MH17 is again in the news, recommended reading on the latest accusations against Russia & Russians with a new twist, falsely charging a Russian nationalist opposed to Putin to generate internal problems in Russia:
Is it a case of I don’t understand Russian propaganda or is it Russian propagandists don’t fully understand the Western mentality or is it a case of the Russians are handling the madmen of NATO with ‘kid gloves’ ?
To begin, understanding the NATO nations’ intelligence agencies are corrupt to the core is as simple as reading up on GLADIO, where false-flag terrorism had been employed to shape the thinking of the Western democracies’ populations; including the bombings and machine-gunning innocents across Western Europe. Should it be a surprise the Russians do not point to this established history in relation to the downing of MH17? Would the outcome of being perfectly honest result in ‘conspiracy’ charges by the Western democracies and possibly banned (sanctioned) websites, for instance RT and Sputnik?
The facts are succinct. There is a preponderance of the evidence MH17 had been brought down by a Ukrainian SU-25 combat jet as attested to by the Russians, who handed the relevant radar data to the Dutch-led investigation. This evidence had been at first stonewalled and finally ignored. Meanwhile (quite sometime later) the Western led investigation produced fragments of a (Soviet era) Russian manufactured Buk surface to air missile. The Russians declassified the Soviet era documents showing that particular missile (custody established by serial number) had been delivered to and should have been in the possession of (post-Soviet inheritance) Ukraine.
Now, where I have a problem with the Russian side is, the Russians finally saying (metaphor) ‘if you want to own the Buk, go ahead, because if you claim that particular missile brought down MH17, Ukraine owns the crime’ (no one is accusing neo-nazi led Ukraine of being particularly intelligent, especially when producing Buk fragments that can be traced directly back to the Ukrainian military.)
Here’s the evidence backed by witnesses on the ground and apparent actual circumstance:
“A Ukraine Air Force military jet was detected gaining height, it’s distance from the Malaysian Boeing was 3 to 5km,” said the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the HQ of Russia’s military forces, Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov speaking at a media conference in Moscow on Monday.
“[We] would like to get an explanation as to why the military jet was flying along a civil aviation corridor at almost the same time and at the same level as a passenger plane,” he stated” [1]
Here’s the Russian side’s weasel words that follow the Dutch-led investigation producing the Buk fragments:
“I’ll again go back to the beginning. From the very moment of the crash, Russia was very determined to assist in the investigation. That is why Russia was providing all information that emerged about the disaster, including the testimony of the Ukrainian military, since the evidence of a second aircraft in the sky was around at that time. Verifying the accounts [of the incident] is the task of the international investigation.
“Later, more weighty arguments and evidence began to emerge in favour of the scenario of a surface-to-air missile, which, as a matter of fact, was confirmed by an experiment by the Almaz-Antey concern back in 2015. They identified the type of missile — it’s an old modification — the trajectory of its flight and, therefore, the place from which it was launched. This account, as well as the type of missile and the launch site, which were originally established by Almaz-Antey, were finally confirmed by the data of the Ust-Donetsk radar station, which Russia also handed over, and by the debris of the missile found by the JIT, which helped to establish its Ukrainian origin” [2]
Preceding is what appears to be irreconcilable accounts (noting the second Russian version does not claim placing the SU-25 at the scene was a mistake) if one attributes “including the testimony of the Ukrainian military” to the Ukrainian air force mechanic who defected to Russia, fearing for his life, after overhearing the (just landed) pilot of the SU-25 (the mechanic had armed with air to air missiles) appear to claim he’d shot down the MH17 civilian flight. It is also noteworthy the Ukrainian SU-25 pilot later ‘committed suicide.’ [3] [4]
The Buk scenario creates a picture of Ukraine forces would risk downing their own combat plane in immediate proximity to MH17 at point of destruction. It makes no sense. What does make sense is, the Ukrainian Buk could have been exploded in controlled circumstance to ‘create’ evidence. What also makes sense is, the Russians taking an attitude if the Dutch-led JIT [Joint Investigative Team] wants to claim it was that particular Buk missile brought MH17 down, Ukraine owns the responsibility, so let them. This also allows for a future picture painted it was incompetence, not malice, downed MH17, avoiding the otherwise indisputable ‘act of war’ where the civilian liner had been deliberately destroyed for purpose of falsely implicating Russia. Opening the door for the Ukrainian Buk points to Russia pre-positioning to allow for a ‘graceful exit’ from the crime (assigned to Ukrainian forces incompetence), were the Western democracies ever to wish to mend relations with Russia; nevertheless a case of ‘doing truth no favor.’
