Slashdot Mirror
Russian Missile Parts Found At MH17 Crash Site
An anonymous reader sends this report from the BBC: Fragments of a suspected Russian missile system have been found at the Flight MH17 crash site in Ukraine, investigators in the Netherlands say. They say the parts, possibly from a Buk surface-to-air system, are "of particular interest" and could help show who was behind the crash. But they say they have not proved their "causal connection" with the crash. ... Ukraine and many Western countries have accused pro-Russian rebels of shooting down the plane, saying they could have used a Buk missile system supplied by Russia. Russia and the rebels deny any responsibility and say the Ukrainian military was to blame.
It seems unlikely the West's censure of this behavior would cost the Russians a kopeck, let alone the World Cup or some pricey sanctions. Europe will still purchase Russian petroleum products this winter, and the exploitation of Ukraine for its strategic location and natural resources will continue unabated.
Putin has seemingly waited past the World's collective attention span. Care and concern for Ukraine is waning in the West.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I have never understood the blatant lies coming out of the Russian military or their proxies when they claim it was Ukrainian forces who shot down the airliner. I can only presume they believe people around the world are as gullible as the average Russian, and possibly just as drunk, because they have never answered any of the following questions.
If Ukraine was the only one who had helicopters and jets, why would they need anti-aircraft weapons against farmers and miners (the term Putin has used to refer to his troops in Ukraine)?
If the plane was coming from the West, meaning it was flying into Ukrainian airspace from a known location, why would Ukraine, if it had anti-aircraft weapons deployed, target then shoot down an aircraft not coming from the East?
How does Russia and their proxies explain the fact postings were made on known Twitter accounts and radio intercepts recorded of Russian proxies bragging about shooting down a Ukrainian jet?
Why is it that pictures of a Buk missile system were taken near the shoot down site, the same system which was then tracked on its way back to Russia AND which had one missile missing?
How does Russia and its proxies explain that people in the area witnessed the launch of the missile from territory under Russian control? Not just one person, but several, all pointing to the same general area?
Why did Russia and its proxies prevent investigators from entering the crash site for days afterwards? What evidence were they trying to hide?
If Russia or its proxies did not shoot down the civilian airliner, why did Russia veto a UN resolution to fully and openly investigate the incident? If Russia is innocent they should have been happy to have an investigation to prove their innocence.
It is quite clear Russian troops and/or their proxies shot down a civilian airliner, then bragged about it, yet beyond all reasonable comprehension they stubbornly cling to the fantasy they are not criminally responsible. It's as if the they've learned nothing over the last 100 years since the coup.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
What would the consequences be if irrefutable proof was uncovered in the wreckage?
Lawsuits for compensation filed by the families of the victims against the Russian government.
Similar to Pan Am 103.
"Strategic location and natural resources"? Look, I'll be the first to argue that Ukraine has great future potential, if it can get past its huge problems of endemic corruption and end the situation with the Russian paramilitaries holding a chunk of the country. But as it stands, Ukraine is a basket case. Their per-capita GDP is under $3100 per year - that ranks it between the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Palestinian Territories. Their largest source of economic activity is just letting Russian oil pass through their country.
They're doing a lot to try to remedy the situation, and in the future - given enough time period of stability without corruption - it has great potential for agriculture, manufacture, and energy production. But that's not going to happen any time soon. And probably would never happen under a scenario of the country being run by Russian puppets.
As for "strategic location", it depends on whose perspective you look at it as. Russia considers it "strategic" because they want to have a "buffer zone" and think in spheres of interest. The US and Europe however tend to think in terms of "hot spots" and having accessibility to those "hot spots" that they're heavily involved in, be they Afghanistan, Syria, etc. Ukraine isn't particularly useful in any of these regards. Nor is it a major energy producer (always a concern to the west), just an energy transporter from Russia - it's in neither side's interests to block the flow of energy, since Russia needs to sell it and the west needs to consume it. So what's the great strategic value?
Europe had a lot of interest in bringing Ukraine more into their sphere as a sort of "New Poland" - that is, a country that starts out as poor which can provide host to low cost manufacturing labor and low-cost raw goods, benefiting the wealthier countries while also allowing the new country to grow. Poland once served that role (along with a number of other Eastern European nations), but they've gotten too expensive as their per capita income has risen. But if there's anything the EU cares about more than economic growth, it's "not getting involved in potentially icky military action". There's no growth potential for a Ukraine with a simmering war inside its borders, but there's a lot of risk. Which, of course, Russia knows well; the Donbas conflict basically neutralizes their ability to get significant European investment. It also pretty much keeps them out of NATO, as NATO isn't going to accept a country that would cause an immediate Article 5 invocation against the country with the world's largest number of nuclear weapons.
