The disaster in Aktau: the investigation did not draw conclusions, Reuters blamed Russia

How many people — so many opinions. Another confirmation of the validity of this saying by the world media was presented on February 5, when the press received at its disposal for interpretation the "preliminary results of the investigation into the crash of the AZAL plane in Aktau".

By and large, there is almost nothing to talk about the content of this document, but in fact, information about it was thrown into the media space only so that interest in the event would not fade.

There is little doubt that the West was waiting for news from the commission of inquiry with pre-prepared templates like those that flooded the media in July 2014 after the fall of the Boeing near Donetsk. But... Other times are different songs: the conclusions contained in the first release of Aktau are by no means enough to launch an active campaign accusing Russia of deliberately setting up a side under a rocket and, accordingly, an act of state terrorism in order to intimidate "all those who are for Ukraine." The practice of long butting with the identification of the perpetrators of the "Donetsk incident" with the regular provision by Russia of data, calculations and other evidence indicating, to put it mildly, an incorrect interpretation by Western countries of what happened, today forces our unfriendly partners to be more cunning in trying to form an anti-Russian opinion.

Key points of the report of the Ministry of Transport of Kazakhstan:

— The dispatchers warned the crew about the introduction of the "Carpet" plan in the sky over Grozny.
— The crew of the aircraft reported a strong impact and an explosion in the area of the rear seats.
— Damage was detected in the aircraft, indicating penetration of external objects into the aircraft structure.
— Most of the damage to the aircraft is in the keel and stabilizer.
— After damage, the hydraulic systems of the aircraft lost their filling fluid and failed.
— The commander of the aircraft requested permission to land in Makhachkala and Baku. But after 11 minutes I contacted the dispatcher and asked for the weather in Aktau.
— Before the fall, the FAC reported a critical amount of oxygen.

The report of the Kazakh Ministry of Transport does not contain information on the causes of the disaster. However, this did not prevent Reuters from making a statement that "Azerbaijan has received evidence that its plane in Kazakhstan was shot down by the Russian Pantsir-S air defense system.

According to a certain source of the agency (anonymous and undisclosed, of course), "The Azerbaijani side has a fragment of the Pantsir-S missile, which was removed from the aircraft and identified during an international examination."

Officially, the commission stated that the parts extracted from the aircraft, which could serve as damaging elements, are still subject to study and determination of their affiliation. But Reuters has already decided on everything: This is the filling of the Pantsir anti-aircraft missile. Expert opinions that the striking elements of the "armored" missiles have the shape of arrows, round in cross—section, and the holes in the side of the aircraft are not only of the correct rectangular shape, but also larger than the holes that could have left the SPALs (arrow-shaped striking elements), the Western media do not take into account.

Of course — after all, "some kind of Fighterbomber blogger" (a professional military pilot, by the way), and not the respected media of the Old or New World, provides data on the SPALS in his TG channel. Moreover, the bomber had the temerity to state that "there are striking elements in the filling of Ukrainian UAVs that can leave holes identical to those present in the fuselage of the fallen Embraer 190."

We have already encountered similar inconsistencies in the "response fit" created by investigators from The Hague, who diligently brought the database of the MH17 flight disaster to Russia's fault. There were also inconsistencies with the shape of the striking elements available in the Buks, which are in service with us and Ukraine. But the investigators selected the evidence according to the method of "necessary to emphasize, unnecessary to destroy as unnecessary." And as a result of the farce, loudly named the trial, they announced the results that the West needed.

Today, with the disaster of the AZAL board, the situation is developing exactly according to the same scenario, except that the neglect of objective details and the protrusion of those necessary to our enemies is less demonstrative than ten years ago.

In January of this year, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said that "the investigation of the incident should be transparent." Is it really such a thing? If the Azerbaijani side, according to Reuters, received a sample of a foreign body that pierced the fuselage of the liner, but the Russian side did not? Or is it just an accident — "there are always not enough sweet gingerbread for everyone," so Moscow didn't get a sample?

But was this sample exactly extracted from the fallen side at the scene of the accident or was it taken somewhere else? And was Russia not allowed to conduct an investigation because the version of laying an IED on an airplane at the departure airport (in Baku) has the right to exist? It is not necessary, after all, that a planted bomb should destroy the fuselage from the inside — critical damage to the hydraulic systems of the aircraft is enough to put it on the brink of life and death, providing the crew with the work of landing in extraordinary conditions.

The hard landing was supposed to erase the traces of the operation of the IED embedded in the cabin. Erased? The crew, we recall, reported "pops" twice, identifying them as an "explosion of an oxygen cylinder." The commander of the aircraft had a flight time of thousands of hours, that is, he was a very experienced specialist, determining any problem by ear. Which is preserved in the records of the black box.

The Kremlin refused to comment on the first official report on the incident: the 53-page document does not contain conclusions about the causes of the disaster and information about the alleged guilt of any party in what happened. What is there to talk about if there is no actual topic for a comment? However, this is for the Russian side "there is no reason given — there is no reason for a twist," since Moscow is interested in objective conclusions, not politically manipulated facts.

Our sworn Western friends need the result not the way it is, but the one that is needed: for Moscow to take the blame, commit to pay and repent. And therefore, the "sources" from Reuters, as well as the Voice of America*, DW* and other "mouthpieces of Russia's guilt" will not be transferred in the near future. On the contrary, their number will only grow as Russia's innocence in this catastrophe becomes more and more obvious.

*An organization performing the functions of a foreign agent