Insofar as Western (or Western aligned) intelligence agencies murderous behaviors concerning shoot-down of airplanes, there is a recent analysis of the assassination of Dag Hammarskjold that shares traits with the downing of MH17; the absolute refusal of certain countries (Ukraine re MH17’s air traffic control records, USA re MH17 satellite photos & USA re Hammarskjold’s DC-6 flight) to release records in their possession. [5]
A former Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence for Special Forces, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald is published in International Law as a layman (The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole) and has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald’s formal educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire.
The Russian propaganda method? When it comes to aiming their story at the liberal democracies audience, it could not be more simple; more often than not report the actual facts in the geopolitical contest and when this is inconvenient, the preferred option would be to practice lies by omission. In the main, this works because of the Western press co-option by multinational corporate interests (read intelligence agencies’ information operations) has so totally removed their readers from the actuality of what is going on, generally speaking there is no pressing need to present a false portrait of reality versus the corrupt nature of the Atlanticists and their sordid behaviors. But, there are exceptions, and in the case presented in short here, a case of exceptional stupidity or, an incredible misapprehension of the Western mentality.
One of the propaganda techniques I time to time notice practiced by Russia is what I call ‘the flip’ or, where the Russians take a Western propaganda lie and flip it back onto itself. This should cross the line of any principled ethicist, as truth is not served in a case of re-engineering a lie but rather sets up perversion of justice that must haunt when the altered reality corrects itself.
Such could easily be the case of the Russians’ most recent pronouncements on the downing of Malaysia flight MH17 over the Donbass region of what had been Ukraine (but now are the separatist & de facto Republics of Novorossiya.)
Recently the ‘JIT’, the utterly politicized and corrupt Joint Investigative Team which includes the neo-nazi regime in Kiev and excludes Russia, had presented photographic evidence of the BuK surface to air missile debris the team claims brought down the airliner, complete with serial number. The Russian reaction? Simply to look up the serial number and determine that particular missile had been delivered to the Carpathian region (Western frontier) of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine. The missile was then inherited by the new nation of Ukraine when the Soviet Union broke up and belonged to the Ukrainian military. Consequently Sputnik reports (The Russian military quotes in double quotation marks, Sputnik commentary or ‘spin’ in bold)
“”On May 24, 2018, a briefing was held by representatives of the Joint Investigation Team, during which fragments of the engine and nozzle of the missile of the Buk missile system were demonstrated. According to the investigators, the Malaysian MH17 Boeing was downed on July 17, 2014. At the same time, attention was drawn to the numbers of these components of the 9M38 missile, which you can see on the slide,” Lt. Gen. Nikolai Parshin said
“”So the missile … on December 29, 1986, was sent by rail to the military unit 20152. It is well known that the missile was received by the military unit,” Parshin said at a briefing””
“The Russian Ministry of Defense also stated that the Buk missile that the regiment armed with the missile that knocked down the MH17 flight was repeatedly involved in the so-called anti-terrorist operation in Donetsk and Lugansk”
“”Separately, I will stop on the military unit 20152, where the missile with the number 886847349 was put, its real name is 221 anti-aircraft missile brigade … By the decree of the president of Ukraine this unit was renamed into 223 anti-aircraft missile regiment. Currently, this unit is located in the city of Stryi of the Lviv region, they still have the Buk systems. It is noteworthy, that units of the 223 regiment, since 2014, have repeatedly been involved in the so-called anti-terror operation in Donetsk and Lugansk regions,” Lt. Gen. Parshin said””
“Missile Used in Downing of MH17 in Ukraine Was Built at Plant in Moscow Region” [Sputnik subheading]
“The Russian Ministry of Defense reported Monday that the documentation for the Buk missile is still stored at the Dolgoprudny plant, where it was built. The ministry also announced that the Joint International Investigation Team can examine declassified documents on the missile, as Russia had sent the new data on the issue to the Netherlands”
“”This is a set of technical documentation that is filled at the manufacturing plant for each manufactured product and stored there, regardless of whether it is in Russia or abroad. Among the documents presented to you is a passport for the nozzle cluster 9D13105000 No. 8-30-113,” Lt. Gen. Nikolai Parshin, the head of the Main Missile and Artillery Directorate told a media briefing”
“The Defense Ministry also showed the document for the engine of the missile 9D131 with the serial number 8869032.
“”As can be seen on the slide, the numbers of components of the 9M38 missile and the number of units noted in the technical documentation stored at the Dolgoprudny Research and Production Enterprise and those presented at the briefing today, are identical,” Parshin said”
Note the Russian military was careful not to state the missile in question was used to down MH17. Only Sputnik makes that claim (per the material presented in the Sputnik article.) Why is this an important distinction? Because the Russian military knows MH17 was not downed by a Buk but a SU-25 combat jet (and has provided the relevant radar data previous to this.)
