MH17

The Australian
coroner makes a
bizarre ruling.
Why?

Amazingly, 17 months have passed since the crash, and the investigators still can't establish who shot down the plane. Our correspondent digs in to the latest developments

The Victorian (Australia) state coroner Iain West has concluded a 60-minute inquest into the deaths of Australians on board Malaysian Airlines MH17 by issuing a statement of findings contradicting the coroner's own statements, as well as the evidence of reports from the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and courtroom testimony from the senior Australian police officer investigating the MH17 crash.

This article was originally published on 16 December on johnhelmer.net (aka 'Dances with Bears'). This article was republished on 17 December on Russian Insider. Other articles concerning the MH17 cover-up include The little Dutch boy, his finger, and the leak in the dyke story – make that the BUK story (22/12/15), Australian police, Dutch prosecutors break with Dutch Safety Board at first coroner's court inquest on MH17 crash (15/12/15), ...

Australian police examining the evidence
they aren't buying the Dutch government's
version of events

In an 11-page judgement issued on Wednesday morning at the Victorian Coroners Court in Melbourne, West ruled "it was not feasible to conduct a complete autopsy of all deceased", and "in the absence of autopsy there is no other evidence to establish individual causes of death. To attempt to do would be speculative and hence not a basis for making finds of fact."

He then proceeded to endorse the conclusion of the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) that the passengers and crew of MH17 had been killed by the detonation of a "9N314M model warhead carried on the 9M38 series of missiles, as installed on the Buk surface-to-air missile system.

Other scenarios that could have led to the disintegration of the aeroplane were considered, analysed and excluded on the available evidence…I accept and adopt the findings of the Dutch Safety Board."

For details of the DSB report of October 13, the evidence presented, and simulations of missile launches, warhead detonations, and shrapnel impact patterns, read this.

West's ruling contradicts testimony given in his court yesterday by Australian Federal Police Detective Superintendent Andrew Donoghoe. Donoghoe told the court that the DSB finding on the Buk missile was uncertain in the ongoing forensic and criminal investigation.

Donoghoe is the lead Australian investigator in the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) working on the MH17 evidence. "In order to obtain conclusive criminal evidence," he said, the Dutch Prosecution Service has made clear "it was also necessary that other scenarios - such as the possibility that MH17 was shot down by another type of missile, or that it was shot down from the air - must be ruled out convincingly."

Donoghoe repeated the point in an interview outside the courtroom, adding this "is a tougher standard than the DSB report." He acknowledged the DSB had used simulations of missile firings, not direct evidence.

According to the transcript of Donoghoe's court testimony, he implied the Australian Federal Police was not in a position to provide the forensic evidence it has gathered to the Victorian coroner because the Ukrainian government has not consented. "Official communication of the conclusions of the results of the MH17 investigation", Donoghoe said in court, "will only be released after agreement between the two JIT [Joint Investigation Team] countries."

The JIT comprises five countries – Australia, The Netherlands, Ukraine, Malaysia, and Belgium. The two to which Donoghoe referred were Australia and the Ukraine. For details of the JIT, and Malaysian government objections to the way it has been run, read this.

West's judgement is entitled "Finding into Death with Inquest – Inquest into the Deaths of the 17 Victorian residents who died on Flight MH17." The text does not refer to Donoghoe's written report to the court, nor to his courtroom testimony. During Donoghoe's appearance in court, West asked him no questions about the forensic evidence.

Dr David Ranson

West's ruling did go into some detail on the post-mortem and autopsy evidence on the victims' bodies reported yesterday by Dr David Ranson (left); West described Ranson as an associate professor of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, and the head of a team of anatomical, dental, and other pathology specialists who worked at the Dutch mortuary centre during July and part of August 2014.

Ranson has also delivered two reports of his findings to the Victorian coroner, one in August of 2014, and a second in December 2014.

Ranson said in an interview in the courtroom, before West announced his ruling, that CT scans were done twice over for the Australian victims, once at the Hilversum military base, and then at the Melbourne morgue after the bodies were flown home. "The CT scans were designed to detect metal", Ranson said. He acknowledges none has been found in the scans of the victims.

Without identifying his source, West ruled that "investigators believe that the total number of hits [on the aircraft] of high-energy objects was well over 800."

He also ruled that "perforation and ricochet damage caused by multiple high-energy objects enabled investigators to conclude that the implicated device was a surface-to-air missile carrying a fragmentation warhead…Forensic evidence determined that that the weapon was a 9N314M model warhead.

It was further determined that the Buk surface-to-air missile system is the only weapon system to carry one of the distinctive pre-formed fragments in its warhead and that such a missile system was present in the region at the time of the incident."

West's statement of finding doesn't reveal the "forensic evidence" he thinks is determinative. By the "presence" of the Buk missile, West appears to have been referring to missile batteries operated by Ukrainian government forces recorded by satellite photographs at locations on the ground at the time.

According to Donoghoe's evidence, if a Buk missile had been fired at MH17 it may have come from a Ukrainian government source. "The Buk missile," Donoghoe told West in court, "was of Russian manufacture, but of a type which had previously also been provided to the Ukraine.

The OVV [Dutch acronym for Dutch Safety Board] was not able to confirm the origin of the specific missile."

West did not report Ranson's evidence that no "distinctive pre-formed fragments" were found in any of the victim's bodies.

For analysis of the computer simulations and metal assay tests reported by DSB in October on the "distinctive pre-formed fragments" attributed to the Buk missile warhead, read this.

The Dutch Safety Board (DSB) Shrapnel Photographs

Source: http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2049/investigation-crash-mh17-17-july-2014   

The DSB report claims these were the only "distinctive pre-formed fragments" it  could find – three in the cockpit area, and one on one of the wings. The DSB conducted no metal analysis, and the Ukrainian government did not allow matching of the fragment metal to Buk missiles in its armed forces inventory. The Australian Federal Police and Ranson investigations found no traces of these "distinctive fragments" in any of the scans or tests reported to Coroner West. He asked no questions in court about the shrapnel evidence, and ignored it in his statement of finding.

Ranson, the coroner concluded, had described the cause of death without reporting munitions, explosive impact, or shrapnel wounds. 

According to West, Ranson's conclusion was that death had been caused by "injury sustained in high-altitude aircraft disruption…I accept the cause of death as stated by Dr Ranson as appropriate in the circumstances surrounding the loss of MH17 and in the absence of individual medical certainty."

Outside the court, after West closed the inquest, reporters who had listened to the proceedings acknowledged surprise that West's reference to unsourced and unnamed "forensic investigators" excluded both Donoghoe's and Ranson's reports.

West also claimed in his judgement that he was leaving to Donoghoe and other members of the forensic investigative team in The Netherlands the decision on what the evidence indicates for "criminal responsibility for the deaths".  

That process will run until "at least mid-2016", according to the coroner.  "The question of who is to blame for the destruction of the aircraft was not considered by the [Dutch Safety] Board as a criminal investigation is being undertaken in order to gather evidence." 

Tjibbe Joustra

The DSB report, and subsequent media statements by its chairman, Tjibbe Joustra (left), explicitly point blame at Russia for allegedly supplying Buk missiles and to Novorussian units fighting the Kiev regime for firing at least one  of them. For details, read this.  

West announced this disclaimer:  "it is not the role of this Court to attribute blame… the criminal responsibility for the deaths does not form part of the scope of this inquest."

In his sole reference to the political geography of the Ukraine conflict West hinted at the same blame for Russia as Joustra. "The location of the crash site," records West's ruling, "was, and remains, an area subjected to ongoing hostile military action between armed groups and Ukrainian forces."   

If West has decided the "armed groups" weren't Ukrainian, his innuendo is that they were Russian.

"How can the Australian coroner have it both ways," commented an international coronial law expert. "If he won't make findings about the detonation, he shouldn't endorse the DSB's claims about the Buk missile.

If he insists the Buk missile was the culprit, West is contradicting what he says are the limitations of his own inquiry,  and also the evidence of the only experts he called to testify."

By excluding the evidence of the Australian Federal Police and of his own pathologist, adds an Australian barrister, "West has taken sides in the politics of the case. If on top of that he is refusing to release the Donoghoe and Ranson reports, he is covering up. West has discredited his own court." 

Apendix: Other articles, continued

Is there a war crime in what Lord Heh-heh, Tjibbe Joustra of the Dutch Safety Board, is broadcasting? (19/10/15), Dutch reports on MH17 have mistaken BUK missile model, warhead type – the footnote which puts the boot to BUK (16/10/15), Is there a war crime in what Lord Heh-heh, Tjibbe Joustra of the Dutch Safety Board, is broadcasting? (19/10/15), Dutch reports on MH17 have mistaken BUK missile model, warhead type – the footnote which puts the boot to BUK (16/10/15), Autopsy of the MH17 crash – Dutch Safety Board reveals 3 possible pieces of BUK shrapnel in the bodies of the cockpit crew, and chemical evidence it cannot substantiate – Australian Federal Police issue public rejection of Australian government allegations (13/12/15).

If the downing of a Russian airliner in Sinai was in fact an act of terrorism, Western media's veritable gloating over the murder of tourists is another mark on their long record of shame. (Article first published in Russian Insider on Sat, Nov 7, 2015.

Sometimes we can almost laugh at the twisting of truth in the Western media, as commentators come up with weird analyses to make sense of their own preposterous stories. So it was recently, when their fantastic creation of the 'moderate rebel fighter' was exposed to Vladimir Putin's incisive 'common sense' at Valdai.

But such light-hearted moments quickly give way to the more rational sentiments of frustration, vexation and incredulity, and an enduring cynicism about everything that is said and done by those across 'the credibility crevasse' that now separates the West from 'the East'; how can we ever succeed in getting 'common sense' back into the current Western narrative around the Syrian conflict?

Following Russia's intervention in Syria there was a wave of optimism on her side of the crevasse that some sense might prevail in the Western corridors of power - a hope that even if Russia's request for cooperation in fighting terrorism was dismissed, those powers and their local agents would at least stop actively fuelling the conflict with arms and propaganda. Some hope.

This week frustration with the Western media narrative has turned much darker - the despicable reaction of many media commentators to the tragic deaths of 224 innocent people in the Russian plane crash in Sinai has now turned that frustration to intense anger. Far from this being an occasion to take a step back and ask 'what are we doing that has led to this?' - following on from widespread suspicion that this crash was no accident, those commentators have already framed it as a response to Russia's actions in Syria and Ukraine - even a justified response.

Interviewing Australia's Foreign Minister Julie Bishop on Monday, the ABC's long serving and widely respected radio presenter Fran Kelly posed her question like this:

 “Of course the Australian government - as you've said - extends its sympathies to countries which have lost citizens here and the families of those citizens, but I must ask you minister does it strike you as ironic that Russia wants to wait until a full investigation is conducted into the causes of this plane crash, before making any further comment, given how hostile President Putin was to a full investigation into flight MH17?”

Although Bishop preferred not to speculate until more was known about the cause of the crash, she prefaced with this comment:

“Yes I'm sure the irony won't be lost on people, but now is not the time for me to make such a comment.. (..considering the grieving relatives and friends..)”

