Expert Vadim Lukashevich analyzes in detail the nonsense of “Komsomol truth”. MH17: Manipulations of Vadim Lukashevich Vadim Lukashevich who is his real nationality

They called the wrong person: the Russian TV presenter hoped that the expert would blame Kyiv for the downing of the Boeing, but something went wrong))))

On the air of the “Tamantsev. Results” program, aired the day before on the Russian RBC-TV, the invited guest, a military expert on the effectiveness of aviation systems, Vadim Lukashevich, criticized the report of the Russian Ministry of Defense on the fact of the Boeing crash in the Donetsk region. Judging by the presenter's reaction, he did not expect such statements from the expert. He began to correct him and repeatedly asked the question: “So you think that non-professionals work in the Russian Ministry of Defense?”

"The Su-25 is an attack aircraft. The ideology of this machine is to work on the ground and directly support troops on the battlefield. Shooting down a plane at an altitude of 11 thousand with the help of a Su-25 is not serious. Ukraine has interceptors - Su-27, so what if to shoot down, then with an interceptor, which was built for this purpose,” the expert noted.

Lukashevich also cast doubt on the testimony of supposed “eyewitnesses” who were able to unmistakably identify the make of the plane located at such an altitude.

The expert did not accuse the Russian Ministry of Defense of incompetence, but stated that there is an information war going on and Russia is a party to the conflict, and therefore conclusions about the reasons for the fall of Boeing should be made by uninterested persons. At the same time, the Russian expert said that the Russian Ministry of Defense is “a party to the conflict, because these people in Donbass are fighting with our weapons, in particular. The only question is: did we transfer the complexes to them or not (Buk - 3M (ed.).

Lukashevich also cited as an example an incident in 1983, when the Soviet Union shot down a South Korean airliner carrying more than 200 people, allegedly passing it off as a “reconnaissance plane.” “There were also generals with a lot of stars who proved that it was a reconnaissance aircraft, he entered and exited our airspace. There were whole diagrams of satellites, but the truth still came out,” Lukashevich said.

Russian journalist and publicist Vladimir Abarinov in his blog called the broadcast with Vadim Lukashevich an emergency: “Actually, no one has been commenting on anything on Russian television for a long time - an expert is invited to confirm the official version and put forward additional arguments in its favor. But there was a mistake with Vadim Lukashevich. He did not echo the general, called the version of the Ministry of Defense untenable and explained why he thinks so. It turns out that all is not lost, there are still people who are capable of not singing in a general choir! What would be an ordinary interview on any other television looks like a system failure on Russian television. And it turns out that the powerful propaganda machine can do nothing against the calm confidence of an honest person.”

As the IS group previously reported, a number of senior European politicians have said that Russia has violated all of its commitments to support pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine over the past three months and continues to increase the supply of heavy weapons across the border.

A simple listing of achievements and places of work, as a rule, does not give a complete picture of a person. What is he like outside of work? What does he do, what interests him? Therefore, I’ll add a few more words about myself.

For more than 12 years now, the history of astronautics, and in particular aerospace and reusable transport systems, have become the main non-working activity of my life (like literature for A.P. Chekhov). Internet portal , which you are currently on, has been around since 1998. During this time, it has generally become the most authoritative source of information on space transport systems, periodically confirming this with reviews, reviews, corresponding prizes and titles (“Best site on astronautics”, etc.).
Over the past 10 years, based on the materials of the portal and my own archives, I have released 4 editions of the multimedia encyclopedia "Buran" (the latest version v3.50 was released on 3 CDs). Currently, work is underway on two parallel versions: v 4.0 on DVD-Rom and v5.0 on Blue-Ray disc.
I have several dozen publications on the history of astronautics, on the economics and efficiency of aerospace systems, collaborating with the magazines “Cosmonautics News”, “Russian Space”, “Aviation and Cosmonautics”, “Aerospace Review” and others.
He was a member of the team of authors of the encyclopedia “World Manned Cosmonautics”, which has no analogues in the world, which won the national competition “Book of the Year” in 2005 at the XVII Moscow International Book Fair. Literary Prize named after A. Belyaev (May 2006)

In August 2009, my monograph “Space Wings” was published, which was received very favorably not only by readers and critics, but also by the media.
Work on the next book, intended as a continuation of the first, continues.