What Sputnik has done is ‘flip’ the presentation by the JIT of missile debris or that is to say if the liberal democracies wish to claim the missile debris presented is behind the cause of MH17’s destruction, then this results in Ukraine having downed the plane with the Buk missile. But in actuality all that has been proven is Ukraine had been in possession of the missile assigned responsibility by the JIT. Planting and presenting that debris would be as simple as detonating a Russian BUILT (not possessed) Buk under test conditions, for instance launched at a target drone over a scrubbed field at 300 meters height such as you would see at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico and pick up the pieces. I’d sat in the bleacher at the White Sands location to watch an Improved Hawk (analog to the Buk system) down a drone during my own military days, just as proposed, a 2 miles distance (more horizontal than vertical) shot. Manufacturing the Buk ‘evidence’ would only require possession of a Buk missile and the facility to explode and collect the debris, all within the Ukrainian competence. Relevant to this, Dutch intelligence has a long history of ‘technical support’ (creating and/or laundering faked evidence) for CIA and related Western intelligence operations (according to rogue CIA officer Phillip Agee) and certainly these days for the JIT, which recalls a precedent for false flag downing of airliners with fabricated/planted evidence belongs to the liberal democracies’ fraternal brothers FBI/CIA in the Lockerbie case. It’s oftentimes not a friendly world at the underbelly of geopolitics.
What Sputnik failed to realize is, when they threw the experts and associated preponderance of the evidence pointing to the SU-25 downing MH17 under the bus, Russian propaganda exposed itself as perpetrating a world class lie. Does it matter this ‘flipped’ lie originated with the JIT? To quote former Pentagon liaison to the CIA (whistle-blower) L. Fletcher Prouty: “The American people and world of Arnold Toynbee would prefer truth.”
All that was needed was to say ‘the missile ALLEGED by the JIT to have brought down MH17 has this paperwork history’ presented by Moscow, to effect the JIT incriminating itself. But Sputnik’s propaganda artists couldn’t miss the opportunity to ‘flip’ false evidence and assign blame in such a way as to further poison the narrative and consequently pervert the truth of Russia’s just cause. Many honest Western experts and independent journalists might be expected to make a mental note of this; to the discredit of, and possible reluctance to do future interviews with, Russian media.
Sputnik & RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan, supposedly expert in aiming propaganda at the West, is without question a state intelligence asset. She should have known better and the Russians could do better.
It is also possible the JIT has folded and Russia has allowed a face-saving (falsely constructed) compromise where Ukrainian ‘incompetence’ led to the downing of MH17 with a Buk or, Russia is creating an opening for the JIT allowing for the same.
Note 2: Pepe Escobar swallows the Sputnik disinformation line:
A former Special Forces Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald is published in International Law as a layman (The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole) and has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald’s formal educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire.
Updates appended at article’s conclusion, particularly noting the 27 January 2019 update concerning recent Russian propaganda on the Ukrainian Buk surface to air missile –
This article sorts through the initial waves of disinformation in the days immediately following the downing of MH 17. The ‘BUK’ surface-to-air missile shoot-down scenario is closely scrutinized and ultimately discarded as a propaganda ruse; by the end of July, 2014, inside of two weeks of MH 17’s demise, media should have foreclosed on the surface-to-air missile story and directed their efforts to investigating a Ukrainian fighter jet, instead of parroting what clearly are official and egregious lies.
‘Noise’ & the shoot-down of flight MH17
Propaganda |ˌpräpəˈgandə|
noun
1 chiefly derogatory information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
• the dissemination of propaganda as a political strategy. ORIGIN Italian, from modern Latin congregatio de propaganda fide ‘congregation for propagation of the faith’
Black propaganda is false information and material that purports to be from a source on one side of a conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. It is typically used to vilify, embarrass or misrepresent the enemy” -typical definition
A Noise Attenuator is a device necessary for a military radar to set aside ‘clutter’ and guide a missile to its target.
The only noise attenuator that can be applied to propaganda is human counter-intelligence measures. It’s early to determine what is actually going on with the ‘shoot-down’ of Malaysia’s Flight MH17 but there is ton’s of propaganda ‘clutter’ or ‘noise’ that can be attenuated, so let’s have a go.
