US/ NATO v. Russia - Misperceptions.

[sburke]

1 minute ago, Nefron said:

But that's not what I'm saying. The US is trying to impose it's standards onto others.

Is it the US trying to impose it's standard or technology or simply the international community?  The use of clusterbombs has been internationally condemned. 

That the US has developed alternative methods and employs them (as have many other nations including Russia) doesn't take away from the fact that 108 nations have signed the condemnation of cluster munitions as of April 2016. 

[hattori]

13 minutes ago, sburke said:

Mostly I think that is true and the relationship of Advertising dollars also weighs in, you want the audience that advertisers are paying top dollar for.  However within that there is an aspect of being trustworthy that means you are the news source people will turn to when they really do want to understand something and that also carries a lot of weight. Brokaw, Wallace, Rather and Jennings all carried a value that went beyond any news agenda or advertising.   Megan Kelly despite being on Fox has challenged republican rhetoric, most recently with Gingrich and Chris Wallace did a decent job in the debates. Then there is always my preferred outlet, PBS.   Point is western media outlets are not as predictable as people like to complain they are.  Sean Hannity is a talk show political outlet and should not be confused with a news source. Blitzer as well is a TV personality I don't consider a news source. 

Foreign news sources are an excellent way to cut through some of our US bias to understand how others think of our actions, but those sources can also be speaking to their own audience.

Thanks!  Good counter points.  Yes, I am painting too broad a brush, and pushing too hard in the other direction.  There are definitely some good news work done in western media, you just have to be aware of their potential biases, something I feel a lot of people forget.

[Codename Duchess]

16 minutes ago, Nefron said:

But that's not what I'm saying. The US is trying to impose it's standards onto others.

 

So? Reading this forum, I'm constantly reminded how the Russian military is almost decades behind NATO in capability.

Seriously, which country except the US can sustain a sizable operation while dropping a guided bomb on every target? I don't think Russia can, do you? I'm sure they'd love being able to do that, it's not like they have anything to gain by being less effective. 

And it's not like they aren't using guided munitions at all. This is pretty good for example: 

 

[video]

Is it wrong to want to reduce civilian casualties?  The point I'm trying to make is that if you're going to attempt a US style precision operation, do it with precision munitions.  Cluster bombing apartment blocks is anything but.  If you don't have the means, don't attempt an operation that can cause unjustifiable risk to civilians.

I am aware that Russia has used some PGMs in Syria, but there's just as much footage of them taking off with and dropping unguided munitions.  You don't see that in footage of US jets taking off.  Also from my own experience, not all of the strikes in that footage were precision munitions.  Accurate dumb bombing (a la SVP-24)? sure.  But those also seemed to be relatively isolated compounds.**

**One thing I always find interesting is the guy who decides to keep driving at the same speed after seeing the house 100 yards down the street get obliterated.  I guess I always pictured a swerve, a u-turn, or an acceleration but nope.  That guy should be a movie star for his coolness.

[Nefron]

1 hour ago, Codename Duchess said:

Is it wrong to want to reduce civilian casualties?

Of course not, it is commendable. 

It is also commendable to donate to charity, reduce your impact on the environment etc. What I cannot do is demand that everybody does the same as me, because not everybody can. 

 

1 hour ago, Codename Duchess said:

The point I'm trying to make is that if you're going to attempt a US style precision operation, do it with precision munitions.  Cluster bombing apartment blocks is anything but.  If you don't have the means, don't attempt an operation that can cause unjustifiable risk to civilians.

Unjustifiable to your standards, which are the very highest and self imposed. The US has the biggest military budget by a factor of x, and you have all the nice toys. Not everybody does. In fact, nobody else does. 

There has been plenty of reports on other NATO allies being dependent on US logistics, and not being able to even remotely sustain that kind operation on their own, Libya for example. I'm sure Russia can't either. 

And this is where your argument disingenuous. Should Russian military just cease to conduct operations and serve their national interests just because they cannot do things in the way the US does? And if they catch up to this technology and capability in ten years, the US might be using god know what, and this will be barbaric and inhumane.

This cluster bomb incident though, I'm not sure what was the point of that. 

1 hour ago, Codename Duchess said:

Accurate dumb bombing (a la SVP-24)? sure.

