Originally published September 18, 2018

The Russian Ministry of Defense has just providing documentation showing that the BUK which shot down MH17 was manufactured in 1986 near Moscow and transferred to the Ukrainian SSR. After the Soviet Union broke apart, these BUKs became part of the Ukrainian army’s arsenal.

https://www.rt.com/news/438596-mh17-downing-russian-briefing/

This has, however, been a foregone conclusion for several years. The Joint Investigative Team (JIT) looking into the MH17 episode has stated that “a 9M38-series” BUK missile downed the plane. Russia manufactured two types of these missiles, 9M38 and 9M38M1; Russia maintains that its 9M38 missiles were sold off and have not been in its arsenal since 1999. The only significant difference in these two types of missiles is in the type of shrapnel its warheads carry. The later 9M38M1 missile contains butterfly-shaped pellets not found in the 9M38. The skin of MH17 does NOT contain butterfly-shaped holes — implying that it had been shot down by a 9M38. Hence, if Russia hasn’t been lying or confused about its lack of 9M38 missiles, it wasn’t a missile from the Russian arsenal that shot down MH17. (And how intriguing that the JIT didn’t attempt to pinpoint the type of missile that downed the plane.)

http://kremlintroll.nl/?p=1312

Two days before the tragedy, the Ukrainian government indicated that the rebels had not stolen any functional BUKs from the Ukrainian army. So it must be concluded that either the Ukrainian army — or perhaps one of its allied private militias — had been responsible for the shoot down. Which means that the entire edifice of the Bellingcat-crafted narrative purporting to show a that BUK unit from the Russian army had been trundled into Ukraine, had fired one missile to down MH17, and then had skedaddled back to Russia — was a fraud.

https://www.rferl.org/a/linking-mh17-to-russia-s-53rd-brigade-ukraine/29...

This shouldn’t be surprising, inasmuch as Ukrainian intelligence had provided the sometimes photoshopped photos and videos used to sustain this narrative; moreover, it had been cobbled together by Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council-allied “independent open-source research organization” that has crafted bogus scenarios to incriminate Assad for the sarin attack in East Ghouta in 2013 and the recent “chlorine gassing” of Douma. Bellingcat’s raison d’etre is to provide “evidence” supporting whatever fraudulent charges NATO wishes to hurl at Russia or its allies.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/06/medias-beloved-expert-higgins-wrong...

Also speaking against the Bellingcat narrative is the fact that neither the U.S. nor German intelligence services could find any satellite evidence of transfer of a BUK unit from Russia to Ukraine in the days preceding the tragedy. Indeed, German intelligence had flatly ruled out such a transfer. (However, Ukraine did not choose Germany to participate in the JIT.)

https://consortiumnews.com/2014/10/20/germans-clear-russia-in-mh-17-case/

The highly perceptive independent journalist Robert Parry had been scathing in his analysis of Bellingcat’s Rube Goldberg-like reconstruction of the supposed path through Ukraine of the Russian BUK unit alleged to be responsible. What a shame that Parry died early this year, so that he couldn’t enjoy the Russian MOD’s recent presentation regarding the culprit BUK.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/29/the-official-and-implausible-mh-17...

Naturally, the Ukraine-selected, NATO-dominated JIT had swallowed the Bellingcat dog-and-pony show whole, and was just about to initiate legal actions against numerous Russians alleged to have been involved in the shoot down. This inquiry was notable for the fact that it never even seriously considered the possibility that Ukraine had been the guilty party; indeed, Ukraine was granted veto power over its conclusions, making it the very definition of a kangaroo court. Tellingly, the JIT’s report made no mention of the BUK units which the Ukrainian military had in the vicinity of the shoot down — nor did it cite the conclusions of Dutch intelligence that these were the only BUKs in the area.

https://www.sott.net/article/329660-JIT-report-Why-the-MH17-case-is-stil...

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/30/russia-baiting-and-risks-of-nuclea...

https://caucus99percent.com/content/ukraine-organized-kangaroo-court-jit...

Fortunately, a notable dissenter on the JIT was Malaysia — not NATO-aligned, and hence included only because its plane had been the victim. Malaysia refused to be bullied, and flatly refused to swallow the Bellingcat Kool-Aid.

http://freewestmedia.com/2018/06/02/malaysia-breaks-ranks-with-jit-on-mh...

However, it is by no means clear that the culprit BUK was still in the possession of the Ukrainian army at the time of the MH17 incident. In 2007, Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko illegally and corruptly sold a number of Ukraine’s BUKs to the Republic of Georgia, for use in Georgia’s subsequent invasion of South Ossetia in 2008. Yushchenko allegedly got a kickback of two Land Rovers in the deal for his personal use.

https://iz.ru/news/341307

(You can push the “translate” button.)

https://www.rt.com/news/x-4-bribe-allegations-over-yushchenko-arms-scandal/

Georgian members of the private militia of thuggish Ukrainian/Israeli billionaire oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky were trained in the use of BUKs in Georgia. This evidently is because this militia intended to use BUKs.

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/21/neo-another-journalist-exposes-...

There is reason to suspect that Kolomoisky’s Azov Battalion had BUKs in the Donetsk region at the time of the MH17 incident. I postulate that he purchased these BUKs from either Georgia or Ukraine — and that, among these, was the BUK destined to down MH17.

Kolomoisky has a particular hatred for Putin. According to Robert Parry, a theory favored by some members of US intelligence following the MH17 shoot down is that the perpetrators thought they were shooting at a plane carrying Putin back from a visit to South America. But, unbeknownst to them, the plane had diverted course, and the culprits accidentally shot down MH17 instead.

https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/08/was-putin-targeted-for-mid-air-ass...

An alternative theory, put forward by the rebels soon after the incident, is that the Ukrainian air force had attacked the Azov battalion by accident, thinking them to be rebels, and then scrambled, seeking shelter near the MH-17, then flying over Donetz, to avoid attack from the ground. The BUK was then fired at these jets, hitting MH17 instead. A story describing this theory was posted online, but the videos which it featured have subsequently been taken down.

https://theother14.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/what-really-happened-with-th...

Here is a video of Kolomoisky shot soon after the incident. Note that, while he denies involvement, he then states that the tragedy was an accident — shot at one plane, hit another — just a “trifle”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrfKZUttEwE

Why would he state this unless he had known what had happened? And how would he have known what happened unless he had done it?

Either of these scenarios avoids the unsavory alternative that the shoot down was an intentional false flag attack. I simply find it hard to wrap my mind around the possibility that either side would be so egregiously evil as to intentionally target a plane full of civilians. Moreover, an attempt to incriminate the rebels would make little sense, as the rebels were only known to possess MANPAD shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles incapable of reaching the height of MH17. And, as noted above, only two days before the shoot down, Ukraine had stated that the rebels hadn’t stolen any functional BUKs from their army; this evidently implies that any effort to concoct a false flag had not been coordinated at the highest level of Ukraine’s government. (Although we still need to ask — why did Ukrainian air traffic controllers divert the usual flight path of MH17 so that it flew directly over the field of battle? If nothing else, this was severely irresponsible.)

Whether or not this theory is correct, it at least is credible. Which is more than one could ever say about the Bellingcat-crafted hoax.