[mafarrico]

Russian Missiles Shoot Down Ukrainian Surveillance Drones Over Crimea

http://sputniknews.com/russia/20141209/1015647016.html

[Crypter]

Site muito interessante:

http://www.stopfake.org/en/news

Era para o colocar no tópico da Guerra da Ucrânia, mas o mesmo está bloqueado..

[mafarrico]

unir os pontos

http://actmedia.eu/daily/two-romanian-m ... rill/53034

For one week, militaries of Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Italy, Turkey, Romania and SNMCMG2 (Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Group 2) will carry out life search and rescue drills on sea, castaway recouping, commercial ship traffic monitoring exercises, reaction exercises upon receiving an asymmetric threat warning, mine countermeasure drills, anti-submarine fight drills, as well as artillery fire drills with the weapons on board.

Four NATO warships entered the Black Sea waters on Thursday to participate in joint military manoeuvres with the naval forces of Romania and Bulgaria, the North-Atlantic Alliance announced in a release quoted by US portal RTT News.

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics_u ... and_cover-

The radio intercept evidence should be treated with special caution.  It is certain that some genuine conversations are reported.  However there are strong reasons to think the evidence has been doctored.  Some of the conversations give the clear impression of having taken place earlier, in connection with the shoot down by the militia of an entirely different Ukrainian AN 26 military transport aircraft, which happened earlier in the conflict.  It seems conversations that took place on different days, some of which have no connection to MH 17, were combined to give a stronger impression of militia responsibility for the tragedy.
The radio intercepts nonetheless show that on the day of the tragedy, in its immediate aftermath, as rebel militiamen were inspecting the wreckage, some militiamen and militia commanders assumed the aircraft that turned out to be MH 17 had been show down by the militia and said as much to each other.
This evidence has however been wrongly interpreted.  It does not prove the rebel militia shot MH 17 down as many in the western media appear to think.  Rather what it shows is that on the day of the tragedy some rebel militia and some militia commanders thought this was the case.
In itself that is not particularly significant.  Several Ukrainian military aircraft (including the AN 26 transport aircraft mentioned previously) had been shot down by the rebel militia over the previous days.  In light of this, in the absence of any information to the contrary, it would have been an altogether natural assumption for rebel militiamen and commanders on the scene of the crash to make, that it was some of their own people who had shot the aircraft whose wreckage they were inspecting down.
Significantly none of the intercepts released show militiamen either admitting to their own personal involvement in shooting the aircraft that turned out to be MH 17 down or saying that they had spoken to anyone who had.  That reinforces the impression the militiamen and commanders were speaking from assumption rather than knowledge.
Though the assumption was a natural one, that does not necessarily make it true.  The militia has subsequently claimed that it lacked the capability to shoot down an aircraft flying at the altitude MH 17 was flying.  If this is so, then the militia could not have shot MH 17 down, even if on the day of the tragedy, some of them might have thought so.

The fact the militia may have captured a BUK missile launcher or launchers in June does not prove they used one or more of these launchers to shoot down MH 17 in July.  For that to have happened the BUK missile launcher or launchers must have been captured in an operational condition and the militia must in the short time available have found operators either in Ukraine or Russia capable of operating of them notwithstanding that they are a complicated piece of equipment.  Khodakovsky, one of the militia's commanders, is reported to have told Reuters that all the BUK missile launchers that the militia captured at the base were not in an operational condition.  Russian sources say that it takes a minimum of 6 months for personnel to learn how to operate a BUK.

There has been a tendency to link the presence of these holes with the presence of Ukrainian military aircraft in the area as confirmed by the Russian radar data.  Since what caused these holes has not yet been conclusively established, this is to speculate beyond the facts.  Once proper forensic tests of the aircraft wreckage have taken place it may become possible to revisit this issue.   Until then the evidence provided by the holes does not bear the weight of some of the speculations that have been built on it.

The German intelligence agency the BND has apparently now concluded that the Russians did not supply a BUK missile launcher to the militia.  In reaching this conclusion the BND rejected the evidence of the social media images and has apparently accused the Ukrainians of fabricating at least some of them.  If only for this reason all this evidence from social media, including the picture allegedly showing a BUK missile system in Torez, should be rejected.  For what it is worth a group of residents of Torez were reported by western journalists as denying there had been a BUK missile launcher there.
The same is true of the comment supposedly posted on a social media strike by the militia commander Igor Strelkov.  There are serious doubts about whether he did in fact post this comment.  The alleged comment would anyway be evidence of the same sort as the radio intercepts.  It would show that immediately after the MH 17 was shot down Strelkov thought the militia had shot it down thinking it was a Ukrainian military aircraft.  It would not show that the militia did in fact shoot MH 17 down.  

The sum total of the evidence therefore is that MH 17 was shot down by an aircraft or more probably by a BUK surface-to-air missile in an area where Ukrainian aircraft and BUK missile launchers were present, but where the presence of a BUK surface-to-air missile launcher in the possession of the militia has not been proved.  
Though the evidence is hardly compelling, such as it is it tends to point to Ukrainian responsibility for the tragedy.  Whilst it is clear the Ukrainian military had the capability to shoot MH 17 down, it is not clear the militia did.  If the militia did not have the capability to shoot MH 17 down, then they could not have done it regardless of what some of them may have thought on the day of the tragedy.  If the militia did not shoot MH 17 down, then the Ukrainian military must have done it since no other explanation is possible.  However if the militia did shoot MH 17, then it was done by mistake.
The literature on the tragedy is enormous but the evidence does not go beyond the bare facts contained in the previous two paragraphs.

