An investigation Dutch team brought to light the culprit behind the crash of “Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17” which collapsed after being hit by a missile upon eastern Ukraine, with “298 people on board” who met their fatal end. However, Russia was quick respond saying the enquiry thus conducted was “biased” in order to absolve the Russian government involvement.
Moreover, the report also exhibit a deep disagreement that took place between the “Dutch Safety Board” or DOB in short and the Russian government, turning the same into a “a blame game”. However, the “international crash investigations” rules do not authorise DSB to “apportion blame”, although Tjibbe Joustra, the “board chairman” added that the area of missile discharge is under “pro-Russian rebels”.
Over a period of multiple months, the DSB findings were subject to Russian experts’ challenges, while the argument generated from the Russian side were subject to constant change. BBC described the situation “like a high-stakes game of chess”.
Various western officials and the government of Ukraine claimed that the missile was brought to the part of Russia that remains under rebels’ possession. Moreover, the investigation carried out by the Dutch team published “photos of the launcher being moved around rebel areas”, while Moscow maintained its denial of involvement.
Furthermore, BBC reports that:
“A few days after the air crash Russia's Ministry of Defence suggested the Boeing 777 was downed by an air-to-air missile. It said Russian radar had spotted a Ukrainian fighter jet 3-5km (2-3 miles) away from the plane”.
Russian committee of investigation “repeated the allegation” in the month of July 2015, which stated that the missile "was not produced in Russia", which received a wider promotion on Russian television. On the other hand, when things took a not so good turn, Almaz-Antey, the Russian missile company fired at another plane in order to prove that “MH17 had been downed by a BUK surface-to-air missile”.
While, yet another argument provided by Russia, claimed that the MH17 was hit by a rocket that was “launched from Ukrainian government-held territory” while it acknowledged that the missile involved was an Almaz-Antey’s creation.
However, the Russian didn’t agree on many points of the report generated by the investigation team, whereby the former claimed that:
Moreover, the report also exhibit a deep disagreement that took place between the “Dutch Safety Board” or DOB in short and the Russian government, turning the same into a “a blame game”. However, the “international crash investigations” rules do not authorise DSB to “apportion blame”, although Tjibbe Joustra, the “board chairman” added that the area of missile discharge is under “pro-Russian rebels”.
Over a period of multiple months, the DSB findings were subject to Russian experts’ challenges, while the argument generated from the Russian side were subject to constant change. BBC described the situation “like a high-stakes game of chess”.
Various western officials and the government of Ukraine claimed that the missile was brought to the part of Russia that remains under rebels’ possession. Moreover, the investigation carried out by the Dutch team published “photos of the launcher being moved around rebel areas”, while Moscow maintained its denial of involvement.
Furthermore, BBC reports that:
“A few days after the air crash Russia's Ministry of Defence suggested the Boeing 777 was downed by an air-to-air missile. It said Russian radar had spotted a Ukrainian fighter jet 3-5km (2-3 miles) away from the plane”.
Russian committee of investigation “repeated the allegation” in the month of July 2015, which stated that the missile "was not produced in Russia", which received a wider promotion on Russian television. On the other hand, when things took a not so good turn, Almaz-Antey, the Russian missile company fired at another plane in order to prove that “MH17 had been downed by a BUK surface-to-air missile”.
While, yet another argument provided by Russia, claimed that the MH17 was hit by a rocket that was “launched from Ukrainian government-held territory” while it acknowledged that the missile involved was an Almaz-Antey’s creation.
However, the Russian didn’t agree on many points of the report generated by the investigation team, whereby the former claimed that:
- The blast location for the warhead was closer to the plane than the DSB said
- MH17 must have been hit by a different, older type of BUK missile
- The BUK missile must have been launched from a different area
In return, the Dutch team replied saying that the Russian used an unreliable method to decide the exact place of warhead explosion as oppose to their process of using "stringing method". Nevertheless, the Dutch failed to find the exact location of the missile launch as they declared that the trajectory under change after meeting the impact.
On a concluding note, BBC writes that:
“This game of chess is far from over and the stakes are rising. The international criminal investigation will be published in 2016, and that will apportion blame”.
References:
www.bbc.com
