A massive Canadian transport plane has arrived in Kharkov carrying US$4.5 million worth of non-lethal military equipment to help Ukraine “protect its eastern border against Russian aggression.”

READ MORE: West blocks Moscow’s UN plea to reinstate ceasefire at MH17 crash site http://rt.com/news/178948-russia-block-ceasefire-ukraine/

The equipment includes “helmets, ballistic eyewear, protective vests, first aid kits, tents, and sleeping bags,” Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in a statement on Thursday.

Canada said it received the request from the Ukrainian government. “Ukraine has asked for this and once again we are delivering," Defence Minister Rob Nicholson Nicholson said at the Canadian Forces Base in Trenton.

The flight marks the first in a series, and all of the items will be delivered by the CC-130J Hercules plane. Canadian military personnel accompanied the equipment to Ukraine.

The technology provided will “allow Ukrainian security and border authorities to better detect and track the movement of illicit goods and people,” according to Harper.

The news comes after Russia banned the imports of fruit, vegetables, meat, fish, and dairy products from the 28 countries of the EU, the US, Canada, Norway, and Australia for one year.

Russia’s ban is set to cost Canadian pork farmers more than $500 million. But the Canadian government is continuing its current stance on the matter. “We will not be intimidated by these kinds of tactics,”Canadian Industry Minister James Moore said.

On Thursday, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen pledged that NATO will work with Ukraine on defense planning, as well as on how to reform its armed forces and institutions.

He also announced that NATO is planning joint exercises with Ukraine.The comments were made during a press conference in Kiev.

READ MORE: NATO plans joint drills with Ukraine, invites Poroshenko to summit http://rt.com/news/178804-nato-drills-ukraine-poroshenko/

Rasmussen also mentioned that Russia has amassed 20,000 troops near the border and could be planning a ground invasion of its neighbor, mentioning that Russia "should not use peace-keeping as an excuse for war-making."

In response, Moscow slammed NATO’s claims, calling them unsubstantiated.

"In Russia’s Ministry of Defense such statements only raise sympathy for the speakers of the Pentagon, the US State Department and NATO. It seems the people are serious, but they have to constantly improvise during their speeches to somehow add seriousness to their statements," Ministry of Defense spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov said.

READ MORE: Reports of Russia’s military build-up on Ukraine border groundless - Moscow http://rt.com/news/178444-russia-military-ukraine-nato/

Ukrainian Nazis and the ‘Commissar Order’

“Support MH17 Truth”: OSCE Monitors Identify “Shrapnel and Machine Gun-Like Holes” indicating Shelling. No Evidence of a Missile Attack. Shot Down by a Military Aircraft?

According to the report of German pilot and airlines expert Peter Haisenko, the MH17 Boeing 777 was not brought down by a missile.

What he observed from the available photos were perforations of the cockpit: 

Based on detailed analysis Peter Haisenko reached  the conclusion that the MH17 was not downed by a missile attack:

This aircraft was not hit by a missile in the central portion. The destruction is limited to the cockpit area. Now you have to factor in that this part is constructed of specially reinforced material

The OSCE Mission

It is worth noting that the initial statements by OSCE observers (July 31) broadly confirm the findings of Peter Haisenko:

Monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe reported thatshrapnel-like holes were found in two separate pieces of the fuselage of the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines aircraft that was believed to have been downed by a missile in eastern Ukraine.

Michael Bociurkiw of the OSCE group of monitors at his daily briefing described part of the plane’s fuselage dotted with “shrapnel-like, almost machine gun-like holes.”He said the damage was inspected by Malaysian aviation-security officials .(Wall Street Journal, July 31, 2014)

The monitoring OSCE team has not found evidence of a missile fired from the ground as conveyed by official White House statements. As we recall, the US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power stated –pointing a finger at Russia– that the Malaysian MH17 plane was “likely downed by a surface-to-air missile operated from a separatist-held location”:

The team of international investigators with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) are uncertain if the missile used was fired from the ground as US military experts have previously suggested, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported. (Malay Mail online, emphasis added)

The initial OSCE findings tend to dispel the claim that a BUK missile system brought down the plane.

Evidently, inasmuch as the perforations are attributable to shelling, a shelling operation conducted from the ground could not have brought down an aircraft traveling above 30,000 feet.

Ukraine Su-25 military aircraft within proximity of MH17

Peter Haisenko’s study is corroborated by the Russian Ministry of Defense which pointed to a Ukrainian Su-25 jet in the flight corridor of the MH17, within proximity of the plane.

Ironically, the presence of a military aircraft is also confirmed by a BBC  report conducted at the crash site on July 23.

