Saving
Face
29
July, 2014
The
Americans are finding out the hard way that a fact-free zone is not a
comfortable place to inhabit. The initial knee-jerk allegations,
voiced by Obama, by the screechy UN representative Samantha Power, by
John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and any number of talking heads, were
that the downing of flight MH17 was all Putin's fault. These were
swiftly followed by a complete and utter lack of official evidence of
any Russian involvement but lots of strange, unexplained coincidences
pointing to Ukrainian and American involvement. These were, in turn,
followed by an uncharacteristically frank admission from US
intelligence that there is no proof of Russian involvement. The newly
installed Ukrainian oligarch-turned-president Poroshenko (code-name
“Piglet”) switched from claiming that he had proof of Russian
complicity to being very very quiet. Incompetently concocted fake
“evidence” of this and that continues to appear on social media
sites, only to be swiftly disproved. Once disproved, the fake
evidence vanishes, only to be replaced by more of the same. The
latest fake is of Russian artillery bombardment from across the
border. All of this has added up to quite an awkward situation for
the Americans. Barefaced lying may be fun and profitable, but it does
not provide a solid foundation for foreign policy. Nobody wants to go
down in history for blowing up the world over some fake Youtube
videos.
The
list of questions that demand answers is quite extensive. Why did the
Ukrainians suddenly choose to activate their Buk M1 air defense
system, with several rocket batteries and a radar, in Donetsk region,
on the day of the crash? What was the Ukrainian Sukhoi-25 fighter jet
(attested by numerous eye-witnesses) doing trailing after the Boeing?
Why did Ukrainian air traffic control in Dnepropetrovsk redirect the
flight to fly at a lower altitude and over the war zone? What were
all those foreigners doing in the air traffic control center in
Dnepropetrovsk right after the crash, and what happened to the flight
control records they confiscated? What was the experimental US spy
satellite doing flying over that exact spot at that exact moment? By
the way, was anything interesting happening that day at the American
drone base in Kanatov, in Dnepropetrovsk region, which, incidentally,
is right on the flight path of MH17? (We know that it's active; two
of their drones have already been shot down by the rebels, one of
which landed more or less intact, and the Russians are probably
having fun tinkering with it.)
Some
people are surmising that the crash was a failed false flag attack
orchestrated by the Ukrainians with, at a minimum, American
complicity. The idea, this version goes, was to pin the blame on the
rebels and, by extension, on Russia, in order to escalate the
conflict. This version of events may sound plausible to some people,
because false flag operations are part of the standard American
playbook. After all, there was that chemical attack in Syria which
almost led to a US bombing campaign. The chemical attack was blamed
on the Assad regime, but then it turned out to have been a false
flag: it was made by the Syrian rebels, on Syrian rebels, with help
from Saudi Arabia, in order to smear Assad and escalate the conflict.
Russia was able to deescalate the conflict by persuading Assad to
give up his chemical weapons stockpile. (It didn't take much
convincing, because Assad no doubt realized that this stockpile was
more of a liability than an asset.) The Americans were livid; they
had been itching to bomb Syria. Had they done so, the too-evil-for-al
Qaeda “Caliphate” known as ISIS, which recently spilled out of
Syria and rolled right across northern Iraq, would probably be
enthroned in Damascus by now as well.
But
in the case of flight MH17, the false flag theory rests on an
untenable assumption: that the Ukrainians, if tasked with shooting it
down, would in fact succeed in shooting it down. All previous
evidence illustrates that when Ukrainians want to shoot down a plane,
they may succeed in shooting down a nursery school, a maternity
ward, an apartment building full of elderly Ukrainians, but never a
plane. Conversely, if Ukrainians set out to destroy a maternity ward
or a kindergarten (as they are known to sometimes do) odds are that
they will hit a Boeing. They inherited a now rather obsolete Buk M1
air defense system from the USSR, which, in skilled hands, is quite
capable of shooting down a Boeing flying at cruising altitude, but
you'd be wrong to think that they have figured out how it works. They
held exactly one training exercise using this system, in 2001, and
succeeded in... shooting down a Russian civilian airliner! There were
no training exercises in using this system until... it was used to
shoot down MH17! It was used in Georgia during the war of 2008 over
South Ossetia, where it did shoot down four Russian military
aircraft, but there it was commanded by American mercenaries of
Polish descent. Ukrainians excell at robbing, selling out,
dismantling and destroying their own country; but achieving a
specific, precise result as part of a highly coordinated mission? Not
so much. Case in point: some Australian and Dutch troops wanted to go
and maintain security at the crash site, but couldn't, because the
Ukrainians chose the occasion of their arrival to attack some
neighboring towns and villages. You'd think that they would treat the
opportunity to get some NATO boots on the ground as a Godsend, and
act accordingly, but such rational behavior would be, you know,
un-Ukrainian. The proper thing for them to do is to go and strafe
some nearby village, and get themselves ambushed and slaughtered to a
man by an angry babushka with a Kalashnikov.