In addition to books, I collaborate with several television channels (First, Russian, Zvezda, etc.). With my participation, several films were shot, including three episodes of the “Strike Force” program, and several independent television projects were implemented.
In addition, I am a consultant (on Russian cosmonautics) for Europe's largest private technical museum in the cities of Sinsheim and Speyer.

As you can see from the design of the portal and the book "Space Wings", I am engaged in computer graphics (technography) and am a laureate of several thematic exhibitions.

But there are also interests not related to astronautics. In the first place I would mention travel and photography at the same time. I have visited almost fifty countries around the world with my camera. Of particular value to my collection of photographs are photographs taken on the Nazca plateau in Peru, in Machu Picchu, on Lake Titicaca, on Easter Island, in the Galapagos, in Tibet, in the Fiji archipelago, among the aborigines of Australia, in Tasmania, in numerous reserves and national parks, and in many other amazing, exotic or hard-to-reach places.

Here are just some photo panoramas:

The first book about my travels, “Venezuela,” was published by the Moscow publishing house “LenTa Wanderings” at the end of 2011. This book is for those who, since childhood, have dreamed of distant countries, animals unknown to science, or pirate treasures on lost islands. She talks about an amazing country on the other side of the globe, which still retains corners of the earth where no human has ever set foot. Readers are presented with the protected islands of the Caribbean Sea, the wild tropical jungles of the Orinoco Delta, inaccessible plateaus - “lost worlds” hovering above the clouds, where A. Conan Doyle’s fantasy settled dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures.

In this book, I share with readers my direct impressions of Venezuela using real stories that happened to me and my friends. It is written in simple, lively language, with humor, is designed for easy reading and contains more than five thousand unique photographs. The book is designed for a wide range of caring readers who want to push the usual boundaries of the world around us.

My next hobby is collecting airbrushed cars, the themes of which are based on my personal travel experiences. Airbrushing deserves a separate story, because... this is a separate and very interesting world (exhibitions, presentations, TV shows, publications, etc.), but here I will just show my winners:

Collectible cars are a whole world of passionate people. And of course - meeting with friends, traveling in each other’s cars:

(graphic files are opened in enlarged format - resolution 3 888x2 592 pix. and with a size of about 5M B)

A specialist in the field of aviation science, Vadim Lukashevich, regarding the versions of the Malaysian Boeing crash, and here are the thoughts I had based on this extensive material:
In the modern world, it is almost impossible to deny obvious facts, objects and circumstances of the material world that can be verified. It makes no sense to deny the flight parameters of the Malaysian Boeing, flight MH17, all moves are recorded. It is also pointless to deny the type of projectile that shot down the Boeing; the signature of the striking elements of the 9M38M or 9M38M1 anti-aircraft missile of the Buk air defense system is unique. The launch site of the rocket is also calculated with exhaustive accuracy; it is pointless and useless to deny it. What to do?
Provide legal grounds for the DPR command about the legality of firing at an air target, and accuse Ukraine of criminal negligence, expressed in the fact that the official air authorities did not close the L-980 air corridor at FL330 above the traffic control zone.
But Ukraine had no legal grounds for failing to fulfill its international obligations and closing this echelon, because there was no danger to air navigation at this echelon and could not have been otherwise than with the direct participation of a third, unofficial party to the conflict - the Russian Federation, which has weapons capable of damaging targets at this echelon. Ukraine did not use air defense systems against the militants, and there was no official information that the militants could have such weapons, other than through their supply from the territory of the Russian Federation.
Having the sad precedent of the defeat of the IL-76 military aircraft, on June 14, 2014, on approach to Lugansk airport, Ukraine closed the sky over the ATO area to the flight level 260 (altitude 7900 meters).Source: http://censor.net.ua/n293016

