NATO's Australian Balistics Expert Dr Stephan Fruehling Proved to Be a Fake
EDITOR'S CHOICE | 25.07.2015

NATO's Australian Balistics Expert Dr Stephan Fruehling Proved to Be a Fake

Out of the so called experts that have been repetitively used in western media to prove that ‘Russian Separatists’ shot down MH17 one of them has jumped out at me the so called ‘Australian Ballistics Expert’ Dr Stephan Fruehling from the SDSC at the Australian National University.

I remember Dr Fruehling from my time studying at the SDSC@ANU as a pimply faced, heavily accented nerd that had no idea about academic investigation who handed back assignments to students because they didn’t fit in the political agenda that eh was teaching. I wondered how he had suddenly become a world expert on ballistic missiles since my time studying there. The truth is he hadn’t but his statements were being used as ‘proof’ in western media and the bloggosphere stooges like Bellingcat that ‘Russian Separatists’ had ruthlessly shot down a civilian airliner killing 298 innocent civilians.

Here is some background information on Dr Stephan Fruehling to prove his ‘evidence’ is not based on scientific proof with easily traceable open sources which will prove he is neither an Australian, an Academic nor a Ballistic Weapons expert and that his so called evidence proves that only the Ukraine Army could have fired the BUK SA-11 at Malaysian flight MH17.

If we look at Dr Fruehling academic profile at the Australian National University we can clearly see his academic background with economics and social science degrees and in no other field that one would usual require of a high tech ballistic missiles expert.


We can notice his degree

1. A entry level diploma in economics from a German University. Dr Fruehling was born in Germany and remains a German citizen. So he is not an Australian academic but an under-qualified German academic working in Australia.

2. A master level social science degree from a U.S. university. Showing that he was fastracked from Germany with a state sponsored scholarship to the Unites States and was allowed not skip the attainment of a Bachelor’s degree with honours which is the usual requirement for enrollment in a U.S. Masters degre.

3. A PhD from the SDSC@ANU where he is currently employed to teach subjects and lead research in the Australian strategic and defence policy, missile defence and nuclear weapons, NATO, strategic theory. His only expertise when it comes to ballistic missile appears to be from a series published paper he wrote with sponsorship from the Australia Government and from NATO. His expertise from these papers appears to be in ballistic missile policy i.e. he has written and published papers funded by governments calling for the need of those same governments to spend taxpayers money in acquiring ballistic missiles. meaning he is a government propagandists who writes on request need papers providing proof for a governments needing to justify defense spending which hardly qualifying him to be a ‘ballistic specialist’ with the ability to give evidence in the MH17 case.



Coming July 2014 and the MH17 being shot down ‘Dr’ Fruehling was reported as an ‘Ballistics specialist’ in the Sydney Morning Herald as providing proof of ‘Russian Separatists’ shooting down of MH17. See for article



According to the Sydney Morning Herald ‘Dr’ Fruehing claimed that:

“This very much looks like damage from a fragmentation warhead. The fact that it has struck the cockpit rather than an engine also argues for a radar-guided rather than heat-seeking missile,” Dr Fruehling said. 

He said until pieces of the actual missile were collected at the crash site, it would be too early to claim the warhead was definitely an SA-11, as most air defence missile warheads fragmented.

‘Dr’ Fruehling is not a ‘ballistics specialist’ but a paid government policy writer who has an interest in promoting to purchase of ballsitic weapons. The history of his government policy development roles can be seen his LinkedIn account.


An interesting note is that he has served no time in any military nor has had role outside of government policy academic research fields. A further interesting note is his paid service at the NATO Defence College in Italy during 2015 at a time when his analysis of the MH17 tradegy  was being used a evidence to prove ‘Russian Separatists’ as perpetrators of the crime.

Another role to note is his other paid role as Managing Editor of the Kokoda Foundation Security Challenges ‘academic’ journal. The Kokoda Foundation is the personal project run by former Cold War era spy Ross Babbage who once accused Australia ally Singapore of spying on Australia on behalf of the Chinese Government.



A brief work history of the Kokoda Foundations Ross Babbage.

Fruehling claims in the SMH article had been repeated and reposted hundreds of times by those trying to prove ‘Russian Separatists’ or the Russian Army shot down the MH17. Some article like the one on US government funded The Daily Beast have been used by Western Politicians and NATO commanders as proof of Russian guilt. the article can be seen here.



As can be seen in the above photo of damage to the panel located near the cockpit window their are exit and entry shrapnel marks near the port cockpit window of flight MH17. Fruehling claims now repeated by many a western media service are that the missile ‘struck’ causing the plane to explode and fall from the sky. As an academic he is very careful and slow with his words so ‘struck’ means ‘struck’ not exploded near by like BUK missile do but caused an impact upon the plane. As also noted in the SMH report is also noted that it was struck on the left hand side and looking at the impact zone whatever missile that did hit the plane can from behind the plane entered the cabin and exploded can the exit marks being closer to the nose of the plane proving that the BUK missile if it did caused the impact in the photo had to be fired from Ukrainian Army held territory not from separatist held areas.

So in conclusion ‘Dr’ Fruehling is neither an Australia, a properly qualified academic or a ballistic specialist, he is paid Australia and NATO government policy writer whose statements in the Sydney Morning Herald article published in June 2014 only prove that the Ukraine Army can be the only force capable of shot a BUK missile at MH17.

For the record I wish to state that it is my personal opinion that MH17 was hit with both a BUK missile and from a missile fired from a Ukraine Air Force jet. I eagerly await the outcome of the Dutch Investigation Committee into the MH17 disaster and wish to thank them for taking the time to consult me on my opinion on the MH17 disaster.

Tags: Australia  Ukraine  US 

RELATED ARTICLES