Once
you discount the theory that the downing of MH17 was a highly
orchestrated false flag operation, everything falls into place. Why
did the Ukrainians deploy their Buk M1 batteries and radar in Donetsk
region, even though there was no enemy for them to shoot at? Because
they are idiots. Why was there a Ukrainian Sukhoi 25 jet fighter in
the air there? Trailing behind passenger jets and using them as human
shields is standard Ukrainian practice. Why did that fighter zoom up
into the Boeing's flight corridor and pop up on air traffic control
radar at the exact time the Boeing was shot down? That's a standard
evasive maneuver: the pilot saw a missile being launched, and tried
to get out of its way by aiming up. If he hadn't done that, then the
story would have been that Ukrainians shot down their own jet fighter
as part of a successful (by Ukrainian standards) exercise, held in
the vicinity of an international passenger flight just to spice
things up. Why did Dnepropetrovsk APC redirect the flight over the
war zone and the Buk M1 batteries? Because the Ukrainians had
recently issued an order that closed the airspace over Donetsk, well
below the plane's cruising altitude and away from its flight path,
but perhaps something was lost in translation to Ukraine's
wonderfully precise official language, and so the APC redirected the
flight right over the closed airspace and told it to fly right above
the minimum altitude. Why did the Ukrainians launch the rocket? Well,
that was probably something like what happened in the movie The
Three Stooges in Outer Space.
The stooges find themselves inside a rocket. Moe gets hungry and
pushes a button that he thinks says “LUNCH” except that it says
“LAUNCH.” Hilarity ensues.
If
that is what happened, then that's really embarrassing, not just for
the Ukrainians, for whom embarrassment has become something of a
national sport, but for their self-appointed American minders. What's
making this situation even more difficult is that western news teams,
following in the wake of the investigative teams visiting the crash
site, got a chance to look at, and report on, the carnage and
devastation perpetrated by the Ukrainians against their own people.
Worse yet, the Ukrainian government, so carefully slapped together
out of US State Department-approved dregs of Ukrainian society, has
in the meantime come unstuck. The coalition goverment failed after a
spectacular fistfight on the floor of the Supreme Rada, with the two
rabidly nationalist parties walking out (OK, I won't call them Nazi,
but only today). Prime minister Yatsenyuk (who had been hand-picked
for the job and nicknamed “Yats” by Victoria Nuland of the US
State Department) has resigned. [Update: he changed his mind and
decided to stay: or did his American handlers change his mind for
him?] President Piglet is still there, but it's unclear what it is he
is doing. In fact, it is becoming unclear whether there even is a
Ukrainian government; of late, the officials in Donetsk have been
receiving very strange, barely coherent missives from Kiev, obviously
written in American English and clumsily translated, then signed and
stamped by some Ukrainian monkey to make them look slightly more
legit. If the Ukrainian translators run away too, then the American
minders will be forced to resort to using Google Translate, making it
the world's first experiment in governance through word salad.
The
MH17 disaster and Eastern Ukraine are now front page news across the
entire world. The circumstances of the crash are anything but clear,
but it is clear that they are not what the Americans initially
alleged. This they have already admitted. The Ukrainian government is
in disarray bordering on nonexistence. The Ukrainian military is
either kettled in traps of their own devising and suffering horrific
losses, or blasting away at densely populated districts with heavy
artillery and rocket fire. The Ukrainian economy is in freefall, with
trade links to Russia severed and industry nearing standstill. The
country is bankrupt and at the mercy of the IMF. If you feel that the
several hundred lives lost aboard MH17 are a tragedy, then you should
consider a larger number: 42 million. That's the population of
Ukraine minus Crimea (which will be fine) and that's the number of
lives at risk from civil war and economic collapse.
The
best that the US can do in this situation is to bug out of Ukraine
while continuing to babble incoherently. This shouldn't be hard;
bugging out and babbling incoherently are two things that the
Americans are clearly still very good at; just look at Afghanistan,
Iraq and Libya.