All the eyewitnesses  interviewed by the BBC confirmed the presence of a Ukrainian military aircraft flying within proximity of Malaysian Airlines MH17 at the time that it was shot down: 

Eyewitness #1: There were two explosions in the air. And this is how it broke apart. And [the fragments] blew apart like this, to the sides. And when …

Eyewitness #2: … And there was another aircraft, a military one, beside it. Everybody saw it.

Eyewitness #1: Yes, yes. It was flying under it, because it could be seen. It was proceeding underneath, below the civilian one.

Eyewitness #3: There were sounds of an explosion. But they were in the sky. They came from the sky. Then this plane made a sharp turn-around like this. It changed its trajectory and headed in that direction [indicating the direction with her hands].

BBC Report below

The original BBC Video Report published by BBC Russian Service on July 23, 2014 has since been removed from the BBC archive.  In a bitter irony, The BBC is censoring its own news productions.

Media Spin

The media has reported that a surface to air missile was indeed fired and exploded before reaching its target.  It was not the missile that brought down the plane, it was the shrapnel resulting from the missile explosion (prior to reaching the plane) which punctured the plane and then led to a loss of pressure.

According to Ukraine’s National security spokesman Andriy Lysenko in a contradictory statement, the MH17 aircraft “suffered massive explosive decompression after being hit by a shrapnel missile.”  (See IBT, Australia)

In an utterly absurd report, the BBC quoting the official Ukraine statement  says that:

The accusations directed against Russia including the sanctions regime imposed by Washington are based on a lie.

The evidence does not support the official US narrative to the effect that the MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile system operated by the DPR militia.

What next? More media disinformation, more lies?

See:

Revelations of German Pilot: Shocking Analysis of the “Shooting Down” of Malaysian MH17. “Aircraft Was Not Hit by a Missile” By Peter Haisenko, July 30, 2014

Schockierende Analyse zum Abschuss der Malaysian MH17: Dieses Flugzeug wurde nicht von einer Rakete getroffen

Es will kein Licht ins Dunkel um das Unglück der Malaysian MH 017 kommen. Die Flugschreiber sind in England und werden ausgewertet. Was kann dabei herauskommen? Möglicherweise mehr, als man annehmen möchte. Vor allem der Voicerecorder dürfte interessant sein, wenn man das Bild eines Cockpit-Fragments betrachtet. Als Fachmann für Luftfahrt habe ich mir die Bilder der Wrackteile vorgenommen, die im Internet kursieren.

Als erstes war ich erstaunt, wie wenige Fotos von den Wrackteilen mit Google zu finden sind. Alle sind in niedriger Auflösung, bis auf eines: Das Fragment des Cockpits unterhalb des Fensters auf der Kapitänsseite. Dieses Bild ist allerdings schockierend. In Washington hört man mittlerweile Stimmen, die bezüglich MH 017 von einem „möglicherweise tragischen Irrtum/Unfall“ sprechen. Angesichts dieses Bilds wundert mich das nicht.

Ein- und Austrittslöcher von Geschossen im Cockpit-Bereich

Ich empfehle, das kleine Bild rechts anzuklicken. Sie können dieses Foto als PDF in guter Auflösung herunterladen. Das ist notwendig, denn nur so ist zu verstehen, was ich hier beschreibe. Ich rede nicht von Spekulationen, sondern von eindeutigen Fakten: Das Cockpit zeigt Spuren von Beschuss. Man kann Ein- und Austrittslöcher sehen. Der Rand eines Teils der Löcher ist nach ! innen ! gebogen. Das sind die kleineren Löcher, rund und sauber, etwa Kaliber 30 Millimeter. Der Rand der anderen, der größeren und etwas ausgefransten Austrittslöcher ist nach ! außen ! gebogen. Zudem ist erkennbar, dass an diesen Austrittslöchern teilweise die äußere Schicht des doppelten Aluminiums weggefetzt oder verbogen ist – nach außen! Weiterhin sind kleinere Schnitte zu erkennen, alle nach außen gebogen, die darauf hinweisen, dass Splitter die Außenhaut vom Inneren des Cockpits her durchschlagen haben. Die offenen Nieten sind nach außen aufgebogen.

Bei Sichtung der verfügbaren Bilder fällt eines auf: Alle Wrackteile der Sektionen hinter dem Cockpit sind weitgehend unversehrt, wenn man davon absieht, dass es sich um Fragmente eines Ganzen handelt. Nur der Cockpit-Teil ist wüst zerstört. Daraus lässt sich eines bereits schließen: Dieses Flugzeug wurde nicht von einer Rakete in der Mitte getroffen. Die Zerstörung beschränkt sich auf den Cockpit-Bereich. Nun muss man wissen, dass dieser Teil aus besonders verstärktem Material gebaut ist. Schließlich muss der Bug des Flugzeugs auch den Aufprall eines großen Vogels bei hoher Geschwindigkeit einigermaßen schadlos überstehen können. Man sieht auf dem Foto, dass in diesem Bereich deutlich stärkeres Aluminium verbaut worden ist als am Rest der Außenhaut. Man erinnere sich an den Absturz der Pan Am über Lockerbie. Das einzige weitgehend unbeschädigte Teil war ein großes Cockpit-Segment. Hier hat zweifelsfrei eine Explosion innerhalb des Flugzeugs stattgefunden.

