin would have to admit it was fired for that would be everyone else's radar detection report. Putin does NOT what that, thus the Missile system is still in the Ukraine. First because it still can be useful to the rebels AND second, by being in the Ukraine, Putin can say it was all the fault of the Rebels NOT himself or the Russian Army.
EmilyAnne
(2,769 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)brooklynite
(94,333 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)They have teams of International professionals on the ground, waiting for the thugs to move aside.