MH17 tragedy- 5 years on

A recent video prepared by independent reporters places serious doubt on the scenario for the MH17 tragedy promoted by pro-western investigators.

Five years on from the MH17 tragedy and attribution of blame is still a huge problem confounded by political agendas.

In July 2014 the Malaysian Airline Flight MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine. All 283 passengers and 15 crew died. A Dutch-led international Joint Investigation Team (JIT) has been investigating the tragedy with the aim of determining criminal blame. However, it’s investigation is plagued by geopolitical interests and the current claims of the JIT are unconvincing. Nevertheless, the JIT is planning to start criminal proceeding against four people connected with the separatist movement which rose up in Eastern Ukraine after the February 2014 coup in Kiev.

Geopolitical agendas were, of course, involved right from the moment the tragedy occurred with the USA, other NATO and western countries blaming the tragedy on separatist forces. An evidence-free narrative supported only by the anti-Russian and Russophobia ideologies existing in these countries.

Eventually, these narratives condensed into a story initially promoted by the NATO and Atlantic Council aligned Bellingcat “open source” internet investigation group. The JIT appeared to initially go with this story. Their public appeals for evidence were initially directed simply to confirm the story and no attempt appears to have been made to consider alternative scenarios.

The video above from independent journalist critiques the JIT approach. In particular, there is evidence of fraud in the video evidence collected by Bellingcat and in the telephone taps provided by the Ukrainian security service, the SUB.

I have been particularly concerned about political bias in the JIT. The unwillingness initially to include Malaysia in the team. The unwillingness to carry out investigations at the site – claims that security could not be guaranteed by local authorities are clearly wrong as the Malaysians were able to arrive at the crash site and take delivery of the recovered black boxes from local authorities.

Claims, by a member of the JIT at their most recent press conference (partially covered in the video above), that the Russian Federation refused to cooperate with the JIT were clearly wrong as evidenced by the reply from another member of the JIT to a question from a reporter. The Russian Federation has been providing data (much of it requiring declassification) from the beginning. In particular, they provided information (requested by the JIT) on the manufacture and deployment of the BUK missile used to shoot down the aircraft and also primary radar information related to the destruction of the aircraft (see Flight MH17 tragedy in Ukraine – new evidence).

While receipt of this crucial information by the JIT was acknowledged by one of the JIT spokespeople he seemed to argue that it was not considered because it didn’t fit with their preferred scenario (the missile system had been deployed in Ukraine, not the Russian Federation). The fact that such crucial information is being ignored (even after the JIT had made a public appeal for the information) just shows how political the investigation has become.

I think the politicisation of the JIT is disgusting. It shows a fundamental lack of respect for the 298 lives lost in this tragedy. Those lives and the feelings of surviving relatives should not be used in a blatant geopolitical game.

Unfortunately, the current international political climate probably means that the JIT with its current composition will be unable to bring justice to the victims of this tragedy and their relatives. The involvement of Ukraine (which had possession of the missile system used and political motivation to blame the Russian federation and separatists in Donetsk and Lugansk), the initial exclusion of Malaysia and recent statements by the Malaysian Prime Minister criticising the investigation) and the anti-Russian political alignment of other countries in the JIT (the Netherlands, Australia, and Belgium) simply make this impossible.

Surely a new, politically neutral, investigating team is the only way the victims and their families can get the justice they deserve.

Similar articles

 

 

 

2 responses to “MH17 tragedy- 5 years on

  1. There are lot ways that the JIT investigation looks a fraud.
    1. John Kerry announced he had seen US satellite info that showed the BUK launch and followed it to the explosion. Yet at no point has the US shown this data to the JIT or even told them the launch co-ordinates. Conclusion – they lied. Yet certainly they must have the full info on a rocket launched close to the Russian border in the direction of Europe. And the US did reveal the details when a Ukrainian rocket brought down a Siberian Air craft in 2000.
    2. The inclusion of Ukraine (probable guilty party) in the investigation from the start, with the investigation now purely run on Ukraine staff from Ukraine intelligence with nominal oversight from Holland. While rebels may or may not (still unproven) had access to one BUK in the region at the time, it is not disputed that Ukraine had 2 or 3 working BUKs there.
    3. There has been no advance since the first 3 months towards any court hearing. Indeed the impression is strongly that all courts are to be avoided because they risk defeat. The strategy is to run with the PR based on unchallenged claims for as long as possible.
    4. Certainly the shoot down was a mistake. By someone. Yet the claim has developed from a rebel error to malicious intent by Russian troops. Given the absolute failure by the US, Nato, Ukraine and western media to demonstrate the presence of more than a few dozen Russian troops in Donbas or Crimea (outside the Sevastopol area where up to 20k navy and marines were based), it seems highly unlikely that it happened and much much less likely that the JIT could prove the incursion of a BUK. General Houdges, US Nato general, on multiple occasions claimed 14,000 Russian troops were on duty inside Donbas. They failed to show 20 at any time or place for over a year, so how are they going to prove a specific BUK at a specific place at a specific date without making up the stuff.
    5. JIT opinions have converged on Bellingcat’s. Now if Bellingcat had made a single discovery that did not meet precisely the CIA/MI6. PR requirements in Ukraine or Syria or anyother area Bellingcat specialises in, then perhaps that would be of interest. Or ineed if Bellingcat had made a single discovery that subsequently was supported as accurate by an external independent body following its established practices. But as it is Bellingcat is a pure shill, and the JIT adoption of Bellingcat claims is in essence an admission it has no evidence of its own.

    Like

  2. M Droy – Agree completely. On the question of the separatist forces having access to a BUK system, I have seen reports they had two. One was imperative and the other had been sabotaged by looters before capture so could not be used (according to Dutch intelligence).

    A large fraction of the Ukrainian army defected to separatists (even Poroshenko claimed more than 30% defected) so there was certainly the possibility of a system getting into separatist hands.

    But, considering that the JIT has announced to code number on the missile used and that we now know that had been deployed in Ukraine it should be a simple matter to check where they system ended up. The fact the Ukrainian authorities refuse to release the relevant information suggests to me the system remained in Ukrainian army hands so its use by separatists is hardly likely.

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s