MH17 crash: Victims' families sue Putin and Russia

[caervek]

Lol what a joke

He's actually telling the truth, in the run up to MH17 Ukraine was complaining that their planes had been fired on and perhaps even shot down by Russian fighter jets. As a result of this they moved their Buks into the area. This is one of the problems that obfuscates everything and makes it even harder to ever find the truth, because we know for certain that Ukraine and the Ukrainian rebels had Buks in the conflict zone, and we suspect there is a strong possibility Russia may have sent some too.

[Crispin]

You're opening yourself to reverse psychology attacks if you dismiss facts just by source.

Go ahead, that just makes you easier to manipulate by anyone :P

And it was your own decision to ignore all facts and interpretations that do not fit your own viewpoint.

Eventually reality will catch up though.

Aha, sorry if I have a hard time taking Russia officials or you serious.

As G. Bush jnr would have put it.

He's actually telling the truth, in the run up to MH17 Ukraine was complaining that their planes had been fired on and perhaps even shot down by Russian fighter jets. As a result of this they moved their Buks into the area. This is one of the problems that obfuscates everything and makes it even harder to ever find the truth, because we know for certain that Ukraine and the Ukrainian rebels had Buks in the conflict zone, and we suspect there is a strong possibility Russia may have sent some too.

Still havent seen anything credible, that the terrorists hijacked a Su-25 and used it to attack govt. airplanes.

[Shalcker]

Aha, sorry if I have a hard time taking Russia officials or you serious.

They also said sun rises on the east!

Still havent seen anything credible, that the terrorists hijacked a Su-25 and used it to attack govt. airplanes.

First, nowhere it says they attacked Ukrainian planes with it. Even unreliable reports go with it just "flying" on 13th and then on 14th boasting that it did strikes on Ukrainian ground forces and destroyed several tanks (which easily could be lies). That's the entire extent of supposed rebel Su-25 involvement, nothing past that.

You subconsciousness seems to be playing tricks with your memory.

UKRAINIANS are the ones claiming their jets were shot upon and downed by Russians. Obviously they are even less reliable then those unreliable rebel sources - after all they claimed both Illovaysk and Debaltsevo cauldrons were not defeats but "orderly withdrawals"...

[Crispin]

They also said sun rises on the east!

First, nowhere it says they attacked Ukrainian planes with it. Even unreliable reports go with it just "flying" on 13th and then on 14th boasting that it did strikes on Ukrainian ground forces and destroyed several tanks (which easily could be lies). That's the entire extent of supposed rebel Su-25 involvement, nothing past that.

You subconsciousness seems to be playing tricks with your memory.

UKRAINIANS are the ones claiming their jets were shot upon and downed by Russians. Obviously they are even less reliable then those unreliable rebel sources - after all they claimed both Illovaysk and Debaltsevo cauldrons were not defeats but "orderly withdrawals"...

I don't take Ukranian sources at face value either tbh, they are after all your "brothers".

And you seem to forget, that you admitted to lying and spinning the truth to make it serve your narrative more than a year ago, but please continue, what's next on your list? american made ebola?

[caervek]

First, nowhere it says they attacked Ukrainian planes with it. Even unreliable reports go with it just "flying" on 13th and then on 14th boasting that it did strikes on Ukrainian ground forces and destroyed several tanks (which easily could be lies). That's the entire extent of supposed rebel Su-25 involvement, nothing past that.

They also have videos of their Su-25 and another plane but they are from 2015, there's nothing to say they got it running in 2014.

UKRAINIANS are the ones claiming their jets were shot upon and downed by Russians.

Ukraine went silent about that and the AA they had sent tot the area after MH17 came down, the rebels went quiet about the Ukrainian Buks they had captured too.

[Shalcker]

And you seem to forget, that you admitted to lying and spinning the truth to make it serve your narrative more than a year ago, but please continue, what's next on your list? american made ebola?

You model of my behavior is so flawed it's funny

Why do i need to spin if in this particular case facts go in my favor, and it's your side that requires "spinning" and unproven assumptions for your version to hold?

Disengaging critical thinking and going purely on emotions ("Everything they say is lies! Everything!") is obviously common pattern for all humans, but do try to think now and then, it's useful skill to practice

"If something is true, then this and this is also true (and can be checked independently), and this and this assumption becomes false" - this doesn't require you to immediately accept that indeed original assumption is true, only that reasoning based on it is sound.

