Greetings to you! I'am Russian independent investigator with a previously unspoken hypothesis.
According to the forensic examination of the traces of shrapnel, the missile approach should have occurred from the right side of the aircraft axis in the range of 17÷35° horizontally and 7÷15° vertically from below. Detonation – to the left and above the cabin.
Let's check how the actual trajectories of the plane and the missile correlate to these angles.
The horizontal axis of the aircraft is determined as follows: magnetic declination is added to the magnetic compass reading to compensate for orientation to the floating magnetic pole.
Position of the magnetic head was fixed at 115 degrees on the flight recorder.
According to the IGRF/EMM magnetic field models for coordinates and that period, the correction is 7.9-8°.
So, the axis of the aircraft by azimuth (counting clockwise from true north) is 123° (115°+8°).
The extrapolation of the flight route on the FlightRadar24 website was 118°, while on the Utes-T radar at the last line before the crash, the trajectory was approximately 119°.
Due to the southwesterly wind at an altitude of 10 km, the aircraft must fly slightly to the right to stay on course. Therefore, its position in space will differ from the flight path.
According to the "black box", the drift was 4°.
With this calculation, the axis of the aircraft should have been 122-123 degrees (118°/119°+4°).
By both calculations, the plane’s position in space was 123°.
To a non-maneuvering target, a missile of the Buk TELAR must fly to a pre-calculated meeting point.
Azimuth from the last flight point of Boeing to the certain place of launch is 134°.
Therefore, difference with the direct launch of this rocket will be 11 degrees (134°–123°).
Does this mean that the launch from near Snezhnoye (Snizhne) is incorrectly determined? No, based on the aggregate of video evidences of the Buk's passage, photo evidences of the smoke trail from the launch, examination of this location, and eyewitness testimonies, this location is correct.
Then, where was the missile actually launched?
Let's try to determine the wind speed and position of the smoke column relative to the straight line from the launch using two photos taken by Aleynikov from Torez.
The wind speed was determined by the ratio of the smoke shift relative to two poles at the mine behind the hill. Then, I added coefficients to the actual distance between the landmarks and drew lines.
The images were taken with a difference of 6.8 seconds. The smoke displacement during this time along the horizon (approximately 20 meters above the fields near "Buk") occurred at a speed of 6.3 m/s (average between the morning and afternoon weather reports).
If we consider this speed to be constant, then 82 seconds elapsed from the launch site to the center of the smoke column from the second photo.
Based on the size of Nikon D7000 camera matrix and reference points we can get the "ceiling" of the photo. The smoke trail is visible up to 2 kilometres in height.
At an altitude of eight hundred meters the speed of 8 m/s was obtained.
If we now make a projection of the trail from this level and postpone the distance, which the smoke passed in the same time (82 s), but at its own speed, then we get the probable direction of launch:
The column of smoke stands generally vertically.
At the same time, the line of observation from the photographer's balcony to the windblown trail follows absolutely parallel to the line of direct launch to Last FDR point (latest flight data from the "black box").
This means, if the coordinates of the disaster are a preemptive point (calculated location of the target, taking into account its speed, direction and time of approach of the missile to it), then the combustion products of the rocket fuel had to move at the constant speed. But it cannot be so due to the difference in wind speeds with altitude.
Therefore, it can be considered an axiom that if the launch was made from the said position, then scenarios should be based on the fact that the direction of the shot went to the right of the straight line to the site of disaster.
But, in the official report the missile "directed" towards not even the beginning of the Kill Zone, but, apparently, to the beginning of the Launch Zone – forty kilometers from the start there is a crossing with the trajectory of Boeing.
That is, their "launch" should have been carried out not even on the plane, but to the left of it, as the liner was supposed to be at a distance of 33-34 km. Such a missile approach along an arc would fall within the horizontal range of 17÷35° from the aircraft's axis. However, it's unclear in which guidance system such a calculation was made. And the wind map is turned upside down.
The starting angle was determined from another photographic evidence taken from the center of Snezhnoye:
Visible angle around 50 degrees.
The angle between the observer, the launch site and the determined trajectory with wind correction is 42.8°.
Let's calculate the real vertical angle of the launch:
Taking into account that with increasing altitude the wind blew stronger and drifted the trail faster, the initial launch angle can be adjusted a bit more. So, we can take the starting angle as 41-42°.
