MH17. Another analysis of the "testimonies" of the "witness" of Komsomolskaya Pravda. Vadim Lukashevich said that Putin is a coward Vadim Lukashevich is a military expert about Karabakh

Vadim Lukashevich, a Russian expert on the combat effectiveness of aviation systems, Ph.D. retired colonel as Wikipedia says about it.
Lukashevich's analysis contains interesting technical data.

Vadim Lukashevich Facebook post December 23:

"Komsomolskaya Pravda" again excelled ...
This is something!
I'll start with the fact that the "witness" could apply to representatives of the official investigation and receive more than 20 million euros for information about the "specific culprit" of the plane crash, but he preferred to turn to Komsomolskaya Pravda. In general, it is very symptomatic that the most fuss about this topic is in Russia - a country that seems to have "nothing to do" with either the Boeing-777, or the Buk air defense system, or the dead passengers of the aircraft, or the airspace in which shot down a Boeing, nor to the territory where the debris fell ... As Winnie the Pooh said: "This is w-w-w for a reason!"
Now look at these new "revelations".

1. The witness says that he was at the airport from which the Su-25 attack aircraft took off: “I was on the territory of Ukraine, in the city of Dnepropetrovsk, the village of Aviatorskoye. This is an ordinary airport. Fighters and helicopters were based there at that time. bombed, Su-25 attack aircraft bombed Donetsk, Luhansk”

The question is - how does a person know the combat mission of sorties if he is not a pilot and does not direct the flights of pilots?

2. Quote: "missiles were hung on the planes to cover themselves in the air. Just in case."

The question is for what occasion? After all, the separatists did not have aviation! And there was no Russian military aviation in the Ukrainian sky and no

3. Quote: "about an hour before the downing of the Boeing, three attack aircraft were lifted into the air."

And the Russian military, at a briefing by the Ministry of Defense, claimed that there was only one Su-25 in the air

4. Quote: “After a short time, only one plane returned, two were shot down. Somewhere in the east of Ukraine, I was told so"

Question: where are the victorious statements of the separatists about the downing of two (!) Su-25s around the time of the Boeing crash? Where are the two captured or dead airmen shot down in separatist-controlled territory? Where are the wreckage of two downed Su-25s?

5. Quote: “Knowing this pilot a little ... (it is quite possible when these two planes were shot down in front of him), he just had a frightened reaction, inadequate. He could, out of fright or in order to take revenge, launch rockets at the Boeing. Maybe he mistook it for some other combat aircraft.

I’ll ask questions, “knowing a little about aviation” - since when do “shy” pilots fly in combat aviation? I note that there were “two missiles” on the Su-25, so “Captain Voloshin” got scared twice in a row
Or is it so inadequate that it twice took revenge on a passenger Boeing. In passing, we note that, judging by the wreckage, there is no evidence (yet?) That the plane was hit by two missiles, not one.
Another question - how can a combat pilot confuse during the day, above cloud cover, with excellent visibility, a passenger plane flying in the international corridor at cruising speed (900 km / h) and altitude (10 km) with something else? And the most interesting thing - what could be confused with a civilian plane flying in the Ukrainian airspace in the international corridor, provided that there are no other planes in the air, and the separatists have no aviation at all?

6. Quote: “The phrase was said by him when he was taken out of the plane: “The plane is not the same.”

I ask a question that makes all the material of "Komsomolskaya Pravda" complete nonsense - what kind of plane was "that one"?
By the way, they don’t “take out” the Su-25, they get out of it. They open the lantern, stand up to their full height, climb over the side of the cabin and go down the ladder.
And they "take out" a stowaway from a bus or a brawler from a restaurant

7. Quote: “Those who were there, they were experienced. The Nikolaev part was even one year, in my opinion, 2013, the best part in Ukraine.”

The “witness” contradicts himself - a pilot of the best part, with extensive combat experience (“... all this time they bombed Donetsk and Luhansk”), has an inadequate, frightened reaction, and confuses air targets.

8. Quote: “The pilots communicated more with each other, they are so ... proud.”

The pilots communicated with each other, but the "witness" knows that they constantly "bombed Donetsk and Lugansk." In general, it seems to me that the main thing in this material is not “Ukrainian captain Voloshin shot down a Boeing”, but “elite Ukrainian pilots are constantly bombing Donetsk and Luhansk”, see the phrase: “After all this, sorties continued”

9. Quote: “Question: From what distance are these missiles launched? The answer of the "witness": for 3-5 kilometers they can fix the target.

"Witness" does not know that the maximum launch range of the R-60/R-60M missile is from 7 to 10 km, with a minimum range of 200-250 meters. In this regard, a very interesting point arises - if the alleged missile launch was carried out from a minimum distance (up to several kilometers), then the pilot perfectly saw and identified the target aircraft and the phrase “wrong aircraft” is out of place. And if the launch was made from a distance of 7-10 km, at which reliable visual identification of the target is impossible (or difficult for some reason), then how can the pilot know whether this is the right plane or the wrong one?

10. Quote: “The rocket has a pretty good speed. Very fast rocket

A professional (and just a person "in the subject")) will never say that. You can expect “more than two Machs”, “two and a half Machs” from a specialist, but “very fast” is the conversation of an inhabitant. By the way, the speed of Mach 2.5 is not “very fast”, it is a very ordinary (for a rocket) speed, “fast” is more than three Machs, and “very fast” is Mach 3.5 and higher.

11. Quote: “The plane can just turn its nose up, and there is no problem fixing it and launching a rocket.”

No problem? Over 30 years, more than 700 Su-25s and tens of thousands of R-60 missiles of various modifications have been produced, these aircraft and missiles have participated in most of the world's conflicts of recent decades, but not a single (!) Case of successful interception of the Su-25 high-speed air target in upper hemisphere at a height of 10 km. I emphasize - none!

12. Quote: "The range of this missile is more than 10 kilometers."
The flight range of this missile is up to 10 kilometers. A number of sources indicate "up to 12 km", but this is a NEAR air combat missile used against highly maneuverable targets.

13. Quote: “Question: This rocket explodes at what distance from the target? Can it get into the hull and explode? Answer: Depending on the modification. Literally can in the body and at a distance of 500 meters can "

Here I can only say one thing - the “witness” is a complete idiot ...
The Su-25 is not equipped with an airborne radar, so it can only carry air-to-air missiles equipped with an infrared homing head that aims the missile at engine heat. Therefore, the rocket flies to the engine, exploding in the engine itself (there were such cases), or in the immediate vicinity of it. In case of a miss, a non-contact fuse (radar or optical) is triggered, the detonation distance is 5 meters.

14. Quote: “Question: We were working at the crash site and noticed that the fragments hit the aircraft body very tightly. It feels like it exploded literally two meters from the Boeing. Answer of the "witness": There is such a rocket. The principle of fraction - it is torn, the fraction goes. And then the main warhead of the rocket hits "

Enchanting! What happens according to the "witness": A rocket flies, then it explodes. Those. a rocket explodes, due to which “the shot goes”, and the actual warhead of the rocket with an explosive charge and striking elements continues to fly without exploding. And when a shot hits the target, the warhead of the rocket also hits the target (and, presumably, finally explodes). In this way, Komsomolskaya Pravda finally became a rubbish newspaper ...
But even if, after laughing, we assume that such a missile exists, then this is not the missile carried by the Su-25

But then, I think, the main goal of these "eyewitness revelations" begins - the use by Ukrainian aviation (essno, in Donetsk and Lugansk) of prohibited volumetric detonating bombs, cluster munitions, and so on.
Well, I consider it below my dignity to comment on the thoughts of the “experts” of the Komsomolskaya Pravda such as K. Zatulin, V. Solovyov, A. Mamontov (posted on the KP website after this material) and others like them.

