... who and how we lie. Aviation expert Vadim Lukashevich: I'm inclined to believe Turkey not because I am a Turkish spy, but because I know how aviation Vadim Lukashevich works biography

Not to call: the leading Russian TV hoped that in the fall of "Boeing" the expert accuses Kiev, but something went wrong))))

On the air program "Taman residents. Results", published on the eve of the Russian RBC TV, the invited guest - the military expert on the effectiveness of aircraft complexes Vadim Lukashevich criticized the report of the Ministry of Defense of Russia on the fact of the collapse of Boeing in the Donetsk region. Judging by the reaction of the lead, he did not expect such an expert statements. He began to correct him and repeatedly ask the question: "So do you think that non-professional unprofessionals work in the Ministry of Defense?"

"Su-25 is an attack aircraft. The ideology of this car is the work on the ground and the immediate support of the troops on the battlefield. To shoot down the plane at an altitude of 11 thousand with the help of SU-25 - it is non-serious. Ukraine has interceptors - Su-27, so if To be shot down, then the interceptor, which was for this and was built, "- said the expert.

Also Lukashevich questioned the testimony of supposedly "eyewitnesses", which were able to establish a brand of an airplane located at such a height.

The expert did not accuse the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation in incompetence, but declared that the information war goes and Russia is a party to the conflict, and therefore disinterested persons should do about the causes of the fall "Boeing". At the same time, the Russian expert said that the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation is "the side of the conflict, because these people in the Donbass are fighting our weapon, in particular. The question is only: we transferred them complexes or not (beech - 3m (ed.).

Lukashevich also brought the incident in 1983 as an example, when the Soviet Union was shot down by the South Korean liner, on board which was more than 200 people, giving it allegedly for the "intelligence aircraft". "There were also generals with a mass of stars who proved that it was a scout, he entered and went into our airspace. There were whole schemes of satellites, but the truth still got out the outwards, "said Lukashevich.

Russian journalist and publicist Vladimir Abarinov in his blog called Ether with Vadim Lukashevich PE: "In fact, on Russian television, no one comments anything - the expert is invited to confirm the official version and expressed additional arguments in its favor. But with Vadim Lukashevich, a blister came out. He did not undress to general, called the version of the Ministry of Defense insolvent and explained why he thinks so. It turns out, not still lost, there are still people who are capable of singing in the general choir! The fact that on any other television would be an ordinary interview, on Russian looks like a system failure. And it turns out that a powerful propaganda car can not oppose the calm confidence of an honest person. "

As IP Group earlier, a number of high-ranking European politicians spoke that Russia had violated all its obligations to support the pro-Russian force in the east of Ukraine, data for the last three months, and continues to increase the supply of heavy weapons across the border.

Last night, in the program "Today. The main thing is on the RBC TV channel (July 27, 2014, at 21:00, http://rbctv.rbc.ru/archive/main_news/562949991986206.shtml) I said the following: "From the beginning of all Ukrainian events that started from December Last year, now for the first time the situation emerged when an independent international arbitrator appeared on opposing parties. Therefore, I want to contact our TV viewers so that they are clearly remembered: who speaks what version. Because when the conclusion of [emergency] commission appears ... Then the TV viewers themselves, each of us, will be able to clearly understand who and as we were lied. "

I think, as the first conclusions for the commission appear, you can already begin to make a list of liars.

Let's start with the fixation of the obvious lies, which was such and without the results of the investigation of the circumstances of the death of Boeing-777 (flight MN17) over Ukraine. I draw attention to the fact that for the "weigherness" of lies, official propaganda forces to lie (or exposes liars) sometimes very well-deserved people.

1. During the public statement of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation to representatives of the media on July 21, 2014, Lieutenant General A. Kartapolov (Head of the Main Operational Department of the General Staff of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation) and I. Makushev (Head of the Main Staff of the Russian Air Force), speaking about the presence of Ukrainian su -25 next to Boeing 777, shown on the scheme, on which, instead of Su-25, an American radio electronic struggle with EF-111 Raven was depicted (see http://www.buran.ru/galapago/vesti1.jpg)

2. If you look out of a fragment of the scheme, but for all its entirely (http://www.bran.ru/galapago/vesti1b.jpg), then two other aircraft are indicated in the vicinity of the "Boeing 777" - both "Boeing 778. So, such aircraft - "Boeing 778" - does not exist at all!

AIC113 flight (in original AIC113) Delhi Bermingham is performed on the Boeing-787-8 aircraft, and has code ICAO B788. But the service code is not the type of aircraft "Boeing 778"!

The second flight of Paris-Taipei, who, too, according to the Ministry of Defense, is carried out by a non-existent aircraft "Boeing 778", in fact, "Boeing-777-300ER", which has an ICAO B77W code. One illiterate soldier translated the B77W English transcription into Russian B77B, and the other, besides the subpipped, took it for B778, and as a result, our generals got a scheme with "Boeing 778".

Hence the obvious conclusion: our two-star generals for the whole world publicly demonstrated their ... Let's say so - weak preparation. But the fact that something else is for forgiven "Covenworms", an unforgivable avoidance. Therefore, for the head of the GSF Air Force of the Russian Federation frankly shame ...

3. July 23, 2014 In the evening (20:00), the final two-hour release of "Westa" (now he is already deleted from the site http://www.vesti.ru, there was only one 20-minute fragment on another The topic) was represented by an interview with Major General Assault Aviation Aviation, Hero of Russia S. Borisyuk.

