{{Controversial}} should not be used on pages subject to the contentious topic procedure. Please remove this template.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Aviation: Accidents This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article is supported by the Aviation accident project. Disaster management Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Russian & Soviet B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Malaysia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Netherlands This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands Ukraine B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future: https://www.dw.com/ru/buk-sbil-mh17-v-sude-pokazali-uliki-protiv-rossii/a-57819879 https://meduza.io/news/2020/11/12/the-insider-proekt-bonanza-media-snimavshiy-filmy-o-neprichastnosti-rossii-k-krusheniyu-boinga-nad-donbassom-kurirovalo-gru https://www.forbes.ru/obshchestvo/379995-strannye-cifry-o-sbitom-boinge-pochemu-almaz-antey-ne-smog-oprovergnut

Template:Annual readership

First of all, the cited source [1] tells nearly the opposite: "The Netherlands will not hold Ukraine accountable for decision not to close airspace over Donbas". Well, if they or official investigators would hold the Ukrainian government responsible, that needed to be included of course. But they "will NOT". As about the groundless accusations by the country-perpetrator, one could not care less. That can be included to the body of the page, but certainly not to the lead. I also do not see this specific claim by Russian government described in detail in the body of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that the source doesn't support the assertion that Russia holds Ukraine responsible because of Ukraine not closing its airspace. BUT, when last I examined this (a few years ago), the 'Kremlin line' was still that "it's Ukraine's fault anyway, since the plane should not have been there" - this was also almost the only thing that was consistent in Russian claims, and AFAIK is still their position. I'm not convinced that this should go - since the view of the accused country - which is also a 'global player' - is inherently important, even if it is a very thin defence. It also introduces the 'closing of airspace' issue which both Russia and some less partisan commentators deemed important at the time.

BUT I'm not going to 'push back' - I'll see what others think. I also note that MOST of the convoluted story of Russia's 'defence' is already covered very succinctly in the previous sentences. So maybe we don't need the 'airspace' claim, but if we do, we need to find a more explicit source. Pincrete (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has a place in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it doesn't belong, especially in light of official investigation findings and statements. Stickee (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That question aside, I think there is only one remaining controversy in this case. Here is it. As we know, the Buk was operated by a professional military team, and according to military/aviation experts (like Mark Solonin - [2]), there is no way they could accidentally confuse a passenger plane with a Ukrainian Su airplane(s) flying on much lower heights - with such advanced equipment! Furthermore, there were numerous passenger planes flying high through exactly same area during same day (and almost same time), most of them are operated by Russian airlines (that was well established by the official investigation). They did not try to hit any of them, obviously because they were easily identifiable as passenger planes. Which brings the question: what a hell they hit this plane? And the only possible explanation seem to be that one originally put forward by Ukarinian SBU [3], i.e. they wanted to hit a Russian passenger plane, which would serve as a casus belli for a much larger invasion to the Ukrainian territory planned at the time. That failed. They hit wrong plane. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, conjecture. Also, if I recall properly, the first words said by the first men at the crash site strongly suggest that they were expecting to find a military plane. Pincrete (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think we can leave out the conspiracy theories, this is not a wp:forum.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is not my claim, it was described in RS, and this is hardly a conspiracy theory. It has not been reliably established why exactly they decided to shoot down this plane according to the official investigation [4]. They indicted 4 defendants: the prosecution accuses the defendants Girkin, Dubinskiy, Pulatov and Kharchenko of playing a commanding, organizing and supporting role in deploying the Buk-TELAR that shot down flight MH17. Girkin and Dubinskiy were leaders within the self-proclaimed DPR, an armed group. Pulatov and Kharchenko were their direct subordinates. And sure, these defendants could play exactly this role, they are probably guilty as charged, and they could believe whatever, but they were not the people who actually pulled the trigger, commanded to pull the trigger, and most importantly, did not plan and command the entire operation. According to the conclusion by the investigators, "As the case file shows, there were other people besides the four defendants in this trial who played a role in shooting down flight MH17 – first and foremost the crew of the TELAR, but presumably also individuals within the chain of command in the Russian Federation.". We do not really know what the Russian military commanders from Moscow were trying to accomplish. So whatever RS (such as the article by Andreas Umland linked above) are saying on this subject can be included to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An enormous percentage of military and police 'cock-ups' - targetting and killing unintended targets - happen because of human error. Not because the human lacks the equipment or knowledge to make a correct assessment, but because in the 'heat of battle', they are so full of adrenalie that they make a wrong judgement - in everyday speech they are 'trigger happy'. Solonin can not possibly know more than that the crew SHOULD NOT have made an elementary error.