If western journalists wish to prove the militia’s possession of a BUK missile launcher, they are anyway looking in the wrong place.  
Satellite imagery on the area in the possession of the western powers should settle this question beyond doubt.  The western powers (the United States in particular) have however refused to release their satellite imagery despite being challenged repeatedly by the Russians to do so.  This despite the fact that Secretary of State Kerry has confirmed the US has satellite imagery of the area taken on the day of the tragedy.  
No good explanation has been provided for the refusal to publish this imagery.  Instead the US government demands that its account of the tragedy, which is that MH 17 was shot down by a surface-to-air missile launched from “rebel controlled territory”, be accepted on trust.  Amazingly the western media appears to accept this.  The campaign to demand the release of this imagery that might have been expected has failed to happen.

All this energy spent chasing around the Ukrainian countryside and the internet looking for a phantom BUK missile launcher appears anyway misplaced when the presence of very real Ukrainian BUK missile launchers in the area on the day of the tragedy has been proved beyond doubt.  
It is difficult to see this as due to anything other than bias.   The western media has convinced itself the militia shot MH 17 down.  Anyone who disagrees is howled down.  Accordingly, instead of trying to find out what actually happened, the western media looks for evidence to prove what it believes it already knows.  Any evidence that points in a different direction (such as the presence of Ukrainian BUK missile launchers in the area) is simply ignored.  

It would not in fact have been such proof, just as the presence of Ukrainian BUK missile launchers is not proof it was the Ukrainians who shot MH 17 down. Even if it is eventually proved that the militia did actually have a BUK missile launcher in the area, that would not prove that it was that launcher that shot MH 17 down.  Given the presence of Ukrainian BUK missile launchers in the same area, it would still be possible for one of them to have shot MH 17 down.
The presence of Ukrainian BUK missile launchers in the area on the day of the tragedy ought at the very least to provoke questions of the Ukrainians.  The western media is not asking them.

The inquiry seems to be controlled by the western powers with the nominal lead taken by the Dutch.
Though the accident inquiry is working in part at least on the basis of a mandate from the UN Security Council, it is not reporting to the UN Security Council.  Nor is the crime inquiry about which very little is known.  Moreover it seems an agreement exists that the conclusions of the accident inquiry will not be published without the unanimous agreement of all its members.  One of those members is Ukraine, which has the strongest possible interest in the outcome.  In fact Ukraine’s interest is so strong that it ought not to to be taking part in the inquiry at all because of the obvious conflict of interest.

The problems really begin if, as is perhaps likely, it is established that MH 17 was shot down by a surface-to-air missile.  
That fact by itself would not say who launched the missile.  That is not a question that can be answered by the sort of purely technical investigation that is taking place.  To answer that question a much more thorough inquiry is needed.
A proper inquiry into this tragedy would not restrict itself to technical questions.   Given the known presence of Ukrainian BUK missile launchers in the area and the allegations made against the militia, a proper inquiry would send out investigators to question those who might be responsible.   These would include the political leadership of the two sides, the various military commanders, relevant military personnel including the personnel of the Ukrainian BUK missile launchers visible in the Russian satellite imagery, the Ukrainian personnel and militia present at the base where the BUK missile launcher was allegedly captured (to ascertain if one really was captured and if so what condition it was in) and anyone else, such as communications workers passing information and instructions up and down the various command chains, who might have relevant information about what happened.  

Meanwhile the investigations into the tragedy appear to be going nowhere whilst the western powers persist in their refusal to release their satellite imagery.  It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is happening because the evidence is not turning out as the western powers want it to.

http://rt.com/news/212299-ukraine-ignored-eu-mh17/

The European air traffic control regulator urged Kiev to close the southeast of Ukraine for civilian aircraft days before the MH17 flight was downed near Donetsk, but the plea was ignored by local authorities, a new report claims.

Eurocontrol experts spoke privately to their Ukrainian colleagues about the danger of the situation in the east of the country, unnamed sources in the organization told the Sunday Times newspaper.

They were reportedly concerned that by that time anti-Kiev militias had already downed about 20 Ukrainian military planes; that the communication frequencies were jammed in the Donetsk Region; and that the Russian and Ukrainian air-traffic controllers couldn’t exchange information.

However, Eurocontrol lacks power to affect national governments’ decisions, and Kiev continued to allow civil planes to use airspace over war-torn Donetsk and Lugansk regions, the report said.

Ukraine only agreed to raise the minimum height, at which civilian aircraft were required to fly over the region from 8 to 9.7 kilometers.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/12/0 ... YK20141209

(Reuters) - The Dutch government on Tuesday rejected a proposal from relatives of victims of the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 to let the United Nations take charge of its criminal investigation into the disaster.

A request to appoint a special U.N. envoy to take over the inquiry was sent on Friday by a law firm representing 20 relatives, who have accused the Netherlands of failing to build a legal case to prosecute those responsible.

[mafarrico]

[mafarrico]

US Congress approves bill offering defensive weapons and more for Ukraine

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/kyiv-po ... 74979.html

[mafarrico]

Pause in Ukraine conflict raises hopes for talks between Kiev, pro-Moscow rebels

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eur ... story.html

[mafarrico]

http://www.priberam.pt/dlpo/propaganda

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28961080

But now experts at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London have told the BBC that they have identified a Russian tank in a separatist column in eastern Ukraine that they say could only have come from across the border in Russia.

This variant, distinguished by the prominent Kontakt-5 Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) arrangement - the boxes on the turret front - is commonly referred to by Western sources as the T-72BM.

It is operated by the Russian Army in large numbers, but crucially it is not known to have been exported or operated outside of Russia.

http://www.priberam.pt/dlpo/contraditório

Nick Nightingale
 
There is no actual proof that one of those tanks is a T-72B(m). The original and only source of that claim was the British think-tank IISS; who claimed to have identified the tank based on the K5 ERA. T-72B that are fielded by the Russians have a full ERA kits and armored side skirts. Ukraine is one of three nation, others being Russia and Serbia, to have the T-72 and K5 ERA. Ukrainian armed forces deployed K5 on their vehicles; so it could be a capture Ukrainian vehicle. Furthermore, the ERA kits can be welded on in hours, not a problem for the rebels.

johnthepriest

 T-72B equipped with advanced Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour, composite armour in sides of turret as well. Often called T-72BM or T-72B(M) but this is not correct. NATO code: SMT M1990... Kontakt-5 is a type of third-generation explosive reactive armour (ERA) originating in the Soviet Union. It is the first type of ERA which is effectively able to defeat modern armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds. Kontakt-5 armour is employed by Russia, Ukraine and Serbia. So if this is evidence of invasion Im Marco Polo and Im writing from China...