Borisyuk said (this moment see http://www.bran.ru/galapago/vesti2.jpg) that Su-25 has a practical ceiling of 7000 m, "... But we have repeatedly flew at altitudes 11, 12 and 13 km, and At this height, the Su-25 aircraft was perfectly controlled. "

I will explain: the practical ceiling is the maximum height at which the established horizontal flight of this type of aircraft is possible. It is known to any student of the aviation university or a cadet of the military aviation school. In other words, above the practical ceiling, the established horizontal flight is not possible - this is a multiplication table. But in the general case, the non-velocked flight of the aircraft above the practical ceiling is possible. For example, if you drop a little above the practical ceiling and, heavily disperse, increase the convertible (i.e. lift the nose), then the plane will pop up above the practical ceiling, but then it will fly like an abandoned stone, inertia, first rising, and then falling down. The maximum height of such a parabolic trajectory is called a "dynamic ceiling". Named Borisyuk heights per kilometers above the practical ceiling is a flight on a dynamic ceiling, during which the plane is practically no (or extremely bad) is controlled, because there simply lacks the atmosphere density to keep the aircraft in horizontal flight or create the necessary speed pressure for efficiently Work of aerodynamic control surfaces.

Accordingly, the words of S. Borisyuk, the hero of Russia, about the good controllability of the Su-25 at altitudes 11 ... 13 km - lie.

4. In the same release of "Westa" on the TV channel "Russia-1" (at 20:00 23.07.2014), it was a conversation that the Su-25 "... Rose to the height of the flight" Boeing 777 ", caught up with him, He went into his tail, aiming and shot from a cannon from a distance of 3 ... 5 km "(see the screenshot http://www.buran.ru/galapago/vesti4.jpg).

Taking into account the fact that the established horizontal flight (for kilometers) above the practical ceiling is impossible, it is a delusional lie. Her authors did not even embarrass that only a few seconds before that, S. Borisyuk said clearly: "The effective range of guns from the SU-25 - 700 meters".

5. The first data of the deciphered "black boxes" confirmed that the Malaysian Boeing 777 was shot down by a rocket: "... The data of the recorders confirmed the extensive explosive decompression" (http://www.newsru.com/arch/world/27jul2014/blackbox. HTML). Two dedicated words mark the version of the shooting of the passenger aircraft from the SU-25 side cannon.

Accordingly, the words of the Military Observer of the Komsomolsk Pravda, V. Baranza (Colonel in retirement) on the air "Rain" TV channel ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v\u003d6c2-qatt-q4 Time-code video recording 24: 00-24.30) - lie.

We are waiting for the receipt of further data of an independent investigation into the circumstances of the destruction of the Malaysian "Boeing 777" ...

Russian expert on combat effectiveness of aircraft complexes, Candidate of Technical Sciences Vadim Lukashevich analyzed the "testimony" of the "witness" of Komsomolskaya Pravda and an interview with this "witness" of KP employee Victor Baranz, who among other military journalist, publicist, writer, colonel in retiredAs Wikipedia writes about him.
In the analysis of Lukashevich there are interesting technical data.

Vadim Lukashevich Post to FB December 23:

"Komsomolskaya" distinguished himself again ...
This is something!
I will start with the fact that the "witness" could appeal to representatives of the official investigation and get more than 20 million euros for information on the "concrete culprit" of the aircraft catastrophe, but he chose to contact the Komsomolsk truth. In general, it is very symptomatic that most of all the bustle on this topic in Russia - the country, it seems like "no having any relationship" either to Boeing 777, nor to the "bean", nor to the dead passengers of the aircraft, nor to the airspa, in which Boeing, nor to the territory on which the wreckage fell ... as said Winnie Pooh: "This is a zhr not good!"
Now let's look at these new "revelations".

1. The witness says that he was at the airport from which the SU-25 attack aircraft: "I was on the territory of Ukraine, in the city of Dnepropetrovsk, the village of Aviatorskoe. This is a regular airport. Fighters and helicopters have been based on this time. Airplanes regularly flew bombed, SU-25 attack aircraft bombed Donetsk, Lugansk »

The question is where a person knows the fighting task of combat departures, if he is not a pilot and does not lead the flights of pilots?

2. Quote: "The rockets for covering themselves in the air were suspended on airplanes. Just in case."

Question - what is the case? After all, the separatists had no aviation! And there was no Russian military aviation in the Ukrainian sky

3. Quote: "Approximately an hour before the" Boeing "shot, three attack aircraft were raised into the air."

And the Russian military at the briefing of the Ministry of Defense argued that there was only one Su-25 in the air

4. Quote: "After a short time, only one aircraft returned, two were shot down. Somewhere in the east of Ukraine, I was so told "

Question: Where is the victorious statements of separatists about knocking two (!) SU-25 at about the Boeing catastrophe? Where are the two captured or dead pilots, shot down on the territory controlled by separatists? Where are the wreckage of two dried Su-25?

