Michael Bociurkiw
At a gathering of next-of-kin in Utrecht, the Netherlands, a sunflower represents each of the 298 victims of the downing of MH17. The sunflowers represent the fields in eastern Ukraine where the plane was shot down five years ago.
On July 17, 2014, a Boeing-200ER of Malaysia Airlines was shot down in the sky over the part of Ukraine’s Donetsk region controlled by Russian militants. The passenger plane was flying a regular route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. All 298 people on board were killed – 283 passengers, including 80 children, and 15 crew members.
The Malaysia Airlines passenger list shows that its Flight 17 (MH17) was carrying 193 Dutch nationals (including one with dual U.S. nationality), 43 Malaysians (including 15 crew), 27 Australians, 12 Indonesians and 10 Britons (including one with dual South African citizenship). There were also four Germans, four Belgians, three Filipinos, one Canadian and one New Zealander aboard.
That day, Russian military aggression against Ukraine directly affected people from various parts of the world.
An international Joint Investigation Team (JIT), which included representatives from the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, Ukraine and Malaysia, was set up to investigate the causes of the disaster. The investigation was conducted from two perspectives: technical and criminal.
On July 21, 2014, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution No. 2166 requiring Russian insurgents who controlled the site of the disaster and the surrounding area to refrain from any action that would skew the picture of this event. The resolution also called on all states and responsible persons to cooperate fully in international investigations.
As soon as it became clear that that Russian troops had shot down a civilian flight, the Kremlin launched an aggressive informational attack against Ukraine in order to distract the investigation, conceal the true picture of the events and accuse Ukraine of this crime.
The very first “official” version of the events disseminated by Moscow was a fake about a “Ukrainian attack aircraft.” An official of the Russian Federation’s Ministry of Defense stated at a briefing on July21, 2014, that “at the time of the MH17 catastrophe there was an SU-25 of the Ukrainian Air Forces nearby.” This fake was effectively promoted by Russian officials, Russian propagandistic media and Russian militants in the Donbas.
But the “Ukrainian attack aircraft” version was officially rejected on October 13, 2015, when the Netherlands Security Council presented the final report of the technical investigation, stating that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile system armed with a 9H314M warhead. All other versions (an accident caused by a technical malfunction or a human error, a terrorist act aboard the aircraft) have also been officially refuted.
Later, in September 2016, Russia’s Ministry of Defense gave up the version it had created, recognizing that there were no foreign aircraft near MH17.
After the “Ukrainian attack aircraft” version failed, the Kremlin began to insist that “MH17 was downed by a Ukrainian Buk from the village of Zaroshchenske that was controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces.” Also, Russia accused the Joint Investigation Team of “improperly defining the type of missile” used. To “confirm” its version, Moscow resorted to various tricks and deceit. The manufacturer of Buk missile systems, Almaz-Antey, published its own report on the causes of the MH17 catastrophe, in which the findings were based on an experiment to explode a missile next to the cabin of an IL-76 aircraft. However, experts noted that the Russians had deliberately created conditions during the experiment that differed from those studied by the JIT: the missile in the experiment was located much further away from the cabin than the JIT had determined was the case in the actual explosion of MH17. Such manipulations were designed to obtain the desired result.
The version of a Ukrainian Buk in the village of Zaroshchenske was officially rejected in September 2016, when the JIT presented the first results of its criminal investigation. Three important facts were established:
• MH17 was shot down by a 9M38-series missile (most likely 9M38M1) with a 9H314M warhead, launched from the Buk missile system from a farm field near the settlement of Pervomaiske, not far from Snizhne.
• At the time of the catastrophe, the site of the missile launch was under the control of Russian militants.
• The Buk missile system was delivered to Ukraine from the Russian Federation and, after the MH17 downing, was returned to Russia.
In addition, investigators carefully checked the Russian version of events and concluded that the Zaroshchenske site, which Moscow insisted on, also was under the control of Russian militants on July 17, 2014.
The JIT stated that every day between 100 and 200 investigators and experts worked on the investigation (nearly 100 investigators continue this work); 1,448 fragments of the aircraft were examined and incorporated into the case; the investigators requested the assistance of intelligence and security services from different countries 60 times; 500,000 photos and videos, including those obtained from the Internet, were analyzed; nearly 200 witnesses were questioned; 150,000 telephone calls were listened to and analyzed; 6,000 reports were needed to record all the collected information.