Mark

The whole idea of thinking that you can tell the source of a particular T-72 based on some minor modifications is extremely problematic given:
1) the close links between the Russian and Ukrainian arms industries,
2) the exchange of material between rebels and the Ukrainians,
3) the constant updating of these tanks in different ways,
4) the use of components from third parties (eg Belorussia),
5) export and reimport of tanks and components
6) the purchase of parts for testing purposes etc.
7) The use of common sub-contractors and licensing arrangements
The probable illegal copying of components
And on top of that there is the possible role of the Ukrainian SBU in trying to “prove” Russian involvement.

http://morozovkmdb.com/eng/body/t72m2.php

[mafarrico]

http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/23406

News conference of Vladimir Putin

JOHN SIMPSON, BBC: Western countries almost universally now believe that there’s a new Cold War and that you, frankly, have decided to create that. We see, almost daily, Russian aircraft taking sometimes quite dangerous manoeuvres towards western airspace. That must be done on your orders; you’re the Commander-in-Chief. It must have been your orders that sent Russian troops into the territory of a sovereign country – Crimea first, and then whatever it is that’s going on in Eastern Ukraine. Now you’ve got a big problem with the currency of Russia, and you’re going to need help and support and understanding from outside countries, particularly from the West. So can I say to you, can I ask you now, would you care to take this opportunity to say to people from the West that you have no desire to carry on with the new Cold War, and that you will do whatever you can to sort out the problems in Ukraine? Thank you!

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you very much for your question. About our exercises, manoeuvres and the development of our armed forces. You said that Russia, to a certain extent, contributed to the tension that we are now seeing in the world. Russia did contribute but only insofar as it is more and more firmly protecting its national interests. We are not attacking in the political sense of the word. We are not attacking anyone. We are only protecting our interests. Our Western partners – and especially our US partners – are displeased with us for doing exactly that, not because we are allowing security-related activity that provokes tension.

Let me explain. You are talking about our aircraft, including strategic aviation operations. Do you know that in the early 1990s, Russia completely stopped strategic aviation flights in remote surveillance areas as the Soviet Union previously did? We completely stopped, while flights of US strategic aircraft carrying nuclear weapons continued. Why? Against whom? Who was threatened?

So we didn’t make flights for many years and only a couple of years ago we resumed them. So are we really the ones doing the provoking?

So, in fact, we only have two bases outside Russia, and both are in areas where terrorist activity is high. One is in Kyrgyzstan, and was deployed there upon request of the Kyrgyz authorities, President Akayev, after it was raided by Afghan militants. The other is in Tajikistan, which also borders on Afghanistan. I would guess you are interested in peace and stability there too. Our presence is justified and clearly understandable.

Now, US bases are scattered around the globe – and you’re telling me Russia is behaving aggressively? Do you have any common sense at all? What are US armed forces doing in Europe, also with tactical nuclear weapons? What are they doing there?

Listen, Russia has increased its military spending for 2015, if I am not mistaken, it is around 50 billion in dollar equivalent. The Pentagon’s budget is ten times that amount, $575 billion, I think, recently approved by the Congress. And you’re telling me we are pursuing an aggressive policy? Is there any common sense in this?

Are we moving our forces to the borders of the United States or other countries? Who is moving NATO bases and other military infrastructure towards us? We aren’t. Is anyone listening to us? Is anyone engaging in some dialogue with us about it? No. No dialogue at all. All we hear is “that’s none of your business. Every country has the right to choose its way to ensure its own security.” All right, but we have the right to do so too. Why can’t we?

Finally, the ABM system – something I mentioned in my Address to the Federal Assembly. Who was it that withdrew unilaterally from the ABM Treaty, one of the cornerstones of the global security system? Was it Russia? No, it wasn’t. The United States did this, unilaterally. They are creating threats for us, they are deploying their strategic missile defence components not just in Alaska, but in Europe as well – in Romania and Poland, very close to us. And you’re telling me we are pursuing an aggressive policy?

If the question is whether we want law-based relations, the answer is yes, but only if our national economic and security interests are absolutely respected.

We negotiated WTO accession for 19 years or so, and consented to compromise on many issues, assuming that we are concluding cast-iron agreements. And then… I will not discuss who’s right and who’s wrong (I already said on many occasions that I believe Russia behaved the right way in the Ukrainian crisis, and the West was wrong, but let us put this aside for now). Still, we joined the WTO. That organisation has rules. And yet, sanctions were imposed on Russia in violation of the WTO rules, the international law and the UN Charter – again unilaterally and illegitimately. Are we in the wrong again?

We want to develop normal relations in the security sphere, in fighting terrorism. We will work together on nuclear non-proliferation. We will work together on other threats, including drugs, organised crime and grave infections, such as Ebola. We will do all this jointly, and we will cooperate in the economic sphere, if our partners want this.

[HSMW]

[mafarrico]

http://www.academia.edu/8776021/The_Sni ... in_Ukraine

[mafarrico]

unir os pontos

http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/Internat ... les-577289
Le 25 juillet 2014 | Mise à jour le 29 juillet 2014




http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/Internat ... ttu-576889
Le 23 juillet 2014 | Mise à jour le 23 juillet 2014




https://twitter.com/AdeMontesquiou/stat ... 9969451009
23 Jul 2014

AlfredDeMontesquiou ‏@AdeMontesquiou

Note: the @ParisMatch exclusive photography of a #buk #missile launcher arriving in #sijne 6 hours before #mh17, on morning of #crash !!

http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/20 ... -of-a-buk/

According to the French magazine, the photograph they took was taken as the BUK and trailer were arriving in Snizhne on the morning of 17 July, a few hours before the crash of the Malaysia Airlines MH17. (“en train d’arriver dans la ville de Snijne le matin du 17 juillet, quelques heures avant le crash du vol Malaysia Airlines MH17.”)

