A simple listing 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 cosmonautics, and in particular - aerospace and reusable transport systems have become for me the main outside work of my life (like literature for A.P. Chekhov). Internet portal
the one you are currently on has been around since 1998. During this time, it has become universally recognized as the most authoritative source of information on space transport systems, periodically confirming this with reviews, reviews, appropriate prizes and titles ("The best site for astronautics", etc.).
Over the past 10 years, on the basis of materials from 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). At the moment we are 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 astronautics, on the economics and efficiency of aerospace systems, collaborating with the journals Novosti Kosmonavtiki, Russian Space, Aviation and Cosmonautics, Aerospace Review and others.
He was a member of the group 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". A. Belyaev Literary Prize (May 2006)
In August 2009, my monograph "Space Wings" was published, which was greeted very favorably not only by readers and critics, but also by the media.
Work on the next book, conceived as a sequel to the first, continues.
In addition to books, I collaborate with several television channels (First, Russian, "Zvezda", etc.). With my participation, several films have been shot, including three episodes of the "Impact Force" program, and several independent television projects have been implemented.
In addition, I am a consultant (on Russian cosmonautics) for the largest private technical museum in Europe 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 (technography) and am a laureate of several thematic exhibitions.
But there are also interests that are not related to astronautics. In the first place, I would note travel and photography at the same time. With my camera, I have visited almost fifty countries around the world. Of particular value to my collection of photographs are the pictures taken on the Nazca plateau in Peru, in Machu Picchu, on Lake Titicaca, on Easter Island, in the Galapagos, in Tibet, on the Fiji archipelago, among the aborigines of Australia, in Tasmania, in numerous reserves and national parks, and many other amazing, exotic or hard-to-reach places.
Here are just some photo panoramas:
The first book about my travels "Venezuela" was published by the Moscow publishing house "LenTa Wanderings" at the end of 2011. This book is for those who, since childhood, dreamed of distant countries, animals unknown to science, or pirate treasures on the lost islands. She tells about an amazing country on the other side of the globe, which still has preserved corners of the earth, which have not yet been stepped by a human foot. Reserved islands of the Caribbean Sea, wild tropical jungles of the Orinoco delta, impregnable plateaus - "lost worlds" hovering above the clouds, on which A. Conan Doyle's fantasy settled dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures, appear before the readers.
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 designed for a wide circle of caring readers who want to push the usual boundaries of the world around us.
The next hobby is collecting airbrushed cars, the themes of which are based on their personal travel experiences. Airbrushing deserves a separate story, tk. this is a 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 passionate people. And of course - meetings with friends, trips in each other's cars:
(graphic files are expanded in an enlarged format - resolution 3 888x2 592 pix. and with a size of about 5M B)
 |
Last night, on the program “Today. The main thing "on the RBK TV channel (July 27, 2014, at 21:00, http://rbctv.rbc.ru/archive/main_news/562949991986206.shtml) I said the following:" Since the beginning of all Ukrainian events that began in December last year, now for the first time a situation arose when an independent international arbiter appeared over the opposing sides. Therefore, I want to appeal to our viewers so that they now clearly remember: who, what speaks in favor of which version. Because when the conclusion of the [emergency] commission appears ... then the viewers themselves, each of us, will be able to clearly understand who and how lied to us. "
I think as soon as the first conclusions of the commission appear, it is already possible to start compiling a list of liars.
Let's start with fixing the obvious lie, which was such even without the results of the investigation into the circumstances of the death of Boeing-777 (flight MH17) over Ukraine. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that for the "weight" of a lie, official propaganda forces sometimes very deserved people to lie (or makes them liars).
1. During a public statement of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation to the media on July 21, 2014, Lieutenants General A. Kartapolov (Chief of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation) and I. Makushev (Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Air Force), speaking about the presence of a Ukrainian Su -25 next to the Boeing-777, they showed a diagram, which instead of the Su-25 was depicted the American electronic warfare aircraft EF-111 Raven (see http://www.buran.ru/galapago/vesti1.jpg)
2. If you look not at a fragment of the diagram, but at its entirety (http://www.buran.ru/galapago/vesti1b.jpg), then in the vicinity of the downed Boeing-777 two other aircraft are indicated - both Boeing 778 ". So, such aircraft - "Boeing-778" - do not exist at all!
