MH17 Wreckage in E Ukraine |
If it is indeed a given; that
truth is always the first casualty of war, then what real hope is there that
the grieving relatives of the 298 innocent victims who died on Malaysian Flight
MH17 will ever find the answers to all of the various questions that they have
undoubtedly asked themselves since the aircraft was brought down from the skies
over Eastern Ukraine on Thursday 17th July 2014.
Regardless of the many competing
theories surrounding the shooting down of MH17, the exact who, where, what and
why of the incident, there is only one incontrovertible truth that no-one can
really argue with; that 298 completely innocent international air travellers
are now dead, because of someone else's actions. Quite whether that particular
person's actions were deliberately malicious, criminally incompetent, or just
plain unlucky we'll have to wait and see, but in any event, it will still not
change the fact that 298 mothers and daughters, fathers and sons, now lie dead
because of someone else's bloody internal conflict.
One suspects of course that most
rational independent observers have already made up their own minds about what
exactly happened to MH17 and why? Discounting the myriad of often utterly
facile, ludicrous and sometimes laughable conspiracy theories, put about by
people ranging from complete lunatics to the most avid pro-Russian apologists,
the likelihood is that the aircraft was indeed shot down by pro-Russian
separatists who mistakenly believed that MH17 was in fact a Ukrainian military
aircraft passing overhead and was therefore in their eyes a legitimate target
for their weapons.
Subsequently deleted and then
later denied communications between Ukrainian separatists and their political
handlers have made plain that it was indeed a separatist military unit that had
shot down MH17, albeit mistakenly, using Russian built SA11 surface-to-air
missiles, otherwise known as BUKs. However, rather than admit their terrible
mistake immediately; and announce to the international community that they were
in fact responsible for such a heinous accident, they chose instead to lie, to
misrepresent, to obfuscate; and as a result, heaped even greater levels of
personal anguish onto the relatives of those innocents who had died in the
tragedy.
And even then, local separatist
militias were not done exploiting the tragic deaths of the 298 passengers that
they had inadvertently killed. Not content with having caused these unnecessary
deaths, lied about the circumstances of the crash, the separatists then set
about deliberately obscuring the details of the crash site itself, firstly by
preventing unfettered international access, secondly by robbing some of the
dead of their money and valuables; and thirdly by interfering with vital
forensic evidence that was located at the aircraft's impact site. After all,
who could have forgotten the sight of separatist militiamen handling the
possessions of the dead, whether it was a cuddly toy, or a gold wedding ring?
Who could explain the decision to use heavy equipment to move parts of the
doomed planes wreckage around or from the site, or use heavy cutting gear to
slice open sections of the already damaged fuselage?
Alexander Borodai |
Just who was it that allowed
other separatist fighters and local villagers to go wandering aimlessly
through, what was after all a major crime scene? Who was it that prevented
foreign observers from fully accessing the site in the immediate aftermath of
the crash? Whose actions prevented the international community from sending in
the sorts of crash investigators who would normally attend such an awful
tragedy? Who was it that claimed to have recovered nearly all of the 298
victims, when in fact a full 30% of the passengers bodies still remain
unclaimed or undiscovered in the Ukrainian countryside to this day? Who was it
that claimed that MH17 was nothing more than a sham, an aeroplane full of
corpses deliberately blown up in mid air by the Western powers, in order to
discredit the separatist cause? The authorities in Kiev didn't and as they
don't have any form of control over that area of the country, how exactly can
they be held responsible for anything that happens there, if it's the like of
Mr Borodai or his henchman "Grumpy" who happen to control the very ground
that the plane's wreckage currently sits on?
The likely reality of this
tragedy, the truth if you will, is almost certainly that MH17 was shot down by
Ukrainian separatist rebels, using BUK surface-to-air missiles that they had
been given by elements within the Russian state, who were generally sympathetic
to the separatist cause; and who have their own interests in seeing that
particular cause succeed. That is not to say that MH17 was shot down by the
Russians, or indeed by any of their active service personnel, although it does
seem fairly likely that whoever did fire the missile must have received some
form of basic training with the weapon system that one imagines must be
associated with the Russian Federation, either with or without the express
permission of the Kremlin. Either way, in most people's minds surely this would
be like giving a loaded handgun to a five-year-old and not expecting a tragic
accident to occur. In other words, it would be criminal negligence of the
highest order for someone to have authorised the transfer of such advanced
weaponry from the Russian state to the separatists; and whoever made that
decision should be made to bear some level of personal responsibility for the
almost inevitably tragic outcome that was flight MH17.
