Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Iron_Captain**

This was just posted on RT and I thought it would be interesting to post it here:
Ten questions Deputy Defense Minister of the Russian Federation Anatoly Antonov wants to ask the Ukrainian authorities about MH17.

TEN QUESTIONS FOR THE UKRAINIAN AUTHORITIES

1. Immediately after the tragedy, the Ukrainian authorities, naturally, blamed it on the self-defense forces. What are these accusations based on?

2. Can Kiev explain in detail how it uses Buk missile launchers in the conflict zone? And why were these systems deployed there in the first place, seeing as the self-defense forces don’t have any planes?

3. Why are the Ukrainian authorities not doing anything to set up an international commission? When will such a commission begin its work?

4. Would the Ukrainian Armed Forces be willing to let international investigators see the inventory of their air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, including those used in SAM launchers?

5. Will the international commission have access to tracking data from reliable sources regarding the movements of Ukrainian warplanes on the day of the tragedy?

6. Why did Ukrainian air traffic controllers allow the plane to deviate from the regular route to the north, towards “the anti-terrorist operation zone”?

7. Why was airspace over the warzone not closed for civilian flights, especially since the area was not entirely covered by radar navigation systems?

8. How can official Kiev comment on reports in the social media, allegedly by a Spanish air traffic controller who works in Ukraine, that there were two Ukrainian military planes flying alongside the Boeing 777 over Ukrainian territory?

9. Why did Ukraine’s Security Service start working with the recordings of communications between Ukrainian air traffic controllers and the Boeing crew and with the data storage systems from Ukrainian radars without waiting for international investigators?

10. What lessons has Ukraine learned from a similar incident in 2001, when a Russian Tu-154 crashed into the Black Sea? Back then, the Ukrainian authorities denied any involvement on the part of Ukraine’s Armed Forces until irrefutable evidence proved official Kiev to be guilty.

Full article: http://rt.com/news/173976-mh17-crash-questions-ukraine/

**Soladrin**

Iron_Captain wrote:
This was just posted on RT and I thought it would be interesting to post it here:
Ten questions Deputy Defense Minister of the Russian Federation Anatoly Antonov wants to ask the Ukrainian authorities about MH17.

TEN QUESTIONS FOR THE UKRAINIAN AUTHORITIES

1. Immediately after the tragedy, the Ukrainian authorities, naturally, blamed it on the self-defense forces. What are these accusations based on?

2. Can Kiev explain in detail how it uses Buk missile launchers in the conflict zone? And why were these systems deployed there in the first place, seeing as the self-defense forces don’t have any planes?

3. Why are the Ukrainian authorities not doing anything to set up an international commission? When will such a commission begin its work?

4. Would the Ukrainian Armed Forces be willing to let international investigators see the inventory of their air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, including those used in SAM launchers?

5. Will the international commission have access to tracking data from reliable sources regarding the movements of Ukrainian warplanes on the day of the tragedy?

6. Why did Ukrainian air traffic controllers allow the plane to deviate from the regular route to the north, towards “the anti-terrorist operation zone”?

7. Why was airspace over the warzone not closed for civilian flights, especially since the area was not entirely covered by radar navigation systems?

8. How can official Kiev comment on reports in the social media, allegedly by a Spanish air traffic controller who works in Ukraine, that there were two Ukrainian military planes flying alongside the Boeing 777 over Ukrainian territory?

9. Why did Ukraine’s Security Service start working with the recordings of communications between Ukrainian air traffic controllers and the Boeing crew and with the data storage systems from Ukrainian radars without waiting for international investigators?

10. What lessons has Ukraine learned from a similar incident in 2001, when a Russian Tu-154 crashed into the Black Sea? Back then, the Ukrainian authorities denied any involvement on the part of Ukraine’s Armed Forces until irrefutable evidence proved official Kiev to be guilty.

Full article: http://rt.com/news/173976-mh17-crash-questions-ukraine/

I'd be fine with these questions, if we we get to ask Russia 10 questions in the same style.

