Interviews de témoins par la BBC
Le 23 juillet 2014, BBC Russian Service publie un reportage (retiré depuis) dans lequel les témoins interviewés indiquent clairement la présence d’un avion militaire autour du MH17:
Témoin # 1 : Il y eu deux explosions dans l’air . Et c’est de cette façon qu’il s’est disloqué. Et [ les fragments ] ont explosé comme ça, sur les côtés. Et quand …
Témoin # 2 : … Et il y avait un autre avion , un avion militaire , à côté de lui . Tout le monde l’a vu.
Témoin # 1 : Oui, oui . Il volait sous lui, parce qu’on pouvait le voir . Il volait en dessous, au-dessous de l’avion civil .
Témoin # 3 : Il y eu des sons d’une explosion . Mais ils étaient dans le ciel. Ils venaient du ciel . Puis cet avion a fait un virage serré autour de cette façon là. Il a changé sa trajectoire et s’est dirigé dans cette direction [ le témoin indique la direction avec ses mains ] .
Ayant exploré les champs aux alentours , nous n’avons pu trouver aucune trace d’un lancement de missile . Pas qu’aucun habitant que nous ayons rencontré qui aurait vu une batterie de missiles « BUK ».
MH17 Witnesses Tell BBC They Saw Ukrainian Jet. BBC Deletes Video
Shortly after the tragedy, a BBC Russian correspondent interviewed numerous eyewitnesses who described seeing a second aircraft in the sky moments before MH17’s fatal crash. The BBC pulled the report. Why?
On July 23, two days after the Russian Ministry of Defense presented a radar track of a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter climbing to within three kilometers of MH17, the BBC’s Russian service aired a report by correspondent Olga Ivshina.
The report originated when Ivshina and her cameraman went in search of the field outside the town of Torez, where the US government claims an SA-11 BUK surface to air missile was launched at the Boeing 777 on July 17.
Instead of finding witnesses who saw or filmed with camera phones a SAM launch plume that would look like this test firing of an SA-11 in Russia, what Ivshina found instead were people who heard two loud explosions in the sky and described Ukrainian fighter jets near the MH17 crash scene. As Ivshina described in the opening of her report, these Donbas locals were certain the Boeing airliner was shot down by the Ukrainian Air Force.
As RT reported in late July, the same night the video was posted on the BBC’s Russian service website the British-taxpayer funded network immediately took the video down. The ‘404 not found’ ghost URL of the video can still be found here, but the content is gone. Russia Today reported on the removal here, including the Russian blogosphere’s suspicions that this was a blatant act of censorship by the British government in order to protect Kiev.
Jan Leder, Managing Editor of the BBC Russian Service, denied that the BBC had engaged in politically motivated censorship of eyewitness testimony on July 24. Mr. Leder wrote in Russian that Ivshina’s report failed to meet BBC editorial standards because it lacked context, specifically the opinions of experts. While Mr. Leder’s statement doesn’t specify what sort of ‘experts’ Ivshina should have consulted for her report to meet BBC standards, we note that nearly all experts cited by Western mainstream media determined to prop up Washington and Kiev’s Narrative of a SAM shoot down have insisted that Ukraine’s Su-25 ground attack jets are incapable of shooting down a Boeing 777.
Journalists and self-described experts such as Aviation Week’s Bill Sweetman, RFE/RL’s Glenn Kates, and New York University Prof. Mark Galeotti all insist Russian and Donbas eyewitness claims about a Su-25 shooting down MH17 are just Kremlin propaganda. Both Sweetman and Kates ignored pushback in comments left below their articles at Aviation Week and RFE/RL that Ukraine possesses a modernized M1 variant of the Su-25 capable of reaching the altitude the Russian Ministry of Defense described in its July 21 press conference.
Sweetman’s article of July 24 is a particularly egregious example of obfuscation, as he bizarrely insists no Ukrainian SU-25 pilot would be capable of putting on an oxygen mask above 23,000 feet. Sweetman also sarcastically refers to Wikipedia edits of the Su-25’s service ceiling after MH17 was shot down, ignoring abundant evidence that Su-25M1s were operational and capable of flying at altitudes up to 10,000 meters months before the Ukrainian Civil War.
This columnist also notes that the pro-Kiev government Twitter feed Ukraine Reporter (@StateofUkraine) reported several hours before the MH17 shoot down on July 17 that the Ukrainian Air Force lost a Su-25M1 to Novorossiya rebel MANPADs. As Russia Insider contributor the Saker noted in early August, Ukraine’s Su-25s are more than capable of firing R-60 and possibly other air to air missiles at an easy target like an airliner. Contrary to the misleading narratives of Sweetman, Kates and Galeotti, a Ukrainian pilot would not have needed to maintain the same altitude or air speed as the Boeing 777 in order to shoot the plane down.
To date, neither Sweetman, Kates, nor Galeotti, or any other Western mainstream media journalist that we’re aware of have bothered to address the BBC Russian report. Like inconvenient facts in George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth modeled after the BBC where the novelist worked during World War II, the eyewitness accounts pointing to a Ukrainian shoot down of MH17 have been flushed down the memory hole. Fortunately, we have the Internet to keep examples of inconvenient reports alive online and highlight when Western media organizations try to bury stories on behalf of their governments.
Le rapport de Michael Bociurkiw, Chef du groupe d’observateurs de l’OSCE
Michael Bociurkiw, chef du groupe d’observateurs de l’OSCE, a confirmé à la fin juillet 2014 dans une entrevue télé à la CBC la présence de trous de mitrailleuses dans le fuselage (ce qui porte à croire qu’un avion militaire plutôt que d’un missile était en cause).
Le premier rapport du bureau néerlandais d’enquête pour la sécurité (OVV)
Le premier rapport publié confirme ce que tout le monde savait déjà:
Le MH 17 qui s’est écrasé en Ukraine a bien été abattu
Le Boeing MH 17 qui s’est écrasé en Ukraine le 17 juillet a bien été abattu,« perforé par un grand nombre » de projectiles à grande vitesse, a annoncé mardi 9 septembre l’agence néerlandaise de sécurité aérienne (OVV), chargée de l’enquête.