In the same place (on the KP website) there is a “discussion by the military observer of the KP of popular versions of the Boeing crash”, but anyone can watch our joint (with this military observer of the KP) television broadcast on Dozhd on the network in order to understand for themselves the “objectivity” of this type , which previously coordinated its participation in television with the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.

And now, especially for Komsomolskaya Pravda, for idiots who write this nonsense in the editorial office and read outside it, I give excerpts from the Su-25T flight manual (emphasis mine):

Chapter 1, paragraph 1.1 "Appointment and a brief description of aircraft":
"... solves the tasks of hitting LOW-SPEED air targets in the conditions of their VISUAL visibility"

Chapter 11, paragraph 2.1 "Purpose, composition and basic data of the [round-the-clock automatic sighting] system" Shkval ":
"KAPK" Flurry "ensures the use of weapons in the following
aircraft flight conditions:
1. Height of combat use (excess relative to the target) up to
5000 m;
2. The maximum barometric altitude of the aircraft flight is not more than
10000 m;
3. Exceeding the target above sea level NO MORE THAN 4000 m;

I will also give data on air-to-air missiles from the same instruction:

"The R-60M missile with a thermal homing head is designed
to destroy enemy aircraft in close maneuverable air combat.
The missile is aimed at the target using the method of proportional navigation to a preemptive meeting point. Its essence lies in the fact that with this method, navigation in order to increase the stability of the movement of the rocket to the target
the angular velocity of the "missile-target" line is reduced to a value proportional to the current value of the normal acceleration or rocket overload. The maximum launch range of a missile with equal velocities of the carrier and target at an altitude of 5 km is 2.5 km, the minimum launch range is 0.3 km. Launch angles - 0/4-4/4. Maximum overload
Ruzka hit targets - 8 units.
In combat use, aiming is carried out in the "8f 5o 0" or "TsVM" mode.

Rocket R-73. designed to defeat heat-contrast pilots
enemy airborne and unmanned aerial vehicles day and night.
The R-73 missile has practically no restrictions on its use in terms of target types, flight modes, target and attack aircraft overloads at the time of launch, attack directions and jamming conditions.
The maximum launch range for air targets is:
- in PPS: at the height of the carrier up to 7000 m - 8000 m;
- in ZPS: at the height of the carrier up to 4000 m - 2000 m;
at a carrier height above 4000 m - in numerical values ​​of the difference (H 5nos 0-2000 m).
The minimum launch range of the R-73 is 650 m in the PPS, and 350 m in the ZPS.
The missile is guided to the target by the method of proportional
navigation.
It is not recommended to use the R-73 in combined weapons after the use of S-8 missiles with 2, 4, 8, 10 suspension points due to the possible destruction of the spherical fairings of the TGS R-73 by combustion products of the powder engines of S-8 missiles.
Two rockets are suspended on the plane.
An aviation commander who makes a decision on combat operations or an official who develops proposals for making this decision needs to know certain technical characteristics that limit the range of possible conditions for the use of missiles.

I draw your attention to the fact that the maximum launch range in the rear hemisphere (ZPS) of the target, i.e. in pursuit - only 2000 m, i.e. visual identification of the target - one hundred percent! This is to the question "the plane is not the same."

An entertaining interview with the military observer of Komsomolskaya Pravda, Viktor Barants, the same one who a few months ago, on the air of the Dozhd TV channel, claimed that the Boeing-777 was shot down by a Su-25 aircraft gun and "holes have already been found in the wreckage of the tail section at the crash site from projectiles."

http://youtu.be/6C2-qaTt-q4
Now he begins by saying that "catching up" with the Su-25 and Boeing-777 is "far-fetched". True, then he again talks about a cannon, about a rocket, again about a cannon ... Here is such a weather vane.

So, the "debriefing" of Viktor Barants:

http://youtu.be/sB3yM7F-dMI

Timecode 02:12
- our experts, whom we have called...

I will note that the full name or any other information on any expert is not called!

02:21:
- And who told you that the Su-25 was chasing a Boeing?

The answer is Viktor Baranets, a military observer for the KP live on the Dozhd TV channel, the link to which I gave above. It was chasing, otherwise it’s impossible to shoot its tail section from the side cannon

02:52:
- it happens that Su-25s fly out to intercept ...

Well done! Attack aircraft fly out to intercept a high-altitude high-speed air target - this is something new in the tactics of using air defense aviation. Interceptor fighters smoke nervously, after which they attack ground targets on the battlefield due to the lack of attack aircraft occupied by high-altitude targets.

03:03
- all these talks about "catching up" - it's just somehow so far-fetched

This is how the KP military observer publicly lowers himself - more precisely, his broadcast on Dozhd, which, thanks to the Internet, remained on the network for everyone to access.
I confess - that's exactly how, Viktor Nikolaevich, "far-fetched", I perceived your words about "holes from shells found at the site of the fall of debris in the tail section of the Boeing" during a television broadcast on "Rain"
I remember that at that time you said that it would probably even be necessary to do experimental shelling at the training ground in order to confirm the identity of these holes - well, how did they shoot a lot at the GosNIIAS training ground in Faustovo?

03:08
- no one really saw ... at what height it all happened

Here, the military observer of the KP, Viktor Baranets, casually lowers our military, who demonstrated slides at the briefing of the Ministry of Defense, on which the height of 10 km was clearly indicated for the Boeing-777 and Su-25

03:25
- we journalists must now ... give the floor to professionals, to those who are sitting on the Su-25 aircraft today, who serves it, who arms it

And here the word is given - to whom would you think? Igor Korotchenko, as the editor-in-chief of the magazine, who sits a lot in the Su-25, serving it and arming the Kindergarten, trousers with straps!

04:01 Igor Korotchenko says:
- the practical ceiling [Su-25] without oxygen equipment is 7 km, with oxygen equipment - 10 km, so the Su-25 could be at an echelon of 10 km.

But above, Baranets says that talking about catching up is all "somehow far-fetched"
In addition, the practical ceiling and the ceiling of combat use are completely different things. And the quoted Commander-in-Chief Mikhailov spoke specifically about the practical ceiling, but not about the combat ceiling, which is significantly lower.

04:22
- the plane was taken to the meeting point

Radio interception ground-to-board Su-25 where?

04:42 V.Baranets is back on the air:
- oxygen removes the conversation, could or could not. Let's put an end - could!

Turn out - could. How about shooting? I repeat - history does not know the case for the Su-25 to successfully fire at a high-speed target flying at an altitude of 10 km. So no point

05:45:
- everyone who saw the holes in the cockpit, and these are experts, say that it is very similar, incredibly similar to firing from a thirty-millimeter cannon.

