Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

A Malaysian plane has been shot down in the Ukraine.

835 replies

WeAreEternal · 17/07/2014 16:38

The flight mh17 from Amsterdam to kuala lumpor with 295 people on board, it was a boing 777.
It was shot down with a buk ground to air missile.
They say there are no survivors.

It's awful.

OP posts:
claig · 22/07/2014 10:26

Good, because they are full of spin and smear to gee the public up for the War Party's plans.

Sonn they will have to start attacking Merkel, because fortunately for Europe, she will not fall for it and will not buckle to it. The more they start to attack Merkel for being weak, the more the European public will respect her.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2694001/Ukraine-slates-Merkel-cosying-Putin-World-Cup-bitter-virals-compare-Hitler-s-right-hand-man-von-Ribbentrop.html

claig · 22/07/2014 10:29

'However, monitors from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) say they have been given only limited access to the site, with the rebels keeping them away from the wreckage."

We saw the OSCE walking around the wreckage on our TV screens. They didn't seem to like the fact that armed rebels were escorting them, but I guess that the armed rebels may not trust them because some European leaders seem to have already made up their minds who did it before an investigation has even begun, but then that is nothing new.

PigletJohn · 22/07/2014 10:32

you think that "limited access" and "walking around" are incompatible?

claig · 22/07/2014 10:34

Have any journalists asked the OSCE to explain what the "limited access" means and if not why not? And has Cameron demanded to know why the OSCE has only been given "limited access"? Or is it just more spin?

BookABooSue · 22/07/2014 10:40

The issue of safe passage is always contentious in a conflict zone. In my experience governments do tend to be more loath to confirm an area is safe than, for example, people living and working in the conflict zone.

Access is rigorously controlled and its not uncommon as an international observer/ aid worker / journalist to have briefings every day on whether you can travel on certain roads or leave your compound.

The unwillingness of the Ukrainian government to confirm safe passage could be prompted by many considerations. It's not necessarily true that they are being deliberately obstructive but it is true that the rebels are assessing the risk differently (as are the international media who are already at the site). However, as I said, it's not uncommon for the local government to assess the situation differently from the people on the ground.

PigletJohn · 22/07/2014 10:53

I can't see how the Ukrainian government is capable of, or can be expected to, providing safe passage in an area controlled by pro-Russian gunmen and their sponsors.

Note also the comment by the OSCE observers team
sentence beginning "Some of the..."

claig · 22/07/2014 11:15

'I can't see how the Ukrainian government is capable of, or can be expected to, providing safe passage in an area controlled by pro-Russian gunmen and their sponsors'

Because since the eyes of the world are on this region, you would expect some of our leaders (apart from just Putin and Merkel) to ask Yats nicely if he could ensure a ceasefire so that safe passage could be provided. The rebels know that the West is against them and accuses them so it is not in their interests to let the Sun and Daily Mail and all the rest of the media smear them any more than they are already doing by preventing safe passage which is what they have said they will allow.

However, it is Yats's forces who continued shelling in Donetsk yesterday and who will not implement a ceasefire and who is probably not even being asked to implement a ceasefire by some of our leaders. And in those circumstances, Yats can say that he cannot ensure the safety of the investigators due to the unrealiability of the "drunken gorillas".

I think that this will lead to yats claiming that the "drunken gorillas" prevented an early investigation and that is why he has not been able to come up with all of the necessary evidence. But we will have to see what evidence Yats has got.

PigletJohn · 22/07/2014 12:56

what you mean, of course, is that the pro-Russian gunmen and their sponsors have to provide the safe access.

If you think the pro-Russians are amenable to approaches from the Ukrainian government, then you might think that the Ukrainian government is well-placed to secure such an undertaking.

However, if you think that they are bitterly opposed to the Ukrainian government, to the point of armed rebellion, and see themselves as allied to Russia, then you might think it is an absolutely stupid idea.

shockinglybadteacher · 22/07/2014 13:27

I would draw a comparison between the bombing in Omagh and MH17. In the first case there was an issue with the placement of the car and what was intended as a show of force became a tragedy. In the second case I suspect that what was intended was carried out but they did not understand the consequences.

claig · 22/07/2014 14:10

Proroshenko called a ceasefire for 40 km surrounding the crash site on Monday.

Russia has released radar data etc. Ukraine says it has data and will release it to the inquiry.