[Crispin]

What facts lol, sorry but the amount of lies spewed by Russians in this case made everyone not bother anymore, I doubt I have to tell you the story about the boy who cried wolf.

[Shalcker]

What facts lol,

That Ukrainains had their anti-air forces at heightened readiness in the area, including multiple BUKs?

Or that BUK missile radar fuse works in particular way which is inconsistent with supposed rebel launch location and given damage pattern?

sorry but the amount of lies spewed by Russians in this case made everyone not bother anymore, I doubt I have to tell you the story about the boy who cried wolf.

Well, you clearly seem to still be bothered as you keep replying to it :P

[Crispin]

aha, still havent seen anything but a dead link, 1 website in russian and your claims based on some russian authority, Ill take bellingcats over your bs.

And I cant be bothered to prove your claims wrong, since you have a history of supporting Russian nonsense and put your own spin on other stuff, so Ill assume youre full of it. Credibility is extremely valuable, something some Russians dont get /shrug

[Shalcker]

aha, still havent seen anything but a dead link, 1 website in russian and your claims based on some russian authority, Ill take bellingcats over your bs.

Which "dead link"? And pretty much all Ukrainian sites at that point were done in Russian.

Ukrainians say they go to heightened readiness, their military command says they are in heightened readiness, Poroshenko visits army with BUK clearly shown behind him in TV clip - everything is obviously Russian lies! Totally.

And I cant be bothered to prove your claims wrong, since you have a history of supporting Russian nonsense and put your own spin on other stuff, so Ill assume youre full of it. Credibility is extremely valuable, something some Russians dont get /shrug

Well, you also have no history of supporting anything substantial, so no harm done.

"La-la-la i can't hear you!" is as childish as it gets.

[Deleted]

aha, still havent seen anything but a dead link, 1 website in russian and your claims based on some russian authority, Ill take bellingcats over your bs.

And I cant be bothered to prove your claims wrong, since you have a history of supporting Russian nonsense and put your own spin on other stuff, so Ill assume youre full of it. Credibility is extremely valuable, something some Russians dont get /shrug

What, are you suggesting that Bellingcat is reliable? He's a sys admin, self-taught "weapon expert".
Holy fuck, I can do it.
brb

- - - Updated - - -

Well shit, I just realized that my lies wouldn't be pro-West so I wouldn't get any money. I'll leave it up to Bellingcat instead.

[caervek]

And I cant be bothered to prove your claims wrong

His first sentence about the Ukrainians having their anti-air forces at heightened readiness in the area, including multiple BUKs doesn't take long to verify via Google however they were not close enough to the location where the missile contact allegedly happened to have been responsible. His second about "BUK missile radar fuse works in particular way which is inconsistent with supposed rebel launch location and given damage pattern?" is just as easily answered (the damage pattern indicates the missile was launched from the east of MH17 and ahead of it, deep in Rebel territory).

[Polyxo]

And then all the plaintiffs mysteriously died from acute Polonium poisoning...

[Shalcker]

His first sentence about the Ukrainians having their anti-air forces at heightened readiness in the area, including multiple BUKs doesn't take long to verify via Google however they were not close enough to the location where the missile contact allegedly happened to have been responsible. His second about "BUK missile radar fuse works in particular way which is inconsistent with supposed rebel launch location and given damage pattern?" is just as easily answered (the damage pattern indicates the missile was launched from the east of MH17 and ahead of it, deep in Rebel territory).

Can you show argumentation DSB used to come to this conclusion? Obviously second point is inconsistent with weapon tests and expected warhead behavior. More tests were offered by Almaz-Antey in any required configurations to confirm this.

First point was refuted at first Russian MoD press-conference (showing satellite images of BUKs south from MH17 flight path). Obviously no Ukrainian BUKs were around Snezhnoye; but all Almaz-Antey tests and simulations show crossing course as the only possibility rather then head-on.

[Skroe]

Another bullshit. Our cities were and are still targeted. Our cities were PRIMARY target when nukes were at their beginning.

Decades ago? Like in the 1950s? Yes.