It's more accurate than I expected in that case. 

[Codename Duchess]

26 minutes ago, Nefron said:

Of course not, it is commendable. 

It is also commendable to donate to charity, reduce your impact on the environment etc. What I cannot do is demand that everybody does the same as me, because not everybody can. 

 

Unjustifiable to your standards, which are the very highest and self imposed. The US has the biggest military budget by a factor of x, and you have all the nice toys. Not everybody does. In fact, nobody else does. 

There has been plenty of reports on other NATO allies being dependent on US logistics, and not being able to even remotely sustain that kind operation on their own, Libya for example. I'm sure Russia can't either. 

And this is where your argument disingenuous. Should Russian military just cease to conduct operations and serve their national interests just because they cannot do things in the way the US does? And if they catch up to this technology and capability in ten years, the US might be using god know what, and this will be barbaric and inhumane.

This cluster bomb incident though, I'm not sure what was the point of that. 

It's more accurate than I expected in that case. 

I have no expectation that Russia will cease operations because of world opinion. I do expect that as long as they use unguided and reckless munitions they will face extra scrutiny in the public eye, like we are doing now. If Russia wants to play big kid games they need to use big kid rules. Or go back to gassing theaters full of kids.

 

I can't guarantee whether it was unguided munitions or not. Some were definitely guided, others were less obvious. But I don't know the capabilities of their PGMs like I know the US ones I've dropped. I just know half of those strikes felt different. Like I've said before, dumb bombs and modern computers work great against big, isolated targets which is what I saw. The difference is modern PGMs let's me pick which road wheel on your shiny Armata you'd like me to rearrange from about 20 miles away with one hand.

[VladimirTarasov]

6 hours ago, Wicky said:

Odd then don't you think that that pic you provided from a barely disguised Russian propaganda website as evidence of practices of terrorists in Syria is from a video circa 2014 when "Hamas Terrorists Fire Rockets from a Gazan School Use Children as Human Shields".   Putinbot fail that one ;-)

 

Thanks for pointing that out. Lowers their credibility to almost zero. Sorry for that guys, I could have swore I seen that video earlier in the title for Aleppo too... Dumb internet. And I'm not a putinbot. I'm a propaganda specialist I get payed hourly potato bags to defend Russia on the CMBS forum. Anyways since that is debunked I give my apologies, but still, obviously rebels still have positions built in these urban environments which causes heavy collateral damage because of that.

16 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

It's stupidly reckless.  It's not even like dropping that weapon in an urban area was ever not going to do a lot of harm, which is crossing the line between collateral damage (somewhere in that explosion was a target worthy of destruction in spite of risk to civilians), into willfully killing civilians.

I agree that was reckless and hopefully it was the only such case, the other clustermunition videos I've seen were generally open terrain and targeting valid targets. Russian military overall has harsh punishments for mistakes like these. 

3 hours ago, Machor said:

Sorry but Assad's use of chemical weapons is a confirmed fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_civil_war

No actual confirmation other than reports, but it appears that the Government side has used gas but so have the rebels. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/aleppo-update-rebels-use-poisonous-gas-battles-intensify/

3 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

Because it's 2016, almost 2017 and Russia is a modern country with modern munitions.  Society at large needs to be held accountable, not just the US.

We do use modern munitions, but as I've said mostly SVP-24s on dumb bombs, but I've and you've pointed out it has a 20 meter CEP at high altitude, not good if you want to hit a command post next to a apartment block. 

 

[sburke]

21 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I agree that was reckless and hopefully it was the only such case, the other clustermunition videos I've seen were generally open terrain and targeting valid targets. Russian military overall has harsh punishments for mistakes like these. 

Would that be the same punishment they gave to the BUK operator that shot down MH 17?

pretty funny that you think we actually believe there would be any repercussions. 

Back to the media discussion, it seems even The NY Times can claim to be more effective against ISIS than Syria or Russia

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/insider/one-year-later-a-tip-about-fertilizer-at-a-border-crossing-pays-off.html?_r=0

[Codename Duchess]

Right, dumb bombs work plenty good against large, isolated targets.  If they use those on those sorts of targets and GLONASS/LGB guided bombs (or even your big Tomahawkskis) on precision targets, good on you for playing smart.