Panzerbrechender Munitionsmix

Was kann also passiert sein? Russland hat Radaraufzeichnungen veröffentlicht, die mindestens eine ukrainische SU 25 in der nächsten Nähe der MH 017 zeigen. Das korrespondiert mit der Aussage des verschollenen spanischen Controllers, der zwei ukrainische Kampfflugzeuge in der direkten Nähe der MH 017 gesehen hat. Betrachten wir dazu die Bewaffnung der SU 25: Sie ist ausgerüstet mit einer zweiläufigen 30-mm-Kanone, Typ GSch-302 /AO-17A, Kampfsatz: 250 Schuss Panzerbrand- bzw. Splitter-Spreng-Geschosse, die in einer definierten Reihenfolge in einem Gliederzerfallgurt befestigt sind. Das Cockpit der MH 017 ist von zwei Seiten beschossen worden: Ein- und Austrittslöcher auf derselben Seite.

Nun stelle man sich vor was passiert, wenn eine Abfolge von Panzerbrand- und Splitter-Spreng-Geschossen das Cockpit trifft, die immerhin so ausgelegt sind, dass sie einen Panzer zerstören können. Die Panzerbrandgeschosse werden teilweise quer durch das Cockpit aus der anderen Seite leicht deformiert wieder austreten. Schließlich ist ihre Durchschlagskraft für eine solide Panzerung ausgelegt. Die Splitter-Spreng-Geschosse aber werden im Cockpit selbst explodieren, so sind sie ausgelegt. Bei der rapiden Feuerfolge der GSch-302 Kanone gibt es folglich in kürzester Zeit eine schnelle Abfolge von Explosionen innerhalb des Cockpit-Bereichs, von denen jede einzelne ausreicht, einen Panzer zu zerstören.

Welcher „Irrtum“ wurde wirklich begangen – und von wem?

Weil der Innenraum eines Verkehrsflugzeugs ein luftdicht verschlossener Raum ist, wird durch diese Explosionen der Druck im Innern des Flugzeugs in Sekundenbruchteilen extrem ansteigen. Dafür ist das Flugzeug nicht gerüstet. Es wird zerplatzen wie ein Luftballon. Mit dieser Erklärung ergibt sich ein schlüssiges Bild. Die weitgehend intakten Fragmente der hinteren Sektionen sind an den Stellen zerbrochen, die aufgrund der Bauart bei extremem Überdruck am ehesten auseinanderbrechen werden. Das Bild des weit zerstreuten Trümmerfelds und das brutal beschädigte Cockpit-Segment passen dazu. Weiterhin zeigt ein Flügelsegment Spuren eines Streifschusses, der in Verlängerung direkt zum Cockpit führt. Interessanterweise musste ich feststellen, dass sowohl das hochaufgelöste Foto des Cockpit-Segments als auch das vom Streifschuss am Flügel mittlerweile aus Google-Images entfernt worden sind. Man findet praktisch überhaupt keine Bilder mehr von den Wrackteilen, außer rauchenden Trümmern.

Folgt man den Stimmen aus Washington, die von einem „möglicherweise tragischen Irrtum/Unfall“ sprechen, bleibt nur noch die Frage, welcher „Irrtum“ hier begangen worden sein könnte. Ich begebe mich jetzt nicht in den Bereich der Spekulationen, gebe aber folgendes zu bedenken: Die MH 017 ist in ihrer Lackierung verwechselbar mit der des russischen Präsidenten. Beide tragen die Farben der russischen Trikolore. Die Maschine mit Putin an Bord befand sich zur selben Zeit in der Nähe der MH 017, wenn man „Nähe“ mit Fliegeraugen betrachtet: etwa 200 bis 300 Kilometer. Dazu nehmen wir noch die Aussage der Frau Timoschenko, sie wolle Putin am liebsten mit einer Kalaschnikow erschießen. Aber das ist pure Spekulation. Der Beschuss des Cockpits der MH 017 nicht.

Evidence Is Now Conclusive: Two Ukrainian Government Fighter-Jets Shot Down Malaysian Airlines MH17. It was Not a ‘Buk’ Surface to Air Missile

We’ll go considerably farther than has yet been revealed by the professional intelligence community, to provide the actual evidence that conclusively shows that (and how) the Ukrainian Government shot down the Malaysian airliner, MH-17, on July 17th.