Anyway, the biggest problem for me with the entire thing is still this:

Why the hell were airlines still flying planes over a warzone?

**Experiment 626**

Soladrin wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
This was just posted on RT and I thought it would be interesting to post it here:
Ten questions Deputy Defense Minister of the Russian Federation Anatoly Antonov wants to ask the Ukrainian authorities about MH17.

TEN QUESTIONS FOR THE UKRAINIAN AUTHORITIES

1. Immediately after the tragedy, the Ukrainian authorities, naturally, blamed it on the self-defense forces. What are these accusations based on?

2. Can Kiev explain in detail how it uses Buk missile launchers in the conflict zone? And why were these systems deployed there in the first place, seeing as the self-defense forces don’t have any planes?

3. Why are the Ukrainian authorities not doing anything to set up an international commission? When will such a commission begin its work?

4. Would the Ukrainian Armed Forces be willing to let international investigators see the inventory of their air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, including those used in SAM launchers?

5. Will the international commission have access to tracking data from reliable sources regarding the movements of Ukrainian warplanes on the day of the tragedy?

6. Why did Ukrainian air traffic controllers allow the plane to deviate from the regular route to the north, towards “the anti-terrorist operation zone”?

7. Why was airspace over the warzone not closed for civilian flights, especially since the area was not entirely covered by radar navigation systems?

8. How can official Kiev comment on reports in the social media, allegedly by a Spanish air traffic controller who works in Ukraine, that there were two Ukrainian military planes flying alongside the Boeing 777 over Ukrainian territory?

9. Why did Ukraine’s Security Service start working with the recordings of communications between Ukrainian air traffic controllers and the Boeing crew and with the data storage systems from Ukrainian radars without waiting for international investigators?

10. What lessons has Ukraine learned from a similar incident in 2001, when a Russian Tu-154 crashed into the Black Sea? Back then, the Ukrainian authorities denied any involvement on the part of Ukraine’s Armed Forces until irrefutable evidence proved official Kiev to be guilty.

Full article: http://rt.com/news/173976-mh17-crash-questions-ukraine/

I'd be fine with these questions, if we we get to ask Russia 10 questions in the same style.

Anyway, the biggest problem for me with the entire thing is still this:

Why the hell were airlines still flying planes over a warzone?

Because they were flying in a well known commercial corridor, that is also the main route from that area of Europe to southeast Asia.
The plane was flying at 33,000 feet - the IAA's recommendation & warning for that area was for all civil aircraft to maintain at least 32,000 feet cruising altitude.

The military planes the rebels had been shooting at fly at much lower altitudes.

They done Don't bypass the language filter like this Reds8n , up big time! Putin and Russia are not getting out of this one cleanly.

**Soladrin**

I have yet to point a finger to any one side and will still refrain from doing so until we get some evidence. I'd suggest you do the same.

**d-usa**

It's interesting to watch the flights today:

One guy has balls

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
It's interesting to watch the flights today:

One guy has balls

LOL!

I laughed too hard at that.

**d-usa**

I think it's an air traffic control map, so it would probably include military transport flights as well. Which makes me think it's probably that. Seems unlikely that any civilian flight would be over that area today.

**Soladrin**

d-usa wrote:
It's interesting to watch the flights today:

One guy has balls

I saw this 2 seconds after someone on a counter strike GO stream said LETS DO THIS.

Perfect timing. Have an exalt.

**Jihadin**

If the Sep's had control of Buk system for over a week. No one gave a heads up to everyone flying that the thing has a 81K feet range? That three aircrafts been "downed" in that AO..was someone waiting for something like this to happen? Just saying

**Soladrin**

Jihadin wrote:
If the Sep's had control of Buk system for over a week. No one gave a heads up to everyone flying that the thing has a 81K feet range? That three aircrafts been "downed" in that AO..was someone waiting for something like this to happen? Just saying

Pretty much what I was thinking.