For those of us who understand the depths of deceit over the downing of MH17, and the lengthy and compromised Dutch inquiry into the causes of that crash, Kelly's casual dismissal of Vladimir Putin's conduct is highly offensive. Although we all know that Russia's investigation into the Ukrainian crash was stymied by the refusal of the US to release its satellite data, and Kiev's refusal to release air transport control records for the flight, Kelly and other commentators ignore this. They continue to claim that Russia vetoed moves at the UN to set up a criminal investigation because this would reveal Russia's guilt over the atrocity. Because of them, Australians now believe that Vladimir Putin has 'denied justice to the victims of MH17'.

It is disturbing to realise that the thinking of Western commentators, and of the public who believe them, have been so poisoned by Imperial propaganda that they feel free to express the most despicable of sentiments about officially approved enemies, and are able to do so without condemnation. Such is the implicit suggestion that somehow the downing of the Russian plane over Sinai, and killing of 224 Russian citizens is atonement for 'Russia's shooting down of MH17'. Such views may only have been expressed openly on Twitter - as reportedly happened in Holland - and in the Newscorp press, but they seep from every news outlet, social gathering and Parliamentary session, reflecting Australia's growing Russophobia and public demonisation of Vladimir Putin.

As seems to happen frequently nowadays, new developments around this subject demand inclusion. And anger turned to disgust, as news reports today that a terrorist bomb may have been responsible for the downing of the Russian plane completely excluded any reference to Russian opinion or intelligence on the matter.

But it wasn't just that - the framing of these reports, which were from the UK and US agencies, was that 'the international ramifications will be enormous' if ISIS was responsible. So says Sir Nigel Inkster, former director for operations and intelligence at MI6, interviewed in London by the ABC:

   Nigel Inkster: “Well, I think there are two things -

   Firstly the Egyptian economy is heavily dependent on tourism, so anything that eroded internation comfidence in Egypt as a tourism destination is going to have significant implications.

  Now obviously, the other question is: was this an act of revenge, could this have been an act of revenge for Russia's engagement in Syria on the side of President Assad?”

Something was horribly missing from this news - any mention of how the relatives and friends of the victims of the Russian plane crash might be feeling now, knowing that their loved ones had been unwilling martyrs in the fight to save Syria from Western-backed terrorism.

See also: The Crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17 : Unanswered Questions, One Year Later (16/7/15) Global Research, Donbass Militia did not down MH17 – Russian radars data (16/7/15) Global Research.

Candobetter.net Editor: NewsCorp have published an article, "Full transcript: Russian-backed rebels ransack the wreckage of MH17 in shocking 17-minute video", but the video does not bear this allegation out for me. It just looks to me as if the people examining the baggage around the crash site are trying to work out where the plane came from and documenting their findings on film. Julie Bishop, Minister for Trade and Foreign Affairs' 'disgust' at these actions seems inflammatory and unjustified. The soldiers searching the site initially think the plane is a Sukhoi-25 fighter plane which they shot at. Then they realise it is a passenger plane and they then think that the Sukhoi-25 fighter plane they brought down must have shot down the passenger plane in order to implicate the East Ukrainian self-defence forces. They hear that the Sukhoi-25 fighter plane went down in a nearby village and that people escaped with parachutes. Note, we have linked to a you-tube version of the Newscorp video. Judge for yourself: The following article published on RT originally and original contains copyright video footage from Newscorp. See http://www.rt.com/news/310082-mh17-video-another-aircraft/

News Corp Australia has obtained a previously unknown video allegedly taken minutes after Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was downed in Ukraine exactly one year ago. The voices cited by the transcript of the full footage claim a warplane shot down the Boeing.

The four-minute clip posted by News Corp Australia is an extract from what is claimed to be a longer 17-minute video, which allegedly depicts the immediate aftermath of the MH17 Boeing crash. The clip shows rebel fighters who arrived at the scene, first looking to get things under control. Their commander is heard ordering them to clear the area of civilians and onlookers and search for the black boxes.

In the clip a man's voice is heard, which is thought to be that of a rebel commander, who receives a number of phone calls apparently from other rebel fighters at different sites where the debris fell. The man is heard saying “What? There’s another plane?” and orders the men to “establish a perimeter and keep civilians away”.

READ MORE: Israeli-made air-to-air missile may have downed MH17 - report

The four-minute clip posted by the News.com.au is followed by a transcript from a longer 17-minute video, which has not been released. News Corp Australia told RT that they "stand by the transcript, it was taken from the full video, which investigators now have."

The text cites a rebel commander as saying that "the Sukhoi [fighter jet] brought down the plane and we brought down the Sukhoi."

Later on, the man is quoted as saying that "there’s two planes taken down,” while a voice in the background says, "the fighter jet brought down this one [MH17 Boeing], and our people brought down the fighter. They [the Ukrainians] decided to do it this way, to make it look like we have brought down the plane."

According to the transcript, there were also between two and "five parachute jumpers" who landed at the nearby Grabove village. These included a pilot “roaming about Rassypnoe" [a nearby village] and a commander ordering his men go and get him immediately.

One of the rebels is also wondering who and why they [the Boeing] was given permission to fly over the warzone.

The four-minute clip shows rebels searching the debris for black boxes and finding one, as well as personal IDs of the passengers, which they then filmed on the camera.

Australia’s Foreign Minister Julie Bishop reacted upon the release of the video by saying that she could not verify its authenticity. “It is sickening to watch and, 12 months on from the downing of MH17, it is deeply concerning that this footage has emerged now," she told the Nine Network.

Bishop also said “it is certainly consistent with all that we were told, the advice that we received two months ago, that flight MH17 had been shot down by a... missile,” she said.

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, which was heading from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, was downed in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, killing all 298 people onboard.

Almaz-Antey, a Russian manufacturer of Buk missiles and Russia's main air-defense manufacturer has begun its own investigations into the MH17 affair, where a Malaysian air flight was downed over war-torn East Ukraine. Since this tragedy, NATO supporters have accused Russia of being the owner of a BUK missile which some believe may have been the thing that brought the Flight MH17 passenger aircraft down. Russians have responded by suggesting that if a missile was involved, it was probably a Ukrainian missile fired from East Ukraine when it was under Kiev military control. Although there are other theories, including one that another aircraft may have fired on MH17, the missile manufacturer itself is now trying to conduct its own investigation in order to have sanctions against it lifted. According to Almaz-Antey, missile manufacturers, the missile that likely struck the Boeing aircraft, 9M38-M1, was not produced in the Russian Federation since 1999, but they have evidence that the BUK-M1 air defense missile system and accompanying missiles were still deployed with the Ukrainian Armed Forces in 2005. According to their evidence, Ukraine had a total of 991 9M38M1 missiles at the time.

Article contains material republished from RT where originally published on June 02, 2015 at 9.46am. For live updates go to the original article.

Emergencies Ministry members walk at the site of a Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 plane crash, MH17, near the settlement of Grabovo in the Donetsk region, July 17, 2014. (Reuters/Maxim Zmeyev)

Russia’s air-defense systems manufacturer, Almaz-Antey, is holding a press conference on its appeal at the European Court of Justice against EU sanctions against it over the Boeing MH17 crash. The BUK missile manufacturer is to present its own findings.According to reporter, Daniel Bushell's tweets on this matter, Almaz-Antey, the missile manufacturer, have said that they cannot explain Ukraine air traffic control activity at time of crash, black box should reveal [this?].
Almaz-Antey have observed that there is a lot of absolutely contradictory information in Western media about circumstances of MH17 tragedy.

They say that they do not rule out other versions, but stand by their analysis that BUK M1 hit MH17.

The Ukrainian General Staff says that Ukraine possesses BUK M-1 missile systems, but that on the day of the MH17 crash Ukraine was not in control of the area where it is suspected the missile was fired.

Almaz-Antey say that they do technical analysis, but do not speculate on whether Kiev or self-defence side were to blame.
Almaz-Antey is still entertaining the possibility that another aircraft may have been involved in the downing of flight MH17 and state that the country that possessed the missile that hit flight MH17 remains unknown.

"If necessary, we can carry out a field test... with the participation of independent experts," Novikov says. "We are willing to carry out a demolition of a 9M38M1 missile at a specified angle and aimed at the same model of aircraft."

RT ask missile maker Almaz-Antey at media conference about location of MH17 shootdown and the missile makers responded that the angle of missile strike allows us to reveal MH17 was hit above the area of Zaroshchenske, not Snezhnoe as reported.

The missile could not have been fired from Snezhnoe, as the survey findings are consistent with it being fired from the Zaroschshenskoe village. If it were fired from Snezhnoe, "the entire front end of the cabin would have been blown off," state Almaz-Antey.

Almaz-Antey concluded their technical report and threw the session open to reporters. The question and answer session that followed elicited the following:

The missile that likely struck the Boeing aircraft, 9M38-M1, was not produced in the Russian Federation since 1999 - Almaz-Antey to reporters.

Almaz-Antey has evidence that the BUK-M1 air defense missile system and accompanying missiles have been still deployed with the Ukrainian Armed Forces in 2005. According to their evidence, they had a total of 991 9M38M1 missiles at the time, according to Head Engineer, Mikhail Malyshevsky.

“During the first stage of our investigation, the type of system was established. It was a Buk-M1 system [NATO reporting name SA-11], a 9?38-?1 rocket and a 9?314 warhead,” according to Malyshevsky.

He said the damage caused to the aircraft appears consistent with the 9M38-M1 missile, which has a specific "scalpel" trajectory, with 40 percent of shrapnel breaking apart in a perpendicular fashion to the initial trajectory of the missile.

The version of events that saw MH17 hit with a missile launched from the Snezhnoe area is full of inconsistencies. Further analysis proves that this was not the case, says Malyshevsky.

Traces of Buk 9M38M1 missile fragments found on remains of MH17 Boeing, Malyshevsky said.

The character of the damage caused to the aircraft is consistent only with the BUK9M38 and BUK9M38-M1 missiles, if the BUK missiles are in question, according to.

Allegations by Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott against Russia may have no solid basis, but could escalate world tensions. Many people view these allegations as propaganda to provide a platform for eventual NATO aggression. These allegations have recently been reinforced by Julie Bishop, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, as a reason for applying sanctions against Russia. See "Russia Sanctions based on False Statement by Julie Bishop, Australian Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister"http://candobetter.net/node/4437".

12 May 2015

The Prime Minister,

Dear Mr Abbott,

Would you please let me know the evidence and documentation the Prime Minister or the person who wrote this statement has used to make the serious allegations highlighted in yellow below about the Russian Government, which I also cite below in case the highlighting does not come through.

I am concerned that they may actually have no solid basis and that this and similar press releases will escalate hostilities and the threat of nuclear war by misleading public and politicians.

Allegations:

My inquiry is for a freelance article in the public interest which will be published on candobetter.net among other outlets.

sincerely,

Sheila Newman
03 97835047

01 September 2014

Prime Minister

EXPANDED SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA

The Government is deeply concerned by escalating events in Ukraine.

Russia has been engaged in a campaign to destabilise Ukraine for months. As a consequence, 38 people who called Australia home were brutally murdered, along with many others, when

The situation has recently worsened as Russia steps up its persistent and deliberate violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty.

in defiance of Ukraine’s sovereignty, the international community and international law.

As Russia refuses to heed the international community’s call to de-escalate the crisis and instead is further fuelling it, the Government will expand Australia’s autonomous sanctions and travel bans relating to Russia.

This is being done in coordination with our partners in the US, Canada and Europe.