Flight AIC113 (original AIC113) Delhi-Bermingham is operated by Boeing 787-8 and has the ICAO B788 code. But the service code is not a Boeing 778 type!
The second Paris-Taipei flight, which, according to the Ministry of Defense, is also operated by a non-existent Boeing 778, is actually operated by a Boeing 777-300ER, which has the ICAO B77W code. One illiterate soldier translated the English transcription of the B77W into the Russian B77V, and another, moreover, half-blind, mistook it for the B778, and as a result, our generals got the scheme with the Boeing-778.
Hence the obvious conclusion: our two-star generals to the whole world publicly demonstrated their ... let's say - weak training. But what is still somehow forgivable to a "combined arms" is unforgivable for an aviator. Therefore, the chief of the General Staff of the Air Force of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation is frankly ashamed ...
3. July 23, 2014 in the evening (20:00) final one and a half hour issue of Vesti (now it has already been removed in its original form from the site http://www.vesti.ru, there is only one 20-minute fragment left from it for another topic) was presented an interview with Major General of Attack Aviation, retired, Hero of Russia S. Borisyuk.
Borisyuk stated (for this moment see http://www.buran.ru/galapago/vesti2.jpg) that the Su-25 has a practical ceiling of 7000 m, “... but we have repeatedly flown at altitudes of 11, 12 and 13 km, and at this altitude, the Su-25 was perfectly controllable. "
Let me explain: the practical ceiling is the maximum height at which a STABLE HORIZONTAL flight of a given type of aircraft is possible. This is known to any student of an aviation university or a cadet of a military aviation school. In other words, above the practical ceiling, steady horizontal flight is impossible - this is the multiplication table. But in the general case, NON-HORIZONTAL UNSTEADED flight of an aircraft above the practical ceiling is possible. For example, if you go down a little above the practical ceiling and, having accelerated strongly, increase the pitching (i.e., raise the nose), then the plane will jump out above the practical ceiling, but then it will fly like a thrown stone, by inertia, first rising and then falling way down. The maximum height of such a parabolic path is called the "dynamic ceiling". The heights named by Borisyuk are kilometers above the practical ceiling - this is a flight to the dynamic ceiling, during which the plane is practically not (or extremely poorly) controlled, because there is simply not enough atmospheric density to keep the plane in level flight or create the necessary high-speed pressure for effective work of aerodynamic control surfaces.
Accordingly, the words of S. Borisyuk, Hero of Russia, about the good controllability of the Su-25 at altitudes of 11 ... 13 km are a lie.
4. In the same issue of Vesti on the Russia-1 TV channel (at 20:00 on July 23, 2014), there was a conversation that the Su-25 “... climbed to the flight altitude of the Boeing-777, caught up with it, went into his tail, took aim and fired a cannon from a distance of 3 ... 5 km "(see screenshot http://www.buran.ru/galapago/vesti4.jpg).
Taking into account the fact that a steady horizontal flight (kilometers) above the practical ceiling is impossible, this is a delusional lie. Its authors were not even embarrassed by the fact that just a few seconds before that S. Borisyuk clearly said: "The effective firing range of the Su-25 cannon is 700 meters."
5. The first data from the decoded "black boxes" confirmed that the Malaysian Boeing 777 was shot down by a missile: "... the data of the recorders confirmed EXTENSIVE EXPLOSIVE decompression" (http://www.newsru.com/arch/world/27jul2014/blackbox. html). Two highlighted words sweep aside the version about the shooting of a passenger plane from the Su-25 side cannon.
Accordingly, the words of the military observer of Komsomolskaya Pravda V. Baranets (retired colonel) on the air of the Dozhd TV channel ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C2-qaTt-q4 video recording timecode 24: 00-24.30) - false.
We are waiting for further information from an independent investigation into the circumstances of the destruction of the Malaysian Boeing-777 ...
The plane crashes of the current and last years have become significant for Russia. The crash of the Malaysian Boeing, the blown up charter flight over Egypt, the Su-24 shot down by the Turkish Air Force turned out to be not only tragedies, but also events that entailed a lot of consequences for our country. Each plane crash was followed by a concealment of information, conflicting 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 mistakes and be responsible for the death of people, and some citizens diligently avoid collective feelings of guilt, as well as fear that invariably arises after the recognition that the political ambitions of those in power are more important than the lives of ordinary people.
