The Malaysian Airlines conspiracy. The unfortunate airline lost two aircraft in a short period of time and both have given rise to conspiracy theories. MH 370, which disappeared without trace on a flight between Kuala Lumpur and Beijing, was by far the more mysterious and has excited many weird and wonderful conspiracy theories. Much more evidence is available in the case of MH-17, shot down over the Ukraine.
For the past several years, the USA has been trying to engender regime change in the Ukraine. Britain and the USA together have been worried that a newly emergent Russia was becoming too well integrated into continental Europe’s affairs. Their anxiety was that a gap could develop between the two Atlantic powers and the EU nations that were part of their monetary system. Since the fall of the Iron Curtain, the USA has invested heavily (over $5 billion) in “strengthening Ukrainian democracy.” It subsequently, expressed nothing but full support, when an armed coup displaced the corrupt, but legitimately elected, pro-Russian government in Kiev. The new, US-backed government was fervently opposed to all Russian influence and within a week of taking power announced its intention of seeking EU and NATO membership.
Slightly more than 20% of the Ukrainian population have Russian as their native tongue; this figure includes about 90% of the Crimean population and 70% of the population of the eastern provinces, which border Russia. The new government in Kiev proposed banning the official use of Russian and announced other measures that indicated that Russian Ukrainians were about to become victims of serious discrimination. There was an immediate uprising in the Crimea and the easternmost provinces. The rebels opted to become either independent, or to merge with Russia. Russian armed forces, already based in the Crimea, took control after a referendum in which over 80% of the population requested to be re-joined to what they regarded as their Russian homeland. An armed insurrection broke out in the easternmost provinces from which the Ukrainian army was ejected with heavy losses.
The USA seized on this opportunity to maximise the breach between Russia and the rest of Europe that it had so successfully engineered. To punish Russia for its annexation of Crimea and alleged support of the break-away rebel provinces, the USA requested that the members of the EU should impose more rigorous trade sanctions on Russia. The continental European nations turned down the proposal for increased sanctions. Eighteen day thereafter, a Malaysian airliner was shot down over rebel held territory with the loss of 298 lives. The Americans supported by the main stream media in full cry, immediately claimed that, if it was not shot down by the Russians, it was shot down by the rebels using a BUK surface to air missile given to them by the Russians. Shocked, the Europeans immediately fell into line and imposed biting economic sanctions and agreed to the strengthening of the NATO alliance.
• Cui bene? Firstly: American and British interests in blocking the possible emergence of a major Russo-European power on the Continent that could limit their influence. Secondly: the new Ukrainian government, whose alliance to the West would be cemented. Thirdly: certain neo-con elements in the USA, who have greater ambitions and argue for the destabilisation of Russia and its being readied for a pro-American regime-change. Fourthly: American and European arms manufacturers. NATO, in the subsequent scare, was able to persuade its members to agree to increase defence expenditure up to 2% of GDP.
From the Russian point of view this was an event diametrically opposed to their national interest.
• Who was ready for the event? Within hours, the US Government and all Western media were announcing that it was Russian rebels that had committed the deed – and/or that Russia, by irresponsibly giving control of such weapons to the rebels, was to blame. The Russians made no announcement for several days and then produced air-traffic radar reports of a Ukrainian fighter aircraft approaching the doomed airliner. These Russian reports may have been faked. If so, they would not be the first faked reports and photos that have been doing the rounds – there appears to have been no shortage of such claims originating out of Kiev.
• Coincidences and anomalies? The event occurred on the 27th July. On the 9th of July the EU had rejected US requests for tougher sanctions against Russia. After the downing of the aircraft there would be no more EU objections to imposing further sanctions. Kiev air traffic control allegedly diverted the Malaysian aircraft into rebel held air space and instructed it to fly slightly lower than its normal cruising altitude. However, this allegation may well be part of one side’s propaganda. The Kiev government has refused to make public any of the relevant air traffic records.
