Military Crisis in Ukraine

[Eutyphro]

Do you think some of the people were conscious just after the initial impact?

Probably not. If they weren't knocked out or killed because of extreme G forces or shrapnel from the missile, they'd be unconscious within seconds after the impact because of hypoxia. http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/all-298-people-on-board-flight-mh17-probably-unconscous-or-dead-instantly-s

 

The article below claims that in this 1996 air crash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800 where the plain dropped into the sea, none of the victims had water in their lungs, meaning none where breathing when they hit sea level. And that plane wasn't even hit by a missile.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-18/malaysian-flight-passengers-probably-died-instantly.html

Edited July 27, 2014 by gtaxpert

[poklane]

Russia is sending their own investigators to the crashsite because the currents ones aren't objective enough according to them. Is this a f*cking joke?! If there's one side that hasn't been objective at all it's the Russians. Surely Ukraine can ban them from entering Ukraine or something?

Edited July 27, 2014 by poklane

[Eutyphro]

Interesting journalism by German tv giving major doubts about the Ukranian government standpoint that it was Yanukovych's snipers shooting at unarmed protesters, medics or Ukranian police(Yanukovych shooting his own police would not make any sense anyway) on the ground. Especially convincing are radio recordings made by a Ukranian civilian of Yanukovich's snipers in the area saying "hey you guys at hotel Ukraine (an opposition spot). Who is shooting? Our people don't shoot at unarmed civilians" @5:26
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDPJ-ucnyPU

Edited July 27, 2014 by gtaxpert

[Kampioen]

 

I don't think Russia is as guaranteed to "collapse" as you put it. Remember Russia still more or less has China on its side, that's a powerful and emerging ally and trading partner to have. But it's certainly not going to turn into another USSR. I don't think Putin even wants that. He might want similar government structures internally (I think he does, being an ex-KGB spy) but I don't think he's interested in countries like Poland or the Czech Republic, only in countries or even parts of countries with a large ethnic Russian population.

 

What I think is going to happen is that Russia will annex a few more territories and what happened in Crimea will repeat itself a few more times. The west won't like it, and will hit Russia with sanctions, but they won't forcefully intervene. I think Russia will become a little larger, then stop expanding, and after a while business will return to normal.

You aren't seem to be very aware of Russia's internal politics and financial situation. When McCain called it a gas station that pretends to be a country, that was incredibly accurate. Other than gas/oil export, Russia has no sources of income. And it has no infrastructure to survive on anything but imports. North Korea is better equipped for dealing with isolation than Russia is. Yet, isolation is exactly where Russia is heading right now, and it won't work out well for them. It will end in government collapse one way or another.

 

 

They may be dependant on gas and oil, but those things are always in demand. Much of Europe is also fairly dependant on Russia's oil, and even if their import incomes drop from Europe, they could still export more to the east or south, albeit at lower pirces.

 

The Russian economy is going to be damaged by this, there is no question about that. This is already happening and the economical damage is significant. In fact it's pretty bad. They lost their growth rate of 2-3% per year. But Russia is a huge country and I would imagine it's pretty resiliant. In total isolation I could see things getting bad enough for Russia to eventually "collapse" (by this I mean the central government losing power over much or most of its territory). But I don't think Russia will become completely isolated. I think there are and will be still export markets available to Russia.

 

 

Russia is sending their own investigators to the crashsite because the currents ones aren't objective enough according to them. Is this a f*cking joke?! If there's one side that hasn't been objective at all it's the Russians. Surely Ukraine can ban them from entering Ukraine or something?

 

No, the Ukrainian government doesn't control the crash site and the large parts of the border with Russia. Russia can send in whatever and whomever they want.

Edited July 27, 2014 by CenMan

[DarrinPA]

 

Russia is sending their own investigators to the crashsite because the currents ones aren't objective enough according to them. Is this a f*cking joke?! If there's one side that hasn't been objective at all it's the Russians. Surely Ukraine can ban them from entering Ukraine or something?

 

No, the Ukrainian government doesn't control the crash site and the large parts of the border with Russia. Russia can send in whatever and whomever they want.

 

Are you saying this from a legal standpoint? Because that's not right according to the United Nation's International Civil Aviation Organization, nor does any country have to allow anybody in. Russia has no say in this investigation. And just because rebels have a hold of the crash site doesn't mean it's not Ukraine's land. I've posted it before but here you go...