A different 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. A Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 operated a scheduled flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. Was shot down over the eastern part of the Donetsk region near the city of Torez in the zone of armed confrontation. Onboard there were 283 passengers and 15 crew members. They all died.
- About how exactly it was shot downMalaysian Boeing over Donbass in July 2014, many 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. We can say with absolute certainty that the plane was shot down by a BUK anti-aircraft missile system from an area controlled by separatists, the map is there. These are no longer versions, but a proven fact.
- That is, there is nothing more to talk about?
By and large, yes. There are people who do not admit it, 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 out all this in a report, including the claims of the Russian side and the answers to them. There is a document that has been approved and has come into effect. There is indicated an area, about 300 square kilometers, from where the 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, personal responsibility will be recorded.
- But in the Russian media for a long time the version that the plane was shot down by an air-to-air missile was circulated.
The main purpose of such versions was misinformation, distraction, creation of "white noise" so that any useful information would disappear, drown in this chaos, and 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, the fact that this is an anti-aircraft missile launched from the ground was clear almost immediately, as soon as the first images of the wreckage and the first poor quality video appeared, on July 17. And photographs of the wreckage of the aircraft began to appear from the 18th.
The question about the BUK is already different. Of all the versions that arose then, the BUK most suited 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. Radio interception data and so on appeared. Everything spoke in favor of BUK. Therefore, two weeks later, in mid-August, it was quite clear that it was an anti-aircraft missile, and 90–95% - that the BUK was firing 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 hit by a Ukrainian fighter? Draw different schemes, show them on TV? Did you think that this would do for the layman too?
On the one hand, yes, this is a calculation on a very undemanding viewer and on 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 a 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 simply necessary to create a certain background, where it would constantly sound that Ukraine was to blame, that it was their BUK or an attack aircraft. The more frenzied the campaign is, the clearer it becomes that "a hat is on fire on the thief." Our media did not pursue the goal of establishing the truth. Generally.
When an investigation is conducted, evidence, evidence, evidence is first collected. Then a number of versions are put forward. Then the versions are investigated, the least probable are discarded.
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 being waged, and the more idiotic the versions looked, the more clumsy they were made, the more obvious it was. Only when the idiotic versions ran out did Almaz-Antey emerge [an aerospace defense concern that conducted its own investigation into the disaster].
- After all, the media understood that the truth would emerge sooner or later, didn't they really think with what face they would appear?
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 supervise them, from the very beginning I would have gathered specialists, found out how things are, and would have done everything normally. And our specialists began to be attracted 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 it would not get out, the media attracted the developers of this installation, asked them to do at least something. And the developers began to sculpt the version that the BUK was shooting at the plane, but Ukrainian, and not from Snezhnoye or Torez, but from Zaroshchinsky. At the same time, people drove themselves into a corner so much that they forgot that, according to all sources, Zaroshchenskoye was also in the rear of the separatists.
- But then the main version became that Ukraine is to blame anyway, because it did not close the sky for flights.
The wine here is very peculiar. Let's say there is a warehouse, a storekeeper sits inside, and the watchman outside has to close the door. The watchman went out of necessity without closing the door. And a killer 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, not direct fault.
It's the same here. Someone launched a rocket and killed 298 lives. Ukraine, of course, is to blame, because according to international law, the country in whose airspace the aircraft is located is responsible for flight safety. She conducts wiring, provides dispatch support and receives a transit fee for these services. Now, as I understand it, airspace over any combat area will be closed, regardless of the height of the echelon. And not as it was over Ukraine - the space is closed up to 9,700 meters, 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 in the territory from which the rocket was launched, who ordered to press the "launch" and who launched the rocket. The prosecutor's investigation, the results of which should be in two or three months, will establish this.
- What can threaten Russia in this case?
Criminal liability. And what will be the court or tribunal, what will be the jurisdiction, and so on, what the evidence will be, is not yet clear. This is a lawsuit that won't go fast.
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 in fluff, then what kind of criminal would agree to a trial of himself?
