Disinfo: JIT ignores Russian arguments and data provided from Almay-Antey on MH17 downing

Summary

Some countries mentioned a sad incident, the tragedy with the Malaysian Boeing. And again our colleague said that Russia does not cooperate with the investigation, with the international investigation. Firstly I want to state, no one asked Russia to cooperate in this JIT-group. Secondly, the facts which Russia provided to this investigation JIT-group in terms of quantity and quality outbid any contributions that any other country made to this investigation. These are primary raw data from the radar, a field trial conducted by Almaz-Antey and much more. But to the simple question: “Where are the data from the Ukrainian radar, where are the records of the Ukrainian dispatchers and where are the long promised satellite images of the USA – then nobody can answer us.”

Disproof

One of the many recurring and occasionally competing disinformation narratives around the downing of flight MH17. The claims by Buk manufacturer Almaz-Antey were debunked already in 2015 by Bellingcat. Russia's interest in aiding the JIT investigation is not a relevant condition of its membership in JIT. The crash did not take place over Russian territory and claimed no Russian lives, which precludes any basis for Moscow to be represented in the JIT. Dutch Chief Prosecutor Fred Westerbeke told a Russian newspaper that "if MH17 were shot down over Russia, I would have suggested that Russia be made a member of the JIT group." The "evidence" claimed by Russia, namely radar data and the "field experiment" conducted by the Russian military company Almaz-Antey, is only a small sample of misleading claims advanced by Moscow since 2015, some of which have contradicted one another. The Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT) has concluded that flight MH17 was shot down on 17 July 2014 by a missile of the 9M38 series, launched by a BUK-TELAR, from farmland in the vicinity of Pervomaiskiy (or: Pervomaiskyi). At that time, the area was controlled by pro-Russian fighters. The BUK-TELAR was brought in from the territory of the Russian Federation and subsequently, after having shot down flight MH17, was taken back to the Russian Federation. The Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT), has concluded that the BUK-TELAR used to down MH17, originates from the 53rd Anti Aircraft Missile brigade, a unit of the Russian army from Kursk in the Russian Federation. In September 2016, the JIT disclosed that MH17 was downed with a BUK missile of the 9M38 series. In Eastern Ukraine, two parts of such a missile were found. These parts are the so-called ‘venturi’ and the ‘casing’. This regards, on the one hand, the exhaust of the missile (venturi) and on the other hand the casing of the missile engine (casing). The missile engine’s casing shows the number 9 д 1318869032. The JIT-investigation up to now has found that 9д 131 relates to the number of the missile engine of the 9M38 type and/or 9M38M1 type. The number 8 is the manufacturer’s code, namely: the Dolgoprudny Research and Manufacturing Enterprise in Moscow. The number 86 indicates the year of production, namely 1986. And the number 9032 is the unique identification number of this specific missile engine. The European Union and NATO have called on the Russian Federation to accept its responsibility and to fully cooperate with all efforts to establish accountability. On the basis of the JIT’s conclusions, the Netherlands and Australia are convinced that Russia is responsible for the deployment of the Buk installation that was used to down MH17. The two governments are formally holding Russia accountable.

Go to search

publication/media

RT Germany - YouTube (Archived)
  • Reported in: Issue 176
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 05/12/2019
  • Outlet language(s) German
  • Countries and/or Regions discussed in the disinformation: Malaysia, The Netherlands, Ukraine, Russia
  • Keywords: Eastern Ukraine, War crimes, Donbas, War in Ukraine, MH17
see more

Disinfo: The coup prompted Crimea to restore its Russia identity

The Ukrainian capital of Kyiv lost control of Crimea and Donbas after the coup in 2014, which prompted the people of Crimea to demand the restoration of Russian identity and return in the arms of Russia while the people of the Donbas region pushed to declare independence from Kyiv by establishing two popular republics in the region.

Dec 04, 2019
Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the Euromaidan, the illegal annexation of Crimea, and the war in Ukraine.

There was no coup d'état in Ukraine. The spontaneous onset of the Euromaidan protests was an organic reaction by numerous parts of the Ukrainian population to former President Yanukovych’s sudden departure from the promised Association Agreement with the European Union in November 2013.

Disinfo: NATO promised not to expand to the East

After the collapse of the Warsaw bloc, NATO made promises that they would not expand to the East. But this did not happen. And with all the expansion of NATO that took place, they brought the bloc closer to Russia’s borders.

Dec 04, 2019
Disproof

This is a recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the West encircling Russia via NATO. NATO Allies take decisions by consensus and these are recorded. There is no record of any such decision having been taken by NATO. Personal assurances from individual leaders cannot replace Alliance consensus and do not constitute formal NATO agreement. This promise was never made, as confirmed by Mikhail Gorbachev, then-president of the Soviet Union. Central and Eastern European countries began seeking NATO membership in the early 1990s. NATO actively sought to create a cooperative environment that was conducive to enlargement while simultaneously building special relations with Russia. NATO does not "expand" in the imperialistic sense described by pro-Kremlin media. Rather, it considers the applications of candidate countries who want to join the alliance based on their own national will. As such, NATO enlargement is not directed against Russia. NATO's "Open Door Policy" is based on Article 10 of the Alliance's founding document, the North Atlantic Treaty (1949). The Treaty states that NATO membership is open to any "European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area". Every sovereign nation has the right to choose its own security arrangements. This is a fundamental principle of European security and one to which Russia has also subscribed. For similar cases, see here and here.

Disinfo: NATO enlargement poses a threat to Russia

USSR and Warsaw Pact no longer exist but NATO not only exists but is developing as well. NATO enlargement and development of its infrastructure near Russian borders is one of the potential threats to Russia’s national security. Russia has done everything to cooperate with NATO in order to deal with real problems such as international terrorism, local military conflicts, uncontrolled spread of weapons of mass destruction. But Russia-NATO cooperation was actually cut.

Dec 04, 2019
Disproof

The statement contains multiple recurring pro-Kremlin narratives on NATO. The first narrative is NATO as a relic of the Cold War. This narrative aims at undermining NATO's role as a defensive military alliance. Concerning the claim, that NATO is the relic of the Cold War, at the London Summit in 1990, Allied heads of state and government agreed "to keep standing together, to extend the long peace". This was their sovereign choice and was fully in line with their right for collective defence. Since then, thirteen more countries have chosen to join NATO. Twice since the end of the Cold War, NATO has adopted new Strategic Concepts (in 1999 and 2010), adapting to new realities. Thus, rather than being disbanded as a relic, NATO adapted, and continues to change, to live up to the needs and expectations of Allies, and to promote their shared vision of a Europe whole, free and at peace. See the identical case about NATO here. The second narrative claims that NATO poses a threat to Russia. NATO has many time underlined that it is a purely defensive alliance, whose purpose is to protect its member states. In direct response to Russia's use of military force against its neighbours, NATO has deployed four multinational battle-groups to the Baltic States and Poland. These forces are rotational, defensive and proportionate. They cannot compare to the three divisions Russia has established in its Western Military and Southern Military Districts. Before Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea, there were no plans to deploy Allied troops to the eastern part of the Alliance. See other cases on NATO posing threat to Russia here, here and here. The last narrative implies that NATO refused cooperation with Russia. NATO has reached out to Russia consistently, transparently and publicly over the past 29 years. NATO and Russia worked together on issues ranging from counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism to submarine rescue and civil emergency planning. However, in March 2014, in response to Russia's aggressive actions against Ukraine, NATO suspended practical cooperation with Russia. The NATO - Russia Council is still active.