Malaysian "Boeing" MH17 international investigation team published yet another report. However, Dutch investigators have not submitted any fundamentally new facts.
The Commission made the following findings:
- the plane was hit by a "Buk" anti-aircraft missile system located on "separatist" controlled territory - a field near Pervomaisky village six kilometers from Snezhnoe city;
- "Buck" was delivered to south-east Ukraine from Russia by a "Volvo" truck and was returned back after the attack;
- About 100 people involved in the crash are said to be identified, but none of them were disclosed;
- Investigation findings are based on the following evidence: photos and videos with "Buck", intercepted telephone conversations, eyewitness and investigative experiments.
But what is the Commission's arguments basis? The assertion of the Dutch investigators that the "Buk" was brought from Russia is "proven" by the photos from social networks. Images allegedly found on the Internet allowed to define the model of anti-aircraft vehicle, its number, place of permanent deployment, itinerary and also its crew members with amazing accuracy. The basis of the study was taken from Bellingcat blogers' project, and not satellite or radar data.
Why were there no "incriminating" US intelligence satellite images presented, so often mentioned by Washington in the days after the crash? As it turned out, the US contribution to the investigation, according to International Investigation Group representatives were some "documents that could be used in court," but their contents were not disclosed.
Other "evidence" like the telephone conversations records with discusses of a "Buk" delivery to Ukraine for an attack on a civilian airliner are also questionable. The investigation did not indicate who provided the records, they have third-party inserts and it's impossible to establish their authenticity.
The question is why a "Buk", if it really was Russian, was transported via a "Volvo"? Firstly, its carrying capacity and permeability would not allow such a trip with a multi-ton complex. Secondly, there never were such cars in the Russian Armed Forces.
At the same time the investigation has ignored the radar data provided by the Russian side. They show that no missiles were launched in this area. Dutch investigators also did not take into account the reports by "Almaz-Antey" the producer of "Buk".
"Almaz-Antey" held a special technical experiment, which showed that "Boeing" was hit from Zaroshchenskoe village situated 20 km from Pervomaisky village. This area was under Ukrainian military control and on the day of the crash an anti-aircraft missile regiment of the Air Force of Ukraine was deployed there.
International investigation team also conducted their experiments, but it was only a virtual simulation. Being asked why the report did not mention "Almaz-Antey" details, the Commission said: "The quality of other evidence allows us to say that our conclusions are convincing."
Thus, the Dutch investigators believe photos, videos, audio recordings of unknown origin, and computer simulation are more credible and weighty arguments than technical details.
Meanwhile, the Dutch prosecutor's office said that MH17 crash is not a result of Russia's actions or any Russian citizens', alluding to the fact that the attack could be accomplished by unknown individuals and was not directly authorized by the military and political leadership of the Russian Federation.
This investigation has not yet voiced any suspects' names. Apparently, no one knows these Russian citizens can't disclose them. But such "evidence" pushes the international community to think Moscow is guilty of this tragedy.
The findings of the international commission, as well as statements by Western countries, seemed extremely biased and politically motivated from the beginning of the investigation. Seems that the report by the investigation team was set to blame Russia in the "Boeing's" crash and defend a convenient "West-friendly" interpretation of the tragedy. Russian experts' opinion was simply excluded and most of the world is quite satisfied with this situation.
The reason such policy by the Dutch Commission is its reluctance to consider a different view, which is at odds with a "smooth" version with a downed airliner, replicated the Western media in the first hours after the tragedy. And the truth about the course of this protracted investigation lies in the words of the report' authors: "We have published data with which we all agree." And those who disagree are deemed wrong.