Australia’s expanded sanctions will include:

restrictions on arms exports;
restrictions on the access of Russian state-owned banks to Australian capital markets;
preventing the export of goods and services for use in Russia’s oil exploration or production;
restrictions on Australian trade and investment in Crimea; and
targeted financial sanctions and travel bans on an additional 63 Russian and Ukrainian individuals and 21 entities (taking the total number of financial sanctions and travel bans to 113 individuals and 32 entities).

These measures build on Australia’s existing financial sanctions and travel bans, announced in March this year.

They reaffirm Australia’s clear and unequivocal support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine.

Australia stands with countries around the world in urging Russia to de-escalate tensions, pull back its military, and engage in genuine dialogue with Ukraine.

We remain determined to see the perpetrators of the cowardly attack on Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 brought to justice. We owe this to the innocent victims and their families.

The Government does not rule out further sanctions in the future.

Russia must understand that if it does not act to defuse the current situation, the cost to its economy and international standing will grow.

1 September 2014
Source: https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-09-01/expanded-sanctions-against-russia

Julie Bishop is the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Recently she issued sanctions against Russia on the basis of a presumption that Flight MH17 had been shot down by a surface-to-air missile from Ukrainian territory under the control of Russian-backed separatists. Minister Julie Bishop justified these sanctions by repeating allegations by the Prime Minister of the causes and origins of damage to MH17 which she described as consistent with statements in the Preliminary Report by the Dutch Safety Board. In fact the Preliminary Report does not seem to contain any such evidence and it actually seems to contradict Ms Bishop's statement. (Furthermore, the ABC has long since apologised for promoting a similar view, agreeing that there is no conclusive evidence. See ABC Australia apologises for bias against Russia in reporting MH17 crash and general tag: http://candobetter.net/taxonomy/term/585.)

Crucial to any assumption of guilt, no-one has yet supplied a motive for Russia to have backed such an alleged attack on a passenger aircraft, but the United States has a history of false flag incidents involving aircraft.[1]
Whilst Russia lacked any apparent motive to shoot down a civilian aircraft intentionally, Kiev took advantage of the crash to escalate its armed assault on the area. The refusal of the US to provide satellite surveillance data requested by Russia is suspicious. An agreement signed on 8 August 2014 between Ukraine, the Netherlands, Belgium and Australia giving any member of the agreement the right to veto publication of the results of the investigation is hardly reassuring for truth seekers.

Unwise polarisation

It is of great concern that Australia seems to be taking sides in formal foreign policy in an internationally tense situation between superpowers based on such prejudiced and premature interpretation of events.

Narrow public consultation

Prior to instituting these sanctions against Russia, DFAT advertised on its site and circularised some trade contacts requesting submissions regarding proposed sanctions and received only four. Two were confidential and two were entirely commercially oriented. There was no wider canvassing for submissions from the general public. It appears that there was no associated discussion about the forensic position on MH17 or the political consequences beyond narrow commercial ones. See correspondence with the legal department of the Sanctions Section at DFAT. [2]

Letter sent to DFAT re concerns

I have sent a letter to the Media Liaison Unit of DFAT, (reproduced in this article) asking for them to please point me to where the Dutch report bears out Ms Bishop's statement but have received no response in the past 12 days. A similar letter sent the same day to Prime Minister Abbott (who made similar statements on September 1) has also gone unanswered. See "Concern that Abbott position on MH17 has no solid basis and is unfair to Russia." I am therefore drawing this matter to public attention because I am concerned that our position against Russia is unwise and unjust in a time when increased international tension may magnify consequences and highlights the need for restraint.

Letter emailed by Sheila Newman to DFAT Media Liason on May 12, 2015.

Dear Sir/Madam,

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) Australian Parliament held an inquiry into the Treaty between Australia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands on the presence of Australian personnel in the Netherlands for the purpose of responding to the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. Because of the urgent nature of the treaty it was fast tracked under the National Interest Exemption provisions and came into effect on the date it was signed, 1 August 2014. The treaty was tabled in the Parliament on 30 September 2014 and the Committee called for submissions until 10 October 2014. The public hearing was held on 27 October 2014 and tabled its report on 12 February 2015. (Report 146: Treaty tabled on 30 September 2014)

In the statement referenced below promoting the Australian-Dutch Treaty by Julie Bishop, Ms Bishop repeats allegations by the Prime Minister of the causes and origins of damage to MH17 which she says are consistent with statements in the Preliminary Report by the Dutch Safety Board. Could your office please point me to where this report bears out Ms Bishop's statement highlighted below regarding the 'Australian Government's initial assessment' because I cannot find the evidence and the report actually seems to contradict Ms Bishop's statement below:

"On 9 September, the preliminary report by the Dutch Safety Board into the incident was released. Its purpose is to determine the cause of the incident – not to attribute blame or liability.

I welcome the preliminary report as a clear step towards achieving the full, thorough and independent international investigation sought by Resolution 2166.

The damage to the aircraft documented in this preliminary report is consistent with the Australian Government’s initial assessment - voiced as early as the morning of 18 July - that MH17 had been shot down by a surface-to-air missile from Ukrainian territory under the control of Russian-backed separatists. [3]

On 19 September I attended a special meeting of the United Nations Security Council in New York on MH17. Members of the Security Council firmly rejected Russia’s attempt to discredit the investigation into the downing of MH17 and reaffirmed their support for the International Dutch-led criminal investigation." Source: http://foreignminister.gov.au/speeches/Pages/2014/jb_sp_140930.aspx

HOWEVER, when you go to the actual Dutch preliminary report, what she says is not confirmed.

(1) The report describes multiple small holes consistent with a large number of 'high energy objects' penetrating the aircraft from outside; (2) The report does not seem to have anything to say about where those penetrating objects came from. I.e. it does not locate their origin at all let alone in the Russian- 'backed' separatists area.

"The pattern of damage observed in the forward fuselage and cockpit section of the aircraft was consistent with the damage that would be expected from a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the aircraft from outside." [The report contains a number of highly illustrative photos of aircraft exterior peppered with holes. ] Source:http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/phase-docs/701/b3923acad0ceprem-rapport-mh-17-en-interactief.pdf

REFERENCES

[1] See for instance the Lockerbie bombing allegations where Libya was railroaded and the United States flouted international law. And the destruction of the Iran Airbus by the U.S.S. Vincennes during the summer of 1988 about six months before the Lockerbie bombing, in which a US Navy Captain shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in 1988 and escaped with a bare minimum of sanctions. Boyle, Francis A. (2013-09-11). Destroying Libya and World Order: The Three-Decade US Campaign to Terminate the Qaddafi Revolution, Clarity Press. Discussion pp. 107-144.

[2] Dear Ms Newman

Thank you for your message.

As the Australian Government sanctions regulator, our primary role is responding to applications from Australian businesses for sanctions permits. You should direct any further concerns about Australian Government policies in relation to Russia to your local Member of Parliament.

As you know, the Australian Government announced the introduction of autonomous sanctions in relation to Russia in 2014. Here are the links to the Government’s statements in this regard:

Foreign Minister

Ukraine situation: Australia announces sanctions
http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2014/jb_mr_140319.aspx?ministerid=4

Further sanctions to support Ukraine
http://foreignminister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2014/jb_mr_140521.aspx?ministerid=4

Sanctions in support of Ukraine commence
http://foreignminister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2014/jb_mr_140619b.aspx?ministerid=4

Expanded sanctions against Russia come into force
http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2015/jb_mr_150331b.aspx?ministerid=4

Prime Minister
Expanded sanctions against Russia

https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-09-01/expanded-sanctions-against-russia

In amending the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations, DFAT conducted a public consultation process, which was advertised on DFAT’s website and emailed to our sanctions mailing list. The submissions that were not published were marked confidential by their authors.

Regards

Sanctions Section

_______________________________
Sanctions, Treaties and Transnational Crime Legal Branch
International Legal Division

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
www.dfat.gov.au/sanctions

[3] Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17
Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon Julie Bishop MP
Speech, E&OE
Parliament House, Canberra
30 September 2014

"I rise today to table the Treaty between Australia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands on the presence of Australian personnel in the Netherlands for the purpose of responding to the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17. The treaty is accompanied by a National Interest Analysis.

We live in an increasingly interconnected world where events far from home can have profound implications for us.
On 17 July, Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was shot down over separatist-held territory in eastern Ukraine killing all 298 passengers and crew on board. It was a civilian aircraft in civilian airspace, with the wreckage landing in a war zone. In a cruel twist of fate Australia was suddenly at the fulcrum of the Russia– Ukraine conflict.

Among those killed were 38 passengers who called Australia home - and another three with close links to Australia. We have been profoundly saddened by the loss of so many Australians. Among them: a 25 year-old travelling in Europe, like so many young Australians do; a couple, both doctors in Toowoomba, at the end of a six-week holiday; three young Western Australian children travelling with their grandfather, returning home for the start of the school term. All innocent people, for whom we continue to grieve.

In response to this horrific crime, the Government launched Operation Bring Them Home – our contribution to international efforts to secure, identify and repatriate the remains of the victims, to investigate the cause of the incident and to hold those responsible to account.

Australia authored UN Security Council Resolution 2166 which was endorsed unanimously on 21 July. It called for a ceasefire to access the crash site, and a full, thorough and independent investigation into the downing of MH17. During that debate I said:

“Our resolution demands that armed groups in control of the crash site provide safe access immediately to allow for the recovery of the bodies, and that these armed groups stop any actions that compromise the integrity of the crash site. This is imperative.

“There must be a ceasefire in the immediate area around the site. The victims must be treated with dignity, brought back to their homes and laid to rest. All parties are required to fully cooperate with these efforts. Russia must use its influence over the separatists to ensure this. Russia must also use its influence to bring the conflict in Ukraine to an end.
“Our resolution also demands a full, thorough and independent international investigation into this act. We must have answers. We must have justice. We owe it to the victims and their families to determine what happened and who was responsible.”

Over 500 Australian police, military, diplomatic and consular personnel were deployed to Ukraine and the Netherlands in support of these efforts.

As of today, 251 victims have been identified by the Identification Commission in The Hague. We have representation on that Commission and its work is assisted by a number of technical experts from Australia.

Out of respect for the families involved, I will not confirm the number of Australian victims that have been identified to date, however it will be some time before the identification process is complete. I attended two memorial services at Eindhoven airbase in the Netherlands and I acknowledge again the outstanding efforts of the Netherlands in bringing dignity and respect to the retrieval process.

In parallel to the process of recovering, identifying and repatriating remains, an investigation into the cause of the crash, as required by the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, is underway.

The investigation has broad international participation, drawing on experts from France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Russia, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as from the European Aviation Safety Agency and the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

On 9 September, the preliminary report by the Dutch Safety Board into the incident was released. Its purpose is to determine the cause of the incident – not to attribute blame or liability.

I welcome the preliminary report as a clear step towards achieving the full, thorough and independent international investigation sought by Resolution 2166.