Viktor Nikolaevich, you are a LIAR! On the air of the Novosti issue of the Rossiya-1 TV channel, shown on July 23, 2014 at 20:00, the head of the military air defense of the Ground Forces of the RF Armed Forces Mikhail Krush, pointing to a piece of the cockpit lining, clearly said that “this is definitely the result destruction of a high-explosive fragmentation warhead of a rocket"

The time code 16:29 also mentions your obedient servant.
The presenter says: “Blogger Vadim Lukashevich writes that there is a confusion - three attack aircraft, or one attack aircraft, took off that day, as the Russian military spoke about at a briefing of the Defense Ministry. Lukashevich also writes: they say, how can you confuse and not understand that you have a passenger Boeing in front of you, that you can use the pilot of the "biscuit" in the black, that he did not know what his ultimate goal in this military operation is - that's what you can say to this ?
It's funny, but about the use of the Drying pilot in the black - this is entirely on the conscience of the presenter, I did not write anything like that. But God bless him, let's look at the answer of V. Barants:
- I read these super-ambitious, categorical statements of Lukashevich [in brackets I note - I hope that you, Viktor Nikolayevich, will also read my above accusation of lying to you], his argument surprised me, and I turned to the experts who were interpreting me, and Lukashevich, I hope , also, a simple and clear thing - our secret witness could occupy a modest position as a communications technician. Such a gray job, but very important - he does not know the whole situation at the airfield, around the airfield. Well, three “crackers” took off, left, did he see what happened at a ten-kilometer height? No, he just saw one plane."

And since the "secret specialists" of the CP did not explain anything to me, I remain in "categorical" bewilderment - as a "secret witness" (already ridiculous) with a "modest job post of a communications technician" knows where they flew ("bombed Donetsk and Lugansk"), what they bombed with (“volumetric detonating bombs and cluster munitions”), what the pilots say when “they are taken out of the Su-25”, while “proud pilots only talk among themselves” ...

Viktor Nikolaevich, thank you, you deserve my "super ambitious" laughter

They called the wrong one: the host of Russian TV hoped that the expert would blame Kyiv for the fall of the Boeing, but something went wrong))))

On the air of the program "Tamantsev. Results", which aired the day before on the Russian RBC-TV, an invited guest - a military expert on the effectiveness of aviation systems Vadim Lukashevich criticized the report of the Russian Defense Ministry on the fact of the crash of a Boeing in the Donetsk region. Judging by the host's reaction, he did not expect such statements from the expert. He began to correct him and repeatedly asked the question: “So you think that non-professionals work in the Russian Ministry of Defense?”

"The Su-25 is an attack aircraft. The ideology of this machine is to work on the ground and directly support troops on the battlefield. Shooting down an aircraft at an altitude of 11 thousand with the help of the Su-25 is not serious. Ukraine has interceptors - the Su-27, so if shoot down, then with an interceptor, which was built for this," the expert noted.

Lukashevich also called into question the testimony of supposedly "eyewitnesses" who were able to unmistakably establish the brand of the aircraft at such a height.

The expert did not accuse the RF Ministry of Defense of incompetence, but stated that an information war was going on and Russia was a party to the conflict, and therefore conclusions about the reasons for the fall of the Boeing should be made by disinterested persons. At the same time, the Russian expert said that the Russian Defense Ministry is “a party to the conflict, because these people in the Donbas are fighting with our weapons, in particular. The only question is: did we give them complexes or not (Buk - 3M (ed.).

Lukashevich also cited as an example the incident in 1983, when the Soviet Union shot down a South Korean airliner with more than 200 people on board, passing it off as a "reconnaissance aircraft". “There were also generals with a mass of stars who proved that it was a scout, he entered and left our airspace. There were whole schemes of satellites, but the truth still came out,” Lukashevich said.

Russian journalist and publicist Vladimir Abarinov in his blog called the broadcast with Vadim Lukashevich an emergency: “In fact, no one has commented on anything on Russian television for a long time - an expert is invited to confirm the official version and give additional arguments in its favor. But there was a mistake with Vadim Lukashevich. He did not sing along with the general, called the version of the Ministry of Defense untenable and explained why he thinks so. It turns out that not everything is lost yet, there are still people who are able not to sing in a common choir! What would be an ordinary interview on any other television, looks like a system failure on Russian. And it turns out that the mighty propaganda machine can do nothing to oppose the calm confidence of an honest man.

As the IS group previously reported, a number of senior European politicians have said that Russia has violated all of its commitments to support pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine over the past three months, and continues to increase the transfer of heavy weapons across the border.

A simple enumeration of achievements and places of work, as a rule, does not yet give a complete picture of a person. What is he like outside of work? What does he do, what interests him? Therefore, I will add a few more words about myself.

For more than 12 years, the history of astronautics, and in particular - aerospace and reusable transport systems, have become for me the main non-working business of life (as literature for A.P. Chekhov). Internet portal The site you are currently on has been in existence since 1998. During this time, it has become generally recognized as the most authoritative source of information on space transport systems, periodically confirming this with reviews, reviews, relevant prizes and titles ("The best site on astronautics", etc.).
Over the past 10 years, based on the materials of the portal and my own archives, I have released 4 editions of the multimedia encyclopedia "Buran" (the latest version v3.50 was released on 3 CDs). We are currently working on two parallel versions: v 4.0 on DVD-Rom and v5.0 on a Blue-Ray disc.
I have several dozen publications on the history of cosmonautics, on the economics and efficiency of aerospace systems, collaborating with the journals "Cosmonautics News", "Russian Space", "Aviation and Cosmonautics", "Aerospace Review" and others.
He was a member of the team of authors of the encyclopedia "World Manned Cosmonautics", which has no analogues in the world, which won in 2005 at the XVII Moscow International Book Fair in the national competition "Book of the Year". Literary Prize named after A. Belyaev (May 2006)

In August 2009, my monograph "Space Wings" was published, which was very well received not only by readers and critics, but also by the media.
Work on the next book, conceived as a continuation of the first, continues.

In addition to books, I collaborate with several television channels (First, Russian, Zvezda, etc.). Several films were shot with my participation, including three episodes of the Shock Force program, and several independent television projects were implemented.
In addition, I am a consultant (on Russian cosmonautics) for Europe's largest private technical museum in the cities of Sinsheim and Speyer.

As you can see from the design of the portal and the book "Space Wings", I am engaged in computer graphics (technographics) and am the winner of several thematic exhibitions.

But there are also interests not related to astronautics. In the first place, I would note both travel and photography. With my camera I have visited almost fifty countries of the world. Of particular value to my collection of photographs are pictures taken on the Nazca plateau in Peru, in Machu Picchu, on Lake Titicaca, on Easter Island, in the Galapagos, in Tibet, in the Fiji archipelago, among the Aborigines of Australia, in Tasmania, in numerous reserves and national parks, and in many other amazing, exotic or hard-to-reach places.

Here are just a few photo panoramas:

The first book about my travels "Venezuela" was published by the Moscow publishing house "Tape of Wanderings" at the end of 2011. This book is for those who, since childhood, dreamed of distant lands, animals unknown to science, or pirate treasures on lost islands. She tells about an amazing country on the other side of the globe, which still retains corners of the earth that no man has yet set foot on. Reserved islands appear before readers caribbean, wild tropical jungles of the Orinoco delta, impregnable plateaus - "lost worlds" hovering above the clouds, on which the fantasy of A. Conan Doyle settled dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures.

In this book, I share with readers my direct impressions of Venezuela through real stories that happened to me and my friends. It is written in a simple, lively language, with humor, designed for easy reading and contains over half a thousand unique photographs. The book is intended for a wide range of concerned readers who seek to push the usual boundaries of the world around us.

The next passion is collecting cars with airbrushing, the themes of which are based on my personal travel experiences. Airbrushing deserves a separate story, because. it is separate and very interesting world(exhibitions, presentations, TV shows, publications, etc.), but here I will only show my laureates:

Collectible cars are a whole world of enthusiastic people. And of course - meetings with friends, trips in each other's cars:

(graphic files are expanded in an enlarged format - resolution 3 888х2 592 pix. and with a size of about 5M b)

A week has passed since the crash of the Malaysian airliner. International experts only a couple of days ago began to arrive at the crash site of the Boeing, and by that time there were already plenty of versions of what had happened. Now it only remains to establish the only one - the one that is the truth.