Paris-Match claimed it was taken by their team of photographers in Snizhne, but it turns out to have been taken in Donetsk, 75km away:

https://www.google.com/maps/@48.004592, ... VvruWg!2e0

http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/20 ... -of-a-buk/

Paris Match have amended their article to confirm that the photo was taken in Donetsk. However, as of 29/07 they still have not corrected the Krasnodon location for the video.

Update 1/8/2014 As we know

1) Paris Match have said that their photographers took this vital photograph.
2) Paris Match say there was some kind of mix-up in locations accounting for them saying it was in Snizhne rather than Donetsk (75km away).
4) This is an incredible error to make in a matter of this seriousness, but these things do happen.
3) We have pointed out Paris Match’s error with regard to the SBU-provided “Krasnodon” clip – actually in Lugansk – but they still haven’t corrected it, saying this is because it was officially provided information.
4) We have asked Paris Match for a copy of the photograph to check EXIF data etc and will update everyone when we receive a response.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and- ... /#comments

Victor - November 11th, 2014
What is the source of the first photo “Paris Match of the Buk missile launcher in Donetsk, Ukraine, July 17, 2014.”? This publication says nothing about it, Paris Match is also silent about it. The photo is a base for the investigation so it must be reliable otherwise everything else is about nothing.

https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/ca ... hotograph/

bellingcatadmin - July 21st, 2014
Based on the position of the sun we believe the Torev photo was taken around midday, with the other images from about an hour or so later.

bellingcatadmin   - July 21st, 2014
We were using SunCalc with this picture, and it seemed to link up with that time as well
http://suncalc.net/

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and- ... stigation/

Inquiries by Storyful with Paris Match established that the photograph was taken at “about 11 am on the morning of July 17.”

http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com ... K_Tracking

Time: I'm not sure how exactly to set this up, but the shadows appear to stretch almost right across the highway, with only a slight northern shift. The azimuth thus appears to be fairly close to to 140˚ (reached at 11:09 AM). As for solar altitude, trying to line up the launcher's corner with its shadow gives a reading of app. 56˚ (= 10:50 AM, with azimuth 133˚) or perhaps 59˚ (= 11:18, az 143.5). The graphic shows both readings. Which is better? I used NOAA solar calculator, with coordinates: lat 48.017102 long:37.9037626 time=GMT+2, DST +1 --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Mashable http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/citizen-journalists-mh17-spies/ noted "Toler and Higgins were able to establish that the photograph was shot around 11:40 a.m. local time." I tried a quick azimuth measure, eyeballed relative only to the blue car, and got 165 degrees (yellow line, read backwards). This equates to a time of almost exactly 12:00 noon (about 30 minutes before solar noon, and 20 minutes later than their estimate). Seeing they're close to right, I'll presume they're closer than me and defer to 11:40.

If this photo is taken at 11:40 AM, and it's the same truck seen leaving Donetsk around 11-11:20 AM, it's impossible these images are from the same day as alleged (Gmaps says it's 68.8 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images). That would mean multiple mobile launchers with multiple "Titan" trucks, or just one but with some date fudging. The company says a number of its trucks were stolen, so matching multiples are entirely likely. But so is date fudging, multiples or not. If that's so, I suspect the Donetsk photo was from July 15 or 16, and this one more likely from the day of the crime. --Caustic Logic (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 22031.html
Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash: Was a Russian-made missile really parked in this quiet square?

It is a photograph that could play a crucial role in proving the deadliest of deeds. Or else it could be dismissed as a fake, nothing more than crude propaganda.

But on Tuesday, when The Independent visited the site where the image was taken and showed it to local people, they claimed they had seen no such missile truck and dismissed the image as hoax. “All the Ukrainian media is lying,” said one man, Andrei Sushparnov. “We have no missiles. If we did, would the Ukrainians be bombing our cities?”

The Ukrainians have not yet revealed how they got the photograph or who took it. But the image, and other similar material, has become part of a raging information war.

“I saw this picture on the internet. But there was no such vehicle parked here,” said Svetlana Eivashenko, a 50-year woman with red hair. “I wish Ukraine would leave Donetsk in peace.”

The staff at the petrol station said none of them had been on duty last Thursday. A woman who gave her name as Diana and who worked in a toy shop called Briefcase, said he had been at work last Thursday and had seen nothing, even when she stepped out for a cigarette break. “I did not see that, for sure,” she said.

Mr Toler also used an online tool that estimates the time of day that an image has been taken based on shadows. He estimated that it had been taken around noon.

Mr Toler admitted there was no irrefutable proof the image was taken on July 17 as claimed by the Ukrainians

The Independent spent around 90 minutes at the location in Torez, at times drawing a number of animated locals who looked at the image and shook their heads.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and- ... /#comments

SZ - July 29th, 2014
to my biased eye, it might be that one missile is missing on Torez

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and- ... /#comments

sad - November 10th, 2014
How reliable are those pictures and videos? For instance, something is certainly wrong with the famous video of a Buk driven through Luhansk. On July 19, SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) presented that video as part of its “compelling evidence” of Russia’s involvement in the downing of MH17: A screenshot from the video was presented at the briefing of SBU’s official Vitaly Naida and in SBU’s report on its website. But a few days later SBU deleted that screenshot from its July 19 report. The report (the screenshot is absent!):
http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129116&cat_id=35317

Naida’s briefing of July 19 is seen in the following Euronews coverage; the briefing begins at 0:54 sec (the screenshot is present):
http://www.euronews.com/2014/07/19/mh17-osce-observers-visit-ukraine-crash-site/

