Sunday, July 20, 2014

Kiev military shot down Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 in Ukraine


Malaysia Airline Flight MH17 crash in Eastern Ukraine - latest (credible) info

The plane that crashed was flying at 33,000 feet so it would need a sophisticated missile system to shoot it down, if it was shot down. https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/489793112378990592
 
There are unconfirmed reports from radar imaging that there was a Kiev military jet flying directly towards the Malaysian airliner in the general area when the airliner crashed, but I don't how many miles or km away from the passenger plane it was or what weapons it had. It may have been too far away.

Three days ago Kiev said the rebels did not have weapons that could shoot down anything at an altitude of 6.5km or higher. (You'll have to translate this article.)
http://www.0642.ua/article/575833?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed)

A good attempt at a rational analysis of what might have happened using Game Theory and other explanations.
http://www.reddit.com/r/thenetherlands/comments/2aypva/flight_mh17_schiphol_kuala_lumpur_discussion_topic/cj020zd?context=3

Live updates of news reports

One from Western media with a heavy pro Western government bias (the Guardian)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/17/malaysia-airlines-plane-crashes-ukraine-live

One pro Russian from RT
http://rt.com/news/173628-malaysian-plane-crash-ukraine/

A comparison of the two versions of the evidence should be made.

N.B. The Western media and statements from the regime in Kiev are already full of lies about this plane crash. E.G this
https://my.news.yahoo.com/ukraine-ministry-rebels-down-military-aircraft-044105335.html
The rebels in Eastern Ukraine simply do not have any weapons that are capable of shooting down a plane flying at 33,000 feet, so this story is a complete hoax intended to fool the gullible and uninformed.

N.B. This article will be kept updated with credible evidence as it emerges.
Statements by politicians or media that cannot be backed up by hard evidence will not be reported - they are just distractions.
In the unlikely event that someone admits culpability (or their ally does) this will be reported.

Updates 

US Intelligence Confirms Malaysian Jet Brought Down By Surface-To-Air Missile
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-17/us-intelligence-confirms-malaysian-jet-brought-down-surface-air-missile 

Kiev deployed powerful (BUK) anti-air systems to E. Ukraine ahead of the Malaysian plane crash

This story needs to be investigated for veracity.
Translation of 's twitter timeline. Says he works in Ukraine Air Traffic Control, saw the whole thing and that Kiev downed the plane.
http://slavyangrad.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/spanish-air-controller-kiev-borispol-airport-ukraine-military-shot-down-boeing-mh17/
N.B. The twitter account for @spainbuca was deleted at some point between 7/17 11pm ET and 7/18 11am ET.

The Wall St Journal reports that Manpads (as possessed by East Ukraine rebels) have a maximum height range of about 13,000 feet.
As above, flight MH17 was flying at 33,000 feet.
The civil aviation authorities had set a minimum height to fly over Ukraine of 32,000 feet (to be well out of range of Manpads). To hit a plane flying at 33,000 feet requires a sophisticated anti aircraft system such as the radar guided BUK system

https://twitter.com/UjessU/status/489915499040751616/photo/1

N.B. The motive for Kiev to mount a false flag attack on a plane would be to get the US to supply heavy weaponry, planes, missiles etc. and possibly even ground troops to mount an invasion of Eastern Ukraine.
Kiev has suffered a number of recent setbacks in their military campaign in Eastern Ukraine.

Putin has so far studiously avoided giving the US any excuse to launch an attack on Russia or become overtly involved in the civil war now raging in Ukraine.

Update 2
There are countless accounts in the media that it must have been the rebels from Eastern Ukraine that downed the Malaysian plane (as expected). These accounts do not hold water, or stand up to scrutiny.

There are bogus accounts issued by the Kiev regime that the rebels obtained BUK radar guided anti-tank missiles just in the last few days.
E.G. this article today
http://censor.net.ua/news/294220/v_snbo_zayavlyayut_chto_u_terroristov_est_voennaya_tehnika_sposobnaya_sbivat_samolety_na_bolshih_vysotah

If such accounts had any credibility whatsoever, they would already have been reported in numerous Western media outlets.