If we draw perpendiculars to the time lines on the diagram of the vertical section of the missile flight, then at a distance of 24.6 kilometres, where the Boeing was, the missile should approach from above, descending at an angle of 4-5 degrees. And starting angle is approximately 30 degrees.
But, for the real launch angle defined above, the echelon of the target at a distance of 25 kilometres should be at an altitude of 15-16 kilometres.
The red line shows how the missile was supposed to fly.
Thus, according to this analysis, the launch was made almost one and a half times higher than it should be for such a non-maneuvering target as a civilian aircraft. And on 2-3 degrees to the right of the straight direction to the place of shooting down. The missile's approach is two dozen degrees to the left of the launch site and discrepancy in elevation about 15 degrees.
How to explain this claiming that there were no other air objects?
Ukrainian security services provided recordings of intercepted conversations that such serious equipment was being planned to be delivered. And during the next day, calls about the relocation were recorded. But, this means that the Ukrainian side was aware. Well, why didn't they promptly close the airspace and immediately trumpet evidence of such hybridity to the whole world?
Maybe they wanted to destroy the firing installation beforehand?
Having received information, that there would be a "Buk" under Snezhnoye near the village of Pervomayskoye, it was decided to send there a more faster and high-altitude aircraft for reconnaissance. So that, if something goes wrong, to have a chance to get away.
After overcoming the line of defense around Snezhnoye, came out from the clouds and to give a tip of artillery or even destroy the equipment themselves.
The fighter jets were based in Vasilkov near Kiev (MiG-29) and in Myrhorod (Su-27).
Given that the separatists knew about civilian traffic (another flight flew over Gorlovka half an hour before the disaster), and they had experience recognizing the arrival of military aircraft, the priority version can be considered that the recording "The bird has arrived" refers to a military object flying at an altitude of 4-5 km.
Then, the most likely scenario would be as follows:
A civilian route was chosen that passes as close as possible to the place where the missile launcher is supposed to be located. The fighter should fly ahead along the track, but assuming that the enemy will be afraid to launch the missile in such proximity.
The military pilot did not pay attention to illuminations from afar (from the territory of Russia) – they were constantly and on other days.
Was this data used to help the militia earlier? There is interesting intelligence in the JIT report for February 8, 2023:
Apparently, there was no native complex "Kupol" either in place or 30 kilometers to the south in Russian territory, since it was not possible to promptly give the command to cancel.
Then remains a version that complex "Nebo-U" was not withdrawn to prevention.
It was located near Millerovo, where the Buk battalion was also temporarily based.
They could have agreed on a secure third-party transmission when a military facility appeared.
In this case, it was possible to get the target into a zone of guaranteed destruction within a radius of 10 km without arousing suspicion, prepare without raising the locator and capture the object in just a few seconds.
The only chance for the pilot was to rush towards that unfortunate liner.
The fighter immediately engages afterburner.
The missile begins adjusting its flight to match the evasive maneuvers of the target.
With such an unique trajectories, the Boeing, the missile's field of view and the guidance beam intersect both horizontally and vertically.
The civilian airliner itself gives a reflection much greater than the fighter, and herewith being several kilometers closer.
In such a paired situation, precedence is given to the more strong signal.
What happened after the missile exploded?
Some parts scattered along complex trajectories, leaving marks on the plane.
Considering that the wing bends upward during the flight, the point of explosion and the trace at the end of the left wing would be almost at the same level. But, according to forensics, the missile flew up with a vertical angle of ten degrees.
The lowering of rocket debris can be explained by the fact of the explosion itself.
But how to explain the drift of the remnants to the right?
The report states that the tracks on the wing are the result of a ricochet. But from what?
The only thing that can be assumed is the reflection of the blast wave from the fuselage plus a slight influence of the wind (3%).
Of the TNO official models presented, the manoeuvrable target scenario is more consistent with model 1b. The lower terminal velocity corresponds to the "exhaustion" of the missile from course changes. The shift angle of its remnants is 5 degrees less than the official best matched model. And it takes six hundredths of a second to overcome inertia.
Since the wing is also moving, the strike angle will not be the same as during the approach (it will become 31-32° to the aircraft axis).
Let's summarize the results
The Ukrainian authorities claimed that none of their military aircraft flew into the combat zone that day, but they would not provide their flight records for verification. And the primary radar stations did not work at all.