The investigation was also provided with images of American satellites and a report by U.S. intelligence agencies, which cannot be revealed for reasons of security but will be presented in court. The European Space Agency (ESA) also provided its satellite images and the findings of relevant experts to assist in the investigation. The investigators argued that both American and European data confirm their conclusions regarding the site of the missile launch and that the Buk missile system was delivered from Russia.
Another attempt by Moscow to mislead the investigation and the international community was a story about “Russian radar data” which features the moment of the MH17 catastrophe. In September 2016, on the eve of the publication of an interim report on the criminal investigation, Moscow stated that it “had found the original radar data,” which it previously claimed “was not saved.” The key argument was that, without the data from Russian radar, it was allegedly “impossible to establish precisely the causes of the disaster” and therefore the results announced by the JIT could not be trusted.
But as far back as January 2016, the Dutch prosecutor officially stated that the Dutch Safety Board had enough information from radar and satellite data, and that any additional radar data would not change the conclusions of the investigation. In addition, Moscow’s statement was dismissed by the investigation and experts who said that the characteristics of the Russian Utes-T civilian radar do not enable it to capture small objects moving at great speed such as a Buk missile.
On May 24, 2018, during the presentation of the preliminary results of its investigation, the JIT officially stated that MH17 had been brought down by the Russian air defense Buk missile system belonging to the 53rd Air Defense Brigade, which is based near Kursk. The investigators determined that the Buk left Kursk on wJune 23, 2014as , later transported to Millerovo in the Rostov region, and from there to eastern Ukraine.
As of May 2018, the investigation had identified the causes of the disaster of MH17 and those involved.
Once the Joint Investigation Team presented the first results of its criminal investigation, which directly accused Russia of the shootdown of the passenger airliner, the Kremlin began an information campaign to discredit these results, distorting the nature and status of the information obtained by the investigation. The Russian media and high-ranking officials argued that “the reported results of the investigation are just one of the versions that many experts disagree with.” The Russians also argued that the findings of the investigation are “preliminary,” that is, they can be changed as new information is received.
All these statements are patently false. Today, there are no “different versions of the catastrophe,” as the international investigation has identified all the causes of MH17’s downing, namely, the type of missile, its launch site, the origin of the Buk missile system and its delivery route. In addition, the list of suspects is clear.
That is, all the data published by the investigation are established facts with indisputable argumentation and solid evidence. In addition, Dutch investigators have repeatedly stated that there is no longer any additional information that could change the conclusions as to the causes of MH17’s crash.
The process of collecting evidence and тге final determination of the fault level of all credibly established suspects is ongoing.
In June of this year, the JIT named four men it alleged were involved in bringing the missile into the area in eastern Ukraine from which it was fired, and charged them with the murders of 298 passengers and crew. It announced that international arrest warrants had been issued. The suspects, whom prosecutors plan to try in March 2020 under Dutch law, are:
• Igor Girkin (also known as Strelkov), a former colonel in Russia’s FSB intelligence service, according to prosecutors. He was given the minister of defense title in the rebel-held eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk.
• Sergei Dubinsky (known as Khmury), who was employed by Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency, was a deputy of Mr. Girkin and was in regular contact with Russia.
• Oleg Pulatov (known as Giurza), a former soldier of Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency special forces and deputy head of the intelligence service in Donetsk.
• Leonid Kharchenko, a Ukrainian national who has no military background but who led a combat unit as a commander in eastern Ukraine.
Details of the charges against these suspects will be outlined later, during criminal proceedings.
According to an agreement among Australia, the Netherlands, Ukraine, Malaysia and Belgium, the suspects will be prosecuted in accordance with Dutch law and the case will be heard by a court in the Netherlands beginning in March 2020.
The JIT, whose investigation continues, has previously said it has a long list of persons of interest and has repeatedly appealed for witnesses.
Russia, once again, has denied any role in the MH17 shootdown.
During a briefing, Fred Westerbeck, the representative of the Dutch prosecutor’s office, noted that Russia has been refusing to answer questions about the disaster for more than a year.
It’s worth mentioning that journalists – researchers from Bellingcat, The Insider and McClatchy D.C. Bureau – are investigating open-source information, contributing substantially to the investigation of the truth about what happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. They are analyzingphotos, videos, satellite images, social networking accounts and other information from the Internet.
Independently of the official investigation, Bellingcat established the number of the Buk missile system from which MH17 was downed, the military unit to which it belonged, the system transportation route and the convoy vehicles and identified the circle of individuals involved in the accident.
Bellingcat experts are cooperating with the Joint Investigation Team and providing it with all the information they unearth. According to Eliot Higgins, the investigative journalism community’s founder, Bellingcat’s findings coincide with those of the Joint Investigation Team.
