# malaysia airlines MH17



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

And all we're going to get out of this is more lies from all sides. At least they join such greats as the U.S., Israel, and Russia.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

justonemore said:


> And all we're going to get out of this is more lies from all sides. At least they join such greats as the U.S., Israel, and Russia.


Apart from the disaster for those on board and their friends and family, it will have a disastrous effect on Malaysia airlines which will now seem jinxed to many.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> Apart from the disaster for those on board and their friends and family, it will have a disastrous effect on Malaysia airlines which will now seem jinxed to many.


Do you think most people will consider being shot of the sky as the fault of the company? They've been known for years as one of the best in the world (if not the best). If they weren't so darn expensive compared to other carriers, I'd fly with them.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Their share price is already well down and they haven't turned a profit for years. Analysts given them <12 months.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

The torrent of recriminations and lies and accusations are no less depressing for being so predictable.
That Putin accused Ukraine of originating the problem, rather than of shooting the aircraft down, speaks volumes about who did it.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Langham said:


> Their share price is already well down and they haven't turned a profit for years. Analysts given them <12 months.


Ok. I agree that the share price can be telling (investment Wise), but Malaysia not turning a profit in the past has had nothing to do with the 2 recent mishaps the airline has suffered. Kingstonian mentioned that the airline would seem "jinxed to many". I would assume this term is applied more towards clients versus investors. I may not invest in the company, but I wouldn't "not fly" with them over an incident of their plane being shot down by "accident". I might be more cautious and avoid routes over conflict zones, but I wouldn't blame Malaysia Airlines for this. This isn't another missing plane due to mechanical issues, lack of pilot training, etc.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

I don't think any rational person would 'blame the airline' for what happened yesterday. As for the flight that disappeared, it raised questions with the Malaysian government's handling of crises as much as with the airline itself. However, many travellers may be spooked by what has happened - there are plenty of other airlines to use, why travel with one that strange things seem to happen to?

Re the recent crash, circumstantial evidence that has emerged seems to point to the Ukrainian separatists doesn't it?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Langham said:


> I don't think any rational person would 'blame the airline' for what happened yesterday. As for the flight that disappeared, it raised questions with the Malaysian government's handling of crises as much as with the airline itself. However, many travellers may be spooked by what has happened - there are plenty of other airlines to use, why travel with one that strange things seem to happen to?
> 
> Re the recent crash, circumstantial evidence that has emerged seems to point to the Ukrainian separatists doesn't it?


Both sides are denying the hell out of it, but it seems the main "evidence" presented at this point goes against the separatists. Choun mentioned the main reasoning. Putin didn't come out say Ukraine did it versus originating the problem.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Other circumstantial evidence are 
1) That the Russians would have had the ability to shoot it down, but would have known it was a passenger aircraft, the Ukrainians would have had the ability to shoot it down, but would have known it was a passenger aircraft, the Ukrainian seperatists would have had the ability to shoot it down, but would _*not*_ have known it was a passenger aircraft.
2) That the Ukrainian Government have, thus far, not shot down any aircraft, at least in part because the Ukrainian separatists have none!
3) That the Ukrainian separatists had been boasting on Twitter, that day, that they'd shot down a Ukrainian transport aircraft, yet the Ukrainians asserted that they hadn't lost any aircraft that day. The Tweets were subsequently deleted.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

More https://www.theguardian.com/world/v...russian-colonel-rebels-discuss-disaster-video


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

justonemore said:


> And all we're going to get out of this is more lies from all sides. At least they join such greats as the U.S., Israel, and Russia.


And the UK, of course. Our government's record in telling the truth has left a lot to be desired in recent years.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Chouan said:


> And the UK, of course. Our government's record in telling the truth has left a lot to be desired in recent years.


Sorry. I meant that line in the context of shooting down passenger aircraft (which has only happened about a half dozen times thank goodness). Of course this isn' the first time a passenger aircraft got shot down over Ukraine. There was a litte incident in 2001 as well if memory serves correct.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

The UK was long suspected of having shot down an Irish airliner in the 1960s - perhaps Chouan was referring to that? It seems we are no longer thought responsible however:


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Other circumstantial evidence are
> 1) That the Russians would have had the ability to shoot it down, but would have known it was a passenger aircraft, the Ukrainians would have had the ability to shoot it down, but would have known it was a passenger aircraft, the Ukrainian seperatists would have had the ability to shoot it down, but would _*not*_ have known it was a passenger aircraft.