But the affected countries, first of all Holland, will stand up for another court, for an international tribunal. And all the same, sooner or later it will be done. Such crimes have no statute of limitations, and the situation can develop in different ways. Russia should not withdraw from this process. If we are in fact innocent, then at the tribunal there will be not only prosecutors, but also defenders, and it will be possible to demand an examination, evidence, double-check of evidence. But if we are to blame, then we will push our horns to the end.
But the current Russian government is also not eternal. The judgment 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 to work out some measures to prevent such a situation from recurring in the future. The catastrophe arose for two reasons: Ukraine, which did not close the airspace, and BUK. Which one and whose one is no longer the sphere of technical calculation and not the task of ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization from the English. ICAO - International Civil Aviation Organization], this is already 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. It crashed about half an hour after departure, 100 km south of the administrative center of the North Sinai province, the city of El Arish, near the village of El 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 with our charter flight. How quickly can you understand what caused the disaster?
This is generally an interesting point. Let's imagine that there were no terrorist attacks in Paris. Would we admit that we lost the plane due to a terrorist attack or not? It has been 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 with our plane. Although by this time we had already evacuated all holidaymakers from Egypt, and separately from their luggage, thereby admitting de facto that this was a terrorist attack.
- And not only us.
Yes, everyone already understood everything, but we did not admit it. And if Paris weren't there, how long would we have been fooling around?
- Why did we play the fool? Does the admission of the terrorist attack cast a shadow on our military policy in Syria?
Absolutely and one hundred percent. On November 25, I was on the air of "Rights of the Voice" (TVC program), so there one speaker agreed to the point that he would still have blown up this plane, even if we had not climbed into Syria. This is bullshit because there is a very clear chronological causal relationship. Until recently, our Russian planes had not exploded for a very long time, I don’t even remember the last time our plane died abroad as a result of a terrorist attack. And here we begin on September 30 an air operation against ISIS * [an extremist organization banned in the Russian Federation], nominally, we are bombing Syria, and exactly a month later, on October 31, a plane explodes over Sinai. And then this terrorist organization says: this is us. We answer: no, for a technical reason. They take responsibility for the second time. Again we refer to technical reasons. Terrorists are distributing a video where they are handing out sweets to children in honor of the "heroic" destruction of a Russian plane. And again we say: no, this is a technical reason.
And only after the story in Paris we admit: yes, there was an explosion, this is ISIS* ... Naturally, recognizing the terrorist attack, we recognize its connection with our air operation in Syria. That is why, immediately after recognition, we begin to respond by strengthening the air operation.
It's a shame that we delayed the recognition until 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 negative - 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 unites the nation, on the contrary. 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. And you yourself.
- By the way, French President Francois Hollande came out to people immediately after the terrorist attacks in Paris.
When different leaders of states appear on the spot, talk with the relatives of the victims, express condolences - this is normal. And we declare mourning and sympathy through the secretary, and this is where it all ends.
Let's go back to the dead Russian plane. 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 business, because random people do not get on board. Everyone who can get there, in the state of the airport, airfield services, is always checked, there are no random people. If the explosives were not carried by any of the passengers, then this is one hundred percent of the 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 planes may be exposed to a similar danger, as Russia continues military operations in Syria?
I think it is very large, because, for example, when Islamic fundamentalists declared war on America, Americans are at risk virtually everywhere there are representatives of radical Muslim organizations. It's the same with us. All planes flying to Russia from abroad, from where there are supporters or accomplices of radical Islamists, are under threat. We have certain personalities with a fool took a stick and decided for the sake of pleasure, in order to show what macho they are, to wander around 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 den. Well, that's all, now the situation is unmanageable, because our special services are unable to ensure the safety of all aircraft departing from all foreign airports. Hence the hysteria - to prohibit Russians from flying abroad.
But we also have radical Islamists inside the country. Could something similar happen on domestic flights?
Domestically, they are more controlled by our special services than any airport in Kuwait or in the Emirates. Our special services simply do not exist there. And in our airports there are none.
Su-24
November 24, 2015. The Russian Su-24 bomber was flying into Syria. 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 Turkish territory, 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, flap their wings, and so on.
“But our plane flew too quickly over their territory for that.