Of course, assorted conspiracy
theorists and pro-Russian supporters argue that the Ukrainian government in
Kiev also have similar BUK surface-to-air missile systems, so it could just as
easily have been one of their units that destroyed MH17, rather than a separatist
battery supplied by the Russians. The problem with such suggestions however are
numerous, not least the fact that the better trained Ukrainian BUK systems
would almost certainly have spotted the difference between a potential enemy
warplane and the sorts of civilian aircraft, which would be criss-crossing
their skies on a regular basis. The Ukrainian units were not thought to be in
the rebel-held area of the country where the missile was initially launched,
whilst the Ukrainian air force would have the sorts of checks and balances
within their command structure designed to virtually eliminate such mistakes
from occurring. Also, just who exactly would these Ukrainian BUK systems be
targeting anyway, as it seems highly unlikely that the separatists have any sort
of air force to speak of, let alone one that could be regarded as a credible
threat?
For their part, the pro-Russian
separatists and some western commentators have argued that the Ukrainian
military has previous form when it comes to accidentally targeting and
destroying civilian aircraft, citing the case of Siberian Airlines Flight 1812,
which was shot down by a Ukrainian S200 missile in the region of Crimea in
October 2001. Although widely accepted as nothing more than a tragic accident,
the missile having failed to self-destruct after missing its drone target, to
this day the Ukrainian military still refuse to fully accept that Flight 1812
was downed by one of their missiles, even though compensation has been paid to
relatives of the dead in the meantime. It is worth pointing out though that the
circumstances of this particular incident were fairly unique, in that the
presence of the Black Sea, a significant body of water, was said to have been a
contributing factor in the tragedy; as was the fact that Flight 1812 had
apparently fallen victim to a Ukrainian "live-fire" exercise that
just happened to go tragically awry; and that the incident took place less than
a month after the 9/11 attack on the United States.
President Obama |
Contrast those particular
circumstances with the ones surrounding the downing of Flight MH17; and the
only common denominator would appear to be the country of Ukraine itself. As
far as anyone can tell thus far, the only parties conducting
"live-fire" operations against aircraft, appear to be either the
Ukrainian separatists, or their Russian sponsors, as has been seen through the
targeting and shooting down of several Ukrainian fighters and transport
aircraft, both before and after the destruction of MH17. For anyone to suggest
that the Ukrainian authorities would specifically target a civilian aircraft,
or indeed the Presidential aircraft of Vladimir Putin, in the full glare of
international observance is quite simply absurd. And just because America and
her allies happen to be on the opposite side of the argument over Ukraine, it
doesn't necessarily make them liars when it comes to identifying who was
actually responsible for the shooting down of MH17 and the deaths of its 298
passengers.
It wasn't the United States that
steadfastly refused to use its influence to bring about an early on-site
investigation of the plane's wreckage. It hasn't been the United States that
has continued to arm the separatists, thereby ensuring that Eastern Ukraine has
remained in a state of uncertain military flux. It's not the US and its allies
that have prevaricated over the rights, wrongs and wherefores of the incident;
or the ones who have sought to create a series of highly illusory, but
completely unlikely scenarios that might explain the possible reasons for
Flight MH17's complete and utter destruction in the skies over Ukraine. No,
there is only one nation that has sought to prevaricate, to obfuscate, to
misrepresent, to delay; and that country is Vladimir Putin's Russia.
To be fair however, no-one in the
international community; and I mean NO-ONE has come out of the current
situation very well. Ten days on and still the crash site in Eastern Ukraine
remains pretty much as it was within hours of the disaster, save for some
rudimentary body recoveries and wreck investigations that have been carried out
in a highly piecemeal fashion. Anything up to one hundred bodies could still
remain undiscovered in the fields surrounding the crash site, not because
no-one cares, but because the separatist militias still hold sway in the area;
and therefore control all means of access for international investigators,
which they often choose to give or withhold purely on a personal whim.