Selon le rapport, qui présente les premières conclusions des enquêteurs près de deux mois après l’accident, l’avion a été disloqué « en morceaux » en vol. « Rien n’indique que l’accident du vol MH 17 soit dû à un problème technique ou à une erreur de l’équipage », ajoute l’agence, accréditant la thèse d’un tir de missile.
La seule question importante étant de savoir s’il s’agit d’un missile sol-air comme l’affirme l’Occident ou d’un missile air-air tiré par un appareil ukrainien.
Le rapport publié par le Bureau d’Enquête néerlandais disponible ici: http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/phase-docs/701/b3923acad0ceprem-rapport-mh-17-en-interactief.pdf est surtout intéressant par ce qu’il cache, à savoir le contenu des enregistrements des conversations et du son ambiant dans le cockpit (CVR).
Page 19 du rapport:
The full 30 minutes were successfully downloaded and contained valid data from the flight
The Replay of the CVR matched ATC communications with the aircraft (see ATC transcript). The recording also included crew communication which gave no indication that there was anything abnormal with the flight. The CVR audio recording ended abruptly. A replay of the CVR did not identify any aircraft aural warnings or alerts of system malfunctions. Detailed analysis is ongoing.
No aural warnings or alerts of aircraft system malfunctions were heard on the cockpit voice recording, which ended at 13.20:03 hrs. Crew communication gave no indication that there was anything abnormal with the flight
Les 30 minutes complètes ont été téléchargés avec succès et contenaient des données valides issues du vol.
L’enregistrement correspond aux communications entre l’ATC (Air Traffic Controller) et l’avion (voir la transcription ATC ). L’enregistrement comprend également les communications de l’équipage qui ne donne aucune indication qu’il y ait eu quelque chose d’anormal avec le vol. L’enregistrement CVR audio a pris fin abruptement . L’écoute du CVR ne révèle aucune alarme sonore ou alerte de dysfonctionnement du système. Une analyse détaillée est en cours.
Aucun avertissement sonores ou alertes d’une défaillances de l’appareil n’est audible sur l’enregistrement qui se termine à 13:20:03 heure. Les communications de l’équipage ne donnent aucune indication qu’il y ait eu quelque chose d’anormal avec le vol.
En résumé, le rapport nous indique qu’il n’y a aucun élément dans l’enregistrement sonore à l’intérieur du cockpit qui mette en cause un problème technique au niveau de l’avion. Mais ça, on le savait depuis le début.
Mais le rapport se garde bien de dire qu’il n’y avait rien d’autre d’intéressant dans l’enregistrement. Qu’attend l’OVV pour publier l’intégralité de l’enregistrement sans aucun filtrage ?
L’analyse du constructeur des missiles BUK:
Extrait d’un commentaire:
Almaz-Anteï ne dit pas que c’est un Buk M1. Elle dit que Si c’est un missile et Si c’est un Buk, alors il pourrait s’agir d’un M1 ukrainien et certainement pas un M2 russe.
En revanche, si c’est un missile américain, italien, ou un avion de chasse polonais, elle n’a pas les moyens d’affirmer quoi que ce soit.Elle dit également qu’il est impossible que le missile ait été tiré de l’endroit désigné par les américains, parce que l’avant de l’appareil aurait été complétement détruit. L’axe de tir démontre que le tir vient du côté ukrainien. Elle dit également que les américains ont les preuves satellites, mais ils ne les montrent pas.
En résumé, ils disent que ça ne peut pas être un missile russe et qu’il n’a pas pu être tiré du côté des rebelles.
Crash du vol MH17: des documents officiels accusant Kiev refont surface
Des internautes ont trouvé la preuve de la présence de systèmes de missiles sol-air Bouk-M1 au sein de l’armée ukrainienne au moment du crash du Boeing 777 malaisien.
Des utilisateurs de Twitter ont trouvé sur le site du ministère ukrainien de la Défense une information prouvant le transfert à l’armée ukrainienne de systèmes sol-air Bouk-M1 un mois avant le crash du Boeing 777 malaisien, annonce lundi un correspondant de Sputnik.
Les internautes ont retrouvé sur le site du ministère ukrainien de la Défense uncommuniqué daté du 6 juin contenant une description détaillée du transfert à Kharkov, contrôlée par les militaires ukrainiens, de missiles Bouk-M1 destinés à être réparés.
Auparavant, un conseiller du président ukrainien Piotr Porochenko avait démenti les informations sur la présence de systèmes Bouk-M1 au sein des forces armées le 17 juillet 2014, jour du crash de l’avion malaisien.
La semaine dernière, le consortium de défense antiaérienne russe Almaz-Anteï a publié un rapport indiquant qu’un missile Bouk 9М38-М1 a selon toute vraisemblance causé la catastrophe, sans exclure d’autres hypothèses. Ce modèle, utilisé par l’armée ukrainienne, aurait été tiré depuis un territoire alors contrôlé par les militaires ukrainiens. Les forces armées russes utilisent les missiles Bouk de version 9M37, tandis que les missiles Bouk 9М38-M1 ne sont plus fabriqués en Russie depuis 1999. En 2005, l’Ukraine disposait de 991 missiles 9М38-М1.
Le Boeing 777 de Malaysia Airlines reliant Amsterdam à Kuala Lumpur avec 283 passagers et 15 membres d’équipage à bord s’est écrasé le 17 juillet 2014 dans la région de Donetsk (sud-est de l’Ukraine) sans laisser de survivants. L’appareil volait à 10.050 mètres d’altitude. Les autorités de Kiev ont accusé les insurgés du Donbass d’être à l’origine du crash. Ces derniers ont pour leur part affirmé ne pas disposer de systèmes capables d’abattre un avion à cette altitude.
Les documents concernant le MH17 restent secrets
Max: What is your address?
Lev: Petropavlivka, Komarova street, 1, where we are standing now.
Map below: Petropavlivka is located in the green zone, in the little orange circle not far from the last FDR point. (source: Dutch Safety Board)
If you don’t speak Russian, no problem. Most Western journalists don’t. They use ‘fixers’. You can watch the original recording from April 17th 2015 and concentrate on Lev’s facial expressions, body language and sounds he makes. Or instead you read the full transcription below and watch the video after.
M: So you are a pensioner, former miner?
L: Yes, I was a miner.
I testify that I saw with my own eyes how a SU fighter jet attacked Boeing. There were 3 claps. I saw everything from the beginning to the end.
M: Are you sure it was a fighter jet?