“Nobody believes a liar…even when he is telling the truth!” -Aesop … is the main problem Obama and U.S. intelligence have to cope with, in relation to flight MH17. Am I saying Obama has it right this time? No, because no one can believe a liar and how many times have Obama and the NSA & CIA been caught lying recently? For a reasonable picture of the USA’s recent lies, trust Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept. I’m only saying we have to look in a highly critical manner at whatever claims the USA might be making now. Exhibit A:
So, Obama has “increasing confidence” the plane was downed by ‘rebels.’ What does Kiev claim that Obama endorses? Exhibit B:
The SA11 (also known as a Buk) was allegedly smuggled out of Ukraine and into Russia overnight. This mobile missile system is reported to have been captured by the rebels on June 29th and had been reported by both Kiev and the rebels to be non-operational. Exhibit C:
This would make perfect sense, because retreating Ukrainian soldiers would be trained to disable the machine as a high priority; as simple as removing a critical part, such as the attenuator. But wait! The SA11 system isn’t just one track vehicle launcher, but three additional track vehicles required to function as a battery. Exhibit D:
So, how is it the numerous internet photos of the suspect SA11 missile launcher purportedly in the hands of the rebels is missing 75% of its necessary components, i.e. radar command and control system (track vehicles) necessary to guide the missile? Exhibit E:
And then you have a video allegedly taken by a Ukrainian spy, supposedly showing the culpable launcher traveling with no attending radar, command & control vehicles in allegedly ‘rebel’ held territory and there is another problem; the video appears to have been taken from a camera in a low flying helicopter at hover (vibration) and if you freeze the video at the proper millisecond (during the 9th second of the video), it captures what appears to be a fleeting drop of water on plexiglass (been there, seen that.) In the image the drop appears as a small blue smudge about 25% into the photo from left, mid-distance between top and bottom. This video could have been recorded at anytime by regular Ukrainian forces in possession of a SA11 launcher. Exhibit F:
Does a Buk launcher have a rudimentary, stands alone radar integrated? Yes, presuming there were a functioning system in the hands of the ‘rebels’ which it would seem there was not. Any professional technicians allegedly provided by Russia would absolutely understand a stands alone launcher would be too dangerous to use for target engagement because it would be firing ‘blind’ .. because this rudimentary detection component would be a ‘range only radar’ that can tell you practically nothing about a target other than distance. And most certainly they would inform any ‘rebels’ asking for technical assistance the launcher could not be used in this state. Would Russian technicians endanger Russian (and other) civilian flights, OSCE flights, treaty over-flights, et cetera..? Excuse me, but the parody of Russian mentality engendered in western propaganda does not apply in reality, because unlike the neo-nazi forces controlling Kiev, these are not stupid people. Additionally, one would have expected any operational SA 11 system in rebel hands would have been previously exposed, if it were so much as to have employed its radar to lock onto (‘paint’) aircraft, because Ukrainian (or ‘other’, such as USA ) surveillance or military aircraft in the area would have detected this with built in electronic counter-measures. On top of this, anyone qualified to operate the SA 11 would realize Flight MH 17 was not a Ukrainian military flight for the simple fact of altitude. At 10,000 meters height, it would be clearly obvious this plane could only be continuing on to Russian airspace, any military cargo flight intended to resupply Ukrainian forces in the close proximity Ukraine/Russia border region would have been maneuvering for landing, already at much lower altitude.
Having trained on a similar system (Improved Hawk) to the Buk or SA 11, I tend to agree with the experts doubting the rebels have this capability.
A question should be asked; did Kiev keep this airspace open above 10,000 meters and Ukrainian air traffic control send the flight into area where rebels had downed planes in the preceding days, as a false flag? There certainly are historical precedents. Or was it simple stupidity, such as Ukrainian SAM units recently moved into the area had been testing the system after set-up (this would be routine procedure) and launched because the personnel were not competently trained to take the critical steps differentiating between a test exercise and a live launch … with the Malaysian flight the unfortunate victim of a test of the system gone totally wrong. Ukraine’s military had been neglected for over two decades prior to present. Without sufficient resources for training, professionalism, the related, necessary, keen edge required to operate a SA 11 system competently, cannot be sustained. It certainly doesn’t help Kiev’s case they had shot down a civilian passenger jet previously. Exhibit G:
At the end of the day, I don’t think it much matters where any allegedly ‘missing’ ‘rebel’ missiles went, if there is no functioning radar and command & control present to guide the system. Kiev had admitted the captured Buk launcher was non-operational and any Russian technicians would, based on simple, sensible rationale, refuse assistance to repair, deploy and operate a stands alone ‘blind’ Buk launcher. We can infer consequently, where the launched missile(s) came from (Kiev forces.)
Black Boxes & Chain of Custody
Civilian flight ‘black boxes’ can only rule out a mechanical failure and can lend nothing to determining who might have fired a missile bringing the plane down, other than the recording the blast, because civilian airliners do not have electronic counter-measure capability. Flight MH 17 would never have seen the missile coming and could record nothing relevant to what sort of missile it was and could not record a launch location. The pilots almost certainly would not have time to react with any relevant conversation, prior to near instant target incapacity (depressurization) in the case of a civilian plane. The boxes would be largely limited to information such as determining whether there had been instructions to deviate flight path and rationale/reaction. This brings up the flight control records in Kiev and a report the Ukrainian SBU (secret service) had immediately confiscated this information critical to (impartial) investigation. Exhibit H:
This now bears on what information might be in the black boxes, where the preceding two hours conversation between the pilots, and between the pilots and Kiev, would be recorded. Whoever has the black boxes, has the information seized from the flight controllers, and additionally, the pilots internal (cockpit) conversations. What might have been a rationale for diverting Flight MH 17 into overflight of a combat zone by the controllers in Kiev? What did the pilots express between themselves, concerning this?
