You paint a detailed picture of your opinion but it is just unfounded opinion which I don't find very convincing, and here's why I don't find your picture of events convincing: An upgraded TELAR with the latest version of missiles would be a treasured item in the currently cash strapped Russian military, it is illogical to think that a commander would just "hand the keys" to some civilians and let them drive away with this multi-million dollar piece of equipment. And if he were to do so what would the Russian Army crew assigned to the TELAR do? Just wave goodbye and sit down and have a smoke? I doubt it. The commander would want his equipment taken care of; for openers he would want to send one of his people to drive the thing so that these civilians don't drive it off a cliff. Then he would want one of his people to oversee the operation of the TELAR, so that if anything was damaged it wouldn't be covered up and later this commander might be held responsible for damaged government property or even worse he might one day find himself in combat and an unknown bit of damage renders this TELAR out of action. The idea of a commander "loaning out" such a piece of equipment in a non sequitur IMO.
You might be (philosophically) right, if the BUK that crossed the border had traveled with the upgraded TELAR system. However, there is no evidence that it did; all photos, all reports, and all the evidence points to the presence of the BUK control module, but no advanced TELAR.
Then there is the premise you apparently accept, that a TELAR would be loaned out to shoot down an enemy aircraft without an available command module. Again, no commander would even consider such a silly action. The TELAR's radar is of the pencil beam variety, It can detect and lock on to a target if it is pointed at a target, but it has no way to find one on it's own - it has no search radar. You would have to sit in the van and (electrically) swing the antenna through the sky looking for a blip on your screen, but airplanes don't take up much space in that big sky out there, and you've got to target them dead on in azimuth and elevation before they provide a return so that you can know they are even out there.
That is not quite correct. The BUK system operates independently with an auto-engage mode, created during the Cold War when the Russians feared that Western nations would try to attack with massed groups of fighter planes. It will recognize a target and launch a missile at it within seconds, If the Russian military supplied the BUK to the "rebels", they could have given them basic training in how to launch the missile(s) in automatic mode, with the need for the more advanced TELAR unit. Without the ability to interpret the radar images they saw, they would have had no way of differentiating a civilian aircraft from a military one.
Which brings us to a simple and obvious, but mostly overlooked fact: the TELAR in question was undoubtedly working under the direction of its command module. There is simply no plausible way to explain how or why a BUK TELAR would be operating about 8 miles from the Russian border (and less than 12 miles from a Russian military site) without a microwave connection to its command module..
When you say it is "simple and obvious"... and that it was "undoubtedly working under the direction of its command module...", that is, as we say in law, a conclusion not supported by the evidence presented. There is, so far, no empirical evidence to show that the BUK was - or was not - in communication with a TELAR unit. You are assuming it was; your argument depends on that assumption. But there is no evidence that is correct.
And BTW I am still waiting for the first piece of actual evidence (not just a belief or a feeling) that this TELAR was manned by anything other than 53rd Brigade soldiers.
We do know that Igor Girkin, the Ukranian separatist known as “Strelkov,” who was known as the "Commander" of the proposed independent (or Russian-controlled) "Eastern Ukraine" bragged about his group's downing of an aircraft at the exact moment MH17 was shot down. Posted on Russia’s VKontakte website - the website that had been continually used by the rebels to brag about their "accomplishments" - it was a "We-were-there-shooting-at-airplanes" admission. Read it yourself:
"In the vicinity of Torez, we just downed a plane, an AN-26. It is lying somewhere in the Progress Mine. We have issued warnings not to fly in our airspace. We have video confirming. The bird fell on a waste heap. Residential areas were not hit. Civilians were not injured."
The posting was taken down as soon as it became apparent that the plane was not an AN-26, but a civilian airliner. None of that would prove that Russian soldiers were not present and involved, but it does indicate that it was more of a tragic, slapstick military operation than a planned attack on a civilian airliner.
Philosophically, I agree that Putin and his cronies inside Russia are just as culpable as the rag-tag group of "separatists" in Ukraine. They recklessly supplied deadly weapons to a group of mercenaries and malcontents, which ended in the tragic loss of almost 300 civilians - not to metnion the numbers of Ukrainians who have also suffered from the conflict. I do not, however, agree - without seeing any evidence to prove it - that the downing of MH17 was an intentional act from the Kremlin.
Nevertheless, they are as guilty as the fools who launched the missile.