L: I saw it with the optics [of the monoculars]. It [the jet] started from about 700-1000 metres.
M: Can you show the optics you have please?
L: Using this binoculars, monoculars to be precise, I saw it [the jet] clearly. I could have even remembered its number, but I did not consider this at that moment.
M: So why were you outside your house?
L: I am not afraid of anyone, I am not afraid of shelling, so I was never hiding.
M: And is your monoculars always outside?
L: No, it is always in a place where I can quickly grab it while leaving the house.
M: And so what happened next?
L: The fighting started. I heard SUs flying over the surface, hitting Torez and Shakhtersk. And than I saw… The fighter jets were actually three. And later I saw that one jet sharply accelerated in that direction [pointing with his arm] to the north and went up.
M: How did the sky look? Was it cloudy or sunny? How was the weather?
L: It was very sunny and a bit cloudy. Weakly cloudy, I would say 4 [out of 10] for clouds. Anyway, it is all subjective, but visibility was perfect. I saw the silhouette of this rook (fighter jet) with my monoculars as I can see my own fingers. And when it accelerated, I heard the roar of turbines and it sharply went up. After some time I heard 3 claps:
bah-bah—bah (the last one followed after some time).
M: So you heard 3 claps?
L: Yes, bah-bah—bah, short, exactly as I am saying. The last one after some time. I saw the plane [MH-17] started to crash. But! the central part started falling in that direction [showing with his arm], in the direction of Grabovo. The cockpit was separated, as well as one wing with a turbine and tale. Everything else was intact.
M: So at that moment the plane was already hit?
L: Yes it was hit and there was a loud roar of turbines.
M: So it was hit, but the turbines were still working?
L: Yes, there was a “sad” roar of turbines, I would say “heartbreaking”, really strong roar. And when it [the plane] started to fall and the wrecks were fuzzing already, the plane was falling with back end down. Like this (showing with his arm).
M: How quickly was it falling?
L: Hmmm…. How quickly I cannot say… It was so frustrating, I could not fix the time. Wrecks were fuzzing and the central part fell there (pointing with his arm). I had to dodge from the wrecks, so that they do not fall on my head . Here the hatch fell as I understand. Some blocks fell here, one bounced and broke the window glass. Knifes and teacups fell in the yard. What else… The smell of perfume! The strong smell of expensive perfume… Like Chanel… Very strong smell. I even felt sick of it.
M: May be it was kerosene?
L: Kerosene split there on the trees (shows with his arms). The foliage fell. On the wires as well…
L: Yes, yes, exactly here.
M: Is it North or West?
L: North, exactly North. I was surprised why Boeing changed its usual route a bit.
M: And why?
L: Most likely to be hit later. The flight controllers are deciding on the route… The sky was clear, it was not night. Here [points] – this is the usual international route. When a “Caravel” (Boeing-777) is flying, I can see it very well with the monoculars … 2 turbines… at 10km, 12km… It is seen very well, even the windows. And here I got very surprised – this one [fighter jet] accelerated up and that one [Boeing] was just there.
M: So you were thinking the route is unusual?
L: Yes, very unusual.
M: You never saw it there before?
L: No, never saw a plane going there. Always there, roughly talking, over Shakhtersk. The international route. Hmm… perhaps… No, never saw planes here. Only there [over Shakhtersk]. Of course sometimes they deviate a bit. But here – never.
M: Were there any other civilian airliners or just the Boeing?
L: Before there were some there, as always.
M: How many fighter jets were there?
L: One fighter jet attacked, I saw it with my own eyes.
M: Are you sure it was attacking? Perhaps it was just flying back to its base?
L: Here is Boeing and here is the fighter jet approaching it. So why did the fighter jet go up and attack the Boeing?
M: I am just asking, I do not know anything. Perhaps it was flying back to its base, the rocket was aimed at it, but hit MH17…
L: The rebels do not have this… They only have MANPADS. As I have heard they just have 5km range.
M: Though there are many photos and videos of BUK missile system in Torez and in Donetsk.
M: There is also a photo of a trail left after the BUK rocket was launched near Snezhnoe…
L: This is just “trep” [talkie-talkie in Russian], if you understand what it means in Russian. Firstly, when the boeing was flying [over this area] I have always been here. If the BUK was launched there would have been a loud roar and a huge trail in the sky. If the rocket was launched either from Torez, here (shows the direction), or Shakhtersk direction, it is not even 99%, 100% I would have seen the trail. Moreover, I am saying it once again it [fighter jet] came and attacked [the Boeing] above. There was nothing else. I saw a fighter jet attacking the Boeing: bah-bah—bah. This is what I saw.
M: So I will repeat it – firstly you saw the jet and then heard the sound.
L: Yes, yes, yes. I saw with my monoculars, how it [the fighter jet] was approaching it [the Boeing] and attacked it not reaching it.
M: Was it attacking with bullets or a rocket?
L: I cannot say what it was. Perhaps there were the separate claps or a cannon was working.
M: I do not understand, were there 3 claps?
L: Bah-bah—bah. These I will remember for my whole life. The situation is that there was a fight, here and there were explosions, but this sound I have heard perfectly from here – this bah-bah—bah.
M: So the Boeing was falling. What happened next?
L: So when it started to fall, the fighter jet went to the North, towards Debaltsevo. Then went down. But I did not see it too much, only saw it when it descended. Later I did not see it. It went away and wasn’t hit. These [other 2 fighter jets], I saw them being hit and falling.
M: So what about the other jets?
L: There were 3 in total.
M: 3 fighter jets?
L: There were 3 fighter jets. As I was saying, there was a fight and they were attacking the rebels’ positions, bombing towns and mines.
M: So could you tell me please, where were the other jets going?
L: 2 jets fell. One fell in the direction of Shakhtersk, I was not there, but approximately saw the direction. And the other one somewhere near Torez. This is all approximately, as you understand. Just what I can see with a monoculars.
L: I cannot estimate the distance. I saw it was falling. There was a trail behind it and it was falling. And then the explosion. There was a fight.
M: Here in the Netherlands our government thinks it certainly was a BUK. And they are looking for people who saw the BUK in Torez.
L: I heard all of this.
M: And nobody is looking for those who saw the plane. Perhaps they do not believe you?
