Anatoly Karlin — A Couple of Things on MH17

I don't wish to draw any conclusions from the recently released report about the shoot down of MH17. First, the report proves no actual evidence but only refers to evidence. That evidence was proved by the Ukrainian government from military and intelligence sources. Secondly, Ukraine was a participant in the investigation even though it was a party involved.

However, Karlin offers a plausible account based on facts that are known and filing in some details. 

An account has to provide a motive. There is no plausible motive for either Ukrainian rebels or Russian personnel deliberately targeting a civilian aircraft.

Now consider the following two facts: 

First, MH17 was diverted to fly over contested airspace.

Second, it is known that MH17 was being trailed by two Ukrainian Su-25′s. (Some conspiracy theories allege that they were actually the ones who shot it down).

An alternate possibility, however, is that the Su-25 escorts and possibly the diversions were an intentional Ukrainian policy to increase the chances of an AA missile fired by an inexperienced rebel crew bringing down a civilian airliner. After drawing out the missiles, the Ukrainian fighters would engage their counter-measures and fly off, while the missiles would autonomously home in on the target with the much bigger radar signature – that is, MH17 itself. The resulting fallout would hopefully pressure Russia into withdrawing support for the rebellion.

Frankly this is the theory I consider most likely because it is more or less the only one that explains all aspects of the case.

It explains why the Americans have no released their intelligence. If it was to show the Su-25′s were directly or almost directly below MH17 then questions would be asked.
It explain why we have not seen a consistent or credible alternate theory from Russia.

Because there is none. While if it where to push this theory it would then have to admit that at the it is to some extent culpable.

And it would also explain the findings of the Dutch report. It might well be just true. But…

Nor would it in any case qualify as an act of terrorism.

It cannot qualify as an act of terrorism because as phone conversations between the rebels in the immediate aftermath prove, and as the US itself has admitted, the shooting down of MH17 if done by the rebels was based on the mistaken impression that it was a legitimate military target.

The Unz Review

A Couple of Things on MH17
Anatoly Karlin

Also

The lawyer for the victims families reminds that Ukraine was responsible for its air space, and it knowingly diverted the aircraft into a conflict zone on its territory.

“Our argument is that the Ukrainian government was completely aware of what happened on the ground, that there was a separatist movement. They obviously knew about the equipment they had. That the equipment could reach higher altitudes, because the government closed the airspace two days before the downing of MH17. It closed the airspace after the level of 6,600 meters which is not enough because given the size of the danger the whole airspace should have been closed,” Elmar Giemulla, the victim’s lawyer and leading expert on air law told RT.

When asked by RT correspondent Paula Slier if Ukraine “could be to blame” for the MH17 tragedy, Giemulla emphasized that “whoever shot or pushed the button of the missile – this is not relevant for my case,” because the aim of the lawsuit is to create a strong precedent in international civil aviation making government responsible for sky safety over its territory, the lawyer said, adding that “of course” the relatives of the victims want to find the responsible party as well.

Giemulla’s comments come the same day as a Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT) report concluded that the Buk missile that was allegedly used by the rebels in Ukraine to take down the Boeing was taken to Ukraine from Russian territory.

RT
‘Ukraine fully responsible for security of its own airspace’ – MH17 victims’ lawyer to RT