PigletJohn · 22/07/2014 14:23

I wonder when the pro-Russian gunmen in control of the site will actually provide safe and unrestricted access to the investigators, rather than just talking about it

meanwhile...

claig · 22/07/2014 14:33

Russians released radar data yesterday. I don't think our TV news media covered it much, but Independent has something on it. They say there was an unidentified jet near MH17. They want Ukraine to explain what it was. They want US to release satellite data. One report says that Russians have military radar data as well but they have not released that yet.

BookABooSue · 22/07/2014 16:40

Piglet in a conflict zone no-one can completely guarantee safe passage unless there is an agreed ceasefire on both sides.

However, the government can either commit resources/bodyguards to escort international visitors or the government can advise on the areas of most extreme fighting and visitors choose the least dangerous path rather than a completely safe path iyswim or the government can refuse necessary permits hence meaning no-one can leave central areas without their permission or as in one zone I worked in, the US charter private planes/helicopters and make their own way direct to the area after negotiating the necessary airspace.

I'm simply sharing my experience of access issues in conflict zones. However, I can see you already have a clear opinion on what you think is happening based on certain media reports so I'm going to bow out now.

claig · 22/07/2014 16:49

Opened up my Daily Mail online Favourite page and I'm hit with this

'Hypocrites!': Hollande hits back at Cameron attacking France selling warships to Russia while oligarchs seek refuge in London

"Bitter divisions over the way Europe stands up to Vladimir Putin have spilled into the open, with France branding Britain 'hypocrites' for allowing London to be a refuge for Russian oligarchs.

David Cameron has warned it would be 'unthinkable' for French President Francois Hollande to go ahead with selling warships to Moscow.

But Mr Hollande has vowed to press ahead with the £950million sale of Mistral helicopter carriers, with the head of his ruling Socialist Party warning Mr Cameron he should 'start by cleaning up his own backyard'."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2701158/Cameron-tells-EU-countries-needs-hit-sanctions-against-Russia-banking-energy-defence.html

It's all going Pete Tong. Sky haven't mentioned this yet.

PigletJohn · 22/07/2014 17:20

BookABooSue

"Piglet in a conflict zone no-one can completely guarantee safe passage unless there is an agreed ceasefire on both sides."

Indeed so

And the Ukrainian government say they have ordered their troops not to fire with 40km of the crash site.

But the pro-Russian gunmen who control the site are least likely to pay attention to the Ukrainian government. I don't believe claig is right when she suggests that (the Ukrainian government) "could ensure a ceasefire"

claig · 22/07/2014 17:28

It appears that there are pro-Kiev militias not under Ukrainian government control fighting the separatists as well.

"The incident has been blamed on pro-Kiev forces who are understood to have forced rebels out of several village in the suburbs north of Donetsk as part of a wider attempt to retake the city itself.

The Ukrainian government has denied sending its army in the area and says the villages were retaken by forces loyal to Kiev, but not under their control.

The area in and around Donetsk is particularly tense following the death of 298 passengers on board Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 last week .

Pro-Kiev troops have been blamed for the attack and it is understood they have since taken control of the village from rebels as part of a wider attempt to wrestle back possession of Donetsk itself"

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2701202/Children-run-lives-beach-near-Donetsk-peppered-mortar-attack.html

shockinglybadteacher · 22/07/2014 18:42

I see the latest comment from Russia is that a Ukrainian jet might have shot MH17 down. This seems a bit unlikely.

If you know anything about Lockerbie, the pattern of debris and sadly also the pattern of how the bodies are and how they fell is very similar indeed. The MH17 debris looks like a sudden catastrophic mid air incident but it doesn't look how things look like if they are shot down by an air to air missile.

Without wishing to go into too much detail, there are things you might expect to happen if hit by an air to air missile which didn't from the pics I saw. I could be completely wrong of course but I suspect very strongly that MH17 being shot down by a jet is incorrect.

claig · 23/07/2014 00:24

"Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Tuesday that Russia was responsible for "creating the conditions" that led to the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, but they offered no evidence of direct Russian government involvement.

The intelligence officials were cautious in their assessment, noting that while the Russians have been arming separatists in eastern Ukraine, the U.S. had no direct evidence that the missile used to shoot down the passenger jet came from Russia

...

The plane was likely shot down by an SA-11 surface-to-air missile fired by Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, the intelligence officials said, citing intercepts, satellite photos and social media postings by separatists, some of which have been authenticated by U.S. experts.

