Flying over warzone Ukraine, the probable & convenient happens.
July 18, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - At no juncture during the Ukrainian crisis could the downing of Malaysian Boeing 777 flight MH17 have been more convenient for NATO and its proxy regime in Kiev. Kiev's forces were being picked apart in eastern Ukraine with several units encircled and destroyed. In the west of the country, dissent was growing by Ukrainians unwilling to march off to fight in the east. NATO's attempts to bait Russia into moving into Ukrainian territory and shift global opinion against Moscow had repeatedly failed.
The final card to be played by the US was another round of sanctions that almost immediately was ridiculed as ineffective and impotent. Even US corporate-financier interests condemned the latest round of sanctions claiming they were "unilateral" in nature and thus limited US enterprise from interacting with Russia while leaving European competitors free to move into the void. An effective US policy of confronting, containing, and undermining Russia would require multilateral sanctions with almost universal support - but the impetus for such sweeping sanctions did not exist - until now.
The US FAA Declared Ukrainian Airspace Off-Limits 3 Months Ago
Indeed, the stars have aligned for NATO. While the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) declared Ukrainian airspace off limits to all aircraft under its jurisdiction, it appears other airlines continued flying over what has been a warzone for months. The Atlantic in a report titled, "The FAA's Notice Prohibiting Airline Flights Over Ukraine," stated clearly that:
For months fighters in eastern Ukraine have been downing Ukrainian military helicopters, warplanes, and even a military transport aircraft - all using various forms of man-portable anti-air missiles - all of which are incapable of downing the Malaysian 777 which was flying at approximately 33,000 feet - well above the effective range of man-portable air defense systems.
The system cited as responsible for the downing of flight MH17, was the sophisticated Buk radar guided, tracked-vehicle mounted, anti-aircraft missile system. The New York Daily News reported in an article titled, "Malaysia Airlines plane feared shot down in Ukraine near Russian border," that:
It is not clear if fighters in eastern Ukraine obtained any Buk systems - and if they did, it is unclear whether they had the ability to maintain and operate them. If they did have any Buk systems, they would be few. Kiev claims that the systems were passed along by Russia - apparently denying that any of their own systems had gone missing. Unfortunately, even if Russia was arming fighters in eastern Ukraine, it would not be with Buk systems that would be traced directly back to Moscow during their first use regardless of what they fired at.
Cui Bono?
Russia's strongest card thus far has been its restraint and NATO's inability to implicate it in the chaos NATO itself started by backing armed Neo-Nazis during the "Euromaidan" of late 2013-early 2014. Russia surely would not throw that card away to pass along weapon systems to fighters that were already successfully downing Ukrainian military aircraft with man-portable missiles.
Russia and the fighters operating in eastern Ukraine have nothing to gain by downing a civilian airliner, but absolutely everything to lose - thus pointing the finger in another direction - that of NATO and their proxy regime in Kiev. That the downed aircraft is yet another Malaysian Boeing 777 - the second one this year to be lost under extraordinary circumstances - has serendipitously gained maximum attention for propagandists across the West. They have the world's full and undivided attention with which to pin the blame on Russia and anti-Kiev fighters in eastern Ukraine.
The impetus necessary to unite Europe and other Western allies behind NATO and the US for a more direct intervention in Ukraine where the West is currently floundering is now consuming headlines around the world. If the downing of MH17 was not a case of tragic misidentification, then answering the first question of any investigation, cui bono - or to whose benefit - is answered resoundingly with, "NATO."
July 18, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - At no juncture during the Ukrainian crisis could the downing of Malaysian Boeing 777 flight MH17 have been more convenient for NATO and its proxy regime in Kiev. Kiev's forces were being picked apart in eastern Ukraine with several units encircled and destroyed. In the west of the country, dissent was growing by Ukrainians unwilling to march off to fight in the east. NATO's attempts to bait Russia into moving into Ukrainian territory and shift global opinion against Moscow had repeatedly failed.
 |
| Image: Yet another Malaysia Boeing 777 is lost under extraordinary circumstances this year. |
The US FAA Declared Ukrainian Airspace Off-Limits 3 Months Ago
Indeed, the stars have aligned for NATO. While the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) declared Ukrainian airspace off limits to all aircraft under its jurisdiction, it appears other airlines continued flying over what has been a warzone for months. The Atlantic in a report titled, "The FAA's Notice Prohibiting Airline Flights Over Ukraine," stated clearly that:
Did aviation authorities know that this was a dangerous area?
Yes, they most certainly did. Nearly three months ago, on the "Special Rules" section of its site, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration put out an order prohibiting American pilots, airlines, charter carriers, and everyone else over whom the FAA has direct jurisdiction, from flying over parts of Ukraine.Fighters Use Man-Portable Air Defense Systems That Can't Reach 33,000 Feet
 |
| Image: Igla man-portable air defense missiles. |
The system cited as responsible for the downing of flight MH17, was the sophisticated Buk radar guided, tracked-vehicle mounted, anti-aircraft missile system. The New York Daily News reported in an article titled, "Malaysia Airlines plane feared shot down in Ukraine near Russian border," that:
Anton Gerashenko, an adviser to Ukraine's Interior Minister, said on Facebook that the plane was flying at an altitude of 33,000 feet when it was hit by a missile fired from a Buk launcher, reported Interfax, a Ukranian news agency.
 |
| Image: Buk anti-air missile system. |
It is not clear if fighters in eastern Ukraine obtained any Buk systems - and if they did, it is unclear whether they had the ability to maintain and operate them. If they did have any Buk systems, they would be few. Kiev claims that the systems were passed along by Russia - apparently denying that any of their own systems had gone missing. Unfortunately, even if Russia was arming fighters in eastern Ukraine, it would not be with Buk systems that would be traced directly back to Moscow during their first use regardless of what they fired at.
Cui Bono?
Russia's strongest card thus far has been its restraint and NATO's inability to implicate it in the chaos NATO itself started by backing armed Neo-Nazis during the "Euromaidan" of late 2013-early 2014. Russia surely would not throw that card away to pass along weapon systems to fighters that were already successfully downing Ukrainian military aircraft with man-portable missiles.
Russia and the fighters operating in eastern Ukraine have nothing to gain by downing a civilian airliner, but absolutely everything to lose - thus pointing the finger in another direction - that of NATO and their proxy regime in Kiev. That the downed aircraft is yet another Malaysian Boeing 777 - the second one this year to be lost under extraordinary circumstances - has serendipitously gained maximum attention for propagandists across the West. They have the world's full and undivided attention with which to pin the blame on Russia and anti-Kiev fighters in eastern Ukraine.
The impetus necessary to unite Europe and other Western allies behind NATO and the US for a more direct intervention in Ukraine where the West is currently floundering is now consuming headlines around the world. If the downing of MH17 was not a case of tragic misidentification, then answering the first question of any investigation, cui bono - or to whose benefit - is answered resoundingly with, "NATO."