See also: 'Impeach Poroshenko!’ Massive anti-govt rally held in central Kiev (6/6/15) | RT

Crucial interview with crew member of the BUK 312 missile crew that 60 Minutes and others pretend shot down Malaysian Airlines flight MH17. The identified missile system was actually manned by the Ukraine Army and BUK 312 probably had nothing to do with the shoot down of MH 17. Last night 60 Minutes claimed on the basis of an internet cut and paste effort by Eliot Higgins that this missile could be traced from Russia, that it was fired by Russians, under orders from Putin. 60 Minutes did not even attempt to establish a motive for what they called 'murder'. Anyone can cut and paste from the internet, but not that many appear to be able to argue logically. It is of great concern that 60 Minutes ran with this beat-up because they are in a position to influence trusting viewers that they are actually authorities in this matter which is being used by the United States and NATO to bring us closer and closer to WW3. Note that Eliot Higgins has also attempted to prove a case against the Syrian Government, with similar logical and factual holes marring his case. See http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n10/letters#letter1

Below is the full transcript translated into English by Marina Stewart of an interview by Natalia Srour with Anatoly Sharij, former BUK 312 crew member. The interview, which is in Russian, was posted Dec 17, 2014, YouTube. A short article discussing it is to be found here: "Shooting Down MH 17 - BUK 312 Story False Says Ukraine Crew Member", by Michael Collins on OpEdNews. An article by journalist Robert Parry critically examining 60 Minutes report on MH17 was published yesterday, 18 May 2015, here: #comment-194431">"
Fake Evidence Blaming Russia for MH-17?"

Anatoly Sharij: You may still remember the BUK which photo was published by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) as a Russian one. You may also remember me dwelling on it. I received a lot of feedback saying I was lying etc. Here’s an interview with Ukrainian contract sergeant crossing “t’s” and dotting “i’s”.

Anatoly Sharij (AS): Good afternoon.

A: Good afternoon. Good to be talking to you. I have been watching your videos for quite some time now, and I have to say you do uncover the truth.

I am 23, and I have been in contract service with the Ukrainian army. Last summer the contract term came to an end, but I was not dismissed from service for reasons well known to you. My duty station was the exact BUK self-propelled fire installation (Russian abbreviation transliterated as SOU – translator) number 312 you made your video about, I happened to recently come across it on the Internet.

The SOU has 4 crew members: service commander, me as deputy commander, driver and operator. This SOU 312 you made your video about was dislocated in Lugansk and your video shows it being relocated to Kramatorsk. Donetsk has a surface-to-air missile regiment having these BUK M1 on the inventory. The regiment consists of three divisions:

(1) in Avdeevka
(2) in Mariupol
(3) in Lugansk

This is how you decipher 312:

3 stands for the third (Lugansk) division,
1 stands for the battery number, ours was no. 1,
2 stands for one of the 2. service units in each battery, ours was no. 2.

BUK is a complex of 4 specialized military vehicles: command post, mobile target detection and assignment station, loading and starting station, self-propelled fire installation.

At the time the Boeing was downed I was out of army already, so I can’t say anything about it, but when it all began in the Crimea, this capture of military units, we’ve been ordered to leave our permanent disposition in Lugansk.

AS: This BUK 312 was said to be a Russian missile launcher.

A: No. This BUK is 100% Ukrainian one. The photo I sent you, the one with Yubileynaya mines on the background, has been made in Lugansk. (3’49”)

Our military unit was dislocated in Metallist settlement, on the upland near Lugansk, and this is the view from there. It made us all laugh, the way SBU presented this as BUK of the rebels or Russian BUK.

AS: What do you think about this BUK downing the Malaysian Boeing?

A: No clue. By the time it happened I was transferred to Avdeevka division. I only heard SBU [Ukraine secret police] say this particular missile launcher with board number 312 downed the Boeing. All I know it couldn’t have done this. I spoke with my ex-comrades in arms and they said they didn’t do it.

The first relocation of our Lugansk division was to Kramatorsk military airdrome. We’ve been allocated barracks there. In a month we’ ve been moved into the fields in Dnepropetrovskaya Oblast, Novaya Grigorievka village.

The photo you showed in one of your videos, the bad quality one (5’50”) was taken when our SOU commander decided to drive it, but the electric wiring inside the SOU ignited. The missiles nearly exploded, but luckily firefighters came on time to put the fire down. That’s why it was moved on the low-base semi-trailer as seen in the picture.

Let me tell you some about the Ukrainian army. While in the fields, the officers were boozing heavily, while soldiers and sergeants were not allowed to go to the nearby shop. I was actually planning to quit after my first contract term, but they wouldn’t let me. Being a straight shooter, I was outraged at this, so they started to pressure me, pitted other soldiers against me. The situation in general was very depressing, people kept deserting, many went over to the rebels, I, too, went to the hospital in Kharkov and just didn’t come back. The border is close there.

AS: What do you think was the purpose of using BUK at all in the combat area?

A: I don’t know. Initially this withdrawal may have been done to avoid BUK capture. Then, I suppose, this may have been due to shortage of manpower on the front…

AS: Strange….

A: But this is

A: But this is my guess only, for even officers didn’t know it, so it seemed, may be only commanding officer and chief of staff knew the reason. I am still unaware why would they want to do this, for BUK air missile launchers are deployed against airborne targets, the rebels have no aviation, so we are useless for ATO [“anti terrorist operation[ purposes. They did move some people from our division to ATO, a major general came to talk to those who were unwilling to take part in this campaign, I said I don’t want to go as I see no sense in it, besides, I already served my term, so I was transferred 80 kilometres away, to Vasilkovka village, to where 1st Avdeevka BUK division was.

When we left Lugansk, only three unusable complexes remained there, and those which did leave Lugansk, also broke down right after leaving the city, some were repaired en route, others were transported on low-base semi-trailers. Those which were left in Lugansk, lacked whole equipment units.

AS: but one must be able to use these…

A: So far as I could gather they do have professionals there. My friends in Lugansk when passing the military unit saw through the fence rebels trying to repair the complexes.

AS: What’s your opinion as a professional, who may have downed the Boeing?

A: Judging by firing zone, Ukrainian army did it.

AS: And the purpose?

A: No idea. I only know the kind of professionals they are, it could have happened unintentionally.

AS: What do you mean, unintentionally? They should have been given coordinates, the height, the speed of the target etc., it isn’t just a matter of pressing a button, is it?

A: Exactly. There’s a friend or foe comms exchange between the complex units, so you are right, it couldn’t have happened accidentally.

AS: Why firing at all then? They couldn’t have thought it was the rebels jet fighter, right?

A: I agree.

In general Ukrainian army lacks qualified manpower badly, many people just left the army, my friends are in Moscow, Novosibirsk, Rostov, elsewhere…

(Laughing)

One can’t get dismissed from service no matter what he does. If you abstain from entry on duty or, say, curse everyone, you won’t be dismissed. Many people just desert the army.

AS: And how are they accounted for? As missing?

A: It’s a mystery to me. But we had 15 sergeants and now only three are left, all of them are in ATO zone. They used to send some people to ATO from all our divisions before, now one of the divisions in full is there. I can’t make out why would they want BUK divisions there, rebels still don’t have jet fighters. It must really be shortage of soldiers, you have a video on rioting conscripts having exceeded their term of service by 8 months.

AS: Yeah, they have all been labeled Kremlin spies when they raised this issue with their commanders. A real Ukrainian should be willing to serve in the army for 2, 3, 5 years…

A: …for 154 hrivnyas a month…

I am not scared of anything and I have nothing to conceal.

Wish you new uncovering videos!

END of transcript

As the Ukrainian army launches a new attack on the Donetsk Peoples' Republic, claiming to have retaken Donetsk Airport from 'separatist' forces, the justification for such an attack has once again become a subject for discussion. While the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko says the new offensive is aimed at 're-uniting' Ukraine, and Western media believe this both to be a reasonable objective and the real one, the actual situation is entirely different...

Much of the perversion of truth on the true nature of the Ukrainian government and the nature of the 'Eastern rebellion' can be put down to the success of the 'False Flag' attack on MH17 - carried out by the Ukrainian air force with as yet unverified assistance from Western intelligence agencies. This tragic state of affairs is thanks to the skill of the propaganda campaign conducted primarily by the US and its close allies, but facilitated by the Western media apparatus. It is tragic because the simplest of investigations of the crash site and wreckage of the plane would have readily demonstrated who was responsible; not only was clear physical evidence of the damage visible, and reported and photographed by some early observers, but forensic analysis would have found traces of the bullets that so clearly perforated the cockpit.

Given this background, the appearance of an article in the Fairfax press by veteran correspondent Paul McGeough describing his visits to the crash site with partner Kate Geraghty should have been cause for optimism; that this renowned 'investigative journalist' seemed uninterested in identifying the criminals responsible for killing so many people and instead focused on collecting sunflower seeds in 'Cockpit village' was cause for exasperation!
I sent the letter below to McGeough, in addition to Jonathan Green who interviewed him on the ABC. It also went to ABC Consumer Affairs, and the editors of the Australian National Review, and the editors of English Pravda.

Dear Paul,

While I admire your desire to give the relatives of victims of the MH17 atrocity something to fill the void left by the loss of their loved ones, I was astonished that your intense focus allowed you to both reveal and overlook crucial evidence that would provide something far more substantial to those relatives.

For those of us who paid no attention to the wild claims made in Western media following the downing of MH17, and made their own judgements based on evidence available, there was little evidence more convincing that photographs of the cockpit of the aircraft showing severe damage from artillery of some kind. For the benefit of the other recipients of this email I copy below your description in the Fairfax press of your visit to ‘Cockpit village’ – the very place where that vital fragment was observed and photographed:

“We headed out of the city before dawn. On a highway strewn with the smouldering wreckage of vehicles destroyed in the previous night's fighting, some with bodies still lying in or near them, we threaded our way through rebel checkpoints, back to what we had dubbed "the cockpit village".

This was Rassypnoe, a hamlet in which locals watched in awe as MH17's nose cone smashed into a field of shoulder-high sunflowers, just metres from buildings on the village's western flank.

When we visited the village in the last week of July, Eugene Lukovkin, a 30-year-old separatist gunman, gave us a graphic account of the crash – "bodies falling like bullets"; the nose section making a muffled sound, "like it landed in a swamp".

Recalling that he had been disposing of his grandmother's trash, Lukovkin told me: "The plane headed towards me. I could see the smoke as it fell to pieces – it had been missiled. One section was coming at me and the rest of it seemed to keep going. I dumped the rubbish cart and started running; others were running too – we think maybe some of the falling people are alive.

"There were lots of bodies – dead." Pointing to the left side of the cockpit, he says: "This is where one of the pilots was – I knew he was in charge because he had stars on his shoulder."

When we returned at dawn on our last day, none of the locals were to be seen. We drove to the field in which the buckled cockpit lay and quietly went to work – chopping enough sunflower heads to fill a big suitcase that we had bought at the market for this purpose. No one came to ask what we were doing.

Thirty minutes later we were back on the road, driving north to the Ukrainian government-controlled city of Kharkiv, from where we caught a commercial flight to the capital Kiev.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/my-christmas-offering-sunflower-seeds-for-mh17-families-from-the-fields-of-ukraine-20141226-12dily.html

You also described this experience in a radio interview on the ABC with Jonathan Green:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/sunflower-seeds-for-mh17/5992360

While there is little doubt outside the sphere of influence of the Western corporate media that a Ukrainian fighter jet shot down MH17 using both an air to air missile and 30mm cannon fire, the necessary evidence to establish this fact has clearly not been sought by the Dutch investigators, or their findings are being suppressed. Of particular interest here is the report from the ‘separatist gunman’ that he had seen the pilots body in the cockpit wreckage.

