He’s been in the job for 10 days and added "Of course we have to take into consideration diplomatic relations”.
So yeah, I suggest we stick with what the investigators are saying, rather than the politicians.
Politicics has been part of it since the moment the incident took place. Like western politicians blaming Russia hours (!) after it happened. Like making Ukraine a party to the investigation, while excluding Russia. To me, if there's a military conflict between two sides (Ukraine and pro-Russian separatists) and something like that tragedy happens in the midst of it, you can't include either side in the investigative process, you can only request/demand their assistance in investigation, otherwise your objectivity should be called into question. But from day one, it was obvious that the guilty party was already designated. It's as if two people get into a shootout, an innocent bystander gets killed by a stray bullet, police arrives on the scene and decides right away that one of the shooters will help them investigate the crime while the other is announced as a guilty party before the actual investigation even begins.
Also, the investigators based their findings on the information posted by an organization called Bellingcat, which is sub organization of Atlantic Council and gets funding from the US government. It acts like an unofficial NATO propagandist, obsessively focusing on Western enemies.
That doesn't mean Russians aren't at fault here, personally I believe they are. Unlike the Skripals case or that latest hoax from Ukraine involving the ressurection of a journalist, I do think the Boeing was downed by the Donbass separatists and since they're armed by Russia, the fault lies with Kremlin. It's a major feckup on their part and I doubt they'd ever accept the blame because they can't just admit to it and pay off the victims' families, the confession would lead to a whole other line of questioning regarding their military and intelligence support of Ukrainan separatists, etc. And of course in the atmosphere of the new cold war it'll be used by Russia's political enemies as a handy political weapon against them. Admitting it politically wouldn't help Putin regime whatsoever, since their adversaries don't need their confession in order to accuse them or punish them, through sanctions or some other way. Plus, ever since Soviet times Moscow always has had trouble confessing to some unsavoury deeds, it probably has something to do with the siege mentality complex and belief that admitting such things would make them look weak and will be used by their enemies.