The official investigation only raises the issue of 'why this plane' or "why a civilian plane" to make the point that legally the answer is irrelevant :"Thus it is not necessary to provide any evidence that the defendants specifically intended to shoot down a civilian aircraft with their Buk-TELAR. Indeed, as we stated earlier, the case file contains various indications that the defendants did in fact intend to shoot down a military aircraft belonging to the Ukrainian air force. This can be deduced from intercepted conversations involving the defendants that took place after flight MH17 was shot down.

In WP terms, what you are proposing is distinctly FRINGE, and it also appears to be a SYNTH of various sources. Pincrete (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course I read this text from the conclusion by investigators. They are very careful here saying that the actual motivation for the crime did not really matter that much, as far as the crime was committed, etc. They say it precisely because they do not really know the motivation, beyond "various indications" that ... They also say that the charges can be changed during the trial if new facts (about the Buk team and their military commanders) will be found. As about my suggestion, here is it in general. The shooting down this plane was obviously a crime (hence the international criminal investigation, etc.). Also, according to prosecution, that was not just an accident, but a murder. Which brings the obvious question: what was the motive for the crime? This is far from obvious. This needs to be included somewhere, possibly to a specific subsection, including the opinion by investigators you cited, along with other well sourced views. This is all I was thinking about. And, no, I believe such sourced view [5], [6], [7] is not FRINGE because: (a) it does not contradict any facts we know about this case, including findings by the official investigation, (b) it was officially claimed by Ukrainian government through Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, and (c) it was discussed and considered feasible by experts, such as Andreas Umland , Mark Solonin, and Andrei Piontkovsky. Sure, this suggested motive is not proven, but so are all other possible motives. My very best wishes (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. More sources: [8],[9]. The young Bellingcat investigator Aric Toler (2nd ref) criticizes the arguments by Nalivaichenko, but his criticism is very amateurish at best. For example, he does not really address the argument that it was impossible to confuse the passenger and the military Ukrainian planes, especially by the professional military team, the point made by David Satter (1st ref), Piontkovskiy [10] and some others. Instead, Aric Toler misrepresents the argument as a claim that the Buk would be useless against Ukrainian military planes ("While some have argued ...", etc.). No one claimed that. My very best wishes (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other arguments by Aric Toler. Lastly, and perhaps most obviously, we can point to the intercepted private conversations between the Russian and DNR commanders from mid-July 2014, discussing how a Buk was coming to the area to provide protection from constant Ukrainian aerial strikes.. Oh yes, such conversations did took place. That's why people like Girkin (one of the accused) believed that the intended target was a Ukrainian military plane, at least at the time of the event (as noted by investigators). However, that is exactly what DNR commanders like Girkin would be told in the event of the actual false flag operation (once again, we do not know if it was in fact a false flag operation, only that experts discussed such a possibility and that their views can be reliably sourced). My very best wishes (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I am talking only about this one posting by Aric Toler (which is fine and can/should be cited, but this is more like a personal opinion piece, rather than an official report by Bellingcat). Of course Bellingcat made phenomenal work to establish the actual perpetrators, and the actual chain of the Russian military command used in the operation (as described in this official report by Bellingcat: [11]). Based on that, people who gave an order for the Buk team to shoot were not DNR rebels [12],[13],[14]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There may be individual elements here that warrant the briefest of mentions, but collectively it amounts to SYNTH advocacy of a FRINGE theory (ie one not given any coverage/much credence by most sources). Most of the sources you give here endorse the notion that targetting the missile on the day and decision to fire was taken by an officer 'on the ground', so human error is more likely than conspiracy. But regardless, this is fringe speculation. Pincrete (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course that was a human error. All these sources say it was a human error. No one intended to hit the MH17. The only question is why they have made this error, i.e. about the target they intended to hit. My very best wishes (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It might be possible to have one line about this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it could go in the section headed "conspiracy theories" underneath "Russian media coverage"? This is one of the many talking points their Firehose of falsehood has spewed in an effort to throw shade on their culpability.TiddiesTiddiesTiddies (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead is outdated and needs to be fixed as follows.