In the accepted scenario of the crash, endorsed by the blank black box recording, the pilots were the prime and initial target of the aerial attack; not only are there multiple penetrations of this part of the aircraft, and relatively few elsewhere, but the cockpit came down separated from the main fuselage by some distance.

Examining the high quality photograph of the left side of the cockpit, one can see evenly spaced holes as from strafing, but from bullets fired at the other side of the cockpit – the holes are quite obviously made by objects emerging from inside as the outer layer of the double skin is peeled outward, while the holes in the inner skin are perfectly round and the size of the 30 mm bullets. In the version of your article above there is also a photograph taken by Kate Geraghty of ‘a pilot’s seat’. A forensic analysis on both the seat and the pilot’s body would surely show evidence of perforations by the tungsten shells used by the SU25 and presumed responsible for the damage.

World peace depends on truthful and careful reporting now

Some people may believe that discussion of exactly how MH17 came down is becoming academic, as we lurch from one dangerous crisis to the next. But unlike discussion of the causes of the First World War – so apparently topical at the moment – this is anything but academic. Already the framing of Russia as not just involved but even as responsible for the atrocity has ‘facilitated’ NATO’s expansion eastwards, and enabled the Kiev coup leaders to pursue their corrupt agenda with European approval and assistance. And given that it is now clear ‘cui bono’ as a result of this attack, we must confront the stark possibility that MH17 was an act of state terrorism in which our own governments may have been complicit.

There are already very many commentators, experts and authorities who have come to this conclusion, not simply based on the evidence that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter jet – which is considerable – but because of the complete lack of evidence offered by Western agencies and governments for their contention that ‘Russian backed separatists’ shot it down with a BUK surface to air missile. Only days after the attack, Russian authorities appealed to the US to release satellite pictures from a new satellite they apparently had directly over Ukraine at the time of the crash. This information has been repeatedly requested by Moscow but with no response. It is not possible to conclude other than that such information would be incriminating both to Kiev and the US – if it showed a BUK missile launch by the Separatists as it surely would then we would have seen such information immediately.

Russia Today has just released a second documentary on the attack – ‘Reflections on MH17’, ( http://rtd.rt.com/films/reflections-on-mh17film/) which focuses on the extraordinary failure of Dutch and Ukrainian authorities to properly investigate the causes of the accident, while observing that conclusions on what weapon was responsible could be easily made with some simple laboratory analyses. It could not be said that such an investigation would ‘bring closure’ to the relatives of MH17 victims, but exposing the real culprits would do a lot more for the victims and potential victims of NATO’s aggressive policies in Europe. These criminals who would happily sacrifice a few hundred truly innocent civilians as part of their strategic game cannot be allowed to escape justice, and the wrath of their own citizens.

I must just acknowledge the welcome new perspective brought to the Australian media by the Australian National Review – to whom I am also copying this letter. To my knowledge this is the only mention in our print press of the ‘real story’ of MH17, – but I await its serious discussion from our national broadcaster.

This article includes links to evidence which proves that claims made by Tony Abott, Petro Poroshenko and SBS that East Ukrainian rebels killed the 298 crew and passengers aboard MH17, including 38 Australians, were untrue.

On the SBS news service of 11 December 2014 it was reported uncritically that visiting Ukrainian President President Petro Poroshenko and his host Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott had urged Russia to withdraw the troops they claim had invaded Ukraine. SBS also urged that those guilty of murdering 38 Australians amongst the 298 who were aboard flight MH17 be brought to justice. They said that pro-Russian rebels had fired the alleged surface-to-air missile that had allegedly shot down Flight MH17. ABC Australia has recently apologised for similar prejudiced reporting, admitting it had no evidence, see: ABC Australia apologises for bias against Russia in reporting MH17 crash. Neither Poroshenko, Abbott, or the SBS 'reporter' however, acknowledge that no evidence has been produced to confirm this claim. Furthermore, there is much forensic and eyewitness testimony that strongly indicates that flight MH17 was shot down by a pair of Ukraine Air Force Sukhoi 25 fighters.

Claims that Russian soldiers have invaded Ukraine have been parroted by the Western newsmedia, including SBS news, for months, but evidence of this has never been produced.

The implicit assumption is that the East Ukrainians self-defence forces could not have defeated the Ukrainian army without help from armed forces from elsewhere.

The alternative explanation which is consistent with the evidence is that the Ukraine army has been defeated because
(1) the self-defence forces have a more intimate knowledge of the land which they are defending and (2) they enjoy the support of the local people. This has never been considered on SBS news.

Biased SBS reports about this development in the Ukraine conflict include:

• PM talks uranium sales to Ukraine (11 Dec 14)
• Aust looks to sell uranium to Ukraine (11 Dec 14)
• MH17 on agenda for Ukraine president visit (10 Dec 14)
• Ukraine's Poroshenko to visit Australia (3 Dec 14)

In the aforementioned "ABC Australia apologises for bias against Russia in reporting MH17 crash", the ABC 7.30 report wrote this in response to a complaint:

"7.30 has acknowledged your concern and agrees it was inaccurate for the program to state as fact that flight MH17 was shot down by “Pro-Russian militia” and “Russian backed rebels”. The program understands the cause of that incident remains unresolved and is the subject of ongoing investigation."

Appendix: Factually wrong 'reporting' from the above stories.

From MH17 on agenda for Ukraine president visit

The passenger jet was shot down over eastern Ukraine in July by pro-Russian rebels who are waging a war against government forces.

...

Mr Abbott has pointed the finger at Russia, accusing it of providing the missile and military support to the rebels, threatening Ukraine's territorial integrity.

"7.30 has acknowledged your concern and agrees it was inaccurate for the program to state as fact that flight MH17 was shot down by “Pro-Russian militia” and “Russian backed rebels”. The program understands the cause of that incident remains unresolved and is the subject of ongoing investigation." (ABC Corporate Affairs). After David Macilwain, candobetter.net author and 7.30 Report viewer, complained, the ABC has made editorial changes to a report entitled, "Tony Abbott promises to ‘shirtfront’ Putin at G20 Summit." Mr MacIlwain's complaint appears under this ABC response. This is a positive response from the ABC since the kind of unfounded bellicose reporting that MacIlwain complained about is helping to move the world rapidly towards another world war. The ABC can help the world by reporting truthfully and respectfully. (Also published by AMRIS at https://susandirgham.wordpress.com/abc730-editorial-correction-mr-bill-shorten-president-putin-and-mh17/

From: ABC Corporate_Affairs5
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 4:30 PM
To: (Mr David MacIlwain)
Subject: 7.30

Dear Mr Macilwain

Thank you for your email regarding the 7.30 story Tony Abbott promises to “shirtfront” Putin at G20 Summit.

Your concerns have been considered by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of program making areas within the ABC. We have considered your concerns, reviewed the report and assessed it against the ABC’s editorial standards for accuracy.

7.30 has acknowledged your concern and agrees it was inaccurate for the program to state as fact that flight MH17 was shot down by “Pro-Russian militia” and “Russian backed rebels”. The program understands the cause of that incident remains unresolved and is the subject of ongoing investigation.

The program has amended the online transcript of the report and posted an editor’s note alerting its audience to the error. The error has also been acknowledged on the Corporation’s online corrections and clarifications page.

The ABC Code of Practice is available online at the attached link;

http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/CodeofPractice2013.pdf

Should you be dissatisfied with this response to your complaint, you may be able to pursue the matter with the Australian Communications and Media Authority http://www.acma.gov.au

Below is the original complaint as published on candobetter.net at http://candobetter.net/node/4119.

Complaint re ABC handling of Tony Abbott's insults and unsubstantiated allegations against Vladimir Putin

• View
• Edit
• Outline
• Track

UPDATE 24 Nov: We have just published an apology from the ABC regarding this complaint, here: http://candobetter.net/node/4197 where they have apologised for their misinformation.David Macilwain again complains to the ABC about their uncritical recycling of propaganda about the MH17 aircraft downing. He also expresses his disgust at the posturings of Tony Abbott with regard to the G20 and Vladimir Putin, based on this propaganda.

Dear 7.30 and ABC current affairs presenters,

I have sent the email below to ABC complaints, and copy it here for your information:

I am seriously disturbed by the handling of Tony Abbott's outrageous insults and allegations against Vladimir Putin today, by 7.30 reporter/presenters.

According to the transcript, Leigh Sales said:

...'since the shooting down of Malaysian flight MH17 over Ukraine by pro-Russian militia'....

Subsequently Sabra Lane repeated this in her own words:

...'after Malaysian flight MH17 was shot down by Russian-backed rebels over Ukraine'...

This allegation, presented as unchallenged fact by both presenters, is not merely only an allegation, but one which is entirely false. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim MH17 was brought down by a BUK missile, even one somehow fired mistakenly by separatists. At the same time there is ample evidence from multiple sources that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter plane, with or without Western collusion.

Compounding Abbott's mendacity, and sheer idiot bravado in seeking to confront Putin, is the fact that all government leaders and intelligence agencies involved in the Ukraine conflict are aware of the truth - it is simply not possible that they could not be.

If the ABC is capable of asking itself a question and not taking the answer from other Western media sources or 'Coalition' governments, it should ask why we have not seen the US satellite data from Eastern Ukraine, that Russia has been demanding since July? We know it exists, and it would demonstrate conclusively the nature of the projectile that brought down MH17. What possible motive could the US have for not releasing it?

It is to be hoped that before Putin graces Australia with his presence, someone with more sense than our punch-drunk PM will have a little word in Abbott’s ear; the truth about the atrocity in Ukraine WILL come out, and he will need to be thinking about all the lies that he has told about our actions in Ukraine before they catch up with him.
The ABC would be as well to do the same.

(To shed some light on what actually happened on July 17th, a most comprehensive investigation and report was produced by a group of Russian engineers recently, covering both the technical details of all possible munitions responsible, and the wider implications and political context. Their conclusion is one now accepted by most impartial observers, and merely awaits confirmation pending release of US satellite data and information from the Kiev control tower seized by Ukrainian secret service on July 17th.)

While the possible involvement of Western agencies in downing MH17 is an atrocity of unbelievable proportion, the clear ‘innocence’ of separatist forces in this crime is what concerns us here - our behaviour and sanctions policy towards Russia being based on a presumption of their guilt.

http://www.vineyardsaker.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/MH17_Report_Russian_Union_of_Engineers_EN_Oceania_Saker.docx

Please download the 28 page report from this site.

with regards, David Macilwain,

This letter, written to Mr Bill Shorten, leader of Australia's opposition, criticises the basis of his position on MH17 and the attitude he has officially expressed towards President Putin of Russia's attendance at the G20 summit. The letter cites scientific analysis that casts huge doubt on the involvement of a missile. It points out that there has been no official report on the results of any investigation of MH17's fate, notably nothing to implicate Russia. Unofficial copies of documents (samizdat)[1] are thought to indicate that the countries participating in the MH17 investigation have signed a secret non-disclosure agreement where any participant (including the very suspect Kiev) has the right to veto publication of the results without explanation. The truth about the cause of the horrifying fate of the 298 appears to have been subsumed by propaganda to which Australia's Prime Minister and opposition leader both shamefully bow. The letter suggests that Australia should not subscribe to baseless attacks on Putin in order to help the US's bid maintain position in a unipolar world. The BRICs countries and Indonesia and Argentina - arguably our natural allies - are unlikely to be impressed by such dishonesty and it serves no good cause.