**EmilCrane**

Kiev government has released phone conversations between the separatist leaders stating that they shot down the plane thinking it was a military aircraft. Obviously this is unconfirmed.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/18/world/europe/ukraine-mh17-intercepted-audio/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

**d-usa**

Didn't Russian News themselves report that the rebels brought the plane down when they still thought it was a Ukranian transport plane?

http://en.itar-tass.com/world/741164

DONETSK, July 17. /ITAR-TASS/. Militiamen of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) brought down a military transport Antonov-26 (An-26) plane of the Ukrainian Air Force on the outskirts of the town of Torez, eyewitnesses said.

A missile hit the An-26, it fell on the ground and caught blaze, they said.

On July 14, militiamen of the self-proclaimed Luhansk People’s Republic downed another An-26 of the Ukrainian Air Force.

**Kilkrazy**

Soladrin wrote:
... ...

I'd be fine with these questions, if we we get to ask Russia 10 questions in the same style.

Anyway, the biggest problem for me with the entire thing is still this:

Why the hell were airlines still flying planes over a warzone?

It is easy to be wise after the event, but if we are honest, there have been many cases of people shooting down airliners not in war zones. For example the Russians shot down a Korean airliner. The US shot down an Iranian airliner. Both cases were essentially accidents or mistakes by regular forces. I am afraid it is a hazard of modern air travel, when there are so many weapons in the world.

There was an advisory not to fly below 30,000 feet. Only high power AA missiles would be able to hit planes above that. No-one expected that anyone would have such missiles or be foolish enough to shoot at civilian airliners.

Some airlines were taking the path of caution and not flying through the area anyway. I would guess that Air Malaysia flew through because it is the more direct route and therefore uses the least fuel. After the crash earlier in the year they had to drop their ticket prices and would want to save fuel costs.

**Relapse**

What happened was a tragedy, but what the heck was a commercial airliner doing flying over a warzone? The U.S. Is guilty of the same thing a lot of people are hot to rip someone else's ass up about.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

My wife at the time was in India when this happened and had to say she was Canadian to avoid being mobbed or killed since there were Indians that died on that flight.

**d-usa**

Relapse wrote:
What happened was a tragedy, but what the heck was a commercial airliner doing flying over a warzone?

Ukraine kept the space open and cleared planes to fly above 33,000. The great circle routes are still the best way to get from point A to point B, so some airlines kept on following it. I'm sure cost has a lot to do with it.

The U.S. Is guilty of the same thing a lot of people are hot to rip someone else's ass up about.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

My wife at the time was in India when this happened and had to say she was Canadian to avoid being mobbed or killed since there were Indians that died on that flight.

That was a cluster, but at least we took responsibility.

**Relapse**

Can the way the Korean airliner that got shot down was handled be looked at as a template for what is going on now?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007

**-Shrike-**

Soladrin wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
If the Sep's had control of Buk system for over a week. No one gave a heads up to everyone flying that the thing has a 81K feet range? That three aircrafts been "downed" in that AO..was someone waiting for something like this to happen? Just saying

Pretty much what I was thinking.

I thought it was actually confirmed that both sides had Buks in the area (or at the very least, the separatists had control of a single buk system), so I agree with what Jihadin said.

**Seaward**

They've had BUKs for a while, whether we're talking about Ukraine and Russia or Ukraine and Ukrainian insurgents.

Not that huge of an issue for commercial aviation, or at least it shouldn't have been. Airliners bus their way through the sky merrily squawking "DON'T SHOOT ME I R CATTLE CAR I HAVE CIVILIANS" (aka Mode 3) to anybody who bothers to interrogate, and they have done and likely will continue to do it over conflict zones unless a true air war breaks out.

Either the insurgents just shot before interrogating, or, like in the case of the Iranian shoot-down by us, managed to completely forget everything they ever learned about transponder codes.

**d-usa**

Seaward wrote:
They've had BUKs for a while, whether we're talking about Ukraine and Russia or Ukraine and Ukrainian insurgents.