The preliminary conclusion of the JIT commission in 2014 was based precisely on such an honest word. However, at the press conference in 2016, not Ukrainian representative but the head of the MH17 prosecution team Westerbeke claim that a video was discovered allegedly showing the testing of new radar software on that day and hour in the same region, with only civilian flight MH17 on the screen. Firstly, how can we believe that this is not a fake? Secondly, a country who said: "what to show if nothing happened" – withheld data.
Despite of accusations that Russia is an empire of lies and disinformation, a new statement was taken on faith that no extraneous aircraft near the Boeing were detected on the "Utes-T" radar.
The whole problem is the video from briefing didn’t have ANY objects nearby. So, the official commission actually agrees that there was no Russian "Buk" either?
The launch from it should have been detected three times in 30-40 seconds, as it goes radially from the radar's scanning.
In reality, neither the Russian nor the Ukrainian side provided any raw data. Before that, our side (Russian) claimed that everything was wiped out, the "Nebo-U" radar was taken out for maintenance. The Ukrainian side (apparently for company) took their "Malakhit" away also for prevention. And all of this against the background of escalating conflict!
But, it turns out, everyone, in their own way, benefited from the position with the absence of other objects. The Dutch court was satisfied with only the presentation from one radar system.
The Russian authorities "refused" the foreign aircraft only to promote the scenario with the Ukrainian "Buk". And the fighter jet line was completely discredited, just like in the best detective stories.
So, the topic of "military object" cannot be considered conspiracy in the context of a NON-attacking aircraft.
The official report says that the missile will fly more or less straight to a non-maneuvering target. But, the horizontal angle to the axis of the aircraft at direct launch to the meeting point (11°) it diverges by 6 degrees from the beginning of the range of horizontal approaches, established by the expertise, and by 16 degrees from the final best model.
The vertical angle of the initial launch (41-42°), determined from the second photographic evidence, exceeds twice the angle drawn by the commission (22°), simply by extending the hypotenuse to the point of defeat at 24.6 kilometres and calculating the angle to it. The missile consumes of fuel halfway to such a distance and will not be able to fly further in a straight line and, consequently, reach the target.
And it was "directed" to intersect with the Boeing's trajectory more than 40 kilometres away. To the left of where the Boeing should have been according to their own report. This contradicts the technology of calculating a launch to a meeting point and even a simpler guidance system "by plane".
The wind at altitude is higher than at the surface. The smoke trail on the first photo evidence "stands" almost vertically but it's been over 80 seconds. The observation line is parallel to the direct path to the point of hitting. Therefore, to compensate for wind drift, the launch should be determined to the right of the Last FDR point. But, this is completely inconsistent with a launch at a peacefully flying non-maneuvering object.
Witness M58, who was located slightly east of the launch site, stated that immediately after liftoff, the rocket "turned left" and also "wobbled", then followed a curved path, but straight. This suggests maneuvering to the outgoing target from the very beginning, reducing the starting angle of launch. Therefore, the missile began to fly in an arc in the vertical plane long before the fuel consumption.
In a direct launch towards a Boeing, even if confused with a military transport, there would be no such trajectory character.
The recording of the conversation "The bird has arrived" not triggered these events. If it proves anything, it is the flight of a military aircraft.
Judging by the mention "Chernukhinsky Cossacks" (guards from Chernukhino block-post under Debaltsevo), Bezler (from Gorlovka) specifically to them transmitted information. And then, thinking that his own people shot down the pilots, he sent them on a search. That is, this is a purely local story of a commander who was out of the loop, and with own zone of control Gorlovka-Enakievo-Debaltsevo.
The Dutch court rejected this evidence due to the unreality of having time to deliver the info to the crew of the Buk TELAR (conversation ended in less than a minute before the shot).
Witness X48 said that after the installation drove past him (at the crossroads), the launch was done in 5-6 minutes.
The bottom line blame lies with everyone:
The fact of the complete closure of the airspace over Crimea did not imply, in principle, the availability of stages of raising the no-fly zone over Donbas, especially if real hostilities began there. But Western community suddenly lost interest to this region.
Hybrid support for pro-Russian forces is a separate topic of discussion. But the fact that our authorities, instead of recognizing, went into a deaf refusal, and even more so engaged in ridiculous excuses, is a shame.
The Ukrainian side, for economic or perhaps other reasons, did not close the air corridors over the sites of military raids.
According to the forensic examination of the traces of shrapnel, the missile approach should have occurred from the right side of the aircraft axis in the range of 17÷35° horizontally and 7÷15° vertically from below. Detonation – to the left and above the cabin.