 

ICAO convention required the state in whose territory the accident had taken place (Ukraine) to conduct an investigation together with the country of registration (Malaysia), the country whose air traffic control the aircraft was flying under (Ukraine), as well as the aircraft's manufacturer (Boeing/ America).

[sivispacem]

Interesting journalism by German tv giving major doubts about the Ukranian government standpoint that it was Yanukovych's snipers shooting at unarmed protesters, medics or Ukranian police(Yanukovych shooting his own police would not make any sense anyway) on the ground. Especially convincing are radio recordings made by a Ukranian civilian of Yanukovich's snipers in the area saying "hey you guys at hotel Ukraine (an opposition spot). Who is shooting? Our people don't shoot at unarmed civilians" @5:26

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDPJ-ucnyPU

Been theories doing the rounds on this for ages, and there's still no actual, verifiable evidence to supporting that notion where's there is a wealth of evidence to supported the notion the shootings were carried out by members of the security apparatus. The most compelling evidence that the shooting was perpetrated by the Berkut is the weaponry used- predominantly semiautomatic military sniper rifles using steel-cored rounds (SVD Dragunov, SVU and similar) but also 12.7mm anti-materiel rifles using armour piercing ammunition and according to some of the autopsies incendiary rounds used for destroying military equipment. The Berkut snipers were seen with KSVK anti-materiel rifles and there's little, it any chance the opposition could have obtained them as they're exported only by Russia.

[Eutyphro]

What autopsy reports? I looked for them, but sources say they have not been released.

[Smith John]

Do you think some of the people were conscious just after the initial impact?

 

I'm sure I recall reading somewhere that one of the passengers of the Lockerbie bombing (a similar situation where a commercial airliner was blown out of the sky) was found to be clutching at grass, which was supposed to be evidence the victim was conscious upon impact.

[Audiophile]

 

Do you think some of the people were conscious just after the initial impact?

I'm sure I recall reading somewhere that one of the passengers of the Lockerbie bombing (a similar situation where a commercial airliner was blown out of the sky) was found to be clutching at grass, which was supposed to be evidence the victim was conscious upon impact.

 

 

I recall reading that somewhere. I was able to come up with this though I do not recall this being where I had initially read it:

First, the bomb punched a hole 20 inches wide in the left-hand side of the fuselage, just below the P in Pan Am. Shock waves rebounded from the skin of the hull, jolting passengers in their seats. Within seconds, the front of the Jumbo – cockpit and first-class lounge – had begun to break away. The third engine snapped off. As the disintegrating plane began to plunge, tornado-force winds roared through the cabin, ripping the clothes off people and hurling the cabin crew to the back. The human beings began to black out in the rarefied air of the troposphere. As the gases expanded fourfold in their bodies, their lungs swelled and collapsed; and yet forensic investigators believe that of the 270 victims of Lockerbie, 147 were alive and perhaps even conscious – revived by the oxygen-rich lower air – when they hit the ground. One man was found with his hand clutching the grass.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/8365454/Our-betrayal-of-the-Lockerbie-victims-returns-to-haunt-us.html

 

EDIT: Came up with this, too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/267865.stm

 

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Lockerbie+10+Years+On%3A+The+dead+girl+still+had+tufts+of+grass+in+her...-a060628228

 

The last link is pretty descriptive and mentions that several passengers were alive but later died.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Audiophile

[sivispacem]

What autopsy reports? I looked for them, but sources say they have not been released.

Can't find the autopsy information but first hand reports from medics including this one (http://www.unian.net/politics/875272-odnogo-iz-pogibshih-segodnya-zastrelil-snayper-vtorogo-ubili-iz-pistoleta-vrachi.html) conformer the rounds were fired from a Dragunov.

 

Report on the use of anti-materiel roundsrounds (shotgun and rifle) and AP weaponry against protesters (http://web.archive.org/web/20140125141112/http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/report-lethal-car-stopper-ammunition-used-against-protesters-during-hrushevskoho-street-clashes-335579.html)- it's infeasible that these could have cone from protester weapons.

 

Several sources vote the snipers as being SBU (interior ministry) Alfa Unit special forces as bring responsible for the shootings, pointing out that the weapons match those used by Alfa Unit (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Daily-Beast-Russian-snipers-Ukrainian-protesters/2014/03/31/id/562766/).

 

There's discussion of mobilising the military and interior troops against the Maiden protesters in the document cache leaked after Yanukovych was deposed (http://yanukovychleaks.org)

[Smith John]

@Audiophile

 

I'm pretty sure it was Wiki or some sh*t that I read about it, but yeah, that quote you posted sounds pretty familiar. The fact the Pan Am atrocity occurred at night makes the whole thing even more horrific when attempting to place yourself in the position of those who were hurtling-strapped to their chairs- towards the ground at 120mph.