L: (laughing) As it is said – if they want to see something, they will see it. I was telling them – look, I am a witness, do you think I would not have seen the BUK launch?
M: If the government will ask you to undergo the lie detector test, will you agree?
L: No problems, but I need to travel somehow. Also, I had a heart attack three years ago. If this will not harm my health, I am always ready to confirm my words. This is it.
M: Thank you very much, I need to think about your story.
L: I am ready to swear, I do not believe in God, but I believe in justice. Even taking into account the fear of being killed (the forefront was here [in the summer]),
I was telling and proving what I saw. But nobody wanted to listen.
The French were here, I showed them around.
M: So, the French were here, the Germans were here…
L: Everybody – from Poland, New Zealand, China, again from France, from the Netherlands several times, from Canada – everybody. I have not seen the Malaysians, I would have told them.
M: Thank you very much.
“Maxim, these are for you. As a present. Because you are the first who really wanted to listen to us.”
I felt tears coming. Nine months I spent behind my laptop looking for clues, now, here in the huge crash area things were totally different. I have had dreams one of my…..thoughts went through my head which I will keep to myself. I started crying, crying…….
Two people had come together with me, a curious villager showed up and Lev and his wife……I couldn’t stop the tears…..some people had told me they sawдесантики (parachutists), but their chutes never opened.
“Maxim, maxim, cry. Don’t worry. All of us cried a lot. For days we all cried.”
Later Lev gave me a piece of paper with his telephone number on it. Please call me when all this is over and finally the truth known to everybody.
See also: November 3, 2014 Who cares for eyewitnesses?
L: (laughing) As it is said – if they want to see something, they will see it.
‘Reuters lied’: MH17 witness says reporter falsified testimony
As a part of a March report on the Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 tragedy Reuters talked to Pyotr Fedotov, a 58-year-old resident of the village Chervonniy Zhovten in the Lugansk Region of eastern Ukraine.
“When interviewed by Reuters, Fedotov, the witness who described the ‘wiggling’ rocket, at first said on camera that it was fired from territory held by the Ukrainian army. Later, off camera, he said it was launched from a nearby rebel area. Asked why he had originally said the opposite, he said it was because he was afraid of the rebels, » the news agency said.
RT contacted Fedotov and he said that Reuters correspondent Anton Zverev was « less than accurate » with his testimony.
“When we talked about the Boeing on camera, I explained everything as it was. The things that I allegedly said off-camera were just made up by the journalist. It’s all lies. Off-camera, we never discussed the Boeing,” Fedotov told RT.
He added that the Reuters journalist contacted him after taking the interview, but never showed him a draft of the article. Instead he was asking whether Fedotov had got into trouble for speaking to him.
“The journalist called me and asked if I was in trouble. I was really surprised. Why would I be in trouble if I told the truth? And then my friends told me in the article I was saying different things when the cameras were on and off. That’s when I understood why he was asking if I was in trouble,” the witness explained.
“So it’s mere fantasy from the journalist or maybe he was doing it for his own benefit,” he added.
RT’s request to Reuters for comments on the controversy and raw footage of Fedotov’s interview was not replied to as of publication of this article.
Reuters’ reporting was not based solely on Fedotov’s testimony. The agency cited three other eyewitnesses from the village, but only Fedotov was cited as pointing to either side of the conflict as firing the missile. The report emphasized that the eyewitness accounts didn’t conclusively prove that the rocket they saw was the one that downed Flight MH17.
Earlier in March, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov condemned the Reuters report of witnesses’ statements, saying it « looked like a stovepiping. » The top diplomat also then said that questions posed by Russia’s officials remained unanswered, saying there have been no promised images from American satellites or recordings of Ukrainian air traffic controllers’ communications with the plane.
The Malaysian Boeing 777 airliner was downed over eastern Ukraine on July 17 last year, killing 298 people on board. The incident became an instant controversy, with Ukraine and its Western backers accused rebel forces and Russia of being behind the downing.
An investigation into the incident is being conducted by the Netherlands, but the preliminary report released last year didn’t point even to a kind of weapon used in the downing of the aircraft, only that an outside force destroyed it mid-air.
Russia called not to jump to conclusions and made military radar data public which indicated the presence of Ukrainian surface-to-air batteries and warplanes in the area on the day of the Boeing shooting.
Earlier Ukrainian media falsely claimed that Dutch investigators concluded that MH17 had been shot down by the rebels with a Buk missile, citing a report in the Dutch media that outlined the popular theory, but didn’t claim it to be proven. Dutch prosecutors told RT at the time that the investigation had not been concluded.
Russian Investigators Release Name of Key Witness in MH17 Crash in Ukraine
The Russian Investigation Committee released the name of the key witness to the Malaysian Airlines flight that had been downed over eastern Ukraine last year, Russian Investigation Committee spokesman Vladimir Markin said Wednesday.
MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Markin said that investigators had decided to release the name in light of the numerous media reports that were doubtful of the story’s authenticity.
“The [key] witness is a Ukrainian, Evgeniy Agapov, who served as a mechanic in the First Squadron Brigade of Tactical Aviation of the Ukrainian Air Force (Military Unit Number A4465).”
“[Agapov] is currently under state protection,” Markin added.
The man, whose name at the time was not disclosed, said that he had seen a Ukrainian air force Su-25 combat jet taking off from an airbase in eastern Dnepropetrovsk carrying air-to-air missiles and returning without them on the day of the MH17 crash.
Following the news, the witness was interviewed by the Russian Investigative Committee.Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was downed by a Buk 9М38-М1 guided missile fired from Ukrainian military-controlled territory, Russia’s air defense systems manufacturer Almaz-Antey said in a press conference presenting its report on Tuesday.
The investigation into the crash that killed all 298 people on board is headed by the Dutch Safety Board. According to a September preliminary report, the plane was hit by multiple high-energy objects causing it to break up in mid-air. The final report on the crash is due by October 2015.
Kiev forces and Donbass independence supporters have repeatedly blamed each other for the tragedy.
