The conclusion practically asks to be drawn, in accordance with the ancient “cui bono?” maxim. If one looks at who the beneficiary was, then it makes no sense for Russia to have instigated the shoot-down. Given the international situation, it drew no benefit from it. Rather to the contrary, the Russian side was the most interested one in a transparent investigation. But it was labeled the guilty party already on the next day by the Western media. There is likewise little to point at the militia. There are all kinds of people among them, certainly. But downing a Boeing—pardon me, that’s a whole different ball game. Because they would have been labeled terrorists on the international level. Shooting down a plane flying at an altitude of 10km is beyond their ability even now, let alone two years ago when some of them were carrying hunting shotguns. Promoting hysteria aimed at Russia was very telling in itself. As usual, the guilty party usually yells “stop thief!” the loudest. But the whole story was very convenient for Ukraine and its sponsors. The Americans have long mastered similar provocations.

Classic Russian disinformation about MH17. The cui bono argument has been thrown out by every single Russian propagandist alive, and some have eaten it right up. The last sentence indicates that you blame the Americans for instigating a false flag. Of course, no proof is given of this. None whatsoever. Furthermore, the propagandist uses the false logic of saying Russia and its proxies did not benefit from this, therefore, they did not do it. Of course, the filthy propagandist neglects to mention that this entire event was an accident and that Russia's proxies shot down MH17 by accident, mistaking it for a Ukrainian military place. This is evident in the leaked video of the aftermath, in which one of the rebels was saying that both an SU-25 and a Boeing went down and instructed his subordinates to go look for the pieces. First, we know that no SU-25 was ever shot down, since no wreckage of it was found. Second, by saying that they took down an SU-25, they directly contradict your statement saying they couldn't take out a plane flying above 10 Km. Clearly, they thought they had succeeded in shooting down an SU-25, which they only would have thought if they had the requisite military hardware for it, like a BUK.

The rest of your propaganda is contradicted by the fact that the BUK manufacturer itself says a BUK was used, not an SU-25 as you claim. This also contradicts the false information given by a Ukrainian former pilot who claimed he overheard two Ukrainian pilots talking about accidentally shooting down a Boeing. He "defected" to Russia and was paraded in front of the Russian state media. Most likely, he was paid to "defect" and be used as a disinformation source. It also contradicts the "lost" radar data Russia recently dug up after two years, having found it in some memory chips from a civilian radar site that had been replaced shortly after MH17 was shot down. They too don't show any SU-25s whatsoever. Russia's multiple disinformation theories contradicted themselves!

I'm sorry, /u/SouthFrontTeam, but this disinformation you've posted won't work here. Sad, I know, but you'll have to inform your Kremlin sponsors of this

I know! Might I recommend a far more, ahem, suitable subreddit for your propaganda: /r/russia

Enjoy!