Back to cluster bombs.

Human Rights watch documented 47 incidents between May 27 and July 27, 2016.  These are backed up by witnesses, photo and video.  I implore you to check out the table below
Human Rights Watch report

I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe only 80% of those strikes "actually happened" and that 50% of them were on isolated rebel compounds (and not say a local fuel market frequented by civilians that killed a child, a journalist, and three first responders).  That still leaves over a dozen incidents.  The report does it's best to determine when there were confirmed Russian strikes, as backed up by Russian sources, but even if all the rest of the strikes were Syrian, which they weren't, the Russian government is still backing a regime that uses these weapons on civilians.




Rest of the media dump below

"An SU-34 fighter-ground-attack jet dropping a bomb on the outskirts of Termanin, Idlib, on July 11.  The attack included use of cluster munitions.  Only Russia operates the SU-34."
 

 

The following link is obviously biased, but the video in question exists (~0:45)

 

 

[VladimirTarasov]

9 minutes ago, sburke said:

Would that be the same punishment they gave to the BUK operator that shot down MH 17?

There is no evidence that a Russian unit shot down this plane. If it was a militia unit, that's with them. Do we really have to go into detail for that one? Russia can identify a civilian airliner using BUKs, if you imply Russian army shot it down on purpose, then that makes no sense either. As I've said before there's three things that could have happened.

1. The Russian army knowingly shot down the airliner (no evidence of this one)

2. Militia shot it down accidentally (the tweet about hitting a military aircraft around the time of the shooting)

3. Ukraine hit it for the support of the international community (Kiev tower telling the plane to go to a lower altitude and allowing it to fly over the zone)

now to me the second one is the one that happened and I wouldn't buy the other theories unless something else shows up. So let's not bring about a case that's already a cluster of messed up. Russian government initially claimed it was a SU-25 (embarrassing claim) Ukraine claimed the Russian military shot it down (BS as well, the radars deployed with these units easily can tell it was an airliner) for the time being it was most likely a under equipped militia unit responsible. 

9 minutes ago, Codename Duchess said:

Human Rights watch documented 47 incidents between May 27 and July 27, 2016.  These are backed up by witnesses, photo and video.  I implore you to check out the table below

I know about the incendiary weapons being used and the other cluster munitions, sadly I see collateral damage from these weapons have happened. Definitely not proud of that, but even with these wrongs I'm still very inclined to support the government forces rather than the other rebel groups, due to many other reasons that aren't indiscriminate like child beheading, forcing religion, general radicalism, and savagery. Where as, I understand these cluster munitions lead to excessive deaths they are not purposely used to hit civilians, very reckless however... No argument there. 

  

[sburke]

Sorry Vladimir, the tribunal verdict is in. The BUK came from Russia, fired the missile and returned to Russia. Only Russians live under the fantasy that there is any other explanation.  If you can explain how a BUK unit that crossed from Russia into Ukraine and then went back to Russia somehow had a militia crew somewhere along the way. . . .. Not that I'd buy it, but you are welcome to try. 

Russia didn't seem to like that investigation either

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-mh17-russia-netherland-idUSKCN1202IZ

Edited October 31, 2016 by sburke

[HerrTom]

5 minutes ago, sburke said:

If you can explain how a BUK unit that crossed from Russia into Ukraine and then went back to Russia somehow had a militia crew somewhere along the way

Isn't it entirely reasonable that the SA-11 was sent as an arms shipment like many other equipments sent across the border?  Upon realising what just happened, the arms dealers immediately bring it back?  I'm with Vlad here, at least, that it doesn't seem particularly likely that the VKO purposely shot down an airliner.  I mean, this isn't like the Iran Air flight or Korea Airlines, both of which had "reasons" which could be called mitigating under the right filter behind what happened.

[Nefron]

2 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

I have no expectation that Russia will cease operations because of world opinion. I do expect that as long as they use unguided and reckless munitions they will face extra scrutiny in the public eye, like we are doing now. If Russia wants to play big kid games they need to use big kid rules. Or go back to gassing theaters full of kids.

 

World opinion meaning the opinion, more like faked outrage, of US and its allies.