There are other anomalies to be taken into consideration. The first OECD inspector onto the scene, immediately after the crash, stated on an interview to Canadian TV, that the pilots’ cockpit appeared to be riddled by cannon fire. Photos he took would seem to bear out his claim. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-mh17-michael-bociurkiw-talks-about-being-first-at-the-crash-site-1.2721007 and here is a further view on the matter – but from a less objective viewpoint. https://www.globalresearch.ca/support-mh17-truth-osce-monitors-identify-shrapnel-like-holes-indicating-shelling-no-firm-evidence-of-a-missile-attack/5394324 Also, though there are several recordings of eye-witnesses, who saw a fighter aircraft climbing towards the airliner, there are none claiming to have seen the characteristic vapour trail that is left by a BUK missile. (Ukrainian authorities subsequently released a photo to the western press that claimed to be of such a trail.)
The claim that it was brought down by cannon-fire from a Ukrainian fighter, has been given much prominence by those arguing Russia’s case. Nevertheless, the most obvious explanation would seem that it was an accident caused by inexperienced pro-Russian rebels, who had seized a BUK missile launcher from the Ukrainian forces and were under regular attack from Ukrainian aircraft.
After initial strident denials that it was a surface to air missile that brought down the aircraft, Russia, which is suffering immensely as a consequence of the incident, seems to have gone strangely silent. The fact that the JIT is not proposing to release its findings until into the second half of 2015, appears to be going un-protested. This is despite the fact that the technical observation of the wrecked fuselage should within the first day or so, reveal a factor as obvious as it having been affected by cannon fire as opposed to shrapnel from an exploding missile.
• Integrity of any formal subsequent investigation. It might be of significance that the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) set up to investigate the causes of the crash, consisted of The Ukraine, in whose air-space the disaster occurred: the Netherlands, (which lost 192 citizens) and from where the aircraft had departed, Australia (which lost twenty-seven of its citizens) and Belgium (which lost four citizens) and may well have been included because it has NATO HQ on its soil. Malaysia, which lost 44 of its citizens and whose aircraft it was, was not included on the JIT. Only five months later, after much protest, has it, been belatedly allowed to join the four other nations. Malaysia is now the sole member of the JIT not clearly committed to the Western alliance.
Despite the above, the JIT has several hundred personnel of at least seven different nationalities involved in the investigation. It is hard to imagine that the inquiry would be able to tamper with the evidence and remain secure against potential whistle-blowers. If it does turn out that it was a Ukrainian fighter that brought down the aircraft, it will change the history of US-EU relations. With so much at stake, both parties to the dispute will strive to ensure that the findings of the JIT fit with their ambitions, irrespective of any objective truth.
With so much capability for artful propaganda involved on both sides of the dispute, would anyone at this stage bet on which side was the probable perpetrator? Applying the methodology of the four questions: It could have been an accident perpetrated by pro-Russian rebels, but if it was a conspiracy, the actors would have been from the Western side on which all potential beneficiaries are to be found. The West, within hours, had announced the certainty of Russian guilt and, as for coincidence; from the point of view of wishing to create a division between Russia and Western Europe, the disaster could not have occurred at a more opportune moment. However, in contrast to the other inquiries mentioned in Part II, other than the strange anomaly of Malaysia’s initial exclusion, there is no indication that the investigation is going to be able to conceal the basic truth of the matter – missile or cannon fire?
How many points on a probability scale of 1 to 10 (pull the other-one) should be given to the official version?
Since the above was written and its posting postponed due to Charlie Hebdo, substantial new information has come to light.
Button top right for English version. This extremely thorough and convincing piece of German research, takes about twenty minutes to read and would indicate that it was a regular Russian army BUK unit, attached for air defense to a Russian Army tank unit, that brought down MH17. It would appear to have been a mistake, made low down the military hierarchy and in response to the Ukrainian Air Force tactic of hiding beneath civilian airliners prior to launching attacks on Russian armoured units. (Yes – there clearly were Russian armoured units operating in support of the separatists.)
In the same week, Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, made a speech calling for the Joint Investigation Team in the Netherlands to hurry up and produce its findings. Thus removing what i considered a suspicious silence on the subject as one of my indicators of Russian culpability.
That does not mean that all is cut and dried. I have asked Correct!v, the German research institute, how they accounted for Lavrov speaking up when it would seem to be in Russia’s best interests for the investigation to be delayed as long as possible. The possibility that the Red Army command has successfully hidden so grievous an error from the Kremlin would appear so remote as to be impossible. I have also asked why Malaysia was kept out of the investigation for so long and why the holes in the fuselage appeared to be so heavily concentrated on the side of the cockpit. Their reply was that they don’t know and that their investigations are on-going.