Fact-Free
Zone
29
July, 2014
The
fog of war that has been hovering over eastern Ukraine has now spread
to the shores of the Potomac, and from there has inundated ever pore
of western body politic. The party line is that pro-Russian rebels in
eastern Ukraine have shot down Malaysia Airlines flight MH-17, using
a surface-to-air missile provided by Russia, with Russia's support
and complicity. The response is to push for tougher sanctions against
Russian companies and Mr. Putin's entourage. None of this is based on
fact. To start with, it isn't known that MH-17 was brought down by a
surface-to-air missile; it could have been an air-to-air missile, a
bomb on board, a mechanical failure, or the same (or different)
mysterious force that brought down MH-370 earlier this year.
Mysteries abound, and yet western media knows it's Mr. Putin's fault.
Step
through the looking glass over to Russia, and you hear a completely
different story: the plane was shot down by the Ukrainians in order
to frame the rebels and Russia in an attempt to pull NATO into the
conflict. Here, we have numerous supporting “facts,” at varying
levels of truthiness. But I have no way to independently verify any
of them, and so instead I will organize what has been known into a
pattern, and let you decide for yourself which story (if any) you
should believe.
When
trying to catch a criminal, a standard method is to look at means,
motive and opportunity. Was the criminal physically capable of
committing the act? Did the criminal have a good reason for
committing it? Did the criminal get a chance to do it? One more
criterion is often quite helpful: does the crime fit the
perpetrator's known modus operandi? Let's give this method a try.
Means
Did
the rebels have the means to shoot down the plane? They have no
military aviation and no functioning airport (the one near Donetsk is
out of commission and occupied by Ukrainian troops). They have
shoulder-fired missiles, which can take out helicopters and planes
flying at low altitude, but are useless against airliners flying at
cruising altitude. They also have a “Buk” air defense unit (one
truck's worth of it) which they took from the Ukrainians as a trophy,
but it's said to be non-operational. A rocket from this unit could
have shot down MH-17, but only if it were integrated with a radar
system, which the rebels did not have.
Did
the Ukrainians have the means? They had five “Buk” units active
in the area on that day, integrated with a radar system which was
also active that day. (Deploying an air defense system against an
enemy that does not have any aviation seems a bit strange.) According
to a report from a Spanish air traffic controller who was working in
Kiev (and has since been dismissed, along with other foreign ATCs)
MH-17 was followed by two SU-25 jet fighters. According to a Russian
expert on “Buk” systems, the damage to the fuselage visible on
photographs of the crash site could not have been from a “Buk”
surface-to-air missile, but could have been caused by an air-to-air
missile fired by a SU-25.
Did
the Russians have the means? Of course they did. Never underestimate
the Russians.
Motive
The
rebels had absolutely no reason to want to shoot down that plane.
This leaves open the possibility that they shot it down by mistake,
but that's not a motive, and if that is what happened, then this is
not a crime but an accident, because a crime is an intentional act.
On
the other hand, the Ukrainians had a really good motive for shooting
it down. This part takes a little more explaining.
You
see, the Ukrainians have been doing everything they can to pull
Russia into the conflict, in order to then pull NATO into it as well,
because their chance of victory while acting alone is nil. To this
end, they have been shelling civilian targets relentlessly, causing
many dead and wounded, in the hopes that Russian troops would pour
across the border to defend them. This failed to happen; instead, the
Ukrainians have succeeded in precipitating a refugee crisis that has
produced something like half a million refugees seeking asylum in
Russia. This has had an effect opposite of the intended. Whereas
previously the rebels' recruitment activities were somewhat hampered
by a wait-and-see attitude on the part of the population, now they
have seen all they need to see and are ready to fight. Also, the
Russian population inside Russia itself has found the stories of the
refugees sufficiently compelling to open their wallets, so that now
the rebels are drawing healthy salaries and have good kit and a
steady stream of supplies. They are highly motivated to fight and to
win, with a steady rah-rah of support coming from across the border
in Russia, while the Ukrainian forces they face consist of underfed,
untrained, badly armed recruits being goaded into battle by Right
Sector thugs. Their recent battle plan was to directly attack the
population centers in Donetsk and Lugansk while cutting the rebels
off from the Russian border. One column managed to break through to
the defunct Donetsk airport, where it has been kettled every since
(it is currently trying to break out in the direction of Donetsk).
The troops massed along the Russian border got kettled there and
decimated, with quite a few Ukrainian soldiers walking across the
border sans weapons seeking food, shelter and medical treatment.
So
much for Ukrainian military strategy. But the other thing to note is
that time is not on the Ukrainians' side. First, a bit of background.
Ukraine has always been a rather lopsided country. There are the
Russian provinces in the east, which had coal, industry, good
farmland, and lots of trade with Russia proper. They used to be
Russia proper until Lenin lumped them into Ukraine, in an effort to
improve it. And then there is western Ukraine, which, with the
possible exception of Kiev, could never earn its keep. In terms of
economic and social development, it resembles an African nation.