Une enquête sous le sceau du secret, une enquête de laquelle la Russie est exclue, une enquête pour laquelle, l’Ukraine a un droit de veto absolu sur toutes les informations et conclusions…
MH17 non-disclosure agreement document
MH17 non-disclosure agreement document
Crash du vol MH-17 de la compagnie Malaysia Airlines – Prise de position du ministère russe des Affaires étrangères
Le 29 juillet 2015, le représentant de la Fédération russe, Vitali Tchourkine, a mis son véto au Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU à une résolution réclamant un tribunal international chargé de l’enquête sur le crash du vol MH-17 du Boeing malaisien abattu au-dessus de l’Ukraine. La plupart des médias occidentaux ont vivement critiqué ce véto sans pour autant présenter l’argumentation du gouvernement russe. Pour informer nos lecteurs, nous allons publier une prise de position du ministère des Affaires étrangères de la Fédération de Russie, mettant en lumière les éléments-clés de la position du gouvernement russe, que diverses ambassades russes avaient déjà publiée quelques jours avant le 29 juillet.
Nous présentons nos sincères condoléances aux proches des 283 passagers et des 15 membres d’équipage, victimes de cette tragédie terrible.
- Nous condamnons la destruction du vol MH-17 du Boeing malaisien par des personnes inconnues et soulignons notre position réclamant un jugement indispensable des actes criminels quand les enquêtes seront complètement effectuées.
- Nous considérons la question sur la création d’un tribunal international concernant la catastrophe du vol MH-17 prématurée et contreproductive. Nous sommes convaincus que la résolution 2166 du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU présente la seule base – acceptable pour tous – de la coopération internationale dans l’intérêt d’une enquête indépendante et transparente concernant la destruction de l’appareil malaisien. Nous réclamons le retour au cadre juridique de cette résolution et la mise en place complète des mécanismes d’enquête prévus dans ce document.
- La Russie est intéressée par une enquête internationale, intégrale et objective de la catastrophe du vol MH-17 du Boeing malaisien. Ce n’est pas le cas pour le moment. En partie, c’est dû au fait que la Russie est exclue de toute participation essentielle à l’enquête (la participation du représentant russe n’était qu’un acte symbolique ne menant pas à ce que son opinion et les données présentées par la Russie fussent retenues). Les enquêteurs ont exclu intentionnellement la Russie des standards objectifs de «transparence» stipulés – des spécialistes russes se sont vus refuser un accès égal et intégral aux documents dont dispose l’équipe internationale d’enquêteurs. Le côté ukrainien, jusqu’à nos jours, refuse la publication des données de la radiocommunication des aiguilleurs du ciel avec le pilote du vol MH-17.
- La Russie a insisté sur une enquête la plus transparente sous la surveillance du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU. Nous avons proposé de débattre du cours de l’enquête au sein du Conseil afin de trouver des réponses aux questions les plus évidentes (la Russie avait soumis un tel questionnaire au Conseil en 2014). Les membres du Conseil n’ont pas réagi à ces propositions.
- Nous nous voyons contraints à en tirer la conséquence que la résolution 2166 du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU, ordonnant des exigences claires et professionnelles pour l’enquête de la catastrophe du vol MH-17 n’a pas été exécutée.
- De sérieuses questions concernant l’organisation et l’exécution de l’enquête restent à éclaircir. Les nombreuses demandes de la Russie, d’investir le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU afin de surveiller l’exécution de la résolution 2166 du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU ont été ignorées. L’enquête a été exécutée sans respect des normes internationales de l’aéronautique et sans respecter le rôle clé de l’OACI, Organisation internationale de l’aviation civile, dans ces questions.
- Nous nous étonnons du fait que les membres de l’équipe commune de l’enquête n’aient ni effectué des travaux préliminaires sur la base de la résolution 2166 du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU ni discuté leur projet concernant la procédure à suivre. Cependant, ils ont mis à l’agenda un projet de résolution selon le chapitre VII de la Charte de l’ONU. La résolution 2166 du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU ne qualifie pas la destruction d’un avion de menace à la paix et à la sécurité internationale. La tragédie, aussi horrible et grave qu’elle soit, était une action criminelle isolée. Il s’ensuit qu’un procès basé soit sur le droit national, international ou mixte puisse être entamé. En tout cas, ce n’est pas du ressort du Conseil de sécurité.
- La Russie est surprise de la proposition d’adopter une telle décision fondamentale dans un délai de quelques jours seulement sans discuter quelconque alternative possible.
- Malgré les dispositions de la résolution 2166 du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU, le secrétaire général de l’ONU n’a ni dénommé ni présenté des possibilités de l’ONU pour venir en aide à l’enquête.
- Depuis le jour de la tragédie, nous subissons une agression au niveau de l’information d’une grande ampleur dans les médias internationaux et les forums Internet (y inclus le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU). Sans aucune preuve on a prétendu que la Russie ou «des séparatistes contrôlés par la Russie» seraient responsables de la destruction du vol MH-17. Jusqu’à présent on continue de diffuser de telles prises de position irresponsables et dépourvues de preuves pour influencer de façon négative l’arrière-plan médiatique de l’enquête. Nous qualifions de telles prises de position et de telles accusations non fondées dans le but de cacher les véritables faits concernant la tragédie et de camoufler l’identité des acteurs du crime.
- La pratique du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU montre que seul le principe de la création d’un instrument international juridique à travers une décision du Conseil de sécurité est devenu l’objet de critique sérieuse et vigoureuse de la part de beaucoup de pays et de la communauté des experts internationaux en droit. La pratique des tribunaux internationaux déjà existants – le Tribunal international pour l’ex-Yougoslavie et le Tribunal international pour le Rwanda – renforcent le bien fondé de ce scepticisme. Les activités de ces deux organes juridiques coûtent cher, sont inefficaces et de longue durée. Leurs sentences sont hautement politisées. Depuis plus de deux décennies, ils n’ont pas été capables de conclure leurs travaux par des résultats acceptables.
- A ce jour, il n’y a pas d’exemple de création d’un tribunal international afin de juger ceux qui sont accusés d’un acte de violence contre un avion civil: cela n’avait pas été le cas du vol 1812 de la Siberian Airlines abattu par l’armée ukrainienne au-dessus de la mer Noire, ni lorsqu’un navire américain a abattu le vol IR-655 d’Iran Air au-dessus du golfe de Perse, ni quand le vol PA-103 de Pan American Flight fut détruit lors d’un acte terroriste au-dessus de Lockerbie en 1988, ni quand le vol CU-455 de Cubana Aviacon fut abattu 1976 au-dessus de Barbados, ni quand le vol LN-114 de la Lybian Arab Airlines fut abattu par un manœuvre de l’aviation israélienne en 1973. Jamais, cela n’a provoqué la création de tribunaux internationaux dans des cas comparables.