Vadim Lukashevich, Candidate of Technical Sciences, a well-known Russian expert on the combat effectiveness of aviation systems, along with the world's special services, is sure that the Malaysian plane was shot down by the Buk complex. And he does not deny that the catastrophe was not without the "help" of Russia.

In an interview with Commander-in-Chief, Lukashevich explained why the version of the Russian media that the Boeing-777 of Malaysia Airlines shot down the Ukrainian plane is untenable, for whom the militants filmed the passports of the dead passengers on video, and also about whether international experts will be able to establish the real causes of the disaster. The expert is sure that it will not be easy to do this due to the fact that his country puts spokes in the wheels of an objective investigation in every possible way.

In the context of the information war and many different, often opposite, versions of the July 17 disaster over the Donbass, is it possible today to say with certainty what happened?

By and large, now, before independent expert opinions are received, we are not talking about who is to blame, what happened, but about which of us believes in which version. Since Russia is a party to the conflict, which we do not officially recognize, any information coming from us can be just as biased as information coming from the Ukrainian side. If we talk about the Boeing-777, then no one can clearly say what happened. What kind of rocket was launched - it's clear which one hit the plane - it's also clear. The main intrigue is who launched it. There are two sides to the conflict. The first is Kyiv, the second is Moscow. Donetsk is not here.

At the same time, what gives grounds to assert that a surface-to-air missile hit the plane?

Firstly, an air-to-air missile, that is, launched from an aircraft, is not large, with a limited warhead capacity. Such a missile could hardly lead to such destruction. passenger aircraft that we are observing. Judging by the radius of dispersion of debris, the Malaysia Airlines plane broke up in the air either immediately after the missile hit, or some time later at the time of the fall. If he just fell compact like a South Korean Boeing (border incident in the airspace of the USSR, during which on September 1, 1983 Soviet fighter Su-15 was shot down by a passenger Boeing-747 of a South Korean airline Korean Air Lines - "Commander") then that would be one. And here the destruction of the aircraft occurred at a high altitude, hence the large area of ​​​​the area where the debris fell. In order for such a large aircraft as the Boeing-777 to break up in the air immediately after a missile hit, you must either hit its center or have a fairly strong charge. Numerous destruction of the aircraft by shrapnel, and this is a high-explosive fragmentation warhead of the missile, indicates that the missile may not have hit the aircraft at all, but close to it. I draw a conclusion from the information that comes from the Donbass. On its basis, I can say that it was not an air-to-air type of missile, but a ground-to-air missile. Simply because the picture of destruction would otherwise be different.

At the same time, these arguments did not affect the Russian General Andrei Kartapolov. On behalf of the Russian Ministry of Defense, he voiced a version according to which, at the time of the crash, a Ukrainian Su-25 was located near the Malaysian Boeing-777, which theoretically could hit a passenger plane with a missile. How plausible is this version?

This is a frivolous position of the Ministry of Defense. Firstly, why would a Ukrainian plane need to shoot down a plane flying in echelon (on high) 11 thousand meters? I would still believe it if some Ukrainian anti-aircraft systems stood on the border to prevent the passage of our helicopters. But here I do not see a fundamental need to raise Ukrainian aviation in order to intercept a target at an altitude of more than 10 thousand meters. After all, these rebels, bandits (whatever you want to call them), in principle, there is no aviation. But even if we imagine that such a need would arise for the Ukrainian army, then Ukraine has an interceptor aircraft that is "imprisoned" to work on air targets, this is the Su-27, but not the Su-25.

The Su-25 is an attack fighter that operates only "on the ground". First, it is armored. Precisely because they shoot at him with small arms from the ground, they fire at the enemy’s air defense on the battlefield. Secondly, he does not have an onboard radar station. He just doesn't need her. He has equipment for aiming on the ground. Accordingly, his cannon armament is different from the Su-27. Bombs are attached to him, NURSs (unguided missiles), and URSs (guided missiles) different caliber. Every aircraft has a ceiling - this is the maximum height at which it can fly. And there are working heights at which you need to work. The Su-25 attack aircraft can climb 9-10 thousand meters, then its main working height, for which it is optimized, is 3-5 thousand meters.

That is, the accuracy of shooting at 10 thousand meters will be less, and the plane simply could not hit the passenger liner?

Certainly. On the attack aircraft, instead of bombs, you can hang air-to-air missiles. But for this he needs a guidance system. That is, in order for a pilot in an attack aircraft to shoot down this Boeing, he must at least somehow visually determine it. And the rocket, with which the pilot was going to shoot down the plane, should be with a homing head, because after the launch, the attack aircraft cannot “highlight” it (follow her movement - "Commander-in-Chief").

In turn, the fighter-interceptor (Su-27 - "Commander in Chief") in service there are air-to-air systems of the near, middle, and long-range classes. He has a very powerful airborne radar station that works on targets in the air. All equipment is configured to capture targets in the air, and accompany the missile until it hits. The Su-27 interceptor practically does not work "on the ground."

That is, the Su-27 could hit an air target without problems. This is what he was created for. This aircraft has medium-range missiles, that is, from a distance of 60-80 km. Roughly speaking, he has nothing to do in the Donbass. He could take off in the Kyiv area and fire this rocket from there. He does not need to fly at a distance of 3-5 km from the Boeing-777 (according to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation - "Glavkom") to destroy it. In addition, as I said above, the passenger plane almost completely fell apart in the air, which indicates the launch of a much more powerful missile than those installed on a military aircraft.

If there is no need for the Ukrainian military to shoot down the plane, then why “substitute” such lies for the militants or Russia?

The fighters were wrong. They wanted to shoot down one target, and shot down another. You see, Kyiv controls the airspace of its country. I mean, first of all, dispatchers. That is, the authorities know that a passenger plane flies at such and such an altitude in such and such a flight level. If Kyiv starts "working" at an altitude of 10,000 meters, it clearly understands that it can accidentally hit a civilian plane, and a foreign one at that. But the militants do not understand, because they do not know which plane is in the air. There is no doubt that it was a Buk, an anti-aircraft missile system of the ground-to-air class, there is the full consent of everyone, including Russia. But the version that the passenger plane was shot down by the Su-25 appeared after the accident on the Russian TV channel Zvezda (TV channel of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation - Glavkom).

In your opinion, why did the error occur, because the Buk complex is a high-precision weapon?

This was not a target selection error, but a target assignment error. That is, the rebels were sure that Ukraine no longer flies at low altitudes (Ukrainian military aircraft - "Glavkom"), but makes the transfer of troops on An-26 transport aircraft flying at an altitude of 5-6 thousand meters and Il-76. The missile was deliberately fired at a certain aircraft flying at an altitude of 10,000 meters. The Buk system cannot detect the nationality of the aircraft.

But after all, not everything is clear with Boeing. Why did he deviate 14 km from the given corridor?

