DISINFO: MH17 ICAO statement of Russian guilt is biased
SUMMARY
A new manifestation of the partisanship of the alleged international organisations can be observed. Neither the investigation team nor the ICAO Council answered a number of questions posed by the Russian Ministry of Defence in 2014. Among these questions, one is essential: an airliner above the epicentre of military operations in the Donbass? Where are the dispatchers who took this decision?
RESPONSE
A pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative aimed at discrediting the international organisations involved in the MH17 investigation and trial, while reviving questions that have already been thoroughly investigated and dismissed as unfounded.
On 12 May 2025, the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) voted and decided that the Russian Federation failed to uphold its obligations under international air law in the 2014 downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17.
"The Council agreed that the claims brought by Australia and the Netherlands as a result of the shooting down of Flight MH17 on 17 July 2014, were well founded in fact and in law. The case centered on allegations that the conduct of the Russian Federation in the downing of the aircraft by a surface-to-air missile over eastern Ukraine constitutes a breach of Article 3 bis of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, which requires that States "refrain from resorting to the use of weapons against civil aircraft in flight."
The government of Netherlands and Australia, countries from which many of the victims originated—welcomed the vote. It marks a significant step in the pursuit of truth, justice, and accountability for the victims of the downing of Flight MH17, and it opens the door to potential reparations, which will be determined at a later stage.
The question of why Ukrainian airspace remained open at the time is a legitimate one and has been the subject of debate. Ukrainian civil aviation authorities had no concrete evidence that Russian forces, operating in Ukraine under the guise of separatist rebels, were equipped with BUK missile systems capable of striking aircraft at cruising altitudes. While such a threat could have been suspected and the airspace closed as a precaution, no definitive responsibility has been established. Neither individual nations nor international aviation organisations paid sufficient attention to the risks of flying commercial airliners over active conflict zones.
However, the primary responsibility lies with the party that waged an undeclared war and shot down the civilian aircraft—rather than with the crew, the airline, or the air traffic control authorities who operated this routine flight.
The narrative that the missile came from an Ukrainian arsenal was officially presented to the media by Nikolai Parshin, chief of the Russian Defense Ministry Main Rocket and Artillery Directorate in 2018. It is based on top secret information and not corroborated by any other source.
The missile engine’s casing shows the number 9 д 1318869032. The JIT-investigation up to now has found that 9д 131 relates to the number of the missile engine of the 9M38 type and/or 9M38M1 type. The number 8 is the manufacturer’s code, namely: the Dolgoprudny Research and Manufacturing Enterprise in Moscow. The number 86 indicates the year of production, namely 1986. And the number 9032 is the unique identification number of this specific missile engine
See here and here for further debunking by Bellingcat and Polygraph.info, respectively and our interview with the Dutch Safety Board, tasked with investigating the cause of the crash of MH17.
Read also related cases such as: The MH17 trial was a parody of justice and worse than Stalinist trials, or IAEA blind to Ukrainian guilt in attacks on nuclear plants as the OSCE was about MH17-flight, or Many weaknesses in the MH17 verdict because Russian experts were excluded, JIT excluded Russia from MH17 probe, ignored Moscow-supplied evidence.