The ‘rebels’ wanted the Russians to have and analyze the black boxes because they don’t trust the western democracies and their corrupt intelligence agencies. The Russians didn’t want the black boxes because they’d be accused of manipulating the data. Who then could be trusted with custody of this critical information? The OSCE? Don’t hold your breath waiting for any impartial party (or analysis) because of Exhibit I:
Not only has there been a longstanding de facto ‘unconditional surrender’ demand by the western democracies to the rebels, with their support of Kiev, now the OSCE has already tried and condemned Russia as the guilty party for allegedly arming the rebels, enabling the shoot-down of MH 17. The only question is, who COULD be trusted to safely deliver and analyze the information in a manner satisfactory to all parties? Likely answer? No one. Because at the end of the day, someone has to take responsibility and that someone will do anything in their power to prevent the truth coming out. If it is (and likely is) Kiev’s forces shot down Flight MH 17, the western democracies (and the USA particularly) will bend over backwards to prevent the unthinkable; having never pressed the Ukrainian government for a honest ceasefire, the possibility looms they will be held accountable for the crimes of Kiev.
Dark Arts
“The end and aim of spying in all its five varieties is knowledge of the enemy; and this knowledge can only be derived, in the first instance, from the converted spy. Hence it is essential the converted spy be treated with the utmost liberality” -Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Deception of the enemies’ public is one of the objects of war. When corrupt rulers treat their own public as the enemy, the state will not, cannot endure. What can become of any creature that devours itself? History does not forecast a kind reckoning for the rulers in Kiev. Or for the western democracies backing a regime devoted to killing its own people in Ukraine.
In the art of modern war, black propaganda is mass media pinning responsibility for some nefarious act on an innocent party, in their own words. And then running with the story for as much efffect as possible. If you are a Ukrainian ‘rebel’ and you use social media (the western democracies ‘armchair rebels’ should pay attention to this), you are setting yourself up for black propaganda. Exhibit J:
Happen to be a ‘rebel’ commander with a facebook page? Recently in stark disbelief its everywhere in western media your page showed you claiming credit for shooting down a civilian aircraft and the posting was almost immediately deleted, before you ever saw it? And you hadn’t even logged in? To quote a 1960s Black comedian from the era of vinyl records, ‘you have just been fugged‘ (by GCHQ or NSA, your choice.) Exhibit K:
Considering the USA & allies have depended largely on social media for ‘evidence’ to now, a relevant list of western democracies social media manipulation programs run by corporations, intelligence agencies & military can be found at this link.
A dry observation would be, since I’d begun this piece, over the course of several days research of the hysterical officials claims in western press, the narrative of the morons in Kiev claiming the rebels had sneaked a Buk launcher out of Ukraine overnight, has only been exceeded for lunacy by John Kerry who thinks the Russians had sneaked a Buk into and out of Ukraine overnight .. oh, and that must have something to with the rebels volunteering the inoperable, captured Buk for inspection by international monitors. And that’s it folks. Except for the fact the plot thickens –
post 20 July 2014 information: Russia has released radar information and satellite images pointing to Kiev in the shoot-down of Flight MH 17, while the USA’s Department of State is relying on social media to point the finger at Russia. There’s a problem with relying on social media in any quest for truth; the NSA & GCHQ have programs dedicated to employing social media for disinformation purposes (see the ‘dark arts’ section towards the conclusion of this article)
In blatant disregard of any appearance of neutrality in the ‘international’ investigation, Russia is stabbed in the back by the Dutch & British. Having just previously signed on to an ‘impartial investigation’ at the UN Security Council, Kiev aligned western democracies (Netherlands & Britain) unilaterally decide British experts will analyze the ‘black boxes’ for the ‘international’ investigation. Exhibit L:
If it were to have been the case the recordings would demonstrate Kiev air traffic control had ordered Flight MH 17 to deviate directly over the point of its shoot-down, likely we will never know (noting it had been reported Ukraine’s SBU, or secret service, had confiscated the air traffic control records in Kiev.) Noteworthy in the reporting is the inverse of factual reality presented to the reader; the boxes are represented as a possibility to shed light on a ‘rebel’ shoot-down of MH 17 when in fact the boxes could reveal nothing of a missile strike’s launch location but air traffic control instructions could point to Kiev. Malaysia is not even mentioned in the (AP source) breaking news… bringing into question the Malay leadership in regards to their (former?) Dutch and British colonial masters-
U.S. intelligence surpasses its previous evasions with a new propaganda onslaught; Whereas Russia had produced satellite images of SA 11 vehicles in Ukrainian forces control and invited the USA to release its images of precisely the same areas on those dates, instead the USA merely denies Ukraine had SA 11 Buk systems in the area and produces images in Russia of a military base, claiming these images are proof of a military buildup in the border region. It’s called bait and switch pulled on the western media readers. Insofar as the actual shoot-down geography, the Americans produce a mock-up (map) together with the satellite images taken of Russia. Exhibit M:
In fact the satellite images could actually reflect where Russian forces had withdrawn to insofar as we know, considering the disingenuous record of the USA intelligence community. In any case the USA would not appear to be willing to produce its satellite images of the area in Ukraine (subjecting them to any honest forensic investigation), rather prefers parroting the same social media ‘evidence’ and pushing previously debunked photos of a missile launcher provided by Ukraine’s SBU (secret service.) Message to the Washington Post readers who’ve bought into this .. ‘there’s a sucker born every minute’ .. because “You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month.” -CIA operative cited in “Katherine The Great” by Deborah Davis
RT Live has rebroadcast a BBC correspondent’s interview of on the ground witnesses, indicating there was indeed a military jet in the immediate proximity of Flight MH 17. These on the ground witnesses had reported seeing a jet making a sharp turn maneuver and departing, when immediately looking up at the sound of explosions. This would seem to confirm the Kremlin reports of military radar tracking what is presumed to be a Ukrainian Sukoi 25 in attack range of the Malaysian flight downed by missile(s). The BBC had fairly quickly deleted this report filed by its employee on location (third party transcript here.) It is this last fact indicates to this reporter (myself) a suppression of evidence on behalf of the authorities in Kiev; as I’d a previous encounter with BBC suppressing facts embarrassing to the western democracies.
Tangentially related, an Interpol arrest warrant has been issued for USA coup ally Dmitriy Yarosh. Yarosh had been instrumental in uniting extremist elements & the Maidan protesters turning violent, resulting in the (USA applauded) overthrow of Victor Yanukovych. It took nearly five months for the Russian request to be acted on but at the end of the day, substantive evidence must have required action by Interpol; pointing to the sort of bedfellows the U.S. Department of State (nee CIA) has engaged in Ukraine.
Russia had been complaining Ukrainian troops had been firing into Russian villages in the border region, and now the USA releases ‘satellite images’ claiming Russian artillery is firing at Ukrainian military units across the border. This would be perfectly justified if it were true but there are problems with the USA’s attempt to distract from the issue of Flight MH 17. Former Reagan administration official and veteran journalist Paul Craig Roberts lays out the case. Exhibit N:
“Publishing charges on the US ambassador to Ukraine’s Twitter and using them as a basis to argue that Russia is firing at Ukrainian territory is ludicrous and unprofessional
“In serious cases like that, I would recommend for the US to look into briefings, such as the recent briefing by Russia’s Defense Ministry. In it, everything was clear: satellite images were presented, they were decoded, and the pictures were as detailed as possible; everyone could make out the details
“In addition to satellite imagery data, the satellite control and electronic intelligence were attached. There were also maps, plans, and diagrams included. On the US ambassador’s Twitter you cannot make anything out, even with a magnifying glass
“This is not serious at all, it is low-skilled work. What was published by the US ambassador is part of an information campaign to force European countries to agree on anti-Russian sanctions”
In the meantime, new USA satellite photos are (quite reasonably to this veteran intelligence professional) alleged to be fake. Exhibit O:
Very noteworthy is, the USA still has not met the Russian invitation to match Russia by producing the satellite images of a Ukrainian army unit in possession of a SA 11 ‘Buk’ missile launcher in the vicinity of the Flight MH 17 at the time of the shoot-down. Russia has produced these images. Why won’t the USA?
Meanwhile, Kiev forces have launched an offensive to take control of the Flight MH 17 crash site in violation of earlier promises to keep a ceasefire in the area. The USA has been shouting propaganda the ‘rebels’ are hindering access to the site and impeding investigation when it is the regime they support actually complicating matters. Exhibit P:
A simple observation on this immediate preceding would be, if the USA disapproved the Kiev combat push for control of the crash site, it wouldn’t be happening. Additionally, were it to be the case a Ukrainian Sukhoi 25 combat jet (alleged by the Russians to have been seen in close proximity to the Malaysian flight by military radar) had shot down Flight MH 17, Kiev would be desperate to take control of the crash site and dispose of evidence consistent with a Sukoi 25 shoot-down of MH 17. Exhibit Q:
Can the SU 25 ground attack combat jet achieve the 10,000 meters altitude necessary to validate the Russian claims? According to the aviation website Red Star, the short answer is yes. The Ukrainian air force had, in 2012, undertaken a major upgrade program to modernize their SU 25 aircraft. Exhibit R:
According to specifications, the SU 25-M1 (upgraded) model can achieve 10,000 meters, depending on its armament load. Without carrying a bomb load, rather armed with cannon and air to air missiles, the Russian claim is demonstrable. Exhibit S:
At the end of the day, it seems perfectly plausible the entire ‘Buk’ episode consists of Kiev forces parading a SA 11 system, subsequently attributed to an alleged shoot-down of the Malaysian plane by ethnic Russian ‘rebels’ in Ukraine, as a cover story; on account of Flight MH 17 had in fact been shot down by a Ukrainian forces Sukoi 25 combat jet.