There are no sanctions, punishments for leaving the corridor. There are no such obligations under which the aircraft is obliged to move exactly inside the corridor. A corridor is a certain course at a certain height. Altitude is the echelon. So, the echelon, unlike the corridor, the plane must withstand hard. The pilot staying inside the corridor can deviate from it to the right or to the left. For example, he saw a storm front, or clouds ahead, so he deviated. In order not to shake, he can go a little to the left, the pilot can independently decide on this. Airplanes, by and large, never fly in a straight line. There are autopilots that set the direction, and people correct it. Pilots make deviations from the corridor to the right and left, informing the dispatcher. It is not clear to me why Ukraine has not yet published the recordings of conversations with the controller who was flying the plane, who gave the go-ahead for such a deviation. All conversations between controllers and pilots are recorded not only in black boxes, but also by the controllers.

Some time before the tragedy, Ukraine announced that it was closing the airspace over the Donbass. Why, despite the ban, was the plane still allowed to fly over the territory occupied by terrorists?

A closed sky is a ban on flying. Ukraine has officially closed the airspace over this territory up to an altitude of 7,000 meters. Any aircraft entering this airspace is an intruder. Accordingly, appropriate measures can be taken against him, he can be intercepted, detained. Ukraine believed that the rebels did not have air defense systems that operate above the designated height. Accordingly, some airlines stopped flying altogether, and some continued, realizing that they were flying in the permitted zone. These are the nuances that Ukraine knows, not the militants in the Donbass. And the Donetsk air traffic controllers, who could theoretically give them advice, are simply out of work, because the local airport is not functioning.

Could the pilot of a passenger airliner theoretically get away from the rocket?

Basically I couldn't. A missile flies to such a target from the ground for 20-30 seconds. She flies up to the plane from below. What the pilot could do was only to accidentally notice her, looking sideways and down, but he simply would not have had time to do anything else. In any case, the rocket flies at supersonic speed, and this is a civilian aircraft that could not do anything in 5-10 seconds. At most, the pilot would have had time to scream.

The super-original version that the missile fired at the Malaysian Boeing-777 was intended for Vladimir Putin's aircraft number 1, which allegedly flew over the war zone in Donbas some time before the tragedy, was ridiculed on the Internet. Do you also think this version is absurd?

When we had Putin's inauguration, they (Russian authorities - Glavkom) depopulated all of Moscow. I proceed from the fact that Putin will never fly even at a space altitude over the combat area. This is basically impossible. Putin is now flying around Ukraine around the North Pole because he is a coward.

Another, no less fantastic version is that the Boeing-777 that crashed in the Donbas could be the plane that disappeared on March 7 this year. Then a plane of the same model, also owned by Malaysia Airlines, flew from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing and disappeared. There were "dared men" claiming that, they say, that plane was stolen and is now used to organize this tragedy now.

This version is in our (Russian, - "Glavkom") The media is becoming very cynical. They say that the tragedy with the plane is a provocation, since all the fallen corpses are not fresh. Can you imagine the paranoia of a person who can say such things about this tragedy? The passports that were found at the scene of the tragedy are the passports of those people who, a few hours before the incident, checked in for a flight in Amsterdam.

The plane that went missing on March 7, before reaching Beijing, had one tail number, this one is completely different. On that one there was one marking of parts, on this one it was completely different. Each unit, each instrument, each node on the plane is marked, so these are two completely different sides, it's easy to install. It's like a banknote, because each has its own individual number.

In the first days after the tragedy, it was not experts who worked at the crash site, but terrorists. Why did they so quickly begin to dismantle the wreckage on their own?

Because they were sure that the dead were saboteurs, spies. Pay attention to the first video that got on the air after the tragedy, when a person in the camera shows the passports of the victims in close-up. In any accident, and there are thousands of accidents in the world, no one shows their passports anywhere in the first place. Those who collected the passports showed them to the camera in close-up to someone who is very interested to know what kind of people are there?

Who do you mean?

The people who first arrived at the scene of the accident were rummaging through the corpses in order to pick up some documents. Immediately, in order to make it clear what happened, they showed these documents to their curator. Someone really wanted to know what really happened in the sky over the Donbass. I understand that this is the GRU.

Why did the Russian television channel LifeNews broadcast materials intended for Russian intelligence?

As I understand it, it's all just unintentionally leaked to the media.

Former head of the SBU Yevgeny Marchuk draws attention to the fact that the militants themselves began to transport the bodies in order to hide the truth. They say that fragments of a rocket could remain in the bodies, which would indicate direct evidence of a Buk hit on the plane. Even if we assume that the militants really removed the remains of the rocket from the bodies, would it be possible to establish the cause of what happened without such evidence?

The cause of the disaster in the form of an explosion of a missile warhead is primarily determined by the wreckage of the aircraft. Observers from the OSCE have already reported that shrapnel is visible on the wreckage. But in order for this fragmentation part to get to the passengers, it had to damage the skin. An analysis of the wreckage will show much more fully what exploded, how it exploded, at what distance it exploded. I will give an example of salute for better understanding. So a salute is when, flying apart, the high-explosive part glows due to the coating. That is, the structure of the scattering of fragments during an explosion is approximately the same as we see during a salute. It is spherical, and sometimes directed by a beam. These fragments fly at a very high speed, about 2 thousand meters per second, when they hit, they pierce through. And if the inlet and outlet openings are visible on the fuselage, then the direction of flight is also visible. Kinetic energy can be seen from the hole itself, accuracy can be seen from the number of lesions. It will then be possible to identify not only the place of the explosion, but also the type of ammunition with which it was carried out.

These fragments, physical evidence, were the first to be moved from place to place by non-specialists. How serious damage can such actions of militants inflict on the investigation?

Of course, this may affect the investigation. After a plane crash, experts usually collect all the debris down to the last screw, down to the last rivet. After that, in a large hangar on the floor, these debris are laid out as they occupied the place in the aircraft before destruction. Let's say the right wing is placed on the right, the left on the left, and so on. As a rule, not all debris is collected. It all depends on the degree of destruction. However, it is believed that if 60% of the aircraft can be decomposed in this form, then this is already good. By the nature of the wreckage, it will be possible to determine what happened. Experts restore the picture of damage. Naturally, the wreckage should be examined, described, and photographed immediately on the spot. This is very important point.

According to Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration of Ukraine Gennady Zubko, Russian experts worked at the crash site for four days, "disguised" as civilians. Could this be?

I am not ready to comment on this, because I simply do not know. But if they were there, then they would no longer care about hiding the ends in the water, but a real understanding of the situation and the answer to the question “how far did we get?”. All the same, after all, you can’t hide an awl in a bag. Another thing is that we (Russia - Glavkom) Of course we know the truth. We know the names of those people who launched the rocket. It's like the South Korean Boeing story I mentioned above. We now already know the details of that story, the name of the pilot, and so on. It's just that the political tension is so strong now that we will not know the truth of this tragic story right away. I think we will know the truth years later. Naturally, it will be established by an independent examination. When the whole world already knew what happened to the South Korean Boeing, everyone in the USSR continued to say that the downed plane was a reconnaissance aircraft. So it will be here. By and large, even now the world does not really doubt that it was a Russian missile.

Considering that militants are operating at the site of the tragedy, and the alleged talk of terrorists about the desire to hide evidence is posted on the Internet, is it possible to cover up the tracks, falsify the investigation related to the launch of a surface-to-air missile?

All Buks in service in Russia were previously produced in the USSR on the territory of the RSFSR. Our military knows what serial numbers of Buk's ended up in Ukraine during the division in the early 90s. What prevents us from putting Ukrainian markings on those Buk, which we sent to Donetsk? Nothing. After all, the factories for the production of "Buks" are still in Russia. I mean, everything can be faked now.

Is it possible to determine from the fragments of the rocket which Buk it was launched from?