So, the question of who exactly shot down the Boeing has been practically resolved - the fighters, the DPR command and the senior political leadership of the Russian Federation, which provides support for the DPR, supplies and command, another thing is who exactly is to blame for the deaths, but here big questions arise and in this sense the quote from Kurginyan and his video message, which Lukashevich cites, are a good help in resolving it.
Kurginyan speaks openly, and the DPR confirms that the Russian Federation is supplying heavy anti-aircraft weapons to the Donbass and warns not to “fly, otherwise we will shoot down and we have something to shoot down.” Ukraine closes the sky over the territory of the ATO, but who is Kurginyan?
Kurginyan is an ordinary provocateur, whose function is to perform a quasi-legal action - to “warn” Ukraine that we have heavy anti-aircraft weapons and will shoot down planes. Ukraine did not heed the warning, did not close the sky, and accordingly, “Ukraine is to blame for everything.” The idea is as simple as three kopecks, we have a just war here for the Russian world, we shoot down the planes of Bandera-fascists, whoever didn’t hide, it’s not my fault.
After the downing of a military IL-76 near Lugansk airport on June 14, 2014, it was clear that this was not the last air casualty. The author of these lines wrote about this. It is likely that this incident was used by the Russian intelligence services as an element of the subsequent monstrous provocation against the Malaysian Boeing, flight MH17, and the entire body of indirect evidence presented by Lukashevich confirms this conclusion, and from the theory of evidence it is known that some necessary and sufficient the totality of circumstantial evidence acquires the weight of direct evidence.
The author of the report cannot be denied the elegance of his reasoning. Everything is clear, true and correct until the key moment of history, the actual technical details of firing from the BUK air defense system to kill and some other circumstances of significant importance, the main of which is public access to information about the movement of aircraft in the specified echelon, from the flightradar-24 website and other services that provide real-time information about the flight of all commercial civil aircraft equipped with enabled transponders (radio beacons).
There is no information in the investigation materials that the transponder of MH17 was turned off, which means that the entire set of its flight data was available to the public, via the Internet, in a simple and easy-to-understand form. Accordingly, the person in charge of the BUK air defense system had every opportunity to avoid accidental launches against random targets not covered by the command’s combat plan.
The DPR anti-aircraft gunners could not help but know that several international air corridors pass over the territory to which the BUK is being deployed, including the L-980 at FL330, through which regular air traffic is carried out.
Moreover, to launch an anti-aircraft missile of the Buk complex of type 9M38M or 9M38M1, it is necessary to enter the missile’s flight mission (x y z v) coordinates and speed of the target.
The procedure for entering a flight mission is quite complex and requires preliminary determination of these parameters using standard radar systems, including in automatic mode, but still, the operator is required to control key firing parameters according to instructions.
By the time before the immediate launch team, the skies of Ukraine were closed until 260 echelon (altitude 7900 meters).for aircraft of a class below wide-body airliners such as Boeing, with a low flight ceiling. Source: http://censor.net.ua/n293016 and the anti-aircraft gunners also knew about this from public sources.
If we follow the reasoning of the author of the report, Lukashevich, and assume that the DPR anti-aircraft gunners were waiting for the Ukrainian AN-26, guided by information from intelligence spies, then why does the author not indicate the estimated flight data of this aircraft, at least from where and where it was flying. The target parameter Z = 10100 and the target speed, more than 700 km/h, should have greatly surprised the DPR anti-aircraft gunners, and then made them doubt the correctness of the decision to kill and double-check the aiming results, correlating them with the available information about the air navigation situation in the area. And there can be no question of any dissatisfaction in this matter of the destruction of a civil aircraft in an area of ​​​​a busy air navigation situation.
Both the senior and middle command of the anti-aircraft gunners, and the direct launchers and gunners-operators of the Buk, had to know and knew what target they were going to hit and, realizing the significant danger of their actions, foreseeing the possibility or inevitability of the onset of dangerous consequences, desiring their occurrence, they carried out shooting at a civilian aircraft. The senior leadership of the anti-aircraft gunners set a combat mission to destroy a civilian aircraft, the commander gave the launch command, and the executive operator carried out the command.


