Thesis Antitisis

This week, with the difference in just a few hours, the Investigative Committee of Russia and the Almaz-Antei concern presented the public for another information about the collapse of the Malaysian Boeing in the sky above the Donetsk region, which, apparently, had to convince the audience that Ukraine was to blame. The bad luck is that the information of the state department and the state company is somewhat contrary to each other.

On Tuesday, June 2, the Almaz-Antei concern presented his report, which is just engaged in the production of Buk systems and other air defense systems. According to experts of the defense enterprise, the Malaysian liner on July 17, 2014, judging by the trajectory, shot down the Buk-M1 anti-aircraft complex from the territory, which at that time was under the control of the Central Ukrainian Government.

At the same time, experts made a reservation that other options do not exclude, and final conclusions can only be drawn from the work of the official international commission.

It is emphasized that specialists who investigated the collapse of the Russian passenger Tu-154, shot down by Ukrainian air defense systems over the Black Sea in 2001, were killed in the preparation of the report, then 78 people were killed.

Jan Novikov

Experts found that the plane was shot down from the Buk-M1 complex with a 9M38M1 type rocket with combat part 9M314. The head of the Almaz-Antei concern, Yang Novikov noted that in Russia such missiles have not been produced since 1999, but he has “irrefutable evidence of the presence of this type of missiles in the Armed Forces of Ukraine”. In 2005, the concern carried out a “pre -contract for the extension of the life of these missiles in Ukraine”, the general director said, according to him, at that time there were 991 missiles in the Armed Forces of the Armed Forces.

And everything would be fine if the next day the Investigative Committee did not make a statement, which had before insisted on another version that the Malaysian liner was not shot down by Ukrainian anti -aircraft gunners, but by Ukrainian fighters. On June 3, the SK issued a special statement in which he published the identity of his main witness in the case of the crash of the aircraft. It turned out to be a former mechanic of the Air Force of Ukraine Evgeny Agapov.

According to the representative of the IC, Vladimir Markin, Agapov remains under state protection, and the decision to disclose information was made, "since new evidence of the reliability of the witness’s words is now emerging, as well as taking into account various stuffing related to the doubts of the individual inflamed media in the real existence of this witness." At the same time, Markin did not tactfully clarify what was the “stuffing”, the report of the Almaz Antei concern or something else.

Passport Evgenia Agapova

The Investigative Committee even presented scans of passport and military ID Evgeny Agapov. Of these pictures, the average Russian, in particular, was able to find out that in the main document of every citizen of Ukraine - passport - all inscriptions are duplicated in Russian, although the state is trying, judging by the news, to eradicate the Russian language from all turn. It also turned out that Agapov was military service as a mechanic of aviation weapons of the first squadron of the Tactical Aviation Brigade of Ukraine in military unit No. A4465.

The Investigative Committee assures that Evgeny Agapov voluntarily crossed the Russian border and expressed a desire to cooperate with the Russian investigation. Agapov informed the Russian law enforcement agencies that he saw how the aircraft of the Su-25 Air Force of Ukraine flew out on a combat mission on the day of the crash of the liner, and later returned with an empty ammunition.

Vladimir Markin

Markin also noted that he is of interest to the conclusions of the experts of the Almaz-Antei Corporation on Tuesday about the possible causes of the plane crash on July 17, 2014. “They will be requested from representatives of the concern in the near future, carefully studied and attached to the materials of the investigation,” he said.

Thus, it turned out that from Russia at the highest level, two versions of the crash of the Malaysian liner are now supported. The Investigative Committee is inclined to be shot down by a Ukrainian fighter, and in the Almaz-Antey Corporation, which, perhaps, is better known to anyone, if only because they are produced, they are more likely to see the fault of Ukrainian air defense in everything.

At the same time, it is not entirely clear why in Russia they generally investigate the crash of the aircraft: the Russian citizens were not injured in this tragedy, the plane was not Russian, it was shot down over the territory of Ukraine and also fell on the territory of this state, albeit under the control of the separatists at that time.

Even if it is assumed that the plane was shot down by Russian weapons and Russian military, and now Moscow is trying with all its might to hide this shameful fact, the methods are raising at least questions.

It is in the Anglo-Saxon ships that the protection can put forward in their favor two conflicting evidence and at some point refuse to protect one of them, such methods do not work in the battle for public opinion.