Not that huge of an issue for commercial aviation, or at least it shouldn't have been. Airliners bus their way through the sky merrily squawking "DON'T SHOOT ME I R CATTLE CAR I HAVE CIVILIANS" (aka Mode 3) to anybody who bothers to interrogate, and they have done and likely will continue to do it over conflict zones unless a true air war breaks out.

Either the insurgents just shot before interrogating, or, like in the case of the Iranian shoot-down by us, managed to completely forget everything they ever learned about transponder codes.

From the little bit I have been reading about this it seems like it is a lot easier to track something and shot it than it is to actually try to figure out what it is you are shooting at. Any knowledge if there is any truth in that?

**Seaward**

d-usa wrote:
From the little bit I have been reading about this it seems like it is a lot easier to track something and shot it than it is to actually try to figure out what it is you are shooting at. Any knowledge if there is any truth in that?

Absolutely true, if everyone's not playing correctly on both sides of the transponder.

A good (read: tragic) example is the F-15 shootdown of two Blackhawks in Iraq in 1994. Two F-15s start out patrolling the no-fly zone. Two MH-60s ferrying around UN inspectors or something enter it. The Blackhawks are squawking correctly on Mode 2, but squawking incorrectly on Mode 1. The F-15s eventually pick them up on radar, read them as Hinds instead of Blackhawks, and interrogate in Mode 1 (which returns a bad squawk) and Mode 4 (which does likewise), never interrogate Mode 2, and go, "Yep, definitely Hinds, AMRAAMs away." Made all the more improbable by the fact that the airspace was being controlled by Air Force AWACS who knew about both flights, were monitoring both, but just didn't put two and two together before the shooting started.

**Pacific**

Jihadin wrote:
If the Sep's had control of Buk system for over a week. No one gave a heads up to everyone flying that the thing has a 81K feet range? That three aircrafts been "downed" in that AO..was someone waiting for something like this to happen? Just saying

"It was a Civil Aviation Authority proscribed route, no official warning had been issued, they were flying above the proscribed 32,000ft" is a rather ridiculous thing to say in light of what has been happening in that region. It's the equivalent of wandering onto a railway track drunk because no-one has told you not to.

When I was flying over Europe during the Kosovan conflict, all civil flights had been re-routed along alternative flight paths. Had the same thing happen over the middle east in the early 00's.

Considering that within that region we have seen a fighter and transport aircraft downed over the past few weeks, you have to wonder at the wisdom of continuing flight paths over the Ukraine. This is compounded by the fact that almost half of the airline companies had recognised that there was danger involved, and had re-routed. Qantas for instance had a 400 mile no-fly zone. That company obviously has danger-prevention departments that are working correctly, and correctly estimated something that would have been obvious to even the layman - that flying over a politically unstable region, with extremely dangerous AA weaponry that was out of state control (and furthermore, had been used within the last week to down aircraft!) constituted a risk to civil aircraft.

Yes, this is Russia's fault for letting this situation develop in their own back yard, and helping to foster instability. It's also somewhat a result of existing instabilities in the region that have existed since the breakup of the USSR. But, the airline company must accept some of the responsibility for this. You don't sail a boat next to the rocks in stormy weather, it's as simple as that. This will no doubt kill Malaysian Airlines, and in my opinion it is deserved - they have failed in the most fundamental component of their business, which is to safely ferry their passengers from point A to point B.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Yeah, it has to make people wonder about the competence of Malaysia Airlines after misplacing one aircraft, and sending another into an active war zone where even military aircraft are getting shot down.

Someone high up in MA ought to be getting charged over this, gross negligence or whatever.

**Ouze**

d-usa wrote:

The U.S. Is guilty of the same thing a lot of people are hot to rip someone else's ass up about.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

My wife at the time was in India when this happened and had to say she was Canadian to avoid being mobbed or killed since there were Indians that died on that flight.

That was a cluster, but at least we took responsibility.

Yes,in that we never denied it was us. However, it did lead to what is (in my opinion) one of the worst quotes and viewpoints in modern American politics:

"I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy." - George H.W. Bush.