- L’adoption hâtive de cette résolution et son domaine d’application élargi créent le soupçon que le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU est abusé afin de trouver un prétexte pour organiser «une procédure juridique» au sujet de la Russie et le dossier ukrainien à l’aide de la tragédie du vol MH-17.
- En conséquence de ce qui a été dit ci-dessus, la Russie ne participera pas à l’élaboration d’une résolution visant la création d’un tribunal international ni à celle d’une Charte pour ce dernier. En même temps, nous espérons que nos partenaires comprendront notre position et aideront à terminer l’enquête de façon transparente pour créer une base solide pour la composition suivante du tribunal.
Source: Prise de position du ministère des Affaires étrangères de la Fédération de Russie du 29/7/15.
(Traduction Horizons et débats)
German Image Forensics Expert Scoffs at Bellingcat’s Allegations of Doctored MH17 Photos
Even the creator of the forensics tools used by Bellingcat has distanced himself from their faulty analysis
Der Spiegel actually did its job, for once! The famous organ of anti-Russia hysteria interviewed Jens Kriese — a professional image analyst who runs his own digital imaging forensics lab in Hamburg — about Bellingcat’s claim that Moscow had fabricated MH17 sattelite images. Try and guess what Kriese says:
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you consider the Russian satellite images to have been manipulation?
Kriese: That’s not the right question. We are not talking about satellite images here. We only know the version published by Moscow. That is a satellite image that has been prepared for use in a presentation.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Bellingcat has come to the conclusion that they were edited using Photoshop.
Kriese: That’s an erroneous interpretation. They claim that the metadata shows that the images were processed using Photoshop. Based on that they are concluding it was the clouds that were likely added in order to conceal something. The truth is that the indication of Photoshop in the metadata doesn’t prove anything. Of course the Russians had to use some sort of program in order to process the satellite image for the presentation. They added frames and text blocks in order to explain it to the public. The artifacts which have been identified could be a product of that — or also a product of saving multiple times in JPG format.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Bellingcat says its findings are based on the use of the analysis tool FotoForensic.com, a website.
Kriese: And its founder Neal Krawetz also distanced himself from Bellingcat’s conclusions on Twitter. He described it as a good example of “how to not do image analysis.” What Bellingcat is doing is nothing more than reading tea leaves. Error Level Analysis is a method used by hobbyists.
We’re starting to think that Bellingcat might be a FSB project used to make NATO bootlickers look like fools.
Anyway, well done Spiegel. And keep up the good work, Bellingcat!
‘Reading tea leaves’: German expert questions Bellingcat’s MH17 photo scoop
‘Reading tea leaves’: German expert questions Bellingcat’s MH17 photo scoop
Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was downed in eastern Ukraine on July 17 last year, killing all 283 passengers and 15 crew members. Both Kiev and the eastern Ukrainian rebels placed the blame for the disaster on each other. Kiev also claimed there were no Ukrainian jets or anti-aircraft systems in the proximity of the crash.
When it came to providing evidence, however, the narratives were not so easy to back up. At the end of July, Russia’s Defense Ministry released military monitoring data showing Kiev military jets tracking the MH17 plane shortly before the crash. The ministry also posted satellite images of nearby areas where Kiev had had its air defense units deployed.
On the day of the crash “Ukrainian military had three or four air defense battalions equipped with Buk-M1 SAM systems deployed in the vicinity of Donetsk,” Russian Armed Forces Lieutenant General Andrey Kartopolov said, describing the intelligence gathered.
Some Western journalists have dismissed the satellite data as “fake,” with Bellingcat going as far as conducting an“analysis” of images.
But, German image forensics expert Jens Kriese said in an interview with Der Spiegel that it is, in fact, not possible to tell whether the images have been manipulated.
“From the perspective of forensics, the Bellingcat approach is not very robust. The core of what they are doing is based on so-called Error Level Analysis (ELA). The method is subjective and not based entirely on science,” he told Der Spiegel.
“What Bellingcat is doing is nothing more than reading tea leaves. Error Level Analysis is a method used by hobbyists,” said Kriese, who is a professional image analyst and former scientific researcher.
He went on to explain that ELA does not provide clear results and the conclusion is always based on the human interpretation.
When asked about Belliingcat’s claim that the Russians had used Photoshop to manipulate their images of Ukrainian BUK missile launchers, Kriese was skeptical.
“The truth is, that the indication of Photoshop in the metadata doesn’t prove anything,” he said. “Of course the Russians had to use some sort of program in order to process the satellite image for the presentation. They added frames and text blocks in order to explain it to the public. The artifacts which have been identified could be a product of that – or also a product of saving multiple times in JPG format.”
“There is no way of knowing if the images show what Moscow is claiming,” Kriese added. “What one can say, however, is that this ‘analysis’ has achieved nothing besides raising awareness of Bellingcat.”
In its report, Bellingcat accused the Russian government of a “clear attempt to deceive the public, global community and the families of Flight MH17 victims.”
Bellingcat’s claims were based largely on an analysis of satellite images, performed using the website FotoForensics.com. However, it appears that even the founder of that website is unconvinced of the veracity of the group’s work.
Dr. Neal Krawetz is a forensic researcher who established the Fotoforensics site. When asked on Twitter about Bellingcat’s work, Krawetz described their efforts as “How not to do image analysis.”
Still, the UK-based Bellingcat group saw their report immediately become big news among the global media, with publications including the Daily Mail, Telegraph and Deutsche Welle reporting their claims.
Not all the press was positive. In addition to criticism from experts, a well-known Russian blogger Tima aka ntv also claims to have debunked the accusations. He says he found a number of obvious mistakes in Bellingcat’s work.
The blogger analyzed photos from Bellingcat’s own website and said he found the same evidence of manipulation using Photoshop as was alleged against Moscow.
He then explained that the use of Adobe Photoshop CS5 software is actually standard method when downsizing images, which is the most likely reason why the Russian Defense Ministry used it.
The blogger dismissed the ELA method altogether. ELA is used to look for areas within an image that have different compression levels – a sign that the image has been altered. Bellingcat claimed it had discovered five such areas.
