Will MH 17 be our 9/11? (10) Should there be an alternative tribunal?

After the Russian veto in the Security Council against the proposal of the group of four (Kiev, Netherlands, Belgium and Australia, plus Malaysia which submitted it) to establish a tribunal to identify and prosecute the guilty of the downing of MH17, the Dutch media extolled the ‘isolation of Russia’. China abstained! But the Chinese afterwards indicated they shared the Russian position, and had advocated from the start an independent investigation by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

At their first press conference the Russians made public radar data about a second plane; the West, on the basis of social media, pointed at ‘Putin’. So best to stick to the first option for the moment. The Ukrainian fighter pilot who on his return spoke of ‘the wrong plane’ may have mistaken the Malaysian for a Russian plane—the red and blue striping is somewhat similar, although on a photo clearly different.

However, we are talking about a jet fighter which begins an attack at a distance of several kilometers; according to the latest, detailed information from Russian sources, wing missiles of Israeli make.

However, the ‘investigation’ in the Netherlands that is supposed to separate fact from fiction appears to have other concerns. On the 11th of August the investigating team suddenly made it known that ‘fragments of a Russian-manufactured missile system’ had been found at the crash site. The entire world recycled this information, but when pressed by Russia Today the team backtracked again, ‘nothing was certain’, etc. Why publish it then in the first place? Are we to put our trust in people who play this sort of games?

The Russian manufacturer of Buk missiles, Almaz-Antey, some time ago declared already that IF the plane would have been downed by a Buk, the damage suggests it can only have been the older M1 version that is still in use in Ukraine and other former Soviet (bloc) countries, but no longer in Russia.

That is again not relevant for the media in the West, because what can trump the release of a detail (‘Russian-manufactured’) and so remind the whole world that the suspect is ‘Putin’.

Ye the most important reason why the ‘Putin theory’ remains doubtful is that IF a Buk would have been fired that had been supplied by Russia to the rebels, or was captured by them from Kiev forces, we would be treated to a daily menu of satellite, radar and other information that the US and NATO have at their disposal?

So, not ‘have undoubtedly at their disposal’, they got them!

On 9 September 2014 the German federal government replied to questions of the one opposition party still active in the country, Die Linke, on this issue (document 18/2521 Deutscher Bundestag).

In reply to question 10, which satellite information of Russian and American origin does the federal government have in its possession, the answer is that the Russians have published that information, but that it cannot be confirmed and that no further information can be supplied because that would jeopardise collaboration with allied intelligence services and that comes under an obligation of secrecy. So we know, but we won’t tell you.

Question 12, Is there information from AWACS radar planes at the relevant date? Reply, yes.

Question 14, Have these planes picked up any radar signals pointing to anti-aircraft, air-to-air or other missiles that may have hit MH17? Yes, a non-identified radar signal and a signal of an anti-aircraft missile of the type SA-3.

As ‘Anoniem’ puts it in his poignant comment on an earlier blog discussing MH17 of 26 June 2015, the unidentified radar signal refers to a military plane without a transponder, and a Buk is a missile of type SA-11, so this was a different one.

So in brief, the German government in reply to questions in the Bundestag gives an answer that corresponds most obviously to the theory of a jet attack. And that on the basis of available data which however remain behind closed doors.

So now we wait for ‘the investigation’. Signs and hints are that we should not expect too much. Maybe it is time to begin preparations for an alternative tribunal.

Kees van der Pijl

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie posten