First, rocket wreckage is much harder to find than aircraft wreckage because it has shattered into very small pieces. Secondly, it will be very difficult to collect all the debris on such a huge dispersion area.

Besides examining the wreckage, what other clues can the parties use against each other?

There are records published at a press conference of the Russian Ministry of Defense (photos and diagrams showing that there was a Ukrainian aircraft in the area of ​​the tragedy - "Glavkom"). They may be real, they may be fabricated. All this must be checked by experts. There must be similar records of the Ukrainian side. If only because this Boeing-777 flew in its own corridor, was conducted by ground services of Ukraine. Your president said that all missiles (for "Buk" - "Glavkom") are available to the army. So now we need to invite the same Dutch so that they can see for themselves that on July 16, roughly speaking, there were 200 missiles, and after 2 days the same number remained. This is a very important point. Russia will never do this, but Ukraine must show it.

In addition, your president said that at the indicated time, not a single Ukrainian military aircraft was in this area where a civilian missile was hit. Then Ukraine can now, without prejudice to its national security, hand over to the international commission all the flight logs of all military aircraft for July 16-18. If Ukraine does not do this, then the Russian version that at the time of the tragedy there was a Ukrainian military aircraft near the passenger plane will remain.

The "black boxes" were eventually handed over to international experts. How much light can they shed on what happened?

The fuss around the "black boxes", by and large, does not give anything. In these "boxes" the crews' conversations and the operation parameters of the on-board systems before the disaster are recorded. That is, the flight recorders will simply confirm that an explosion has occurred. "Black boxes" will not give an answer, whose was the rocket, who gave the order, who guided the rocket. When the information about the plane crash over Donetsk had just passed, it was already clear to me that without the participation of external influences, the plane could not fall. There are no such accidents.

Will international expertise be able to establish the truth?

I'm sure yes. First, foreigners died. The countries whose citizens died will not allow any incomprehensible moments to remain in this story. All the same, these countries will put pressure. One way or another, the truth will “emerge” bit by bit. This is first.

Secondly, you understand very well that if it was a Ukrainian missile, that is, the Ukrainians who serviced it, launched it, saw the launch. Anyway, over time, the circle of people dedicated to the situation will increase.

If this is our (Russian) rocket, then there is also a circle of servicemen who were removed from their place of deployment, they crossed, moreover, twice, the Russian-Ukrainian border, and launched a rocket. Were there border guards?

bystanders who saw the Buk move. There are dozens of people who absolutely know exactly what happened, who launched the rocket, who gave the command, who transported, who ran away. All these people will be silent for a month, two, three, five. But still, one of them will say something.

Now a savage crime, a war crime, has been committed. The responsibility of the people who did it is quite different. For Russia, this is a national responsibility in general. Because if it turns out that Russia actually did it, it will be clear that we are still totally lying, and secondly, we will run into such sanctions that will lower our economy. In general, Russia may not exist ... You see, the price of this rate is very high now (in establishing those responsible for the tragedy - "Commander-in-Chief"). Russia will never admit that it had something to do with it. Ukraine too.

The plane crashes of this and last years have become significant for Russia. The crash of a Malaysian Boeing, the blown up charter flight over Egypt, the downing of a Su-24 by the Turkish Air Force turned out to be not only tragedies, but also events that entail a lot of consequences for our country. Each plane crash was followed by concealment of information, contradictory versions, mutual accusations of the parties and complications in Russia's relations with other states. In addition, each of these catastrophes, seemingly so different, entailed contradictions within the country. The authorities do not want to admit their mistakes and be responsible for the deaths of people, and some citizens diligently avoid the collective sense of guilt, as well as the fear that invariably arises after recognizing that the political ambitions of those in power are more important than the lives of ordinary people.

Your own version of each of the three plane crashes« » presented by an aviation expert, ex-designer of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, candidate of technical sciences Vadim Lukashevich.

Malaysian Boeing

July 17, 2014. Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 operated a scheduled flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. It was shot down over the eastern part of the Donetsk region near the city of Torez in the zone of armed confrontation. There were 283 passengers and 15 crew members on board. They all died.

- About how it was shot downMalaysian Boeing over the Donbass in July 2014, a lot of versions were expressed. Which version are you leaning towards and why?

It makes no sense to talk about any versions. There is final report Dutch security service. It can be stated with absolute certainty that the plane was shot down by the BUK anti-aircraft missile system from the area controlled by the separatists, there is a map there. This is no longer a version, but a proven fact.

“So there’s nothing more to talk about?”

By and large, yes. There are people who do not admit this, but this is just a demonstration of their level of understanding of the problem. Because there was an international commission that worked for more than a year, collected all the information and facts and set it all out in a report, including the claims of the Russian side and the answers to them. There is a document approved, entered into force. It indicates an area, about 300 square kilometers, from where an anti-aircraft missile could be launched. Now we are waiting for the results of the Dutch prosecutor's investigation, which will specifically indicate what kind of BUK it was, how it got there, who launched it, who gave the order, and so on. That is, there will be personal responsibility.

- But the version that the plane was shot down by an air-to-air missile has been circulating in the Russian media for a long time.

The main purpose of such versions was misinformation, distraction, creation of "white noise", so that any useful information would disappear, drown in this chaos, become invisible.

- How quickly did it become clear that the plane was shot down from the BUK and from a certain area?

For me, as a specialist, it was clear that this was an anti-aircraft missile launched from the ground almost immediately, as soon as the first images of the wreckage and the first video of poor quality appeared on July 17th. And photos of the wreckage of the aircraft began to appear from the 18th.

The question on BUK is already different. Of all the versions that then arose, BUK most of all fit the observed picture. From the photographs and videos that appeared on the Internet, it was possible to follow how he was transported, how he moved on his own, that is, how he went from Russia to Ukraine and then was hastily taken back. There were data of radio interception and so on. Everything spoke in favor of Buk. Therefore, after two weeks, in mid-August, it was absolutely clear that it was an anti-aircraft missile, and 90-95% - that the BUK fired from the territory controlled by the separatists. This situation finally became clear on September 13 this year, when the report was published.

Why was it necessary to promote the implausible version that the Malaysian Boeing was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter? Draw different schemes, show them on TV? Did you think that for the laymen this would do?

On the one hand, yes, this is a calculation for a very undemanding viewer and the fact that if you say “halva” a lot, it will become sweeter in your mouth. Then, we remember the postulates of Dr. Joseph Goebbels that the more monstrous the lie, the easier it will be believed. These methods were clearly used, they are in service with the propaganda machine, and not only ours. Naturally, it was just necessary to create a kind of background where it would constantly sound that Ukraine was to blame, that it was their BUK or attack aircraft. The more frenzied the campaign is, the clearer it becomes that "the hat is on fire on the thief." Our media did not pursue the goal of establishing the truth. At all.

When an investigation is carried out, evidence, evidence, evidence is first collected. Then a number of versions are put forward. Then the versions are examined, the least likely ones are rejected.

But in our media the situation was different.

Judging by the way they put forward their assumptions, there was nothing to do with the search for truth. An information war was waged, and the more idiotic the versions looked, the clumsier they were made, the more obvious it was. Only when the idiotic versions ran out did Almaz-Antey [an aerospace defense concern that conducted its own investigation of the disaster] emerge.

- After all, the media understood that the truth would come out sooner or later, didn’t they really think what face they would appear with?

