3
3
0
It looks like investigators have found what could be parts of a Russian missile launch system in Ukraine. The idea is that these would prove the Malaysian Airliner was shot down by Russian forces. If this can be proved, what difference would it make?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/world/europe/malaysia-airlines-crash-mh17-ukraine-missile.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/world/europe/malaysia-airlines-crash-mh17-ukraine-missile.html?_r=0
Ukraine
Russia
Warfare
Foreign Policy
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 7
1
1
0
LCDR (Join to see)
Sadly, I don't see any proof making a difference.
The US, UK and Russia signed a treaty to protect the Ukraine and maintain 'it's territorial integrity' in 1994 to give up their nuclear weapons. The lack of Western support for the Ukraine shows Russia and any other country (Iran/NK) that the US is not willing to stand by our word.
The signal is clear, if you are a US ally you better be strong enough to defend yourself.
http://www.npr.org/2014/03/09/288298641/the-role-of-1994-nuclear-agreement-in-ukraines-current-state
Sadly, I don't see any proof making a difference.
The US, UK and Russia signed a treaty to protect the Ukraine and maintain 'it's territorial integrity' in 1994 to give up their nuclear weapons. The lack of Western support for the Ukraine shows Russia and any other country (Iran/NK) that the US is not willing to stand by our word.
The signal is clear, if you are a US ally you better be strong enough to defend yourself.
http://www.npr.org/2014/03/09/288298641/the-role-of-1994-nuclear-agreement-in-ukraines-current-state
The Role Of 1994 Nuclear Agreement In Ukraine's Current State
In 1994, Ukraine signed an agreement with the U.S., the UK and Russia under which it gave up its nuclear arsenal in return for certain assurances. NPR's Arun Rath speaks with Steven Pifer, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, about the agreement.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I suppose the forensics team investigating Russian missile launch system "remains" has their work cut out for them LCDR (Join to see). Recent "remains" could indicate Russian ADA , special ops or a Ukrainian surrogate involvement. Older remains could be from the old Soviet system that Ukraine was a part of not so long ago.
The fact that it news indicates it is a more recent catastrophic find. Whether the system was "destroyed" to cover up sinister involvement is another matter. I would think the Russians are sophisticated enough to remove evidence if they really wanted to. That begs the question, why is there evidence left behind?
The fact that it news indicates it is a more recent catastrophic find. Whether the system was "destroyed" to cover up sinister involvement is another matter. I would think the Russians are sophisticated enough to remove evidence if they really wanted to. That begs the question, why is there evidence left behind?
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I was under the belief that we knew this all along. Even if we had the proof positive that X/Y was responsible, good luck getting an apology or compensation from those hammer & sickle swinging bears. Their policies has always been that of denial, and then even when caught in the lie, they follow with 'what are you going to do about it'?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Where Vladimir Put in is involved, you can damn well bet it matters...big time!!!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
LCDR (Join to see) Commander; You say " The idea is that these would prove the Malaysian Airliner was shot down by Russian forces." and I say "Hogwash".
If the investigators found what "could be" parts of a Flakzwilling 40 would that prove that the Nazis had shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17?
The findings from the aircraft's wreckage are consistent with both air-to-ground and air-to-air caused damage. Since "the Rebels" don't have any active air assets one can quite understand why the Ukrainian government would MUCH prefer to see those findings modified to rule out air-to-air damage.
PLEASE NOTE - I am NOT saying that the aircraft was shot down by the "official Ukrainians" only that finding something on the ground which might have been capable of inflicting sufficient "ground-to-air" damage on the flight (provided that it was actually working at the time the flight was shot down) doesn't actually prove very much until you can prove who was operating it at the time and whether it actually did shoot at the flight.
If the investigators found what "could be" parts of a Flakzwilling 40 would that prove that the Nazis had shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17?
The findings from the aircraft's wreckage are consistent with both air-to-ground and air-to-air caused damage. Since "the Rebels" don't have any active air assets one can quite understand why the Ukrainian government would MUCH prefer to see those findings modified to rule out air-to-air damage.
PLEASE NOTE - I am NOT saying that the aircraft was shot down by the "official Ukrainians" only that finding something on the ground which might have been capable of inflicting sufficient "ground-to-air" damage on the flight (provided that it was actually working at the time the flight was shot down) doesn't actually prove very much until you can prove who was operating it at the time and whether it actually did shoot at the flight.
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
COL Ted Mc sir I know nothing has been proven right now but if they can differentiate between the two blocks of the surface to air missile (the newer one Ukraine did not have) then it can very heavily imply one or the other. Proof will always be difficult.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LCDR (Join to see) - Commander; I agree. If the investigators can prove that the damage was caused by weapons which the Ukrainians did not have then that would be one thing.
However, the article implies that proving that the wreckage found was one that one side or the other (and possibly both) had would prove that one specific side of the conflict was actually responsible for shooting down the aircraft.
This is the sort of stuff we used to sweep out of the stables.
What MIGHT prove who shot down the aircraft is an examination of the aircraft wreckage and the finding of identifiable pieces of the piece of ordnance which was used to shoot down the aircraft AND being able to prove that that ordnance was ONLY in the possession of one side or the other.
However, the article implies that proving that the wreckage found was one that one side or the other (and possibly both) had would prove that one specific side of the conflict was actually responsible for shooting down the aircraft.
This is the sort of stuff we used to sweep out of the stables.
What MIGHT prove who shot down the aircraft is an examination of the aircraft wreckage and the finding of identifiable pieces of the piece of ordnance which was used to shoot down the aircraft AND being able to prove that that ordnance was ONLY in the possession of one side or the other.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
We all know what happened.
We all know that Russia could care less, and Europe won't do anything about it.
A sad sentence in a chapter still being written.
We all know that Russia could care less, and Europe won't do anything about it.
A sad sentence in a chapter still being written.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google