1. It has been reliably established by investigations (JIT and Bellingcat), essentially as a matter of fact, that the airliner was downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile launched by a Russian military team of 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade from the rebel territory. The team was dispatched on the orders from Moscow. This needs to be stated more clearly. Whatever Girkin (a GRU/FSB operative) was saying on his Facebook account should remain only in the body of the page. Whatever intelligence services were telling about it immediately after the event should probably also remain only in the body.
2. The promoting disinformation and obstruction by the Russian government should remain, but be more clearly phrased as such.
3. Add information about 4 people indicted by the court. My very best wishes (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1 - the lead is very deliberately phrased cautiously. A mass of evidence, some strong, some circumstantial, points to Russia and Russian individuals having a case to answer, but we still live in a world where guilt or otherwise is not established by Bellingcat nor any news or internet site. Our cautious tone mirrors that of JIT/DSB findings, announcements and reports - and should continue to do so IMO. These charges still have the status of allegations regardless of how any of us might feel personally. The possibility, no matter how remote, that WP would contribute to an atmosphere in which a fair trial becomes impossible should be borne in mind. I don't know what Dutch law is on this matter, but in UK law, a paper or person declaring a person guilty before they have been tried is contempt of court and risks invalidating any subsequent trial. Therefore I would strongly caution against the change you propose. The simple fact is that these are still allegations, not established facts. You may be right about western Intelligence going, I think you are probably wrong about Girkin, but whatever remains should continue IMO to record the history of what unfolded immediately after the crash. There is a lot of 'catch-up' and back story to cover.

Point 2 - I don't have an opinion about the details of point two. This was reduced from a very long account of all the turns and twists of Russia's 'story'. Some balance between the present very succinct and the earlier overlong might be achievable.

Point 3 - probably include the 4 indictments, though maybe it isn't necessary to name them. Pincrete (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A cautionary approach in general - yes, I agree. Using Facebook and claims by Girkin in the lead - no, I think this should be fixed. We are not talking here about court convictions, and the 4 official suspects were not officially found guilty yet if I am not mistaken. We just describe what RS say on the subject. OK, I will try to fix something a little, just to make clear what exactly I suggest. My very best wishes (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Girkin's existing statement (as described by RS) definitely belongs in the lead. Stickee (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The end of 1st paragraph partly contradict 2nd paragraph and creates misleading impression that the MH17 was downed by DNR rebels, such as Girkin, and that Buk was operated by rebels. After all investigations, we know this is not the case [15]. They only assisted Russian military in transporting the Buk. In particular, the prosecutors tell the following about all the accused (including Girkin): The indictments do not say that the defendants personally pushed the launch button, nor that they identified a target or ordered the TELAR’s crew to fire. They are not being prosecuted as the individuals responsible for actually performing the launch process. the defendants ... instructed others with regard to its transportation; they directed the Buk-TELAR to the launch site; they had conversations after the crash about whether ‘their’ Buk had done its job; they expressed delight over the fact that an aircraft had been shot down; and they also made arrangements for the Buk-TELAR to be taken back to the Russian Federation.[16] Note word "their" Buk in "...". It was not their Buk. It was Buk of 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade of Russian Federation, and it was operated and launched by military of Russian Federation. My very best wishes (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, I fixed it in the lead, but of course these claims by Girkin remain in the body of the page. More changes needed per above. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An IP changed the title to "Shoot Down" which sound odd to me. I changed it to "Missile attack", but Pincrete reverted that saying the "section isn't really about the attack". I have reverted it back to "Crash" for now. This has been the title for a long time. We should leave it there until some consensus is reached. The IP made the point that it should be made clear that the flight was shot down and did not just crash and I agree with that. The section's first three paragraphs are about the flight's departure from the airport and route. The fourth paragraph is about the missile attack and the immediate damage. The fifth paragraph is about the landing of debris and bodies. The last paragraph is about other known flights in the area at the time. Can we call it "Flight, attack and crash"? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, the trouble about calling it 'attack' is that so much of the article is about the attack. I agree broadly with your analysis of the content but wonder if anybody can think of something simpler than your present proposal. I share your and the IP's reservations about the long-term title being ambiguous (crash) - the plane simply didn't crash except in the most generic sense. That title may be a 'hangover' from when the cause was unconfirmed. Pincrete (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the article is about the investigation and reactions and consequences of the attack. This section is what is factually confirmed to have happen. If the title of the article was "The shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17" we could call this section simply "Incident". The section title should be a noun or noun phrase. Oxford says "shoot down" is a verbal phrase, however "shoot-down" or "shootdown" is a noun, but is particular to North American English. "Shoot-down" is used in the lead already, so if we use that it should be hyphenated and only the first word capitalized. We should wait and see if there are other suggestions. I agree that the current title was probably from before the attack was confirmed. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the analysis. "Crash" is an overused term and a bit misleading here. "Accident" more misleading (although in line with the Categories). Perhaps there is advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahunt: reverted my addition of this category to the article with the edit summary “no reliable source backs this, cases still pending. The article supports the idea that it was an accidental targeting.”