[Eutyphro]

The first two sources are from January, whereas the mass sniper killing the German report is about happened the 20th of February. The first two sources are about other incidents which together killed supposedly 4 protestors, among them multiple right wing extremists, and there were a lot of people injured on both sides, according to wikipedia that is.

It is not disputed that there were government snipers present on the 20th of February, so it is not surprising there are pictures of them.. But it is not sure that government snipers were the ones to carry out the attacks against unarmed civilians, policemen and medics on the 20th of February. When you look at the German report you can conclude that it is actually quite unlikely.

Edited July 27, 2014 by gtaxpert

[sivispacem]

But it is not sure that government snipers were the ones to carry out the attacks against unarmed civilians, policemen and medics on the 20th of February. When you look at the German report you can conclude that it is actually quite unlikely.

 

There's masses of YouTube footage of Berkut snipers armed with SVD rifles, including footages of them firing during the protests. There are photos of Berkut snipers carrying 12.7mm rifles (http://www.planetputin.com/follow-up-rts-own-video-puts-lie-to-its-propaganda-of-maidan-sniping-itself-20-feb/). There are videos of individuals in Ukrainian riot armour firing fully automatic Kalashnikov variants towards protesters (

).

 

Some images:

 

What look to be anti-materiel rifles or military sniper rifles, possibly a TRG-42, in the hands of interior ministry forces

 

 

As above, not the kind of weapons civilians have access to:

 

AKM or AK74 variant

 

Looks like a Finnish SAKO TRG-42, as used by the Ukrainian interior ministry Alfa Unit.

 

Now, see if you can find a single image of a Maidan protester carrying anything other than a .22 rimfire rifle or break action air rifle.

 

The interior ministry and Berkut forces are the only individuals seen carrying the kinds of weapons implicated in most of the killings. You can't "snipe" with a .22.

[Eutyphro]

 

Second video @2:48
Which is the same hotel according to the German report. This is also coherent with the unarmed protestors being shot from the back, and not through their shield.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=429_1394735459
@9:02 you can see persons in the lobby of the hotel wearing heavy weapons, or another heavily armed millitant @ 11:44


Edited July 27, 2014 by gtaxpert

[sivispacem]

I don't see any protesters in the BBC video aside from those being shot at. The footage isn't clear enough to make out who is shooting but there's footage of individuals in Berkut armour firing from vantage points on a building with a very similar Stucco detailing around the outside:

 

 

http://www.rferl.mobi/a/ukraine-snipers-sbu-photos-video/25318776.html

 

The footage at 9:02-12 shows an individual carrying a pump-action shotgun, footage isn't clear enough to make out what type but likely an Ithaca 37 or similar. It's not a .22 but it isn't going to be responsible form any "sniping" either. It's also a very common civilian weapon, unlike AKMs, Dragunovs and TRG-42s.

 

Similarly, the shot circa 11:45 shows what looks to be either a break-action rifle or long-barreled shotgun. Again, common civilian weapons that don't fire armour piercing rounds and don't match the reported wounds and recovered rounds.

 

There are videos from the 20th quite literally showing Berkut forces blind-firing modified AKMs with the stocks removed from the rooves of a building with a very similar central parapet to the on in the BBC footage. There are also photos of Berkut soldiers wandering around directly outside the building, which I doubt they would be doing unless it was an area they had control of.

 

Sniper outside a building with a very similar decor. Rifle looks to be an Accuracy International AX series or similar- £10k a pop and commonly employed by police and military special forces all over the world. Scope isn't a Schmidt & Bender so unlikely to be from a European military or police stock. Camouflage unknown, looks rather like KLMK desert digital used by Russian Spetsnaz

 

Police sniped with Dragunov, again high vantage

 

Same pale yellow building with white detailing as earlier, 3 man sniper team in full armour and ballistic helmets

 

Berkut or interior ministry forces, AKMS rifles and a short barelled breaching shotgun, again outside a yellow-and-white building.

[Eutyphro]

What reported wounds Sivis? I already asked you for an autopsy report, you gave non. The only report about wounds is from doctors saying both unarmed protesters and Yanukovych police were shot with the same rounds.

Furthermore, the video of the hotelroom shows a man holding a scope. The people entering the elevator, the first seems to be holding an assault rifle, then the second one seems to run in with another long rifle.

