According to experts, the Dutch Safety Board report appears subjective and politically motivated. It also ignores most of the opinions of Russian experts.

On October 13, the Dutch Safety Board released its final report on the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, which killed all 298 people on board. The report was presented by the head of the Dutch Safety Board, Tjibbe Joustra, at the Gilze-Rijen military base in the Netherlands.

On the evening of October 13, in Gilze Rijen, the Netherlands, the Dutch Safety Board released its final report on the MH17 plane tragedy. Photo: Reuters

Controversy continues after report is released

After the report was published, one of the main causes of the disaster was considered to be that Ukraine did not close its airspace to passenger aircraft, despite the ongoing fighting in the Donbass region involving the use of surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). Russian experts agreed with this assessment, but noted that both sides in the conflict used such air defense systems.

Some have also blamed the disaster on Malaysia Airlines’ “failure to be aware of the potential risks of flying over a conflict zone.” At the time of the MH17 tragedy, three other passenger planes were flying over the “hot spot.” This may be an indisputable fact, but foreign airlines have no information about what altitude is considered safe to fly over this area.

According to experts, SAMs usually do not fly higher than 3.5 km when launched from a mobile air defense system. Therefore, the altitude of 10 km, at which passenger planes usually fly, is considered safe for civil aviation (which is also why passenger planes continue to fly over Afghanistan when there is an armed conflict there). However, many opinions say that, although Kiev knew that many powerful air defense missiles were deployed to the conflict zone, mainly in the area under its control, this was not reported to foreign airlines in advance.

On the Russian side, immediately after the Dutch Safety Board's report was published, Russia came forward to say that this report was not convincing. Deputy Chairman of the Russian Federal Aviation Administration Oleg Storchevoy said that the Investigation Committee had not provided evidence of finding on the fuselage components characteristic of a BUK missile while this component was completely different from what was stated in the report.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said it was skeptical about the real purpose of the Dutch investigation. According to Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, whether this investigation is aimed at finding the cause of the plane crash or justifying previously made accusations.

Meanwhile, opposition forces in Eastern Ukraine also stated that if Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by a surface-to-air missile, evidence and maps confirm that the plane could only have been shot down from territory under the control of the Ukrainian military at that time.

Reasons why the Dutch report is considered unconvincing

Who is to blame? There is a big difference in public opinion on this question. For example, an international commission set up to investigate the crash (but for some reason excluding Russia and the International Civil Aviation Organization) concluded that the Boeing 777, flight MH17, was hit by a Russian-made BUK missile launched from the Snezhnoe area - at that time controlled by the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR).

Much of the debris from MH17 has yet to be recovered more than a year after the disaster, which will hamper a full-scale investigation. Photo: Reuters

According to investigators, a surface-to-air missile exploded just to the left of the cockpit, causing the nose of the plane to split open and killing all passengers and crew almost instantly. However, some argue that the report ignores the fact that missiles are typically aimed at the middle of the plane to ensure destruction. The cockpit is typically targeted by pilots with cannons on fighter jets.

First, the Russian experts’ differing opinion from the report noted that the International Commission of Inquiry did not provide evidence that the fuselage bore the characteristic marks of a BUK missile (a butterfly-shaped hole). Moreover, one of the photographs submitted by the Commission depicted part of the BUK missile system (which is believed to have been unable to remain intact after the missile was launched).

Second, the MH17 report was presented to Russia as a fait accompli, meaning it could not be amended. Furthermore, it ignored most of the previous observations by Russian experts.

Third, the Dutch authorities did not allow Russian experts to examine the crash site. Even a month after the disaster, not all the bodies were recovered (traces of shrapnel could be important clues for the international investigation). In addition, contrary to the usual practice, a significant part of the crashed plane remained at the crash site and was not recovered in its entirety. This will prevent a comprehensive investigation.

Fourth, there was no thorough analysis of the instructions of the Ukrainian air traffic controllers who “guided” the Malaysian airliner into the conflict zone and inexplicably changed its flight path.

The incident may recall that on March 17, 1994, a C-130 military transport plane carrying Iranian embassy staff was shot down over the Nagorno-Karabakh region near the village of Stepanakert, killing all 19 passengers, including nine children, and 13 crew members. According to sources, Azerbaijani air traffic controllers deliberately diverted the plane about 100 km into the war zone, where it was shot down by an Armenian SAM.

Fifth, the Commission of Inquiry report also fails to consider the possibility that MH17 was intercepted by a Ukrainian fighter jet, although there was a Ukrainian fighter jet nearby at the time. This aircraft could have shot down the crew of MH17 with its onboard machine gun and air defence support (usually two surface-to-air missiles fired at the same time in case one missed its target). In this case, it is also possible that MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile.

On Friday, July 2, 2015, experts from Almaz-Antey, the manufacturer of the BUK missile, sent the International Investigation Commission the initial results of a large-scale study using a miniature model of a Boeing 777. The results showed that MH17 could have been shot down by a BUK 9M38M missile, a type of missile no longer used by the Russian armed forces. However, the Investigation Commission ignored these documents.

During the second phase of testing, which was conducted on October 7, Almaz-Antey used a decommissioned IL-86 aircraft, which is similar in size to a Boeing 777. The results showed that Malaysia Airlines MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile launched from an area about 3.5 km south of the village of Zaroschenskoe. This area was under the control of the Ukrainian military at the time. According to Almaz-Antey experts, if the missile had been launched from the Snezhnoe area (as stated by the International Investigation Commission), there would not have been warhead fragments in the aircraft engine, as the investigation results showed.

Seventh, the US did not provide the International Commission of Inquiry with data obtained from US satellites flying over the war zone at the time of the incident.

Eighth, the International Commission of Inquiry failed to investigate Ukraine's air defense systems, including their location at the time of the incident and the anti-aircraft missile systems in their inventory.

According to Dr. Vladimir Evseev, Director of the Russian Center for Political and Social Studies - who has 20 years of research on regional and international security as well as ballistic missile defense - for the above reasons, the Dutch Safety Board report may not be the final conclusion. It does not include all available data, appears subjective and politically motivated. The "elaborate" 15-month investigation may simply be a delaying tactic when convincing evidence of Russian involvement cannot be verified./.

According to VOV