On Thursday, Malaysia Airlines flight MH 17 was destroyed by internal malfunction, bomb in the luggage compartment, or surface-to-air missile. For the moment, virtually everyone agrees that the crash was caused by a surface-to-air missile and most agree that the missile had to be a “Buk” SAM built by Russia.
Later that Thursday, Hillary Clinton was interviewed by Charlie Rose and spoke about Flight MH17. She referenced evidence that was already available that suggested that the “Russian insurgents” (Ukraine rebels) with the aid of the Russian government–were probably responsible for the destruction of Flight MH17.
For now, that’s a conclusion I reject (see my previous article Who Destroyed Malaysia Flight 17?) as unreasonable. My confidence in my own conclusion (that the rebels could probably not have caused the crash) is bolstered by the fact that Hillary disagrees with me.
As you’ll see below, Hillary says that if she were leading the investigation into the crash, her first questions would be who had the “equipment” and who had the expertise to destroy Flight MH 17. She concludes that only the “Russian insurgents” and/or the Russia government could have had the necessary equipment and expertise.
Hillary doesn’t offer an explanation as to why the “Russian insurgents” and/or Russian government would want to blast a commercial airliner out of the sky. She simply infers that because “Russian insurgents” and/or the Russian government could have destroyed Flight MH 17, they must be the culprits.
I hear Hillary’s analysis as a biased attempt to blame the Russians, no matter what.
First, it remains unclear whether the “Russian insurgents” in the Ukraine even had a Buk surface-to-air weapons system. As I pointed out in my earlier article, such “rebels” are typically guerrilla soldiers who usually fight with only weapons that they can hold in their hands or pack on a mule–not weighty and sophisticated weapons systems like the Buk.
I also pointed out that the Buk missile system included two vehicles: 1) a tank-like weapons launch vehicle; and 2) a radar vehicle for tracking the target. Silly me. Apparently, I was wrong. According to the following graphic from USA Today, the Buk weapons system consists of three vehicles: 1) launcher; 2) radar; and 3) command and control:
And the Buk weapons system apparently consists of three vehicles of similar proportions. They can’t be particularly quiet.
How could Ukrainian rebels hide all three of these vehicles? Wasn’t there at least one person in the eastern Ukraine who remained sufficiently loyal to the Ukrainian government who’d call the government and say, “You won’t believe what I just saw”?
Also, the eastern Ukraine rebellion is only about six months old. I’ll bet that the average rebel has been officially linked to the rebellion for about 90 days. Do you suppose that these rebels could recruit and train personnel to operate a Buk weapons system in less than three or even six months?
Plus, whenever any “great power” subsidizes rebels in some foreign country (as the US supported the Afghan rebels fighting the Soviet Union in the 1980s), it does so by providing firearms, Stinger missiles, medical care, etc. These relatively small weapons etc. can be smuggled into a foreign nation in ways that leave the source untraceable. Could Russia dare to hope that they could “smuggle” a three-vehicle, Buk weapons system into the Ukraine and never be exposed?
Clearly, if the Ukrainian rebels do have a Buk surface-to-air weapons system, they got it from Russia. But do the rebels have such a system?
I don’t think so.
More, could Russia move a Buk weapons system across the border with the Ukraine without being accused of an outright invasion? It’s one thing to smuggle crates of Kalashnikovs across the border in the dark. It’s another thing entirely to drive a Buk weapon systems into Ukraine. Movement of three tank-sized vehicles can’t be easily concealed. It’s highly unlikely that a Buk weapons system could be driven into Ukraine except under the control and operation of Russian soldiers. Three tank-sized military vehicles entering Ukraine under the control of Russian soldiers is not a simple expression of support for Ukrainian rebels. It’s a Russian military invasion of the Ukraine.
Does anyone believe that Putin has ordered a Buk weapons system into Ukraine and thereby risked being accused of an actual invasion?
I could be wrong. But, pending further evidence that proves that the rebels actually had control of a Buk weapons system, I view the current allegations of rebel responsibility as similar to claims in A.D. 2003 that we had to invade Iraq because it had Weapons of Mass Destruction. I know that the claims of Iraqi WMDs were lies. I suspect that the claims of Ukrainian rebels having control of a Buk weapons system are also lies.
Which bring me back to Hillary.*
First, the Russians obviously have Buk missiles. It’s remotely possible that the Ukrainian rebels also have Buk missiles. But they’re not alone. The Ukrainian military reportedly also has scores of Buk missiles. Thus, there are two parties in the region who certainly have Buk missiles: the governments of Russia and Ukraine and a possible (though unlikely) third: Ukraine rebels.