One of numerous reports on Naida’s presentation of July 19:
http://news.liga.net/news/politics/2589163-posle_krusheniya_boeing_777_boeviki_vyvezli_v_rf_tri_buk_m1_sbu.htm
Thus, on July 19 the screenshot of the video was a key part of SBU’s evidence against Russia – Buk without one missile. A few days later SBU withdrew that “key evidence”. Conclusion: Something was wrong with the video.

sad - November 11th, 2014
In my Nov 10 comment I forgot to mention that SBU deleted two “evidence” items from its July 19 report. One is the screenshot of the video of a Buk with one missile missing and another is the photo of a Buk at night. In the SBU original report, both had the legend “Buk-M1 heading to the border of Ukraine with the RF”. In the “updated” report, there is neither the screenshot, nor the picture of a Buk at night. The picture was withdrawn for an apparent reason: it was a photo taken in March, 2014. When SBU realized that its employees used an old photo, it was deleted – as well as the screenshot of the video “with one missile missing”. Thus, the video was a fake, too?

To Victor: This is the link to the ParisMatch story and pictures:
http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/Internat ... les-577289
By the way, just curious: Why the allegedly Russian-army Buk was mounted on a Donetsk-based transporter?

sad - November 11th, 2014
The U.S. military and intelligence agencies DID NOT SEE any Buks crossing the Ukrainian-Russian border:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/19/us-ukraine-crisis-airplane-intelligence-idUSKBN0FO00B20140719
An excerpt: There was no U.S. intelligence showing an SA-11 crossing the border into Ukraine, the Pentagon said. (18 July)

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-present-intelligence-data-plane-crash-0
An excerpt: The intelligence officials were cautious in their assessment, noting that while the Russians have been arming separatists in eastern Ukraine, the U.S. had no direct evidence that the missile used to shoot down the passenger jet came from Russia.(22 July).

4m.45s

http://www.itv.com/news/2014-07-22/us-p ... ane-crash/
US provides no evidence of direct Russian involvement in MH17 plane crash

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence admitted that the US does not know who fired the surface-to-air missile.And also that they have no evidence of direct Russian involvement.

The officials did not provide satellite imagery of the missile launch despite some suggestions that the US does have that material.

http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2014/12/19/gee ... eten-mh17/

“Er zijn geen satellietbeelden in de zin van een filmpje waarop je een raket de lucht in ziet gaan. Er ligt geen conclusive evidence bij inlichtingendiensten met hét antwoord op alle vragen.”

There are no satellite images in the sense of a movie where you see a rocket going into the air. There is no conclusive evidence from intelligence services with the answer to all the questions. "
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f71_1419 ... XM22qPh.99

http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/0/ECD62987D ... 1D00251C76

On the fifth photo we can see Buk-M1 artillery battalion deployed 50 kilometers east to Donetsk and 8 kilometers south to Shakhtarsk. We can answer: why the battalion was deployed near to the territory controlled by militants just before the accident?

According to our dates from 17:06 till 17:21 Moscow time on the July 17 over the South-Eastern territory of Ukraine flew US space satellite. This is a special device of the experimental space system designed to detect and track various missiles launches. If the US party has photos made by the satellite, please let us ask them to show the world’s community for further investigation.

Is it coincidence or not? However the time of the Malaysian Boeing-777 accident and the time of the observation done by the satellite over the Ukrainian territory are the same.

http://en.sledcom.ru/actual/424412/
Investigators got evidence of involvement of Ukrainian military jet in Malaysian Boeing-777 crash

According to the testimony given by the witness, who has been given a pseudonym for security purposes, on 17 July the civilian jet Boeing-777 MN-17 was taken down by a fighter jet SU-25 of the Ukrainian air forces, piloted be Captain Voloshin. The fighter took off from the airfield in Dnepropetrovsk. This was the airfield the witness served at. According to him he saw with his own eyes the Voloshin’s fighter to have been loaded with R-60 air-to-air rockets which are not usually loaded to SU-25 jets. The witness told that there was no need to equip the jet with such armament as the militia do not have any aircrafts.

The witness had noticed that after coming back the jet had no rockets on it and had clearly heard when Voloshin said: “It – the Boeing – was in the wrong place, at the wrong time”.

http://itar-tass.com/en/world/769260
Russian FM: US, Ukraine will have to answer questions about MH17 crash

“”We still have no replies to the questions: Where are the data from the US satellites that monitored the area on that day? Where are the data from US planes that were flying over that area? Where are the testimonies by Dnipropetrovsk air traffic controllers who were responsible for keeping track of flights in that part of Ukraine’s airspace? We have long requested a logbook of all sorties Ukrainian combat planes based on that area flew on that day,” Lavrov said, adding that nothing had been done.

“We only hear accusations that Russia is to blame for everything, that the militias are to blame for everything, and that our questions are being asked for the sole purpose of misleading the investigation,” Lavrov said.

"Самолёт, который заходил, он, видать, рядом с ним шёл, и потом зашёл вот так вот ему - спереди..."

to be continued

[mafarrico]

Examining the Hatred of Vladimir Putin and Russia

http://www.unz.com/article/examining-th ... nd-russia/

Anyone who has followed the ongoing crisis in Eastern Europe and Ukraine knows the very hostile view that the establishment news media and Washington political class have of President Vladimir Putin of Russia and his policies. In the halls of Congress and in the mainstream press—almost every night on Fox News—serious charges are proffered against Russia’s president and his latest outrages. Sanctions and bellicose measures get enacted by the House and Senate overwhelmingly, with only meagre opposition and almost no serious discussion.
The mainstream American media and American political leaders seem intent to present only a one-sided, very negative picture of the Russian leader.

The charges against Putin go from disingenuous to the dishonest. The “KGB thug” and the “break-up” of the USSR accusations have been addressed in a variety of well-researched books and in-depth articles. The documentation contradicts these allegations, including some charges that have been made by usually conservative voices. It is extremely curious that such ostensibly conservative publications as The New American, for example, find themselves parroting accusations first made by notorious leftwing publicists and, then, by international gay rights supporters.

