||Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
|(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix|
|News||Who Shot down Malaysian flight MH17?||Recommended Links||Poroshenko presidency||The Far Right Forces in Ukraine||EuroMaidan 101|
|July17-19||Week of July 20-26||Week of July 27- Aug 2||Week of Aug 3-9||Week of Aug 10-16||Week of Aug 17-23|
|Why air space over Donesk province was not closed||SU-25 fighter||BUK air defense system||Russian Ministry of Defense press conference||Silence of US intelligence||Disinformation and obfuscation campaign of Poroshenko government|
|To whom EuroMaidan Sharp-shooters belong?||Forming Provisional government||Nulandgate||Odessa Massacre of May 2, 2014||Mariupol, May 9 events||Presidential Elections of May 25. 2014|
|Neoliberal Propaganda||The Guardian Slips Beyond the Reach of Embarrassment||Fighting Russophobia||Fifth column of globalization||Russian Fifth column Humor||Etc|
|July17-19||Week of July 20-26||Week of July 27- Aug 2||Week of Aug 3-9||Week of Aug 10-16||Week of Aug 17-23|
The West from the very beginning skillfully dictated the way the world will look at the crisis in Ukraine. Moreover, old anti-Russian propaganda which created the image of "eternal evil" out of Russia helped greatly in this brainwashing. Putin does not know how to run a smart and clever "soft" propaganda campaign. And even prestigious news agencies are now amenable to "political activism", because there is no time for good journalism, says Czech media analyst Irena Rysankova.
Many spoke and wrote about the information war, which accompanies the Ukrainian crisis from the very beginning - with demonstrations on the square, during the annexation of the Crimea, the war in the Donbass, the fall of the Malaysian flight MH17 - and still being played. What weapons and how successful the opponents are using in this war?
For simplicity I will call one side Pro-European and the other Pro-Russian. "Pro-European" definitely has or used to have an advantage. Their method "injecting of news" and the wording of news articles was such that it was clear - there are consultants. Moreover, it was this side which began informing the public new event, such as about MH17, at all levels.
"Pro-Russian" side was actually forces into defense from the very beginning and can only refute the new and new speculations about the events that none of the readers has the ability to reliably check. they also defined the vocabulary for description of events, while taking advantage of the fact that simple and less educated users of the media, and according to statistics those are the majority still perceive Russia as evil. More specifically, this is due to the invasion of the occupation forces in 1968 in Czechoslovakia and later in Afghanistan. Just Russia in the minds of many is still identified with the Soviet Union, and due to this is viewed from the same position, as during the cold war.
In propaganda campaign of "Pro-European" forces that were active event before the key events, which served simply as a trigger, were creatively used all the tools for the management of public opinion. Every time they defined the agenda (agenda setting) that was imposed on the other side. Violent actions (fire on protesters on the Maidan, the plane crash, the shooting of the "convoy of refugees") were used to inject emotions into initially rational thinking about the conflict. this was they frame the information perception (framing) in terms of our pre-existing attitude to the parties. This way the polarization without regard to the facts is achieved: who is good and who is evil ("They only wanted to join the EU", "They wanted to stand in their way to freedom", "They shoot again on our children"). This way the coverage turned into the game of "good" and "bad" guys. Facts are never analyzed independently and impartially, because they always created the circumstances which prevented this. I think that in no way we can talk in information about Ukraine in terms of "people's struggle". On Maidan there were not "the people", but political activists and militants. As well as mercenaries. A naive public intellectuals who joined them, very quickly disappeared after the first blood was shed. Professionalism dictates that, rather, the event were orche4strated by a good consultants.
Russia is losing and will continue to lose. Neither the Kremlin nor the Lubyanka, most likely, have not read the basic labor American Professor from Harvard Gina Sharpe, even though it was first published in 1973 under the title "the Politics of nonviolent action". His main book "From dictatorship to democracy" was released 20 years later in response to the popular uprising in Bangkok and was published in Russian in 1993, after the collapse of the USSR, when the candidate Yegor Gaidar as Prime Minister was rejected, Yeltsin came to power, the putschists made a move against him and civil war could well start, which would finally erased from the face of the earth "the evil Empire". Then it didn't work out, but still even in Russia color revolution scenario got pretty far. In Ukrainian the book "From dictatorship to democracy" was translated in 2004 in connection with the Orange revolution.
After centuries of use "hard power" Russia does not understand how to use "soft power", does not speak of non-governmental diplomacy, you need it to support financial and organizational. Russia is not able to involve themselves in support of stars in pop culture, universities and charitable foundations, commercial companies and non-governmental organizations. Russia had and still has the major drawback - its reputation inherited from days of the USSR, although this is the country in which the majority of European countries exported goods or collaborated in large projects. Thanks to Russian gas we have light, warmth, we travel by car. But for many in Europe they are still "those Russians" of August 1968, the invaders, drunk from vodka. And many of the "new Russians" reinforce the Soviet stereotype. They defiantly proud of his wealth, and so manifestly disregard the law. So we should not be too surprised.
Already in the winter and after the collapse of Viktor Yanukovych Czech blogosphere, or the field of "alternative" media, began to protest that information about the "Maidan" in the Czech Republic is manipulates and that the coverage is Pro-Ukrainian and selective. For example, we can talk about the suppression of information about the aggressiveness of protesters on the Maidan and the focus of the news on police brutality. Whether these claims to Czech media fair?
Partly were and still are. But this is just a problem with the progress of information war, which Russia loses. There are several reasons for bias in the direction of Maidan then they new Kiev government. First, it is Maidan declarations about the liberation from the clutches of the Russian bear and the adoption of European rules, and secondly, the preponderance of professionally prepared Pro-Maidan information, which the media simply replayed. In such situation there is huge demand for news coverage and those who provide the news stream can correct the event or their view on the event as they wish. None of the current journalists want to be engaged in a truly independent "dirt-digging" investigative journalism. In fact, today it is impossible. Sooner or later you will need some research material, sooner or later you will need professional information back office. And then you have the embedded journalists.
Moreover, today the media has no time to think: electronic online world is faster then anything else and the ability to sigh the issue to print at midnight is now a sweet dream about which was only can have nostalgia. I always joke that Karel Capek today would have had no chances at all. Publishing houses want cheap labor, that is, pipeline employees who toss news without too much thinking. Bloggers, as a rule, are either analysts themselves or those who are interested in in the subject for some reason and who understands it. That is, they are not objective. Even respected Agency now send to the frontline hired local people, about professional past and views of which they have little information. Thus, under the guise of top military journalism often we see the work of local journalists, which were hired by agencies.
But lately, we can see some changes. Even mainstream media begin to think about the ethics of their work. Perhaps because some BBC reporters have already begun to publish information about Ukraine, which is not exactly fit "revolutionary enthusiasm" meme: the neofascists of the Right sector, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulousness members of the government.
In addition, Ukraine government go over the top in this information war. The manner in which President Poroshenko and the Prime Minister Yatsenyuk spread is now simply despicable. The Declaration about the elimination of the Russian convoy, not supported by any evidence, photographs or other materials, and other excesses of the last days show that the information war starts to get out of control, and the Ukrainian government propaganda machine is faltering. If the Ukrainian troops destroyed the Russian convoy, would there no single photo? why they did not show us the corpses, their military ID and uniforms? The serial number of weapons they have had? In is impossible not to notice complete incompetence here. I remember Saakashvili claimed that Russia used in Georgia ballistic missiles "Point". But the evidence of the damage they caused was very badly staged. But in the Czech Republic, Russia priori is guilty or, at least, suspicious. Our indignation about what "those Russians" (more precisely, the Brezhnev of the USSR) did, is passed from one generation after another - to those who do not remember the Prague spring of 1968, not to mention the previous years.
Today it is difficult to determine who is right and who is lying. if the known liar lies again when he said that his opponent is lying. Can he at this time speak the truth? How to find out when the during war, of course, the first victim is truth?
The problem arises when facts themselves incriminated the liars, as happened with the leaked photos downed Malaysian Boeing. Round, smoothly bent in the tin holes with a diameter of 30 mm give to those who are familiar with missiles "BUK", understanding that the plane was shot down but by the rocket but the cockpit was pulverized with guns of the fighters. There were two fighters. Today there are only to answer the question, whose to whom they belong and who gave them the order to shoot.
Both Russia, calling for the unification of the "Russian world", and the EU and the US, referring to the European and Western values, according to some opinions, have polar sympathies: on the one hand citizens fighting the Donbas and the Crimea, and on the other, the rest of Ukraine, mainly Western. Which party do you think the more intensely promoted this propaganda? And with what implications? How to respond to the claim that Russian TV using hostile nationalist programs (for example show Dmitry Kiselev) sparked a civil war in the Donbass?
How can we measure the level of sympathy? with "Applause meter" ? The number of casualties on each side? I don't think the war in the Donbass unleashed by some shows with anchors/talking heads known for their nationalism, such as Dugin or Kiselev on Russian side, or Poroshenko fifth channel and youths from the Right sector on the other side. Propaganda is directed to strengthening of the morale of the combatants. Soldiers who are poorly paid, need to know that they are fighting, and dying for just cause. If there are two warring parties, it is clear that each side produce corresponding stream of propaganda. Both sides try to justify the right to kill fighters from the other. On both sides historians, myth-makers and ideologues work on such a justification. But we must not forget that "the war for Ukraine" is actually an economic war. For displacement from the Ukrainian market of Russia and for a new economic world order. In other words this is struggle is for gas and oil, coal and steel. All those resources are the cornerstone of both the European Union and the Russian power. Ukraine (rather, consultants that support Ukrainian side) have better propaganda. As Europe and the United States have always been more receptive to the stories of the victims of Russian expansion. That means that from the very beginning the emotional advantage was on the side of smaller Ukraine abused by a larger, more powerful neighbor.
Shooing down of MH17 is a new milestone in the crisis. What cant you say about this event? Who presented the more convincing evidence? Which side of the conflict behaved more honestly? And how to evaluate the Russian, Czech and Western media?
- The basic rule of journalism is fair comment must be preceded by a message that will be facts, not guesswork. The statements that the plane was shot down by Pro-Russian militia, appeared too quickly. The culprit was appointed earlier than it was revealed what exactly was the plane that was shot down.. The name of the air traffic controller, who was the first to report that shot down the plane, now is hidden by the Ukrainian secret service (SBU). In this case, neither party behave honestly form the very beginning. The plane crashed in the area of military action, that is a given. Perhaps we ought to ask the question about what experts had learned from black boxes, and why suddenly everyone is silent about their content. And why around this story suddenly there was silence. Downed aircraft perfectly fit the image of the "bad Russians" and "criminal separatists". Czech, and most importantly, the Western media gladly sat down to write the comments.
- With what media and PR reputation Russia coma out of the Ukrainian crisis? The scientist Veronica Suchava-Salminen wrote that the Arsenal of the Russian "soft power" virtually destroyed. Does Russia have a chance in the coming years to cause at least some sympathy in the Western public? Conversely, can we say that the Russian public opinion hostility to the US and the West increased to the maximum?
The question is How important for Russia's is Western public opinion, or she stopped being interested in it long ago? Russia is able to pursue the classical "hard" propaganda. It never has the arsenal of soft power. Putin is an example of courage and determination, on horseback, fishing, tigers, nuclear submarine... "Soft" propaganda is not very well done by Russians. They don't have it, and most importantly, they have no such tradition, although Putin is advised by U.S. PR Agency. Soft power should be carried out systematically, carefully, with knowledge of psychology. Russian propaganda relies on force. The United States, despite all its problems, seem to the outside world to be the promised land. Russia, despite many successes, still looks cold dark Empire. But on the other hand, Russia Today is an excellent start. The broadcast goes 24 hours a day in English, Russian, Arabic and Spanish. Audience of those channels is over 1 billion people.
Speaking about the Russian media, of course, impossible to suppose that in the country there is pluralism in the Western sense. What Putin has done over the years of his reign with the Russian media? What rules do they work, what to speak and write without problems, and what is hard, what can be harassment?
Do you really mean there is pluralism in Western media? And if it exist can you explain in what particular form? The West has reached the stage when (as a Russia) you can write on the Internet to whatever you want, but that nobody reads. And if somebody read, they often do not believe and do not follow blindly. Russians may also, like you, travel freely, if they have the means. They can do business and become bankrupt, can go to Church, can watch satellite TV and use censored words on the Internet. So what? Is this a sign of citizen participation in the actual governance in the country, as implies by the word democracy? Active readers and strong, authoritarian media, which we knew 30 years ago, has been replaced by indifference on the one hand and cynicism of managed media with another. And in general, trolling and viral marketing changed the game and made everything suspicious. Today can be anywhere - and we, in Russia - successfully manipulate the opinion of anybody. Without the ability to defend themselves.