5. Quote: "Knowing a little of this pilot ... (It is possible that when he was shot down on these planes in his eyes), he had just a frightened reaction, inadequate. Could from fright or for revenge goes to launch rockets in Boeing. Maybe he accepted him for some other battle aircraft. "

We ask questions, "Knowing a little aviation" - since when in combat aviation, fly "fertile" pilots? I note that on the Su-25 "there were two missiles", so "Captain Voloshin" was afraid two times in a row
Or he is so inadequate that twice avenged the passenger boo ', we note that, judging by the debris, there is no data (while?) That the plane struck two rockets, and not alone.
Another question - as a railway pilot can be confused during the day, above clouds, with excellent visibility, a passenger aircraft, which is in the international corridor at cruising speed (900 km / h) and height (10 km), with something else? And the most interesting thing - and with which it was possible to confuse a civil plane, going in Ukrainian airspace in an international corridor, provided that there are no other aircraft in the air, and the separatists have no aviation at all?

6. Quote: "The phrase was told to them when it was taken out of the plane:" The plane is not that. "

I ask the question that makes the whole material of "Komsomolskaya" with complete Ahineai - and what aircraft was "that"?
By the way, it is not "removed" from Su-25, it gets out of it. Open the flashlight, stand in full growth, climbed over the board of the cab and descend on the ladder.
And "remove" a fly-party from the buse or a rowdy from the restaurant

7. Quote: "those who were there, they were with the experience. The Nikolaev part was even one year, in my opinion, 2013, the best part in Ukraine. "

"Witness" himself contradicts the pilot of the best part, with extensive combat experience ("... All this time they bombed Donetsk and Lugansk"), has an inadequate, frightened reaction, and confuses air targets.

8. Quote: "The pilots communicate more among themselves, they are ... proud."

The pilots communicated with each other, but the "witness" knows that they constantly "bombed Donetsk and Lugansk." In general, it seems to me that in this material the main thing is not "Ukrainian captain Voloshin knocked down Boeing", but "Elite Ukrainian pilots are constantly bombed Donetsk and Lugansk", see the phrase: "After all this, the departures continued"

9. Quote: "Question: From what distance these rockets are started? The answer of the "Witness": For 3-5 kilometers, they can fix the goal. "

"Witness" does not know that the maximum launch range of the R-60 / R-60M rocket is from 7 to 10 km, with a minimum 200-250 meters. In this regard, there is a very interesting point - if the estimated launch of the rocket was produced with a minimum distance (up to several kilometers), then the pilot saw and identified the aircraft-goal and the phrase "the aircraft not" is not to the place. And if the start was produced from a distance of 7-10 km, on which a reliable visual identification of the goal is impossible (or for some reason it is difficult), then where the pilot can know, "that aircraft" or "not that"?

10. Quote: "The rocket is pretty good speed. Very fast rocket »

Professional (and just a man "in the subject")) so never on say. From the specter, you can expect "more than two movings", "two and a half maha", but "very fast" is a conversation of the average man. By the way, the speed of 2.5 Mach is not "very fast," this is a very ordinary (for a rocket) speed, "fast" is more than three masks, and "very fast" - 3.5 maha and higher.

11. Quote: "The plane can simply raise the nose up, and there is no problem to fix it and launch a rocket"

No problem? For 30 years, more than 700 Su-25 and tens of thousands of R-60 missiles of various modifications were produced, these aircraft and rockets participated in most world conflicts of the last decades, but not a single (!) Case of a successful interception of the Su-25 aerial target in The upper hemisphere at an altitude of 10 km. I emphasize - not one!

12. Quote: "The flight range of this rocket is more than 10 kilometers."
The range of this rocket is up to 10 kilometers. In a number of sources, "up to 12 km" is indicated, but it is a near air combat missile, applied against highly shared purposes.

13. Quote: "Question: This rocket at what distance from the goal explodes? In the case can get and explode? Answer: Depending on the modification. Let's literally be in the case and at a distance of 500 meters can "

Here I can only say one thing - "Witness" full idiot ...
Su-25 is not equipped with an on-board radar station, so only air-air missiles, equipped with an infrared head of the homing, which brings the rocket to the heat of the engine. Therefore, the rocket flies to the engine, blowing up in the engine itself (such cases were), or in close proximity to it. When the misapproaches, a non-contact fuse (radar or optical) is triggered, the resistance of the undermination is 5 meters.

14. Quote: "Question: We worked on the site of the catastrophe and noticed that the fragments got into the hull of the aircraft very dormitory. It seems that exploded literally two meters from Boeing. The answer of the "Witness": there is such a rocket. The principle of fractions - it breaks down, the fraction goes. And then it strikes the main combat part of the rocket "

Ferry! What happens according to the "Witness": the rocket flies, then it explodes. Those. The rocket explodes, because of which the "fraction goes", and the actual combat part of the rocket with an explosive charge and the striking elements continues to fly without blowing up. And when a fraction falls into the goal, it strikes the goal (and, it is necessary to believe, finally explodes) and the combat part of the rocket. In this way, "Komsomolskaya" finally became an overwear newspaper ...
But even if, sprinkling, suggest that such a rocket exists, then this is not the rocket that Su-25 carries

But further, I think, and the main goal of these "obvious revelations" is begins - the use of Ukrainian aviation (Esno, on Donetsk and Lugansk) forbidden volume-detonating bombs, cassette ammunition, well, etc.
Well, comment on the thoughts of the "experts" of Komsomolki type K. Zatulin, V.Solovieva, A. Mamontov (posted on the KP website after this material) and others like them, I consider it below its dignity.

In the same place (on the KP website) there is a "discussion of the Military Observer of the CP of the Popular West Versions of Boeing," but anyone can look at our joint network (with this military browser KP) Tener on the "Rain" to understand "objectivity" of this type who has previously coordinated his participation in the television officer from the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.