The respected Vadim Lukashevich, a specialist in aviation science and the author of a voluminous and convincing work, could not have been unaware of these circumstances, but for some reason these essential circumstances were omitted from his report.
Thus, from the totality of information presented by Lukashevich, taking into account the specified additions, regarding the imaginary story with the Ukrainian An-26, facts, circumstances, and other information related to the case of the crash of the Malaysian Boeing, it follows that if the specified information is correct, and There is less and less reason to believe the opposite, then the responsibility for committing a serious crime against humanity lies with the top political leadership of the Russian Federation, who gave the order to conduct a complex of special operations on the territory of Ukraine under the cover of the civilian population, women and children of not only Ukraine, but also the Netherlands, Australia, Malaysia and a number of other European countries, which the first person of the Russian state hates so much!

The plane crashes of this and last years have become significant for Russia. The crash of a Malaysian Boeing, an exploded charter flight over Egypt, and the downing of a Su-24 by the Turkish Air Force turned out to be not just tragedies, but also events that entail a lot of consequences for our country. Each plane crash was followed by concealment of information, conflicting versions, mutual accusations of the parties and complications in Russia’s relations with other states. In addition, each of these disasters, seemingly so different, entailed contradictions within the country. The authorities do not want to admit their mistakes and take responsibility for the deaths of people, and some citizens diligently avoid the collective feeling of guilt, as well as the fear that invariably arises after the recognition that the political ambitions of those in power are more important than the lives of ordinary people.

Your own version of each of the three plane crashes« » was presented by aviation expert, ex-designer of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, candidate of technical sciences Vadim Lukashevich.

Malaysian Boeing

July 17, 2014. A Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 was operating a scheduled flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. It was shot down over the eastern part of the Donetsk region near the city of Torez in the zone of armed confrontation. There were 283 passengers and 15 crew members on board. They all died.

- Regarding how exactly it was shot downMalaysian Boeing over Donbass in July 2014, many versions were expressed. Which version are you leaning towards and why?

There is no point in talking about any versions anymore. Eat final report Dutch security service. We can say with 100% certainty that the plane was shot down by a BUK anti-aircraft missile system from an area controlled by the separatists, there is a map there. These are no longer versions, but a proven fact.

- So there’s nothing more to talk about?

By and large, yes. There are people who do not admit this, but this is simply a demonstration of their level of understanding of the problem. Because there was an international commission that worked for more than a year, collected all the information and facts and presented it all in a report, including the claims of the Russian side and responses to them. There is a document that has been approved and entered into force. It indicates an area of ​​about 300 square kilometers from where the anti-aircraft missile could have been launched. Now we are waiting for the results of the Dutch prosecutor's investigation, which will specifically indicate what kind of BUK it was, how it got there, who launched it, who gave the order, and so on. That is, personal responsibility will be recorded.

“But the Russian media have long circulated the version that the plane was shot down by an air-to-air missile.”

The main purpose of such versions was disinformation, distraction, creation of “white noise” so that any useful information would disappear, drown in this chaos, and become invisible.

- How quickly did it become clear that the plane was shot down from a BUK and from a certain area?

For me, as a specialist, the fact that this was an anti-aircraft missile launched from the ground was clear almost immediately, as soon as the first images of the wreckage and the first video of poor quality appeared, on July 17. And photographs of the plane's wreckage began to appear on the 18th.

The question regarding BUK is different. Of all the versions that arose then, BUK most closely matched the observed picture. From photographs and videos that appeared on the Internet, it was possible to follow how it was transported, how it moved under its own power, that is, how it went from Russia to Ukraine and then was hastily taken back. Radio interception data and so on appeared. Everything spoke in favor of BUK. Therefore, after two weeks, in mid-August, it was absolutely clear that it was an anti-aircraft missile, and 90–95% sure that a BUK fired from territory controlled by the separatists. This situation finally became clear on September 13 this year when the report was published.

Why was it necessary to promote the implausible version that the Malaysian Boeing was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter? Draw different diagrams and show them on TV? Did you think that this would do for laymen?