There are a lot of videos of Berkut firing, but in other videos you can often see they fire into the ground to keep protesters at bay.

Edit, some reports of snipers from Hotel Ukraine:
http://euroradio.fm/en/sniper-caught-hotel-ukraine

"The next day, Prosecutor General Oleh Makhntisky said officials have found sniper bullet casings on the National Bank building a few hundred yards up the hill from Maidan, the square that became the center and the symbol of the anti-government protests. He said investigators have confirmed snipers also fired from the Hotel Ukraine, directly on the square, and the House of Chimeras, an official residence next to the presidential administration building."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.578576

Edited July 27, 2014 by gtaxpert

[sivispacem]

The scoped rifle is a .22 I think, possibly a Ruger. Can't seem the assault rifle or other "long rifle", care to provide captures as I'm on my mobile?

 

You only need to take a cursory glance over the named victims on Wikipedia and the linked sources in order to see the numbers of victims identified as casualties of sniper fire and specifically sniper rifles. Some examples:

 

http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/02/20/7015286/

http://www.svoboda.org.ua/diyalnist/novyny/047956/

http://vpoltave.info/read/novost/id/200194290/V-spiske-umershikh-na-Kievskom-Majjdane-est-vykhodec-iz-Poltavshhiny

 

Then there's the actual government investigation into the shootings. Now, whether or not you trust the conclusions of that report, it specifically attributes a number of deaths to 7.62x54R rounds as used by the Dragunov, and 7.62x39 rounds from the AKM and AKMS. I'm inclined to say that in the absence of evidence to suggest otherwise it's reasonable to think these are accurate, especially given they natch the reports from medics on the ground. Are you saying that these claims, which the report says come from autopsy findings, are false? If so, please quantify.

 

http://mvs.gov.ua/mvs/control/main/uk/publish/article/965163

 

No trained paramilitary force fires warning shots in an urban area. That's why they have less-lethal munitions, tear gas and the like. You don't fire live ammunition even in the proximity of civilians if you can help it, and certainly not at a range of several hundred metres using an automatic rifle notorious for mediocre accuracy. Then there's also the question of the accuracy of many of the shots- the casualty list is littered with people shot once in the head, once in the neck, once through the heart. That's the work of shooters trained to engage moving targets in urban areas.

 

Plus, taken from the same article:

 

Forensic evidence, in particular the similarity of the bullet wounds, led him and others to conclude that snipers were targeting both sides of the standoff at Maidan and that the shootings were intended to generate a wave of revulsion so strong that it would topple Yanukovych and also justify a Russian invasion.

Different bits of the article allege that the protesters, SBU, Russians and Berkut were responsible. The thing is, the only people we see sniper rifles in the hands of are Berkut and SBU.

 

The interesting thing is, the only footage of shooting from Hotel Ukraine is too blurry to make out, and the only people photographed with sniper rifles at or near buildings resembling the hotel are government forces. And who owns Hotel Ukraine? A government ministry.

[Eutyphro]

The government source is from January, that is not the shooting we are discussing, but one a month earlier.

Like I said, there are reports about sniper fire that was coming from hotel Ukraine. Sadly, I'm not a weapons expert, so I can't say much about whatever weapons the protestors where having in the clips. What we do know is that sniper fire came from their location. That day hotel Ukraine was a hold up for protester, doesn't matter who owns it.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=429_1394735459
If you consider the liveleak video again at 7:07 you hear intense fire, but noone being hit, which are warning shots.

You can give me 100 pictures of government snipers, but it isn't proof they shot unarmed people and their own police and medics. The evidence is against it, from the leaked communication recording in the German journalist report I posted. Those government snipers are heard talking unsure about who is firing at innocents from hotel Ukraine.

Edited July 27, 2014 by gtaxpert

[sivispacem]

I don't disagree with the idea that protesters shot from the windows of Hotel Ukraine (I mean, the Beeb reported it first hand). But snipers they weren't, and there's nothing to link that activity in any way to the shooting of protesters anywhere. If you look at the footage from the foyer of the hotel, government snipers were putting rounds through the glass doors and windows and and hitting people inside the building. That's activity characteristic of trained police marksmen. Return fire from the building was nothing more than a deterrent. However, I still stand by my statement that the only people seen with sniper rifles near Hotel Ukraine were government forces- because, well, they're the only people seen with sniper rifles anywhere in the confrontation.