Again, you pick the highest possible standard to judge by, and everything less is apparently inhumane. I think Russia is content to just defeat the jihadists, without the style points. 

 

2 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

I can't guarantee whether it was unguided munitions or not. Some were definitely guided, others were less obvious. But I don't know the capabilities of their PGMs like I know the US ones I've dropped. I just know half of those strikes felt different. Like I've said before, dumb bombs and modern computers work great against big, isolated targets which is what I saw. The difference is modern PGMs let's me pick which road wheel on your shiny Armata you'd like me to rearrange from about 20 miles away with one hand.

Well, the targets in Syria don't really shoot back, and there's very little armor and such, so I guess those munitions work good enough. There are no laws that forbid usage of unguided bombs. 

Incendiaries in residential areas are another thing entirely. 

Edited October 31, 2016 by Nefron

[Nefron]

20 minutes ago, sburke said:

 

Sorry Vladimir, the tribunal verdict is in. The BUK came from Russia, fired the missile and returned to Russia

 

Isn't that all circumstantial evidence? I mean, how the hell do they know it was that launcher that shot down the airliner, it's impossible. 

Edited October 31, 2016 by Nefron

[sburke]

Isn't it more reasonable that Russia just f'ked up?  Well for one I don't believe there were mitigating circumstances for either that Iran air flight or the Korean flight. In that at least I am consistent. As to the BUK, that sounds like bending over backwards to find an excuse for what was more likely simply a screw up Russia doesn't want to admit to. Just like the US paid out millions for the deaths on the Iranian Air flight, but won't actually say we screwed up. 

And bringing this back to the media discussion, you only have to go to Wikipedia to see some damning information about the Iran Air flight. Seems we aren't as good at whitewashing our stories. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

[Nefron]

Just now, sburke said:

 

Isn't it more reasonable that Russia just f'ked up?

 

Sure, I would say that's the most likely explanation. Let's just not pretend that it's a fact.

[sburke]

15 minutes ago, Nefron said:

Sure, I would say that's the most likely explanation. Let's just not pretend that it's a fact.

Well the Dutch investigation seems to think it is and Russia has only gone from one bogus excuse to another.  So at this point the ball is in Russia's court to cough up some info.  To date all they have done is fumed and cast out some really absurd claims.  Sounds like a cover up.  Regarding the posing of option 2 above.  Anyone think Russia drove a highly sophisticated AA platform over the border and just turned it over to the first militia yokels it saw and said  - hey new toy, want to try it out?  Really?

https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-vliegramp/presentaties/presentation-joint/

Conclusions:

Based on the above the JIT concludes 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. Furthermore, the investigation also shows that the BUK-TELAR was brought in from the territory of the Russian Federation and subsequently, after having shot down flight MH-17, was taken back to the Russian Federation.

[Nefron]

6 minutes ago, sburke said:

Well the Dutch investigation seems to think it is and Russia has only gone from one bogus excuse to another.  So at this point the ball is in Russia's court to cough up some info

The Russians, on the other hand, are complaining that the Dutch ignored the data they have given. For example, Almaz-Antey had something to say on the matter, and they are the ultimate experts on the subject, not a Dutch civilian agency. It's not like anybody here can be considered impartial. 

6 minutes ago, sburke said:

Furthermore, the investigation also shows that the BUK-TELAR was brought in from the territory of the Russian Federation and subsequently, after having shot down flight MH-17, was taken back to the Russian Federation.

And this is guesswork at best. What they say is entirely plausible, but it's way short of proving that this exact launcher shot down the aircraft. It's circumstantial. The launcher could have done it, but there is nothing directly linking it to the incident. Are we in agreement on that? 

You can't claim that this part is a fact. 

Edited October 31, 2016 by Nefron

[VladimirTarasov]

Not only that, militia's captured  BUK system from Ukrainians... considering the local militia had alot of ex military from Ukraine. Anyways bottom line is it's not fact that Russian military shot it down, but it is more likely for the Militia to shoot it down on accident. Which doesn't really justify anything... Probably IF militia shot it down they didn't admit to it because of the huge amount of pressure they were already facing from the international stage for opposing the government I think they approved of (or did they not? can't remember) 

[HerrTom]

2 minutes ago, Nefron said:

And this is guesswork at best. What they say is entirely plausible, but it's way short of proving that this exact launcher shot down the aircraft. It's circumstantial. The launcher could have done it, but there is nothing directly linking it to the incident. Are we in agreement on that? 