What I find a bit strange about this point is that the airliner was shot down in a commonly used air corridor. There were other passenger planes that went throught the area around the same time. The supposed weapons system is a battery of rockets, so presumably they could have kept of firing everytime a plane came into position. Why was only this one fired on? Save ammo? Trying to hide the location? Luck?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> The UK was long suspected of having shot down an Irish airliner in the 1960s - perhaps Chouan was referring to that? It seems we are no longer thought responsible however:


No, I was just including the UK's government in the list of liars.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

justonemore said:


> What I find a bit strange about this point is that the airliner was shot down in a commonly used air corridor. There were other passenger planes that went throught the area around the same time. The supposed weapons system is a battery of rockets, so presumably they could have kept of firing everytime a plane came into position. Why was only this one fired on? Save ammo? Trying to hide the location? Luck?


They're radar controlled and fire singly, even though they are carried in a battery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Langham said:


> The UK was long suspected of having shot down an Irish airliner in the 1960s - perhaps Chouan was referring to that? It seems we are no longer thought responsible however:


My mother always blamed the British for that, although she blamed the British for most things.
Still, most people in Ireland who were around at the time would undoubtedly still blame the British military and an errant missile.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

justonemore said:


> What I find a bit strange about this point is that the airliner was shot down in a commonly used air corridor. There were other passenger planes that went throught the area around the same time. The supposed weapons system is a battery of rockets, so presumably they could have kept of firing everytime a plane came into position. Why was only this one fired on? Save ammo? Trying to hide the location? Luck?


It may have been considered a target of opportunity by the battery commander - wrong place, wrong time.



Odradek said:


> My mother always blamed the British for that, although she blamed the British for most things.
> Still, most people in Ireland who were around at the time would undoubtedly still blame the British military and an errant missile.


Would they have thought it a mistake, or something more sinister?


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

justonemore said:


> Kingstonian mentioned that the airline would seem "jinxed to many". I would assume this term is applied more towards clients versus investors. I may not invest in the company, but I wouldn't "not fly" with them over an incident of their plane being shot down by "accident". I might be more cautious and avoid routes over conflict zones, but I wouldn't blame Malaysia Airlines for this. This isn't another missing plane due to mechanical issues, lack of pilot training, etc.


But J1M, this is the rational way of looking at it. I think we can all admit that anyone believing in "jinxed" anything isn't taking a rational approach. The reality is that right now, that is probably the safest airline in the world and it was just a horrible stroke of bad luck that it just happened to be their plane.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I become more and more wary of flying after each overseas govt assignment I'm sent on, because each assignment can involve anywhere between 4 and 8 flights in the space of a few days, and so each time I get home safely from that much flying I really feel I've exhausted my good luck points for that year. Whenever the train or a car is a viable option in regards of time/distance I do that rather than fly.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Langham said:


> I don't think any rational person would 'blame the airline' for what happened yesterday. As for the flight that disappeared, it raised questions with the Malaysian government's handling of crises as much as with the airline itself. However, many travellers may be spooked by what has happened - there are plenty of other airlines to use, why travel with one that strange things seem to happen to?
> 
> Re the recent crash, circumstantial evidence that has emerged seems to point to the Ukrainian separatists doesn't it?


A rational person might question why the airline chose to fly a route that saved a few dollars in fuel, but exposed their passengers to the risks of an occurrence such as we are discussing. The pilot in command could have flown a more Eastern route that would have avoided the risk, as other nations such as Britain, Germany, the US and others have suggested for their airlines to do.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Langham said:


> Would they have thought it a mistake, or something more sinister?


Oh I think by and large it would have been regarded as a mistake, but it was the subsequent cover-up that grated.

Skipping ahead a few years to the Chinook crash on Mull of Kintyre, there are many, including my father, who regard this as the orchestrated murder of the passengers.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> A rational person might question why the airline chose to fly a route that saved a few dollars in fuel, but exposed their passengers to the risks of an occurrence such as we are discussing. The pilot in command could have flown a more Eastern route that would have avoided the risk, as other nations such as Britain, Germany, the US and others have suggested for their airlines to do.


An enquiring mind would wonder why the plane flew that particular route that day, when the same flight on previous days had taken a more southerly route.










