No they weren’t. There has been a trial. A lot of evidence and reconstructions where presented. The Russian MOD was key in the deployment of the BUK system.
A trial that took place with nobody representing any defence after the new war started by a non-neutral nation is not reliable. It’s frustrating that it was held at all because it’s made the entire issue so muddy that it will likely be decades before reliable truth is found when governments start releasing classified information in limited hangouts.
The defense was represented, by official and skilled lawyers. The defendants and the Russian state where invited to attend, and to present evidence through their attorneys.
They chose not to add anything official. Just hollow rhetoric in the media. On the other side, the prosecutor presented hard evidence, peer reviewed. They presented captured audio recordings, satellite imagery and more.
You either have not spent any time reading through the evidence, or are willfully distorting the truth.
You either have not spent any time reading through the evidence, or are willfully distorting the truth.
Considering their entire argument was to assert with zero evidence it was Ukrainians who did it, then to claim all the evidence showing otherwise is unreliable and we’ll never know the truth, I think we can probably answer with a reasonable degree of confidence they are purposefully seeking to mislead.
Extremely misleading. At that time these separatists were still Ukrainians engaged in the start of the civil war.
No they weren’t. There has been a trial. A lot of evidence and reconstructions where presented. The Russian MOD was key in the deployment of the BUK system.
They are as guilty as the separatists involved.
A trial that took place with nobody representing any defence after the new war started by a non-neutral nation is not reliable. It’s frustrating that it was held at all because it’s made the entire issue so muddy that it will likely be decades before reliable truth is found when governments start releasing classified information in limited hangouts.
The defense was represented, by official and skilled lawyers. The defendants and the Russian state where invited to attend, and to present evidence through their attorneys.
They chose not to add anything official. Just hollow rhetoric in the media. On the other side, the prosecutor presented hard evidence, peer reviewed. They presented captured audio recordings, satellite imagery and more.
You either have not spent any time reading through the evidence, or are willfully distorting the truth.
This was not a sham trial like Russia is used to.
Considering their entire argument was to assert with zero evidence it was Ukrainians who did it, then to claim all the evidence showing otherwise is unreliable and we’ll never know the truth, I think we can probably answer with a reasonable degree of confidence they are purposefully seeking to mislead.
Username checks out
Separatists with Russian military equipment? Everyone knows about the little green men bro, the whole world is watching.