Russian media world is a special subject. Yes, undoubtedly, for the most part it is not "anti-Putin", but, by the way, why would it be so? Putin after a drunken Yeltsin, the first defender of Russian pride, power, before his arrival decaying, country. Putin knows how to be creative with the media. And with those who intrude into his private life, he is able to quickly deal, which confirmed the tabloid edition of "Moskovsky Korrespondent", which was closed after publishing an article about the fact that Putin to marry a gymnast. Newspaper is unprofitable, said its owner. On the other hand, in addition to state television, Putin has created public television, albeit without concession fees, as nobody willing to pay them in Russia. But with a guarantee of independence. By the way, today Russia Today is one of the best news channels in the world, on the level of CNN and BBC. Russia is a country, which at a cursory glance it is difficult to understand. It is a mixture of almost anarchic democracy and the rule of hard, sometimes very hard hand. Democracy should not always mean freedom. Putin himself said about managed democracy, and this to some extent overlaps with the essay by Fareed Zakariya "Illiberal democracy", published in the journal Foreign Affairs in early 1998.
Indeed, the Kremlin primarily controls the heads of state media and agencies. The head of the new Agency "Russia today", for example, was the former head of channel Russia Today. However, the Kremlin has no impact on diverse media stream that exist in Russia and never will. This, probably, is unfortunate. In old days at least it was clear that information published by any newspaper can't be one hundred percent false. Now there is no such assurance. Money, lies and manipulation become a global weapon of mass destruction of this civilization.
It will destroy America, and Russia. No one will believe anyone. Yes, this is the situation we are already face.
August 18, 2014 |www.wsws.org
The deafening silence of the US media and government about the investigation into the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 one month ago reeks of a cover-up.
In the hours and days immediately after the crash, without a single shred of evidence, US officials alleged that the passenger jet was shot down by an SA-11 ground-to-air missile fired from pro-Russian separatist-held territory in eastern Ukraine.They launched a political campaign to obtain harsh economic sanctions against Russia and strengthen NATO's military posture in Eastern Europe.
Picking up on the scent, the CIA attack dogs in the US and European media blamed the crash squarely on Russian President Vladimir Putin. The cover of the July 28 print edition of German news magazineDer Spiegel showed the images of MH17 victims surrounding bold red text reading "Stoppt Putin Jetzt!" (Stop Putin Now!). A July 26 editorial in the Economist declared Putin to be the author of MH17's destruction, while the magazine ghoulishly superimposed Putin's face over a spider web on its front cover, denouncing Putin's "web of lies."
Anyone comparing the media's demonization of Putin with their treatment of Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi had to conclude that Washington was launching a campaign for regime change in Russia like those it carried out in Libya and Iraq-this time, recklessly pushing the United States towards war with a nuclear-armed power, Russia.
Having built up the crash into acasus belli against Russia, however, the US media suddenly dropped the matter completely. TheNew York Times has not found it fit to print a word on the MH17 crash since August 7.
There is no innocent explanation for the sudden disappearance of MH17 from the media and political spotlight. The plane's black box has been held in Britain for examination for weeks, and US and Russian spy satellites and military radar were intensively scanning east Ukraine at the time of the crash. The claim that Washington does not have detailed knowledge of the circumstances of the crash and the various forces involved is not credible.
If the evidence that is in Washington's hands incriminated only Russia and the Russian-backed forces, it would have been released to feed the media frenzy against Putin. If it has not been released, this is because the evidence points to the involvement of the Ukrainian regime in Kiev and its backers in Washington and the European capitals.
From the outset, the Obama administration presented no evidence to back up the incendiary charges that Putin was responsible for the MH17 crash. In his press briefing on July 18, the day after the crash, President Obama stated that it was still "too early for us to be able to guess what the intentions of those who might have launched this surface-to-air missile might have had."
While cynically exploiting the crash to pressure and threaten Russia, Obama warned that "there will likely be misinformation" in the coverage of the crash. In a backhanded acknowledgment that he had no evidence to support his claims, he said: "In terms of identifying specifically what individual or group of individuals or personnel ordered the strike, how it came about those are things that I think are still going to be subject to additional information that we're going to be gathering."
In the event, the misinformation on the MH17 crash came from the Obama administration itself. Secretary of State John Kerry went on a media blitz on July 20, arguing that the pro-Russian separatists and the Russian government were responsible for the shoot-down.
The sole evidence he presented were a few, dubious "social media records" posted to the Internet. He presented unauthenticated audio recordings of separatists speaking of a plane crash, edited and released by Ukraine's SBU intelligence agency, which works closely with the CIA; YouTube video clips showing a truck moving unidentified military equipment along a road; and a retracted social media statement claiming responsibility for shooting down a plane attributed to separatist leader Igor Strelkov.
Very quickly, the US government's story line on MH17 began to collapse. At a press briefing on July 21, State Department spokesperson and former CIA Middle East analyst Marie Harf declared that the Obama administration's conclusions regarding the downing of the plane were "based on open information which is basically common sense." Challenged by reporters to provide the evidence, she admitted that she could not: "I know it's frustrating. Believe me, we try to get as much out there are possible. And for some reason, sometimes we can't."
After a month during which Washington has failed to release evidence to support its charges against Putin, it is clear that the political offensive of the NATO governments and the media frenzy against Putin were based on lies.
If pro-Russian separatists had fired a ground-to-air missile, as the US government claims, the Air Force would have imagery in their possession confirming it beyond a shadow of a doubt. The US Air Force's Defense Support Program utilizes satellites with infrared sensors to detect missile launches anywhere on the planet, and US radar posts in Europe would have tracked the missile as it shot through the sky. These satellite and radar data have not been released, because whatever they show does not fit the storyline concocted by the US government and media.
What has emerged, instead, is a drumbeat of evidence pointing to the US-backed regime in Kiev's role in the MH17 shoot-down. The day after Kerry made his remarks, the Russian military presented radar and satellite data indicating that a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet was in the immediate vicinity and ascending towards MH17 as it was shot down. This claim has not been addressed, let alone refuted by the American government.
NSA whistle-blower William Binney and other retired American intelligence agents issued a statement at the end of July calling into question the social media data presented by Kerry, and demanding the publication of satellite imagery of the missile launch. They added, "We are hearing indirectly from some of our former colleagues that what Secretary Kerry is peddling does not square with the real intelligence."
On August 9, the MalaysianNew Straits Times published an article charging the Kiev regime with shooting down MH17. It stated that evidence from the crash site indicated that the plane was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter with a missile followed by heavy machine gun fire.
While it is too early to say conclusively how MH17 was shot down, the preponderance of the evidence points directly at the Ukrainian regime and, behind them, the American government and the European powers. They created the conditions for the destruction of MH17, backing the fascist-led coup in Kiev this February that brought the current pro-Western regime to power. The Western media then supported the Kiev regime's war to suppress opposition to the putsch in east Ukraine, turning the region into a war zone in which MH17 was then shot down.
After the murder of the 298 people aboard MH17, in which they played an important if as-yet unexplained role, Western governments and intelligence agencies seized upon the tragedy in a reckless and sinister maneuver to escalate war threats against the Putin regime. Silence denotes consent, and the deafening silence of the Western media on the issue of Kiev's involvement in the MH17 crash testifies to the criminalization not only of the foreign policy establishment, but also of its media lackeys and the entire ruling class.
Great article and I agree with the majority of it, I found this while searching for updates on the situation while thinking that it was mighty suspicious that the investigations have found nothing.
BUT... the whole thing on radar the satellites detecting missile launches is simply untrue. Those systems are designed to detect ICBM launches, which aren't that much smaller than what we send into space, they're not difficult to detect. Surface-to-air missiles are many times smaller, much of the time they're about the size of a grown man, so there's no system deployed in that region of the world which can detect the launch of one of those.
On the other hand, what can be tracked in the area is planes. What the western governments should be obligated to provide us is proof that Russian allegations of Ukrainian fighter planes in civilian traffic lanes are false. Strangely enough, silent. The black boxes, silent. The investigation team, called back home with total silence.
What the western media could have done is at least attempted some level of objectivity. Exactly 4 weeks ago I spent a half hour calculating the range of a Buk missilehttp://i.imgur.com/YS3rGhg.png (in green) surrounding the then-rebel-controlled area (in red) and nobody wanted to see it, because it shows that the attack very well could have came out of Ukrainian territory.
Pure Red Scare bullshit, and if these dumbshits start a war with Russia, I know who I'm helping.
August 18, 2014 | The Guardianbrankosal, 19 August 2014 12:15am
We are still waiting for any evidence!!!
harrimike99 -> brankosal, 19 August 2014 12:42am
Now, several weeks on, Australia's achievements look decidedly more modest. In some cases they look more like mistakes…
Russian cooperation has evaporated in the face of persistent criticism, replaced by an embargo on Australian agricultural exports. The broader conflict has escalated, and Ukraine faces the very real threat of invasion.
This is trademark Abbott stuff. Aggression, thuggery, hate speech, violence and idiocy;the IPA and News Ltd propaganda are responsible for his election and must bear part of the resulting terror their fool is unleashing on the world stage.
There is no lack of evidence for what has bee perpetrated upon Australians and now the world via their pet rock, the R'Abbott factor.
RedmondM -> CSandoval, 19 August 2014 1:17am
You are not wrong - classic Abbott Government stuff. It seems everything they do or say ends being a mistake.
The Guardian position in a nut-shell.
Verbum -> BigNowitzki, 19 August 2014 2:29am
With regard to what? I''ve seen quite a lot of evidence.
If you mean Abbott's incompetence - yes, it's abundantly clear to all by now.
TomTitTot -> Verbum, 19 August 2014 3:20am
If you mean Abbott's incompetence - yes, it's abundantly clear to all by now.
I thought it is abundantly clear that he meant Abbott's incompetence. After all, I can't see anybody or anything that could be more incompetent that this inept and illegitimate Prime Minister.
Verbum -> CSandoval,19 August 2014 3:42am
classic Abbott Government stuff. It seems everything they do or say ends being a mistake.
I call t the Merdas (not Midas) touch - whatever they touch turns into merde.
coober -> brankosal, 19 August 2014 3:43am
Kiev Ukraine Government
brankosal -> coober, 19 August 2014 4:19am
At the beginning I thought it was a rebel mistake, but now I do agree with you...
coober -> brankosal, 19 August 2014 4:48amBigNowitzki -> brankosal, 19 August 2014 2:02pm
Thank you. I have flown 10 times with Malaysian Airlines and have taken a special interest in the truth; it is a battle.Siberian_cyborg -> BigNowitzki,19 August 2014 6:49pm
Who shot the plain down.
All the evidence points at pro-Russian rebels.
DmitriK -> BigNowitzki, 20 August 2014 2:29pmWhich evidence is that?PavelDragunov, 19 August 2014 12:21am
Confessionals in social media? The usual "Psaki"?
Kiev hasn't even released the recording of the air traffic controller talking to the pilot after all this time. Doesn't that seem suspicious to you? Why was the plane directed over the warzone hat day even though before it hasn't flown over it? Doesn't that seem suspicious to you?One more US satellite lost its mind being so full of itself...harrimike99 -> PavelDragunov . 19 August 2014 12:33am
Who really cares what this Australian PM says or thinks? - If he annoys Russia really hard, then his country will pay the price (as Poland is now paying for its arrogance with billions of euros from export to Russia washed down the toilet).'Shit happens' and the sock puppet was there to remind the world – he couldn't give a toss for the grief of family and friends. Another photo shot minus the fluro vest; another opportunity to preen, strut and pretend.NotWithoutMyMonkey -> ajarnbrian, 19 August 2014 8:39am
The insincerity so evident for the world to see; another international error of judgment from the reeling puppet.
I don't see that Abbott and Bishop could have done differently and brought more 'success', however you define that in a tragedy like this.
Calling the response 'Operation Bringing Them Home' for a start. The faux military tone amply demonstrates the vacuity of the action; all marketing and spin and no substance.
A true leader acknowledges their limitations and sets reasonable expectations on an resolution rather than engaging in demagoguery. A leader rightfully condemns the perpetrators without prejudicing the investigation and apportioning blame without definitive evidence.
A leader also doesn't promise the earth; rather he or she puts a lid on unrealistic expectations, acknowledging that there is much that's out of their control and that Australia is a middle-ranked power with a limited scope beyond working with the international community in achieving resolution. In working with others on the international stage, they must refrain from taking a 'bull in a china-shop approach'.
They must coordinate with the appropriate bodies rather than for instance, believing that sending police or the military unilaterally into a conflict zone will somehow bring about a resolution.
Kaiama -> psygone, 19 August 2014 1:19am
Abbott has used the MH17 tragedy to try to recover from being exceedingly unpopular. Alot of people aren't happy about that. Nor will they be happy once the ramifications of sanctions start to hit their agricultural sector.