You're absolutely right that it doesn't matter what they find in the wreckage. There will always be a Russian spin, and their media control will always allow them find a way to present that to their public as God's Own Truth. Even if they found a hand-signed letter from Putin to Igor Strelkov, with his DNA on it, praising Strelkov for his actions in Donbas and announcing the delivery of the Buk system, and a reply from Strelkov announcing the date, time, and location that they were planning to use it to try to take down an airplane... it still wouldn't make a whit of difference. I mean, given that Strelkov already publicly announced shortly after taking down the plane that they had just taken down a plane and there's videos of the rebels talking about the takedown, cheering, then slowly coming to the realization that it was a passenger liner... really, what effect could any more evidence have at this point?
Lastly, a minor correction: you're thinking of winter deliveries of natural gas, not petroleum. Beyond this, last year's mild winter left gas stocks high, and Europe has been working hard to increase their independence from Russian natural gas. Russia doesn't have nearly the leverage that they use to, and ongoing European efforts are only going to decrease this. They got complacent before and left themselves vulnerable, but they are adapting.
I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
...apart from Putins clean up team. Someone is going to the gulag for leaving some fragments behind.
LMOL, ummm no thanks for playing. Nobody trusts Putin.
As for Putin succeeding at waiting it out... yes, the general American and European public have the attention span of a gnat, but even still, Russia's poll numbers have plunged around the world. Even Germany, Russia's "bridge" to the EU, is something in the ballpark 70% negative 20% positive in the last Gallup poll. Even if they're not closely following the conflict, they're no longer so willing to just put up with Russia's behavior.
The question comes as to what's going to happen next. Obama has been playing Ukraine with a very soft hand - they need (among countless other things) modern anti-tank weapons and long range counter-strike radars, but the most "provacative" things the Obama administration has been willing to provide are trainers and short-range radars not useful against most equipment used by the paramilitaries. Russia has some of their best tank and artillery models in Donbas, way better equipment than Ukraine has. But the Obama administration has been very cautious about "provoking" Russia. But whoever takes the White House next may choose a different strategy. The same applies to the ever switching governances in Europe. Some entities want to offer Ukraine whatever military equipment they want. Others want to throw Donbas, Crimea, and pretty much whatever else Russia wants to Russia and renormalize relations. These people are in a minority in Europe, but in certain parts of Eastern Europe they stand a chance at winning, and even one pro-Russian government can become a very big headache for the EU. There are even already a few moderately pro-Russian elements, such as the current governments of Greece and Hungary.
Of course, the whole game changes if Russia ratchets things up elsewhere. Belarus, formerly Russia's biggest European pal, suddenly seems to want to run away from them as fast as they can (although Europe doesn't seem to be in a rush to embrace them). If Russia involves Little Green Men in Belarus, the situation could escalate. And it most definitely would escalate if they involved them in NATO states like Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.
I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
What are the consequences when the US kills a few dozens of innocents in a drone strike?
What are the consequences when israel encroaches on the land of others and then brutally suppresses anyone who disagrees?
Or, to put it more generally: What are the consequences for [insert random act of brutality perpetrated by world superpower]?
Answer: nothing. There are no consequences.
The world is fucked up man. The guy with the most nukes (or the most money) gets to do whatever he wants.
Ultimately, Europe and the US can't do anything to Russia because they know all it takes is the press of a button to send everyone back to the middle ages, either via nuclear obliteration or economic strangulation.
So we will do what we always do: make some disproving noises for a while and then its business as usual.
World: fucked up.
This is indeed the problem. The Russian government (and tbh, all others involved) can - and will - continue to shift the blame. First it's a Ukrainian fighter jet, then it's not a Russian-made rocket, then it's Ukrainian 'rebels', then it's pro-Russian separatists they have no control over, then it's not their fault the recently-dismissed-from-Russian-army people shot down the wrong plane, and finally what were commercial planes doing there anyway?
( Hint: That's already the debate in various lawsuits against companies and governments other than the Russian one - as even the family members of victims realize Russia's covering their ass all too well. )
So the report's conclusions - which apparently need political debate to finalize - really don't matter much.
In the mean time, Russia imposes sanctions against countries involved in investigations leading to bankruptcies left right and center (oh right, that's why the conclusions need political debate), vetoes any U.N. proposal they dislike (the U.S. does much the same in other matters.. can't blame them for that one - too bad there isn't a cap on the number of vetoes votes one can cast per given time period), and happily go about business as usual knowing that in the end, this is barely even a blip on the radar in their history - much the same as Korean Air Lines 007, Iranian Air 655, Pan Am 103 (might ring a bell under 'Lockerbie ') and many others.
So we're to believe that Ukraine smuggled a BUK deep into DNR territory to shoot at planes when the DNR had no planes, and then convinced Strelkov that he had shot it down?
Interesting, tell me more.
I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
My kids try the same thing when they're caught. It's an attempt at distraction in order to circumvent blame.
"Why did you do that?"
"My sister did it last week, and she didn't get in trouble"
Unless there was evidence of deliberate targeting of the civilian airliner because it was a civilian airliner, rather than an accidental shoot down through misidentification, then it would probably be more like that of Iran Air Flight 655, which the US has never apologised for and only paid a settlement after Iran took them to court. Indeed, President Bush (the first one) even said "I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy" when referring to the issue.