If the rebels actually did possess an operational BUK radar guided anti aircraft missile launcher (which they don't) and the Kiev regime had reported (with any credibility) that the rebels had BUK anti aircraft missiles capable of shooting down a plane flying at 33,000 feet (or higher), the European aviation authorities would have been notified and no civilian planes would have been flying over Ukraine.
The guidance by Europe's aviation authorities (before the crash) was that planes could fly over Ukraine at a minimum altitude of 32,000 feet. This would be so they would be well out of range of Manpad shoulder held anti-aircraft missiles which have a maximum height range of about 13,000 feet.
The rebels do have a few Manpad type anti-aircraft missiles, but only a very few, otherwise we would have heard a lot more stories of downed Kiev helicopters and jets. As it is we have heard stories of 2 or 3 downed Kiev helicopters, about 3 transport planes and possibly 1 downed SU-25 fighter.

The whole premise that the rebels possess radar guided BUK anti-aircraft missiles that could have shot down a plane flying at 33,000 feet does not hold water or stand up to scrutiny.

Update 07/19 The mainstream media and Kiev now agree with the above assessment, so they have now changed their story. They are now saying that the rebels must have had considerable assistance from Russia to shoot the plane down, without presenting any credible evidence that Russia was in any way involved. 

Update 3
CNN says it's very unlikely that the Ukrainian rebels could have shot down the plane
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/17/world/europe/malaysia-airlines-crash-missile/index.html?sr=tw071714bukmissles530pvodtopphoto

Extract from the above article:-

"What seems unlikely is that pro-Russia separatists might have gained control of such a sophisticated piece of weaponry and used it to shoot down an airliner, Ryan said.
"It takes a lot of training and a lot of coordination to fire one of these and hit something," he said.
Typically, a surface-to-air battery missile consists of a command post vehicle, a radar vehicle, several self-propelled launchers, loader vehicles and even more vehicles to carry new missiles to the batteries as necessary, according to Dan Wasserbly, Americas editor for IHS Jane's.
Ryan concludes then that if the plane really was shot down, a professional military force -- either on purpose or by accident -- was responsible.
"This is not the kind of weapon a couple of guys are going to pull out of a garage and fire," he said."

Was flight MH17 diverted over Donetsk restricted airspace? It didn't follow it's normal flightpath.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-17/was-flight-mh-17-diverted-over-restricted-airspace

Updates 07/18

Ukraine air traffic controller suggests Kiev military shot down passenger plane
http://www.eturbonews.com/48079/ukraine-air-traffic-controller-suggests-kiev-military-shot-down-

It has now been confirmed that Carlos (twitter handle @spainbuca) is a real person who worked for Ukraine Air Traffic Control.
By both the above article and by an interview he did with RT.com on 8th May 2014
http://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/view/127516-amenazar-controlador-espanol-ucrania-crisis

Ukraine's Security Service Has Confiscated Air Traffic Control Recordings With Malaysian Jet
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-18/ukraines-security-service-has-confiscated-air-traffic-control-recordings-malaysian-j 

The Final Moments Of Flight MH-17: The Russian Side Of The Story
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-18/final-moments-flight-mh-17-russian-side-story

Key points:
It was not safe to fly over the Donetsk / Lugansk region because the air traffic control infrastructure had been destroyed there.
So why was MH17 diverted to fly over that area when the previous flight paths took the plane south of the conflict region?

"And finally, as RT reported, the national governor of the Donetsk region, Pavel Gubarev, admitted that while the separatists indeed are in possession of one BUK missile unit, it is not operational, and even if it was, it would be unable to reach a height of over 30,000 feet without central radar guidance which the Donetsk region does not have, once again suggesting that a Surface to Air Missile, if indeed one was used, came from the Ukraine side. Surely it will be very easy for international monitors to validate this report"

Questions over why Malaysian plane flew over Ukrainian warzone
http://rt.com/news/173792-malaysian-plane-diverted-warzone/

Audio “Proof” of Ukrainian Rebel Responsibility for Malaysian Flight Downing is Fake
http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/07/18/audio-proof-of-ukrainian-rebel-responsibility-for-malaysian-flight-downing-is-fake/

Updates 07/19

Video analyzing and debunking the latest "evidence" offered by Kiev to blame Russia

The Tragedy of Flight MH17: Who Benefits?
http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/07/18/the-tragedy-of-flight-mh17-who-benefits/