It must be understood that this was not the first violation. We started a military operation in Syria on September 30th. The first violations occurred on October 3 and 4, but we did not admit them. Then we violated Turkish space on October 5, and here we were forced to confess, we received an official note of protest. Our ambassador to Ankara was summoned and presented with this document. On October 7, we received the second note and, accordingly, were forced to make an official apology through diplomatic channels. After that, a number of procedures were developed to prevent this from happening. We signed statements that the violation of the Turkish borders by our pilots will not happen again. On October 16, the Turks shot down a drone over their territory. We immediately said: this is not ours. It was only after this "unconsciousness" that the Turkish authorities, who had run out of patience, officially announced that henceforth they would shoot down any aircraft over their territory, no matter whether it was manned or unmanned. This was clearly stated, 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 Turkish President stated this. Accordingly, our president knew about it, he is also the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. Whether this knowledge reaches our pilots, the Turkish President does not care, he has already made a public statement. After that, objections like “I didn't know”, “I didn't want to” don't work.
Then the situation is simple. We are not bombing ISIS. * If we look at the map, the place where we are bombing and where our plane fell 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 information, 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. To bomb targets near the Turkish border, you need to enter the territory of Turkey, which cuts into the territory of Syria with a long appendix - this is the problem. Therefore, we violated Turkish airspace, otherwise it is difficult for an aircraft to fight.
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. Thus, 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, there were Turkish F-16s. Within five minutes, our pilots, as the planes approached, began to warn that they were approaching Turkish airspace, and demanded to change the course. A Norwegian pilot who was nearby heard about this. The Lebanese pilot of a passenger plane also heard these talks. Our planes, ignoring the warnings, crossed Turkish territory either in nine or nineteen seconds, according to various sources. But this is not so 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 hysteria that since they did everything so quickly, they prepared in advance. In fact, once you have the data, it's very easy to publish it. But if you are going to manipulate them, then you need a day or two to draw something. It was two days later that our data appeared. Moreover, this is not objective control data, but a map on which the supposedly trajectory of our "dryers" flight is drawn. They, according to the data of the Ministry of Defense, which appeared after Putin's statement about the stab in the back, diligently circled the protrusion of Turkish territory. Well, where are the data from our radars, where are the data from georeferenced satellites of the Su-24 flight routes? Our General Staff again got off with colored handwritten pictures.
- What is the probability that the truth is on the side of the Russian Ministry of Defense?
I have very little faith in the fact that a plane going on a combat course to a target would make such a giant 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 effective 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, that he needs to aim at it and accurately bomb out, but about the fact that it is necessary to 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 wash off our makeup, we, remaining opponents, communicate with each other and talk about what no one will say on the air. So, all these "hawks" in one voice-over said that "the Turks will get tired", that "they have nowhere to go", that they will "shut up anyway", that "they will send us notes of protest, object, indignation, but they will not be able to do anything and they will all be swallowed. " We understood perfectly well that we were provoking Turkey, but we were sure that nothing would happen. By and large, this so-called stab in the back is simply Turkey's unexpected refusal to tolerate our violations of their airspace further.
Perhaps, especially after the Paris terrorist 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 will be hindered by potential allies.
It should be noted here that, in general, our "joint fight with the West against international terrorism" is largely a fiction. It's just that up to a certain time this fiction suited everyone, because a bad peace is better than a good war.
America fought against the 9/11 terrorists. 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 the main enemy of America, Osama bin Laden, was destroyed in Pakistan.
For us, Russia, terrorism is Wahhabis in our Caucasus, but its financial and economic roots are the Middle East, primarily Saudi Arabia. While we drove Basasev and Hottab across the Caucasus, we openly talked about the fact that they were financed by the Saudis. In other words, when speaking of the joint fight against international terrorism, Russia and the Western countries had in mind, after all, different terrorism. But before the start of the Syrian events, everyone was more or less satisfied with it.
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 opponents of Assad, while delivering the main blows not to ISIS *, but to the most powerful opponents of Assad, which are precisely the "moderate opposition." In fact, we are already at war in Syria with the Western coalition, but so far indirectly, through the hands of others. The incident with our Su-24 is the first "hot" collision directly. But if we do not stop, then it will not be the last, and today's violation of Israeli airspace by us is another confirmation of this.
A simple question - on what account of the violation of its airspace Israel will start shooting down our planes?
* ISIS, "Islamic State", "Islamic State of Iraq", "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" are extremist organizations banned in the Russian Federation.