14 October 2014

Dear Mr Shorten,

I write to you out of concern for your stand on the visit by President Putin to Australia for the G20 meeting in Brisbane.

On the ABC yesterday, it was presented as a fact that Malaysian Airline flight 17 was shot down over Ukraine by pro-Russian militia.

Since the plane was shot down, there have been many claims about who was responsible, but no official investigation has attributed blame.

For example, ABC news reports have referred to surface-to-air missiles shooting down the plane despite this supposed 'fact' not being established by any official investigation. There is no suggestion in the report by the Dutch Safety Board that a missile shot down MH17. It draws no conclusion regarding what weapon was used, but it does highlight the following (p.25):

The pattern of damage observed in the forward fuselage and cockpit section of the aircraft was consistent with the damage that would be expected from a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the aircraft from outside.

Michael Bociurkiw, a Canadian in the first team of OSCE monitors sent to investigate the wreckage and the site, said in a CBC news video interview that damage to the cockpit 'looks like machine gun fire', not a missile.

The official report (p.25) states that "Puncture holes ..suggested that small objects entered from above cockpit floor". This would not be inconsistent with conclusions drawn by a Russian Union of Engineers report which contends that MH17 was attacked by a fighter jet.

An unidentified combat aircraft (presumably a Su-25 or MiG -29), which was a tier below, on a collision course, in the cloud layer, sharply gained altitude and suddenly appeared out of the clouds in front of the civilian aircraft and opened fire on the cockpit, firing from a 30 mm caliber cannon or smaller. The pilot of a fighter jet can do this while in "free hunting" mode (using onboard radar) or with the help of navigational guidance using airspace situation data from ground-based radar.

As a result of multiple hits from shells there was damage to the cockpit, which suddenly depressurized, resulting in instant death for the crew due to mechanical influences and decompression. The attack was sudden and lasted a fraction of a second; in such circumstances the crew could not sound any alarm as the flight had been proceeding in regular mode and no attack was expected.

In an article in New Straits Times Online, Dr Chandra Muzaffar, a Malaysian scholar and the president of the International Movement for a Just World, poses the question in regards to the downing of MH17, "Who stands to gain from the incident?"
Dr Chandra writes,

The public should be wary of fabricated "evidence" .... after what we have witnessed in the last so many years. Have we forgotten the monstrous lies and massive distortions that accompanied the reckless allegation that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which led eventually to the invasion of that country in 2003 and the death of more than a million people? Iraq continues to bleed to this day. What about the Gulf of Tonkin episode of 1964 which again was a fabrication that paved the way for wanton United States aggression against Vietnam that resulted in the death of more than three million Vietnamese?

Professor Karel van Wolferen from the University of Amsterdam refers to the shooting down of MH17 in an article titled,"The Insidious Power of Propaganda" .

The story of the downed plane with 298 dead people is no longer news, and the investigation as to who shot it down? Don't hold your breath. Last week Dutch viewers of a TV news program were informed about something that had been doing the rounds on internet samizdat: the countries participating in the MH17 investigation have signed a non¬disclosure agreement. Any of the participants (which include Kiev) has the right to veto publication of the results without explanation. The truth about the cause of the horrifying fate of the 298 appears to have been already settled by propaganda. That means that although there has been no shred of evidence that the official story of the 'rebels' shooting down the plane with Russian involvement, it remains a justification for sanctions against Russia.

Mr Shorten, on ABC 7.30 last night, you declared

The Government is between a rock and a hard place. It's an international conference, not a conference run by Australia, so if Putin has the arrogance to turn up, to visit a nation whose nationals died in this plane crash, he can, but I'm like most Australians; I wish that Putin would at least show enough conscience to be able to not come to Australia because he's rubbing our faces in it.

The G20 is an 'international conference' as you state. However, it should be noted all the BRICS countries will be represented at it, namely Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Argentina and Indonesia will also attend; they are countries which perhaps are more naturally aligned with BRICS than the 'international community' led by the United States. (In fact, President Cristina Kirchner from Argentina was a special guest at the 6th BRICS summit this year.) No doubt, the leaders of these countries will be paying close attention to the stand Australian political leaders take on President Putin's visit and the welcome he receives in Brisbane.

We are entering a period in history when there are strong pushes from particular countries to establish a unipolar world so the United States can remain the dominant economic and military power. If it is necessary to fabricate, lie, wage wars, and to take belligerent stands against the leaders and peoples of particular countries simply to maintain the predominance of the United States, then a unipolar world cannot surely be in the long-term interests of Australia or other countries. Supporting unconscionable actions deemed necessary to ensure this century belongs to America will not only compromise our values and beliefs but will risk our becoming isolated from important partners, not to mention the risks of a major world conflict.

To survive the 21st century, the world needs a stable multipolar world. As the host of the G20, Australia has the opportunity to have a voice on the world stage and display a leadership which will be highly regarded and hold us in good stead in coming years if it reflects a deep and courageous integrity as well as a vision for the people of the world as a whole.

Kind regards,

Susan Dirgham

NOTES

These notes were added by candobetter.net's editor.

Samizdat (Russian: ?????????; IPA: [s?m?z?dat]) was a key form of dissident activity across the Soviet bloc in which individuals reproduced censored publications by hand and passed the documents from reader to reader.

Original Source of article posted on 18 Sep 2014 by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 9:17 am : Russian Union Of Engineers Accuses Ukraine Air Force In MH17 Crash. 22 Sep 2014: Malaysian Flight MH17 Crash Analysis, by The Russian Union of Engineers published on Global Research.
#FF2222;font-weight:bold">The full original Russian language report (2.5MB) #FF2222;font-weight:bold">and its English translation (2.8MB) #FF2222;font-weight:bold">can be downloaded as Microsoft Word documents here. The same full English translation, but in an open-source ODT format, which can be read by either of the free LibreOffice or Open Office programs is attached to this page here (2.7MB).
See also: New findings confirm Malaysian Airlines MH17 was shot down by Ukraine fighter-jet (5/8/14).

The Russian Union of Engineers has issued a report on what happened to flight MH17. The report has now been translated. It doesn’t leave open the option that MH17 was downed by a ground-to-air missile, something all other sources have so far labeled the most likely explanation for what happened on July 17. The Russian Union of Engineers instead claims the plane was attacked by a fighter jet, and that, since the east Ukraine rebels have no such jets, and multiple sides have confirmed there were no Russian jets in the vicinity, this jet had to have been Ukrainian air force.

At the very least the report should be broadly discussed in western media, and western experts asked to refute what parts of it they find fault with.

Here is the conclusion of the report:

Based on the above, we can draw the following conclusions:

9.1. In relation to the circumstances of the crash of the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 jet.

The Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 was carrying out the 17.07.2014 flight Amsterdam – Kuala Lumpur in the flight corridor established by the dispatchers. At the same time, it is likely that manual control was turned off and the plane was on autopilot, flying in a horizontal plane along the route laid out and adjusted by air traffic controllers on the Ukrainian side.

At 17.17-17.20, the Boeing 777 was in Ukrainian airspace near the city of Donetsk at the height of 10100 m. An unidentified combat aircraft (presumably a Su-25 or MiG -29), which was a tier below, on a collision course, in the cloud layer, sharply gained altitude and suddenly appeared out of the clouds in front of the civilian aircraft and opened fire on the cockpit, firing from a 30 mm caliber cannon or smaller. The pilot of a fighter jet can do this while in “free hunting” mode (using onboard radar) or with the help of navigational guidance using airspace situation data from ground-based radar.

As a result of multiple hits from shells there was damage to the cockpit, which suddenly depressurized, resulting in instant death for the crew due to mechanical influences and decompression. The attack was sudden and lasted a fraction of a second; in such circumstances the crew could not sound any alarm as the flight had been proceeding in regular mode and no attack was expected.

Since neither the engines or hydraulic system, nor other devices required for the continuation of the flight were out of commission, the Boeing 777, running on autopilot (as is standard), continued on its horizontal flight path, perhaps gradually losing altitude.

The pilot of the unidentified combat aircraft maneuvered to the rear of the Boeing 777. After that, the unidentified plane remained on the combat course, the pilot provided a target tracking aircraft equipment, took aim and launched his R-60 or R-73 missiles.

The result was a loss of cabin pressure, the aircraft control system was destroyed, the autopilot failed, the aircraft lost the ability to maintain its level flight path, and went into a tailspin. The resulting overload led to mechanical failure of the airframe at high altitudes.

The aircraft, according to the information available from the flight recorders, broke up in the air, but this is possible only in the case of a vertical fall from a height of ten thousand meters, which can only happen when the maximum permissible overload is exceeded. One reason for stalling and going into a tailspin is the inability of the crew to control the aircraft as a result an emergency in the cockpit and the subsequent instantaneous depressurization of the cockpit and the passenger cabin. The aircraft broke up at a high altitude, which explains the fact that the wreckage was scattered over the territory of more than 15 square kilometers.

9.2. In relation to the party responsible for the death of 283 passengers and 15 crew members.

On 17.07.2014, the armed forces of the self-proclaimed Donetsk National Republic had no relevant combat aircraft capable of destroying an aerial target similar to the Boeing 777, nor the necessary airfield network, nor the means of radar detection, targeting and tracking.

No combat aircraft of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation violated the airspace of Ukraine, which the Ukrainian side confirms as well as third parties who conduct space surveillance over the situation in Ukraine and in its airspace.

To establish the truth, it is necessary to objectively and impartially investigate all the circumstances of the destruction of the Malaysian Boeing 777, to interview the thousands of citizens who may have seen something. Naturally, experienced professionals should conduct the surveys. To ask the right questions – this is a rigorous science, and a great art in advancing the truth. Important information is contained in the wreckage of the aircraft and the remains of the dead, but this precise information is easy to destroy, distort and hide. And there are plenty of parties interested in concealing the real facts.

As confirmation, Ukraine, the Netherlands, Belgium and Australia signed an agreement on August 8 providing that information about the crash investigation would be disclosed only upon the consent of all parties. “The investigation is ongoing, [utilizing] expertise and other investigative actions” – announced the Spokesman of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, Yuri Boychenko. “The results will be announced at the conclusion of the investigation and with the consent of all parties that have executed the agreement.”

Procrastination and the evasion of an objective investigation by all sides, with the participation of prestigious international organizations, raises doubts whether the concerned parties will make public the true circumstances surrounding the crash of the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777.

Dear Russian friends,

I am dismayed by the pretences and actions of the Australian government in relation to the shooting down of MH17 by Ukraine, as well as dumbfounded by the complete failure of any media organisation or public commentator to question or contradict this mendacity.

I have been trying to support the statements and actions of Russia and its various ministers by writing to the ABC as well as the Department of Foreign Affairs, since the start of the Syrian ‘campaign’. It must be said I have had little or no success, even in getting a response.

Last year I had the great fortune to accompany Mother Agnes Mariam on a visit to Malcolm Fraser, former PM. I can assure you that he at least is very well aware of just how criminal and dangerous the leaderships of NATO countries and Australia have become; as someone with ‘inside knowledge’, as well as experience in Serbia in the ‘90s he suffers no illusions about US intentions and global dominance, or Australia’s submission to it. Yet remarkably he is a lone voice.
With today’s news about the Dutch investigators’ preliminary report being quickly passed over, the situation has become intolerable. Remarkably this report actually supported evidence for Russian observations and elsewhere that MH17 was shot down by a hail of bullets from a Ukrainian fighter jet – ‘a large number of high-energy objects’. No other conclusion is possible from the available physical evidence – photos of the cockpit damage. But so corrupt and stupified are our media organisations that they allow the lies of the leaders to go unchallenged.