Just because it's circumstantial evidence doesn't discredit it as informative or even damning.  It may not be the smoking gun one might be looking for, but if it was the only launcher in the area, one could argue that it's pretty likely that it was the one.

41 minutes ago, sburke said:

Well for one I don't believe there were mitigating circumstances for either that Iran air flight or the Korean flight.

And neither do I.  But there are clear reasons why such needlessly aggressive actions were taken, however mistaken they are.  Mixed up radio codes, RYAN, etc.

15 minutes ago, sburke said:

Anyone think Russia drove a highly sophisticated AA platform over the border and just turned it over to the first militia yokels it saw and said  - hey new toy, want to try it out?  Really?

Just like they've been supposedly doing with tanks and artillery pieces?  One would presume that they had a crew selected in some manner.  Or for that matter giving crates of highly sophisticated man portable air defense systems to some extremists fighting the USSR?  It's hardly out of the question and there is some historical evidence to suggest that this kind of thing can happen.

[Codename Duchess]

In regards to knowing it was civilian vice military:
Actually it's very likely that they didn't, assuming that the system was operating by itself and not plugged into a larger ATC network or Air Defense control network (there are no stories from any side that suggest that it was).  Military and Civilian aircraft alike use similar transponder codes (There aren't special ones set aside for military, we have different systems alltogether).  If an aircraft isn't operating tactically or isn't like a spy plane (and even then), it's probably going to have a transponder on to facilitate ground control.  A transponder is like a special radio code that serves as an ID on radar screen.  I don't know the specifics, I do know that someone tells me to put 4 numbers into my control panel and I obey.  Technology Review sat down with two experts on both electronic warfare and SAM systems.  Important quote below, emphasis my own:
 

Quote

The Buk system was originally designed to defend advancing columns of ground troops from air attack, says Steve Zaloga, an expert on missile systems at the Teal Group, a defense-consulting firm in Virginia. Because of its purpose as a tactical weapon designed to support frontline troops, it is not connected to national air defense networks and can be operated independently, using its own radar systems, Zaloga says.

The missile operators sit inside a very cramped launch vehicle looking at a basic radar screen that shows the various objects the system is tracking. But without the larger network, that information has very little in the way of context. That explains why its operators may not have had enough information to distinguish the civilian airliner from a military threat. “This definitely could have been an error,” Zaloga says.

Being a Soviet design, the user interface is fairly simple, says Michael Pietrucha, a former F-4G and F-15E electronic warfare officer and expert on air defenses. Pietrucha says he trained with German forces operating a similar Russian-built system during the 1990s.

Pietrucha says that the Buk variant that is likely to have been operated by the rebels might have been especially unable to distinguish between civilian and military air traffic because of a quirk related to aircraft transponders. The transponder is a device that broadcasts an aircraft’s identity when a radar “interrogates” it for information.

Military and civilian aircraft often use the same transponder modes and therefore that signal is not used as a “discriminator” for a military targeting system, Pietrucha says. The system has to be tied into the national air traffic control system to use that information effectively.

So it is entirely possible that whoever was operating the Buk, be they seperatists or an isolated Russian launcher supporting the same, had absolutely no idea it was civilians.  Therefore it's entirely possible that a Russian crew shot them down without confirming whether or not they were civilians.




As for coming from Russia:

The rest of the videos in this series, the Official presentation to press from the Joint Investigation Team, are worth watching as is reading the full report, but here's the pertinent one:

 

Edited October 31, 2016 by Codename Duchess

[shift8]

6 hours ago, sburke said:

Is it the US trying to impose it's standard or technology or simply the international community?  The use of clusterbombs has been internationally condemned. 

That the US has developed alternative methods and employs them (as have many other nations including Russia) doesn't take away from the fact that 108 nations have signed the condemnation of cluster munitions as of April 2016. 

Yes, well if anything all this shows is that 108 nations are retarded. 

Cluster Munitions are a weapon like anything else. There is nothing immoral about their use. Same goes for napalm, and everything else people like to irrationally attempt to ban because it makes them feel better. 