But the officials said they did not know who fired the missile or whether any Russian operatives were present at the missile launch. They were not certain that the missile crew was trained in Russia, although they described a stepped-up campaign in recent weeks by Russia to arm and train the rebels, which they say has continued even after the downing of the commercial jetliner.

In terms of who fired the missile, "we don't know a name, we don't know a rank and we're not even 100 percent sure of a nationality," one official said, adding at another point, "There is not going to be a Perry Mason moment here."

White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said the U.S. was still working to determine whether the missile launch had a "direct link" to Russia, including whether there were Russians on the ground during the attack and the degree to which Russians may have trained the separatists to launch such a strike.

"We do think President Putin and the Russian government bears responsibility for the support they provided to these separatists, the arms they provided to these separatists, the training they provided as well and the general unstable environment in eastern Ukraine," Rhodes said in an interview with CNN.

He added that heavy weaponry continues to flow into Ukraine from Russia following the downing of the plane.

The intelligence officials said the most likely explanation for the downing was that the rebels made a mistake. Separatists previously had shot down 12 Ukrainian military airplanes, the officials said.

The officials made clear they were relying in part on social media postings and videos made public in recent days by the Ukrainian government, even though they have not been able to authenticate all of it . For example, they cited a video of a missile launcher said to have been crossing the Russian border after the launch, appearing to be missing a missile.

But later, under questioning, the officials acknowledged they had not yet verified that the video was exactly what it purported to be .

Despite the fuzziness of some details, however, the intelligence officials said the case that the separatists were responsible for shooting down the plane was solid . Other scenarios — such as that the Ukrainian military shot down the plane — are implausible, they said. No Ukrainian surface-to-air missile system was in range.

www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2702002/US-No-link-Russian-govt-plane-downing.html

BelleOfTheBorstal · 23/07/2014 00:58

The intelligence department in the usa responsible for looking at this and by default, any other usa govermental departments, with an interest in this, will probably know exactly what happened but will be reluctant to put this information into the public domain because it will give away too much about what their satellites and intelligence gathering is actually capable of.
And as a consequence, innocents will once again suffer so that political elites can hang onto control and power.

claig · 23/07/2014 01:20

The Russians have released more detailed information and they have military radar info that they have not yet released. They have probably told Merkel what they have, but they may not want to embarrass the Ukrainians with the full details.

Putin may not release everything he has got. He may leave them a way out as he usually does when he makes deals.

There may be a deal where Putin will drop the rebels and agree not to embarrass the Ukrainians with the info he has probably got.

"Domestically, he's calling that off," Mr. Lukyanov says. "His core message to the West seems to be that we are ready to be flexible. Russia is in no mood to escalate the confrontation, and it's possible we could do some deal on non-recognition of the Ukrainian insurgents," he adds.

...

But Putin today pointed out that Russia supports a full independent investigation of the accident. Moreover, he added the intriguing suggestion that Moscow might be ready to use its leverage on the rebels if there is a serious peace process

...

It was primarily a message for all the various factions around Putin to drop their differences and get behind disengagement in Ukraine and conciliation with the West, because the only alternative – "Plan B" – is something very few members of the Russian elite would actually want: "That would be to close the doors and accept a state of maximum isolation for Russia," Mr. Pavlovsky says"

www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2014/0722/Did-Putin-just-bring-Russia-in-from-the-cold

I think that Merkel and the Germans probably understand the situation and they want to de-escalate, unlike some of the hawkish European leaders, and Putin wants to de-escalate too.

claig · 23/07/2014 01:24

If that happens, then the hawks are going to look ridiculous yet again, just like they did over Syria when Putin again gave them a way out with the chemical weapons deal.

claig · 23/07/2014 01:35

And the US wants Putin to drop the rebels.

There are articles on the net saying that the rebels say they are winning, that the Ukrainian government forces have been fighting them for months but are losing and that the people back the rebels and that reservists are not keen on fighting the rebels. The rebels say that the Right Sector and mercenaries and elite troops want to fight and the rebels say they target those troops and not the reservists.

So if Putin agrees to drop the rebels, then a deal can probably be done that saves embarrassing the Ukrainians too much. Although obviously Merkel, Europe's leader, will probably no longer take Yats seriously, if she ever did.

PigletJohn · 23/07/2014 07:19

The US is not alone in wanting Putin to stop fomenting civil war in his neighbours and providing soldiers and heavy weapons.

Taking the insignia off their uniforms and vehicles fooled no-one in Crimea or the Baltic states and fools no-one in the rest of Ukraine.

claig · 23/07/2014 07:24

True