And now specifically for the "Komsomolskaya Pravda", for idiots who write this nonsense in the editorial office and read abroad, I give excerpts from the SU-25T flight instruction (font isolation):

Chapter 1, paragraph 1.1 "Appointment and brief description of the aircraft":
"... solves the task of the defeat of low-speed air targets in the conditions of their visual visibility"

Chapter 11, Paragraph 2.1 "Purpose, Composition and Basic Data [round-the-clock automatic sight] Complex" Shkwall ":
"Kapk" Shval "ensures the use of weapons in the following
airplane flight conditions:
1. The height of combat use (excess relative to the target) to
5000 m;
2. The maximum barometric aircraft height is no more
10,000 m;
3. Exceeding a goal above sea level not more than 4000 m;

I will also give data on air-air missiles from the same instructions:

"Rocket R-60m. With a heat head of the homing is designed
to defeat the enemy aircraft in the near maneuverable air combat.
The rocket is assigned to the target according to the proportional navigation method in the preemptive point of the meeting. Its essence is that with the method of navigation in order to increase the resistance of the movement of the rocket to the target
the angular speed of the "Rocket-goal" line is provided to the value proportional to the current value of the normal acceleration or overload of the rocket. The maximum launching range of the rocket in equality of carrier velocities and a target at an altitude of 5 km is 2.5 km, the minimum start range is 0.3 km. Starting Raciers - 0/4-4 / 4. Maximum
riding affected goals - 8 units.
In combat use, aiming is carried out in "8F 5O 0" or "TSM" mode.

Rocket R-73. Designed to defeat thermal-contrace pilot
anti-enemy dried and unmanned aircraft during the day and night.
The R-73 missile practically does not have any restrictions on its use in the objects of the target, flight modes, the overloads of the target and the attack aircraft at the time of start-up, the directions of attack and the interference situation.
The maximum start of the start of air targets is conducive:
- in PPS: at the height of the carrier up to 7000 m - 8000 m;
- in ZPS: at the height of the carrier up to 4000 m - 2000 m;
at the height of the carrier above 4000 m - in the numerical values \u200b\u200bof the difference (N 5OS 0- 2000 m).
The minimum launch range of P-73 is in PPP - 650 m, in ZPS - 350 m.
The guidance of the rocket on the goal is carried out by the method of proportion
nalia navigation.
It is not recommended to apply the P-73 in the combined weapons options after using the C-8 CO 2, 4, 8, 10, 10 pendants of the suspension point due to the possible destruction of spherical fairies of TGS P-73 products of the combustion of powder engines of the C-8 rockets.
Two rockets are suspended by the plane.
Aviation commander who makes a decision on combat actions or a job person developing proposals for the decision of this decision, it is necessary to know the individual specifications that limit the range of possible conditions for the use of missiles "

Please note that the maximum starting distance in the rear hemisphere (ZPS) goals, i.e. Last time - only 2000 m, i.e. Visual target identification is one hundred percent! This is the "plane is not that" question.

An employed interview with the Military Observer of the Komsomolsk Pravda, Viktor Barancen, is the most, who a few months ago in the live range "Rain" argued that Boeing 777 was shot down by the Aviation gun Su-25 and "at the fall in the debris in the wreckage of the tail part already found samples from shells. "

http://youtu.be/6c2-qatt-q4
Now he begins with the fact that the "catch-up" Su-25 and Boeing-777 is "contrived". True, then he speaks again about the gun, about the rocket, again about the cannon ... Here is a fluger.

So, the "analysis of flights" Victor Baranza:

http://youtu.be/sb3ym7f-dmi.

Time code 02:12
- Our experts we called ...

I will note - the name is not called or any other information nor by one expert!

02:21:
- And who told you that Su-25 was chasing Boeing?

I answer - Victor Baratan, Military Observer of the CP in the live broadcast of the Rain TV channel, the reference to the record of which was given above. It was chasing, otherwise it is impossible to shoot from the onboard gun his tail part

02:52:
- It happens, Su-25 fly to interception ...

Well done! The attack aircraft fly to the interception of high speed air target - this is something new in the tactics of air defense aviation. Fighters-interceptors nervously smoking, after which there are terrestrial targets on the battlefield due to the lack of attack aircraft engaged in high-rise targets.

03:03
- these all conversations about "catching up" - it's just somehow so contrived

This is how the military browser of the CP publicly lowers himself - more precisely, his broadcast on the "Rain", which thanks to the Internet remained on the network in universal access.
I confess - just like this, Viktor Nikolayevich, "Finelikely", I perceived your words about "found at the site of the fall of the wreckage of the hole from the shells in the tail part of the Boeing" during the tele-ester on the "Rain"
I remember, then you said that at the landfill, it is probably even necessary to make experienced shelling to confirm the identity of these holes - well, and how, at the Polygon of GosNoyas in Faustovo, did you shoot a lot?

03:08
- Nobody actually saw ... at what height it all happened

Here, the military browser KP Viktor Barannets lowers our military who demonstrated the Slides on the Briefing Briefing, on which the height of 10 km was clearly indicated for Boeing 777 and Su-25

03:25
"We need journalists now ... to give the word to professionals, those who are sitting in the Su-25 plane, who serves it who arms it.

And then the word is provided - who would you think? Igor Korutochko, as the head of the magazine, a lot of sitting in the Su-25, serving it and arming a kindergarten, pants on the straps!

