The fact that Ukraine's Junta and US politics is ultimately responsible does not contradict the fact that rebells actually shot it down.
You have no evidence the rebels shot is down, except a very suspicious "youtube video".
The International investigation should be asking the Ukraine about their rocket launchers, as we know they that the Ukrainians, not the rebels had Buk missile launchers. The international investigation should be asking to see their inventories.
But no. We have been told what to think and we have been told who did it and we have been told who must be investigated. So it's best we just do as we are told. Everyone must comply.
Why did the Ukranians even have Buk missile launchers in the conflict zone anyway. They are fighting people who have no planes.
The only people in the conflict prior to MH017 who were shooting down planes were the rebels. They were very proud of the fact that they had shot down a couple of Antonov cargo planes that the Ukraine government was using for supply purposes. It seems that they are not all that good at spotting the difference between a medium sized plane at 20,000ft and a large one at 35,000ft. It isn't impossible that someone else shot down MH017, but the first place to look for suspects surely needs to be the yahoos who were known to be shooting at aircraft in the area.
Conspiracy theories are needless - the most parsimonious explanation is the best, and the current evidence points to the rebels as the most likely suspects. Premature analysis of motivation is a sure way to reach erroneous conclusions; the sequence of questions that lead to truth is: What happened; Who made it happen; Why did they make it happen.
By saying 'Why' first, you simply impose your personal bias on all the rest of the process - Define the Ukrainians as 'bad guys' and it becomes easy to say 'So they probably tried to frame the rebels so as to garner international support or sympathy'; but that is putting the cart before the horse.
What happened - a passenger jet was shot down. Most likely it was hit by a Buk missile, but that will not be confirmed until a forensic examination of the remains is completed.
Who made it happen - Unknown. There are three groups who might have done it; the Ukrainian military, the Russian military and the rebels.
Why did they do it - None of these groups stands to gain much by it; the Ukrainian military might come out ahead, but only if they don't get caught setting it up - which would be a big ask; the Russian military really only stand to lose out as a result, so it likely wasn't them; and the rebels are in the same boat. the fourth possibility is that MH017 wasn't the intended target - and in that case, the people responsible would be those who were firing at aircraft - the only aircraft in use in the area are Ukranian, and the only people shooting at them are the rebels.
As you say, the Ukranians are fighting people with no planes. Until and unless the Russian airforce got involved, they have no reason to arm the missiles - but with the possibility of escalation, they would be remiss not to have the units in the area. That easily answers your question - and the question itself contains the answer to 'Are they likely to have fired one of the missiles that they did have in the area?' - the answer is 'No'.
Sure, sometimes people try complex schemes to maliciously smear their opponents. But if choosing between malice and incompetence as competing explanations for a disaster, betting on incompetence will get you the jackpot almost all of the time.
You were happy to accept the dodgy evidence that MH017 had 'been diverted' from its flightpath as evidence for your hypothesis; now that that evidence has been shown to be totally wrong, doesn't that suggest that other evidence from the same source should be regarded with at least some degree of suspicion? You are being led by the nose - why not take the blinkers off, and look at the big picture?