The wrong one was called: the leading Russian TV was hoping that the expert would blame Kiev for the fall of Boeing, but something went wrong))))
On the air of the program "Tamantsev. Results", aired the day before on the Russian RBK-TV, the invited guest - a military expert on the effectiveness of aviation complexes Vadim Lukashevich criticized the report of the Russian Ministry of Defense on the fact of the Boeing crash 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 ask 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 work on the ground and direct support of troops on the battlefield. Shooting down an aircraft at an altitude of 11,000 with the Su-25 is not serious. Ukraine has interceptors, the Su-27, so if to shoot down, then by the interceptor, which was built for this, "- said the expert.
Lukashevich also cast doubt on the testimony of the alleged "eyewitnesses" who unmistakably were able to establish the brand of the aircraft located at such an altitude.
The expert did not accuse the Russian Defense Ministry of incompetence, but said that there was an information war going on and Russia was a party to the conflict, in connection with which disinterested persons should draw conclusions about the reasons for the Boeing’s fall. At the same time, the Russian expert said that the RF Ministry of Defense is “a party to the conflict, because these people in Donbass are fighting with our weapons, in particular. The only question is: did we pass the complexes on to them or not (Buk - 3M (ed.).
Lukashevich also cited as an example the incident of 1983, when the Soviet Union shot down a South Korean airliner with more than 200 people on board, allegedly passing it off as a "reconnaissance aircraft." “There were also generals with a mass of stars who proved that it was a reconnaissance officer who entered and exited 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 a state of emergency: “Actually, no one has commented on Russian television for a long time - an expert is invited to confirm the official version and put forward additional arguments in its favor. But with Vadim Lukashevich came a bobble. He did not sing along with the general, called the Defense Ministry's version untenable and explained why he thinks so. It turns out that all is not lost, there are still people who can not 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 powerful propaganda machine can do nothing to oppose the calm confidence of an honest person. "
As previously reported by the IS group, a number of high-ranking European politicians have expressed that Russia has violated all of its commitments to support pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine, given over the past three months, and continues to increase the supply of heavy weapons across the border.
A specialist in the field of flight sciences Vadim Lukashevich about the versions of the crash of the Malaysian Boeing, and here are the thoughts I had on the substance of this extensive material:
In the modern world, it is almost impossible to deny the obvious facts, objects and circumstances of the material world that can be verified. It makes no sense to deny the flight parameters of the Malaysian Boeing flight MH17, all moves are recorded. It is also meaningless to deny the type of projectile that shot down the Boeing, the handwriting of the striking elements of an anti-aircraft missile such as 9M38M or 9M38M1 of the Buk air defense missile system is unique. The launch site of the rocket is also calculated with exhaustive accuracy, unlocking is pointless and useless. What to do?
Establish legal grounds for the DPR command on the legality of firing at an air target, and accuse Ukraine of criminal negligence, expressed in the fact that the official air authorities did not close the L-980 air corridor at FL330 above the OBD zone.
But Ukraine had no legal grounds for non-fulfillment of its international obligations and the closure of this echelon, because there was no danger of air navigation at this echelon and could not be otherwise than with the direct participation of the third, unofficial party to the conflict - the Russian Federation, which possesses weapons capable of striking targets at a given echelon. Ukraine did not use air defense systems against the militants, and there was no official information that the militants could have had such weapons, except through their supply from the territory of the Russian Federation.
Having the sad precedent of the defeat of the military aircraft IL-76, on June 14, 2014, on the approach to the Luhansk airport, Ukraine closed the sky over the ATO area to the train 260 (height 7900 meters).Source: http://censor.net.ua/n293016
So, the question of who exactly shot down the Boeing has practically been resolved - the zentchiks, the DPR command and the top political leadership of the Russian Federation, providing support to the DPR, supply and command, it is another matter who is specifically responsible for the death of people, but here there are big questions and in this sense quotes from Kurginyan and his video message, quoted by Lukashevich, are good at helping to resolve it.
Kurginyan speaks in plain text, and the DPR members confirm that the Russian Federation is supplying heavy anti-aircraft weapons to Donbass and warns not to fly, otherwise we will shoot down and we have something to shoot down. Close the sky over the territory of the ATO Ukraine, but who is Kurginyan?