But then, what would one expect
from what is after all a rag-tag collection of ne'er-do-wells, the indigent,
strident nationalists, indoctrinated political disciples, the paid mercenaries,
all of whom have their own issues with the elected authorities in Kiev; and who
having been given access to heavy weaponry, now have permission to use them as
they will. Hardly surprising then that they are busily carving out their own
little personal fiefdom, courtesy of their Russian and Ukrainian paymasters, or
even that they demand that the international community pay homage to their new
found prestige, as the price for recovering passengers bodies; or even
discovering what it was that caused the plane to crash in the first place.
Although most of the pro-Russian
separatists have undoubtedly been exposed for what they are, a bunch of
ill-disciplined drunkards and common brigands, it would probably be a mistake
to believe that they are unmanageable, or directionless, as that is clearly not
the case. Behind the ranks of these heavily armed, largely uninformed and
generally obedient gunmen, are the plotters, the financiers, the strategists,
most of whom are ethnic Russians, who along with their immense hatred of the
west, also bring with them money, military experience, modern weaponry and
political connections. Take for example the likes of Aleksander
Borodai, Vladimir Antyufeyev and Igor Strelkov, all of whom hold positions of
authority within the insurgency, but at the same time being supported by the
likes of Donetsk native Alexander Khodakovsky, although it is increasingly
rumoured that such Ukrainian born separatists are slowly, but steadily being
usurped by their Russian born comrades in the upper echelons of the insurgents
makeshift command structure.
President Putin |
The Russian President, Vladimir
Putin, who having worked so hard to build himself an image of international
statemanship, has now begun to show his true colours, as little more than a
modern day version of Stalin, the vicious 20th century tyrant that Mr Putin is
reported to admire; and in whose historical shadow he seems destined to remain.
Although no-one would doubt Russia's right to its own national security and
sense of well-being within its traditional spheres of influence, ostensibly
Eastern Europe and Asia, the world has moved on from the practices of the
1940's and 1950's, when larger, more powerful states could simply annexe,
invade and then absorb their smaller, weaker neighbours. The leaders of most
modern nation states have learned that lesson, but Mr Putin clearly has not it
seems.
In Crimea, Mr Putin dishonestly
claimed that the ethnic Russian majority were in such danger from the Ukrainian
minority that he was forced to act in their defence, yet he chose to employ
insurgents and unmarked Russian forces to first destabilise and then seize the
region. He has subsequently claimed that a hastily arranged plebiscite proved
that the majority of the Crimean population wanted to formally rejoin Mother
Russia, rather than remain as part of modern day Ukraine; and yet all reports
thus far indicate that only around 30% of the Crimean population voted in the
plebiscite at all; and even then only half of them voted for rejoining Russia
proper, which only equates to around 15% of the total population.
Being the opportunist that he is,
the general inaction of the western powers, especially those in the European
Union, to Mr Putin's illegal land grab in Crimea, has simply encouraged the
Russian President to go further, resulting in his actions in Eastern Ukraine,
which brings us back to the subject of the destruction of Malaysian Airlines
Flight MH17. Had the West been more strident in its opposition to Mr Putin's
actions in Crimea, would the insurgency in Eastern Ukraine have begun at all?
Would the separatists have been given, or seized the surface-to-air missile
system that killed nearly 300 innocent passengers as they passed over Ukraine?
Would Presidents Putin's international reputation still be intact amongst other
world leaders had he not pursued his current course of action? Would Russia
today still be heading towards being widely regarded as a international pariah
state, a sponsor of terrorist organisations? Would the Russian economy be
thriving, or as it is now threatening to "tank"? Would Russia's
millions of citizens be better off now without Mr Putin's unwarranted
interventions in his neighbours affairs, or is Russia much better off having
Crimea back in the mother country's fold, even though only 15% of the people
living there actually voted for that?
On the other side of the world,
the American presidency of Barak Obama, has been seen to paying the price of
his administration's retreat from driving world events, to simply observing and
commenting on them, becoming a reactive President rather than proactive one.
Even today, on Monday 28th July 2014, there has been a significant amount of
public comment regarding Mr Obama's golf games, along with his
post-presidential intentions, despite the fact that he is only 18 months or so
into his second term.
