Flight MH17: What the Russian paper is saying-

Despite mounting evidence that Moscow-backed rebels are responsible for shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine last week, killing 298 people, Russia's print media is still painting a very different picture.

Some claim it was shot down by the Ukrainian military, which mistook the passenger jet for a military aircraft. Others suggest terrorists had been on board.

Here are a few views from Russia's print media:

1. Komsomolskaya Pravda

Russia's best-selling tabloid newspaper ran an opinion piece by military commentator Viktor Baranets entitled “Who fired the Buk?” referring to the Soviet-era missile system that is believed to have downed the plane.

The piece argues that it is unlikely that pro-Moscow separatists shot down Flight MH17. The more likely scenario, Baranets argues, is that the passenger jet was downed by the Ukrainian military, which mistook it for a Russian military aircraft.

Writing that only a Buk surface-to-air missile system could have hit a plane flying at 33,000 feet, Baranets claims Ukraine has 75 Buk systems in its arsenal. There is also an anti-aircraft defence station around 25 miles from Donetsk.

“If we consider that Ukrainian propaganda constantly fueled fears of an imminent Russian ‘invasion’ over land and by air, then we cannot rule out that the Ukrainian anti-aircraft defence may have shot down the Malaysian Boeing by mistake, mistaking the blip on the radar screen for a Russian plane,” Baranets writes.

Baranets says that in June the rebels captured a Ukrainian Buk installation but that it was in poor condition and also was incomplete.

Finally, Baranets argues that the rebels don't have the specialists to work such advanced technology.


2. Nezavisimaya Gazeta

An editorial in the daily newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta, entitled “The downed Boeing: just the facts”, calls the plane crash the “prelude to the start of a new Cold War."

The editorial claims that flight MH17 could have been shot down either by a Buk system or by Sukhoi fighter jets, which it claims had flown alongside the passenger plane. It also says that it is still too early to rule out a terrorist attack.

The editorial notes that Kiev had Buk systems stationed in eastern Ukraine to counter a Russian invasion, and notes Kiev's allegations that Russian planes had been entering Ukraine's airspace.

“We therefore can’t rule out that the Malaysian Boeing was mistaken for a Russian air-force plane,” it claims.

What it does rule out, however, is an attack by a surface-to-air missile launched from Russia, which it says would have been out of range.

The editorial also notes what it calls several “contradictory facts” connected to allegations the plane was shot down by separatist rebels using a Buk system.

When separatists claimed to have seized a Buk system from the Ukraine military, for example, the editorial reports that Ukrainian Prosecutor General Vitaliy Yarema said this had not happened.

The editorial also casts doubt on the official Ukrainian allegations that the Buk system used by the rebels was brought into the country from Russia. The separatists, it argues, would have struggled to operate such an advanced system.


3. Moskovsky Komsomolets

The Moscow-based daily newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets, citing an airline security expert, claims that even if it is proven that rebels are responsible for downing flight MH17, Ukraine would still bear “legal responsibility” for allowing civil aircraft to fly over an area of military activity.

“If [a country] is unable to guarantee the security of flights on its territory, then it should close its airspace regardless of [altitude] restrictions," the aviation expert was quoted as saying.

"As we know, the Ukrainian authorities restricted flights according to [altitude] - as a result, the plane flew higher but still crashed."


Karnozov adds that until an investigation is complete, a terrorist attack on board flight MH17 cannot be ruled out.