Hillary’s attempt to tie the Flight HM 17 crash to only the “Russian insurgents” or the Russian government as the only possible responsible parties is mistaken. The Ukrainian government is also one of the “usual suspects”. Those who delight in conspiracy theories will inevitably also point to other “usual suspects”: Israel and the gov-co of the United States.
President Obama has said that satellite images indicate that a surface-to-air missile was fired from “insurgent-controlled territory” in Eastern Ukraine. That territory is reportedly remote. Instead of calling that territory “insurgent controlled,” it would probably be more accurate to describe that territory as “uncontrolled” by government or rebels. Anyone could be in that territory who had nerve enough to go. Anyone could’ve fired a missile from within that uncontrolled territory.
But even if the government of Russia and/or the “Russian insurgents” in Ukraine were the only entities technically capable of firing a Buk missile at Flight MH 17, we’re still with the question of Why? What’s their motive to down a commercial airliner? Where’s the payoff for the rebels or the Russian government? How could they have imagined that they’d come out ahead if they shot down a foreign, commercial jetliner full of innocent civilians?
There’s already evidence that the Russian stock market suffered a significant downturn after Flight MH17 crashed. That decline might’ve been anticipated and therefore would’ve tended to prevent Russia from shooting down a commercial aircraft.
I can’t imagine any possible gain for the rebels or for Russia. If there’s no gain, there are only two remaining explanations: 1) the rebels shot down Flight MH 17 by mistake; or, 2) the rebels didn’t shot it down and are being blamed by mistake.
Did the rebels and/or Russia mistake the Malaysia jetliner at 33,000 feet for Ukraine government warplane? It’s not impossible, but I doubt it. Did Russia hand over a Buk weapons system to a bunch of rebel cowboys who’d shoot first and ask questions later? It’s possible, but I doubt it.
I’m unable to see a credible motive for the rebels and/or Russia to shoot down Flight HM 17.
However, although Hillary does not say, she at least implies a reason for the United States to down Flight MH 17 as a “false flag” event intended to cast blame on the Russians. Hillary points out that just a day or two earlier, President Obama announced a new round of economic sanctions to be imposed on Russia. President Obama previously tried to recruit European support for those sanctions, but the European nations refused to follow Obama. As I pointed out in my earlier post “US Imposes Unilateral Sanctions on Russia,” US unilateral sanctions are evidence of waning US power. If Obama is forced to act alone, it’s evidence that Europe no longer follows or is subservient to the US gov-co. That’s an important defeat for the US gov-co and a correlative victory for Russia.
If so, it would follow that the US gov-co is motivated to somehow force the EU backed into “line”. Following the example of 9/11 (which plunged the US into a damnable police state), the US could conceivably shoot down Flight MH17, blame the Russians and scare the EU back into dependence upon, and subservience to, the US gov-co. Of course, I’m not suggesting that dropping just one plane out of the sky and killing just 298 people has the same emotional impact of dropping four planes and four buildings and killing over 3,000. 9/11 is admittedly a tough act to follow. Still, these two conspiracy theories have a lot in common.
Properly promoted as a false flag operation intended to discredit Russia, the destruction of Flight MH17 might drive a wedge between Russia and the EU and force the EU to regain its subservience to the US.
I agree with any who observe that this is a pretty flimsy theory because I don’t believe that Europe will be dumb enough to fall for such a trap. Still, “desperate times” not only “call for desperate measures”–they also justify gross stupidity.
If downing Flight MH17 as an attempt to drive the EU back to the US is a dumb conspiracy theory, it’s still a better explanation than any I can yet imagine for Russia or the Ukraine rebels shooting a commercial jetliner and killing almost 300 innocent civilians.
I’m not saying that the United States government caused the destruction of Flight MH17.
I am saying that, as conspiracy theories go, the US appears to have had far more motive to stage a false flag shoot-down of MH17 and blame Russia, than Russia and/or the Ukraine rebels had to do so.
Here’s Hillary’s interview on Charlie Rose. Within just hours of the MH17 shoot-down, Hillary is pushing to pin the tail on the Russians. I’m reminded of Colin Powell bringing out vials of “yellow cake” uranium allegedly shipped to Iraq to make nuclear WMDs.
Watch Hillary closely from about 45 to 55 seconds into the video. Does she look like she’s telling the truth?
* Incidentally, Hillary strikes me as the perfect woman for Bill Clinton. They were truly “made for each other”–although not necessary made in Heaven.
I expect Bill and Hillary to spend their eternity sealed in a hole about the size of a coffin in the rocks of Hell. Rough sides. Hot rock. Just enough space for one. Inhabited by two. Face to face, back to back, whatever. Fighting, struggling, kicking, swearing, screaming. Unable to ever love or ever escape. But together. Always. Forever.