Earl_Grey -> BigNowitzki, 19 August 2014 1:27am
Ask yourself "who diverted MH17 well away from it's normal flight path to fly over the top of a conflict for no reason?" and you have your answer as to who is responsible for it being shot down, no matter who actually pulled the trigger.
Earl_Grey -> Joe Elm, 19 August 2014 1:54amFremantleBob2020 -> Joe Elm, 19 August 2014 3:03am
You've missed the point.Whoever diverted it from it's normal flight path, did so with the intention it would be shot down, one way or another.
Plan A, the pro Russians, Plan B, the Ukraine Military. As I said, it doesn't matter who shot it down, the intention was it was going down.
I can't believe you when you say you've read a lot about this and then ask the question "Why would they shoot it down?". The answer is simple, you don't even need to read anything, "to end the war". The hope was that this would be enough to get Russia to withdraw support for the separatists. Had it worked, we'd all be applauding it. That it didn't, add another 300 to the casualty list.http://www.nst.com.my/node/20925flower4711 -> BigNowitzki, 19 August 2014 11:42amflower4711 -> FremantleBob2020, 19 August 2014 11:47am
Well, ALL of the available evidence points to pro-Russian rebels.
- Why then is Uraine hiding the tower-recordings with the mh17 pilots ?
- Why then is Ukraine hiding its radar pics for time and place ?
- If Ukraine did knew that the pro-rebels have a BUK, why they let fly that plane over it ?
- If most of the evidence is still hidden, your ALL evaporates to no evidence at all that it must have been the pro-russians.I recommend to read that. We are far to fast with our assumptions it must have been the rebels for sure.Oleg Volkov ->Joe Elm,19 August 2014 2:29pm
It is incredible that our politicians hurl immediately sanctions at Russia while the investigation is not over.
And after all, have there been sanctions on US after they downed an iraniain airliner a couple of years ago ?Of course you can't ignore Ukraine releasing fakes(any spectral analysis shows it was composed from different calls right away) in about hour from happening.harryphilby -> Joe Elm,19 August 2014 4:44pm
This looks very much as if it was prepared in advance. Andwhy you would prepare such thing in advance? 2+2 really.Ukraine ATC told it to move into position so it could be shot down by the Ukraine, but answer me this, why the fuck would they do that??Jan Verboven,19 August 2014 1:13am
To provide decoy cover for their bomber aircraft.
Russian radar and satellite data shows a Ukrainian military jet within 5 kilometers of MH17 when it went down. The US has refused to release its radar or satellite data to conform or deny this.The only country which has brought evidence to the table is ... Russia. And quite detailed, if I may add. If this evidence stands, it looks bad for the 'anti' Russian conglomerate (EU-US).jezzam2 ->Jan Verboven,19 August 2014 1:41am
Just not wanting to just browse their evidence seems popular in the West, which hasn't produced a shred.(which I find very suspicious).
Proof (bard) is another thing, but, Russia has delivered on evidence.
Proof of Russian eastern Ukraine involvement is still lacking. (Which I again find very suspicious).
As EU citizens we are treated as morons, with headlines or quotes 'we believe' , 'we are certain' 'we have proof (never shown)' 'alleged' vs. Russia.
The EU has imposed sanctions based on WHAT?. Has nobody got it that it just by imposing them has protected the dollar?
Australia has fallen for it with much bravado. No gentlemen, after the EU debacle in Maidan (Verhofstadt et co.), we EU citizens are to swallow the pill of creating a monster which was once a peaceful Ukraine.
"If it backfires, blame the Russians".
MH17 is not to be solved by the West. There is NO interest to do so. Keep the lid on. 'it was the insurgents' (how can you insurge when you're 'new government' promises to 'wipe you out' which they are doing as I speak)
Greetings from Brussels, known for 'manneken pis'Where is this evidence from Russia you are talking about? It looks like black propaganda to me.madeiranlotuseater ->jezzam2,19 August 2014 6:09am
If Kiev shot down MH17 accidentally, why were they shooting at planes when the separatists had no planes? In contrast the separatists have shot down a number of planes.
The other possibility is that Kiev shot down the plane deliberately to discredit the separatists and Russia. This also is extremely unlikely - Kiev already have the support of the West. Why would they risk a catastrophic loss of such support? Also the chances are that USA surveillance would have revealed what they had done. This then implies USA connivance with Kiev in the shooting down. The risk of such a strategy again makes this extremely unlikely. As history shows, such covert actions tend to be revealed eventually. Anyone involved in such action would then face a life in prison.
The overwhelming likelihood is that MH17 was shot down accidentally by the separatists using a missile supplied by Russia.Please, please, please look up Operation Northwoods.jezzam2 ->madeiranlotuseater,19 August 2014 7:08am
It shows the mindset of the USA and it certainly looks as though someone blew the dust off the jacket and read it. Or is it part of the required reading for the CIA?Operation Northwoods did not happen - it was vetoed by JFK. This is assuming that the whole thing was not a hoax as many people think.madeiranlotuseater ->jezzam2,19 August 2014 7:35am
I don't believe that USA intelligence/military are sufficiently heinous to kill 300 innocent westerners to further their aims. Even if they were, they would not do something which is so clearly counter to USA and their own personal interests.I did not suggest that it happened. It was a proposal by the joint chiefs and rejected on the hill. Official documents have been released over the years that prove it was never a hoax.Asimpleguestjezzam2,19 August 2014 7:51am
Your second paragraph displays some naivety. Firstly because the whole point of my reference to Operation Northwoods was its proposal to shoot down a passenger airliner in such a way as to show it was an act of your enemy.
Secondly, collateral damage, ie the killing of innocents in war is a position firmly held by the USA in all its overseas activities. A simple example of which is the use of drones. In fact I believe that the expression came from the US in the first place.false flag operation - CIA styleitchyvet ->jezzam2,19 August 2014 7:55amThe Russians have stated the U.S. is maintaining satelites over the Ukraine, they track them daily. Said satelites can focus on a newspaper on the ground and read the text we are told, yet strangely not one piece of photographic evidence has been forthcoming from the U.S. to support even just one of it's claims, and folks at the Guardian don't find this anomaly strange, or worth investigating ?Earl_Grey,19 August 2014 1:25am
As yourself this, WHO STOOD TO GAIN THE MOST FROM THIS EVENT ?
One thing's for sure, it most certainly was not Russia, nor was it the Southern Ukrainians, (note I didn't call them terrorists or seperatists, simply what they are) However it would appear the Kiev Junta seems to have gained the most from this event, sympathy and support from the West and NATO, I also strongly suspect the purpose of the shoot down was to ensure NATO troops enter the fray.
Thankfully, that failed.
False flags, people, false flags, for crying out loud, so some serious research and I'm sure you'll find the perpetrators of this crime, but IMHO, like all the perp's these days, who are murdering hundreds and thousands of people, will get away scott free despite the blood on their hands. Many Western media as well as European Governments are also guilty of this, and will eventually be called to task.You're giving credit where none is due. Abbott (the Libs really) act for 2 reasons:
- The USA (in conjunction with Britain, Germany, France and to a lesser extent, NATO) tells them what to say
- When free to say their own thing, they act on whatever is likely to win them votes domestically.
That's it. That's as clever as they get.
The problem with this strategy is the results. As you mentioned, the Ukraine is on the brink of war. This situation was flagged around 10 yrs ago by military strategists that said if NATO continued it's expansion in Europe, this is precisely what would happen. The problem here, is that no one really knows who will win.
Putin appears to care about what the world thinks, or he would have just invaded. That doesn't mean he won't if push comes to shove. If that happens, then Europe may be at war again. If the Ukraine falls to NATO, then Russia will team up with China. Hardly a win for NATO.
It's unlikely Russia would have caused too many problems if the Ukraine had simply been bailed out financially by the EU. This is looking like a screw up by NATO.
RedmondM, 19 August 2014 1:31am
You're giving credit where none is due. Abbott (the Libs really) act for 2 reasons:
1. The USA (in conjunction with Britain, Germany, France and to a lesser extent, NATO) tells them what to say
2. When free to say their own thing, they act on whatever is likely to win them votes domestically.
And what would Bill or the ALP do differently, if they were in power?
Point 2 applies to absolutely every politician everywhere.
TonyPantsonFire -> RedmondM, 19 August 2014 1:46am
And what would Bill or the ALP do differently, if they were in power?
Point 2 applies to absolutely every politician everywhere.
We don't know because they are not in government. It is likely, though, that if the ALP were in power it would take a much more nuanced approach that Abbott and Bishop did - especially once it became time to get things actually happening.
Remember, not everything is about the votes - Abbott is the first Australian leader to be totally obsessed about votes and power to the exclusion of ALL else that I can remember.
And even if it is about the votes, the votes are not now - they are in two years time. Without results, all the bluster, the grandstanding and the sloganeering operational names will be ancient and forgotten history.
birdieJess -> RedmondM, 19 August 2014 2:21am
The ALP probably would have said "we are saddend by this event and will do our utmost to repartiate the bodies of the Australian victims of this tragic occurance by working closely with Malaysia and the Dutch who also suffered the loss of their people. We will cooperate with the international investigation (that happens after every international plane crash).
Australia needed to do very little, most of what was done or going to happen is standard procedure. When a plane crashes their is an investigation. When people die in countries other than their own the goverment repatriates their bodies whenever possible.
Rozina, 19 August 2014 1:32am
This article is complete nonsense.The shoot-down of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH-17 was a godsend for the Abbott government in deflecting public attention away from an austerity budget that the Australian public loathed. Abbott and Bishop were handed an opportunity to grandstand and pretend to the world and Australians that they were leaders.
True leadership would have been to take an independent stand and urge that all parties - the US, Ukraine and Russia - agree to a ceasefire to allow investigators to gather the evidence at the crash site, to study the evidence and then give a press conference as to the actual causes of the shoot-down and crash. For their part, the US and Russia should have presented satellite data of the area on 17 July 2014 and their analyses of what happened.
Instead Australia' actions now have the potential to backfire on its economy and in its relations with China.Abbott and Bishop's actions reveal these two politicians' complete idiocy and incompetence.
For its part, The Guardian also is negligent in not having called for an impartial investigation into who or what shot down the passenger jet but instead proceeding to accuse and slander Russia on the basis of so-called video evidence released by Ukrainian security authorities which has been proven to be faked, and ignoring findings and analysis by OCSE investigator Michael Bociurkiw, German defence expert Bernd Biedermann and retired Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko, and information by US journalist Robert Parry from US intelligence sources that the plane was most likely shot down by Ukrainian fighter jets.
thespaniard48, 19 August 2014 1:43am
I always felt this was going to end in tears. The fact that sitting in my home office I could determine that this was a war zone and improbable to "foreign" intervention and that our supposedly professional diplomats could not work this out was frightening.
Maybe a few Sundays of playing Diplomacy with friends and family did it for me, but the Ukrainians needed some distraction by willing stooges to prepare to follow those Keystone Cops into the area, which they of course have done.
The Ukrainians have form of course.
26 million Russians perished during WW2 and in most part the Ukrainians were complicit with the Nazis. Russians will never forget the cleansing of their villages during that time and the subsequent death by starvation and cold as they made their way to Stalingrad for the counter.
The appalling cost of this and this is the truly cruel part, is the raising of expectation that Operation Bring them Home created in the mind and souls of the relatives.
What monsters we have in Bishop and Abbott, may they never have a good night sleep from now on.
Of course they will. That is why they are monsters.
ID5868758, 19 August 2014 1:59am
Well, as an American, I just remember reading the words of Abbott after the MH17 tragedy, and wondering if the US government had written his speech, it was that lacking in statesmanship, and that transparent in pushing the US agenda. I have been wondering, since I see on all the comment threads a growing anger at the lack of information being communicated regarding this investigation, what about the families of the Australian victims? Are they not questioning why there is no media push for something after a month, for instance the release of the tape of the conversation between the cockpit and the AirTraffic Controllers in the Kiev Tower, that is in the possession of the Kiev government? If my loved one had gone down in that plane, I would not be sitting silent somewhere in a corner, is there no public outrage in Australia?
Streetscape, 19 August 2014 2:01am
For those interested, compare and contrast the attitude and action adopted by our Malaysian cousins. PM Najib Razak was a whole lot more constructive and effective than Abbott with his loud trumpeting of US policy agendas and piggy-backing into Ukraine with the Dutch.
oalexander, 19 August 2014 2:03am
Can't we all agree that the MH17 crash and its 290 dead was welcomed and abused as a propaganda event by the powers that rule the West. In Australia, as expected, the "opposition"-"leader" Bill Shorten fully partook.