There is now a collective insanity and hysteria in the mainstream media (even greater than before) parroting the flimsiest of fake evidence that supports "Russia did it" while asking zero rational questions like :-

Who benefits?
Why was MH71 diverted to fly over a war zone? This couldn't have been done by Russia or the rebels.
Where did the Buk anti-aircraft system supposedly used by the rebels come from?
How was this supposed BUK anti-aircraft launcher linked up to a radar system in Russia? (It couldn't have been a radar system in Eastern Ukraine, the rebels don't have a radar system.)
If this had been done why haven't the CIA reported intercepted radio traffic between a BUK anti-aircraft missile launcher in Ukraine and a radar system in Russia?
Why did the CIA/Pentagon say that they obtained a lock on a radar system being activated in Eastern Ukraine when the rebels don't have radar (or at least not a radar system in Eastern Ukraine)? The only operational radar systems in Eastern Ukraine are possessed by Kiev forces.
Why is spainboca now incommunicado?

The case for Kiev having downed the plane is very simple:-

They had the necessary equipment and trained personnel to shoot down the plane.

They have the motive which is to provide the excuse to get the US to be more overtly involved in the civil war (which Kiev is currently losing) and to get the the US to provide heavy weaponry - planes, helicopter gunships, missiles etc. or even to provide ground troops for the invasion of Eastern Ukraine.

Debunking the thunderstorm theory for why MH17 diverted from it's normal flight path for 17th July 

The latest explanation for the plane diverting off it's normal route, offered by pro Kiev supporters, is because of thunderstorms in the path of it's normal route.
This explanation does not stand up to scrutiny.
MH17 was near Warsaw at 14:44 Ukraine time (EEST,  3 hours ahead of GMT).
It did not start it's diversion until it entered Ukrainian airspace (see above maps of flight paths).
There were no thunderstorms in Kiev on 17th July.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/UKKK/2014/7/17/DailyHistory.html
There were thunderstorms in the Odessa area.
These thunderstorms ended by 13:27 EEST. I.E. well before MH17 entered Ukrainian airspace and thus there was no reason for the pilot to divert course because of thunderstorms.
The weather in Odessa on 17th July
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/UKOO/2014/7/17/DailyHistory.html?MR=1
Radar contact was lost at 16:15 EEST over Donetsk.

The reason MH17 diverted from it's normal path was not because of any thunderstorms.

Some CIA analysts cite US satellite photos suggesting the missile that downed Malaysian Airlines MH17 was fired by Kiev's troops


Updates 7/20 

Zaporizhzhia is around 200km North East of Odessa and next door to Donetsk.
The thunderstorms in Zaporizhzhia ended between 3pm and 3:30pm local time.
This is 2 hours after the thunderstorms ended in Odessa and about an hour before MH17 arrived in the area.
So MH17 diverted north INTO the path of possible thunderstorms and into an area with more recent thunderstorm activity, instead of flying a more southerly course nearer to Odessa.Why did it do this?

Weather for Zaporizhzhia on 17th July
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/UKDE/2014/7/17/DailyHistory.html?

Previous Related Article

What's Next For Ukraine? Brzezinski suggests US supplies weapons for Ethnic Cleansing
http://ian56.blogspot.com/2014/07/whats-next-for-ukraine-brzezinski.html