The prosecution in a Netherlands court does assume that this was accidental targeting, but under Dutch law that constitutes the negligent murder of 298 people. The prosecution and court have rejected the alternate theories of the event presented by the defence. The current trial’s purpose is mainly to determine whether the four suspects are guilty of murder by their participation (none of them is suspected of pressing the button, and more trials of other suspects are anticipated).

As to sources, plenty of news sources[17] and books[18] call the act “mass murder”[19][20] and the trial a “mass murder trial.”[21][22]

So the category belongs here as this act is called a “mass murder” in reliable sources, even if it’s legally “unsolved” because no one has yet been brought to justice. —Michael Z. 18:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might want to check some of those sources you list. They don't all describe it as "mass murder". And unless there is a legal verdict, we tend not to assume guilt for any crime. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Martinevans123 said, yes that is normally how we proceed, it isn't up to Wikipedia editors to decide the case. - Ahunt (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t say someone is guilty. I didn’t say we assume any guilt. Guilt is not at issue. I said the crime exists. —Michael Z. 00:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All four refer to mass murder.

1. “Piet Ploeg has no expectation the accused will appear even via video link, or that they'll serve time if convicted of mass murder.”
2. “Lawyer Arlette Schijns was speaking at the resumption of the Dutch trial in absentia of three Russians and a Ukrainian charged with offenses including mass murder for their alleged involvement in the downing of MH17.”
3. “The missile launcher that shot down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was actually one of two deadly Buk-TELAR systems smuggled over the border from Russia into eastern Ukraine, prosecutors have revealed during the emotional opening day of a landmark mass murder trial.”
4. “He also asked judges in the mass murder trial of three Russians and a Ukrainian charged for their alleged role in downing Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 to spell out in clear terms in their final verdict — expected next year — about Russia's role in the downing of the plane.”

 —Michael Z. 00:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So there are four there, but you gave six sources above. Could you possibly indicate the source from which each of those four have been taken? Might be clearer for us all. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not until; RS make the link. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News: PACE passes a resolution that MH17 was shot down over Ukraine in 2014 by a Buk missile made available to military units controlled by the Russian Federation, who has been engaged in a widespread and "appalling" campaign of disinformation and obstruction. [23] -- GreenC 16:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I removed the assertion that the airliner was shot down by Russian forces, from the first paragraph of the lead. I found this to be a rather unbalanced statement, especially since this is not repeated anywhere in the article or in the reliable sources, from what I can see. All that seems to be clear is that the weapon was supplied by Russian forces, and that they are being held criminally responsible. Nowhere does it say that the people actually firing the missile were Russian forces, and it would probably be a hard assertion to back up. I don't think it is appropriate to have such a bold and definite statement on a subject which is still somewhat up in the air. At best, I can see it being appropriate to say something like "members of the Russian military have been criminally charged with murder, for their involvement in supplying and readying the weapon used in the downing" or "investigations of the circumstances have indicated that the weapon was supplied by members of the Russian military." I might be wrong about this, but even if I am wrong, such a bold assertion should probably be backed up by credible sources where it is found.

A rather long-winded way of saying that I agree with what user:Pincrete said on August 10, 2021, in his comments on "the lead".

David12345 (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key thing that readers need to know in the first para is what happened and, as far as we know, who was responsible. How about Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17/MAS17)[a] was a scheduled passenger flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur that was shot down on 17 July 2014 by a Russian missile, while flying over eastern Ukraine.- Ahunt (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably an improvement, but that completely leaves open who might have fired the missile. I think it's fair to present some speculation or suspicion, so long as it is fairly described as such. David12345 (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think that there is no doubt that it was "a Russian missile". The second para in the lede provides expanded detail on who fired it. Feel free to propose alternate wording. - Ahunt (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only ambiguity here is whether it was pro Russian separatist forces that fired it or Russian military itself. “Russian forces” covers both. Volunteer Marek 18:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]