Since its independence, Ukraine had subsisted through trade with
Russia and through transfer payments from (Russian-speaking)
Ukrainian citizens working in Russia. Because of fighting in the
east, trade with Russia has been disrupted. Ukraine has been cut off
from Russian natural gas supplies due to nonpayment; as a result,
more and more Ukrainian cities no longer supply hot water, and come
winter, there will be no heat. The economy is in freefall. The
Ukrainian government received some funds from the IMF, but these are
being squandered on the failing military campaign. The association
agreement which Ukraine signed with the EU remains a dead letter
because Ukraine does not make anything that the EU wants, and Ukraine
has no money with which to buy anything the EU makes. So much for
Ukrainian economic strategy.
And
so, from the Ukrainian government's perspective, shooting down an
airliner and blaming it on Putin (which is something that western
governments and media are only too happy to do) probably seemed like
a good ploy.
What
about Russia? Well, the Russian government's chief concern is with
avoiding becoming drawn into the conflict. The basic Russian strategy
is, as I put it a couple of months ago, to let Ukraine stew in its
own juices until the meat falls off the bone, and this strategy is
working just fine.
It
is important to draw a difference between the Russian state (Putin,
the Kremlin, etc.) and the Russian people. According to Russian law,
any Russian-speaking person born on the territory of the USSR has an
automatic right to a Russian citizenship, so the people of eastern
Ukraine are by default Russian citizens. It is a fine line between
providing support to your fellow-Russians across the border as a
people and being drawn into an international conflict as a nation,
and the Russian government has been rather careful to preserve this
distinction. Thus, the Russian government was very highly motivated
to prevent this incident.
Opportunity
For
the rebels, the opportunity amounted to looking up and seeing a
plane. If, at that moment, they made the split-second decision to
shoot it down using one of the “Buk” rockets (provided they had
one ready to go) without radar support they could have only fired
that rocket in “pursuit mode,” where the rocket flies to where
the plane is, not to where the plane will be, and it is rather
uncertain whether the rocket would have caught up with the jet before
running out of fuel.
On
the other hand, the Ukrainians gave themselves the opportunity by
having Dnepropetrovsk ATC redirect the flight over the conflict zone,
where they deployed their “Buk” systems.
I
have trouble imagining a scenario in which Russian air defense forces
would have been presented with an opportunity to shoot down MH-17.
MO
Although
some criminals commit just one crime (and sometimes even get away
with it), typically a life of crime follows a pattern. What is the
pattern behind shooting down MH-17? It is to kill civilians for
political gain. What has the Ukrainian government been doing, for
quite some time now, in shelling apartment buildings, schools and
hospitals in the east of the country? Killing civilians, of course.
And why have they been doing it? For a political reason: to attempt
to draw the Russian military into the conflict, in order to then
appeal to NATO for help. This is part of a larger plan on the part of
the US to use Ukraine as a wedge between Russia and the EU, to
deprive the EU of Russian natural gas supplies and make it even more
dependent on the US.
Conclusions
My
effort here is to present you with a better framework for analyzing
these events than you might find elsewhere, but I hope that you
uncover your own “facts” (to the extent that facts can be said to
exist on the internet) and draw your own conclusions.
But
I would like to point out a few things.
First,
I often encounter a certain attitude among Americans. They may
absolutely hate the evil clowns in Washington who are ruining their
lives, but when looking at the world, they suddenly decide that every
other government is equally bad, that theirs is not so bad after all,
and since the Ukrainians are suddenly our friends (or so says John
Kerry) then they are not so bad either. Don't make such assumptions.
Look for evidence. To me it indicates that your government is run by
evil clowns; other governments—not so much.
Second,
citizens of the European Union shouldn't think that it is only the
dark-skinned people in faraway places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya,
Syria and so on that get killed in the various wars instigated by the
US. Continue outsourcing your foreign policy to the evil clowns of
Washington (and the spineless jellies in Brussels) and you too will
get killed.
Lastly,
we already know who the criminals are in this case: they are the
western politicians and journalists. Airliners fall out of the sky
with some regularity. This is tragic, but not unexpected, and is not
necessarily the result of a crime. The real crime is in exploiting
this tragedy in order to smear and insult an entire people. Don't
worry, the people in question are too wise to respond to such
ridiculous provocations. But the reputations of western journalists
who have been covering this tragic event have already gone up in
smoke. All of western media is now about as good as Pravda was back
in the Soviet days—good for wiping your ass with, that is. It's a
sad day for anyone who cares about the truth but can only understand
English.
Posts