On the contrary, various historians and researchers, including Professor Allen C. Lynch (in his excellent study, Vladimir Putin and Russian Statecraft, 2011), Professor Michael Stuermer (in his volume, Putin and the Rise of Russia, 2008), M. S. King (in The War Against Putin, 2014), Reagan ambassador to the USSR Jack Matlock, Reagan Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, former Congressman Ron Paul (his web site, http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org, contains numerous scholarly articles defending Putin), Reagan budget director David Stockman, and conservative writer William Lind—none of these men on the Left—have pointed out that those allegations have been ripped out of context and are largely untenable. Additionally, numerous conservative religious authors have investigated and defended Putin, including Catholic journalists such as Michael Matt in The Remnant, Dr. E. Michael Jones in Culture Wars, Dr. Joseph Pearce in The St. Austin Review, and Gary Potter, and writers for conservative Protestant organizations like the Gospel Defense League. Nevertheless, the charges made against Putin are presented as fact by many Neoconservative “talking heads” on Fox (e.g., Charles Krauthammer) and on talk radio (e.g., Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck), as well as by the Leftist establishment media. Disinformation is clearly at work here, even among some of the strongest voices on the American right.

After the fall of Communism during the administration of Boris Yeltsin, he very briefly served at Yeltsin’s request as head of the FSB intelligence service. But the FSB is not the KGB.

Lynch treats in some detail the question of Putin’s supposed continued subservience to KGB ideology, with particular reference to the events surrounding the abortive Communist coup by the old hands at the KGB in August 1991. Putin, by that time, had resigned his position in the KGB and was serving as deputy mayor to pro-American Leningrad mayor, Anatoly Sobchak, one of the fiercest critics of the KGB and the old Soviet system. It was Putin who organized the local Leningrad militia to oppose the attempted KGB coup and protect Mayor Sobchak and the forces of democratic reform:

    Putin played a key role in saving Leningrad for the democrats. The coup, which lasted but three days, was carried out on August 19. That same day Mayor Sobchak arrived on a flight from Moscow. The Leningrad KGB, which supported the coup, planned to arrest Sobchak immediately upon landing. Putin got word of the plan and took decisive and preemptive action: He organized a handful of loyal troops and met Sobchak at the airport, driving the car right up to the plane’s exit ramp. The KGB turned back, not wishing to risk an open confrontation with Sobchak’s armed entourage [led by Putin].” [Lynch, p. 34]

This signal failure in Russia’s second city doomed the attempted KGB coup and assured the final collapse of the Soviet system and eventual transition of Russia away from Communism. It was Vladimir Putin, then, who was largely responsible for defeating and preventing the return of Communism in Russia. It is very hard to see how a secret supporter of the KGB would take such action, if he were actually favoring the return of Communism.

As Professor Lynch recounts:

    Putin accepted the irreversibility of the Soviet Union’s collapse and came to terms with the market and private property as the proper foundations of the Russian economy. [Lynch, p.28]

It is true that Putin lamented the break-up of the old Soviet Union, but not because he regretted the disappearance of the Soviets, but, rather, because of the numerous and intimate economic, linguistic, social, and cultural connections that interrelated most of the fifteen constituent republics of the old USSR. His comments on the topic were very clear, but have been selectively taken out of context by the Putin haters. [See the book-length interview with Putin, with comments from other Russian leaders, First Person: An Astonishing Frank Self-Portrait by Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, New York, 2000, pp. 165-190]

The much-criticized—by the American press—secession of Crimea from Ukraine and its subsequent re-union with Russia clearly illustrates this. What too many so-called “experts” in America fail to understand (or, if they do, skillfully omit in their reports) is that Crimea was an integral part of Russia for hundreds of years until Communist Nikita Khrushchev sliced it off from Russia and gave it to Ukraine in 1954, despite the fact that 60% of its population is ethnically Russian and its culture and language completely Russian. [See the Wikipedia article, “Crimea”]
Moreover, the Ukrainian “oblasts,” or provinces, of Lugansk and Donetsk, have a similar history and ethno-cultural make-up. They were arbitrarily added to the Ukrainian socialist republic in the 1920s after the Communist revolution, despite being historically part of Mother Russia for centuries.
Interestingly, at the same time Putin made the “break-up” of the Soviet Russia comment, he visited Poland to denounce and condemn the Communist massacre and crimes in the Katyn Forest at the beginning of World War II, as well as the horrid Soviet gulags. On more than one occasion, especially at the meetings of the international Valdai Discussion Forum in 2013 and 2014, he has harshly condemned in the strongest terms Communism and the atrocious crimes committed by Communists. In so doing, he made extensive reference to Russia’s Christian heritage (also criticizing same sex marriage, abortion, and homosexuality as being “opposed to the most sacred values of our traditions”).
Putin’s remarks at the Valdai Forum in September 2013, in front of representatives from most European countries, deserve extensive quoting. Here is some of what he said:
Another serious challenge to Russia’s identity is linked to events taking place in the world. Here there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their historic roots, including the Christian values that constitute the very basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan. The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis. What else but the loss of the ability to self-reproduce could act as the greatest testimony of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of unlawful migration. Without the values embedded in Christianity, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values. One must respect every minority’s right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.
And Putin gained firm support and endorsement from that inveterate and most intransigent anti-Communist, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Before his death in 2008, Solzhenitsyn praised Putin and stated that he believed Putin’s personal acceptance of Christian faith to be genuine. American ambassador William Burns visited Solzhenitsyn (April 2008) shortly prior to his death and quoted him as stating that under Putin, the nation was rediscovering what it was to be Russian and Christian. [See article at guardian.co.uk, Thursday, December 2, 2010] The great Russian anti-Communist also gave a long 2007 interview with the German magazine, Der Spiegel, saying the same thing. So, then, if the Putin-haters are correct, did Putin fool the great Solzhenitsyn who was by far the greatest and most intransigent anti-Communist of the 20 th century? Not likely.