04:01 says Igor Korutchenko:
- The practical ceiling [SU-25] without oxygen equipment is 7 km, with oxygen equipment - 10 km, so Su-25 could be 10 km on Echelon.

But above the Baranets says that the conversations about catching up - this is all "somehow contrived"
In addition, the practical ceiling and the ceiling of combat use are completely different things. And the Mikhailov cited by the Commander said it was about the practical ceiling, but not about the battle, which is significantly lower.

04:22
- The plane was displayed at the point

Radio edge Earth-Board SU-25 Where?

04:42 Again on Ether V. Baranets:
- oxygen removes the conversation, or could not. Let's put the point - Could!

To be - could. But to shoot? I repeat - the story does not know the case so that the Su-25 will carry out a successful shooting in the speed target flying at an altitude of 10 km. So there is no point

05:45:
"All who saw the holes in the cockpit, and these are experts, they say that there is very similar, incredibly similar to the shooting of thirty millionth guns.

Viktor Nikolaevich, you are a liar! On the issue of "News" by the TV channel "Russia-1", shown on July 23, 2014 at 20:00, the head of the military air defense of the land forces of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Mikhail Krush, showing a piece of pilot cubes, clearly said that "this is definitely the result Defeasure of the fuzno-fragmentation combat part of the rocket "

At time code 16:29, your humble servant is also mentioned.
The host says: "Blider Vadim Lukashevich writes that there is a confusion - three attack aircraft rose into the air that day, or one attack aircraft, as the Russian military on the briefing of MO. Lukashevich still writes: Say as you can confuse and do not understand that the passenger "Boeing" is in front of you, which can be used by the "Sukhar" pilot, which he did not know what his ultimate goal in this military operation - that's what you can say ? "
It's funny, but about the use of the "drying" pilot, it is entirely on the conscience of the lead, I did not write anything like that. But God with him, let's look at V. Baranz's answer:
- I read these superambicious, categorical statements of Lukashevich [in brackets I note - I hope that you, Viktor Nikolaevich, read and my above accusation of you in lies], his argument was surprised, and I turned to the specialists who interpreted me, and Lukashevich, I hope Also, a simple and clear thing - our secret witness could occupy a modest official in touch technology. Such a sulfurist, but very important - he does not know the entire situation at the airfield, around the airfield. Well, three "sugar" took off, he left, he saw, what happened on a ten-taller height? No, he just saw one plane "

And since the "secret specials" knocked me anything, I remain in a "categorical" perplexity - as a "secret witness" (already ridiculous) with a "modest source of communication technician" knows - where they flew ("Buba Donetsk and Lugansk"), What bombed ("Volume-detonating bombs and cluster ammunition"), what the pilots say, when "they are removed from Su-25", "proud pilots speak only among themselves" ...

Viktor Nikolaevich, thank you, you deserve my "superambicious" laughter

The plane crash of the current and past years has become iconic for Russia. The collapse of the Malaysian Boeing, the exploded charter flight over Egypt, shot down by the Turkish Air Force Su-24, were not just tragedies, but also by events that enhanced the mass of the consequences for our country. Each fall in the aircraft should have concealable information, conflicting versions, mutual accusations of the parties and complications of Russia's relations with other states. In addition, each of these catastrophes, it seems such different, entails and contradictions within the country. Power does not want to recognize mistakes and respond to the death of people, and some of the citizens diligently avoids a collective feeling of guilt, as well as fear, invariably arising after the recognition that political ambitions of the power of people of people are more important than the lives of ordinary ordinary people.

Your version of each of the three plane crash« » Presented an aviation expert, ex-designer of the OKB dry, Candidate of Technical Sciences Vadim Lukashevich.

Malaysian Boeing

July 17, 2014. Boeing 777 Malaysia Airlines airlines performed a planned flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. It was shot down over the eastern part of the Donetsk region near the city of Torez in the zone of armed confrontation. On board was 283 passengers and 15 crew members. All of them died.

- Regarding exactly how it was shot downmalaysian Boeing Above the Donbass in July 2014, a lot of versions were expressed. What version are you going to lean and why?

No sense to talk about any versions. there isfinal report Dutch security service. With one hundred percent confidence, it is possible to declare that the plane is shot down by an anti-aircraft missile complex beech from the area controlled by the separatists, there is a map there. This is no longer a version, but a proven fact.

- So there is no longer talking about anything?

By and large yes. There are people who do not recognize this, but it is just a demonstration of their level of understanding of the problem. Because there was an international commission, which worked for more than a year, gathered all the information and facts and stated all this in the report, including the claims of the Russian side and answers to them. There is a document approved, entered into force. There is a district, about 300 square kilometers, where the zenith rocket could be launched. Now we are waiting for the outcome of the Dutch prosecutor's investigation, where it will specifically indicate that it was bey, as he got there, who launched who gave the order and so on. That is, personal responsibility will be recorded.

- But in the Russian media, the version was emerged that the aircraft was shot down by the air-air missile.

The main goal of such versions was misinformation, distraction, the creation of "white noise" so that any useful information disappear, tone in this chaos, became invisible.

- How quickly it became clear that the plane is shot down from the beech and from a certain area?

For me, as for a specialist, the fact that this anti-aircraft rocket running from the Earth was clear almost immediately as soon as the first images of the wreckage and the first video of poor quality appeared on July 17. And photographs of the plane of the aircraft began to appear from the 18th.