 

The real issue here is how Russia and Syria are using those weapons. Dropping them wantonly into civilian areas is the real issue here. Same as if would be if they dropped a single 1000lb dumb bomb. And the intentional indiscriminate use of those weapons IS a problem. 

[VladimirTarasov]

21 minutes ago, Codename Duchess said:

A transponder is like a special radio code that serves as an ID on radar screen.  I don't know the specifics, I do know that someone tells me to put 4 numbers into my control panel and I obey.  Technology Review sat down with two experts on both electronic warfare and SAM systems.  Important quote below, emphasis my own:

Thanks for that information, but there are many other ways on determining if it was a civilian airliner or not if it was a Russian unit. Obviously a plane headed directly towards the Russian border at high speed and altitude indicates that this was either a rookie mistake, ill-equipped. Or on purpose.

something a local militia unit could  do lacking, the long period of training and constant guidance from Russian command, plus this system would need permission before engaging it, indicating this is either a under-equipped militia unit, or it was deliberately shot down by Russia with permission from the top, or as some other theories put it Ukraine did it to grab support.

Without knowing everything using common knowledge we can take the main confirmed evidence that points the barrel at who could have done it. (pointing at the militia) they shot it down probably assuming it was Ukrainian recon or something. But what makes me very more uncomfortable about this whole situation is how Kiev tower let this plane fly over a region where dozens of planes have been shot down. I'm not trying to justify what happened in anyway, but this is the blunt of it IMO. 

No Russian BUK unit even if separately attached to a unit (God knows why) would dare hit that plane without radio into command. Command will then verify it, and then launch will be permitted considering this plane was flying at commercial liner altitude and at commercial liner speed. It just doesn't add up to me unless the Russian command actually allowed it to be hit or UAF. All this reminds me of a incident in the pass flight 1812, not that it's relevant. Guess since it happened in Ukraine as well. 

Edited October 31, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[Battlefront.com]

I've been letting this thread run on its own for a bunch of days because I've not had time to monitor it.  It's close to needing a padlock event.  But I'll let it continue as long as people keep respecting each other enough to debate points and not slam people.

Steve

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Sigh.  Because my patience is low/fts.  

Re: WELL WHAT ABOUT MAGIC SPACE PIXIES SHOOTING DOWN MH-17?

Read/watch/educate yourself.  The most likely, most plausible, most supported by the evidence version of events is a BUK provided by the Russian Federation arrived in the Ukraine, operated for a short period of time, before shooting down a totally innocent airliner.

Anything else is increasingly relying on an absence of evidence, or a need to disbelieve vs a need to see the evidence.  From separatist conversations, electronic listening, photos of the system itself, forensic evidence from the plane, all of it paints a very cohesive picture.  You can "jet fuel can't melt steel beams!" all you want, but there is no real case against it being a Russian missile, from a Russian launcher.  The only real question is if it was a Russian service person firing it or not.

I'm of the "or not" realm simply because there's enough people who know how to use the system that would be less embarrassing to lose in the Ukraine if something went sideways.   
Re: Strike True and Strike With Precision

If Syria had targets worth taking out a block of apartments, I wouldn't object as much.  It's the whole strategic bombing calculus, if this factory is offline for a week, that's 60 less tanks, which means less causalities, which means shorter war, which offset the smoking hole that used to be Franz Huttengutter High School or something.  But there aren't those sorts of targets in Aleppo.  There's nothing that needs, or merits just dumping cluster bombs into a housing complex.

Aleppo, and indeed urban combat isn't just something you feed bombs into and it gets better, and by technology or intent, the Russian area bombing is frankly well and away out of proportion with what is reasonable in a post 1945 context.  

Interestingly enough, as much as expense is getting touted, Russia can afford to send it's Navy, and give out tanks that frankly offer no realistic advantage over the ones available in theater....but oh no, using any number of 1980's era guided weapons to destroy point targets is just too expensive, better stick all them ATGMs and guided bombs on a shelf because it isn't like the US has been using hellfires and similar missiles with great effect against insurgents, no no no, we better drop bombs on apartments, because that's how things get done!

Again, let's place the shoe on the other foot and make it Ukrainians dropping bombs on separatists.  Does Russia have any right at all to object?  