Let's check how the actual trajectories of the plane and the missile correlate to these angles.
The horizontal axis of the aircraft is determined as follows: magnetic declination is added to the magnetic compass reading to compensate for orientation to the floating magnetic pole.
Position of the magnetic head was fixed at 115 degrees on the flight recorder.
According to the IGRF/EMM magnetic field models for coordinates and that period, the correction is 7.9-8°.
So, the axis of the aircraft by azimuth (counting clockwise from true north) is 123° (115°+8°).
The extrapolation of the flight route on the FlightRadar24 website was 118°, while on the Utes-T radar at the last line before the crash, the trajectory was approximately 119°.
Due to the southwesterly wind at an altitude of 10 km, the aircraft must fly slightly to the right to stay on course. Therefore, its position in space will differ from the flight path.
According to the "black box", the drift was 4°.
With this calculation, the axis of the aircraft should have been 122-123 degrees (118°/119°+4°).
By both calculations, the plane’s position in space was 123°.
To a non-maneuvering target, a missile of the Buk TELAR must fly to a pre-calculated meeting point.
Azimuth from the last flight point of Boeing to the certain place of launch is 134°.
Therefore, difference with the direct launch of this rocket will be 11 degrees (134°–123°).
Does this mean that the launch from near Snezhnoye (Snizhne) is incorrectly determined? No, based on the aggregate of video evidences of the Buk's passage, photo evidences of the smoke trail from the launch, examination of this location, and eyewitness testimonies, this location is correct.
Then, where was the missile actually launched?
Let's try to determine the wind speed and position of the smoke column relative to the straight line from the launch using two photos taken by Aleynikov from Torez.
The wind speed was determined by the ratio of the smoke shift relative to two poles at the mine behind the hill. Then, I added coefficients to the actual distance between the landmarks and drew lines.
The images were taken with a difference of 6.8 seconds. The smoke displacement during this time along the horizon (approximately 20 meters above the fields near "Buk") occurred at a speed of 6.3 m/s (average between the morning and afternoon weather reports).
If we consider this speed to be constant, then 82 seconds elapsed from the launch site to the center of the smoke column from the second photo.
Based on the size of Nikon D7000 camera matrix and reference points we can get the "ceiling" of the photo. The smoke trail is visible up to 2 kilometres in height.
At an altitude of eight hundred meters the speed of 8 m/s was obtained.
If we now make a projection of the trail from this level and postpone the distance, which the smoke passed in the same time (82 s), but at its own speed, then we get the probable direction of launch:
The column of smoke stands generally vertically.
At the same time, the line of observation from the photographer's balcony to the windblown trail follows absolutely parallel to the line of direct launch to Last FDR point (latest flight data from the "black box").
This means, if the coordinates of the disaster are a preemptive point (calculated location of the target, taking into account its speed, direction and time of approach of the missile to it), then the combustion products of the rocket fuel had to move at the constant speed. But it cannot be so due to the difference in wind speeds with altitude.
Therefore, it can be considered an axiom that if the launch was made from the said position, then scenarios should be based on the fact that the direction of the shot went to the right of the straight line to the site of disaster.
But, in the official report the missile "directed" towards not even the beginning of the Kill Zone, but, apparently, to the beginning of the Launch Zone – forty kilometers from the start there is a crossing with the trajectory of Boeing.
That is, their "launch" should have been carried out not even on the plane, but to the left of it, as the liner was supposed to be at a distance of 33-34 km. Such a missile approach along an arc would fall within the horizontal range of 17÷35° from the aircraft's axis. However, it's unclear in which guidance system such a calculation was made. And the wind map is turned upside down.
The starting angle was determined from another photographic evidence taken from the center of Snezhnoye:
Visible angle around 50 degrees.
The angle between the observer, the launch site and the determined trajectory with wind correction is 42.8°.
Let's calculate the real vertical angle of the launch:
Taking into account that with increasing altitude the wind blew stronger and drifted the trail faster, the initial launch angle can be adjusted a bit more. So, we can take the starting angle as 41-42°.
If we draw perpendiculars to the time lines on the diagram of the vertical section of the missile flight, then at a distance of 24.6 kilometres, where the Boeing was, the missile should approach from above, descending at an angle of 4-5 degrees. And starting angle is approximately 30 degrees.
But, for the real launch angle defined above, the echelon of the target at a distance of 25 kilometres should be at an altitude of 15-16 kilometres.