 

"Intense fire" is not characteristic of warning shots of any kind. Even if the use of warning shots were common amongst police and paramilitary, which it isn't, the last thing a trained shooter would do is use fully automatic fire for that purpose. Generally, intense fire is designed as covering fire to permit movement, or to pin groups of individuals. The mere fact that no-one got hit by it does not make it a warning shot.

 

All of this is largely bye the bye, as the elephant in the room, as I've alluded to several times, is the fact the only people photographed holding the weapons attributed by numerous sources to be responsible for the casualties[/] and for that matter the only side observed deploying what are, in technical terms, "snipers" (that is, trained marksmen with high powered rifles equipped with telescopic sights, firing from high vantage points) were the government forces.

[Eutyphro]

You actually see protester snipers here in the german report:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDPJ-ucnyPU#t=407

So.. they did have snipers>

 

But snipers they weren't,

What makes you so sure?

Edited July 27, 2014 by gtaxpert

[K^2]

gtaxpert, why don't you prove that they were? All there is to suggest that there were anti-government snipers firing into crowds is a bunch of conjecture and reports by RT and other Russian media. And every time sivis gives you an argument, you ask to prove more negatives. Why don't you give a sound argument for a change?

[Eutyphro]

Go look at the German tv report I posted. It is full of sound arguments sivis hasn't even considered.

What is interesting is that in the 2002 Chavez failed coup d'etat there were also sniper attacks on unarmed anti Chavez protesters blamed on Chavez by opposition media, later turning out to be a false flag.

Edited July 28, 2014 by gtaxpert

[sivispacem]

You actually see protester snipers here in the german report:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDPJ-ucnyPU#t=407

Where?

 

I don't see a single centrefire rifle in the hands of protesters in that entire 11-minute report. Not one. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the report is entirely biased, aiming from the outset to "prove" something which the evidence presented does not support.

 

At 3:16-3:24, you see an individual who is claimed to have been shot from behind. However, this is simply not true if you study the footage closely; the round clearly passes through the protester's shield left-to-right; this is evident from the curvature of the dent around the bullet hole being inward rather than outward. Therefore, it's physically impossible for him to have been shot from behind.

 

AT 6:47 and 6:51, you see two shots of protesters apparently holding rifles with telescopic sights. However, there's no visible bolt handle on either and despite the footage being quite clear you can't make out a magazine well or defined bolt/breech assembly, as you would have fairly clearly visible with a large centrefire cartridge (a common large-calibre hunting rifle round like 9.3x64 would have a cartridge well over 2" long). This suggests to me that the rifles are .22 rimfire.

 

The shot at 6:55 shows a break-action air rifle, you can tell because it has a cut-out in the forend to permit the user to pull the barrel down and reload.

 

In the hotel room shots at 7:48-30, the only weapons seen in the hands of protesters are long-barrelled over/under shotguns. You can't "snipe" with a shotgun. Oh, an a Glock 17, but again you can't snipe with a 9mm pistol.

 

So, in my humble opinion, the quality of research in that German report is utterly dismal. It might fool someone with absolutely no understanding of weaponry or sniper tactics but it shouldn't fool anyone who spends more than 10 minutes analysing it.

 

 

What makes you so sure?

Simply the absence of any evidence to suggest there were powerful centrefire rifles in the hands of protesters. There's not a single image I have been able to find anywhere which shows a high-powered sniper rifle in the hands of anyone other than Berkut or Interior Ministry forces. Now, I'm willing to entertain the possibility of there being rifles of this nature in the hands of protesters, but only if some evidence can actually be produced to suggest that the protesters did have these rifles. And to this date there hasn't been any.

 

The individuals alleged to have been "snipers" in the German broadcasts were not snipers. According to all available footage, they did not possess rifles capable of accurately hitting targets beyond a range of ~200m. It's quite clear from their behaviour that they aren't trained marksmen by their use of vantage points, cover, and their movement as part of larger groups. Those are the two primary defining characteristics of a sniper really. And I'm inclined to agree with the evidence, not very poor analysis of it done by people who clearly don't have a clue what they're talking about.

 

 

Go look at the German tv report I posted. It is full of sound arguments sivis hasn't even considered.

They're not sound, though. There's some spurious audio recording that could be from absolutely anywhere. There's a first-hand interview with someone who may or may not have their own personal bias on the issue. There's some extraordinarily poor analysis of video footage, to the point of getting it absolutely and completely wrong, and there's lots of pictures of protesters with weapons that weren't capable of causing the numbers of casualties and their reported injuries. None of that is particularly "sound" to me. I'm personally far more inclined to agree with the official Ukrainian government report- at least that had actual experts involved in the analysis.

