Let’s be blunt about the Malaysia Airlines MH17 atrocity, which killed all 298 people who were on board the Boeing 777-200ER as it was flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur on July 17, 2014 and was shot down over disputed territory in eastern Ukraine by a Russian-made BUK missile.
It’s been turned into a grubby exercise in political grandstanding almost from day one, while the issue of the airline’s culpability in allowing its jet to be flown into harm’s way has been largely ignored.
None of the alleged (and highly probable) Russian perpetrators, nor Vladimir Putin, is going to stand trial for murder or manslaughter in any worldly court, including the one in the Netherlands the Dutch authorities have said would be convened if anyone could be so arraigned.
The ludicrously impracticable claims made about pursuing Russian involvement in this disaster nevertheless appear exceedingly well grounded in terms of it being a Russian-made weapon and one that in all likelihood was launched by, or with the deep involvement of, Russian operatives, and from soil claimed by Ukraine.
No intent to destroy a civilian airliner has been proven. No logical benefit to Russia or to pro-Russian separatists has been identified nor claimed from such an atrocity. There is an almost vanishingly small but nagging possibility that the missile concerned was launched by Ukrainian operatives, but in all seriousness, there has been no convincing evidence of this advanced by a parade of Russian apologists making often contradictory claims as to the sequence and nature of events on that terrible day.
[MH17 two years on, and Abbott continues to ignore airline’s role in atrocity]
On July 17, 2014, just over four months after MH370 vanished, Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 became, according to the Dutch Safety Board inquiry that reported in October 2015, the 17th aircraft shot down by missiles or close engagements in those lawless skies in the weeks preceding the tragedy.
Those killed included 27 Australians, but it was the 193 Dutch citizens who boarded the flight at Schiphol airport that made up the largest group of victims by nationality.
Since then media coverage of the disaster has been that of continued political outrage over the Russian involvement to the apparent exclusion of the airline’s culpability in putting the plane into harm’s way.
Fairfax Media currently deserves the award for recent maudlin rubbish about MH17 with this heartstring-tugging diatribe directed at Russian president Vladimir Putin by a country Ohio lawyer, Jerry Skinner, who seems to talk more about his own family, and Jesus Christ, than a real case that would deliver damages, and relief, to the next of kin of the MH17 dead.
The recently affirmed Dutch government position, that persons identified with the targeting and launch of the missile that blasted the cockpit of MH17 with high-velocity shrapnel would be tried in the Netherlands, is a nonsense story. There is no realistic prospect that such persons, if found to be alive, could end up in the dock of a Dutch court.
During the entire MH17 story to date, the Dutch authorities have excelled at fueling the tabloid narratives about the Russian involvement, though they also produced in-depth factual guidance concerning the identification of the BUK missile and how flight MH17 was planned and operated, and what the relevant Ukrainian and Russian authorities were doing.
[MH17 criminal probe yet to identify missile launch culprits]
However, only the tabloid-satisfying utterances of the Dutch have received widespread media and political attention.
In its 2015 report the Dutch Safety Board said the Malaysia Department of Civil Aviation had refused access to some documents and officials it sought during its inquiries.
As a result, the Dutch-led international investigation could not determine if Malaysia Airlines was aware of a Russian warning of airspace restrictions that came into effect on July 17, 2014, which were 21,000 feet higher than those imposed by Ukraine covering its part of an air route being followed on that fateful day by MH17.
That cast doubts on the discharge of safety responsibilities by the airlines that continued to fly through airspace over a war zone in which at least 16 aircraft, including helicopters, had been shot down during hostilities in the previous month.
What was Malaysia Airlines thinking? How deficient is the safety culture of any carrier that only thinks fuel savings, and not “war zone transit” or “mechanical emergencies” when flight planning for a jet that can carry hundreds of passengers over part of the planet that is the scene of well-known and prolonged military hostilities?
The Dutch Safety Board acknowledged that the default setting of airlines when it came to route and operational planning was to fly, reflecting a pressure to fly that proved deadly when it failed to recognise the risks evident in the east Ukraine situation.
However, neither the Australian government nor its supposed opposition has said boo about the operational standards and conduct of Malaysia Airlines in relation to MH17. It’s a deliberate oversight that sells short the victims of the MH17 atrocity for the sake of trite, and absurd, railings against the Russians.