Most graceless of all, the "free press" fully joined in the spirit of things. And it carries on. Today on the front page on position no. 12 of the Guardian: "Dozens die in Luhansk convoy attack", presented with a strong innuendo, that this was the rebels' own fault.
The integrity of the issuing publication is in no way strengthened by having this half-way decent "balance" article. They now can say they are reporting all sides of the story, which surely makes them "fair and balanced".
Tony Bonnici, 19 August 2014 2:04am
Same as MH370.. Just saying
richardkaz -> Tony Bonnici, 19 August 2014 4:20am
By same as, if you meant Abbott used the opportunity to distract Australians from the harmful budget and resulting unpopularity, you are spot on. The government spent nearly 100 million dollars on the MH370 search and we have nothing to show for! MH370 is nowhere close to closure and the MSM instead of holding the government responsible for its failure there has allowed the government to exploit the next tragedy for political purposes.
coober -> Smellydigit, 19 August 2014 2:25am
You may be right if you can explain why the Kiev Ukraine Government sent MH17 into an active war zone to be shot down, I think it was deliberate murder of 298 people and Abbott knows this. Bishop is still following Murdoch.
slorter, 19 August 2014 2:14am
The Western media fell in step with Washington and blamed the downed Malaysian airliner on Russia. No evidence was provided.
Now we have the media story of the armored Russian column that allegedly crossed into Ukraine and was destroyed by Ukraine's rag-tag forces.British reporters fabricated this story.
Abbott just a little boy milking it what it is worth as diversion to his disaster at home; he would not know what the truth was he only reads the daily telegraph.
jezzam2 -> slorter, 19 August 2014 2:35am
Why would British reporters fabricate this story? If their fabrication is revealed, their careers are over. If connivance of the Guardian is also revealed the reputation of the Guardian is destroyed. Oh I forgot - all western media are controlled by the CIA/USA - only the Russian media are free.
oalexander -> jezzam2, 19 August 2014 3:12am
Shaun Walker is still on board, Luke Harding still works ...
Rozina -> jezzam2, 19 August 2014 5:53am
Harding was busted by his plagiarism of material from a Moscow-based English-language newspaper called The eXile.The Guardian had to pay quite a sum of money to that paper and apologise as well.
At least Johann Hari did the decent thing when his plagiarism was exposed by leaving The Independent and returning his Orwell Prize.
madeiranlotuseater -> jezzam2, 19 August 2014 6:02am
The journalists did not fabricate the story. They reported that an armoured column some five or six kilometers away from the border were heading in the direction of Ukraine. Next we hear is that half of it was destroyed inside Ukraine. Sort of two and two makes five.
impleguest -> jezzam2, 19 August 2014 6:29am
they fabricated the story because they were told to do so... they are still in their jobs because they complied with the orders they received... they are not independent honest journalists - they are not independent honest journalists - they are payed to write what the media needs in order to manipulate the public.
nishville -> jezzam2, 19 August 2014 1:32pm
Oh I forgot - all western media are controlled by the CIA/USA - only the Russian media are free.
No, all mainstream media in the world are now controlled by the governments. The silver lining is that our controlled media lies to us but the other controlled media occasionally gives us the truth our controlled media keeps away from us and vice versa. With a little effort the big picture emerges.
sodtheproles -> oalexander, 19 August 2014 2:33pm
Even Walker no longer refers to the incursion. Perhaps because his career-making scoop ended up closer to be a career-ending non-scoop
harryphilby -> jezzam2, 19 August 2014 4:53pm
If their fabrication is revealed, their careers are over.
Most British journalists get promoted on the basis of their fabrications. Assuming they favour the Bankers.
R_Ambrose_Raven -> Commentator6, 19 August 2014 2:56am
A little thought would assist.
Few commentators choose to recognise that the NATO/U.S. ruling class have in their conversion of the Ukraine into a client state crossed what the Russians clearly see both in contemporary and historical terms as a "red line". Western geopolitics have in fact never differentiated between USSR and Russia;it was regarded as an enemy then, it is regarded as an enemy now.
Russia sensibly wishes to ensure that the Eastern Ukraine remains a pro-Russian political force, as a buffer state. It will have to fight NATO aggression at some stage; the further West, the better.
Successively more severe sanctions in fact make Russian intervention more likely; it has less to lose. Indeed, Putin would have been better-advised to occupy the whole separatist region then have a referendum allowing either succession or reunion for individual districts. It would have demonstrated both Russian power and fairness in a region full of prejudice, especially given that the Crimea will always be an excuse for sanctions, hostility and containment.
As should be said repeatedly, note a few things with regard to the Ukraine today:
…1. there is not even a pretence that the current Ukrainian government is acting independently; all important decisions are clearly made by NATO/EU, with the IMF's Austerity package for the people.
…2. the very willing use of force to suppress dissent in what is theoretically a democratic country, both in the East and in Maidan Square itself. Not a word now about any investigation into whose snipers caused the protesters' deaths, either. Obviously the Chinese will feel entitled to refer to the Ukrainian example.
…3. Unlike Syria and Iraq under leaders the West chose not to like, we hear nothing about how the Ukrainian government is killing its own people.
…4. in contrast to Israel versus Gaza no-one is talking of one of the rabbis of the city of Kiev having recommended that given Svoboda and Poroshenko, the Jews of Kiev leave the city and, if possible, the country.
…5. no-one is talking of the "responsibility to protect", either.
NewClearFiction, 19 August 2014 2:18amID1744585,19 August 2014 2:47am
I sincerely believe that Abbott jumped on this tragedy to big note himself, to look like a big tough leader of a nation prepared to take on Russia, and in the process win himself accolades from the electorate.
Why he had to fly to the Netherlands to thank people was nothing more than a photo opportunity to raise his esteem in Australian voter's eyes.
Now his and Bishop's rhetoric is ultimately damaging relationships with other countries demanding they also condemn Russia, on top of which, we have now lost a trading partner which once again our farmers and business will bear the brunt of.
I am glad the Guardian is starting to see the broader picture of Tony Abbott's personal popularity campaign.A missive from a parallel universe. To describe the response as diplomatic, is an act of supreme delusion. It was an ignorant response from a group of parochial manservant's, with our worthless media cheerleading every despicable step.This was cynical war mongering trash from the pathetic bottom feeders of the Anglo American Empire the Australian government.
They humiliated themselves with their farcical claim to know what had happened on day one. The response was in fact an appalling and utterly cynical attempt to exploit the grief of the nation for their political aggrandisement.
A psychological operation of the type we see from the rulers of the West everytime they need a new war.http://crimesofempire.wordpress.com/2014/08/08/mh17the-life-and-death-of-a-psyop/
R_Ambrose_Raven, 19 August 2014 3:05am
On the MH17 matter,Abbott's misgovernment is working to serve American interests, the interests of ordinary Ukrainians being irrelevant.It was easy to exploit such an obviously useful issue. There is not even a pretence that the current Ukrainian government is acting independently; all important decisions are clearly made by NATO/EU, with the IMF's Austerity package for the people. Unlike Syria and Iraq under leaders the West choose not to like, we hear nothing about how the Ukrainian government is killing its own people; democracy is not available for non-Chinese separatists.
More alarmingly, Abbot the reactionary appears to share with Howard the warmonger an urge to pressure the U.S. into being more aggressive, despite the cost of such behaviour in and for Iraq - to the U.S., as well.
So, Abbott has an enthusiasm for pursuing the "criminals" that is strikingly lacking in the non-pursuit of the murderers of the Balibo Five. Yet the shooting down of MH17 was probably a mixture of haste plus mistaken identity. Whether people have decided that "murder" is the way to go, or whether the media has persuaded them of it, the fact remains that the crew and passengers are all dead, there is a war on, and those involved show no interest at all in the dozens of civilians dying every day with far fewer roses than the media-exploited loss of MH17.
Recall that USS Vincennes recklessly shot down an Iranian civilian passenger jetliner, Iran Air Flight 655, over the Persian Gulf on 3 July 1988, killing all 290 civilians on board (including 38 non-Iranians and 66 children). Captain David Carlson of the Sides later said that the destruction of the Iranian airliner "marked the horrifying climax to Rogers' aggressiveness". He was nevertheless rewarded with the Legion of Merit. America was directly involved - using an American missile - but it didn't suffer. Note in particular, given the obsessing about blame, that the US never admitted legal responsibility. But of course those killed weren't Westerners; like asylum-seekers, they are nothing. However, it eventually paid compensation to Iran, after Iran sued the US in the International Court of Justice.
Obviously the difference emphasises general governmental contempt for human rights - the West wants to get Putin, whereas the Australian governments wanted to keep Soeharto on side (just as Abbott and Border Generalissimo-MP Morrison want to keep Sri Lanka and PNG on side).
PeterSchmidt -> R_Ambrose_Raven, 19 August 2014 4:43amRaminak101, 19 August 2014 3:25am
Or look at how NATO worked in the past and now:
NATO's war in Libya was proclaimed as a humanitarian intervention - bombing in the name of "saving lives." Attempts at diplomacy were stifled. Peace talks were subverted.
Libya was barred from representing itself at the UN, where shadowy NGOs and "human rights" groups held full sway in propagating exaggerations, outright falsehoods, and racial fear mongering that served to sanction atrocities and ethnic cleansing in the name of democracy. The rush to war was far speedier than Bush's invasion of Iraq.
Max Forte has scrutinized the documentary history from before, during, and after the war. He argues that the war on Libya was not about human rights, nor entirely about oil, but about a larger process of militarizing U.S. relations with Africa. The development of the Pentagon's Africa Command, or AFRICOM, was in fierce competition with Pan-Africanist initiatives such as those spearheaded by Muammar Gaddafi.
Far from the success NATO boasts about or the "high watermark" proclaimed by proponents of the "Responsibility to Protect,"this war has left the once prosperous, independent and defiant Libya in ruin, dependency and prolonged civil strife.Australia played a role assigned to it by the US. The Australian government might have been very enthusiastic to play it but being keen does not change its provenance.JJRichardson -> Raminak101 19 August 2014 3:38am
It might have been useful internally. But, unless there is an election just round the corner, the short - term increase in support is just that and will fizzle out.
The main objective of the US policy was to use MH17 for completing the takeover of Ukraine. Clearly, there was no intent to find out what had happened.MH17 incident was a political opportunity to checkmate Russia and it was seized.
If Ukraine was behind the MH17 incident (which I consider highly likely), the propaganda frenzy tried to cover it up. The immediate and heavy bombardment of the crash site by Ukraine killed off any possibility of an investigation and looked intentional. In and by itself, absence of any reaction to Ukraine bombardment appeared peculiar, to say the least.
Of course, 'suspicious', 'odd', and 'peculiar' events have been a permanent characteristic of the movement that has led to the current Ukraine government.
All this is water under the bridge. The question to consider is whether it was worth it. For the moment, the answer appears to be in the negative.
The West acted like an inebriated football fan who wanted to beat up someone in the pub for the heck of it. Rage and fury it displayed looked synthetic. It is not time yet to assess the damage, but it does not look pretty.You consider it "highly likely" that Ukraine was behind MH17. Why? And you claim of "immediate and heavy bombardment" is not true.coober -> JJRichardson 19 August 2014 3:53amIt is as clear as crystal that Kiev Ukraine Government sent MH17 into an active war zone to be shot down.
itchyvet 19 August 2014 7:33amPeterSchmidt, 19 August 2014 7:40am
The Abbott government has received considerable praise for its diplomatic response to the tragic downing of MH17. While other countries vacillated, Canberra galvanised an international response by making clear its anger at the perpetrators and their supporters. It secured hasty passage of a UN Security Council resolution."
Um, excuse me, Guardian Editor and Mr. Heinrichs, are you serious ? Of course the name of the writer tells us a lot too.
Diplomatic response ? How diplomatic is it, for a country thousands of miles away from the event, to jump and make UNSUBSTANITATED claims against another country that is not even on our radar. Not only that, but applies to the U.N. to make application for sanctions AGAIN, WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDANCE to support such claims ???? Such behavior today is called in the Guardian "Diplomatic" ? WOW, we can certainly see the biases here, even if the editor and the writer were unable to.
O.K. Guardian, seeings as you are so fond of laying blame, please explain to the rest of the World, why we have not seen or heard a scerick of information regarding the black boxes from this aircraft, that is supposed to be in British hands for downloading. Funny how that subject seems to have disappeared off the radar these days, no doubt the same writer or editor could give us an explanation for this missing information.A good comment from another commenter:jezzam2 -> PeterSchmidt 19 August 2014 8:10am
On August 9, the Malaysian New Straits Times published an article charging the Kiev regime with shooting down MH17. It stated that evidence from the crash site indicated that the plane was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter with a missile followed by heavy machine gun fire.