In an attempt to discredit the investigation and avoid responsibility, Russia also distorts the rules of international law pertaining to the investigation of plane crashes. It claims that “Ukraine should not have been included in the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) since it is an interested party. In turn, Moscow cannot recognize the results of the official investigation as Russia has not been participating in the Joint Investigation Team (JIT).”
In fact, in accordance with international law, the JIT is to include the following countries: the country on whose territory the aviation accident took place; the countries whose citizens suffered; the country in which the aviation company is based. Separately, black box decoding experts and representatives of a plane’s manufacturer are invited. Moreover, under international law, the country on whose territory an aviation accident took place also has the right to lead the investigation. However, Ukraine voluntarily handed the technical part of the investigation and the key role in the criminal investigation to the Netherlands in order not to be accused of bias.
It is evident that Russia does not meet any of the above criteria to participate in the Joint Investigation Team. Russia’s statements about “non-recognition of the results of the investigation” are simply elements of propaganda.
Another attempt by Russia to avoid responsibility is its arguments that “the blame for the catastrophe lies with Ukraine since it didn’t close the airspace in the area of hostilities.” The Russian media went even further, saying, “it is not so important who downed MH17, what is important is that Ukraine didn’t close the airspace.”
But already in its first report the JIT noted that International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) rules did not require Ukraine to completely close the airspace, while Kyiv’s increase of the lower threshold for permitted civil aviation flights to 9.75 kilometers (32,000 feet) was in accordance with international law. The MH17 catastrophe occurred at an altitude of 10,058 meters (33,000 feet).
There is another important point that Moscow will never admit. ICAO standards require countries to report on the deployment of their air defense systems in the area of civil aviation flights. Whether it be an armed conflict or military drills, the state that puts its air defense on alert is supposed to close the airspace in the area of its operation and to warn the ICAO thereof. The fact that Russia had not warned ICAO of its air defense in the civil aviation flight zone makes Moscow responsible for the open airspace over the Donbas on July 17, 2014.
Despite the fact that Moscow is constantly declaring its “readiness to facilitate” the investigation into the cause of the MH17 catastrophe and “render any necessary assistance,” the reality is the exact opposite.
On July 30, 2015, on the U.N. Security Council Russia vetoed a draft resolution on the establishment of an international tribunal to prosecute the perpetrators of the MH17 downing. Of the 15 countries participating in the U.N. Security Council, Russia was the only one to vote against. The position of Moscow cannot be explained as anything other than an attempt to protect the perpetrators of the disaster from criminal responsibility.
The chairman of the Dutch Safety Board, Tjibbe Joustra, also claimed that Russia was trying to hinder the investigation: “Every time Russians come with new stories and new speakers. I got the impression that they are trying to reject the report, whatever the pretext. During a single week, Russians twice or thrice changed their position.”
And, from the very beginning of the investigation, Kremlin-controlled militants of so-called Donetsk people’s republic prevented international experts from carrying out their work by blocking their access to the site of the plane’s crash. It is also worth noting that the report of the Dutch Prosecutor’s Office states that surgical staples were found in some bodies of the victims of the MH17 catastrophe, suggesting that militants had attempted to remove missile fragments from the corpses.
Following the presentation on May 24, 2018, by the JIT of the interim results of its investigation, the United States and the European Union called on Russia to admit its guilt in the death of passengers aboard MH17. In addition, the United States called on Russia to respect and comply with U.N. Security Council Resolution 2166 from 2014, which obliges all countries to cooperate fully with the investigation in order to identify and prosecute those involved. The State Department said: “ It is time for Russia to acknowledge its role in the shooting down of MH17 and to cease its callous disinformation campaign.”
Also, the governments of the Netherlands and Australia issued a joint statement underscoring that responsibility for destroying MH17 rests with Russia.
In the final statement of the Ukraine-EU summit, held on July 8 of this year in Kyiv, European Union leaders and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky noted that July 17 will mark five years since the disaster of MH17, which took the lives of 298 people, and emphasized: “We expect the prosecution of the perpetrators of this tragedy to be effective and call on the Russian Federation to acknowledge its responsibility and cooperate fully in order to restore justice.” They also expressed their “confidence in the independence and professionalism of further legal procedures.”
The catastrophe of the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200ER airliner was a continuation of the Russian Federation’s “hybrid” (asymmetric) armed aggression launched against Ukraine, but the tragedy of MH17 has affected many countries around the world. Russia’s failure to accept responsibility and its impunity for this and other criminal acts create conditions for increased aggression as well as the potential for new catastrophes – something Russia’s current political leadership does not understand.