On the one hand, yes, this is a calculation for a very undemanding viewer and the fact that if you say “halva” a lot, it will become sweeter in your mouth. Then, we remember the postulates of Dr. Joseph Goebbels that the more monstrous the lie, the easier it is to believe in it. These methods were clearly used; they are in service with the propaganda machine, and not only ours. Naturally, it was simply necessary to create some kind of background where it would constantly sound that Ukraine was to blame, that this was their BUK or attack aircraft. The more rabid the campaign is, the clearer it becomes that “the thief’s cap is on fire.” Our media did not pursue the goal of establishing the truth. At all.

When an investigation is conducted, evidence, evidence, evidence is first collected. Then a number of versions are put forward. Then the versions are explored, the least probable ones are rejected.

But in our media the situation was different.

Judging by the way they put forward their assumptions, there was nothing to do with the search for truth. An information war was being waged, and the more idiotic the versions looked, the more clumsily they were made, the more obvious it was. Only when the idiotic versions ran out did Almaz-Antey [the aerospace defense concern, which conducted its own investigation into the disaster] emerge.

- The media understood that the truth would emerge sooner or later, didn’t they really think about what face they would appear with?

This is also a question for me. The information campaign was either done by idiots, or these people simply did not look forward. If I were our media or those who supervise them, I would gather specialists from the very beginning, find out how things are, and do everything right. But our specialists began to be involved only in the spring of this year, when the whole world already clearly knew that the Malaysian Boeing was shot down from a BUK. Only when it became clear that there was no way out, the media attracted the developers of this installation and asked them to do at least something. And the developers began to create a version that a BUK was firing at the plane, but a Ukrainian one, and not from Snezhnoye or Torez, but from Zaroshchinsky. At the same time, people drove themselves so far into a corner that they forgot that, according to all data, Zaroshchenskoye was also located in the rear of the separatists.

- But then the main version became that Ukraine was still to blame, because it did not close the skies to flights.

The wine here is very unique. Let's say there is a warehouse, the storekeeper sits inside, and the guard outside must close the door. The watchman left to relieve himself without closing the door. And a murderer and robber entered the warehouse and killed the storekeeper. Of course, the watchman is to blame for not closing the door, but this is an indirect fault, not a direct one.

It's the same here. Someone launched a missile and destroyed 298 lives. Ukraine, of course, is to blame, because according to international law, the country in whose airspace the plane is located is responsible for flight safety. It carries out wiring, provides dispatch support and receives a transit fee for these services. Now, as I understand it, the airspace over any combat area will be closed, regardless of the flight level. And not like it was over Ukraine - up to 9,700 meters the space is closed, and above - I don’t want to fly.

But the blame for the murder, for the loss of life, certainly lies with those who dragged this BUK there, who provided all the logistics, who gave the order for the combat system to be in the territory from where the missile was launched, who ordered the “launch” button and who launched the rocket. The prosecutor's investigation, the results of which should be available in two to three months, will establish this.

- What could threaten Russia in this case?

Criminal liability. It is not yet clear what the court or tribunal will be, what the jurisdiction will be, and so on, what the evidence will be. This is a lawsuit that will not move quickly.

Note that there is still no tribunal. And Russia was against him, which is also significant, because if we had nothing to do with it, then what difference does it make to us, and if the stigma is in fluff, then what kind of criminal would agree to be put on trial?

But the injured countries, primarily Holland, will advocate for another court, for an international tribunal. And anyway, sooner or later it will be done. Such crimes have no statute of limitations, and the situation can develop in different ways. Russia should not be excluded from this process. If we are truly innocent, then at the tribunal there will be not only prosecutors, but also defenders, and it will be possible to demand examination, evidence, and double-checking of evidence. But if we are guilty, then we will resist the horn to the end.

But the current Russian government will not last forever either. The judgment of history awaits us in any case, and history will also remember that Russia resisted in every possible way to establish the truth in this matter.