For me, this is also a question. The information campaign was either done by idiots, or these people simply did not look ahead. If I were in the place of our media or those who oversee them, I would gather specialists from the very beginning, find out how things are going, and do everything right. And we began to attract specialists only in the spring of this year, when the whole world already clearly knew that the Malaysian Boeing was shot down from a BUK. Only when it became clear that there was no way out, the media attracted the developers of this installation, asked them to do at least something. And the developers began to sculpt a version that a BUK fired at the plane, but Ukrainian, and not from Snizhne or Torez, but from Zaroshchinsky. At the same time, people drove themselves into a corner so much that they forgot that, according to all reports, Zaroshchenskoye was also in the rear of the separatists.

- But then the main version became that Ukraine is still to blame, because it did not close the sky for flights.

Here the wine is very peculiar. Suppose there is a warehouse, a storekeeper sits inside, and the watchman outside must close the door. The watchman went out of need without closing the door. And a murderer and a robber entered the warehouse and killed the storekeeper. Of course, the watchman is to blame for not closing the door, but this is an indirect fault, not a direct one.

It's the same here. Someone launched a rocket and destroyed 298 lives. Ukraine, of course, is to blame, because according to international law, the country in whose airspace the plane is located is responsible for flight safety. It carries out the wiring, provides dispatching support and receives a transit fee for these services. Now, as I understand it, the airspace over any combat area will be closed, regardless of the height of the echelon. And not as it was over Ukraine - up to 9,700 meters the space is closed, and above - I don’t want to fly.

But the blame for the murder, for the death of people, of course, lies with those who dragged this BUK there, who provided all the logistics, who gave the order for the combat system to be on the territory from where the rocket was launched, who ordered to press the "start" and who launched the rocket. The prosecutor's investigation, the results of which should be in two or three months, will establish this.

- What could threaten Russia in this case?

Criminal liability. And what will be the court or tribunal, what will be the jurisdiction and so on, what will be the evidence, is not yet clear. This is a lawsuit that will not go quickly.

Note that there is still no tribunal. And Russia was against him, which is also significant, because if we have nothing to do with it, then what difference does it make to us, and if the stigma is down, then what kind of criminal will agree to a trial of himself?

But the injured countries, primarily Holland, will stand up for another court, for an international tribunal. And anyway, sooner or later it will be done. Such crimes do not have a statute of limitations, and the situation can develop in different ways. Russia should not withdraw from this process. If we are really innocent, then at the tribunal there will be not only accusers, but also defenders, and it will be possible to demand expertise, evidence, and rechecking of evidence. But if we are to blame, then we will push the horn to the end.

But the current Russian government is also not eternal. The court of history awaits us in any case, and the fact that Russia in every possible way resisted the establishment of the truth in this matter will remain in history.

The main functions of a technical investigation are to establish what happened and develop some measures to prevent the recurrence of such a situation in the future. The disaster arose due to two reasons: Ukraine, which did not close the airspace, and BUK. Which and whose exactly - this is no longer the scope of technical calculation and not the task of ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization from English. ICAO - International Civil Aviation Organization], this is a criminal investigation conducted by the Dutch prosecutor's office. When we wait for the conclusion, there will be a new surge of attention to this story, now the topic is not closed, but frozen.

Charter flight from Egypt

October 31, 2015. The A321 aircraft of the Russian company Kogalymavia was flying from Sharm el-Sheikh to St. Petersburg. Crashed about half an hour after departure, 100 km south of the administrative center of the province of North Sinai, the city of El Arish near locality Al Hasna. The plane had 217 passengers and seven crew members. No one survived.

The version about the technical deterioration of the Kogalymavia aircraft flying from Sharm el-Sheikh to St. Petersburg was one of the first. After the terrorist attacks in Paris, the Russian authorities finally admitted that there was also a terrorist attack on our charter flight. And how quickly can you understand what caused the disaster?

There is an interesting point here. Imagine that there were no terrorist attacks in Paris. Would we admit that we lost the plane due to a terrorist attack or not? They said for a long time that this is a technical version, and we are studying everything. And when it became clear that terrorism was sweeping the planet, then we condescended to admit that there was a terrorist attack on our plane. Although by this moment we had already evacuated all the holidaymakers from Egypt, and separately from the luggage, thereby recognizing de facto that this was precisely a terrorist attack.

- And not only us.

Yes, everything was already clear to everyone, but we did not admit it. And if Paris didn't exist, how long would we have been fooling around?

- And why did we play the fool? Does the recognition of a terrorist attack cast a shadow on our military policy in Syria?

Absolutely and absolutely. On November 25, I was on the air of “Rights to vote” (a TVC program), so there one speaker agreed to the point that he said: anyway, this plane would have been blown up, even if we had not climbed into Syria. This is bullshit because there is a very clear chronological causal relationship. Until recently, our Russian aircraft have not exploded for a very long time, I don’t even remember the last time our plane was killed abroad as a result of a terrorist attack. And here we are starting on September 30 an air operation against ISIS * [an extremist organization banned in Russian Federation], nominally, we are bombing Syria, and exactly one month later, on October 31, a plane explodes over Sinai. And then this terrorist organization says: it's us. We answer: no, technical reason. They take responsibility for the second time. We again refer to technical reasons. The terrorists are distributing a video of them handing out candy to children in honor of the "heroic" destruction of a Russian plane. And we say again: no, this is a technical reason.

And only after the story in Paris we admit: yes, there was an explosion, this is ISIS* . Naturally, by recognizing the attack, we recognize its connection with our air operation in Syria. That is why, immediately after recognition, we begin to respond by intensifying the air operation.

It is a shame that we dragged our confession to the last, and the president, having declared national mourning, did not appear anywhere at all.

- Perhaps he did not want to be associated with some kind of negativity - this affects the rating.

This means that your rating is inflated. If it is high as a result of respect, the fact that you are doing everything right and people appreciate you, then such grief, on the contrary, unites the nation. And if you are afraid that the manifestation of human feelings, grief, sympathy for the dead will destroy your rating, then your rating is worthless. Yes, and to yourself.

- By the way, French President Francois Hollande came out to the people immediately after the terrorist attacks in Paris.

When various leaders of states appear on the spot, talk to the relatives of the dead, express condolences - this is normal. And we declare mourning and sympathy through the secretary, and that's it.

Let's return to the lost Russian aircraft. How difficult is it to bring explosives on board and is it possible to talk about the negligence of the airport services or was there some kind of collusion?

Everything suggests that the airport services took part in this case, because random people do not get on board. Everyone who can get there, in the staff of the airport, airfield services, is always checked, there are no random people there. If the explosives were not carried by one of the passengers, then this is one hundred percent of a ground services employee. Why he became like this is a question for the airport security service.

How great is the danger now that other Russian aircraft may be exposed to a similar danger, as Russia continues military operations in Syria?

I believe that it is very high, because, for example, when Islamic fundamentalists declared war on America, Americans are at risk virtually wherever there are representatives of radical Muslim organizations. It's the same with us. Under threat are all planes flying to Russia from abroad, from where there are supporters or accomplices of radical Islamists. Some of our personalities foolishly took a stick and decided for fun, in order to show how macho they are, to scratch the anthill with a stick. Then it turned out that it was no longer an anthill, but a hornet's nest. And in the end it turned out that it was a bear's lair. Well, that's all, now the situation is uncontrollable, because our special services are not able to ensure the safety of all aircraft departing from all foreign airports. Hence the hysteria - to ban Russians from flying abroad.

But we have radical Islamists inside the country as well. Can something similar happen on domestic flights?

Inside the country, they are more controlled by our special services than any airport in Kuwait or in the Emirates. After all, our special services simply do not exist there. And our airports have some.