I think one of the hallmarks of maturity is being able to freely admit when you're wrong, and my friend, when you accidentally kill 300 people, my friend, that's an apologizing situation.

Not trying to drag this offtopic into American politics, but I felt that since this episode came up organically, it would be remiss not to follow up with how our government handled it.

**Ketara**

I'm more or less convinced it was the Ukrainian rebels.

At the same time though, I'm not entirely surprised that it occurred. Ukraine's major advantage over the rebels to date has been air power, so it would make sense for Russia to supply anti-air systems to Donetsk to hold off the forthcoming offensive. Clearly they didn't also supply trained personnel capable of recognising the difference between civilian and military aircraft. One must wonder about the wisdom in flying civilian flights over warzones as well.

For those already convinced of the evils of the Donetsk rebellion and Russia, further proof of their unrelenting barbarity. For those blinded to everything Western, a Ukrainian conspiracy. For the rest of us? A tragedy, and a mistake made in wartime that had horrendous consequences. Like many that have happened in the past, and will no doubt happen again in the future. My condolences to the grieving families.

**Sigvatr**

Ukraine definitely has its share on this tragedy seeing that they still allowed air traffic to fly over a terrorist-controlled zone.

Nevertheless, Russia has again shown their complete lack of interest in resolving or even de-escalating the conflict. The worst thing is that it still isn't possible to properly research the crash site due to terrorists hindering observers and purposefully manipulating it. The inactivity of the West in taking the terrorists down along with Russia maybe even directly supporting them, has now costed 300 civilian lives. It's getting worse day by day.

**Iron_Captain**

-Shrike- wrote:
Soladrin wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
If the Sep's had control of Buk system for over a week. No one gave a heads up to everyone flying that the thing has a 81K feet range? That three aircrafts been "downed" in that AO..was someone waiting for something like this to happen? Just saying

Pretty much what I was thinking.

I thought it was actually confirmed that both sides had Buks in the area (or at the very least, the separatists had control of a single buk system), so I agree with what Jihadin said.

Yeah, I believe it was confirmed that the Seperatists stole a Buk launcher vehicle from an Ukrainian base a few weeks ago. I don't know where that information comes from, but I've read it in several (Dutch as well as Russian) newspapers.

**Soladrin**

Just read a statement from Ukraine saying the separatists have taken away 38 bodies. Ukraine obviously says this is to hide evidence.

Regardless of the reason, if this is even remotely true it is completely unacceptable.

**ski2060**

To those talking about "why were they flying there in the first place" The airspace below 33K feet had been closed, but opened up above that. 55 flights that same day had flown through that corridor or nearby, and there as a flight within 15 miles of the MH17 flight at the same altitude.

The only planes being shot at had been flying well below that altitude with different flight profiles.

**Experiment 626**

Soladrin wrote:
Just read a statement from Ukraine saying the separatists have taken away 38 bodies. Ukraine obviously says this is to hide evidence.

Regardless of the reason, if this is even remotely true it is completely unacceptable.

The fact that the separatists are completely countering any type of real international attempts to secure the crime scene, or even deal with the victims remains with even a shred of dignity is damning enough.
If they didn't do it as they stupidly try to claim, why are they so damn intent on preventing any kind of investigation?

The fact that the initial team of European Security Observers have reported that many of the rebels "guarding" the crime scene have appeared drunk is just disgusting.
For 2 days now the victims remains have been left rotting on scene, alongside reports of looting of their personal belongings. If the rebels had even a shred of humanity about them, they'd at least be letting international personnel in to remove the remains so that the families can have a better sense of closure.

**Soladrin**

ski2060 wrote:
To those talking about "why were they flying there in the first place" The airspace below 33K feet had been closed, but opened up above that. 55 flights that same day had flown through that corridor or nearby, and there as a flight within 15 miles of the MH17 flight at the same altitude.

The only planes being shot at had been flying well below that altitude with different flight profiles.

So, does that excuse them flying through a warzone where anti-air missiles with a range of up to 72.000 feet were already confirmed?