Will we ever know though?

*Ukraine's Security Service Has Confiscated Air Traffic Control Recordings With Malaysian Jet*



> Earlier, when we commented in the abnormality in the flight path of flight MH-17 we said that "perhaps before coming to "certain" conclusion about the involvement of this rebel or that, the key questions one should ask before casting blame, *is why did the pilot divert from his usual flight plan, why did he fly above restricted airspace, and just what, if any instructions, did Kiev air control give the pilot in the minutes before the tragic explosion*?"The simple answer would have come if Ukraine had merely released the Air Traffic Control recording from the tower and flight MH 17, something Malaysia did in the aftermath of the disappearance of flight MH 370, which at last check has still not been uncovered.
> It now appears that answer will not be forthcoming because as the BBC reports "*Ukraine's SBU security service has confiscated recordings of conversations between Ukrainian air traffic control officers and the crew of the doomed airliner, a source in Kiev has told Interfax news agency."*
> What happens to the recordings next is completely unknown. What is known is that any hope of getting an _undoctored _explanation why the plane flew as it did, or what the pilots may have seen or said in the moments before the explosion, is forever gone.


Also missing is the Spanish air traffic controller who was working in Ukraine, . He claims the plane was shot down by the Ukrainians as a ruse to blame Russia, as the Ukrainian army were in trouble on the ground.

I viewed his tweets on Thursday and translated them from Spanish to English with Google. I also checked back along his Twitter timeline to see if it was a genuine account. He has been tweeting for at least several months on a variety of mundane issues including the World Cup, but now his Twitter account has disappeared. Maybe he has too.



> One of the strangest stories to emerge from the wreckage of Malaysian Airlines flight from Amsterdam that was downed in Eastern Ukraine involves a purported Spanish air traffic controller working in Kiev and known only by his blog name-Carlos-and Twitter handle, @spainbuca.As soon as the plane went down, Carlos started tweeting about how it was shot down by the "Kiev authorities, trying to make it look it might be an attack by pro-Russian forces."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> A rational person might question why the airline chose to fly a route that saved a few dollars in fuel, but exposed their passengers to the risks of an occurrence such as we are discussing. The pilot in command could have flown a more Eastern route that would have avoided the risk, as other nations such as Britain, Germany, the US and others have suggested for their airlines to do.


Yes, prudence might have suggested an alternative route, although being wise after the event is always easy. I believe some other airlines were avoiding the area. However, was it known that the separatists had this capability? The military aircraft brought down previously had apparently been flying much lower, within range of altogether different weapons. The unpleasant behaviour of the rebel forces afterwards is to my mind compounding their probable culpability in the butchery of innocent civilians. This is a fiasco for Putin.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Odradek said:


> Oh I think by and large it would have been regarded as a mistake, but it was the subsequent cover-up that grated.
> 
> Skipping ahead a few years to the Chinook crash on Mull of Kintyre, there are many, including my father, who regard this as the orchestrated murder of the passengers.


From what I have read, it seems it was eventually (30+ years later) decided that the cause of the 1968 crash may have been metal fatigue and poor maintenance - part of the tail broke off, sending the aircraft out of control. Evasive or non-committal responses by the RAF might easily be construed as a cover-up, given the usual level of mistrust. There were various other theories, however, and no one can be certain about what happened.

Regarding the Chinook crash, some quite authoritative sources have echoed your father's views.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

This one really bothers me.

Part of it is the idea of three lap infants on board - children less than a year old, flying in lap seats - just flying through the air, separated from their parents' grasps. Dead already, of course - one hopes - but the sheer wrongness of it haunts me to no end, perhaps in part because I travel internationally with my own (not yet two-years old) daughter.

It seems pretty clear to me that it was a mistake. A distant plane, silhouette unclear because of clouds or distance, a basically amateur crew manning a missile battery: wrong place, wrong time. As soon as it happened, of course, it was a political playing piece.

It outrages me to consider the immediate looting that certainly occurred, as "rebels" yanked watches and necklaces off corpses, dug out fillings (cracking teeth to get them), cut diamond earrings free, and rifled through unburned baggage. Laughing at times, almost certainly, as a rich find was pocketed.