Su-24

November 24, 2015. A Russian Su-24 bomber was flying a combat sortie into Syria. He was shot down near the Turkish-Syrian border by the Turkish Air Force. One of the two pilots was killed.

Now there is a heated debate about whether or not our Su-24 bomber flew over the territory of Turkey, or whether the Turks had the right to shoot it down. How can you comment.

To begin with, any country has the right to defend its national sovereignty, including airspace, by any means at its disposal. They had the right to shoot down our plane. Another thing is that they could perform a number of procedures: warn, fly up, shake their wings, and so on.

- But our plane flew over their territory too quickly for this.

It must be understood that this was not the first violation. We launched a military operation in Syria on 30 September. The first violations occurred on October 3 and 4, but we did not recognize them. Then we violated the Turkish space on October 5, and here we were forced to confess, we received an official note of protest. Our ambassador in Ankara was summoned and this document was handed to him. On October 7, we received a second note and, accordingly, were forced to issue a formal apology through diplomatic channels. After that, a number of procedures were developed to prevent this from happening. We have signed statements stating that the violation of Turkish borders by our pilots will not be repeated. On October 16, the Turks shot down a drone over their territory. We immediately said: this is not ours. And only after this "non-consciousness" the Turkish authorities, whose patience had run out, officially announced that henceforth they would shoot down any aircraft over their territory, no matter if it was manned or unmanned. It was stated clearly, and we knew about it.

By the way, today we admitted that our military aircraft violated Israeli airspace. Here is your answer - who is violating what ...

- It is clear that the diplomats knew about it. Did the pilots know about this?

The President of Turkey stated this. Accordingly, our president, who is also the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, knew about it. Whether this knowledge reaches our pilots, the President of Turkey does not care, he has already made a public statement. After this, objections like “I didn’t know”, “I didn’t want to” do not work.

The next situation is simple. We are not bombing ISIS*. If we look at the map, the place where we bomb and where our plane crashed is 100-160 kilometers west of their territory. In fact, thanks to the wreckage of the Su-24 that fell "in the wrong place", we were caught by the hand.

Until now, it has been said that in a maximum of one flight out of ten we shoot at the Islamic State. I came across information that only two flights this month were aimed at ISIS*.

I want to clarify: according to some reports, our planes bombed territories inhabited by Turkmens, who are considered ethnic Turks in Turkey.

They are fighting against Bashar al-Assad, and we bombed them. In order to bombard targets located near the Turkish border, you need to enter the territory of Turkey, which crashes into the territory of Syria with a long appendix - this is the problem. That is why we violated Turkish airspace, otherwise it is difficult for an aircraft to fight there.

On October 17, the Turks announced that they would shoot down any target over their territory, and after the terrorist attack over Sinai, we decided to respond to the terrorists and increased the intensity and number of sorties. So it was only a matter of time before our plane was shot down. They just waited and finally caught us.

On November 24, two of our planes were approaching this appendix. In the air, quite far from the border, were Turkish F-16s. Five minutes before our pilots, as the planes approached, they began to warn that they were approaching Turkish airspace and demand to change course. This was heard by a Norwegian pilot who was nearby. The Lebanese pilot of the passenger plane also heard these conversations. Our planes, ignoring warnings, crossed Turkish territory in either nine or nineteen seconds, according to various sources. But it's not that important. Then they bombed the target, turned around and flew back. And when they violated the border again, after they ignored all the warnings, one of our aircraft was shot down, the second left.

This is the version of the Turkish side. They immediately presented the data of objective control, immediately provided all the data to the UN. The talks of the pilots were shown on television, but it is not a fact that they were not fabricated. The important thing is that the Turks did it quickly. And we got hysterical that since they did everything so quickly, they were preparing in advance. In fact, if you have data, then publishing it is very simple. But if you are going to rig them, then you need a day or two to draw something. It was two days later that our data appeared. Moreover, this is not the data of objective control, but a map on which the flight path of our “dryers” is allegedly drawn. They, according to the data of the Ministry of Defense, which appeared after Putin's statement about a stab in the back, diligently flew around the ledge of Turkish territory in an arc. Well, where is the data of our radars, where is the data from satellites with geo-referencing of Su-24 flight routes? Our General Staff again got off with color handwritten pictures.

- What is the likelihood that the truth is on the side of the Russian Ministry of Defense?

I have very little faith in the fact that an aircraft on a combat course towards a target would make such a gigantic turn in order to fly around this territory. I am inclined to believe Turkey, not because I am a Turkish spy, but because I know how aviation works, how a bomber attacks, and I imagine that in this situation it is much easier, more efficient and more accurate to attack in a straight line. A flyby is about thirty seconds, this is a very large arc under overload. The pilot is forced to think not about the fact that he has a target ahead of him, that he needs to aim at it and accurately bombard it, but that he must fly around this territory in a long and complex arc.

- Why did the downed plane come as a surprise to us and was perceived precisely as a stab in the back?

- Not so long ago I was a participant in one of the discussions on television. Off the air, when we are gathered before it, and after, when we remove our makeup, we, remaining opponents, communicate with each other and talk about what no one will say on the air. So, all these “hawks” unanimously said that “the Turks will hide themselves”, that “they have nowhere to go”, that they “will shut up anyway”, that “they will send us notes of protest, object, be indignant, but they can do nothing and swallow everything. We perfectly understood that we were provoking Turkey, but we were sure that nothing would happen. By and large, this so-called stab in the back is just Turkey's unexpected refusal to tolerate our violations of their airspace any longer.

Perhaps, especially after the Paris attacks, the calculation was that Russia and the NATO countries, including Turkey, now have a common enemy, and therefore our military operations in Syria will, if not approved, then at least not encounter interference from potential allies.

Here it should be noted that in general our “joint struggle with the West against international terrorism” is largely a fiction. Just until a certain time, this fiction suited everyone, because a bad peace is better than a good war.

America fought the terrorists who staged September 11th for them. The roots of this terrorism and its financial cushion are the Taliban, whose economic base is in Afghanistan and the surrounding region. It is no coincidence that America's main enemy - Osama bin Laden - was destroyed in Pakistan.

For us, Russia, terrorism is the Wahhabis in our Caucasus, but its financial and economic roots are the Middle East, first of all Saudi Arabia. While we were chasing Basasev and Khottab around the Caucasus, we openly talked about the fact that they were financed by the Saudis. In other words, when speaking about the joint struggle against international terrorism, Russia and the Western countries had in mind, after all, different terrorism. But before the start of the Syrian events, this more or less suited everyone.

And in Syria, we faced the Western coalition head-on. The West is fighting ISIS* in Syria, supporting the "moderate" opposition fighting against Assad. We are fighting there against all the opponents of Assad, while the main blows are delivered not against ISIS*, but against the most powerful opponents of Assad, which are precisely the “moderate opposition”. In fact, we are already fighting in Syria with the Western coalition, but so far indirectly, by proxy. The incident with our Su-24 is the first "hot" collision directly. But if we do not stop, then not the last, and today's violation of Israeli airspace by us is another confirmation of this.

A simple question - on what violation of its airspace will Israel begin to shoot down our planes?

* ISIS, Islamic State, Islamic State of Iraq, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria are extremist organizations banned in the Russian Federation.

home » Turkey » MH17. Another analysis of the "testimonies" of the "witness" of Komsomolskaya Pravda. Vadim Lukashevich said that Putin is a coward Vadim Lukashevich is a military expert about Karabakh