 

Also, some of the footage shown in the German report is cut in highly deceptive ways. Take the image of the apparent Berkut individual being carried after being "shot". This individual is seen in the RT footage which has a far longer cut. It shows the individual, injured but clearly conscious, on the floor being addressed by two other Berkut. A stun grenade attached to his belt detonates, which looks to be what either killed or seriously injured him. There's nothing to suggest he was shot before that point.

 

 

[Eutyphro]

There is no official Ukranian report about the 20th February sniper massacres... Like the Estonia official said in the leaked phone call, they don't want to research it. Please stop lying about evidence.

People can read what we both wrote and posted and make up their own minds, I'm not going to drag it out anymore.

Edited July 28, 2014 by gtaxpert

[sivispacem]

There is no official Ukranian report about the 20th February sniper massacres.

Err, yes there is. The inquiry released on the 3rd April and widely reported was official and covered shootings from the 18th-20th February. It also notes ballistic evidence indicating that a single AKM in the hands of one Berkut was responsible for eight deaths, and a single Berkut unit commander directly or indirectly for 17.

 

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26868119

 

I'm note than happy to see other people make up there own mind; once you ignore the hearsay and supposition and focus on the actual evidence the conclusion is pretty much inescapable.

[Eutyphro]

Where is the report then? All I see is a few quotes by Ukranian officials. I can't seem to find any report. Maybe because there is none.

[K^2]

1) Video does not show any evidence that anti-government protestors had access to the sort of rifles that caused many of the injuries we've seen. There are plenty of images of Berkut using such weapons. Perhaps, you can't tell a high powered sniper rifle from a low caliber hunting rifle that someone has attached a scope to, but then you should listen to people who can.

 

2) There are several places where subtitles are completely wrong. It's not what the person interviewed is saying in Russian. I can't speak for German to English translation. But since it actually changes conclusion one would make, I suspect Russian to German translation is to blame.

 

3) This comes from the time when a number of German news outlets have been spreading mis-information on the conflict. I don't know why specifically, but I suspect the reasons were economical. Pretty much all the way up to the incident with MH17, a lot of Europeans did not want to cause problems with Russia, and many news outlets have been reporting total nonsense, often simply quoting RT directly. I've seen more of that from Germany than anyone else.

 

Given clearly intentional mis-representation of facts in this video (I can't believe that they've so conveniently failed to do research in everything AND managed to mis-translate interviews in their own favor) I'd say it was payed for to try and make Russian actions look more reasonable.

[sivispacem]

Where is the report then? All I see is a few quotes by Ukranian officials. I can't seem to find any report. Maybe because there is none.

Except there clearly is. The fact it has not been published in full and that only parts of it have been disclosed does not mean it doesn't exist.

 

What a bizarre comment.

[Eutyphro]

They were still conducting research in May. I just found out they are still conducting research with a parliamentary commission. It is weird how underreported this is. The head of the parliamentary commission in May concluded this:

"The most recent revelations about responsibility for the killings come from Ukrainian sources. Gennady Moskal, head of the Ukrainian parliamentary commission investigating the shootings on “Black Thursday” said the bullets found did not match firearms issued to the special anti-riot police unit Berkut, which, unlike most police units, was allowed to carry lethal weapons.

Mr Moskal also said there was no forensic evidence linking the mass killings in Kiev on February 20 to the Berkut."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/rbth/politics/10857920/ukraine-murder-maidan.html

This is the only big English speaking news source report of this that I could find. I found all kinds of sketchy blogs and RT reporting more extensive quotes from Gennady Moskal though. So sadly for you, forensic evidence concludes Berkut forces did not shoot the unarmed protesters.

Edited July 28, 2014 by gtaxpert

[K^2]

The only source that Telegraph article quotes is Russia Beyond the Headlines, which is even less reliable than RT is. In fact, it seems that both RBTH and RT have picked it up from ITAR-TASS, which is basically Russian gov't's main propaganda arm. Absolutely every article I've found related to this report quote RBTH, RT, or ITAR-TASS.

 

So lets see. A prominent member of Batkivshchyna, a person who have repeatedly called Berkut a paramilitary force, ends up finding Berkut innocent, but the only people he ever talked to about that are from ITAR-TASS?

 

Or, this could be another lie told by Russian government.

 

Seriously, all of your arguments so far have had that sort of quality to them.