I actually think this was a perfect opportunity for a quick military decision: scramble air cover and commandos to drop in and secure the crash site (probably about 10 sq. miles), bring in a disaster team pronto to tag, bag, and sort, and hold until the investigation, clean-up and recovery were completed. An actual op with a distinct goal, timeframe, and location, and a message to Putin that (i) no one trust him, (ii) he can't stop this from happening, and (iii) someone else has to wipe his metaphorical ass for him. Russia is still economically and politically fragile: what's he going to do, complain?

Of course, he's personally stronger and more decisive than any Western leaders, so that was never going to happen.

I realize that equal atrocities occur daily, somewhere in the world, and that being an airline disaster simply lends charismatic focus to this one, but still - so awful.

DH


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Dhaller said:


> It outrages me to consider the immediate looting that certainly occurred, as "rebels" yanked watches and necklaces off corpses, dug out fillings (cracking teeth to get them), cut diamond earrings free, and rifled through unburned baggage. Laughing at times, almost certainly, as a rich find was pocketed.


Your imagination is disturbingly vivid.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Dhaller said:


> ...
> 
> I actually think this was a perfect opportunity for a quick military decision: scramble air cover and commandos to drop in and secure the crash site (probably about 10 sq. miles), bring in a disaster team pronto to tag, bag, and sort, and hold until the investigation, clean-up and recovery were completed. An actual op with a distinct goal, timeframe, and location, and a message to Putin
> ...


That was my own immediate thought, but it could never have happened - who would have mounted the operation? The nation with the most direct interest in dealing with the crash is probably the Netherlands but their armed forces would be incapable to do this independently, and whether NATO would have a sufficiently proximate interest in investigating an air crash is an interesting issue. Had the separatists dealt with the crash zone in a more responsible manner such an operation would have been unjustifiable in any case. Also, the Russians would almost certainly have moved in and there would have been at least an awkward stand-off.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Langham said:


> That was my own immediate thought, but it could never have happened - who would have mounted the operation? The nation with the most direct interest in dealing with the crash is probably the Netherlands but their armed forces would be incapable to do this independently, and whether NATO would have a sufficiently proximate interest in investigating an air crash is an interesting issue. Had the separatists dealt with the crash zone in a more responsible manner such an operation would have been unjustifiable in any case. Also, the Russians would almost certainly have moved in and there would have been at least an awkward stand-off.


Im afraid it will boil down to ;Too much capability,too little concern and no fear of justice.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Well, Europe of course lives in terror of having a major portion of its gas supply shut off, and gas > justice in a democracy. Alas.

The US will never act against Russia because it's *strong* - its an actual major power. US policy the past half-century has been to only invade/attack fairly small, weak nations; the likelihood of the US *ever* acting against Russia in anything other than direct self-defense is vanishingly remote.

At least there are some pretty pithy political cartoons decrying Putin's role in this; perhaps he'll take pause, or reflect a moment, or something... hah.

DH


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Dhaller said:


> The US will never act against Russia because it's *strong* - its an actual major power. US policy the past half-century has been to only invade/attack fairly small, weak nations; the likelihood of the US *ever* acting against Russia in anything other than direct self-defense is vanishingly remote.
> 
> At least there are some pretty pithy political cartoons decrying Putin's role in this; perhaps he'll take pause, or reflect a moment, or something... hah.
> 
> DH


Are you suggesting that going to war with Russia over this incident would be a good idea? If so, I strongly disagree.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> Are you suggesting that going to war with Russia over this incident would be a good idea? If so, I strongly disagree.


No. I'm suggesting a contained police action in which military force is used to secure an international crime scene in what happens to be a region of contested sovereignty.

Putin is too canny to risk war with the West - Russia is still precariously unstable. He loves to - no, needs to - posture, but that's the extent of it.

DH


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

MaxBuck said:


> Are you suggesting that going to war with Russia over this incident would be a good idea? If so, I strongly disagree.


The media are all doing their bit to demonise Russia and Putin, but rarely look at the facts. 
Ukraine, under the illicit regime of the coup leaders and their international handlers, are more likely to be the culprits here.

What the Media Won't Report About Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 - by Rep. Ron Paul.

The aircraft was flying well north of it's usual route, at who's behest we don't know, as the Ukrainian security services have confiscated all the air traffic control recordings.