The main functions of a technical investigation are to establish what happened and develop some measures to prevent such a situation from reoccurring in the future. The disaster arose due to two reasons: Ukraine, which did not close the airspace, and BUK. Which and whose exactly is no longer the scope of technical calculations and not the task of ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization from English. ICAO - International Civil Aviation Organization], this is already a criminal investigation conducted by the Dutch prosecutor's office. When we wait for the conclusion, there will be a new surge of attention to this story; now the topic is not closed, but frozen.

Charter flight from Egypt

October 31, 2015. The A321 aircraft of the Russian company Kogalymavia was flying from Sharm el-Sheikh to St. Petersburg. It crashed about half an hour after takeoff, 100 km south of the administrative center of North Sinai province, the city of El Arish, near the village of El Hasna. There were 217 passengers and seven crew members on the plane. No one survived.

The version about the technical deterioration of the Kogalymavia aircraft flying from Sharm el-Sheikh to St. Petersburg was one of the first. After the terrorist attacks in Paris, the Russian authorities finally admitted that our charter flight was also a terrorist attack. How quickly can you understand what caused the disaster?

This is actually an interesting point. Let's imagine that there were no terrorist attacks in Paris. Would we admit that we lost the plane due to a terrorist attack or not? They said for a long time that this is a technical version, and we are studying everything. And when it became clear that terrorism was sweeping the planet, then we condescended to admit that there had been a terrorist attack on our plane. Although by this time we had already evacuated all vacationers from Egypt, and separately from their luggage, thereby de facto recognizing that this was a terrorist attack.

- And not only us.

Yes, everything was already clear to everyone, but we did not admit it. And if Paris did not exist, how long would we have been fooling around?

- Why were we fooling around? Does the recognition of the terrorist attack cast a shadow on our military policy in Syria?

Absolutely and one hundred percent. On November 25, I was on the air of “Voice Rights” (TVC program), and one speaker went so far as to say: this plane would have been blown up anyway, even if we had not gone to Syria. This is bullshit, because there is a very clear chronological cause-and-effect relationship. Until recently, our Russian planes had not exploded for a very long time; I don’t even remember the last time our plane died abroad as a result of a terrorist attack. And here we begin on September 30th an air operation against ISIS* [an extremist organization banned in the Russian Federation], nominally, we bomb Syria, and exactly a month later, on October 31st, a plane explodes over the Sinai. And then this terrorist organization says: this is us. We answer: no, technical reason. They take responsibility for the second time. We again refer to technical reasons. Terrorists are distributing a video where they distribute candy to children in honor of the “heroic” destruction of a Russian plane. And we say again: no, this is a technical reason.

And only after the story in Paris we admit: yes, there was an explosion, it was ISIS* . Naturally, having recognized the terrorist attack, we recognize its connection with our air operation in Syria. That is why immediately after recognition we begin to respond by strengthening the air operation.

It’s a shame that we delayed recognition until the last minute, and the president, having declared national mourning, did not appear anywhere at all.

- Perhaps he did not want to be associated with some kind of negativity - this affects the rating.

This means that your rating is inflated. If it is high as a result of respect, the fact that you do everything right and people value you, then such grief, on the contrary, unites the nation. And if you are afraid that the manifestation of human feelings, grief, sympathy for the dead will destroy your rating, then your rating is worthless. And you too.

- By the way, French President Francois Hollande came out to people immediately after the terrorist attacks in Paris.

When various state leaders appear on the spot, talk with the relatives of the victims, and express condolences - this is normal. And we declare mourning and sympathy through the secretary, and that’s where it all ends.

Let's return to the crashed Russian plane. How difficult is it to bring explosives on board and can we talk about negligence of the airport services or was there some kind of conspiracy?

Everything suggests that the airport services took part in this matter, because random people do not get on board. Everyone who can get there, on staff at the airport and airfield services, is always checked, there are no random people there. If the explosive was not carried by one of the passengers, then it is one hundred percent an employee of the ground services. Why he became like this is a question for the airport security service.

How great is the danger now that other Russian aircraft may be exposed to a similar danger, as Russia continues its military operations in Syria?

