Ukraine Thread

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-0...arings/8338252

Russia's lawyer is a British QC (presumably adhering to the principle that even a murderer is entitled to a spirited defence).

Notably, he's not denying the Buk missile that shot down a Malaysian Airliner came from Russia, he's denying there's any evidence the Russian though the rebels would shoot down an airliner.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-0...arings/8338252

Russia's lawyer is a British QC (presumably adhering to the principle that even a murderer is entitled to a spirited defence).

Notably, he's not denying the Buk missile that shot down a Malaysian Airliner came from Russia, he's denying there's any evidence the Russian though the rebels would shoot down an airliner.

That barrister will do far better with that argument than with trying to defy facts outright.

[Gilrandir]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-0...arings/8338252

Russia's lawyer is a British QC (presumably adhering to the principle that even a murderer is entitled to a spirited defence).

Notably, he's not denying the Buk missile that shot down a Malaysian Airliner came from Russia, he's denying there's any evidence the Russian though the rebels would shoot down an airliner.

And he calls for more facts from JIT report which is officially denounced by Russia as biased and full of fabricated evidence.

[Sarmatian]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-0...arings/8338252

Russia's lawyer is a British QC (presumably adhering to the principle that even a murderer is entitled to a spirited defence).

Notably, he's not denying the Buk missile that shot down a Malaysian Airliner came from Russia, he's denying there's any evidence the Russian though the rebels would shoot down an airliner.

You defend against the accusations against you, no need to help the other side by broadening them. If the accusation is that Russian state willfully supplied the Ukrainian rebels a BUK missile system to shoot down a civilian plane, you defend against that. That's pretty much how it goes. But idiotic journalists are so keen on an agenda that soon we will have headlines about huge scandals that ambassadors to Russia were constantly in contact with Russian ministry of foreign affairs. In other huge twists, cops will be eating donuts and rich people will be playing golf.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You defend against the accusations against you, no need to help the other side by broadening them. If the accusation is that Russian state willfully supplied the Ukrainian rebels a BUK missile system to shoot down a civilian plane, you defend against that. That's pretty much how it goes. But idiotic journalists are so keen on an agenda that soon we will have headlines about huge scandals that ambassadors to Russia were constantly in contact with Russian ministry of foreign affairs. In other huge twists, cops will be eating donuts and rich people will be playing golf.

Fair point that.

Far too often, when the case is a "cause celebre," prosecutors will bow to public opinion and attempt to prosecute at a level that is not supported by evidence. Zimmerman was tried for 2nd degree murder for the death of Trayvon Martin when the cops suggested Manslaughter as the provable charge. But the community was in arms and only "murder" would do. Casey Anthony was tried for murdering her child....when the evidence had been severely compromised -- but public opinion "knew" that she had murdered her toddler. The Boston mobbed screamed for the hanging of the British soldiers who killed rioters in the "Boston Massacre."

Public opinion and "calls for action" do NOT mesh well with the judicial process. It is about what can be proven through evidence, not what you think of them -- or the court process is meaningless.

In this instance, a prosecutor is going to find great difficulty in PROVING that the Russians were negligent/encouraging of the use of one of their missile systems by rebel forces to shoot down a civilian airliner. The provided the weapon, but how do you prove they were encouraging the rebels to use it indiscriminately? And without that level of negligence, they are no more "guilty" than any other provider of weapons.

[Gilrandir]

In this instance, a prosecutor is going to find great difficulty in PROVING that the Russians were negligent/encouraging of the use of one of their missile systems by rebel forces to shoot down a civilian airliner. The provided the weapon, but how do you prove they were encouraging the rebels to use it indiscriminately?

I'll venture to repost my own post from the same thread.

I came across a very interesting article by the Russian war historian (and plane engineer by profession) Mark Solonin on why Buk was brought from Russia to Donbas.
He draws attention to some very curious facts about it.
1. Buk was not adequate for the tasks of bringing down Ukranian military planes. In MTW terms, it was like sending a Janissary heavy infantry unit to deal with a unit of peasants. Russian army is equipped with at least 4 self-propelled anti-aircraft missile systems (Osa, Tor, Tunguska and Pantsyr) whose range of fire is 8-12 km and altitude of fire - 5-6 km, which is more than enough to empty the sky from infrasonic Su-26 or as old as the hills transport plane An-26. Such systems total about 1,5 thousand units in the Russian army.
Buk, on the other hand, is a very expensive and much less numerous system whose range of fire is 35 km and altitude range - 22 km and which is able to hit targets moving at 2,6 sound velocity. It seems too overpowered and expensive for the tasks of countering Ukranian military aviation.
2. It seems strange that only one Buk was brought. It is against military routine procedures which don't measure weapon systems in units, but in detachments. The army commanders would think in regiments, companies, platoons, squadrons etc, but not in individual units.
3. The Buk came being accompanied by no transportation loading vehicle which means that it could use only four missiles it was equipped with.