Of course none of this proves anything, but only goes to show holes can be poked in the Kiev claims endorsed by Obama. So, will the USA (directly, not via stooges in Kiev) provide high quality, properly dated satellite images backing up the official line? They probably can’t. A closing thought would be, had Obama not written into history his proven track record as a liar, we would not need be as disturbed at his claims concerning Ukraine as we are at the actual shooting down of MH17.
Der Spiegel has put up an article reporting German intelligence (BND) has determined a Ukrainian separatist militia was responsible for the shoot-down of MH 17 using the captured Buk, which seems thoroughly discredited. The BND did not make public the evidence it claims to back their report to the German politicians. I left this comment at the article:
In the present geopolitical climate and Angela Merkel’s ‘tough guy’ stance with Russia on Ukraine, it would do well to recall the history of the BND from its inception and the person of Reinhard Gehlen. This would be especially relevant to subsequent social phenomena of Gladio and the several NATO aligned western democracies intelligence agencies interfering with police investigations resulting in no accountability for some considerable crimes; when those crimes did not reflect well on the incumbent authorities. With the NATO nations heavily invested in a certain propaganda line in regards to Russia juxtaposed to recent events in Ukraine, any BND reporting should be viewed with a philosophy of ‘caveat emptor’
There is relevant information on the formation and political alignment of the BND in my intelligence assessment: Deep State IV (NATO & Gladio)
20 October 2014 note:
Read my letter to German parliamentarians on the matter here:
In the months since the shoot-down of MH 17, what should be clear is, a preponderance of the evidence shows the Buk surface to air missile scenario has been a ruse is overwhelming. Continued reporting in media on a line of evidence that has by now become thoroughly discredited, rather than foreclosing on the surface to air missile possibility, points to intelligence agencies’ professional information engineering to detract attention from the fact it was a Ukrainian combat jet downed MH 17:
21 March 2015 update: A reporter ‘finds’ BUK fragments which are lab tested BUT this recalls FBI & CIA involvement in Lockerbie; when evidence had been planted. The suspect story here:
By this time the evidence site had been severely compromised in a highly charged geopolitical circumstance where after eight months suddenly there is BUK evidence recovered, tested and made public; against overwhelming preponderance of circumstantial evidence the plane had not been brought down by a BUK missile. Contrast this ‘public evidence’ with a “non-disclosure” agreement where any one party to the investigation, including the likely party responsible for downing MH 17 can block evidence release to the public:
This bears remarkable resemblance to classic intelligence agency ‘information operations’ where there is conviction in the public forum even as evidence pointing to the actual perpetrators is arranged to be with-held
April 2015 update: The Dutch investigators are so short on evidence of a BUK missile shoot down of MH 17, they have advertised a call for witnesses; practically inviting mentally unbalanced attention seekers and professionally prepared false testimony from Kiev:
6 May 2015 update: Reuters reports a ‘leaked’ Russian military assessment at odds with the overwhelming circumstantial evidence of a combat jet had downed MH 17. False Flag journalism? Geopolitical play? My assessment here:
1 June 2015 update: ‘Empire News’ (ABC) picks up blogger Eliot Higgins ‘crowd-sourced’ Bellingcat ‘Russian’s faked photos’ story on MH 17. How strange is it, when ABC News (or any other western outlet) refuses to carry a story on the head of STRATFOR calling regime change in Kiev the ‘most blatant coup in history’ but will pick up information no competent intelligence agency should have missed (and none reported), presented 10-1/2 months after the fact from a group founded by an amateur? My assessment at:
14 July 2015 update: Phil Giraldi’s assessment questioning the ‘Russia did it’ narrative (I think he is too generous to the western democracies but worth a read nonetheless)
13 October 2015 update: American mainstream media (and western press generally) sucks up to what amounts to a faked investigation and release of a falsified report:
14 January 2016 update: Russia sends a letter to the Dutch on the use of speculation in their MH 17 crash reports as well as ignoring/excluding evidence provided by the Russian side
24 February 2016 update: Russia Insider Magazine publishes an analysis of problems facing the Dutch prosecutors after the fact of their report; again pointing to an air to air missile downing MH 17
30 January 2017 update: The Dutch investigators “can’t decipher” the radar data provided by the Russians. As well, Dutch police have confiscated from journalists raw footage of new witness interviews that will no doubt be shared with Ukraine as a party to the investigation, endangering those persons who provided the information on condition of confidentiality:
30 December 2017 update: A professional defense blog in Pakistan recaps the MH 17 shoot down, incorporating what are asserted to be leaked documents out of the regime in Kiev, confirming it was Ukrainian jet fighter(s) brought down the civilian flight:
There is a preponderance of the evidence MH17 had been brought down by a Ukrainian SU-25 combat jet as attested to by the Russians, who handed the relevant radar data to the Dutch-led investigation. This evidence had been at first stonewalled and finally ignored. Meanwhile (quite sometime later) the Western led investigation produced fragments of a (Soviet era) Russian manufactured Buk surface to air missile. The Russians declassified the Soviet era documents showing that particular missile (custody established by serial number) had been delivered to and should have been in the possession of (post-Soviet inheritance) Ukraine.