I write to you just to show that there is a least one person in Australia who has no doubt about both Russia’s innocence and the Novorussians’ innocence of this terrorist act; there is little more I can do, beyond writing to my local newspaper ( national papers will not publish this viewpoint), but I nevertheless would like to offer my support in any way that you would consider useful. I believe that there must be processes by which such issues can be pursued with government, even though at all levels people do not accept the case we must make.

Lastly I should just note a comment in an article today in the Sydney morning herald. Talking of the MH17 report it quoted a Pravda editorial:

“Russia is unlikely to accept the report if it suggests they were involved in shooting down the plane.

A recent editorial in Pravda said

"Most likely the story of the downed plane will be hidden away carefully … it is clear that neither the [separatist] militia nor Russia were involved in the terrible disaster.

"The only question is whether Ukraine incidentally shot down the Boeing or it was a carefully planned but ineptly executed act of provocation."

The established narrative in Russian state-controlled media is that the plane was shot at by Ukrainian forces, either by a jet fighter or ground-based missile.”

This clearly articulates my own viewpoint – that the only thing we DON’T know is the degree of assistance from Western agencies to Kiev in committing this act – one which so favoured the plans of NATO and US aggressors who put the Kiev ‘government’ in place.

I hope that you will pass this message to the appropriate people.

kind regards,

David Macilwain,

Sandy Creek, Victoria, Australia 3695

#FBF2EF;line-height:120%;">A report by the Sydney Morning Herald titled, "Julie Bishop says 'petulant' Russian sanctions reflect its lack of acceptance for role in MH17 disaster," claims that Foreign Minister Julie Bishop says Russia's "petulant" trade sanctions on Australian food imports is yet another example of Moscow trying to evade responsibility for the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17. No evidence for Bishop's position is provided. (See also: Malaysian Mainstream Media: MH17 was downed by a Military Aircraft, "Cannon Fire from Fighter Jet". Article by Tony Cartalucci, previously published 8/8/14 on the Land Destroyer Report and Global Research.)

Bishop fails to indicate why Russia should or would accept responsibility for downing an aircraft when no evidence whatsoever even suggests such culpability. Canberra, Washington, London, and Brussels are citing dubious YouTube videos, Facebook, and other forms of "social media," while Russia has provided radar and satellite pictures and has repeatedly called for and supported a proper, independent, impartial investigation into the incident.

Since no such investigation has been concluded, Julie Bishop is not citing the conclusions of such a process, but merely repeating baseless accusations. These are the same variety of baseless, tenuous lies the West used to sell interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria that have devastated entire regions of the planet and left well over a million innocent human beings dead.

This latest from Canberra is the continued leveraging and exploitation of human tragedy to advance a political agenda, not ascertain the truth or seek true justice. Australia's latest comments represent the greater truth behind the West's international agenda – that it is global anarchy dressed up as global order – the rule of the jungle sporting the fig leaf of "rule of law."

Julie Bishop demands Russia take "responsibility," but will she take responsibility for leveling baseless accusations against an entire nation? Defamatory accusations would be grounds for resignation – at least in an administration guided by justice and truth. Each day now that Bishop retains her post is an indictment against the government of Australia's utter lack of both.

#2F4F4F;">Previously published in Consortium News as Obama Should Release Ukraine Evidence (29/7/14).

With the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine turning a local civil war into a U.S. confrontation with Russia, U.S. intelligence veterans urge President Obama to release what evidence he has about the tragedy or to stop poisoning the waters. They note that claims the US has made of having useful satellite imagery have not materialised and say they are not at all sure that the US appreciates the gravity of its escalation of tensions in the region, through apparently empty accusations against Russia.

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Intelligence on Shoot-Down of Malaysian Plane

Executive Summary

U.S.–Russian tensions are building in a precarious way over Ukraine, and we are far from certain that your advisers fully appreciate the danger of escalation. The New York Times and other media outlets are treating sensitive issues in dispute as flat-fact, taking their cue from U.S. government sources.

Twelve days after the shoot-down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, your administration still has issued no coordinated intelligence assessment summarizing what evidence exists to determine who was responsible – much less to convincingly support repeated claims that the plane was downed by a Russian-supplied missile in the hands of Ukrainian separatists.

Your administration has not provided any satellite imagery showing that the separatists had such weaponry, and there are several other “dogs that have not barked.” Washington’s credibility, and your own, will continue to erode, should you be unwilling – or unable – to present more tangible evidence behind administration claims. In what follows, we put this in the perspective of former intelligence professionals with a cumulative total of 260 years in various parts of U.S. intelligence.

—

We, the undersigned former intelligence officers want to share with you our concern about the evidence adduced so far to blame Russia for the July 17 downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17. We are retired from government service and none of us is on the payroll of CNN, Fox News, or any other outlet. We intend this memorandum to provide a fresh, different perspective.

As veteran intelligence analysts accustomed to waiting, except in emergency circumstances, for conclusive information before rushing to judgment, we believe that the charges against Russia should be rooted in solid, far more convincing evidence. And that goes in spades with respect to inflammatory incidents like the shoot-down of an airliner. We are also troubled by the amateurish manner in which fuzzy and flimsy evidence has been served up – some of it via “social media.”

As intelligence professionals we are embarrassed by the unprofessional use of partial intelligence information. As Americans, we find ourselves hoping that, if you indeed have more conclusive evidence, you will find a way to make it public without further delay. In charging Russia with being directly or indirectly responsible, Secretary of State John Kerry has been particularly definitive. Not so the evidence. His statements seem premature and bear earmarks of an attempt to “poison the jury pool.”

Painting Russia Black

We see an eerie resemblance to an earlier exercise in U.S. “public diplomacy” from which valuable lessons can be learned by those more interested in the truth than in exploiting tragic incidents for propaganda advantage. We refer to the behavior of the Reagan administration in the immediate aftermath of the shoot-down of Korean Airlines Flight 007 over Siberia on August 30, 1983. We sketch out below a short summary of that tragic affair, since we suspect you have not been adequately briefed on it. The parallels will be obvious to you.

An advantage of our long tenure as intelligence officers is that we remember what we have witnessed first hand; seldom do we forget key events in which we played an analyst or other role. To put it another way, most of us “know exactly where we were” when a Soviet fighter aircraft shot down Korean Airlines passenger flight 007 over Siberia on August 30, 1983, over 30 years ago. At the time, we were intelligence officers on “active duty.” You were 21; many of those around you today were still younger.

Thus, it seems possible that you may be learning how the KAL007 affair went down, so to speak, for the first time; that you may now become more aware of the serious implications for U.S.-Russian relations regarding how the downing of Flight 17 goes down; and that you will come to see merit in preventing ties with Moscow from falling into a state of complete disrepair. In our view, the strategic danger here dwarfs all other considerations.

Hours after the tragic shoot-down on August 30, 1983, the Reagan administration used its very accomplished propaganda machine to twist the available intelligence on Soviet culpability for the killing of all 269 people aboard KAL007. The airliner was shot down after it strayed hundreds of miles off course and penetrated Russia’s airspace over sensitive military facilities in Kamchatka and Sakhalin Island. The Soviet pilot tried to signal the plane to land, but the KAL pilots did not respond to the repeated warnings. Amid confusion about the plane’s identity – a U.S. spy plane had been in the vicinity hours earlier – Soviet ground control ordered the pilot to fire.

The Soviets soon realized they had made a horrendous mistake. U.S. intelligence also knew from sensitive intercepts that the tragedy had resulted from a blunder, not from a willful act of murder (much as on July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian civilian airliner over the Persian Gulf, killing 290 people, an act which President Ronald Reagan dismissively explained as an “understandable accident”).

To make the very blackest case against Moscow for shooting down the KAL airliner, the Reagan administration suppressed exculpatory evidence from U.S. electronic intercepts. Washington’s mantra became “Moscow’s deliberate downing of a civilian passenger plane.” Newsweek ran a cover emblazoned with the headline “Murder in the Sky.” (Apparently, not much has changed; Time’s cover this week features “Cold War II” and “Putin’s dangerous game.” The cover story by Simon Shuster, “In Russia, Crime Without Punishment,” would merit an A-plus in William Randolph Hearst’s course “Yellow Journalism 101.”)

When KAL007 was shot down, Alvin A. Snyder, director of the U.S. Information Agency’s television and film division, was enlisted in a concerted effort to “heap as much abuse on the Soviet Union as possible,” as Snyder writes in his 1995 book, “Warriors of Disinformation.”

He and his colleagues also earned an A-plus for bringing the “mainstream media” along. For example, ABC’s Ted Koppel noted with patriotic pride, “This has been one of those occasions when there is very little difference between what is churned out by the U.S. government propaganda organs and by the commercial broadcasting networks.”

“Fixing” the Intelligence Around the Policy

“The perception we wanted to convey was that the Soviet Union had cold-bloodedly carried out a barbaric act,” wrote Snyder, adding that the Reagan administration went so far as to present a doctored transcript of the intercepts to the United Nations Security Council on September 6, 1983.

Only a decade later, when Snyder saw the complete transcripts — including the portions that the Reagan administration had hidden — would he fully realize how many of the central elements of the U.S. presentation were false.

The intercepts showed that the Soviet fighter pilot believed he was pursuing a U.S. spy aircraft and that he was having trouble in the dark identifying the plane. Per instructions from ground control, the pilot had circled the KAL airliner and tilted his wings to order the aircraft to land. The pilot said he fired warning shots, as well. This information “was not on the tape we were provided,” Snyder wrote.

It became abundantly clear to Snyder that, in smearing the Soviets, the Reagan administration had presented false accusations to the United Nations, as well as to the people of the United States and the world. In his book, Snyder acknowledged his own role in the deception, but drew a cynical conclusion. He wrote, “The moral of the story is that all governments, including our own, lie when it suits their purposes. The key is to lie first.”

The tortured attempts by your administration and stenographers in the media to blame Russia for the downing of Flight 17, together with John Kerry’s unenviable record for credibility, lead us to the reluctant conclusion that the syndrome Snyder describes may also be at work in your own administration; that is, that an ethos of “getting your own lie out first” has replaced “ye shall know the truth.” At a minimum, we believe Secretary Kerry displayed unseemly haste in his determination to be first out of the starting gate.

Both Sides Cannot Be Telling the Truth

We have always taken pride in not shooting from the hip, but rather in doing intelligence analysis that is evidence-based. The evidence released to date does not bear close scrutiny; it does not permit a judgment as to which side is lying about the shoot-down of Flight 17. Our entire professional experience would incline us to suspect the Russians – almost instinctively. Our more recent experience, particularly observing Secretary Kerry injudiciousness in latching onto one spurious report after another as “evidence,” has gone a long way toward balancing our earlier predispositions.