I believe that it is very great, because, for example, when Islamic fundamentalists declared war on America, Americans are at risk virtually everywhere where there are representatives of radical Muslim organizations. It's the same with us. All planes flying to Russia from abroad are under threat, from places where there are supporters or accomplices of radical Islamists. In our country, certain personalities foolishly took a stick and decided, for the sake of pleasure, in order to show how macho they are, to poke around an anthill with a stick. Then it turned out that it was no longer an anthill, but a wasp’s nest. And in the end it turned out that this was a bear's den. Well, that's all, now the situation is uncontrollable, because our special services are not able to ensure the safety of all aircraft flying from all foreign airports. Hence the hysteria - to ban Russians from flying abroad.

But we also have radical Islamists within the country. Could something similar happen on domestic flights?

Inside the country, they are more controlled by our intelligence services than any airport in Kuwait or the Emirates. Our special services are simply not there. But at our airports there are some.

Su-24

November 24, 2015. The Russian Su-24 bomber carried out a combat mission into Syria. Was shot down near the Turkish-Syrian border by the Turkish Air Force. One of the two pilots was killed.

Now there are heated debates about whether or not our Su-24 bomber flew over the territory of Turkey, whether or not the Turks had the right to shoot it down. How can you comment.

Let's start with the fact that any country has the right to defend its national sovereignty, including airspace, by any means at its disposal. They had the right to shoot down our plane. Another thing is that they could perform a number of procedures: warn, fly up, shake their wings, and so on.

“But our plane flew too quickly over their territory for that.”

We must understand that this was not the first violation. We began a military operation in Syria on September 30. The first violations occurred on October 3 and 4, but we did not recognize them. Then we violated Turkish space on October 5, and here we were forced to admit, we received an official note of protest. Our ambassador in Ankara was summoned and this document was presented to him. On October 7, we received a second note and, accordingly, were forced to make an official apology through diplomatic channels. After this, a number of procedures were developed to prevent this from happening. We signed statements that violation of Turkish borders by our pilots will not be repeated. On October 16, the Turks shot down a drone over their territory. We immediately said: this is not ours. And only after this “unconsciousness” did the Turkish authorities, whose patience ran out, officially declare that from now on they will shoot down any aircraft over their territory, no matter whether it is manned or unmanned. This was stated clearly and we knew about it.

By the way, today we admitted that our military aircraft violated Israeli airspace. Here is your answer - who is violating what...

- It is clear that the diplomats knew about this. Did the pilots know about this?

The President of Turkey stated this. Accordingly, our president, who is also the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, knew about this. The President of Turkey does not care whether this knowledge reaches our pilots; he has already made a public statement. After this, objections like “I didn’t know”, “I didn’t want to” don’t work.

Then the situation is simple. We are not bombing ISIS. If we look at the map, the place where we bomb and where our plane crashed is 100–160 kilometers west of their territory. In fact, thanks to the Su-24 debris that fell “in the wrong place,” we were caught by the hand.

Until now, we have been talking about the fact that in a maximum of one flight out of ten we shoot at the Islamic State. I came across information that only two flights this month were aimed at ISIS*.

I would like to clarify: according to some reports, our planes bombed territories inhabited by Turkmens, who are considered ethnic Turks in Turkey.

They are fighting against Bashar al-Assad, and we bombed them. To bomb targets located near the Turkish border, you need to enter the territory of Turkey, which cuts into the territory of Syria like a long appendix - this is the problem. That’s why we violated Turkish airspace, otherwise it would be difficult for an airplane to fight there.

On October 17, the Turks announced that they would shoot down any target over their territory, and after the terrorist attack over the Sinai, we decided to respond to the terrorists and increased the intensity and number of sorties. Thus, it was only a matter of time before our plane was shot down. They just waited and finally caught us.

On November 24, two of our planes were approaching this appendix. There were Turkish F-16s in the air, quite far from the border. Five minutes in advance, as the planes approached, our pilots began to be warned that they were approaching Turkish airspace and demanded to change course. A Norwegian pilot who was nearby heard about this. The Lebanese pilot of the passenger plane also heard these conversations. Our planes, ignoring the warnings, crossed Turkish territory in either nine or nineteen seconds, according to various sources. But it's not that important. Then they bombed the target, turned around and flew back. And when the border was violated again, after they ignored all the warnings, one of our planes was shot down, the second escaped.

