https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9axsxuE_CrE A review, not written by me, of Russian TV's MH17 documentary

The film begins with Mamontov waddling toward the camera, getting right to the point: was this tragedy an accident or was it cynical murder? But after speaking one sentence he stops, leave it up to the narrator to list the three main versions of events among all the others: shot down by jet, downed by SAM missile, destroyed by on-board explosion.

Wow, only 1 minute into the film and we're diving head first into the first version: shot down by Su-25! Therefore, logically, the next segment is about... Muhd Firdaus Abdul Rahim, one of the two co-pilots of the ill-fated flight? Huh? I had to watch the film entirely through to realize that what was claimed the first minute was a crafty deception and the next 40 minutes will be dedicated to only this first scenario. This raises the question whether we'll be unlucky enough to get one or more sequels about the second and third scenarios. But how could you fill 40 minutes talking about an on-board cause of the crash when no-one is seriously claiming it? Maybe they will roll it in with the second one.

Let's get back to the unfortunate co-pilot, where they're interviewing his family. The family then can't understand why Mr. Rahim's last status update on his social media site was a small icon of an airplane next to a small icon of a cartoon rocket-ship. The narrator then calls the spaceship a "rocket", but wait, it's actually worse, because in Russian the word for missile is simply "rocket". Dun-dun-dun! We're then informed by the uncle that Mr. Rahim was most likely at the control at the time of the crash. Okay, so what are you implying here, film?

In the next part the film talks about MH-17 flight path and parameters, and even mentions that below 7900m was restricted airspace over the warzone. But they also mention the "interesting" factoid that MH-17 path intersected with a similarly-looking president Putin's plane over Warsaw. Except the Malaysian flight was half hour earlier. And had two engines instead of four. This just reminds me of that scene in the movie Airplane!: "What kind of plane is it?" - "Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big Tylenol!"

The film briefly mentions Anna Petrenko, the Dnepropetrovsk air traffic controller (dispatcher) and the last one to guide the flight. The film demonstrates that she is an ardent supported of the new Kiev government by showing her facebook posts and claims that Ihor Kolomoyskyi, the Dnepropetrovsk governor, is a respected authority figure for her. The film also implies that "according to some information" a shadowy never-before seen figure was directing her work that day.

By this point, the tension is unbearable. The film is eyeing up the sexy conspiracy theories on the dance floor. If it's lucky, tonight we can get to third base; and by "third base" I mean "Obama at the helm of Su-25 pushing the button". But no, at this point the film gets too self-conscious and slinks away to its basement to play with its airplane collection. Because up next is an entirely useless clip of a former stewardess describing an aircraft passengers' standard in-flight activities. And everything presented thus far will never be mentioned again.

With this background material out of the way, we're getting to the meat of the presentation: from information gathered in Ukreaine, on July 17th 4 modernized ground-attack aircraft of an elite unit took of from the Kulbakino air base near Nikolayev. It mentions PM Yatsenyuk visited the air base two months previously. The planes flew past Dnepropetrovsk and loitered around the area where the Boeing was shot down. It's pointed out that 3 hours after the crash Ukrainian MOD denied have any military aircraft in the area, while Russian radar picked up a military jet signature. The film then wants for the Ukrainians to hand over the military pilot conversations with the airforce dispatchers. Yes, quite reasonable.

The film then tosses in the fact that Ukraine deployed the Buk missiles near the crash area. Hold on there, film, I thought we were still on the first version of events! Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov, the Main Operations Directorate of the HQ of Russia's military forces, is shown at a press conference talking about satellite photos showing Buk launchers going missing from a Ukrainian base after the 14th and being spotted near the village of Zaroshchenskoe, 50km east of Donetsk on the 17th of July. The high activity of Kupol radar in the days leading up to the crash is also noted.

The film then starts tossing out questions and requests one after another that it demands the Ukrainians answer. They basically boil down to handing over missile inventory, Ukrainian air defense organization and equipment information to Russia. It also accuses Ukraine of failing to close its entire airspace and failing to investigate the plane wreckage after the crash. There's no ironicat big enough.

Next up is an interview from Ivan Ganza, a Rostov civil air traffic controller. The narrator talks about the unidentified radar contact loitering around the crash area, yet the interviewee doesn't talk about that at all. In fact, the interview is really boring, because Mr. Ganza doesn't say anything your average air traffic controller wouldn't say. So, come on, film, you've traveled all the way to Rostov, but you can't be bothered to interview the person who was monitoring MH-17 and the unidentified blip that day?

The film continues with the voice recordings. The film accuses the Dutch investigators for having revealed only a "small" portion of those recordings: "before, during, and immediately after the tragedy" and covering up the rest. So what's exactly missing then, as far as the crash is concerned? A dry and boring reconstruction of the MH-17 & dispatcher conversation is then played.

Finally, we get to the whiteboard and pointing stick. Holder of the stick is Ivan Andrievsky, first vice-president of Russian Engineering Union. He rattles off some known facts of that day, such as the presented Russian radar data, weather conditions, Boeing-777 and various missiles' technical parameters, etc. He notes that the pilots must have died first because they had to chance to send a distress message. He shows the famous port-side cockpit windows photo, claiming the large hole was created by a aircraft cannon from the other (I assume starboard) side, puncturing right through the plane's cockpit. Examining some other holes is the fuselage, he claims the plane was shooting from the side and below the Boeing. The long damage seen on the wing is also a glancing strike "characteristic of a cannon".