It seems that whenever Kerry does cite supposed “evidence” that can be checked – like the forged anti-Semitic fliers distributed in eastern Ukraine or the photos of alleged Russian special forces soldiers who allegedly slipped into Ukraine – the “proof” goes “poof” as Kerry once said in a different context. Still, these misrepresentations seem small peccadillos compared with bigger whoppers like the claim Kerry made on August 30, 2013, no fewer than 35 times, that “we know” the government of Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical incidents near Damascus nine days before.

On September 3, 2013 – following your decision to call off the attack on Syria in order to await Congressional authorization – Kerry was still pushing for an attack in testimony before a thoroughly sympathetic Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. On the following day Kerry drew highly unusual personal criticism from President Putin, who said: “He is lying, and he knows he is lying. It is sad.”

Equally serious, during the first week of September 2013, as you and President Vladimir Putin were putting the final touches to the deal whereby Syrian chemical weapons would be given up for destruction, John Kerry said something that puzzles us to this day. On September 9, 2013, Kerry was in London, still promoting a U.S. attack on Syria for having crossed the “Red Line” you had set against Syria’s using chemical weapons.

At a formal press conference, Kerry abruptly dismissed the possibility that Bashar al-Assad would ever give up his chemical weapons, saying, “He isn’t about to do that; it can’t be done.” Just a few hours later, the Russians and Syrians announced Syria’s agreement to do precisely what Kerry had ruled out as impossible. You sent him back to Geneva to sign the agreement, and it was formally concluded on September 14.

Regarding the Malaysia Airlines shoot-down of July 17, we believe Kerry has typically rushed to judgment and that his incredible record for credibility poses a huge disadvantage in the diplomatic and propaganda maneuvering vis-a-vis Russia. We suggest you call a halt to this misbegotten “public diplomacy” offensive. If, however, you decide to press on anyway, we suggest you try to find a less tarnished statesman or woman.

A Choice Between Two

If the intelligence on the shoot-down is as weak as it appears judging from the fuzzy scraps that have been released, we strongly suggest you call off the propaganda war and await the findings of those charged with investigating the shoot-down. If, on the other hand, your administration has more concrete, probative intelligence, we strongly suggest that you consider approving it for release, even if there may be some risk of damage to “sources and methods.” Too often this consideration is used to prevent information from entering the public domain where, as in this case, it belongs.

There have been critical junctures in the past in which presidents have recognized the need to waive secrecy in order to show what one might call “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind” or even to justify military action.

As senior CIA veteran Milton Bearden has put it, there are occasions when more damage is done to U.S. national security by “protecting” sources and methods than by revealing them. For instance, Bearden noted that Ronald Reagan exposed a sensitive intelligence source in showing a skeptical world the reason for the U.S. attack on Libya in retaliation for the April 5, 1986 bombing at the La Belle Disco in West Berlin. That bombing killed two U.S. servicemen and a Turkish woman, and injured over 200 people, including 79 U.S. servicemen.

Intercepted messages between Tripoli and agents in Europe made it clear that Libya was behind the attack. Here’s an excerpt: “At 1:30 in the morning one of the acts was carried out with success, without leaving a trace behind.”

Ten days after the bombing the U.S. retaliated, sending over 60 Air Force fighters to strike the Libyan capital of Tripoli and the city of Benghazi. The operation was widely seen as an attempt to kill Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who survived, but his adopted 15-month-old daughter was killed in the bombing, along with at least 15 other civilians.

Three decades ago, there was more shame attached to the killing of children. As world abhorrence grew after the U.S. bombing strikes, the Reagan administration produced the intercepted, decoded message sent by the Libyan Peoples Bureau in East Berlin acknowledging the “success” of the attack on the disco, and adding the ironically inaccurate boast “without leaving a trace behind.”

The Reagan administration made the decision to give up a highly sensitive intelligence source, its ability to intercept and decipher Libyan communications. But once the rest of the world absorbed this evidence, international grumbling subsided and many considered the retaliation against Tripoli justified.

If You’ve Got the Goods…

If the U.S. has more convincing evidence than what has so far been adduced concerning responsibility for shooting down Flight 17, we believe it would be best to find a way to make that intelligence public – even at the risk of compromising “sources and methods.” Moreover, we suggest you instruct your subordinates not to cheapen U.S. credibility by releasing key information via social media like Twitter and Facebook.

The reputation of the messenger for credibility is also key in this area of “public diplomacy.” As is by now clear to you, in our view Secretary Kerry is more liability than asset in this regard. Similarly, with regard to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, his March 12, 2013 Congressional testimony under oath to what he later admitted were “clearly erroneous” things regarding NSA collection should disqualify him. Clapper should be kept at far remove from the Flight 17 affair.

What is needed, if you’ve got the goods, is an Interagency Intelligence Assessment – the genre used in the past to lay out the intelligence. We are hearing indirectly from some of our former colleagues that what Secretary Kerry is peddling does not square with the real intelligence. Such was the case late last August, when Kerry created a unique vehicle he called a “Government (not Intelligence) Assessment” blaming, with no verifiable evidence, Bashar al-Assad for the chemical attacks near Damascus, as honest intelligence analysts refused to go along and, instead, held their noses.

We believe you need to seek out honest intelligence analysts now and hear them out. Then, you may be persuaded to take steps to curb the risk that relations with Russia might escalate from “Cold War II” into an armed confrontation. In all candor, we see little reason to believe that Secretary Kerry and your other advisers appreciate the enormity of that danger.

In our most recent (May 4) memorandum to you, Mr. President, we cautioned that if the U.S. wished “to stop a bloody civil war between east and west Ukraine and avert Russian military intervention in eastern Ukraine, you may be able to do so before the violence hurtles completely out of control.” On July 18, you joined the top leaders of Germany, France, and Russia in calling for an immediate ceasefire. Most informed observers believe you have it in your power to get Ukrainian leaders to agree. The longer Kiev continues its offensive against separatists in eastern Ukraine, the more such U.S. statements appear hypocritical.

We reiterate our recommendations of May 4, that you remove the seeds of this confrontation by publicly disavowing any wish to incorporate Ukraine into NATO and that you make it clear that you are prepared to meet personally with Russian President Putin without delay to discuss ways to defuse the crisis and recognize the legitimate interests of the various parties. The suggestion of an early summit got extraordinary resonance in controlled and independent Russian media. Not so in “mainstream” media in the U.S. Nor did we hear back from you.

The courtesy of a reply is requested.

Prepared by VIPS Steering Group

William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)

Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)

Edward Loomis, NSA, Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)

David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)

Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)

Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.)

Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret.); Foreign Service Officer (resigned)

Here is a description of a Kiev army fighter plane hiding behind a civil airline in order to bomb East Ukraine and cause a response. This video was uploaded June 18, 2014, a month before Malaysian Airlines MH17 crashed in Ukraine. Originally published at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39234.htm Following this video is the detailed report of 21 July from Moscow of a fighter plane close to MH17, and claiming that the United States had satellites that must have provided images that would corroborate the Russian ones, but that the United States is refusing to release these.

The woman in the video does not say she saw the plane; she says that it happened to another plane before M17 and was posted on Youtube a month before M17. Fighter jets can get very close to another plane. B52s flew their first runs in Iraq at low altitude then moved to high altitude out of the range of Iraq's fighter jets and anti aircraft rockets. Their service ceiling was 50,000 ft (15,000 m) much higher than M17 and they continued bombing. They don't need to look out the window to bomb any more.

The commercial airline pilot would not have seen anything if the fighter was behind and below it.

It seems that M17 changed its course twice and finished up over the war zone, while US planes avoided that flight path. The fact that no data has been released from Kiev air control might be an indication that Kiev has been using passenger planes as shields regularly.

Ukrainian Su-25 fighter detected in close approach to MH17 before crash - Moscow

On 21 July Moscow released this detailed report of a fighter plane observed close to MH17. They further assert that the United States should have satellite photographs which would confirm this.

The Russian military detected a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet gaining height towards the MH17 Boeing on the day of the catastrophe. Kiev must explain why the military jet was tracking the passenger airplane, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

“A Ukraine Air Force military jet was detected gaining
height, it’s distance from the Malaysian Boeing was 3 to
5km,” said the head of the Main Operations Directorate of
the HQ of Russia’s military forces, Lieutenant-General Andrey
Kartopolov speaking at a media conference in Moscow on Monday.

“[We] would like to get an explanation as to why the military
jet was flying along a civil aviation corridor at almost the same
time and at the same level as a passenger plane,” he stated.

“The SU-25 fighter jet can gain an altitude of 10km,
according to its specification,” he added. “It’s
equipped with air-to-air R-60 missiles that can hit a target at a
distance up to 12km, up to 5km for sure.”

The presence of the Ukrainian military jet can be confirmed by
video shots made by the Rostov monitoring center, Kartopolov
stated.

At the moment of the MH17 crash an American satellite was flying
over the area of eastern Ukraine, according to Russia’s Defense
Ministry. It urged the US to publish the space photos and data
captured by it.

‘Ukrainian Buk missile system transported to militia-held area’

In addition, MH17 crashed within the operating zone of the
Ukrainian army’s self-propelled, medium-range surface-to-air
‘Buk’ missile systems, the Russian general said.

“We have space images of certain places where the Ukraine’s
air defense was located in the southeast of the country,”
Kartapolov noted.



The first three shots that were shown by the general are dated
July 14. The images show Buk missile launch systems in about 8km
northwest of the city of Lugansk – a TELAR and two TELs,
according to the military official.


Another image shows a radar station near Donetsk.

While the third picture shows the location of the air defense
systems near Donetsk, he explained. In particular, one can
clearly see a TELAR launcher and about 60 military and auxiliary
vehicles, tents for vehicles and other structures, he elaborated.

Buk missile defense units in Donetsk Region, 5km north of Donetsk city, on July 14, 2014.Photo courtesy of the Russian Defense Ministry

“Images from this area were also made on July 17. One should
notice that the missile launcher is absent [from the scene].
Image number five shows the Buk missile system in the morning of
the same day in the area of settlement Zaroschinskoe – 50km south
of Donetsk and 8km south of Shakhtyorsk," the Kartapolov
said.

The question that has to be answered is why the missile system
appeared near the area controlled by the local militia forces
shortly before the catastrophe, he stated.



Images taken on July 18 show that the missile systems left the
area of the MH17 crash, the military official said.



Kartapolov also pointed to the fact that on the day of the plane
crash Ukraine’s military increased activity on the part of
Ukraine’s Kupol-M1 9S18 radars, which are part of the Buk system.

"..there were 7 radars operating on July 15, 8 radars
operating on July 16, and 9 radars operating on July 17 in the
area. Then, starting with July 18, the intensity of radar
activities radically decreased, and now there are no more than
two or three radars operating a day. The reason behind this is
yet to be found."

In response to Moscow’s evidence, Kiev said on Monday it had
proof the missile that brought down a Malaysian airliner last
week came from Russia.



"There is evidence that the missile which struck the plane
was fired by terrorists, who received arms and specialists from
the Russian Federation," spokesman for Ukraine's Security
Council Andrey Lysenko told a news conference. "To disown
this tragedy, [Russia] are drawing a lot of pictures and maps. We
will explore any photos and other plans produced by the Russian
side."

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said on Monday that Kiev has
“strong evidence” of the causes of the MH17 crash.

“We know exactly the place [the surface-to-air missile was]
launched, we know exactly the place where it hit the civilian
plane and the place where the plane crashed.”

Kiev is ready to hand the information to the international
investigation commission, according to the presidential
press-service.