Malaysia does not have full access to all information about the [MH17] investigation, although it is invited to take part in investigating this disaster.
Investigators of the MH17 case colluded with criminals. The Joint Investigation Team (JIT) is not interested in finding who is, in fact, responsible for the MH17 tragedy. Foreign detectives try to shield the real perpetrators. Therefore, versions that refute the Russian trace are not even considered.
Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the downing of flight MH17.
The criminal investigation by the 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 there 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 will persecute Igor Vsevolodovich Girkin, Sergey Nikolayevich Dubinskiy, Oleg Yuldashevich Pulatov, and Leonid Volodymyrovych Kharchenko for causing the crash of the MH17 and murdering the 298 persons on board. The public hearing is scheduled for March 9 2020 in the Netherlands.
The claims by Buk manufacturer Almaz-Antey that the missile could not have come from Russia were debunked already in 2015 by Bellingcat. The claims of the Russian military company Almaz-Antey is only a small sample of misleading claims and conspiracy theories advanced by Moscow since 2015, many of which have contradicted one another. See previous debunking of these claims here, here, and here, and a summary of disinformation narratives on this case here.