I do believe you have no real concept of my conclusions whatsoever, and that you’re guilty of your own accusations.
I also believe your political acuity amounts to the vision of a lost hedgehog with cataracts on a foggy Maine cliff.
You say nothing, and everything. Talking of utility is ironic. I’m reminded of Gene Tunney. What next - just sit and say “ah well, these things happen - cup of tea, love?”
To justify your rhetoric, do me the kindness of playing back in simple bullet points what it is I’ve been saying. Don’t bother with the why, just set out the picture I’ve drawn. Don’t bother with quotes, just five quick phrases will do it.
Unless, of course, you simply can’t be bothered, and wish thereby to demonstrate in silence the eloquence of your non-approach.
As much as explanations for this sort of event can ever be considered “accepted” or “correct” what @anon68287401 suggests is not too different from that proposed for the shooting down of Siberian Airlines Flight 1812
Mentioned movements of arms across the .ru/.ua border
Questioned the choice of targeting the given flight (discounting the possibility it can be a random mistake)
Repeatedly insisted on need for high-end training for the SAM crew (discounting the possibility of only partial competence and inexperience of the poorly trained crew)
USA analysts pointing the launch site to Donetsk (mind the dubious records of USA analysts - WMDs anyone?)
Stressed the possibility of deliberate takedown by Putin’s order (when he’s the one who would lose the most by this kind of escalation)
Bolstered that hypothesis by the timing coincidence with Putin’s claim about retaliation for the sanctions (which makes better sense if interpreted in an economy-based move, the threat is too non-specific to infer a direct military-force strike against an unrelated third party with any level of reliability)
Claimed unambiguous unanimous political response (despite it not being exactly so, many voice uncertainty about the exact version of the events and tread rather cautiously - lots of posturing but no real unity)
Claimed refusal to believe in a mistake, while simultaneously claiming the equipment being highly complex (and, therefore, mistake-prone)
Blamed Putin (and neglected the role of Poroshenko in escalation of the conflict)
Bolstered the blaming by Putin’s silence over an argument (would it help if he’d deny?)
Claimed Putin pulls the strings, despite known lack of obedience of the rebels
Questioned the plane course diversion (which may have a million of reasons)
Accused me (correctly) of being on the fence
Got emotional because you fly the route (ever saw a civilian airliner shot down twice on the same route?)
Claimed that it is real (which it is, but it is not more real than any other accident just because it is newer - in few years we’ll watch it in an Air Crash Investigation (excellent series, BTW) episode while eating dinner)
Brought children into it (to which, I admit, reacted rather reflexively)
Claimed me quoting a dubious source (correctly - but the same, including using archive.org as proof of its reality, can apply on the other published-pulled source claiming a shootdown of a military plane; in the age of wide availability of media-hacking resources (e.g. here) everything with high stake is better approached carefully)
You claim I consider too many options (while I claim you are prematurely pruning the tree), and claim to see pattern in the noise (which is less clear than it may seem)
You claimed many heads-of-state accused Russia as the culprit (how many believed Iraqi WMDs? Politicos agreeing on something is not a strong indication it is true.)
You claimed that my stakes in the given flight route are none (I admitted they are rather low, though nonzero, and that I am exposed to other risks). This claim however does not make your opinion more truthful than mine; you are just more motivated to get to a conclusion, true or false, as the uncertainty likely feels worse to you than the possibility of being wrong.
You wanted me to pick sides despite lack of non-noisy data.
You claimed realtime analysis of incomplete noisy data is superior to waiting for better data (true when fast reaction is needed, counterproductive when accuracy is desired)
You got irritated by me admitting that I know as little as you do (assuming we have the same sources, English-language based ones mostly, differing in Dutch for you and Czech for me), without taking assumptions as knowledge and jumping to conclusions.
I admit I am too time-strapped to follow Russian-language resources, and my pre-Revolution elementary-school Russian is in too many shards for effortless reading, so I am blind to that angle.
OK, thanks. More than 5 bullet points. Nice to know you’re paying attention.
Putin put arms into Ukraine. There was a 150 strong column on the day, including missile launchers. I read this on the day, prior to the incident being reported.
He ‘unleashed the dogs of war’, and needed do no more
It’s “nice” that a smallish nation with political affiliations to Russia and the west was the one that lost an aircraft
The missile launchers re-entered Russia
Putin, rather than standing and saying “we were not involved”, makes sly oblique comments about Ukraine’s responsibility, and blames the west for setting the whole thing in motion.