Kurginyan is an ordinary provocateur, whose function is to perform a quasi-legal action - to "warn" Ukraine that we have heavy anti-aircraft weapons and we will shoot down planes. Ukraine did not heed the warning, did not close the sky, respectively, "Ukraine is to blame for everything." The idea is as simple as three kopecks, we have a just war for the Russian world, we shoot down the planes of the bandero-fascists, who didn’t hide, I’m not to blame.
After the shooting down of the military IL-76, near the Luhansk airport on 06/14/2014, it was clear that this was not the last aircraft sacrifice. The author of these lines wrote about this It is likely that this incident was used by the special services of the Russian Federation as an element of the subsequent monstrous provocation against the Malaysian Boeing, flight MH17, and the entire body of circumstantial evidence presented by Lukashevich confirms this conclusion, and from the theory of evidence it is known that some necessary and sufficient the body of circumstantial evidence takes on the weight of direct evidence.
The author of the report cannot be denied the elegance of his reasoning. Everything is clear, true and correct until the key moment in history, the actual technical details of firing from the BUK air defense system to kill and some other circumstances of significant importance, the main of which is public access to information about the movement of the aircraft in the specified echelon, from the flightradar-24 website and other services that provide real-time information about the flight of all commercial civil aircraft equipped with switched on transponders (radio beacons).
In the materials of the investigation, there is no information that the MH17 transponder was turned off, which means that the entire set of its flight data was available in the public domain, via the Internet, in a simple and easy-to-understand form. Accordingly, the person in charge of the BUK air defense missile system had every opportunity to avoid accidental launches at random targets that were not covered by the command's combat plan.
The anti-aircraft gunners of the DPR could not but know that several international air corridors pass over the territory into which the BUK is being withdrawn, including the L-980 at FL330 on which regular air traffic is carried out.
Moreover, in order to launch an anti-aircraft missile of the Buk complex of the 9M38M or 9M38M1 type, it is necessary to enter the missile's flight task (x y z v) coordinates and target speed.
The procedure for entering a flight task is rather complicated and requires preliminary determination of these parameters using standard radar installations, including in automatic mode, but all the same, the instrumentation operator is obliged to control the key firing parameters.
By the time before the immediate launch command, the sky of Ukraine was closed until Echelon 260 (height 7900 meters).for aircraft of a class below wide-body Boeing type liners, with a low flight ceiling. Source: http://censor.net.ua/n293016 and the anti-aircraft gunners also knew about this from public sources.
If we follow the reasoning of the author of the report, Lukashevich, and assume that the anti-aircraft gunners of the DPR were waiting for the Ukrainian AN-26, guided by information from the spies of the scouts, then why the author does not indicate the alleged flight data of this aircraft, at least from where and where he flew. The target parameter Z = 10100 and the target speed of more than 700 km / h should have greatly surprised the anti-aircraft gunners of the DPR, and then made them doubt the correctness of the decision to defeat and double-check the aiming results, correlating them with the available information about the aeronautical situation in the area. And there can be no question of any cruelty in this issue of the defeat of a civil aircraft in the area of a busy air navigation situation.
Both the top and middle command of the anti-aircraft gunners, and the direct performers of the launch and the gunner-operators of the Buk, had to know and knew what target they were going to hit and, realizing the significant danger of their actions, foreseeing the possibility or inevitability of the onset of dangerous consequences, wishing for their offensive, they made shooting at a civilian aircraft. The top leadership of the anti-aircraft gunners set a combat mission to destroy a civilian aircraft, the commander gave the launch command, the executor - the operator, carried out the command. 
The respected Vadim Lukashevich, a specialist in flight sciences and the author of a voluminous and convincing work, could not but know these circumstances, but for some reason these essential circumstances fell out of his report.
Thus, from the totality of information provided by Lukashevich, taking into account the specified additions, about the imaginary history with the Ukrainian An-26, facts, circumstances, other information related to the case of the crash of the Malaysian Boeing, it follows that if this information is correct, and there are fewer and fewer reasons to believe the opposite, then the highest political leadership of the Russian Federation bears the blame for the grave crime against humanity, which gave the order to conduct a complex of special operations on the territory of Ukraine under the cover of the civilian population, women and children of not only Ukraine, but also the Netherlands, Australia, Malaysia and a number of other European countries, which the first person of the Russian state hates so much!