All of those make him think that it was not an army operation. It looked more like special service scheme.

4. To reach its destination (which is 60 km from the border) it took the Buk 2 days and it made a circuit of 250 km with a prolonged stop in Donetsk. Being placed at the destination it could have hardly been meant to cover the separatists positions behind it since those positions where close to the Russian-Ukranian border, so the task could have easily (and quite safely) been achieved by placing the same Buk on the Russian side of the border.
5. Stopping in Donetsk it was waiting for the tanks of the separatists' Vostok detachment (as the intercepted communications between the separatists show). The tanks never came, so the Buk moved the way it did.
6. The route of the Russian passenger plane SU 2074 Moscow-Larnaca over Ukraine had been changed twice (on July 14 and 15) giving the fighting zone a birth to the east and to the west respectively. But on July 16 and 17 (when the Buk was out on the drive around Donetsk) the plane route was plotted in the direct line few km aside from the fighting zone.

In view of all these facts, Solonin hypothesizes that the Buk came to Ukraine with the initial purpose of bringing down the Russian passenger plane. To accuse Ukraine of it, it was to be done from the territory controlled by Ukraine. At that time there was no proper front line but rather the roads were controlled by checkpoints but off roads both parties' troops (and tracked military vehicles) could roam at will. So Vostok's tanks were to have escorted the Buk to the place where its range was enough to reach the plane and then escort the Buk back. Since the tanks didn't come and the Buk personnel by the end of the second day was "tired and nervous", to put it mildly (as the intercepted communications show they even "lost" one of their crew members and had to search for him), they just decided to shoot down at least something and go quickly back the hell out of Donbas.

These considerations may be considered if one wished to prove the said intentions by Russia.

[Sarmatian]

Fair point that.

I personally found myself in a similar situation legally. The company I work at was leasing a certain office space. To put it simply, after we left, the owner tried to blame us for the complete ruination of the heating system because we switched to a different type of heating (because of the lower cost). It took one court hearing to dismiss it. Now, if he were smart, he could have said that it was due to improper maintenance over the years. He would have lost still almost certainly, but at least he would have had a chance, however remote and it would have taken much longer.

Of course, the maintenance was done properly but there was simply no reason for us to help him and bring it into the picture. If he did, the maintenance company would have get involved and it would certainly be more complicated. As it was, it took one glance for an independent expert to say no it didn't happen because they switched to another type of heating and that was it.

This is akin to a man in court for a traffic violation to argue that he didn't make any other violations before he was pulled over.

[Brenus]

In fact, it is up to the plainant/prosecution to prove beyond doubts that the defendant is guilty.
I don't know in this case how they can do it without cooperation of Russia.
They will to prove intent. They will have to prove that the missile was russian property.
And they will have to have the jurisdiction....
The counsel will have just to ask the proof (independently certified) that the missile was fired from Russia. Russia has to prove nothing.
That is how the law works.

[Gilrandir]

They will have to prove that the missile was russian property.

https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-c...ght-mh17-shot/

Transport of the missile installation
The JIT has been able to identify a large part of the route concerning the arrival and the departure of the BUK-TELAR. This was the result of intercepted telephone conversations, witness statements, photographs and videos that had been posted on social media, and a video never shown before which was obtained from a witness. The system was transported from Russian territory into eastern Ukraine and was later transported on a white Volvo truck with a low-boy trailer. The truck was escorted by several other vehicles and by armed men in uniform.

And this is the very report that Russia's lawyer wants to be referred to as much as possible.

[Brenus]

I afraid it is still not a proof it was a Russian property.
Technically that is hearsay (social media is the important bit).

[Gilrandir]

Russia's lawyer is a British QC (presumably adhering to the principle that even a murderer is entitled to a spirited defence).

No principle, just the money.