Putin was not corrupt, at least in the conventional, venal sense. His modest and frankly unfashionable attire bespoke a seeming indifference to personal luxury. While as deputy mayor. He had acquired the use of the summer dacha of the former East German Consulate and even installed a sauna unit there, but when the house burned down in the summer of 1996, his $5,000 life’s savings burned with it. To have accumulated only $5,000 in five years as deputy mayor of Russia’s second-largest city and largest port, when hundreds of less well-placed Russians were enriching themselves on government pickings, implies something other than pecuniary motives behind Putin’s activities (….) In sum, Putin was honest, certainly by Russian standards. He lived simply and worked diligently. Accused by a foe…of having purchased a million dollar villa in France, Putin sued for slander and won his case in court a year later. [Lynch, pp. 33, 35]

Significantly, since 1991 over 26,000 new Christian churches have opened in Russia, and the fact that Christianity is being reborn in Russia has not gone unnoticed among some Christian writers in the America and Europe, although generally ignored by the secular press. [There are numerous articles and reports chronicling this amazing rebirth, e.g., Russia has experienced a spiritual resurrection, Catholic Herald, October 22, 2014; see also, “Faith Rising in the East, Setting in the West,” January 29, 2014, Break Point Commentaries. Such a phenomena is not some Communist plot, but represents a genuine desire on the part of the Russian people to rediscover their religious roots, ironically just as a majority of American now seem to embrace same sex marriage, abortion, and the worst extremes of immorality and the rejection of traditional Christianity.
In support of his goals Putin has championed Russian laws that: (1) have practically outlawed abortion in Russia (no abortions after the 12 th week, and before that time in limited cases, and also the end of financial support for abortions, reversing a previous Soviet policy); (2) clamp down on homosexuality and homosexual propaganda---absolutely no homosexual propaganda in Russian schools, no public displays of homosexuality, with legal penalties imposed for violating these laws; (3) strongly support traditional marriage, especially religious marriage, with financial aid to married couples having more than two children; (4) have established compulsory religious instruction in all Russian schools (including instruction in different Christian confessions, in different regions of the country); (4) implement a policy instituting chaplaincy in Russian military regiments (and religious institutions now assist in helping military families); (5) have made religious holidays now official Russian state holidays; (6) have instituted a nationwide program of rebuilding churches that were destroyed by the Communists (the most notable being the historic Church of Christ the Saviour in Moscow); and (7) officially support the Russian film industry in producing conservative religious and patriotic movies—interestingly, the most popular film in Russia in 2009 was the movie “Admiral,” a very favorable biopic of the leader of the White Russian counter-revolutionary, Admiral Aleksandr Kolchak, who was executed by the Communists in 1920. The film was supported by the Russian cultural ministry. Can we imagine the American NEH doing anything similar in the current United States? [See reports, OneNewsNow.com, January 23, 2013; LifeSiteNews, October 26, 2011, August 1, 2013; Scott Rose, Bloomberg News, June 30, 2013; see also Garrard on some of these actions]
As American Catholic author, Mark Tooley, has written Understanding a More Religious and Assertive Russia, April 2, 2014:
Putin has formed a close association with Russian Orthodoxy, as Russian rulers typically have across centuries. He is smart to do so, as Russia has experienced somewhat of a spiritual revival…. Orthodoxy is widely and understandably seen as the spiritual remedy to the cavernous spiritual vacuum left by over 70 disastrous, often murderous years of Bolshevism. Resurgent religious traditionalism has fueled Russia’s new law against sexual orientation proselytism to minors and its new anti-abortion law. Both laws also respond to Russia’s demographic struggle with plunging birth rates and monstrously high abortion rates that date to Soviet rule. Some American religious conservatives have looked to Russian religious leaders as allies in international cooperation on pro-family causes.

The Neoconservative condescension towards Russia, first after 9/11, then with the threatened placement of missiles in Poland, pushing NATO to the very borders of Russia, and finally following the bungled American diplomatic escapade in Georgia in 2008, cemented a conviction among Russians and by Vladimir Putin that the desired partnership with America was unrealizable, at least for the time being. [See Lynch, ch. 6, generally, for a thorough discussion of Russian foreign policy; Stuermer, pp. 196-199]
The desire for Russia to become a “collaborative partner” in any kind of situation resembling international parity was just not acceptable to American Neocons. Whereas Yeltsin had been welcomed in Washington as “America’s poodle,” willing to do America’s bidding, Putin believed that the largest nation in the world, which had thrown off the Communist yoke, merited a larger role. His desire was for a real partnership. But aggressive attempts spearheaded by the United States to incorporate formerly integral parts of Russia—areas that were and continue to be considered within the Russian “sphere of influence,” even if independent—into NATO, largely dashed Russian hopes for partnership with the West. [Stuermer, pp. 191-196]