For many, it is Mr Obama's
apparent disconnect with wider world affairs that has caused many of the crises
that are now threatening to engulf his presidency, including the problems of
Ukraine, the Middle East, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and the wider Pacific region.
Despite being particularly active in terms of driving forward his various
domestic policies, Mr Obama's apparent reluctance to "wave a big
stick" in terms of American foreign policy is seen by some critics as a
personal weakness of the president; and therefore damaging to Americas wider
interests overseas. It is a generally well established fact that the Obama
administration always had it in mind to undertake a foreign policy
"pivot", concentrating American interests more towards the Pacific,
in order to address and confront the rise of China, whilst at the same time
reducing its involvement in Europe, where the European Union was intended to
hold sway on the continent; and contain any danger from a increasingly powerful
and wealthy Russia, a role that they have singularly failed to fulfil.
At the same time that Mr Putin's
Russia has become more assertive, due in part to Mr Putin's own nationalistic
leadership and the large-scale development of the country's oil and gas
reserves, which will undoubtedly help fund a complete rebuilding of Russia's
ageing military resources, virtually all of Europe's national armies are being
reduced due to budgetary constraints within the various member states,
including France and the UK. From an American perspective the European over
reliance on US military power is both unfair and unreasonable, as it calls for the
USA to be confronting several potential enemies all at the same time; and is
placing an increasing strain on the American taxpayer and the US defence
budget. Despite being content to play the part of "back-stop" in the
event that a major European military conflict were to arise, for the most part,
American policy on Europe seems to have been to force the EU to step up to its
own security responsibilities with regard to Russian involvement in
neighbouring states, a strategy that has thus far failed to work
effectively.
The EU's Herman Van Rompuy |
Clearly the European Union bears
some level of direct responsibility for Mr Putin's aggressive actions in
Eastern Europe, as it was thought to have been the EU's & NATO's
thoughtless intrusion into Russia's traditional backyard that has encouraged Mr
Putin to push back against Western governments in the first place. If the Cold
War was indeed over and Russia no longer represented a danger to western
democracy, then why was there a need or indeed a desire for some former Eastern
Bloc countries to join NATO, which is after all a product of the Cold War?
Stationing NATO controlled weaponry and troops along what was in theory an
obsolete ideological border was always likely to be a bad idea, much more so
when you add in a membership of a highly westernised mutual trading union, such
as the EU. It is perhaps little surprise then that a slowly evolving and
emerging Russia would almost inevitably take offence at the economic, political
and military developments that were taking place on its own national borders.
Despite what its leaders may
choose to believe, the European Union is not the final word in international
trade. Indeed, even some of its own member states, most noticeably the UK,
fully recognise the problems that a fully integrated economic, social and
political customs union can cause for some countries, not least in terms of
national sovereignty and immigration, etc. It was an act of sheer lunacy for
anyone in the EU to assume that a increasingly isolated and nationalistic Russia
would simply accept the idea that a highly westernised and extremely well-armed
customs union was going to push up against their national borders, with all of
the risks that such a move might entail for the current Russian leadership. One
only has to recall the USA's reaction to the prospect of Russian missiles being
stationed on Cuba, or the various communist insurgencies that took place in
Central America a few decades ago, to fully understand why Vladimir Putin is
and was so resistant to the idea of Ukraine becoming yet another EU member
state.
That is not to say that simple
geography should have placed a prohibition on Ukrainian membership of the
European Union, only that Russia should have been consulted and involved in the
process right from the outset. It simply beggars belief that in this day and
age that a purportedly developed and forward thinking political creation like
the EU chose to ignore and overlook the very real concerns of Vladimir Putin's
Russian Federation, especially when it became obvious that he was beginning to
feel "squeezed" through the encroachment of western nations into
Russia's traditional borderlands of Eastern Europe. Better perhaps if the West
had offered the likes of Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Czech Republic and even
Ukraine, a different sort of trade and security relationship, one that didn't
cause Russia to instinctively balk at the prospect. Better perhaps if the
European Union had offered these former Eastern Bloc states some form of
non-aligned associate status that permitted them to look and trade both ways,
both East and West. Perhaps then Crimea would still be part of the Ukraine,
maybe then there would be no insurgency raging in that country, but perhaps
more importantly the 298 passengers from Flight MH17 would still be alive
today?
No comments:
Post a Comment