The red line shows how the missile was supposed to fly.
Thus, according to this analysis, the launch was made almost one and a half times higher than it should be for such a non-maneuvering target as a civilian aircraft. And on 2-3 degrees to the right of the straight direction to the place of shooting down. The missile's approach is two dozen degrees to the left of the launch site and discrepancy in elevation about 15 degrees.
How to explain this claiming that there were no other air objects?
- Are the Dutch experts wrong? But, this range is wide enough, and this is not a scenario modeling, but a direct study of the damage on the plane skin.
- The automation of the installation calculate exactly such starting angle? But, if we analyze the trajectories on the Soviet diagram, after half of the path a decline began due to fuel consumption. But the last kilometers should already be intentional decrease, since the target is flying the same course. This means, that such starting angles already have a reserve for maneuvers.
Ukrainian security services provided recordings of intercepted conversations that such serious equipment was being planned to be delivered. And during the next day, calls about the relocation were recorded. But, this means that the Ukrainian side was aware. Well, why didn't they promptly close the airspace and immediately trumpet evidence of such hybridity to the whole world?
Maybe they wanted to destroy the firing installation beforehand?
Having received information, that there would be a "Buk" under Snezhnoye near the village of Pervomayskoye, it was decided to send there a more faster and high-altitude aircraft for reconnaissance. So that, if something goes wrong, to have a chance to get away.
After overcoming the line of defense around Snezhnoye, came out from the clouds and to give a tip of artillery or even destroy the equipment themselves.
The fighter jets were based in Vasilkov near Kiev (MiG-29) and in Myrhorod (Su-27).
Given that the separatists knew about civilian traffic (another flight flew over Gorlovka half an hour before the disaster), and they had experience recognizing the arrival of military aircraft, the priority version can be considered that the recording "The bird has arrived" refers to a military object flying at an altitude of 4-5 km.
Then, the most likely scenario would be as follows:
A civilian route was chosen that passes as close as possible to the place where the missile launcher is supposed to be located. The fighter should fly ahead along the track, but assuming that the enemy will be afraid to launch the missile in such proximity.
The military pilot did not pay attention to illuminations from afar (from the territory of Russia) – they were constantly and on other days.
Was this data used to help the militia earlier? There is interesting intelligence in the JIT report for February 8, 2023:
Apparently, there was no native complex "Kupol" either in place or 30 kilometers to the south in Russian territory, since it was not possible to promptly give the command to cancel.
Then remains a version that complex "Nebo-U" was not withdrawn to prevention.
It was located near Millerovo, where the Buk battalion was also temporarily based.
They could have agreed on a secure third-party transmission when a military facility appeared.
In this case, it was possible to get the target into a zone of guaranteed destruction within a radius of 10 km without arousing suspicion, prepare without raising the locator and capture the object in just a few seconds.
The only chance for the pilot was to rush towards that unfortunate liner.
The fighter immediately engages afterburner.
The missile begins adjusting its flight to match the evasive maneuvers of the target.
With such an unique trajectories, the Boeing, the missile's field of view and the guidance beam intersect both horizontally and vertically.
The civilian airliner itself gives a reflection much greater than the fighter, and herewith being several kilometers closer.
In such a paired situation, precedence is given to the more strong signal.
What happened after the missile exploded?
Some parts scattered along complex trajectories, leaving marks on the plane.
Considering that the wing bends upward during the flight, the point of explosion and the trace at the end of the left wing would be almost at the same level. But, according to forensics, the missile flew up with a vertical angle of ten degrees.
The lowering of rocket debris can be explained by the fact of the explosion itself.
But how to explain the drift of the remnants to the right?
The report states that the tracks on the wing are the result of a ricochet. But from what?
The only thing that can be assumed is the reflection of the blast wave from the fuselage plus a slight influence of the wind (3%).
Of the TNO official models presented, the manoeuvrable target scenario is more consistent with model 1b. The lower terminal velocity corresponds to the "exhaustion" of the missile from course changes. The shift angle of its remnants is 5 degrees less than the official best matched model. And it takes six hundredths of a second to overcome inertia.
Since the wing is also moving, the strike angle will not be the same as during the approach (it will become 31-32° to the aircraft axis).
Let's summarize the results
The Ukrainian authorities claimed that none of their military aircraft flew into the combat zone that day, but they would not provide their flight records for verification. And the primary radar stations did not work at all.
