German intelligence has concluded that pro-Russian separatists, not Russia, in what Der Spiegel terms an accident, shot down Flight MH-17, using a missile battery they captured from the Ukrainian Army. So, all ranting that the Russians were murderers, is, well, inoperative. What we have as a consequence is a serious defeat of American foreign policy and a renewal of Cold War rivalry, with Russia for the time being holding the upper hand.
I'm not going to do a full diary on the news that German intelligence has cleared the Russians of involvement in shooting down Malaysian flight MH-17, and that Der Spiegel, at least, seems to think that the episode was an accident. But, now that the rants are over, out of respect for the truth, the facts have to be put forward.
Representative of the crap put forward wasAustin Carson's piece in the Washington Post:
What exactly was Russia’s role in last week’s tragic crash of a Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in eastern Ukraine? What lessons about Russian covert involvement in Ukraine more broadly can be gleaned from past instances of war-time covert aid?
...
The bottom line is that Russian decision-makers are either guilty of gross negligence or have blood on their hands.
He presented no actual evidence in favor of this assertion. It is a
conspiracy theory. I guess it was unintentionally prescient that it was presented in a feature called
The Monkey Cage.
So, here's what Der Spiegel is saying now:
In an Oct. 8 presentation given to members of the parliamentary control committee, the Bundestag body responsible for monitoring the work of German intelligence, BND President Gerhard Schindler provided ample evidence to back up his case, including satellite images and diverse photo evidence. The BND has intelligence indicating that pro-Russian separatists captured a BUK air defense missile system at a Ukrainian military base and fired a missile on July 17 that exploded in direct proximity to the Malaysian aircraft, which had been carrying 298 people.
Unambiguous Findings
Evidence obtained shortly after the accident suggested the aircraft had been shot down by pro-Russian militants.
...
BND's Schindler says his agency has come up with unambiguous findings. One is that Ukrainian photos have been manipulated and that there are details indicating this. He also told the panel that Russian claims the missile had been fired by Ukrainian soldiers and that a Ukrainian fighter jet had been flying close to the passenger jet were false.
"It was pro-Russian separatists," Schindler said...
Now, Der Spiegel doesn't say
why it thinks this was an accident. Perhaps that will prove to be wrong. But what is clear is (a) the Russians didn't supply the missile, (b) there's no reason to think that a Russian was involved in the firing of the missile, (c) given that it was pro-
Ukrainian Russian rebels who are believed to have fired the missile, there's no reason to believe that the firing was a deliberate attack on a civilian airliner. Depending on how much recklessness was involved, it may have been a war crime. That is for others--probably none of whom are members of the DK community--to decide.
But in the Ukraine we have a pretty clear example of how American policy has played out, and it reveals how dangerously bankrupt our policy (not to mention Ukraine) is.
1. Russia regards the Ukraine as a vital strategic interest.
2. The US has talked about bringing Ukraine into NATO, which Russia regards as a threat.
3. The US does not have either the military force or the soft power (like money to fund Ukraine's debts) to control Ukraine.
4. As one in a string of similar illegal actions (cf. Venezuela, cf. Haiti, cf. Honduras), the US contributed to the overthrow of a corrupt, but legally elected regime.
5. The coup government, rather than placating pro-Russian citizens, deliberately inflamed them.
6. The Russians, who do have the military power to control Ukraine, seized a military base they regard as strategically essential in Crimea.
7. Pro-Russian Ukrainians, furious at the coup government and probably encouraged by the Russians, began resistance against the coup government.
8. The coup government responded with extreme violence, violence that may amount to a war crime in itself.
9. Thanks probably to Russian arms and training--and perhaps even military personnel--the pro-Russian resistance decisively defeated the Ukrainian army.
10. The Poroshenko regime has been forced to concede considerable autonomy to the pro-Russian resistance and deal with Russia.
10. Some of the personnel the Ukrainians used were neo-Nazis. Those neo-Nazis are not happy with the defeat they suffered and could destabilize the Poroshenko regime, which itself is not very steady.
All of this was obvious from the beginning. The US simply does not have the same stake--or the same influence-- in Ukraine that Russia does. As long as the corrupt Yanukovych government was in place, the US could point to that and say that we represent something better. We could have gradually, patiently, led Ukraine into a neutral position and eventually into a pro-Western position. It might have taken a decade or so. But it would have been a real blow against Russian dreams of empire. Providing people with a real alternative to corruption and drift is usually pretty popular. Instead, we provided them with a pro-Western government that can't even supply heat to its citizens, and which destroyed one of the most productive industrial centers in the country.
For the people posting rants about MH-17--and on DK there were a few rants on the reflexively pro-Russian side as well as the reflexively anti-Russian one-- the airliner and the people who died on it were just pawns, chits in a political game. In the end, though, the truth comes out. It pays to care about that more than about which side is morally pure since, truth be told, in the games played between Great Powers, no one can claim to be good. There is probably more to emerge in this story, and if it contradicts what Der Spiegel reports, I will be glad to post that as well.