But much has changed since the 1950s. Cities haven't been primary targets since the invention of ICBM with truly global reach.

Cities WERE the primary targets when "nuclear war" meant bombers droping bombs, at which point, preventing launch was moot: only aircraft could interdict enemy bombers. It made sense to target civilian populations then because there was no point nuking something that already launched.

But since the ICBM showed up, the ability to knock out the other side's ability to nuke you became a reality. So much mid-to-late cold war nuclear strategy was based around the realistic chances of successful counter-force strikes (and what that would look like) rather than counter value.

[Crispin]

What, are you suggesting that Bellingcat is reliable? He's a sys admin, self-taught "weapon expert".
Holy fuck, I can do it.
brb

- - - Updated - - -

Well shit, I just realized that my lies wouldn't be pro-West so I wouldn't get any money. I'll leave it up to Bellingcat instead.

And Shalcker is what? Seems you missed the point.

[Skroe]

Tell that to yourself. I still remember you saying that Bulava is shit because it didn't launch properly when the development began - and they fixed it.
But you ignored it and now you're saying something about "development".

Your opinions aren't consistent. You're talking bullshit. And you know it.

No. They're consistent. There is a key difference.

The US interceptors are breakthrough technology. Nobody has developed anything like them, or is approaching their level of complexity. They've been world leading, the first implimentation, in every respect. The US allowance for failed implimentation is more understandable because it's iterating through designs to get to a final, evolved concept over a period of decades with many, many tests. It doesn't have an example to follow. Something like a Multi-Kill Vehicle emerged organically out of the process of identifying weaknesses that could only be achieved by implimenting the current/previous interceptors.

Bulava is something quite different. There is nothing new about Bulava. It's a less capable Russian version of the Trident II D5, which the US has had since the late 1980s. The French have something similar. The criticism of Bulava is not in the natural process of getting a rocket to work - that's fine. It's in what is associated with that. First and foremost, Putinistas like yourself, declaring at the top of your lungs it provides some new capability (it doesn't, it's just a less capable Trident II d5 and it's principle advantage is it's cost effectiveness towards Russia, more on that in a second). Secondly Russia's failure to impliment a SLBM that is NOT in anyway revolutionary should be criticized. Until US missile defense, it is not trailblazing any new ground.

But the worst indictment of Bulava is programmatic. The absolute worst. It isn't, but let's pretend for a moment, it could be, this wondrous breakthrough SLBM. It doesn't matter so long as Bulavas, and the Borei's it carry, exist in the fleet along side Delta III, Delta IV, and Typhoons. It *completely* defeats the purpose of Bulava and Borei. What do I mean by that? When the Ohio class was being built, the US very quickly rapidly retired the preceding James Madison and Benjamin Franklin classes. And when the Trident II D5 came online, the US very quickly retired the Trident I C4 and any remaining Polaris missiles. Why? Because it very wisely wanted to pay for the industrial base (and cost of ownership) of ONE SLBM and ONE Ballistic Missile Submarine.

Russia, in it's infinite wisdom, has decided not just to procure Boreis, but keep one Typhoon in service... for some reason... and 4 Delta IIIs and 6 Delta IVs in service, indefinitely. And missile wise, the Boreis carry the Bulava while the Delta IV carry the completely different (and much less capable) R-29RMU which for some ungodly reason is liquid fueled. The Delta IIIs carry the R-29R, which is completely different from the R-29RMU, and even less capable. Oh and it gets better, the solitary in service Typhoon-class carries the also completely different has several tubes modified for Bulava, but otherwise carries nothing, as its R-39 SLBMs were retired a decade ago.


So even if Bulava was a technical success (it's not), it's still a programmic failure because Russia has decides to keep ownership of 4 classes of boats and three classes of SLBMs. And that doesn't even c over nuclear-armed cruise missiles on their cruise missile subs. That's a total of seven standing industrial bases, rather than two for the US. And that's why the US pays a smaller percentage of it's defense budget on nuclear weapons than Russia (about less than half as much).

If Russia had any brains working in it's defense establishment, they would mass retire the Delta IIIs and R-29s they carry, and the Typhoon, and get the Delta IVs out of service by 2020, and go to an all-Borei/all-Bulava force by 2020. That was in fact, the original plan. That was the justification for Bulava and Borei. But it was shelved two years ago with no indication of returning. And juding by the fact that the -incredibly liquid fueled SLBM - R-29RMU first flew in 2007, it may never have been serious.