[Battlefront.com]

33 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

No Russian BUK unit even if separately attached to a unit (God knows why) would dare hit that plane without radio into command. Command will then verify it, and then launch will be permitted considering this plane was flying at commercial liner altitude and at commercial liner speed. It just doesn't add up to me unless the Russian command actually allowed it to be hit or UAF. All this reminds me of a incident in the pass flight 1812, not that it's relevant. Guess since it happened in Ukraine as well. 

You're making a harsher case for Russia's guilt in the downing of MH-17 than I would.  All of the evidence (credible, not the jokes Russia keeps putting out there) leads to the solid probability that a Russian BUK took down MH-17.  The evidence also clearly shows that the BUK started it's journey in Russia, moved into Ukraine, was deployed in Ukraine, and was returned to Russia.  Only an utter fool would suggest that this could be done without explicit Russian government approval.  Therefore, without any reasonable doubt the Russian government is directly responsible for the BUK being in Ukraine.  The fact that the Russian government has overtly lied time and time and time again about this tragedy, and presented absolutely nothing resembling counter evidence, it's pretty clear that Russia is in fact guilty of illegally providing the means of downing an aircraft flying at high altitudes to a warzone which it still laughably claims it is not involved in.

Evidence, and logic, suggests that the BUK was always under Russian government control.  Eye witnesses at the time, before the shoot down, show that the crew with the BUK was at the very least Russian and not Ukrainian.  The fact that such a sophisticated piece of equipment needs trained operators indicates that the crew was not random.  It is also established fact that Russian service personnel are operating in Ukraine with lethal weaponry is also extremely well documented, so this is not some sort of abnormal circumstance.

Therefore, the evidence clearly shows that the BUK was Russian, was directed into Ukraine by Russia, and was crewed by individuals tasked by the Russian government to operate the BUK.  We also know that MH-17 was in fact destroyed over Ukraine and was downed by a BUK.  Therefore, it is certain that the Russian government is directly responsible for the downing of MH-17.

Now, Vladimir suggests that the only way this could happen is if the Russian government also knowingly, without the possibility of error, ordered MH-17 to be destroyed.  This means Vladimir is claiming that his government deliberately murdered every single person on that flight.  That's his position and, as I said, I actually do not agree with it.  There are two other possibilities:

1.  Someone screwed up.  The intent was to down a Ukrainian military transport and instead accidentally nailed MH-17.  The BUK was operating without it's full compliment of command and control support, so that could be one possible reason for the screw up.  Simple Human error is also quite likely.  The US air cap over Iraq shot down and killed a Blackhawk full of its own Special Forces, despite all the safeguards and high tech equipment, as well as all kinds of other document screwups.  To think that Russia is without any ability to screw up on this level is just ill founded.

2.  Russia meant to murder someone else, but got the wrong victims.  The Ukranians and others floated the possibility that Russia had intended to murder a bunch of Russians on an Aeroflot flight out of Moscow.  It is established fact that just such a flight was almost in the same area at almost the same time.  This was confirmed within hours of MH-17's shoot down using public source radar/flight information.  The theory goes that Russia wanted to do another apartment bombing false flag type action which would predispose the Russian people to support open military activity in Ukraine while at the same time giving Russia political cover.  Since Russia does behave this way when it really wants something, it is plausible though highly speculative.

I don't see any evidence, nor logic, to suggest that Russia deliberately shot down MH-17 as opposed to another aircraft.  Therefore, it shouldn't be up for consideration even if technically possible.

So there we have it.  Either Russia intended on downing a Ukrainian military flight and accidentally shot down the hapless MH-17, or Russia intended to murder it's own people and instead botched it by murdering the wrong group.

Either way, Russia is responsible for the deaths of everybody on board of MH-17 within a very reasonable degree of certainty.  I'm at least of the opinion that Russia did it by accident, though it would not surprise me one bit to find out that Vladimir is correct and the order to down a civilian airliner was indeed authorized by the highest levels of the Russian government.

Under no circumstances do the facts or logic support any other scenario, be it separatists with a captured BUK or Red Lectroids from Planet 10 in the 8th Dimension.  People can strain as hard as they want to make it seem like there's another possibility, but it only serves to discredit them.

Steve