The preliminary conclusion of the JIT commission in 2014 was based precisely on such an honest word. However, at the press conference in 2016, not Ukrainian representative but the head of the MH17 prosecution team Westerbeke claim that a video was discovered allegedly showing the testing of new radar software on that day and hour in the same region, with only civilian flight MH17 on the screen. Firstly, how can we believe that this is not a fake? Secondly, a country who said: "what to show if nothing happened" – withheld data.
Despite of accusations that Russia is an empire of lies and disinformation, a new statement was taken on faith that no extraneous aircraft near the Boeing were detected on the "Utes-T" radar.
The whole problem is the video from briefing didn’t have ANY objects nearby. So, the official commission actually agrees that there was no Russian "Buk" either?
The launch from it should have been detected three times in 30-40 seconds, as it goes radially from the radar's scanning.
In reality, neither the Russian nor the Ukrainian side provided any raw data. Before that, our side (Russian) claimed that everything was wiped out, the "Nebo-U" radar was taken out for maintenance. The Ukrainian side (apparently for company) took their "Malakhit" away also for prevention. And all of this against the background of escalating conflict!
But, it turns out, everyone, in their own way, benefited from the position with the absence of other objects. The Dutch court was satisfied with only the presentation from one radar system.
The Russian authorities "refused" the foreign aircraft only to promote the scenario with the Ukrainian "Buk". And the fighter jet line was completely discredited, just like in the best detective stories.
So, the topic of "military object" cannot be considered conspiracy in the context of a NON-attacking aircraft.
The official report says that the missile will fly more or less straight to a non-maneuvering target. But, the horizontal angle to the axis of the aircraft at direct launch to the meeting point (11°) it diverges by 6 degrees from the beginning of the range of horizontal approaches, established by the expertise, and by 16 degrees from the final best model.
The vertical angle of the initial launch (41-42°), determined from the second photographic evidence, exceeds twice the angle drawn by the commission (22°), simply by extending the hypotenuse to the point of defeat at 24.6 kilometres and calculating the angle to it. The missile consumes of fuel halfway to such a distance and will not be able to fly further in a straight line and, consequently, reach the target.
And it was "directed" to intersect with the Boeing's trajectory more than 40 kilometres away. To the left of where the Boeing should have been according to their own report. This contradicts the technology of calculating a launch to a meeting point and even a simpler guidance system "by plane".
The wind at altitude is higher than at the surface. The smoke trail on the first photo evidence "stands" almost vertically but it's been over 80 seconds. The observation line is parallel to the direct path to the point of hitting. Therefore, to compensate for wind drift, the launch should be determined to the right of the Last FDR point. But, this is completely inconsistent with a launch at a peacefully flying non-maneuvering object.
Witness M58, who was located slightly east of the launch site, stated that immediately after liftoff, the rocket "turned left" and also "wobbled", then followed a curved path, but straight. This suggests maneuvering to the outgoing target from the very beginning, reducing the starting angle of launch. Therefore, the missile began to fly in an arc in the vertical plane long before the fuel consumption.
In a direct launch towards a Boeing, even if confused with a military transport, there would be no such trajectory character.
The recording of the conversation "The bird has arrived" not triggered these events. If it proves anything, it is the flight of a military aircraft.
Judging by the mention "Chernukhinsky Cossacks" (guards from Chernukhino block-post under Debaltsevo), Bezler (from Gorlovka) specifically to them transmitted information. And then, thinking that his own people shot down the pilots, he sent them on a search. That is, this is a purely local story of a commander who was out of the loop, and with own zone of control Gorlovka-Enakievo-Debaltsevo.
The Dutch court rejected this evidence due to the unreality of having time to deliver the info to the crew of the Buk TELAR (conversation ended in less than a minute before the shot).
Witness X48 said that after the installation drove past him (at the crossroads), the launch was done in 5-6 minutes.
The bottom line blame lies with everyone:
The fact of the complete closure of the airspace over Crimea did not imply, in principle, the availability of stages of raising the no-fly zone over Donbas, especially if real hostilities began there. But Western community suddenly lost interest to this region.
Hybrid support for pro-Russian forces is a separate topic of discussion. But the fact that our authorities, instead of recognizing, went into a deaf refusal, and even more so engaged in ridiculous excuses, is a shame.
The Ukrainian side, for economic or perhaps other reasons, did not close the air corridors over the sites of military raids.
