in ,

Why Kiev is to blame for MH-17 tragedy

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

The conclusions of the Dutch led investigation into the downing of MH-17 near Donetsk should surprise no one. The investigation set itself up to be incomplete from the onset by refusing to examine evidence that the Russian government, BUK-missile manufacturer Almaz-Antey, and apparently even the US government, were willing to provide.

At the same time the investigators relied on information provided by Kiev, including hazy and rather meaningless pictures from social media websites.

This is the equivalent of someone wanting an objective portrait of Japanese political and social affairs trusting North Korean television to provide accurate reportage on the subject. 

Not since George W. Bush deceived people into thinking Iraq was linked to the 9/11 atrocity, have crashed jetliners been used so unconscionably as fodder in political charades.

But there are two bigger elephants in the room.

First of all and most tragically, the investigators neglected to make enquires as to why a passenger jetliner was allowed to fly over a dangerous war zone. Anyone in 2014 with half a brain and a smartphone with a news-app knew that a bloody war was raging in Donbass.


The fact that the people of Donbass democratically declared independence and Kiev unilaterally declared the war doesn’t even enter into this. It was a zone of violence where missiles of many varieties had been regularly fired.

The proximate reason the plane was allowed to fly over the area is because the pathologically neurotic, devious and dishonest regime in Kiev refused to admit there was a war there.  Instead it spoke to the world of an ‘anti-terrorist operation’ in spite of the fact that terrorism is actually a tactic Kiev employes to try to subdue and break Donbass This has included the bombing of schools and homes, and the document mistreatment of prisoners and even children, including cases of child rape. This latter was brought to light by a member of the Ukrainian Rada (parliament), who is a supporter of the war.

The fact the pathologically dishonest regime in Kiev could pretend Donbass was a safe place to fly planes over is the equivalent of President Assad hosting an international hot air balloon festival over Raqqa.

So whilst the proximate fault lies at the hands of Kiev, the overriding fault lies with the Dutch, Malaysian and European authorities, who went along with the lies and put the lives of innocent people in the hands of a country run by mad men and women.

So-called responsible nations acted in an irresponsible way. They parachuted their citizens into an active volcano because Ukraine’s President Poroshenko acted like a deaf, dumb and blind man with no expertise in geology who claimed a volcano was really just an insignificant rock formation.

In tort law, some courts apply a test called the ‘last clear chance’ doctrine. This doctrine states that even when someone has committed an act of negligence, the plaintiff can still be held liable if he or she had the last clear chance to avoid a harmful act. In this case whilst those who shot down the plane are the guilty party, there exists a contributing negligent act by those who allowed the plane to fly there in the first place.

The second elephant in the room is that the investigative team has not actually blamed the Russian Federation at all. They are implied a vague guilt by a fake association scenario.  The media is full of this, but the team itself has not blamed Russia. Here’s why.  The Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples Republics are not part of the Russian Federation, their soldiers are not soldiers of the Russian army, their missiles are not missiles of the Russian army, and unlike the regime in Kiev, they do not have an air force.

Putting aside the fact that the plane was more likely shot down by Kiev’s military than by those of the Donbass republics, Russia does not factor into the matter as the Russian state’s involvement in Donbass has been limited to the role of peacekeeper and aid supplier.

Many in Russia wish this was not so. Many want Russia to aid militarily the young republics against Kiev in a war that would be quickly and easily won by Russia.

I’ve explained previously why Putin has taken such a moderate position on this.

The only other thing worth commenting on is a statement that the missile launcher arrived in Donbass from across the Russian border.

Again there is no solid evidence of this, whilst it appears to be a fact that the particular missile in question has long been decommissioned by the Russian military.

The report was something of a farce, but the negligence of those who allow the plane to fly over a war zone is tragic.

This could have been avoided, MH-17’s route could have been changed. Is a desire not to question the motives of a failed regime in Kiev really more important than protecting civilians from a war in which they had no involvement?

Well like the Dutch report itself, I’ll leave it to you to assign the blame. 


The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

What do you think?

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Reasons the West fears RT

Here is what the King of Jordan had to say about ISIS