While it is too early to say conclusively how MH17 was shot down, the preponderance of the evidence points directly at the Ukrainian regime and, behind them, the American government and the European powers. They created the conditions for the destruction of MH17, backing the fascist-led coup in Kiev this February that brought the current pro-Western regime to power. The Western media then supported the Kiev regime's war to suppress opposition to the putsch in east Ukraine, turning the region into a war zone in which MH17 was then shot down.Is this a change of tack from Moscow? Separatists did shoot down the Malaysian airliner but it's the West's fault because they created the conditions for this to happen.PeterSchmidt -> jezzam219 August 2014 8:18amThe plane was shot down by the Ukrainian forces. Rebels have been reporting Ukrainians war planes using commercial airliners as covers for their bombing campaign. Go to Eastern Europe, talk to people. Despite the western media's propaganda, no one believes the Ukrainians.
I have been living in Australia now for 25 years, never ever experienced that much propaganda in my life. Not even in communist Hungary where I grew up.
Benoit -> Metzger, 19 August 2014 9:08am
After all that geopolitical turmoil, where's the evidence of a russian or "pro-russian" implication ?
Why have the data of the Cockpit voice Recorder and Flight Data Recorder not released, so that everybody can make it's own opinion ? It has been said by the Dutch Safety Board that those data won't be released and that a report will be produced in about two weeks ? Why ?
Are we supposed to believe the content of that report without checking those data, like we were supposed to believe in Colin Powell's WMD's in 2003 and John Kerry's assertion of a chemical attack by Assad in 2013 ? By the way, what are the conclusions on that second event ? Why are the western media not interested anymore in it ?
RuStand -> Benoit Metzger, 19 August 2014 1:48pm
Because their beloved "opposition democracy freedom fighters", aka ISIS, causing some unpredicted trouble ..
KarmaGeddon, 19 August 2014 9:08amLindaTC KarmaGeddon, 19 August 2014 10:50am
How come Abbot and Bishop are not pressing their allies over the black box data release. Surely, it is inordinately late for British to have studied the data recorder.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-02-150814.htmlOleg232, 19 August 2014 9:50am
How come Abbot and Bishop are not pressing their allies over the black box data release.
because they are biased, cockeyed, sycophantic idiots ...In the world today there is a new standard of law (that do not require evidence). By this standard, Russia is to blame in the destruction of the MH-17.PeterHermann Oleg232, 19 August 2014 6:02pm
(United States and other countries was publicly accused Russia)
And if you use the old standard of law (when required proof)
1 Only Russia provided the international community monitoring of the situation
(provided only partial information)
2.Only Russia demands UN investigation to be adopted international status. (Yesterday, Vitaly Churkin, appealed to the United Nations)
And requires that the results of the investigation were made public.
It turns out the nonce: Offender requires the Prosecutor that he was convicted, and the Prosecutor shy ...
P.S. One my guess MH-17 was destroyed only because at that time (the interval of about 30 minutes) is an American satellite was in the area at that time ...
So no need to argue ... the right of those who say that Russia is to blame and those who say that Russia is not to blame.
The only question is - which law you use new or old?
If it is difficult to understand, then I'm sorry - I do not know EnglishRussia 'demands' things because thats what they always do. And maybe because they believe (or hope) there is no proof, and if there was some, they want to see it. They should have some patience, it will all come to light in due time. No reason to show them more evidence and give them time to invent more fiction stories, they are already muddying the waters enough.Neil Robinson PeterHermann, 20 August 2014 11:27am"They should have some patience"umweltAT2100, 19 August 2014 9:52am
How can one have patience when one is being accused daily for being involved in shooting down an airliner but the only evidence produced to date is either false of pure circumstantial speculation released on social media.
Add to that war mongering economic sanctions for WHAT?
No, I think Russia has been patient enough, the war rhetoric is coming purely from Obama and that soulless zombified merchant of death John Kerry and most of us know why. (It's because we look outside the MSM for the truth).After the crash of the MH17 one month ago in the region held by the pro-Russian separatists who recovered the black boxes and handed them over to Malaysia Airlines, they declared a cease fire in the region from their side to allow investigation of the wreckage by international inspectors (OSCE, Netherlands, Australia) and the Russians agreed to support this investigation. (article below in German)RuStand umweltAT2100, 19 August 2014 1:42pm
(Investigation of MH17 crash: Putin gives his support)
Untersuchung von MH17-Absturz: Putin sagt Unterstützung zu | tagesschau.de (21.07.2014)
However the blame game against Russia and sanctions then followed and ….
It encouraged the belief in Kiev that Putin was temporarily constrained, frozen like a deer in the headlights of international opinion. Seizing the opportunity, Ukrainian forces mounted a military offensive in the vicinity of the crash-site at precisely the moment when Australia needed at least a couple of weeks' quiet to fulfill its consular objectives on the ground.
This was not part of the plan. Abbott and Bishop had been leading an international chorus against Moscow, only to discover that the result of their efforts was to be undermined by the supposedly sympathetic government in Kiev. The investigation and full repatriation of victims was thwarted, probably irrevocably, while the looming threat of Russian military intervention suggests that Kiev was itself emboldened in ways that portend the widening of a conflict it cannot win.
Malaysia Airlines handed the black boxes over to the UK several weeks ago – so far there has been no word from Farnborough.
NATO has been carefully monitoring the region by satellite and must have all the data, but has kept absolutely silent.
Kiev has the air-traffic control recordings as well as the radar data – there is no independent evaluation of this material. The radar material from Kiev must correlate with that from Russia as these were regular civil aviation routes.
If Kiev suspected that the pro-Russian separatists had the capability to target a high altitude flight across Ukraine, they should have declared it a no-fly zone for commercial flights.
So far there has been no information forthcoming on the MH17 – a deafening silence…..why??
The sanctions imposed on have resulted in an agreement with China on the delivery of Russian gas, and the BRICS agreement means that Russia will now import from these countries, apparently in local currencies and not US$, and this will probably be an irreversible shift in trade.
The problem is that Ukraine is the transit country for gas between Russia and its European customers – either Ukraine will try to cut off the gas again – it now gets no gas itself as its gas bill is still unpaid - or Russia will put up the price for its European customers to recover foreign exchange losses due to sanctions.
Kiev has asked the EU and NATO (Ukraine is not a member of the EU or NATO) for weapons to fight this civil war against its own Russian-speaking Ukrainians in their self-declared republics in the east of the country – and the German Foreign Minister Steinmeier warns that the conflict could escalate into a direct confrontation (war) between Russia and Ukraine.
Ukraine - "Wir brauchen militärische Hilfe" (Ukraine – we need military help)
(Ukraine crisis meeting in Berlin: Long discussions, hardly any progress)
Treffen zur Ukraine-Krise in Berlin: Lange Gespräche, kaum Fortschritte | tagesschau.de
http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/ukraine-511.htmllenibarid, 19 August 2014 11:09amEasy, stakes are very high - Kiev junta have to suppress the East and take full control of it. Otherwise, they won't get no money from US/CIA/IMF. And truth escaping out about the MH17 will ruin their image completely ..
So far there has been no information forthcoming on the MH17 – a deafening silence…..why??Many thanks Raoul Heinrichs good article showing how Abbott and Bishop are amateurs. Just learnt through reading at http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/08/05/bfp-exclusive-stench-of-corruption-a-ukraine-oligarch-shale-gas-civil-war-baby-biden/Ahmadinejad, 19 August 2014 11:15am
that Joe Biden's son Hunter is on the board of Burisma a company who are busily drilling right now for shale gas perhaps not too far from MH17 crash site. Also Royal Dutch Shell has their snout deep in the trough. I was wondering why the Dutch weren't so vocal against the Ruskies unlike our comrades Abbott and Bishop. Well one has keep reminding themselves that America's business is business. Not sure if Abbott and Bishop are completely unconscious in following USA's geo political economic interests in Ukraine. There again we were part of the coalition of willing.Only idiots are throwing rocks at Russia. Before the EU/US led coup d'état -LindaTC, 19 August 2014 12:22pm
which is the sudden and illegal seizure of a government the Ukraine was a democratically run country. The President may not have been popular but neither was Bush and nor is Obama. The fact that is was a EU/US led coup d'état is well documented.
Two Boeing 777s have been downed within a short period, the downing of one is a rare event, therefore the downing of two together along with similarities between the events leads to the conclusion that they related.
There is no point for Russia to down even one 777 let alone two. There are only a few countries in the world that are fond of False Flag attacks and one of them helped lead the coup d'état.
The USA, UK and Australia can make a lot of noise, but we all know who done it.Ozponerised 19 August 2014 12:24pm
Russia has accused Ukrainian air-traffic control of sending Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 into the conflict zone where it was shot down last month. The Russian envoy to the UN Security Council has demanded Kiev release all records of its air-traffic controllers' communications with the plane ...
'Nothing is known about the record of talks between Ukrainian flight controllers,' said Russian envoy to the UN, Vitaly Churkin. 'They should produce the records of talks between their flight controllers so that it would be possible to understand why they directed the Malaysian plane into the conflict zone.' ...
Mr Churkin claimed that the investigation is sidelining the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) as well as the Interstate Aviation Committee (MAK) which monitors the airspace in the former Soviet Union. He has called for UN assistance 'on the need to make the investigation international'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2728660/Ukrainian-air-traffic-control-sent-doomed-flight-MH17-conflict-zone-Donetsk-region-says-Russia.htmlNotice how it's all gone very quiet on the Ukrainian front after all the rah rah and drum beating and bugle playing. Mr rabbit suddenly choofed off to the Netherlands to get closure quickly and then just as hastily wrapped up the memorial service in Australia with the theme of 'mission accomplished'. He then moved straight into the Iraq arena muttering about possible military action. Another 'hey look over here now'. It is all a bit strange and reeks of cover up tactics. Who knows if we will ever know who shot at the plane but its got a real shiftiness about. Come on there must be some serious investigative journalist out there with the guts to shine some light into this dark corner.MikeKasatsky 19 August 2014 2:04pmMichael Bluth, 20 August 2014 6:51am
There is a clear contradiction between the statements offered by US intelligence officials and the narrative endorsed by the White House. Washington continues to rely heavily on unverified and poorly sourced social media content to validate its claims of Russian involvement.
An investigative report recently published by Robert Parry, the former Associated Press journalist best known for his coverage of the Iran-Contra scandal, cites American intelligence analysts who suspect that Ukrainian armed forces were behind the attack.
Parry's article claims that US intelligence analysts believe that the Ukrainian military missile battery system and the government's fighter jets may have been operated in collusion to bring down the aircraft.
http://www.nst.com.my/node/23569Western "analysis" is becoming more and more divorced from reality as events progress and as control of the narrative slips away from the people accustomed in times past to controlling it.dion13, 20 August 2014 8:26am
This might be the first major international incident wherein the power the web and particularly social media really made itself known. Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, alternative news, now make it almost impossible for a false narrative to be preserved for long unchallenged. Too many camera phones, too many blogs and Tweets and YT accounts. Inconsistencies and absurdities in official stories are exposed and scrutinized before the ink is dry. Lies can be debunked before the words are out of the liar's mouth. And it seems everyone knows this except the establishment and its tame media, who still carry on as if nothing has changed.
We all know there was no convoy of APCs invading Russia a few days ago. We all know MH17 didn't shame Russia or push Russia into a corner. We all know the people it shamed were the ones whose narrative of blame fell apart days after it was created; who were left floundering and backtracking and desperately diverting when the "proof" and the "intel" they told us would show Russia was to blame, just didn't materialize at the promised time on Tuesday July 22, and still hasn't shown up now.
We know it's the US and its weakest, most servile puppets who have been outed and shamed during this entire crisis, for the rude, blustering, blundering fools they are. We know it's us in the west who have been humiliated time after time, our embarrassing and not very imaginative lies exposed, our bluffs called, our threats met with polite disdain, our ever-changing and increasingly ludicrous stories held up to question and always found wanting.
But even so, the media keeps going along the old track, keeps pumping out the pages of official narrative, describing Putin's aggression, Putin's shame, Putin's loss of face, as if the lies haven't been exposed. As if everyone isn't aware of the truth. As if the mere fact of saying it is still enough - like in the good old days.
Kinda sad. Kinda ridiculous.Boeing-777 was downed by Ukrainian MiG-29, Romanian expert saysMrg Billman, 20 August 2014 8:51am
[...] the Romanian expert believes that it was not a Ukrainian Su-25, as the plane could not reach the altitude of 10,300 meters and strike the Boeing due to the poor level of training of Ukrainian flight personnel and technical imperfection of old Su-25.
Vasilescu indicates that radars show Su-25 identically to MiG-29 fighter jet, as the planes have identical reflective surface area. "The altitude limit for MiG-29 is 18,013 meters, so the height, at which the Malaysian plane was flying - 10,300 meters - was easy to achieve."What this shows is that the US and EU do not have any control over the radical parties in Ukraine and the neo-nazi groups. It is obvious that some forces in Ukraine are trying to create a pretext for NATO to get involved.