Now, where I have a problem with the Russian side is, the Russians finally saying (metaphor) ‘if you want to own the Buk, go ahead, because if you claim that particular missile brought down MH17, Ukraine owns the crime’ (no one is accusing neo-nazi led Ukraine of being particularly intelligent, especially when producing Buk fragments that can be traced directly back to the Ukrainian military.)
Here’s the evidence backed by witnesses on the ground and apparent actual circumstance:
“A Ukraine Air Force military jet was detected gaining height, it’s distance from the Malaysian Boeing was 3 to 5km,” said the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the HQ of Russia’s military forces, Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov speaking at a media conference in Moscow on Monday.
“[We] would like to get an explanation as to why the military jet was flying along a civil aviation corridor at almost the same time and at the same level as a passenger plane,” he stated” [1]
Here’s the Russian side’s weasel words that follow the Dutch-led investigation producing the Buk fragments:
“I’ll again go back to the beginning. From the very moment of the crash, Russia was very determined to assist in the investigation. That is why Russia was providing all information that emerged about the disaster, including the testimony of the Ukrainian military, since the evidence of a second aircraft in the sky was around at that time. Verifying the accounts [of the incident] is the task of the international investigation.
“Later, more weighty arguments and evidence began to emerge in favour of the scenario of a surface-to-air missile, which, as a matter of fact, was confirmed by an experiment by the Almaz-Antey concern back in 2015. They identified the type of missile — it’s an old modification — the trajectory of its flight and, therefore, the place from which it was launched. This account, as well as the type of missile and the launch site, which were originally established by Almaz-Antey, were finally confirmed by the data of the Ust-Donetsk radar station, which Russia also handed over, and by the debris of the missile found by the JIT, which helped to establish its Ukrainian origin” [2]
Preceding is what appears to be irreconcilable accounts (noting the second Russian version does not claim placing the SU-25 at the scene was a mistake) if one attributes “including the testimony of the Ukrainian military” to the Ukrainian air force mechanic who defected to Russia, fearing for his life, after overhearing the (just landed) pilot of the SU-25 (the mechanic had armed with air to air missiles) appear to claim he’d shot down the MH17 civilian flight. It is also noteworthy the Ukrainian SU-25 pilot later ‘committed suicide.’ [3] [4]
The Buk scenario creates a picture of Ukraine forces would risk downing their own combat plane in immediate proximity to MH17 at point of destruction. It makes no sense. What does make sense is, the Ukrainian Buk could have been exploded in controlled circumstance to ‘create’ evidence. What also makes sense is, the Russians taking an attitude if the Dutch-led JIT [Joint Investigative Team] wants to claim it was that particular Buk missile brought MH17 down, Ukraine owns the responsibility, so let them. This also allows for a future picture painted it was incompetence, not malice, downed MH17, avoiding the otherwise indisputable ‘act of war’ where the civilian liner had been deliberately destroyed for purpose of falsely implicating Russia. Opening the door for the Ukrainian Buk points to Russia pre-positioning to allow for a ‘graceful exit’ from the crime (assigned to Ukrainian forces incompetence), were the Western democracies ever to wish to mend relations with Russia; nevertheless a case of ‘doing truth no favor.’
Insofar as Western (or Western aligned) intelligence agencies murderous behaviors concerning shoot-down of airplanes, there is a recent analysis of the assassination of Dag Hammarskjold that shares traits with the downing of MH17; the absolute refusal of certain countries (Ukraine re MH17’s air traffic control records, USA re MH17 satellite photos & USA re Hammarskjold’s DC-6 flight) to release records in their possession. [5]
26 March 2019 update: Ukrainian SBU (intelligence officer) defects to Russia, and points his finger directly at Ukrainian military intelligence & one of Petro Poroshenko’s top aides as complicit in bringing down MH17:
Ronald Thomas West 