Disinfo: Buk missile that shot down MH17 was Ukrainian and shot from Ukraine controlled territory

Summary

According to Russian Deputy Prosecutor General Nikolai Vinnichenko, Moscow has provided the Netherlands with documents proving that the missile belonged to Ukraine and that it was fired from an area controlled by the Ukrainian military. Investigators ignored this data. However, at the start of the trial, the investigating judge acknowledged having received this information from the Russian prosecution.

Disproof

This is a recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the downing of Flight MH17 .

The Dutch-led criminal investigation by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) has been ongoing since 2014. On 28 September 2016, the JIT announced that Flight MH17 was shot down by a missile from the 9M38 series, which was launched by a BUK TELAR missile system. The system was transported from the Russian Federation to an agricultural field near the town of Pervomaiskyi in Eastern Ukraine, from where the missile was launched. After firing, the system - with 1 missing missile - went back to the Russian Federation. On the 24th of May 2018, the JIT announced its conclusion that the BUK TELAR used to shoot down MH17 came from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, a unit of the Russian armed forces from Kursk in the Russian Federation.

On the basis of the investigation conducted by the JIT, consisting of law enforcement agencies from Australia, Belgium, Malaysia, Ukraine and the Netherlands, the Dutch Public Persecution service persecute Igor Vsevolodovich Girkin, Sergey Nikolayevich Dubinskiy, Oleg Yuldashevich Pulatov and Leonid Volodymyrovych Kharchenko for causing the crash of MH17 and murdering all 298 persons on board. The Public Prosecution Service alleges that the four individuals cooperated to obtain and deploy the BUK TELAR at the firing location with the aim of shooting down an aircraft. For that reason, they can also be held jointly accountable for downing flight MH17. The conclusion is corroborated by Bellingcat research. The public hearing started on 9 March 2020 in the Netherlands.

Read also MH17 crashed because of a terrorist attack on board , MH-17 was an American Provocation, JIT does not take into account Russian findings .

publication/media

  • Reported in: Issue 220
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12/11/2020
  • Language/target audience: French
  • Country: Russia, Ukraine, The Netherlands
  • Keywords: MH17

Disclaimer

Cases in the EUvsDisinfo database focus on messages in the international information space that are identified as providing a partial, distorted, or false depiction of reality and spread key pro-Kremlin messages. This does not necessarily imply, however, that a given outlet is linked to the Kremlin or editorially pro-Kremlin, or that it has intentionally sought to disinform. EUvsDisinfo publications do not represent an official EU position, as the information and opinions expressed are based on media reporting and analysis of the East Stratcom Task Force.

see more

Washington constantly meddles in Russian politics with NGOs and critics

The Russian Prosecutor’s Office has recorded the summary of the results of investigations into remittances from American non-profit organisations (NPOs) established in Russia. These examples are numerous […] These American organizations aim to impact the country’s policy.

Since 2012, a law has made it possible to label associations and NGOs receiving funding from outside Russia as “foreign agents”. The Memorial Association, a Russian NGO for the defence of human rights and the preservation of the memory of victims of Soviet-era repressions was thus recognised as a “foreign agent”.

Russia has never interfered in US internal affairs, and will not allow the US to meddle in Russia’s own affairs either.

Disproof

Recurrent pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the US meddling in Russian politics through NGOs and human rights organisations.

The European Union has repeatedly stated that the Russian law on "foreign agents" and the ensuing fines, inspections and stigmatisation, further tighten the restrictions on the exercise of fundamental freedoms in Russia, consume the scarce resources of NGOs and inhibit independent civil society in the country. The EU has called to abandon the practice of branding Russian NGOs as "foreign agents", as well as all resulting administrative harassment.

As a president, Joe Biden will continue the demonisation of Russia

Old Joe intends to continue the demonisation of Russia. That means that any mistake he makes can always be attributed to the creepy Moscow and insidious Putin.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation on Joe Biden, mixed with a narrative alleging that the US indulges in anti-Russian politics.

Joe Biden does not demonise Russia but points out the problems that exist between the two countries. He especially criticised the Kremlin's aggressive actions against Ukraine and called on Putin to end the occupation of Crimea. However, Joe Biden and Russia's current leadership have similar views on nuclear arms control. Joe Biden has already said that he would seek ways to extend the New START treaty for another five years.

Navalny’s movement is linked to the colour revolution programme

Her [Anna Veduta’s] involvement with Columbia University looks like more proof and confirmation that Navalny’s movement is interconnected with a long programme of colour revolutions in Eastern Europe and the countries of the former Soviet Union, supported by the US intelligence services and other Western states.

Disproof

Recurrent conspiracy narrative on "colour revolutions". “A colour revolution, instigated by the Anglo-Saxons/America/the West” is the reaction of pro-Kremlin media whenever crowds gather in the streets to protest against corruption, government abuse and curbing of civil rights.

Alexey Navalny is a prominent Russian opposition leader, head of the Anti-Corruption Foundation FBK, who was brutally poisoned by the nerve agent Novichok in Omsk, Siberia. Pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives about this poisoning are mutually exclusive: "Navalny was not poisoned", "he could have caused the coma himself", "his friend poisoned him", "he might had been injected with Novichok in Germany", "Khodorkovsky is the suspect number one in attack on Navalny" and others.