Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands called the Russian Ambassador to ask why Moscow doubts the findings of the international team investigating the causes why a Malaysian "Boeing-777" that was making an MH17 flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur crash over Donbas and why do the Russian experts and media so harshly criticize the investigators work. According to the Minister such reaction undermines confidence in commission's integrity, objectivity and professionalism.
I do not know what the minister told the ambassador, but the Dutch side claims appear quite ridiculous to the Russian experts and media. Isn't it one of the pillars of European democracy that every citizen has a right for own opinion? Or does Hague believe the preliminary findings of the investigation group to be the ultimate truth? It cannot be. Moreover, what kind of integrity and objectivity of the investigation can one expect if the investigative group includes representatives of Australia, Belgium, the Netherlands, Malaysia and Ukraine, but Russian experts have been ignored?
This fact is directly related to professionalism. A professional, if he really is one, can't accustom Internet and social media data to a concept of the accident cause. He can't neglect official documents including engineering and technical calculations by the world's leading anti-aircraft missile company that directly contradict the assumptions and ideas of those so-called professionals.
All these circumstances question investigation results and its preliminary findings on the causes and culprits of the tragedy. They simply show biased character of the investigation and the political call to discriminate and demonize Russia, which has no relation the tragedy. Let's try to prove it with concrete examples.
First. Russia has no relation to Ukraine's decision not to close it's airspace for international passenger liners over the areas where there is a civil war with the most different types of weapons. Including anti-aircraft missiles. Ukrainian aviation authorities while trying to earn cash while jeopardizing the lives of innocent people is a crime somehow ignored by the international investigation team.
Second. According to ICAO rules the responsibility for the disaster is layed upon that state on the ground of which the plane crashed. And again, it has nothing to do with Russia. Hague is not paying attention to that as well.
Third. Speaking of MH17 being hit ny a missile from an anti-aircraft missile system "Buk", the head of the Central Criminal Investigation Department of Netherlands Wilbert Paulissen, for some reason, does not mention the exact brand of the combat vehicle which is "Buk-M1", and that has a basic difference. Why? I'll explain later. He speaks a 9M38 rocket but forgets to mention the warhead, which is 9M314, which is also very important. Keeps silent about the hit-holes configuration left in the body of the aircraft at the damaging explosion of the warhead. According to Russian experts, such selectivity for the police officer is not accidental. The fact that the "Boeing" was really hit by a 9M38 missile released from SAM "Buk-M1" and struck by shrapnel warhead 9M314. Russian army has not seen neither such SAMs nor missiles with such warheads since 1986. These SAMs with such missiles and such warheads are in service of the Ukrainian army, not Russian.
Fourth. The investigation conducted in the Netherlands based on images from the Internet, correspondence in social networks, and other circumstantial evidence claims that this "Buk" was brought to Donbas from Russia and immediately sent back after "Boeing's" destruction. They even say there is ample evidence. Including photos of this vehicle being transported by a "Volvo" truck. The fact that this photo's story was solved two years ago does not worry the Dutch. So does the fact that a missile launch cannot be succesfully completed with the use of just one (we emphasize this fact) Buk vehicle, which is theoretically possible, but not practically. Let me explain why.
The "Buk-M1" vehicle group, able to combat aircraft, includes, transport-charging and maintenance, radar target detection, target tracking and targeting vehicles. Without these units a launcher vehicle is like a loaded hunting rifle without a hunter. It has its own radar, however, but its surplus angle is only 8 degrees. While the sky has a circumference of 360 degrees, it can see only 8. Thus, to launch a rocket an operator must know exactly where, when, at what speed and exact direction his target will be flying.
If one would agree with the conclusion of the investigative group, that the "Boeing" was taken down by a "separatist" "Buk" it must be admitted there was direct communication between the self-propelled launcher crew and the crew of the Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk airfild crews, and it was them guiding the missile. But such an assumption is of absolute absurdity clear for every unbiased reasonable person. We can only guess why this elementary logic slipped from the international investigative team. However, you don't have to guess. The reasons for this "blindness" is just too obvious.
Because of political involvement of these investigators we still do not have any information about the content of negotiations between Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk flight control with the "Boeing" crew. And Hague is somehow satisfied by Ukrainian side's explanation that the records have mysteriously disappeared. We are not provided with the information on where the Ukrainian air defenses were in July 2014, including "Buk-M1" units and how were 9М38 rockets spent. While the militia has no aircraft a disappearance of such missiles from Ukrainian military would be worth explaining. Both to the international investigation team and the public. Including a report on the "black boxes" content which were immediately given to the Dutch side by the Donetsk militia.
Ordinary human logic says that if the "Boeing" was shot down by the militia, they wouldn't have given in any "black boxes". Meanwhile immediately after the MH-17 crash Ukrainian troops began shelling the crash site with MLRS. Were they trying to destroy evidence? The investigation must explain this fact somehow.
International investigation team should also clearly explain why have they not taken a Russian military report into account. Back in 2014, almost immediately after the crash there was a briefing at the Russian MoD including the details with satellite and Rostov region radar data which shown and described MH-17 flight before the crash, where and how it was shot down. And also the location of a whole Ukrainian air-defence unit, and not only a specific vehicle, in the area at the same time. Why does it not interest the investigators? Maybe because this information does not answer the task in front of them. Perhaps this explains why the Netherlands refused to attach engineering and mathematical calculations and field trial analysis by "Almaz-Antey" which is the manufacturer of all kinds of "Buk" most different modifications to the detailed investigation.
They were not interested in the information that constitutes the essence of the processes that take place with a missile during its approach to the target. Not interested in comparison data of fragments of missiles and holes that they leave in the aircraft body. Both from Ukrainian "Buk-M1" and Russian "Buk-M2".
They didn't want to attach information on the situation in the skies above Donbas in July 2014 received from "Utes-T" radar of the Lianozovo plant, presented at a recent briefing by its constructor Viktor Meshcheryakov and the head of radio-technical troops, Major-General Andrew Coban. Just a promise that they will analyze it in their future work. Meanwhile the investigation is scheduled to go on until 2018.
Thus we won't hear no new details about the crash that stirred up the whole world. Only new insinuations directed against Russia. Four years have been spent by these so-called "experts" to say the very same things Washington stated minutes after the crash. Meanwhile the EU is paying a lot of money for this mess of an investigation?!
The investigators do not care about our doubts, objections and criticism of their mediocre biased job. Even if the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands offended ... These Dutch are strange people!