On the contrary, Boris Yeltsin was a Neocon favorite. Yeltsin’s tenure as president seemed not only to echo a second-rate “America’s poodle” status, his handling of the Russian economy proved disastrous for the average Russian, but lucrative for a handful of Russian oligarchs, who in turn were connected to American business interests. Wikipedia (article on Boris Yeltsin) sums up his actions in this way:
In 1995, as Yeltsin struggled to finance Russia’s growing foreign debt and gain support from the Russian business elite for his bid in the early-1996 presidential elections, the Russian president prepared for a new wave of privatization offering stock shares in some of Russia’s most valuable state enterprises in exchange for bank loans. The program was promoted as a way of simultaneously speeding up privatization and ensuring the government a much-needed infusion of cash for its operating needs.
However, the deals were effectively giveaways of valuable state assets to a small group of tycoons in finance, industry, energy, telecommunications, and the media who came to be known as “oligarchs” in the mid-1990s. This was due to the fact that ordinary people sold their vouchers for cash. The vouchers were bought out by a small group of investors. By mid-1996, substantial ownership shares over major firms were acquired at very low prices by a handful of people. Boris Berezovsky, who controlled major stakes in several banks and the national media, emerged as one of Yeltsin’s most prominent backers. Along with Berezovsky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Vladimir Potanin, Vladimir Bogdanov, Rem Viakhirev, Vagit Alekperov, Alexander Smolensky, Victor Vekselberg, Mikhail Fridman and a few years later Roman Abramovich, were habitually mentioned in the media as Russia’s oligarchs.
On his assumption of the presidency and his election to a full first term, Putin resolved to end this economic domination by “the oligarchs,” but in so doing, he antagonized their internationalist capitalist partners in the West on Wall Street and in Bruxelles.
During his first term, Putin proved himself to be a clever and resourceful politician. He organized a powerful political base, his United Russia political party, and, like most successful political leaders, was able to parlay his economic successes and a favorable conclusion to the Chechen civil war into a strong base of support across the Russian Federation. Criticized by some domestic opponents for not following punctiliously all the hallmark benchmarks of Western-style “democracy,” Putin insisted that the difficult path to Russian democracy was different than that so often pushed (and imposed) by the United States around the world. Nevertheless, the average Russian citizen experienced more real liberties and more economic freedom than at any time in Russia’s long history, and the credit for that must be Putin’s. [Lynch, pp. 69-74; Stuermer, pp. 199-200]
The continuing charges that Putin is corrupt and has surrounded himself with ex-KGBers have as their origin, not surprisingly, leftist and liberal domestic opponents of the Russian president in Russia, as Lynch, Paul Craig Roberts, M. S. King, and others have shown. In fact, most of Putin’s advisors lack serious earlier Communist/KGB involvement. The charges, nevertheless, have been picked up by the Murdoch media and Neocon press. Just as they had lauded Yeltsin, they quickly turned on the nationalist Putin, who quickly became in the Western press a “KGB thug,” “corrupt,” and desirous of “restoring the old Soviet Union.
One of the major, if indirect, Russian domestic sources for the corruption charges comes via a prolific Russian politician, Boris Nemtsov. Nemtsov, identified as a “new liberal,” is a longtime opponent of Vladimir Putin and a favorite of John McCain and various “mainstream conservatives.” [See, "Russians React Badly to U.S. Criticism on Protests," The New York Times, January 6, 2011] Over the years he has penned a number of election broadsides and pamphlets, charging Putin with everything from feathering his own “nest” with “billions of rubles,” to election fraud. [See Nemtsov, Putin: What 10 Years of Putin Have Brought, 2010] In each case, his allegations lack the kind of sources to make them creditable. It is as if Al Gore were to have written a pamphlet about George W. Bush in the 2000 election: it and its content would immediately be highly suspect.
That some supposedly conservative American publications and news sources could give these accusations credence just demonstrates the power of the liberal/left media and the international anti-Russian homosexual lobby who have tried desperately to propagate such ideas.
Although the Nemtsov origin for the constant media barrage is important, in recent months the nature of the Western opposition to Putin and Russia has been radically transformed. While Nemtsov’s canards certainly have found their way into the Western press, since Russia’s legal prohibitions (in early 2013) against homosexual propaganda (especially directed towards underage children) and its forthright defense of the Christian institution of marriage, the vigorous opposition to Putin has assumed a “moral” dimension, symbolized best, perhaps, by Obama’s appointment of several over-the-hill, openly homosexual athletes to head the United States delegation to the Sochi Olympics in early 2014.
Such an action demonstrated both the fundamental rejection by the American leadership (and Western European leaders) of Russia’s affirmation of traditional marriage and traditional Christianity, while illustrating the formal apostasy by the West from its own traditional Christian moorings.

As reported by The Times of London, November 30, 2014, Merkel, who had for some time urged a softer approach to Russia and continued negotiations, finally realized:
that there could be no reconciliation with Vladimir Putin when she was treated to his hardline views on gay rights.The German chancellor was deep in one of the 40 conversations she has had with the Russian president over the past year — more than the combined total with David Cameron, François Hollande and Barack Obama — when he began to rail against the “decadence” of the West. Nothing exemplified this “decay of values” more than the West’s promotion of gay rights, Putin told her. The Kremlin and instead should adopt a policy of Cold War-style containment.
And Merkel is not alone. She joins Barack Obama and prime ministers David Cameron, Francois Hollande, and the leaders of the EU in expressing this important underlying rationale for Western policy towards Russia.
It is, then, the formal Western and American embrace of homosexuality, same sex marriage, and other deviations from traditional Christian morality as normative that has opened a steep chasm and motivates zealous proponents, for whom Vladimir Putin and a revived traditional Russia present a distinct challenge to their eventual global success.
It is, then, this rebellion against God-created human nature and against natural law, itself, that is bitterly opposed to Russia’s affirmation of traditional religious belief. It is this divide now that forms the deepest basis of the profound conflict between East and West. Indeed, the world has been turned upside down, with Russia now defending Christianity, while the American and Western political and media elites viciously attack it. As Patrick Buchanan now rightly asks: “On whose side is God NOW on?”

[mafarrico]

SOTT EXCLUSIVE: Meet Alexei Navalny: The U.S. State Department's inside man for 'regime change' in Russia

http://www.sott.net/article/290848-SOTT ... -in-Russia

[mafarrico]

How Western media covered the Moscow Navalny protest

http://journalitico.com/2014/12/31/how- ... y-protest/


The truth about the case brothers Navalny and Yves Rocher

http://truenavalny.com/en/

[Alvalade]

Podias parar de Spamar links a toda a hora ?
Um de vez em quando para chamar atenção a alguma noticia interessante ainda se percebe, mas assim já chateia. Se eu quiser ter avisos das noticias nos media russos hora a hora arranjo um RSS feed, não gosto é do facto de que sempre que venho ao Fórum Defesa não existe qualquer discussão és só tu a postar páginas e páginas de links onde ninguém entra .