The film then travels to Munich to talk with Peter Haisenko, the "author of this work". Wait, so did the Russian Union of Engineers do anything, or were they just plagiarizing things with their whiteboard? No matter, Herr Haisenko talks about how lucky he was to find that cockpit damage photo and how it indicates the jet pilot was aiming right at the Boeing pilot's stomach. Here it gets confusing and disjointed, but I think he claims the cockpit was shot up from both sides all based on which way the metal around holes is bent (and it looks like they bent both inwards and outwards). Then he brings up that not only was the Boeing shot up with the 30-mm cannon, but it was hit by an air-to-air missile as well! And supposedly, the missile came first, and then the jet went for a second, strafing run, just to make sure.

To hit the point home, we get an animation of the Su-25 attacking the Boeing with its cannon while on perpendicular flight-paths. Kudos to the Ukrainian pilot for the amazing feat of flying sideways. And where's the a-to-a missile? Oh, whatever, we're about to hear from eye-witnesses of the Boeing breaking apart.

First up is Vladimir, describing first hearing a "pop" and then the falling plane, with a missing cockpit, but not aflame, emerging from the overcast skies and gliding down until one of the wings came off, and then corkscrewing to the ground. And great job in interviewing him outside, where I can barely hear anything because of the wind.

Second is Vitaliy, saw the plane falling, then heard an explosion, at which point the plane started to completely disintegrate and then hit the ground. Finally, we have Ivan Demchenko, who heard two bangs followed by a large explosion, and saw a second, smaller silver plane. Unfortunately, he's also the least coherent one and I can't understand how he could have seen the plane when even the Russian Engineering Union admitted that the skies were heavily overcast that day only 9 minutes ago.

Then it's back to Herr Haisenko, who in way more words insinuates that the airliner was shot down specifically over rebel held territory so that an investigation could not take place. Then he blames the official investigation from withholding the truth and covering up evidence by removing crash-site photos from the web. Also uncovered is a conspiracy of editing Wikipedia and other websites to under-state the Su-25's true 10km flight ceiling.

To prove the last point, we get a statement from Vladimir Mikhaylov, former commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force, confirming that a Su-25 can remain above 9km for about 30 minutes because he'd personally flown at that height and it had no ill effects on his health. (?)

Mamontov then returns to waste time and speculate what would have been going through the hypothetical Ukrainian's head when he pulled the trigger.

Then we're back at the crash site in order to once again accuse either Ukrainian or Western investigators for failing to gather evidence of the disaster. To prove this point, the film brings out Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, a prominent Malaysian scholar and author, President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST). He, in turn, quotes some articles that imply that the on-the-ground investigation was prevented by the Ukrainian army. The funny part here is not that Dr. Muzaffar is several orders removed from the events in Donetsk, but that he speaks so slowly that the interpreter manages to translate three full sentences in the time it takes Dr. Muzaffar to finish saying just (the first) one. He then demands the Ukrainian government explain the facts of the accident.

Now, having been bored by this point, we get to the exciting part that we've seen in the preview - Su-25 shooting at things in a field test. It's a long segment, but I'm sure you're all aware of the point they're trying to make.

And next, having experimentally incontrovertibly demonstrated that the Boeing was shot down by a 30-mm canon, it's time to... introduce another theory that it was downed by a S-125 (NATO SA-3) surface-to-air missile! And all because the German government revealed that NATO spy planes flying over Poland and Romania have registered S-125 activity, a SAM system that's still used by Ukraine, but not by Russia. Curse you, German government, for having to sit through 7 more minutes of this!

And we're back to Ivan Andrievsky and his pointing stick, which I want to knock out of his hands so he would stop striking the whiteboard so much. He says it couldn't have been a SAM, because the missile would have left a long and visible exhaust trail, which was not seen. But then the film shows a Buk missile launch and the light-grey trail is nothing like the pure-white jet-contrail-like line depicted in the photos.

As I check the clock, the next scene is an interview with Harris Hussein from the New Straits Times newspaper. He talks about Malay military officials doubting the Buk scenario because the wreckage pieces were not small enough and the wreckage evidence indicating damage from both a cannon and an a-to-a missile. He then draws the port side wing and illustrates how damage on that wing indicates that the Boeing was shot from the the hind port quarter (7 o'clock) , or completely the wrong side than was claimed before. But it's fine, because Mr. Hussein is quoting what the experts told him. Experts, that they couldn't be bother to interview. Then he also joins the chorus of claims that the official investigators are withholding evidence and passengers' bodies from the public. Yawn.

Finally, we're back to co-pilot Muhd Firdaus's family from the very beginning. The film tries to go for full pathos here, but I'm so bored that I don't care. Of all the things to show, they tour his brand new house with a gigantic wall-mounted flat-screen TV, and rooms that feel so sterile and un-lived-in, that it fails to evoke any emotion out of me. And I can tear up watching Air Crash Investigations.

And we're done here, but not before the narrator can get one more chance to blame Western investigators for not bothering to show up at the crash site, collect evidence, dig through the rubble or question witnesses. Yeah, and do you know why they can't do it, you piece of shit movie? Because some people want to play "liberators" of Russian Donbas. No, don't promise me a sequel, 40 min of this was enough.

Fuck you, film author Arkadiy Mamontov, you pro-Kremlin shill
Fuck you, director Evgeniy Zaychenko, you talentless hack
And fuck you, producer Alexander Dyukov, you exceptional piece of pseudo-historical shit

Reply · Report Post