After using ELA to analyze images known to be unedited, Tima discovered a variety of different compression levels, which he said proves that this method is incoherent and cannot be trusted.
The founder of Bellingcat, Eliot Higgins, aka Brown Moses, was invited on RT’s ‘In The Now’ show to comment on the report. He ignored the request and turned to sarcasm on Twitter instead.
Higgins attached a Simpsons video to demonstrate how he thinks his interview on RT would have been severely edited.
This is not the first time that Higgins’ work has faced severe criticism. Back in February, the Guardian was forced tocorrect an article co-authored by Higgins, who accused the Russian military of shooting at the Ukrainian Army from inside the Russian border.
This week also saw the manufacturer of the BUK missile system, Almaz-Antey, announce that it had conducted its own investigation into the crash of Flight MH17. The Russian defense contractor concluded that if it was indeed an anti-aircraft missile that brought down Flight MH17, it would most likely have been one from the BUK-M1 system, which the company hasn’t produced since 1999.
Almaz-Antey said that Russia no longer has such weapons in service. However, according to the company’s chief engineer, Makhail Malyshev, back in 2005 Ukraine still possessed almost 1,000 such missiles.
The Dutch investigators have not yet finished looking into the MH17 tragedy, but several leaks to the media appear to suggest the BUK missile theory remains the most prevalent.
The Ukrainian authorities and the West blame the Donetsk militias for downing the plane, saying they used a BUK surface-to-air missile provided by Russia. The accusations have been denied by the rebels, while Moscow has repeatedly cautioned against blaming anyone before the investigation into the crash is completed.
The Malaysia Airlines Boeing, which crashed in Donbass last year, may have been shot down by a military aircraft, former Russian Vice President Air Force Major General Alexander Rutskoy told Kommersant FM.
In 1985-1988, Rutskoy participated in the Soviet military campaign in Afghanistan and served as commander of an assault squadron. During the war, he conducted 485 combat flights on the Su-25 assault fighter.According to him, the left side of the Boeing’s cabin was damaged which resulted in the deaths of the crew members.
Rutskoy said that fact disproves the version that the aircraft was shot down from an anti-aircraft missile system because it does not hit a specific part of the aircraft’s body.
He also underscored that a Su-25, which was reported near the Malaysian airliner by an unidentified Ukrainian serviceman, is capable of reaching the altitude at which the Boeing was flying that day.
« In Afghanistan we flew on the Su-25. When we had to hit a target, we took off and reached an altitude of 7,000-10,000 meters. Then we turned off one of the plane’s engines and approached the target with one engine on. When we were close, we started the other engine and hit the target, ascended again and returned with one engine on, » Rutskoy said.
Malaysia Airlines’ MH17 en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur crashed on July 17, 2014 near Donetsk killing all 298 people on board. Kiev and the West blame eastern Ukrainian militia for shooting down the plane. The Donbass militia argues they do not and never did possess weapons capable of shooting down an aircraft traveling at the altitude at which flight MH17 was flying.The Russian Defense Ministry said it detected a Ukrainian military aircraft near the Boeing, at a distance of three-four kilometers. In July 2015, the Russian aviation authorities recommended to examine a version that the Malaysian aircraft might have been downed with an air-to-air missile.
The only closure normal citizens will ever get on the MH17 tragedy has already been revealed. We will never know for certain who is responsible for the deaths of 298 innocent passengers. As sad a reality as this is, the world must come to accept it.
A year of propaganda and misdirection has confounded the public over Malaysia Airlines flight MH17. At this point it seems obvious; this was a sort of “strategy” all along. The question that has haunted me since the beginning is, “Why do both sides seem content to let the drama play out?” No matter what the Dutch Safety Board, or the Joint Investigative Team (JIT) report, it will be unbelievable. One haunting fact of this case remains though, many knew what happened from the beginning. Here’s my theory as to “why” we cannot know all the facts of this case.
All of you reading this will have already familiarized yourself with the “evidence” on flight MH17. The case of the doomed airline passengers aboard the plane has been aired out in the court of public opinion. The situation we’re in now reminds me of another famous trial. The prosecution of dishonored NFL Football star O.J. Simpson over the death of his wife Nicole. The media has made a circus of this tragedy, and the blood of 298 human beings will never be avenged, justice will never be done. That said, we do have evidence as to “why” we know so little. It is circumstantial evidence I’ll grant you, but the logic follows if you will bear with me.
When I first learned of MH17 being shot down over separatist territory in East Ukraine, I instantly thought “provocation”. I cannot explain why exactly, but rebels holed up, backs to the wall, they just never seemed capable of the crime. As for the BUK missile launcher and the Twitter frenzy, the spliced and diced YouTube “proof”? Well, I can make a mashup to show anything, given the time and money. From the US State Department, The White House, and even from the Kremlin it was crystal clear the “day of” the incident, something was being hidden. To add to this, MH17 became a political football in the United States and abroad. The end fighting and posturing of officials like Senator John McCain and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it muddied the waters even more. This report from the Mail Online paints President Barack Obama as incompetent, according to McCain at least. Meanwhile the Die Welt story the day of the incident assures Germans the US “secret” agencies knew it was a “surface-to-air” missile which downed the plane. The got their “intel” from the American Federated Press (AFP) the same day! If one observes simply the “timing” of statements and reports in this case, then the whole carnival becomes surreal.
How could the AFP be on top of a story so fast? What does it take communications wise, for Yahoo! News to carry joking passenger blurbs before the sun set on dead bodies in the Donbass? You were all here, live on the Internet, Tweeting and blogging, “liking” this Facebook mention or that, and watching the news unfold on CNN, FOX, BBC, and RT. When did your “BS alarm” go off first? Mine went off as soon as I heard Ukraine’s security services had already produced what they said were two intercepted telephone conversations that showed rebels were responsible. Then within a few hours the faked videos began arriving on the social media scene, followed closely by State Department rhetoric to match. Then Secretary of State, John Kerry’s “drunken separatists” at the scene of the crash, it was clear the was a lot of “story building”, as we call it in our PR practice, going on. But the one story not rising from the ashes of MH17 was the military intelligence version. Those humongous intelligence gathering capabilities we’ve come to know, the NSA, GCHQ, space weapons galore, and the capability to see anything on or world via Google Earth even, there was utter silence from there. The most costly and controversial technologies every devised by humanity, arrayed to start, or to prevent any chance of World War III being a surprise – these proved useless, when the capability was most needed. Useless!