Shocking analysis for the launch of the Malaysian MH 017

By Peter Haisenko
It does not want a light in the darkness to the misfortune of the Malaysian MH come 017. The flight recorders are in England and are evaluated. What can come of it? Maybe more than you would assume. Especially the voice recorder will be interesting when you look at the picture of a cockpit fragment. As an expert in aviation I looked at the pictures of the wreckage made, are circulating on the Internet.
First, I was amazed at how few photos can be found from the wreckage with Google. All are in low resolution, except one: The fragment of the cockpit below the window on the master page. This image, however, is shocking. In Washington, you can hear voices now speaking regarding MH 017 from a "potentially tragic error / accident". Given that image does not surprise me that.
Inlet and outlet holes in the cockpit area of projectiles
Source for all photos: Internet
I recommend to click on the little picture on the right. You can download this photo as PDF in good resolution. This is necessary, because only then is to understand what I am describing here. I'm not talking about speculation, but of clear facts: The cockpit shows traces of shelling. You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is after! inside! bent. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, about 30 millimeters caliber. The edge of the other, the larger and slightly frayed exit holes is after! outside! bent. Moreover, it is evident that at these outlet holes partially the outer layer of the double aluminum is bent or weggefetzt - outwardly! Furthermore, minor cuts can be seen, all bent outward, which indicate that splinters the outer skin from the inside of the cockpit ago by beat. The open rivets are bent outward.
In sifting through the available images of a fall on: All wreckage of the sections behind the cockpit are largely intact, except for the fact that it is a whole order fragments. Only the cockpit part is desolate destroyed. This suggests an already close: This aircraft was not hit by a rocket in the middle. The destruction is limited to the cockpit area. Now you have to know that this part is made of special reinforced material. Finally, the nose of the aircraft must be able to resist the impact of a large bird at high speed fairly harmless. You can see in the photo, that in this area significantly stronger aluminum alloys has been installed as the remainder of the outer skin. One remembers the crash of Pan Am over Lockerbie. The only largely undamaged part was a large cockpit segment. Here undoubtedly an explosion took place inside the aircraft.
Panzer Disrupting Munitionsmix
So what can be happening? Russia has published radar recordings, the 25 show at least a Ukrainian SU in close proximity of MH 017. This corresponds with the statement of the lost Spanish controller that has seen two Ukrainian fighter aircraft in the immediate vicinity of the MH 017. Consider the armament of the SU 25: It is equipped with a double-barreled 30-mm gun, type GSh-302 / AO-17A, fight record: 250 rounds anti-tank fire or splinter-explosive projectiles, in a defined order a Gliederzerfallgurt are attached. The cockpit of the MH 017 has been fired from two sides: the entry and exit holes on the same page.
Bullet holes in the outer skin
Now just imagine what happens when a series of armored fire and splinter-explosive projectiles hitting the cockpit, which are after all designed so that they can destroy a tank. The tanks fire shells are partially escape across the cockpit from the other side slightly deformed again. Finally, their clout is designed for a solid armor. However, the splinter-explosive projectiles will explode inside the cockpit, so they are designed. With the rapid fire sequence of GSh-302 cannon, there is therefore in a very short time a rapid succession of explosions within the cockpit area, each of which is sufficient to destroy a tank.
What "mistake" was actually committed - and by whom?
Graze on the wing
Because the interior of a commercial aircraft is a hermetically sealed chamber, the pressure inside the aircraft in a split second will rise to extreme levels by these explosions. But the aircraft is not equipped. It will burst like a balloon. This declaration results in a coherent picture. The largely intact fragments of the rear sections are broken at the points that are based on the construction breakup most likely under extreme pressure. The image of the widely scattered debris field and the brutally damaged cockpit segment fit to do so. Furthermore, a wing segment shows traces of a grazing shot, which directly leads to extension to the cockpit. Interestingly, I found that both the high-resolution photo of the cockpit as the segment are also now been removed from the grazing shot on the wing from Google Images. One can find virtually no more pictures of the wreckage, except smoking ruins.
If you follow the voices from Washington who speak of a "potentially tragic error / accident", all that remains is the question of what might have been "mistake" committed here. I am not now be issued in the realm of speculation, but enter the following to be considered: The MH 017 is interchangeable with that of the Russian President in her painting. Both are wearing the colors of the Russian tricolor. The machine with Putin on board was at the same time near the MH 017 when you "close" with aviator eyes considered: about 200 to 300 kilometers. To this end, we will still accept the testimony of Ms. Tymoshenko, she wanted to shoot Putin prefers a Kalashnikov. But that is pure speculation. The shelling of the cockpit of the MH not 017.
You might also be interested in: Fake News about MH 17 crash
Should you be interested to know how the truth has been "bent" by the U.S. and England during the 20th century, I recommend this book: . Britain, the Germans, the Jews and the 20th century in bookshops or directly from the publisher, free shipping.





What Did US Spy Satellites See in Ukraine?