The question of Buku is already different. Of all versions, which then arose, the beech was most suitable under the observed picture. According to photographs and video that appeared on the Internet, it was possible to follow how it was transported, as he moved to his move, that is, how he was walking from Russia to Ukraine and then hastily exported back. There are radio operating data and so on. Everything spoke in favor of beech. Therefore, after two weeks, in the middle of August, it was completely clear that it was a zenith rocket, and 90-95% - that the beech was shot from the territory controlled by separatists. This situation finally became clear on September 13 of this year, when the report was published.

Why was it necessary to promote a wrong-like version that Malaysian Boeing was bridged with the Ukrainian fighter? Draw different schemes, show them on TV? Considered that for profans and it would come down?

On the one hand, yes, this is a calculation on a very undemanding viewer and that if you say a lot of "Halva", it will be sweeter in the mouth. Then, we remember the postulates of Dr. Joseph Goebbels that the more monstrious lie, the easier it will be in it. These methods were clearly used, they are in service with the propaganda car, and not only ours. Naturally, it was necessary to simply create a kind of background, where it would constantly sound that Ukraine is to blame, that this is their beech or attack aircraft. The more frantic campaign is carried out, the clearer it becomes that "on the thief the hat is burning." Our media did not pursue the goal to establish the truth. At all.

When the investigation is being conducted, they first collect evidence, evidence, evidence. Then a number of versions are put forward. Then the versions are examined, the least probable will mark.

But in our media, the situation was different.

Judging by how they put forward their assumptions, there was nothing to do with the search for truth here. The information war was conducted, and the idiocy looked the versions than the axes they were made, the more obvious it was. Only when the idiotic versions ran out, "Almaz-Antei" arose [the concern of air-space defense, which conducted his own investigation of the catastrophe].

- In the media, they understood that the truth would float sooner or later, did they not think with which face they will appear?

For me, this is also a question. The information campaign was either made idiots, or these people simply did not look forward. I would at the place of our media or those who smoke them, from the very beginning gathered specialists, found out how things are going, and would do everything normally. And our specialists began to be attracted only in the spring of this year, when the whole world clearly knew that Malaysian Boeing was shot down from beech. Only when it became clear that they did not turn, the media attracted the developers of this installation, asked them to do at least something. And the developers began to flash the version that the beech shot, but Ukrainian, and not from snow or torus, but from Zaroshinsky. At the same time, people drove themselves into the angle that they forgot that in all data and Zaroschensky was also in the rear of separatists.

"But then the main one was the version that Ukraine is not to blame, because she did not closed the sky for flights.

Here the fault is very peculiar. Suppose there is a warehouse, a storageman sits inside, and the watchman from the outside should close the door. The watchman moved the need without closing the door. And the killer and robber came to the warehouse and killed the storekeeper. Of course, the watchman is guilty that the door did not closed, but it is mediated, not straight.

Here is the same. Someone launched the rocket and destroyed 298 lives. Ukraine, of course, is to blame, because according to international law, the country is responsible for the safety of flights, in whose airspace is a plane. It makes wiring, provides dispatching accompaniment and for these services receives a transit fee. Now, I understand that the airspace will be closed above any area of \u200b\u200bcombat operations, regardless of the height of the echelon. And not as it was over Ukraine - space is closed to 9,700 meters, and above - I do not want to fly.

But wines for murder, for the death of people, of course, lies on those who dragged this beech there who provided all the logistics who had given an order so that the combat system was in the territory where the rocket was launched, who ordered to click on the "Start" and Who launched the rocket. Prosecutor's investigation, the results of which should be in two or three months, it will establish.

- What can threaten Russia in this case?

Criminal liability. And what will be the court or tribunal, what will be jurisdiction and so on, what evidence will not be clear. This is a lawsuit that will not go fast.

Note that there is still no tribunal. And Russia was against him, which is also indicative, because if we have nothing to do with it, what is the difference, and if the snap is in Puhu, then what kind of criminal will agree to the trial?

But the victims of the countries, first of all, Holland will ratify for another court, for the International Tribunal. And still sooner or later it will be done. Such crimes do not have the statute of limitations, and the situation can develop in different ways. Russia should not be eliminated from this process. If we are really innocent, then the Tribunal will not only prosecutors, but also defenders, and it will be possible to require examination, evidence, rechecking evidence. But if we are to blame, then we will touch the horn to the end.

But the current Russian power is also not eternal. The court of history is waiting for us in any case, and in history there will be the fact that Russia in every way resisted the establishment of truth in this matter.

The main functions of a technical investigation in establishing what happened, and to develop some measures to prevent the repetition of such a situation in the future. The catastrophe arose due to two reasons: Ukraine, without closing airspace, and beech. Which and whose one is not the scope of the technical calculation and not the task of ICAO [International Organization of Civil Aviation from the English. ICAO - International Civil Aviation Organization], this is a criminal investigation that the prosecutor's office of Holland leads. When we are waiting for the conclusion, there will be a new splash 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 fulfilled the flight from Sharm El Sheikh to St. Petersburg. Besed a catastrophe after half an hour after departure, 100 km south of the Administrative Center of the Province of Northern Sinai city of El Arish near the settlement of El Hasna. The plane had 217 passengers and seven crew members. No one survived.

The version of the technical worn out of the aircraft of Kogalymavia, 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 with our charter flight, too, was the terrorist attack. And how quickly can you understand what caused the catastrophe?