The problem is that they can not comprehend that NATO will not step foot on Ukraine soil unless they have the go ahead from Russia.
August 18, 2014 |Inner City Press
A month after the downing of Malaysia Airlines MH17, on August 18 Russia's Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told the press,"We will be asking under other matters for a briefing of the Secretariat on progress of implementation" of Security Council Resolution 2166.
Churkin said, "Paragraph 13 of 2166 provides for reports of the Secretary General to the Security Council on the progress of the investigation."
But who would brief? Jeffrey Feltman? It's said he will reschedule his canceled trip to Kyiv and Moscow. When?
Earlier in August after Ukraine's government declared on its website a suspension of the ceasefire in the zone of downed flight MH17, required by UN Security Council Resolution 2166, Russia's Mission to the UN circulated a draft press statement on this "intended violation" of the resolution.
Ukraine's mission to the UN then wrote to the Security Council to say that the ceasefire was back on. On that basis, member Lithuania for example said the statement as drafted wasn't needed, asking why issue a statement about a statement, or even, a statement about nothing?
One could flash back to Resolution 1973 about Libya -- citing Gaddafi's statement about Benghazi, the use of force was authorized, and used. If Gaddafi had said, I didn't really mean it, or even, I'm joking, would that have stopped things?
What was done during the suspension of the ceasefire, and what's being done just beyond the crash one, remain to be seen.
After late-night wrangling, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution on July 21 on downed flight MH17.
Resolution 2166, which Inner City Pressput online here, among other thingsnoted "the crucial role played by the International Civil Aviation Organization in aircraft accident and incident investigations and welcomed the decision by ICAO to send a team."
After the vote and speeches on July 21, the foreign minister of the Netherlands, with the most victims, and Australia came to the Council stakeout. The Australian mission took the role of choosing questions, given the first one to an Australian correspondents from Reuters, the next to the Sidney Morning Herald, and the last to Kosovo media. TheFree UN Coalition for Access asks, Is this balance?
Australian foreign minister Julie Bishop said this should be the last such incident, because its perpetrators will be found. But isn't there a wider issue of non-state actors seeking advanced weapons, for example in Syria?
Here is what Bishop said inside the Security Council; but shouldn't there have been more balance in the questions she took while at the UN?
In its resolution, the Security Council demanded that
"all military activities, including by armed groups, be immediately ceased in the immediate area surrounding the crash site to allow for security and safety of the international investigation."
But what about Kyiv's continued "anti-terrorist operation" beyond a 40 kilometer radius?
Amid questions of why MH17 was flying over the East of Ukraine on July 17, after a Ukrainian military plane has already been shot down at 21,000 feet, the Security Council resolution "urges all parties to the Convention on International Civil Aviation to observe to the fullest extent applicable, the international rules, standards and practices concerning the safety of civil aviation in order to prevent the recurrence of such incidents."
Reportedly, flights now go over Syria, and permission has been sought from Iran.
Late on July 20, Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said Russia would support a draft with providing for a independent, impartial investigation.
As a pointed precedent, he cited the US' downing of a airplane in 1988. (That killed approximately 300 Iranian passengers).
On July 21 in the Security Council, he brought up a downing over the Black Sea by Ukraine, and said they haven't taken responsibility and shouldn't be in charge of this investigation.
On July 20 Australian Ambassador Gary Quinlan arrived at 10:55 pm, stopping to say there is no reason any Council member should not support the earlier draft.Video here. .
100 years ago there was a shooting in Sarajevo. Historians credit this act of violence as being the trigger event for the First World War. It is possible future historians will look back at the shoot down of MH17 as the trigger event for the Last World War.
The following report examines the circumstance surrounding the loss of the 298 lives aboard Malaysian Airways flight MH17. This work was undertaken in response to the current fact free public discourse coupled with the strident allegations increasingly reminiscent of the clamour for conflict that lead to WWI. It is hoped that a formal review of the known facts may serve to undermine any belligerent attempt to provoke a wider war.
Section 1 examines what is known about the Buk M1. Section 2 reports factual data regarding the crash of MH17. Section 3 considers the possibility of the shoot down being the responsibility of rebel forces operating on behalf of the Donetsk Peoples Republic. Section 4 examines the possibility of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) being responsible for the shoot down. Section 5 provides a speculative interpretation of events surrounding the shoot down.
This report is based on information publicly available on August 1st 2014. As new information is released this report may need to be updated. It is anticipated that making this report available for public review will result in both suggestions for improvement and / or the identification of critical gaps in the factual record.
August 8, 2014 |humanrightsinvestigations.org| 7 CommentsIn this post I will try to summarise the main facts about the MH17 investigation to date, for the benefit of people who don't want to wade through pages of evidence, much of which is incomplete and complicated.
1. The evidence suggests MH17 was downed by a BUK surface to air missile.
2. The missile launch site isn't certain but there is a good chance it is south of Shizhne.
3) The BUK could have been launched by pro-Russian or pro-Kiev forces.
4) The most likely scenarios are a mistake by the rebels or a false flag operation by a group of pro-Kiev operatives.
5) The Ukrainian Security Service claim that the downing was a false flag operation to give Russia a reason to go to war is not credible.
6) We know one BUK on a trailer travelled from Donetsk to Snizhne on the day of the downing, but it wasn't necessarily this BUK which downed MH17.
7) Even if it was this BUK, it is not certain this BUK was controlled by the rebels or by Ukrainian forces.
8)It is certain that the Ukrainian Security Services (SBU) have repeatedly publishedfalse information to implicate Russia in the downing.
9) The SBU intercepts show the rebels communications have been severely compromised so rebel operations are subject to manipulation (giving false orders, infiltration of agents etc), which is going to make ascertaining responsibility for firing the missile very difficult.
10) Regarding Russia's alleged participation in providing the BUK, providing the crew or allowing the BUK to travel to Russia after the downing, no concrete evidence of this has been provided by any party.
11)The Ukrainian authorities should have closed their air space to civilian air traffic on the 14th (when they say they intercepted a rebel claim to have a BUK) or on the 15th at latest when they closed down the airspace for military aircraft (other than a bombing raid on Snizhne).
12) Western political leaders bear a heavy burden of responsibility for allowing the Ukrainians tobomb civilians in the east of Ukraine with impunity.
(Update 9/8/2014)Keld Bach August 8, 2014 at 22:22HRI Mark August 8, 2014 at 22:53
Also take a look at this report by an American aviation expert: MH17 Analysis Parts 1 and 2.Christopher Brooks August 11, 2014 at 20:52
Hi Keld – I read through that and wasn't convinced. It isn't certain exactly where the plane was hit & we need good evidence for the distance from there to the debris field. Seems to me it could be 7km+ and Snizhne is still well within range.I do not see the evidence that suggests a BUK missile was fired.
What I see is a theatrical train of events and pictures that might
allow imagination to create a BUK theory.
There is no BUK plume record or account except for that provided by the SBU.
This is very problematic.
There are eyewitnesses and radar records that suggest military aircraft
were in the vicinity of the event.
The intercepted audio transcripts are, according to Russian officials, manipulated.
This claim could be independently forensically examined but I am
not aware this has happened. You have to ask why?
Even the "tricky" Spanish tweets established the BUK story in the imagination
of that target audience of this "information".
HRI seems to focus on the BUK despite the above.
HRI Mark August 11, 2014 at 22:51
Its true we are concentrating on the BUK. The plane was obviously shot down and the BUK is the most likely culprit. It is hard to see why anyone would shoot it down with an aircraft, even if they could manage it, which would be difficult. If anyone wanted to organise a false flag operation, using a BUK in one way or another would be by far the best option.
It is highly likely the Dutch Safety Board will publish a report in about two weeks time, saying MH17 was brought down by a missile fired by a BUK launcher. What they won't know is who launched it and why and who was involved and that is what we are focusing on trying to discover. A lot of the media has made their mind up already on very scant evidence, but there are a large number of different scenarios which fit the known facts at this point in time.
Christopher Brooks August 12, 2014 at 00:36
Mark, if no one has evidence of a plume beyond the single SBU released
item which has to be judged as suspect then what facts support a BUK scenario.
The lack of independent plume evidence is important.
The guilty BUK "meets the media" incident is unusual to say the least.
How silly to stop for a media photo session then tell the media, "don't keep photos".
This is similar to the 911 actors frequenting bars and conducting pilot training.
Every political flavor has been fed a BUK story to suit it's bias.
Why not get a forensic analysis of the intercepted audio to judge if Russia or
SBU is correct?
The delay in providing the Black Box recorder data and the ATC record
naturally draws speculation the fix is still being constructed while those
who frame the official narrative check what reports come forth from
the public that might be problematic and need drowning in "tricky business".
Would the Dutch investigation team be certain exactly what evidence Russia
might be holding to keep in front of the information war.
I agree the official story will be delayed in thick fog.
The propaganda impact against Russia is set in concrete.
HRI Mark August 12, 2014 at 00:48
Hopefully the Dutch will be pro-active and ask the SBU for the full versions of these alleged conversations. I'm not sure if Russia, USA and Ukraine will be providing the investigation team with a lot more info behind the scenes. If not the Dutch should demand it.
Aug 16, 2014 |foreignpolicy.com
The international community is at long last beginning to take a strong stand against Moscow's aggression in eastern Ukraine. There is solid evidence indicating not only that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down by Russian-aided rebels in eastern Ukraine, but that the Kremlin has bolstered the rebels with heavy artillery despite toughened Western sanctions. Moreover, Russia has massed over 45,000 soldiers near the eastern Ukrainian border, who are poised to undertake a "humanitarian operation." The large convoy of trucks Russia is sending to aid rebel-held Lugansk could prove to be a thinly disguised Trojan horse, setting off a major showdown once it arrives at the border.
President Vladimir Putin's double game has only ramped up since the downing of MH17, in response to the recent gains Ukraine's military forces have been making against the rebels. After a turning-point victory in liberating the strategic town of Slavyansk last month, the Ukrainian military has gone on to retake three-fourths of its lost territory and is now pounding the last two major rebel strongholds, Donetsk and Lugansk. Many of these rebels are not just pro-Russian sympathizers, they are full-fledged Russian citizens -- including some notorious bad apples like Igor Strelkov and Vladimir Antyufeyev, whom Russia previously used in not-so-subtle attempts to destabilize former members of the Warsaw Pact. Now Moscow is also aiding them by firing artillery across the border at Ukrainian forces attempting a final rout of the rebels.
The time has come for the West to make a decisive move to counter Putin's irregular war against Ukraine. The Russian president has introduced a perilous new norm into the international system, namely that it is legitimate to violate the borders of other countries in order to "protect" not just ethnic Russians, but "Russian speakers" -- with military means if necessary. Putin has notoriously threatened to annex Transnistria, the Russian-speaking territory of Moldova, inter alia. The Putin Doctrine represents a serious transgression of the status quo that has guaranteed the continent's security since the end of World War II; moreover, it violates the most essential tenet of the post-1945 international order.
The aim of Western actions must involve compelling Russia to end all support for the rebels in eastern Ukraine and ensure complete respect for Ukraine's territorial integrity. In order to bring about this result -- and ensure Moscow does not continue its dangerous double game -- a comprehensive approach is needed. It should consist of three elements: even tougher economic sanctions; military armaments to Ukraine; and an updated NATO strategy. The combined effect of this approach is to persuade the Kremlin that the cost of its Ukraine adventure and aggressive pursuit of the Putin Doctrine is too high.
The West has imposed economic sanctions on Russia for the past several months, but the results thus far have been feeble. The problem is partly that the sanctions started small and were only slowly ratcheted up. Moreover, European sanctions have been noticeably weaker than U.S. measures, feeding Putin's calculation that he can continue to act as he chooses, while a reluctant Europe hesitates to impose sufficiently punishing measures.
The sanctions that the United States and the European Union put in place on July 29, however, are strong enough to get Moscow's attention. Indeed, despite Russia's counter-sanctions on European and American food products, Putin is witnessing the failure of his efforts to split Europe from the United States -- not to mention the larger failure of preventing Kiev's new government from tilting to the West. But these measures have not been enough to actually deter Russia from continuing to intervene in eastern Ukraine. The West needs to make clear that the latest sanctions will not be the last if Moscow's aggression is not rapidly terminated.
The second part of a comprehensive strategy is to make it easier for Ukraine to re-establish control in its restive east. Since his late-May election, President Petro Poroshenko has conducted a successful counteroffensive against the rebels in eastern Ukraine. His forces have resealed a significant part of its eastern border and taken back much of the territory seized by the rebel forces. But as Poroshenko's troops have advanced, Moscow has increased the amount and sophistication of military supplies to Ukraine, including the SA-11 surface-to-air missile system that shot down MH17 and the SA-13 system. Thus far, his multiple requests for direct lethal aid have only met with reluctance in Brussels and Washington.