Exclusive: The U.S. media’s Ukraine bias has been obvious, siding with the Kiev regime and bashing ethnic Russian rebels and Russia’s President Putin. But now – with the scramble to blame Putin for the Malaysia Airlines shoot-down – the shoddy journalism has grown truly dangerous, says Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
In the heat of the U.S. media’s latest war hysteria – rushing to pin blame for the crash of a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet on Russia’s President Vladimir Putin – there is the same absence of professional skepticism that has marked similar stampedes on Iraq, Syria and elsewhere – with key questions not being asked or answered.
The dog-not-barking question on the catastrophe over Ukraine is: what did the U.S. surveillance satellite imagery show? It’s hard to believe that – with the attention that U.S. intelligence has concentrated on eastern Ukraine for the past half year that the alleged trucking of several large Buk anti-aircraft missile systems from Russia to Ukraine and then back to Russia didn’t show up somewhere.
Russian-made Buk anti-missile battery.
Russian-made Buk anti-missile battery.
Yes, there are limitations to what U.S. spy satellites can see. But the Buk missiles are about 16 feet long and they are usually mounted on trucks or tanks. Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 also went down during the afternoon, not at night, meaning the missile battery was not concealed by darkness.
So why hasn’t this question of U.S. spy-in-the-sky photos – and what they reveal – been pressed by the major U.S. news media? How can the Washington Post run front-page stories, such as the one on Sunday with the definitive title “U.S. official: Russia gave systems,” without demanding from these U.S. officials details about what the U.S. satellite images disclose?
Instead, the Post’s Michael Birnbaum and Karen DeYoung wrote from Kiev: “The United States has confirmed that Russia supplied sophisticated missile launchers to separatists in eastern Ukraine and that attempts were made to move them back across the Russian border after the Thursday shoot-down of a Malaysian jetliner, a U.S. official said Saturday.
“‘We do believe they were trying to move back into Russia at least three Buk [missile launch] systems,’ the official said. U.S. intelligence was ‘starting to get indications … a little more than a week ago’ that the Russian launchers had been moved into Ukraine, said the official” whose identity was withheld by the Post so the official would discuss intelligence matters.
But catch the curious vagueness of the official’s wording: “we do believe”; “starting to get indications.” Are we supposed to believe – and perhaps more relevant, do the Washington Post writers actually believe – that the U.S. government with the world’s premier intelligence services can’t track three lumbering trucks each carrying large mid-range missiles?
What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.
The source said CIA analysts were still not ruling out the possibility that the troops were actually eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms but the initial assessment was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers. There also was the suggestion that the soldiers involved were undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site, the source said.
Instead of pressing for these kinds of details, the U.S. mainstream press has simply passed on the propaganda coming from the Ukrainian government and the U.S. State Department, including hyping the fact that the Buk system is “Russian-made,” a rather meaningless fact that gets endlessly repeated.
However, to use the “Russian-made” point to suggest that the Russians must have been involved in the shoot-down is misleading at best and clearly designed to influence ill-informed Americans. As the Post and other news outlets surely know, the Ukrainian military also operates Russian-made military systems, including Buk anti-aircraft batteries, so the manufacturing origin has no probative value here.
Relying on the Ukraine Regime
Much of the rest of the known case against Russia comes from claims made by the Ukrainian regime, which emerged from the unconstitutional coup d’etat against elected President Viktor Yanukovych on Feb. 22. His overthrow followed months of mass protests, but the actual coup was spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias that overran government buildings and forced Yanukovych’s officials to flee.
In recognition of the key role played by the neo-Nazis, who are ideological descendants of Ukrainian militias that collaborated with the Nazi SS in World War II, the new regime gave these far-right nationalists control of several ministries, including the office of national security which is under the command of longtime neo-Nazi activist Andriy Parubiy.[See Consortiumnews.com’s “Ukraine, Through the US Looking Glass.”]
It was this same Parubiy whom the Post writers turned to seeking more information condemning the eastern Ukrainian rebels and the Russians regarding the Malaysia Airlines catastrophe. Parubiy accused the rebels in the vicinity of the crash site of destroying evidence and conducting a cover-up, another theme that resonated through the MSM.
Without bothering to inform readers of Parubiy’s unsavory neo-Nazi background, the Post quoted him as a reliable witness declaring: “It will be hard to conduct a full investigation with some of the objects being taken away, but we will do our best.”
In contrast to Parubiy’s assurances, the Kiev regime actually has a terrible record of telling the truth or pursuing serious investigations of human rights crimes. Still left open are questions about the identity of snipers who on Feb. 20 fired on both police and protesters at the Maidan, touching off the violent escalation that led to Yanukovych’s ouster. Also, the Kiev regime has failed to ascertain the facts about the death-by-fire of scores of ethnic Russians in the Trade Union Building in Odessa on May 2. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Burning Ukraine’s Protesters Alive.”]
The Kiev regime also duped the New York Times (and apparently the U.S. State Department) when it disseminated photos that supposedly showed Russian military personnel inside Russia and then later inside Ukraine. After the State Department endorsed the “evidence,” the Times led its newspaper with this story on April 21, but it turned out that one of the key photos supposedly shot in Russia was actually taken in Ukraine, destroying the premise of the story. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Retracts Ukraine Photo Scoop.”]
But here we are yet again with the MSM relying on unverified claims being made by the Kiev regime about something as sensitive as whether Russia provided sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles – capable of shooting down high-flying civilian aircraft – to poorly trained eastern Ukrainian rebels.
This charge is so serious that it could propel the world into a second Cold War and conceivably – if there are more such miscalculations – into a nuclear confrontation. These moments call for the utmost in journalistic professionalism, especially skepticism toward propaganda from biased parties.
Yet, what Americans have seen again is the major U.S. news outlets, led by the Washington Post and the New York Times, publishing the most inflammatory of articles based largely on unreliable Ukrainian officials and on the U.S. State Department which was a principal instigator of the Ukraine crisis.
In the recent past, this sort of sloppy American journalism has led to mass slaughters in Iraq – and has contributed to near U.S. wars on Syria and Iran – but now the stakes are much higher. As much fun as it is to heap contempt on a variety of “designated villains,” such as Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad, Ali Khamenei and now Vladimir Putin, this sort of recklessness is careening the world toward a very dangerous moment, conceivably its last.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