There is generally an interesting moment. Imagine that there were no terrorist attacks in Paris. Would we admit that we lost the plane due to the terrorist attack or not? Long said that this is a technical version, and we are all learning. And when it became clear that terrorism steps on the planet, then we left before admitting that with our plane was a terrorist attack. Although at this point we had already evacuated all holidaymakers from Egypt, and separately from baggage, thereby recognizing the de facto that this is exactly the terrorist attack.

- And not only we.

Yes, everyone has already been clear, but we did not confess. And if Paris was not, how long would we still fool?

"Why did we fool a fool?" Recognition of the terrorist attack throws a shadow on our military policy in Syria?

Absolutely and 100%. On November 25, I was on the "Voice Rights" (TVC program), so there one speaker agreed before: I would still have shown this plane, even if we were not climbed into Syria. This is a nonsense mare, because there is a very clear chronological causal relationship. Until recently, our Russian aircraft have not exploded for a very long time, I don't even remember when the last time abroad, our plane died as a result of the terrorist attack. And here we start on September 30 an air surgery against ISIL * [Extremist organization prohibited in the Russian Federation], nominally, bombing Syria, and we have exactly in a month, October 31, the plane explodes over Sinai. And then this terrorist organization says: it is us. We answer: no, technical reason. They take responsibility for the second time. We will again refer to technical reasons. Terrorists spread the video where they distribute candy children in honor of the "Heroian" destruction of the Russian aircraft. And we say again: no, this is a technical reason.

And only after history in Paris we admit: yes, there was an explosion, it's ISHIL* . Naturally, recognizing the terrorist attack, we recognize his connection with our air surgery in Syria. That is why immediately after recognition, we begin to respond to the amplification of the air operation.

It is ashamed that with the recognition we pulled to the last, and the president, declaring the national mourning, did not appear anywhere else.

"Perhaps he did not want to be associated with some kind of negative, it affects the rating.

This means that you have a different rating. If he is high as a result of respect, what you do everything right and people are appreciated, then such a mountain nation, on the contrary, unites. And if you are afraid that the manifestation of human feelings, grief, sympathy for the dead will destroy your rating, then the price of your rating. 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 the state appear in place, talk to the relatives of the dead, express condolences - this is normal. And we declare mourning and sympathy through the secretary, and on this all ends.

Let's go back to the deceased Russian aircraft. How difficult is it to carry explosives on board and is it possible to talk about the negligence of airport services or had some collusion?

Everything suggests that the airport services participated in this matter, because random people on board do not fall. Everyone who can go there, on the state of the airport, airfield services, always tested, there are no random people. If the explosive carried someone from the passengers, then this is one hundred percent employee of ground services. Why he became such a question to the airport security service.

How large is the danger now that other Russian aircraft may be subject to such a danger, since Russia continues military action in Syria?

I believe that it is very large, because, for example, when Islamic fundamentalists declared war on America, then the Americans are at risk of actually everywhere, where there are representatives of radical Muslim organizations. With us the same. Under the threat there are all aircraft flying out in Russia from abroad, from there, where there are supporters or accomplices of radical Islamists. We have certain personalities with Duru took a stick and decided for the sake of pleasure, in order to show what Macho they are sticking to the anthill. Then it turned out that it's like an anthill, but an ox nest. And in the end, it turned out that it was Berg's bear. Well, that's all, now the situation is uncontrollable, because our special services are not able to ensure the safety of all aircraft departing from all foreign airports. From here hysteria - to ban Russian abroad fly.

But we have radical Islamists and within the country. Can something like this happen on domestic flights?

Inside the country, they are more controlled by our intelligence services than any airport in El Kuwait or in the Emirates. There, after all, there are simply no our special services. And at our airports there are no.

Su-24

November 24, 2015. The SU-24 Russian bombard performed a combat departure to Syria. It was shot down by the Turkish-Syrian border of Turkish Air Force. One of the two pilots died.

Now there are hot controversy about that, flew or not our bomber Su-24 over the territory of Turkey, had or not the Turks right to shoot down. As you can comment.

Let's start with the fact that any country has the right to defend its national sovereignty, including airspace, any means available to the means. They had the right to shoot down our plane. Another thing is that they could perform a number of procedures: warn, check out, shake wings and so on.

- But our plane for this too quickly flew over their territory.

It should be understood that it was not the first violation. We started military operation in Syria on September 30. The first violations occurred on 3 and 4 October, but we did not recognize them. Then we broke the Turkish space on October 5, and here we were forced to admit, we received the official note of protest. Our ambassador to Ankara was called, and he was awarded this document. On October 7, we received the second note and, accordingly, were forced to bring official apologies on diplomatic channels. After that, a number of procedures were developed so that this did not happen. We signed applications that the violation of the Turkish borders will not happen to our pilots. On October 16, the Turks shot down the drone over their territory. We immediately said: this is not ours. And only after this "non-vocabulary" authorities of Turkey, whose patience had burst, officially announced that they would continue to shoot down any aircraft over their territory, no matter, he was pilotable or unmanned. It was stated clearly, and we knew about it.

By the way, today we recognized that our military aircraft broke the airspace of Israel. Here you are the answer - who is there that is disturbing ...

- It is clear that diplomats knew about it. Did the pilots know about this?

Turkey President announced this. Accordingly, our president knew about it, he was the Supreme Commander. Whether this knowledge is coming to our pilots, the President of Turkey does not care, he has already made a public statement. After this, the objection like "I did not know", "I did not want" do not work.

