This is an excellent detailed analysis of the MH17 tragedy by the Russian Union of Engineers which quite frankly illustrates how heavily censored the Dutch “report” is.
We will let you digest this report and come to your own conclusion, which in all likelihood will explain the infamous high velocity projectiles whitewash pumped out by the western “press”.
This review was undertaken by experts who not only know the subject matter but have objectively presented evidence that must be considered with the legitimacy that is inherent to it. Here is the overall description of the “Analytical Group” from the report:
A group of experts from the Russian Union of engineers was convened to analyze the situation, including reserve officers with experience in the use of anti-aircraft missile systems, as well as pilots having experience with aircraft weapons.This problem was also discussed at a meeting of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, where many variants were tested and discussed again. In the course of their analysis the experts used materials derived from public sources, found in the media. The situation was also analyzed using a computer simulation of the Su-25.
You can download the English version of the report here.
The original Russian version of the report is here.
Official statement by the Russian Union of Engineers:
We would like to thank The Saker for his continued support for our efforts at Oceania Saker. Special mention, thanks and much gratitude goes to Alice, Gideon & Katya for their wonderful effort at such short notice.
We have translated the text to the best of our abilities and where unsure have included the original Russian. Additionally, the original Russian report is available for download for your reference. Please distribute freely with acknowledgement.
1- International sovereignty
The Minsk affair stressed the urgency, for Novorussia, to define its international status.
All Novorussia actors agreed that from now on, they must never sign any agreement within the Ukrainian legal frame and constitutional order (if there is one). Therefore, any new agreement will necessarily be international.
The contact group summit, by the way, was supposed to be international, and the theme of the meeting, if it was the project announced two days earlier by Putin, was definitely an international matter, precisely a ceasefire (an inadequate term for internal public order), proposing, among other things, an all-for-all exchange of prisoners, something that is only conceivable in an equal-to-equal relationship: same status for the prisoners of each pack and same legal capacity for the two actors holding and exchanging them. Nevertheless even a simple temporary ceasefire, even limited in space (to one sole front of the theater) is an international treaty contracted between two sides equally capable of signing an agreement, like an armistice that doesn’t name any victor. Even a capitulation, where one of the warring parties recognises its defeat, can only be signed between existing and reciprocally recognised authorities; for example, the last Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) signed such an act in 1999, which is obviously impossible when any state entity has been destroyed in the defeated country, as for example in Iraq in 2003 (unlike 1991) or in Libya in 2011.
[Please click below to continue reading]
Continue reading Lessons from Minsk: international and national sovereignty, by Stratediplo