 Updated below:

Is the U.S. Withholding Evidence that Ukrainian Troops Shot Down MH17? What Did US Spy Satellites See in Ukraine?

 15
 65  2
 223
buk-missiles-300x225
Russian-made Buk anti-missile battery.
The U.S. media’s Ukraine bias has been obvious, siding with the Kiev regime and bashing ethnic Russian rebels and Russia’s President Putin. But now – with the scramble to blame Putin for the Malaysia Airlines shoot-down – the shoddy journalism has grown truly dangerous.
In the heat of the U.S. media’s latest war hysteria – rushing to pin blame for the crash of a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet on Russia’s President Vladimir Putin – there is the same absence of professional skepticism that has marked similar stampedes on Iraq, Syria and elsewhere – with key questions not being asked or answered.
The dog-not-barking question on the catastrophe over Ukraine is: what did the U.S. surveillance satellite imagery show? It’s hard to believe that – with the attention that U.S. intelligence has concentrated on eastern Ukraine for the past half year that the alleged trucking of several large Buk anti-aircraft missile systems from Russia to Ukraine and then back to Russia didn’t show up somewhere.
Yes, there are limitations to what U.S. spy satellites can see. But the Buk missiles are about 16 feet long and they are usually mounted on trucks or tanks. Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 also went down during the afternoon, not at night, meaning the missile battery was not concealed by darkness.
So why hasn’t this question of U.S. spy-in-the-sky photos – and what they reveal – been pressed by the major U.S. news media? How can the Washington Post run front-page stories, such as the one on Sunday with the definitive title “U.S. official: Russia gave systems,” without demanding from these U.S. officials details about what the U.S. satellite images disclose?
Instead, the Post’s Michael Birnbaum and Karen DeYoung wrote from Kiev: “The United States has confirmed that Russia supplied sophisticated missile launchers to separatists in eastern Ukraine and that attempts were made to move them back across the Russian border after the Thursday shoot-down of a Malaysian jetliner, a U.S. official said Saturday.
“‘We do believe they were trying to move back into Russia at least three Buk [missile launch] systems,’ the official said. U.S. intelligence was ‘starting to get indications … a little more than a week ago’ that the Russian launchers had been moved into Ukraine, said the official” whose identity was withheld by the Post so the official would discuss intelligence matters.
But catch the curious vagueness of the official’s wording: “we do believe”; “starting to get indications.” Are we supposed to believe – and perhaps more relevant, do the Washington Post writers actually believe – that the U.S. government with the world’s premier intelligence services can’t track three lumbering trucks each carrying large mid-range missiles?
What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.
The source said CIA analysts were still not ruling out the possibility that the troops were actually eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms but the initial assessment was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers. There also was the suggestion that the soldiers involved were undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site, the source said.
Instead of pressing for these kinds of details, the U.S. mainstream press has simply passed on the propaganda coming from the Ukrainian government and the U.S. State Department, including hyping the fact that the Buk system is “Russian-made,” a rather meaningless fact that gets endlessly repeated.
However, to use the “Russian-made” point to suggest that the Russians must have been involved in the shoot-down is misleading at best and clearly designed to influence ill-informed Americans. As the Post and other news outlets surely know, the Ukrainian military also operates Russian-made military systems, including Buk anti-aircraft batteries, so the manufacturing origin has no probative value here.