Things like this episode above make it very hard to take Russia serious as a country capable of producing AND FIELDING advanced military hardware. For all it's problems, the US still is retiring 200 F-16s per year (down to about 900 now from double that a few years ago) to make room for the F-35. It mass-retired an entire class of Destroyers to make room for the Arleigh Burkes. The Los Angeles class attack sub force is being retired en-masse. Get ready for when the B-21 starts being produced in lots of 20 - the B-1B (probably, less likely the B-52) will start being retired en-masse. The US is not afraid of "giving up" to "move forward".

This has been my recurring indictment of the Russian defense establishment and how I find it incredible that Putinistas boast about it and take Russia's defense planning seriously. You want to see a recurring theme? Again:

Make a bunch of big headlines about Armata -> Modernize and Buy more T-72s and T-90s.
Make a big show of the T-50 PAK FA -> Buy 30 Su-35s and other Su-27s derivitives, cut T-50 orders to 4.
Hype Precision Guided Munitions in Syria -> burn through most of the stockpile in 5 days.
Announces the creation of a professional contract military a decade ago-> in 2016 2/3rds of the armed forces are still conscripts (the US went all-professional in about 2 years).
Hype super-long range A2/AD S-400 systems -> forget to mention that only a handful of missiles in the world are long ranged, and the overwhelming majority are ~40-90km range, significantly less than most anti-radiation missiles in the world. Also forget to to mention that they can only fire 4 of the long range missiles due to increased size.
Announce that the Angara is ready to go -> modernize the Proton and Soyuz2 further rather than rapidly retire them both.

We even see it in space travel. How many new space vehicles has Russia announced in the past decade and a half? It averages about one every 2 years. And instead what are they doing? Planning another decade of Soyuz capsule launches, a design that's changed little in 50 years and whose capability was maxed out about 40 years ago.

I see it like this. In Borei, in Bulava, in T-50 PAK FA, in Armata, in Angara, Russia has a vision of what it would like to do. But their so much more complex, expensive and possibly beyond Russia's technical skill to affordably or timely produce (and then maintain) them, they're stuck going back to legacy platforms. I think the T-50 PAK FA is the clearest example of this. The thing people claimed about Russia is they were able to produce a weapon system 80% as effective as a US system, at a fraction the cost. And yet we see in the T-50, 80% of an F-22 is still extremely complex, and a fraction the cost of a $400 million fighter jet is still a lot more than Russia has ever paid for one fighter (by about 350% give or take). The "80% concept" may not be realistic for 21st century, high tech weaponry.

There is also the story of how Russia got there. The Soviet Union produced all these highly redundant systems to keep "design bureaus" open and "in business" and the Soviet's constituency placated. But it got way out of control. A decade ago Vladmir Putin did one of the smartest things a Russian leader could do, which is to begin the consolidation of those vast industries into mega-firms (i.e. United Aircraft Corporation). 100% the right thing to do. Except it was only a half measure, because (1) he made it mostly state owned and (2) again to keep his inner circle happy, legacy design bureaus weren't shuttered and products were purchased from them.

So my criticism is very valid. Nuanced, sure, but not at all hypocritical. There are projects the US screws the pooch on to be sure. But it isn't afraid of getting rid of stuff and it generally tries to avoid duplication in order to suppress cost of ownership. Until Russia does that... until they mass retire the Delta III and Delta IV and give a carved-in-stone date to retire everything that isn't an Armata, it's very hard to take the claim that Russia's defense is modernizing and competitive with the west seriously at all. That doesn't make it not dangerous. That just makes it mostly full of shit.

[caervek]

Obviously second point is inconsistent with weapon tests and expected warhead behavior.

There's a very detailed article here: http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17....hot-down-mh17/

Towards the end it explains that due to the “side looking” proximity fuse the missile had to have been fired ahead of the plane and to the east of it.

First point was refuted at first Russian MoD press-conference (showing satellite images of BUKs south from MH17 flight path).

"south from MH17 flight path" well considering it was in rebel territory, then south of that is either more rebel positions or Russia lol.