The West has dithered under the assumption that providing lethal aid to Ukraine would escalate the conflict. But a sanctions-dominant approach clearly has not prevented escalation. Indeed, with France's determination to sell the Mistral ships to Russia, the West is in the peculiar position of arming the aggressor and forbidding arms to the victim. If Russia does not cease firing missiles at Ukrainian forces and supplying the rebels with arms and equipment, and does not pull troops back from the border within two weeks, the West should begin supplying Ukraine proper with anti-tank missiles, anti-aircraft missile batteries, and a variety of additional infantry weaponry. And it should immediately threaten to do even more if Russia invades eastern Ukraine -- including inviting Kiev to join NATO.
The third element of a comprehensive strategy against Moscow requires a clear-eyed understanding of the Putin Doctrine. His stated right to "protect" Russian speakers is an invitation to intervene along Russia's border in all directions, including in the territory of America's NATO allies in the Baltics and elsewhere. For this reason, Washington's response must involve a new approach at NATO for managing the Russian relationship. The NATO-Russia Joint Doctrine that concluded in the late 1990s, which saw Russia as a partner, and which spoke of not building military infrastructure in the new NATO members or permanently deploying major military equipment and forces, needs to be reviewed. Publicly.
The small steps taken earlier this year to reassure NATO's eastern members -- Baltic air policing, NATO maritime movements, several small-scale NATO exercises, placement of U.S. and Western European aircraft around the Baltics and in Poland, and the deployment of a company of U.S. paratroopers to Poland -- need substantial reinforcing. If Russia fails to respond to tougher sanctions, pointed diplomacy, and lethal aid supplied to the Ukraine military, the allies must take further measures at September's NATO summit in Wales.
It would be prudent to follow up NATO's suspension of cooperation with Russia with an official review, with one of the options being maintaining the suspension and another being to end it and all other forms of cooperation. Because Washington still needs Moscow's help with a handful of key things (missile defense, Iran negotiations, Syria peace talks, and agreeing to rules governing cyberwarfare), the aim would be to list ending the NATO-Russia Council as an option -- but with the unstated intention of not actually following through. As NATO's Deputy Secretary-General Alexander Vershbow has been arguing, Russia has begun treating the United States and the alliance as an adversary. This is why we need to go beyond suspension and dangle complete cessation, even if for the time being we don't plan to make good on this threat.
Regarding NATO's troop placement, however, the United States needs to use this as the major means of reassuring our allies. It would be a good idea to bring the level of U.S. troops in Eastern Europe up to 1,000 from the temporary placement of 600 paratroopers (this could include 100 to 150 "soft forces," such as trainers). Washington also needs to do its best to get the Western Europeans to add to this total. To entice the Europeans to match the U.S. commitment, Washington should propose not permanent placement but a perpetual rotational arrangement. This way, the reddish line of permanent placement would not be crossed, but NATO would nonetheless achieve upgraded deterrence capability, while mollifying Poland and the Baltics.
Eastern European nations such as Poland are likely to welcome and add to increased capabilities commitments; Western Europeans nations, however, are far more hesitant. Direct lethal aid and a regularized rotational U.S.-Europe troop placement will go most of the way toward re-establishing conventional deterrence against Moscow. But to go all the way, Western allies also need to conduct a yearly exercise in Poland (and make announcements that in future years this new major exercise will be taking place in the Baltic states). This should be a major ground-air exercise of the NATO Response Force (NRF), with a military plan for defending an invasion from the east.
Regarding military capabilities, the United States should endorse both the German proposal to organize clusters of allies that would increase their military capabilities and Britain's proposal that would align Western allies to spearhead NATO military operations beyond what the current NRF plans call for. It is worth remembering that crude measures like the level of overall defense spending are far less important than the current state of military capabilities, which lately have been enhanced even by Western allies that have reduced their defense spending (e.g. France, Britain, and Germany). Furthermore, the alliance ought to augment its operational air force capabilities to be able to conduct 30-day air operations like the one carried out in Libya in 2011 (with the necessary fighter aircraft, flight crews, refueling aircraft, drones, and satellite surveillance). NATO needs to be thinking of capabilities in the full spectrum of land, naval, air, and cyber-power, and air capability is the biggest gap.
Indeed, the time has come for the West to take an even stronger stand against Russian aggression and force Putin to back down and end this crisis. The West should proceed with a fuller slate of toughened sanctions, targeting all major sectors of the Russian economy -- virtually all of their products and services -- and a full-fledged embargo against transferring any arms or defense technology to Russia. Tightening the economic screws is still a major element of a successful strategy to get Russia to cease and desist. But this is not enough.
The Russian president needs to be deterred from annexing other contested territories, like Transnistria, and reinforcing his ugly new international relations norm by deeply interfering in the internal affairs of other national states, such as the Baltics. This will require a series of additional and stronger military moves on the European chessboard. Let Crimea be the apogee of revanchist Russian aggrandizement. It is time for global security and international law to push back strongly against bellicose Russian dictates.
After reading the first paragraph of your paper one can realize the astounding lack of academic analysis behind it. Without going into deep analysis it can be easily pointed out that what you call as "international community" is mostly EU and affiliates - Norway as an example, the US, Australia and someway somehow Japan. The rest of the world is not on board. By your surprise the "rest" of the world comprises China (1.3 billion people), India (1.2 billion), LATAM (600 + million), and so on. As you can see, what you call as the international community does not even account for 1 billion people. Instead of instigating and advocating for war you should realize that Eurocentric (and US centric views) (see Edward Said) are rapidly fading into the past and like most US policies of the past century they may create a blowback effect (see Charles Johnson). Secondly, if you want to accuse someone of doing something first of all you have to present proofs of it. That is a basic principle that can be easily traced back to Roman times (2,000 years ago). What you call as "strong evidences" (shooting down of the Malaysian plane) are nothing else than bluff without proofs. "I believe" does not count as proof, nobody cares about what you believe, we care about what evidence you have. Furthermore, if you have the audacity to trash a country as big and powerful as Russia - and its leadership- (6th world biggest economy, and...full of atomic bombs!) without solid proofs you should realize that instead of creating an atmosphere for dialog you are fomenting bickering and misunderstanding to say the least.
My advice is to stop acting as if you have any moral ground (Vietnam, Irak, Afghanista, invasion of Mexico, and so on proofs that you are not better than anyone, just like the rest, and accepting that will maybe make you come to terms with yourself and clear up your analysis) and understand that the world does not work under presumptions, nor is black or white. Stop advocating for war and start understanding that each country acts on its on interest, and that the US or the EU do not have the right to impose its mores on everyone else (no one has the right, nor china, russia, brazil etc, but unfortunately the EU - Spain, France, Uk mostly, and the US has a long history of meddling in everyone affairs, first under open colonial format (Spain, France, UK) and later under disguised moralistic pretenses (US).
A Citizen of the world who is tired of watching fellow humans died without a reason and watching how the media sells itself to that purpose.
Russians/Putin are responsible for downing of the Malaysian airplane? Come again please.
Why don't you charge Putin with Kennedy assassination and the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa while you're at it.
You've chosen wrong Bully, dear authors.
I'm Russian married to a French, I live in France and don't watch russian TV. I never supported Putin and in February was really glad for Ukranians. Since then me (as well as many of those who can read in Russian and talk to people from the region) have changed my opinion dramatically - the deeds of so called Ukranian army on the east are terrible!!!
They bomb civilians all the time, they use nazys, they punish those civilians who have relatives in protestants army, and on top those bastards in Kiev lie all the time - it is obvious for any person who has a brain, you don't have to listen to Putin's propaganda to see it. Ukranian revolution has turned from the step to western civilization into the most barbarian war since 1941, and it is not only Putin who is in charge of it.
But you are so stubborn, it is amazing. You believe any bullshit that proves your fears (somebody said something on facebook - wow!), and ignore facts that does not fit the concept. Frankly speaking, when I read articles like this I see no difference between Putin's propaganda and yours. And I see no difference between Putin's support of separatists and yours support of Ukranian army. If you think that people in Donets and Lugansk will happily live with Kiev after what they've done to them - well, it says a lot about your competence as an experts.
So - go both to hell with your military calls.
@Oligan, you see no difference between Putin's "propaganda" and Ukrainian/American lies?The best propaganda is telling truth, that's why Putin's propaganda is gaining the upper hand.
I have not seen in the Western media or at Psaki's meetins any evidence of Putin's military support to the rebels. They are not separatists. They have always lived on this land, and they defend it against the gang of murderers who came to power in Kiev and consider the people of Eastern Ukrain "subhumans".
I doubt western leaders schooled at the tradition of pol cor guilt will do help eastern allies against Russian revisionism, it's up to us in the east to do this.
as about Transnistria things are more complex since Stalin after the war took big parts from Romania, Poland and Russia and included them into Ukraine. to compensate Moldova for losing southern regions and Bukovina to Ukraine it added Transnistria to Moldova, integrating a huge Russian-speaking population of non-Russians (that nevertheless identify themselves with Russian identity and culture) into Moldova. I honestly prefer Transnistria to be integrated in Russia, otherwise they will act in Moldova as a fifth column, as we see now the pro-Russians doing in eastern Ukraine.
When you say bully, do you mean the Russians or US/EU/Nato?
The reference to "solid evidence" means a shortage of proof. By the way, the US introduced a perilous new norm into the international system - to make regimes inside the borders of other countries crashed. The ukrainian civil war is the reaction to such US invading.
Overly simplistic analysis.
Ukraine is refusing to release the conversation of the plane with the control tower and the radar images of the control tower and the US is refusing to release its satellite and radar images. Kiev clearly has something to hide and that makes them the primary suspect.
Yet the article starts with the claim that the rebels did it. This lie made me skip the rest of the article.
This article is another very thinly disguised piece of neocon propaganda.There are so many assumptions and claims made in this article that have never been proven, but form the basis for the piece.
There is solid evidence indicating not only that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down by Russian-aided rebels in eastern Ukraine
Actually there isn't. The only thing that has been presented is a prima facie case, but the US government, who was surely monitoring the area closely at the time the plane was attacked, have refused to produce one iota of evidence. When challenged to produce evidence, the State Department has pointed to social media, insisting that their evidence is too sensitive to share with the public.
Robert Parry has reported that his sources at the CIA and NSA refute the claim that the rebels were responsible.
Moreover, Russia has massed over 45,000 soldiersnear the eastern Ukrainian border, who are poised to undertake a "humanitarian operation."
And what is the basis of this claim other than pure speculation? What is the evidence that the aid intended for the rebel-held areas is a Trojan horse?
in response to the recent gains Ukraine's military forces have been making against the rebels.
The alleged gains made by the Ukraine's military forces have proven to be entirely fictional. In fact, from all the reports I have seen, it is Kiev which at tremendous costs has achieved exactly nothing. They suffered enormous losses in the Southern Cauldron. The re-taking of Saur Mogila has been marketed as a turning point victory, along with all the other so called turning point victories that amounted to nothing. Add to this the very persistent rumors and hints by various commanders on the ground that a big counter-offensive is in the works and the Ukies might well have reached a breaking point.
Putin has notoriously threatened to annex Transnistria, the Russian-speaking territory of Moldova, inter alia.
This is a lie. Putin has not threatened anything of the kind. And how is it that the authors insist this should be NATO's problem when the Ukraine is not part of NATO? This whole crisis is the consequence of the US violating the promise not to extend NATO further eastward beyond Germany. The US would not accept a foreign military power installing bases along it's borders and nor should Russia.
Stacey and Herbst also trivially dismiss the EU's own concerns and argue the EU should put it's own interests aside for the sake of giving Putting a bloody nose. But the fact is that sanctions have backfired. The EU is now returning to recession while he Russian economy continues to grow.
Putin's efforts to split Europe from the United States have not been a failure, they are only 2 weeks old, so Stacey and Herbst's argument that his efforts have failed are premature. The new economic agreements between Russia and the BRICS countries has exposed the limits of Western power to isolate Russia without shooting itself in the foot.
As for the Poroshenko's forces, they are at breaking point and time is running out for them. The longer this conflict continues, the less likely their chance of success.
If Russia does not cease firing missiles at Ukrainian forces
What evidence is there that Russia has fired missiles at Ukrainian forces? What's more, it's odd that Stacey and Herbst suggest the West should begin supplying Ukraine proper with anti-tank missiles, anti-aircraft missile batteries when they already have them. They have close to a dozen SA-11 surface-to-air missile systems that allegedly shot down MH17. Indeed, the Ukrainian military moved one launcher into the area the day before MH17 was shot down.