This is the version of the Turkish side. They immediately provided objective control data and immediately provided all the data to the UN. The negotiations between the pilots were shown on television, but it is not a fact that they were not fabricated. The important thing is that the Turks did it quickly. And we became hysterical that since they did everything so quickly, they had prepared in advance. In fact, if you have data, then publishing it is very simple. But if you are going to rig them, then you need a day or two to draw something. It was two days later that our data appeared. Moreover, this is not objective control data, but a map on which the supposed flight path of our “dryers” is drawn. They, according to the data of the Ministry of Defense, which appeared after Putin’s statement about a stab in the back, diligently flew around the protrusion of Turkish territory in an arc. Well, where is the data from our radars, where is the data from satellites with georeferencing of Su-24 flight routes? Our General Staff again got away with color handwritten pictures.

- What is the likelihood that the truth is on the side of the Russian Ministry of Defense?

I very little believe that an aircraft on a combat course towards a target would make such a gigantic turn in order to fly around this territory. I am inclined to believe Turkey not because I am a Turkish spy, but because I know how aviation works, how a bomber attacks, and I imagine that in this situation, attacking in a straight line is much simpler, more effective and more accurate. The flyby is about thirty seconds, this is a very large arc under overload. The pilot is forced to think not about the fact that he has a target ahead, that he needs to aim at it and bomb it accurately, but about the fact that he needs to fly around this territory in a long and complex arc.

- Why did the downed plane still come as a surprise to us and was perceived as a stab in the back?

- Not long ago I was a participant in one of the discussions on television. Off the air, when we are gathered before it, and after, when we wash off our makeup, we, remaining opponents, communicate with each other and talk about what no one will say on air. So, all these “hawks” said in one voice behind the scenes that “the Turks will wipe themselves out”, that “they have nowhere to go”, that they will “shut up anyway”, that “they will send us notes of protest, object, be indignant, but they won’t be able to do anything and will swallow everything.” We understood perfectly well that we were provoking Turkey, but we were sure that nothing would happen. By and large, this so-called stab in the back is simply Turkey’s unexpected refusal to tolerate our further violations of their airspace.

Perhaps, especially after the Paris terrorist attacks, the calculation was that Russia and the NATO countries, including Turkey, now have a common enemy, and therefore our military actions in Syria would be, if not approved, then at least not will encounter interference from potential allies.

It should be noted here that in general our “joint fight against international terrorism with the West” is largely a fiction. It’s just that until a certain time this fiction suited everyone, because a bad peace is better than a good war.

America fought the terrorists who perpetrated September 11th. The roots of this terrorism and its financial cushion are the Taliban, whose economic base is in Afghanistan and the surrounding region. It is no coincidence that America's main enemy, Osama bin Laden, was destroyed in Pakistan.

For us, Russia, terrorism is the Wahhabis in our Caucasus, but its financial and economic roots are the Middle East, primarily Saudi Arabia. While we were chasing Basasev and Hottab around the Caucasus, we openly talked about the fact that they are financed by the Saudis. In other words, when speaking about the joint fight against international terrorism, Russia and Western countries still had different types of terrorism in mind. But before the start of the Syrian events, this more or less suited everyone.

And in Syria we faced the Western coalition head-on. The West is fighting ISIS in Syria, supporting the “moderate” opposition fighting against Assad. We are fighting there against all of Assad’s opponents, and we are delivering the main blows not against ISIS*, but against Assad’s most powerful opponents, which are precisely the “moderate opposition.” In fact, we are already fighting in Syria with the Western coalition, but so far indirectly, through the hands of others. The incident with our Su-24 is the first “hot” direct collision. But if we don’t stop, it won’t be the last, and today’s violation of Israeli airspace is further proof of this.

A simple question: at what point will Israel begin to shoot down our planes in violation of its airspace?

* ISIS, “Islamic State”, “Islamic State of Iraq”, “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria” are extremist organizations banned in the Russian Federation.