Relying on the Ukraine Regime
Much of the rest of the known case against Russia comes from claims made by the Ukrainian regime, which emerged from the unconstitutional coup d’etat against elected President Viktor Yanukovych on Feb. 22. His overthrow followed months of mass protests, but the actual coup was spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias that overran government buildings and forced Yanukovych’s officials to flee.
In recognition of the key role played by the neo-Nazis, who are ideological descendants of Ukrainian militias that collaborated with the Nazi SS in World War II, the new regime gave these far-right nationalists control of several ministries, including the office of national security which is under the command of longtime neo-Nazi activist Andriy Parubiy.[See Consortiumnews.com’s “Ukraine, Through the US Looking Glass.”]
It was this same Parubiy whom the Post writers turned to seeking more information condemning the eastern Ukrainian rebels and the Russians regarding the Malaysia Airlines catastrophe. Parubiy accused the rebels in the vicinity of the crash site of destroying evidence and conducting a cover-up, another theme that resonated through the MSM.
Without bothering to inform readers of Parubiy’s unsavory neo-Nazi background, the Post quoted him as a reliable witness declaring: “It will be hard to conduct a full investigation with some of the objects being taken away, but we will do our best.”
In contrast to Parubiy’s assurances, the Kiev regime actually has a terrible record of telling the truth or pursuing serious investigations of human rights crimes. Still left open are questions about the identity of snipers who on Feb. 20 fired on both police and protesters at the Maidan, touching off the violent escalation that led to Yanukovych’s ouster. Also, the Kiev regime has failed to ascertain the facts about the death-by-fire of scores of ethnic Russians in the Trade Union Building in Odessa on May 2. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Burning Ukraine’s Protesters Alive.”]
The Kiev regime also duped the New York Times (and apparently the U.S. State Department) when it disseminated photos that supposedly showed Russian military personnel inside Russia and then later inside Ukraine. After the State Department endorsed the “evidence,” the Times led its newspaper with this story on April 21, but it turned out that one of the key photos supposedly shot in Russia was actually taken in Ukraine, destroying the premise of the story. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Retracts Ukraine Photo Scoop.”]
But here we are yet again with the MSM relying on unverified claims being made by the Kiev regime about something as sensitive as whether Russia provided sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles – capable of shooting down high-flying civilian aircraft – to poorly trained eastern Ukrainian rebels.
This charge is so serious that it could propel the world into a second Cold War and conceivably – if there are more such miscalculations – into a nuclear confrontation. These moments call for the utmost in journalistic professionalism, especially skepticism toward propaganda from biased parties.
Yet, what Americans have seen again is the major U.S. news outlets, led by the Washington Post and the New York Times, publishing the most inflammatory of articles based largely on unreliable Ukrainian officials and on the U.S. State Department which was a principal instigator of the Ukraine crisis.
In the recent past, this sort of sloppy American journalism has led to mass slaughters in Iraq – and has contributed to near U.S. wars on Syria and Iran – but now the stakes are much higher. As much fun as it is to heap contempt on a variety of “designated villains,” such as Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad, Ali Khamenei and now Vladimir Putin, this sort of recklessness is careening the world toward a very dangerous moment, conceivably its last.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.

No comments:

Post a Comment