Then the situation is simple. We did not bombing igil *. If we look at the card, the place where we are bombing and where our plane fell, 100-160 kilometers west of their territory. In fact, thanks to the fallen "not there", SU-24 debris were caught by the hand.

So far, we were talking about the fact that the maximum in one flight out of ten we shoot in the Islamic state. I came across information that only two flights for this month were aimed at IHIL *.

I want to clarify: according to some data, our aircraft bombed the territory inhabited by Turkmen, whom they consider ethnic Turks in Turkey.

They fight against Bashar Assad, we bombed them. To bother on targets next to the Turkish border, you need to go to the territory of Turkey, which is cut into the territory of Syria with a long appendix - this is the problem. Therefore, we violated the Turkish airspace, there is different to fight a plane.

On October 17, the Turks stated that they would shoot down any goal above their territory, and after the terrorist attack over Sinai decided to respond to terrorists and increased the intensity and number of combat departures. Thus, when you collect our plane, it became only a matter of time. They just waited and finally caught us.

On November 24, our two planes approached this appendix. In the air, quite far from the border, there were Turkish F-16. Our pilots in five minutes, as the aircraft approached, began to warn that they approach the Turkish airspace, and demand to change the course. This was heard of the Norwegian pilot, who was near. The Lebanese pilot of the passenger aircraft also heard these negotiations. Our aircraft, ignoring warnings, crossed the Turkish territory or nine, or nineteen seconds, according to various sources. But it is not so important. Then they bombed around the target, turned around and flew back. And with the re-violation of the border, after they ignored all warnings, one of our plane was shot down, the second left.

Such is the version of the Turkish side. They immediately presented the data of objective control, immediately provided all the data of the UN. On television, pilot negotiations were shown, but not the fact that they are not fabricated. It is important that the Turks did it quickly. And we have risen hysteria that once they did everything so quickly, they were preparing in advance. In fact, if you have data, then you are very simple to publish them. But if you have gathered them to put on, then you need a day or two to draw something. It was two days later our data appeared. And this is not an objective control data, but a card on which the alleged trajectory of the flight of our "dryers" is drawn. They, if you believe the data of the Ministry of Defense, which appeared after Putin's statement about the impact in the back, diligently flew over the arc of the Turkish territory. Well, where are the data of our radar, where data from satellites with geometal of the routes of the SU-24 flight? Our General Staff again decorated with color handwritten pictures.

- What is the likelihood that the truth is on the side of the Russian Ministry of Defense?

I really believe in the fact that the plane going on a combat course on the target, I made such a gigantic reparation in order to fly out this territory. I am inclined to believe Turkey not because I am a Turkish spy, but because I know how aviation works, as an attacking bomber, and imagine that in this situation it is more easier to attack in a straight line, more efficiently. The flight is ten thousand, this is a very big arc under overload. The pilot is forced to think not that he has a goal ahead that he needs to visit her and accurately bother, but that in a long and complex arc should fly through this territory.

- Why did the shot down plane still become a surprise and was perceived as a blow to the back?

- Not so long ago, I was a member of one of the discussions on television. Outside the air when we are collecting to him, and after when we erase with themselves makeup, we, while remaining opponents, communicate with each other and we say that no one will say on the air. So, all these "hawks" in one voice for the scenes said that the "Turks will bother" that "they have nowhere to go" that they will shut up in any way "that" they will send us a protest note, object, resent But they will not be able to do anything and all swallow. " We perfectly understood that we provoke Turkey, but were sure that nothing would happen. By and large, this so-called kick in the back - just an unexpected failure of Turkey to endure our violations of their airspace further.

Perhaps especially after the Paris terrorist attacks, the calculation was that in Russia and NATO countries, among which both Turkey, now there is a common enemy, and because our hostilities will be in Syria if not approved, at least not Mix noise from potential allies.

It should be noted here that in general our "joint struggle with international terrorism with the West" is largely a fiction. Simply until a certain time, this fiction satisfied everyone, because the thin world is better than a good war.

America fought terrorists who arranged "September 11". The roots of this terrorism and its financial "pillow" is a Taliban, the economic base of which in Afghanistan and the surrounding region. It is not by chance that the chief enemy of America is Osama-Ben-Ladan - was destroyed in Pakistan.

For us, Russia, terrorism is Wahhabis in our Caucasus, but he has financial and economic roots - this is the Middle East, primarily Saudi Arabia. While we were driving in the Caucasus Basasev and Hottab, we openly said that they are funded by Saudites. In other words, speaking of joint struggle with international terrorism, Russia and Western countries meant all the same different terrorism. But before the start of Syrian events, it all more or less satisfied.

And in Syria, we faced the western coalition of the forehead in the forehead. The West fights in Syria from Igil *, supporting the "moderate" opposition fighting against Assad. We fight there against all the opponents of Assad, while the main blows are not applied by IHIL *, but according to the strongest opponents of Assad, which are the "moderate opposition". In fact, we are already fighting in Syria with the Western Coalition, but so far indirectly, and strangers. Incident with our Su-24 is the first "hot" collision directly. But if we do not stop, then not the last, and today's violation by us by Israel's airspace is superfluous.

A simple question is on what kind of violation of your airspace Israel will begin to knock off our aircraft?

* IHIL, "Islamic state", "Islamic state of Iraq", "Islamic state of Iraq and Syria" - prohibited in the Russian Federation extremist organizations.