The MH17 narrative since it was blown out of the sky has been a relentless political circus, framed in terms of a manhunt for the criminals who variously deliberately intended to commit an act of mass murder against unsuspecting civilians in a Western airliner, or a grotesque error by Putin’s Russia verging on the obscene.
But that doesn’t mean the Russian involvement, to whatever extent or purpose, should be ignored or go unprosecuted, even if identifying and trying under an effective law shouldn’t be pursued.
There needs to be a bit of reality in the process, not huffing and puffing over the Russians in what is about as edifying a process as political figures trying to crowd into photos of coffins in motorised convoys.
My sources (Russian) initially insisted they had radar scans of Ukrainian fighters going up to attack the plane. When Buk rocket parts were found they said they were parts from an older type of Buk given to Ukraine before Soviet breakup. Possible false flag operation?
That theory has been debunked http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35706048
Too much reliance on Yatsenyuk in that for mine.
The holes in the cockpit looked rather round to me. Cannon fire?
Ben: given that a range of other carriers including SIA used that airspace at the same time, is it too harsh to say MAS’s safety culture was cactus? I have no idea as to the altitude of the SIA flight, though…
There are lots of conflicts in the world, and planes must fly over all sorts of territories. It’s easy to say in hindsight that this particular conflict should have been avoided.
Pinkocommierat ,
I don’t think so. While this is about a Malaysia Airlines flight it could on that day easily been one of several Singapore Airlines fights, 777s and A380s, or an Air-India 787-8. I’ve been among those reporters strongly critical of the decisions of many airlines including Singapore Airlines, that chose to use that airspace over a prolonged period of time during which aircraft were being destroyed by missiles. I also discovered two flights I did on Singapore Airlines prior to the atrocity on an A380 to and from Paris had used that airspace. While I am a strong admirer of Singapore Airlines I thought its diligence in relation to these flight corridors was frankly, unacceptable, and I said so in various posts at the time. However this is a post about Malaysia Airlines, and I’m was not going to be distracted from the core issues.
In all fairness to MAS I was on a Singapore flight over that very same area less than two weeks before.
It could have been any plane, sacrificed on the altar of profit.
Ben, this is a huge topic very much misrepresented by the usual suspects. Thank you for resisting the Russia bashing that passes for so much “journalism” in the msm. I have two questions for you that the media in this country refuse to address; i.e. will not publish or discuss the implications.
1. Immediately after MH17 was downed, Kerry said words to the effect, “we know what happened” because at the time the Americans had three spy satellites overhead. Yet that information has never been publicly released despite it being capable of providing many answers to the questions you raise or hint at.
2. On 8 august 2014 Australia signed an agreement with the Netherlands, Belgium and Ukraine that the results of the investigation would not be published unless all four (later 5 as Malaysia joined) agreed. This gave an effective veto to at least one of the prime suspects, Ukraine. Not only has that MOU not been released in Australia, the msm refuse to even acknowledge its existence. It is legitimate to ask why.
I agree with your comments, James.
It has been known since this incident that Russia released their satellite information very shortly after it occurred. You may well ask why the USA has NOT done the same thing.
Something to hide…someone to protect perhaps? Shame on the Australian government for not insisting on ALL available information being released, before jumping to dodgy conclusions in our name!
James,
Those are very legitimate concerns and they have not been addressed.
Hi James. Ben is to be complemented for at least a few timid steps away from the conventional Russia-bashing narrative. But aside from stating the obvious that the air corridor over the war zone should have been closed, in fact still sticks pretty much to it. Fearing perhaps a neo-McCarthyist backlash if he went any further. Such are the times.
But that said, yes, it’s no secret that Kerry went public on every talk-show with the claim the US knew exactly where “the missile” came from, but then never revealed anything of the sort. Instead there was that immediate explosion of “Putin’s Missile”-style hysteria in the British and local trash tabloid media, the ridiculous “Bellingcat” and many others, all suggestive of high-octane damage control and cover-up.
There are many more questions deserving answers beyond your two. Such as “Cui Bono?” Certainly not Russia. Certainly yes the US and post-coup Ukraine. What did the radars of the Aegis-class NATO missile-carrying warship then in the Black Sea pick up? Why was Belgium a signatory to the non-disclosure agreement? Oddly, a possible answer to the latter just occurred to me as I write: it is the country in which NATO has its headquarters.
In a perfect world there would be a demand for a thorough and independent re-investigation of the MH17 tragedy. But that would take political courage beyond anything our lot could ever muster up.