It's also grossly hypocritical that Stacey and Herbst object to Russia's stated right to "protect" Russian speakers when the US has done the same in Iraq.
In the end, Stacey and Herbst are complaining about the lack of action taken by the West against Putin while admitting that the West don't have many options short of going to war.
KIEV: The one thing Ukraine needs that could quickly end this torture is HARM missiles. The dozens of Russian Buks, Stelas, now Tunguska missile trucks in the Donbas that are crippling Ukr air power could be destroyed in short order by the radar-targeting air to ground missiles. Able to run full air ops again, Ukraine could stamp out these cockroaches and take back the East in 2-3 weeks, IF they would close the border. There is still a significant threat from all the shoulder mounted infrared AA missiles, but the long range ones are more significant. There's some evidence that Russia has even shipped the S-300 AA rockets, which can reach planes 200km away!
WHAT'S PUTIN'S GAME: 4 Scenarios
@mkham11 The one thing Ukraine needs that could quickly end this torture is HARM missiles
Do you seriously the Russians don't have something to deal with radar-targeting air to ground missiles? The Russians have managed to paralyze Western military radar systems effortlessly.
Able to run full air ops again, Ukraine could stamp out these cockroaches and take back the East in 2-3 weeks, IF they would close the border.
If who would close the border? You have no idea what you are talking about. For decades, ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine travelled to Russia to work. Those borders are purely artificial.
I have never read such garbage. US/EU/NATO are the bullies constantly demonizing Russia through a web of lies and deceit. Every recent event since the violent and brutal overthrow of the democratically elected government in Kiev (by a group of far right neo nazi thugs funded by US) has been orchestrated and choreographed to make Putin look like the aggressor. Western media outlets slavishly follow a prepared narrative, irrespective of the truth, to further some political agenda....the expansion of NATO in Europe.
The hypocrisy of the US is nauseating...sticking their nose in where they are not wanted, masquerading as the world's guardian of morals while they turn to poison everything they touch..Iraq, Libya, Egypt, US badly needs a war because they are bankrupt to the tune of trillions of dollars; Putin meanwhile is looking eastwards with the BRICS initiative which will eventually bypass the dollar as the world reserve currency....and Obama sees the writing on the wall!
Every ploy is being used to goad Russia into a military conflict...all the bare faced lies emanating from Ukraine from the Malaysian air disaster (interesting how everybody in the West has gone all quiet on this one...even though they were accusing Russia within hours of the event. Moscow produced satellite images clearly showing presence of Ukrainian fighter jets close to aircraft at time of 'accident'.
US with all their satellite technology weren't prepared to reveal what they saw....we all know why! And latest attempt is the 'Russian invasion' of Ukraine. remind me again, how many tanks where there! Please don't insult people's intelligence.
Even the dogs in the street know what Ukraine and their puppet masters in US/EU are up to!. Meanwhile the Russian speaking thousands of people of eastern Ukraine are being obliterated in a ferocious onslaught from it's own government...and the West remains silent. Enough said!
If anything the U.S. EU and NATO response to Russia's INVASION of a sovereign country have been pathetically weak.
There was no invasion. Name the date the invasion took place.
The U.S. you love to hate gives more aid to the world than any other country
Most of which is military aid, which amounts to a boondoggle for US arms manufacturers. And no, the US did not bail out Russia.
Yes, the same criminal who stole billions from Ukraine's coffers, whose 'family' and friends ran one of the most corrupt regimes (next to Putin's) in Europe.
All that happened is that the control of the UKraine has passed from one group of oligarchs who stole billions from Ukraine's coffers to another group who stole billions from Ukraine's coffers. The Ukraine is as corrupt now as it was then.
Your really have no clear understanding of what Maidan was about. It had everything to do with the citizens of Ukraine wanting to be rid of their corrupt thieving government.
If that were true, the demonstrations would have ended when Yanukovych was ousted, but they continued.The only thing that changed is that the US media stopped reporting these demonstrations and the neo Nazis who sabotaged the demonstrations and took power then outlawed subsequent demonstrations.
The demonstrators in Maidan were being paid $50 a day from Nuland's $5 billion dollar fund to overthrow the Ukrainian government.
I guess that kind of backfired for when Putin next sets his sites on reconquering the Baltic countries or Poland.
How can it have backfired when Putin has not tried to reconquering the Baltic countries or Poland. The fact is that neo cone lovers and Russophobes like you have been predicting that Russia was about to invade for months now, and you've been wrong.
That's why Poroshenko and the Kiev junta keep coming up with BS stories about cross borders skirmishes, because he is desperately trying to convince the world that the Russians are about to invade.
Those were indigenous revolts against tyrant leaders, which hopefully may one day come to Russian soil
Indigenous revolts that were not only undemocratic, but illegal. What's more, they were sabotaged by extremists with the original demonstrators being sidelined. Egypt has become a dictatorship with even the supporters of the Morsi overthrow afraid of being imprisoned for criticizing the junta. Libya had has been destroyed and taken over by Jihadists.
.the Kremlin has dropped this line when it was pointed out to them these were GROUND ATTACK aircraft that could not fly at this attitude and could not carry air to air missiles.
False. Those aircraft could indeed fly at 30,000 feet and are designed to carry missiles. They tend to operate at lower altitudes when bombing ground targets, but that doesn't mean they are not capable of cruising at higher altitudes.
You're the moron for trying to argue from the position of such ignorance.
"Strelkov"/ Girkin, Borodai, and all the Russian citizens sent in to lead the insurgency all lamented the lack of support the Russia sponsored mercenaries received from the local population.
Rubbish, You have it completely backwards. It is the local population that is behind the insurgency. In fact, they have lamented the lack of support from Russia, not the other way around. Putin has no desire to recreate "Novorossiya", otherwise Moscow would never had given recognition to the new regime in Kiev. Putin knows that the Ukraine is an economic basket case and whoever wins it loses because it's a poisoned chalice.
Anyone who thinks Maidan ended crony capitalism and the reign of the oligarchs are delusional.
And just to prove that you haven't done any research but are simply parroting talking points you read on some right wing web site, here is evidence the top cruising altitude of a Su-25 is 10km, the same as a passenger plane.
If anyone has been hibernating under a slimy rock it's you. You should also get over your crush' on Neuland and the necons because they have a track record of lying, being wrong about everything and creating chaos and destruction.
Previous US ambassador Anne Patterson to Pakistan wrote in a secret review in 2009 that 'Pakistan's Army and ISI are covertly SPONSORING four militant groups - Haqqani's HQN, Mullah Omar's QST (Quetta Shura Taliban), Al Qaeda and LeT - and will not abandon them for any amount of US money', diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show. Amb. Patterson had NO reason to mislead her own State Department or US government.
Admiral Mike Mullen told the US Senate Armed Services Committee on 22-Sept-2011 that: 'The fact remains that the Quetta Shura and the Haqqani Network operate from Pakistan with impunity. (These) Extremist organizations serving as PROXIES of the government of Pakistan are attacking Afghan troops and civilians as well as U.S. soldiers.' Adm. Mullen had NO reason to mislead US Senate.
In 'Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War' published in January, 2014, former defense secretary Gates writes: "Although I would defend them (Pakistanis) in front of Congress and to the press to keep the relationship from getting worse – and endangering our supply line from Karachi – I knew they were really no ally at all." So Gates in effect, kept lying to US Congress and press and thereby to the whole World that Pakistan was an ally when it was anything but.
However not just administration but most of the American foreign policy wonks and news media have been deafeningly silent about Pakistani State waging Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan that has been killing thousands of innocent Afghans since 2001.
It has been interesting that while raising such a public hue and cry over Russia's support of Ukrainian insurgents, US government, foreign policy wonks and news media have sought to varnish, suppress and even reward similar behavior of Pakistani State that has been playing duplicitous game of 'running with the Haqqani/Mullah Omar's Taliban insurgents while hunting with the American hounds'.
There has been NO doubt in US establishment about from where the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan is being waged that has been killing not just thousands of innocent Afghan civilians but US/NATO/Afghan troops as well since 2001.
"For twenty years Pakistan's army - the real power broker in the country - has backed the Afghan Taliban. It helped create the Taliban's Islamic Emirate in the 1990s and build the al-Qaeda state within a state. The army has provided safe haven, arms, expertise and other help to Taliban. It briefly pretended to abandon Taliban to avoid American anger in 2001 misleading George W Bush", so said an ex-CIA official Bruce Riedel at an US Islamic World Forum organized in Qatar on June 9-11, 2013.
Since the black boxes and ATC recordings seem to be long time coming and collection of wreckage probably even further off, I wonder about what the "experts" may find in identifying the bodies. Specifically the pilot and co-pilot bodies (or parts) need to have more of a forensic examination than just the DNA check. Would there be shrapnel that is not of plane parts?
A better question may be, are the expert teams tasked with anything beyond identifying the persons? Would they be limited or forbidden to seek more than identity?
If the limitations are placed by the agreement of Oz Dutch governments, who would have and what reasons defined the parameters?
Since any hint of this stuff would be in the Netherlands, do any Dutch observers have any idea?
Posted by: YY | Aug 17, 2014 12:32:25 AM | 32
18 August 2014 |The Guardian | Jump to comments (1153)
Ukraine troops claim breakthrough in battle for LuhanskNikMitev -> Astar1337, 18 August 2014 8:45amNone needs proof from you.Nicknoo, 18 August 2014 2:59am
I do expect however the US to release the "indisputable proof" they have, and I do expect Ukraine to release the flight control data for the MH-17.
I did not expect the US to block a UN motion for a ceasefire to allow MH-17 on-the-scene investigation.
On one side we have means, motive and some evidence that Ukraine has shot that plane down, on the other we have claims that rebels had the means to bring it down, more claims for supporting evidence, and no motive.Victoria Shilova from Ukrainian Rada: "we replaced a thief with a murderer"EmergingMaster, 18 August 2014 3:22am
A photograph posted on Twitter appeared to show a Ukrainian flag on the front of the police station, but it could not be independently verified.
Out of that, The Daily Guardian came with the following paragraph:
Ukrainian forces have raised their national flag over a police station in the rebel stronghold of Luhansk, Kiev said on Sunday, in what could be a breakthrough in Ukraine's efforts to crush pro-Moscow separatists.
Amazing. It only takesan unconfirmed tweet for the Daily Guardian to build a whole story.
How is that different from the worst kind of Murdochian manipulation of facts?
The Vineyard of the Saker
In the course of the day the Militia shot down 3 aircraft – 1 MiG-29 and 2 Su-25. There is confirmation with respect to the MiG from the Junta; there is already a video showing one of the Su jets (even though there is some confusion with the video – in a fuller version, characteristic debris from MiG-29 can be seen, so it may, in fact, be one and same plane). In other words, 2 certainly were shot down and 1 remains unconfirmed for now.
Overall, it can be stated that the Junta's attempts to use its air force in the area of the punitive operation inevitable lead to losses because theJunta has no capacity to suppress even an antiaircraft defence comprised of old AA and MANPADS system.
August 5, 2014 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
How does the Obama administration frame the issue on the shootdown of the Malaysian Airliner to pin the blame on Putin? Get out early, go hard, go heavy, get your mainstream ducks in a row and dominate, dominate, dominate!
But what about the narrative falling apart? Will anyone hear the lone tree falling in the forest? If the US provided some evidence we would certainly consider it.
The CIA has plenty of decent and excellent analysts who refuse to sign off on the administration's attempt to politicize intelligence to fit the White House's regime change agenda. Will any of them risk their career and speak out?
RPI Director Daniel McAdams and Jay Taylor discuss the big stories of the week here:
Propaganda offensive of Obama regarding Ukraine. The anatomy of propaganda -- what are the keys to success?
The Ukrainian government air bombarded the city of Donetsk (pop 1 million) while pretending it has nothing to do with it. Who then? That's how stupid they know the Western public opinion is - it is propaganda without limit.
This development looks like a deliberate provocation to trigger Russia's intervention as 100 Russian fighter planes are exercising at the Ukrainian border. The provocation could work if it has not already at the time I write this. This should be regarded as a desperate attempt by the Ukrainian government to involve NATO in response to the provoked Russian intervention.McCain and his neo-con worshipers as well as all the blood thirsty deranged perverts of the world must be savoring their moment.
We just keep hitting them with the facts and the narrative very quickly falls apart. Tricks that the establishment would have gotten away with 10-15 years ago is unravelling in a matter of days even hours thanks to the internet. Damascus gas attack, Boston bombing and now this MH17 have a lifetime of days before they are totally debunked.
Google matched content
Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers : Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy
War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes : Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce : Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds : Larry Wall : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS : Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development : Scripting Languages : Perl history : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history
The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month : How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor
The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D
Copyright © 1996-2020 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
|You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site|
Last modified: March, 19, 2019