The reason we cannot know what happened to MH17 involves two aspects. First, any credibility on either side of this puzzle has long since been destroyed. It is my belief this has been by design. This brings us to the second point, unwillingness to reveal the true intelligence and military capabilities of the United States, and of the Russian Federation. The short version of this theory is, neither side can reveal the capabilities at hand to show proof of who killed MH17. Not to be the “all knowing” analyst here, but I suspected this all along. Then the Russian Ministry of Defense released the only credible explanation thus far. This report is important for several reasons, not the least of which is that none of its contentions have been adequately challenged on an official level. Of the report, I can say it was the ONLY attempt so far, from ANY military or other official source. This leads to my earlier question, and the supposition that “capability” is being hidden.
Lieutenant General Andrey Kartopolov challenges his US counterparts to lay down satellite and other technical proof in the case of MH17 in the report of July 21, 2014. If you listen to the broadcast from Russian command central, Kartopolov speaks of an “experimental”
I can make several points here that support my theory. First, General Kartopolov and the Russian Defense Ministry made this report based largely on civil radar information from regional air traffic control in Rostov. While understandable, the use of civilian radar and satellite imagery instead of highly advanced Russian air and space defense units in the region is telling. Even though the ministry goes farther than the Americans in compiling a plausible explanation, much lays hidden beneath the veil of measure-countermeasure strategic capability. It is in scrutinizing so-called Russian Aerospace Defense Forces, that the whole US vs. Russia information strategy over MH17 can be understood. I’ll briefly explain.
Assuming the US and Russia mutually possess similar strategic and intelligence capability, we can begin to understand why the MH17 downing was not solved early on. Neither nation can afford to reveal the depth of technologies involved or the lack of capability if there are shortcomings. It is my belief that certain “technology leaps”, may well negate any possibility of Russia coming through with damning satellite imagery of this crash. By “leaps” I simply mean, showing high resolution media or imagery of the event (for instance) would betray “exact” military capability to the Americans. The fact that Aerospace Defense Command has a station North of Ukraine in Hantsavichy, Belarus that watches everything that moves near Russia, opens up this whole discussion. This “Volga” class radar facility is mostly secret, but obviously capable of identifying the launch of any missile anywhere in Ukraine.
However capable these controversial ABM era systems may have been though, the more advanced Voronezh radars’ advancements virtually assure the MH17 event was framed like a Van Gogh handing in the Louvre museum. And neither Russia, nor America will be willing to be seen betraying ABM missile treaties, let along total military capability in space at this stage of the game. Suffice it to say here, that advanced phased array UHF and VHF radar overlap in Russia and within the Joint CIS Air Defense System can detect an object the size of a soccer ball flying in pitch dark blackness. This does not even take into account General Kartopolov’s hinting at the recently deployed Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) by the US, nor does it tell of Russian Air and Space Forces having delivered “mysterious” payloads (satellites) into orbit in 2014. Whether or not the alleged Kosmos-2499 now in orbit is a “ghost” killer satellite, or not, is irrelevant. We would be naive to believe Russian or American generals are not at war constantly, on the drawing board at least.
We have no need here of dissecting the capabilities of active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar systems, space based weapons, or other technological advancements in the US or Russian arsenals. The probability any missile was launched at an airliner near Russia territory unnoticed electronically, is virtually impossible. What is more likely, are the technology “gaps” I mentioned earlier having the effect of stalemating this investigation. Russia cannot show the missile or aircraft cannon riddling MH17 with projectiles, and neither can the Pentagon. Both capability and weakness can be revealed in IMAX-like video of the plane being hit, and then falling to Earth.
At the end of the day, we have the escalating military drills and maneuvers by NATO, and by Russia accordingly, to illustrate the intensification of international friction. The recent “Topol” ballistic missile test at the Kapustin Yar range was about more than costly saber rattling, as was reported by Western media. The lead up to hydrogen bomb warhead tipped missiles buzzing about, it began as a supposed peaceful revolution in Kiev. Now the full fledge arms race stewing underneath all these years shines brightly. This research report (PDF) by Research Associate, Jana Honkova of the George C. Marshall Institute tells us more of US and Russian attitudes toward space based weaponry, and so on. Entitled, “The Russian Federation’s Approach to Military Space and Its Military Space Capabilities”, the document unveils such classified military topics as anti-satellite weapons programs, and so forth. For the sake of this argument the reader need only focus on two aspects of this “space warfare” document. First, the fact the United States and Russia have continually engaged in “space based” strategic innovation. Secondly, that Russia would be negligent to reveal any weakness in capability. It is the latter issue that bears scrutiny, for Washington seems somewhat assured in US superiority at present. To quote the think tank study:
“Russia’s military officials, including the Deputy Commander of the Russian Space Forces for Armaments General Oleg Gromov, criticized Russian EW satellites for being “hopelessly obsolete” in 2005. Kommersant hence concluded that the 2012 US-KMO (last of the obsolete K satellites) launch “hardly strengthened” Russia’s EW (early warning) capabilities.”
Let’s be clear here. This report deals with so-called “space based” early warning systems. The radar systems I have previously discussed are land based. So you see a point of “vulnerability” in this one instance. By the nature of MH17 evidence provided, should Moscow be determined to reveal, the United States and NATO would gain advantage. Either Russian EWS capabilities might be given away, or gaps in the missile defense systems of the entire country could be discerned. I could find no data yet on the new satellite imaging capabilities of Russia via programs like the recently launched Kondor satellite, or a new program under construction by Lavochkin Aerospace. These newer satellite systems have sub-meter optical resolution capability, which would be on a par with current US capabilities. Regardless of such capability, revealing it is another story militarily.
It is in this realm of strategic intelligence, where the truth about the downing of MH17 has been stymied. At least this is one theory that has not been adequately explored in my view. Now as to ultimately responsibility for the MH17 tragedy, we can still only speculate as to where the US or Russia has more to lose or gain form supplying the full picture. We only have America’s unusual insistence Russia is somehow guilty, and without any real proof.
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2015/08/31/the-impossible-truth-about-mh17/
Pour ceux qui prétendent qu’un Sukhoï 25 ne peut pas dépasser l’altitude de 7.000 mètres.
28 octobre 2015