The latest report from the intelligence community was headlined on August 3rd by Robert Parry, “Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts,” and he revealed there that,

“Contrary to the Obama administration’s public claims blaming eastern Ukrainian rebels and Russia for the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, some U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame, according to a source briefed on these findings. This judgment — at odds with what President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have expressed publicly — is based largely on the absence of U.S. government evidence that Russia supplied the rebels with a Buk anti-aircraft missile system that would be needed to hit a civilian jetliner flying at 33,000 feet, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.”

It’s actually based on lots more than that; it’s based not on an absence of evidence, but on positive proof that the Ukrainian Government shot the plane down, and even proving how it was done. You will see this proof, right here, laid out in detail, for the first time.

The reader-comments to my July 31st article, “First Examination of Malaysian MH-17 Cockpit Photo Shows Ukraine Government Shot that Plane Down,” provided links and leads to independent additional confirmatory evidence backing up that account, of retired Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko’s reconstruction of this event, to such an extent that, after exploring the matter further, I now feel confident enough to say that the evidence on this matter is, indeed, “conclusive,” that Haisenko is right.

Here is all of that evidence, which collectively convinces me that Haisenko’s conclusion there, is, indeed, the only one that can even possibly explain this wreckage:

“There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pockmarked with what almost looks like machine-gun fire, very very strong machine-gun fire.”

This remarkable statement comes not from Haisenko, but from one of the first OSCE investigators who arrived at the scene of the disaster.

Go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ze9BNGDyk4 and you will see it.

That youtube snippet in an interview with Michael Bociurkiw, comes from a man who is

“a Ukrainian-Canadian monitor with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), [who] has seen up close … the crash site of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. Bociurkiw and one other colleague were the first international monitors to reach the wreckage after the jet was shot down over a rebel-held region of eastern Ukraine July 17.”

That description of him is from the lead-in to the full interview with him, at the 29 July 2014 CBC news article, “Malaysia Airlines MH17: Michael Bociurkiw talks about being first at the crash site.” The far briefer youtube clip shows only what’s presented on 6:10-6:24 of this CBC interview with Bociurkiw. The CBC reporter in the video precedes the interview by announcing, “The wreckage was still smoldering when a small team from the OSCE got there.” So: he had to have been there really fast. “No other officials arrived for days,” she said.

So: one of the two first international monitors on-site saw conclusive evidence that the Malaysian plane had been hit by “very very strong machine-gun fire,” not by ground-based missile-fire.

Peter Haisenko’s reconstruction of the downing of that airliner, was here being essentially confirmed on-site by one of the two first OSCE international monitors to arrive on-site, while the wreckage was still smoldering. That’s as close to virgin, untouched evidence and testimony as we’ll ever get. Unlike a black-box interpretation-analysis long afterward by the Russian Government, or by the British Government, or by the Ukrainian Government, each of which governments has a horse in this race, this testimony from Bociurkiw is raw, independent, and comes from one of the two earliest witnesses to the physical evidence. That’s powerfully authoritative testimony, and it happens to confirm pilot Peter Haisenko’s theory of what happened. Bociurkiw arrived there fast because he negotiated with the locals for the rest of the OSCE team, who were organizing to come later: Bociurkiw speaks the local languages there — Ukrainian and Russian.

Furthermore, this is hardly testimony from someone who is supportive of the anti-Government rebels. Earlier, there had been this, http://pressimus.com/Interpreter_Mag/press/3492, which transcribed the BBC’s interview with Bociurkiw on July 22nd. He said then: “We’re observing that major pieces, and I’m looking at the tail fin as I said, and then there’s also the rear cone section of the aircraft, they do look different than when we first saw them, … two days ago.” So, he had arrived on-scene July 20th at the latest. (Neither the BBC nor the CBC, both of which interviewed him, were sufficiently professional to have reported the specific date at which Bociurkiw had actually arrived on-scene, but, from this, it couldn’t have been after July 20th. The downing had occurred July 17th. If some of the debris was still “smoldering” as the CBC journalist said, then maybe he had arrived there even earlier.)

The youtube snippet of Bociurkiw came to me via a reader-comment to my article, from Bill Johnson, after which I web-searched the youtube clip for its source and arrived then at the 29 July 2014 CBC news article and its accompanying video.

Further, there’s this crucial 21 July photo-reconstruction of that cockpit-fragment positioned into place on the aircraft as it had originally been in that intact-airliner:  https://twitter.com/EzraBraam. (Sometimes that doesn’t work, so here’s another screen of it from someone who copied it.) Looking at that photo-reconstruction, one can easily tell that the SU-25 or other fighter-jet that was firing into the cockpit from the pilot’s left side didn’t just riddle the area surrounding the pilot with bullets, but that it then targeted-in specifically onto the pilot himself

(Message over 64 KB, truncated)