Disinfo: JIT has not established real reasons behind downing of MH17, culprits were not identified


The Joint Investigative Team [JIT] did not provide evidence that indicates unconditionally who is specifically responsible for the tragedy.

This does not prevent the West from blaming the militia of Donbas and Russia for what happened. At the same time, Moscow is not allowed to take part in the investigation, and the Netherlands rejects all documents [provided by Russia] refuting the [official] version of events. Such a situation does not suit the Russian Federation, nor Malaysia, whose authorities have already announced that the investigation is political in nature and its true purpose is to blame Russia.

It [Western position] can be very shaky if a German detective, who conducted his own independent investigation, attends the meeting. He reported that he has evidence that refutes the “official version”. Moreover, he can name the true culprits of the plane crash.


recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative that the JIT has not established who is responsible for the downing of flight MH17 and that the commission did not take into consideration the evidence provided by Russia and the German private detective Joseph Resch.

A special team, known as the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), was established to conduct the criminal investigation of the downing of the Malaysian Airlines flight in 2014. On the basis of the investigation conducted by the JIT, the Dutch Public Persecution service will prosecute 4 individuals for causing the MH17 crash, murdering all 289 persons on board. The trial will start in March 2020 at The Hague District Court. The suspects to be prosecuted are Igor Girkin, Sergei Dubinsky, Oleg Pulatov, and Leonid Kharchenko.

A German private detective has claimed to have evidence about the crash of the plane. In 2016, he was questioned by the Dutch police as a witness in the case. The prosecutors believe that the detective was contacted by people who might be involved in the crash.

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 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.

See more disinformation cases on MH 17 flight's downing; on US fabricating evidence; on the West or Western media fabricating evidence against Russia; on JIT ignoring Russian evidence and on JIT's biased.


  • Reported in: Issue185
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 09/02/2020
  • Language/target audience: Russian
  • Country: Russia, Ukraine
  • Keywords: Conspiracy theory, Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine, Conspiracy, MH17


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

US sanctions against Russia are illegal

The United States uses the policy of trade sanctions, and these restrictions imposed on a number of countries are illegal from the point of view of international law.


This is a recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about international sanctions against Russia.

In December 2018, the US imposed sanctions on Russian persons "in response to Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine, election interference, malicious cyber-enabled activities, human rights abuses, use of a chemical weapon, weapons proliferation, illicit trade with North Korea, and support to Syria."

Nazi-Soviet pact was not the cause of WWII

Russia has become locked in a dispute with Poland and the Baltic States over the origins of WWII after the European Parliament passed a resolution in September on the history of the conflict. The resolution claimed that the 1939 non-aggression treaty between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany led to the start of the war. The responsibility for WWII lies with the Polish elite who ruled the country in the 30s, who were the first to conclude a non-aggression pact with Hitler in 1934, who were allied to him, who participated in the division of Czechoslovakia with Hitler and who received territorial acquisitions from the Munich conspiracy when Czechoslovakia was surrendered to Hitler.

Historians in the West, in Poland, in Europe, in the USA even earlier have held the point of view that allegedly the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact initiated the Second World War.


Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative distorting the events of the Second World War and accusing Poland of historical revisionism.

The European Parliament resolution in question stresses the fact that WWII was an immediate result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. It aims to promote historical remembrance of the Second World War, and is supported by broad consensus on the causes of its outbreak.

OPCW smears whistleblowers to defend sanitised Douma report

In response to a series of leaks concerning the OPCW’s report on the alleged chemical attack in Douma, the organisation carried out an internal review in which it smeared two whistleblowers who had given evidence that the OPCW had doctored its own findings on the incident.

One of the inspectors, reffered to as “Inspector A” and “Inspector B”, was former OPCW specialist Ian Henderson, who visited Douma as part of the agency’s fact-finding mission and has publicly blasted the “sanitised” report on the alleged Douma attack.

The other ‘Inspector’ was presumably a reference to ‘Alex’, an elusive whistleblower whose identity has not been revealed, and who has provided materials to WikiLeaks similarly casting major doubt on the OPCW’s integrity in its investigation of the alleged Douma attack.


Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives attacking the independence and integrity of the OPCW; lending credence to the claim that the 2018 Douma attack was staged; and absolving the Syrian regime of responsibility for chemical attacks in general.

The story is peppered with falsehoods and out-of-context citations lifted from the OPCW website. It conveniently omits the fact that the quoted remarks were not ad-hoc verbal attacks on the "whistleblowers," but were made on the heels of an independent OPCW probe (not an internal review) which took six months to carry out and was overseen by external investigators.