Russia shot down MH17 because they believed it was a Ukrainian military transport

The argument

The case rests on what was said in the first hours, before the identity of the aircraft was known. Shortly after the MH17 crash, Ukranian Separatist leader Igor Strelkov posted on a Russian news media platform that the separatists had successfully shot down an A-26 ukranian military transport plane. This post was quickly deleted once the plane was discovered to be a civilian passenger flight. The sequence is what the argument turns on: a claim of responsibility made while the target was believed to be military, withdrawn only when the target turned out to be civilian, which is exactly the pattern a mistaken identification would produce. The same claim was carried further before it was retracted. That same day, LifeNews, a Russian government loyal news network, began reporting on the crash. The anchorwoman stated, "The rebels say they were able to shoot down another transport plane of the Ukrainian Air Force...A Ukrainian An-26 was flying, and suddenly it was struck by a missile, an explosion was heard, and the plane began to fall." Russian-government backed news networks now deny Russia's involvement in shooting down MH17, so the initial account and the current one cannot both be correct. Independent investigation is offered to settle which. In September of 2016 an international investigative team determined that the Buk missile responsible for taking down MH17 was transported into separatist held territory in Ukraine by Russia. In May of 2018, the Dutch led investigation team (JIT) corroborated this claim, determining that the Buk missile did belong to Russia. Put together, the two strands supply belief and means. The contemporaneous boasts indicate that those firing believed they were engaging a Ukrainian military transport, and the investigations establish whose weapon it was, which is why proponents hold that Russia is responsible for the MH17 crash.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Many people question the authenticity of the initial post put out by Igor Strelkov. According to a Buzzfeed journalist who spoke to eastern Ukrainian rebels, the page that the post came from was not run by Strelkov, and instead was run by rebel supporters who would not have known how the plane was shot down. If the post is not really written by Strelkov, or any separatist commanders, then the post loses all credibility. That, in turn, would cause many to question the credibility of the theory that Russia is responsible.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The counter-argument on record disputes the attribution of the post, citing reporting that the social media account was maintained by supporters rather than by Strelkov himself, and that those running it would not have had direct knowledge of what was hit. If so, the premise records a rumour circulating among sympathisers rather than an admission by a commander. [Rejecting P2] Broadcast reports relaying what 'the rebels say' are reports of a claim, not independent confirmation of it, and a later change of line is consistent with the outlet having relayed an inaccurate claim as well as with a cover-up. [Rejecting P3] The investigative findings establish the weapon, its unit of origin and its route, and the subsequent Dutch prosecutions were conducted in absentia with the defendants contesting nothing in court. What they do not establish is the mental state the title asserts: that those who fired believed the aircraft to be a military transport is an inference from the surrounding claims rather than a finding, and the investigation reached the question of responsibility without reaching the question of intent. [Rejecting C] The argument would be stronger without the belief clause, since the evidence supports responsibility for the launch and for supplying the system while leaving what the crew thought at the moment unresolved.