> Earlier, when we commented in the abnormality in the flight path of flight MH-17 we said that "perhaps before coming to "certain" conclusion about the involvement of this rebel or that, the key questions one should ask before casting blame, *is why did the pilot divert from his usual flight plan, why did he fly above restricted airspace, and just what, if any instructions, did Kiev air control give the pilot in the minutes before the tragic explosion*?"The simple answer would have come if Ukraine had merely released the Air Traffic Control recording from the tower and flight MH 17, something Malaysia did in the aftermath of the disappearance of flight MH 370, which at last check has still not been uncovered.
> It now appears that answer will not be forthcoming because as the BBC reports "*Ukraine's SBU security service has confiscated recordings of conversations between Ukrainian air traffic control officers and the crew of the doomed airliner, a source in Kiev has told Interfax news agency."*
> What happens to the recordings next is completely unknown. What is known is that any hope of getting an _undoctored _explanation why the plane flew as it did, or what the pilots may have seen or said in the moments before the explosion, is forever gone.


There are credible reports of it being shadowed by two Ukrainian fighter jets at the time, and the Spanish air traffic controller, Carlos, claims one of these Ukrainian fighters shot the 777 down.

*Russia Says Has Photos Of Ukraine Deploying BUK Missiles In East, Radar Proof Of Warplanes In MH17 Vicinity*



> Ukraine hasn't said how it immediately knew rebels downed Malaysian plane, notes the Russian Foreign Ministry, as it unveils 10 awkward questions for Ukraine (and perhaps the US 'snap judgment') to answer about the MH17 disaster. However, what is perhaps more concerning for the hordes of finger-pointers is that:
> 
> 
> *RUSSIA HAS IMAGES OF UKRAINE DEPLOYING BUK ROCKETS IN EAST: IFX*
> ...


Most illuminating of all though, is that there was a NATO exercise going on, not too far away, in the Black Sea, with all sorts of high tech US Navy listening capability in use.





> The 10-day NATO exercise code named BREEZE 2014 has ended in Black Sea. The exercise, which included the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), coincided with the shoot down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in eastern Ukraine, some 40 miles from the Russian border. NATO ships and aircraft had the Donetsk and Luhansk regions under total radar and electronic surveillance.





> The announcement of U.S. BREEZE and RAPID TRIDENT II military maneuvers came on May 21, 2014, and were announced on the website operated by Vice President Joe Biden's office. Biden's son, Hunter Biden, is a newly-named director of the Ukrainian natural gas and oil company Burisma Holdings, Ltd., owned by Ihor Kolomoisky, the Ukrainian-Israeli mafia oligarch, whose is known as the Chameleon. Kolomoisky has raised his own mercenary army, complete with the BUK missiles allegedly used in the shoot down of MH-17. Kolomoisky, the Governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast in eastern Ukraine, has threatened terrorist attacks against Russian-speaking officials in eastern Ukraine, including assassinations.


Cui Bono?

There is little reason for Putin to be involved. More likely the usual suspects are up to their usual tricks.

In case you all missed Joe Biden's son getting that key job in Ukraine, here's the story.


> Burisma, a private oil and gas company in Ukraine, announced this week that it has appointed Hunter Biden, the youngest son of US Vice President Joe Biden, to its board of directors.


And who is Bursima owned by? 
AKA "The Chameleon".









https://twitter.com/hashtag/kolomoisky



> Kolomoisky continues to be active in commercial aviation. His Private Group owns Dniproavia, which is based at Dnipropetrovsk Airport. Kolomoisky's aviation and Israeli security contacts gives him carte blanche access to secure airport facilities in Europe and around the world.
> Kolomoisky's forces are armed with advanced weaponry, obtained both from Ukrainian weapons inventories and from purchases on the black market. Kolomoisky's forces reportedly possess the BUK surface-to-air missile system said to have been used to shoot down MH-17. Kolomoisky's forces, comprising Ukrainian regular military personnel; neo-Nazi units from west Ukraine, and foreign mercenaries, including Georgians, Romanians, and white supremacists from Sweden and Germany; and ex-Israel Defense Force Blue Helmet commandos, are mainly separated into four battalions: the Azov Battalion; the Aidar Battalion, the Donbass Battalion; and the 2,000-strong Dniepr-1 (or Dnipro-1) Battalion, which was responsible for the deadly May 1 fire-bombing of the trade union building in Odessa and the burning alive of people trapped inside the Mariupol Police Station on May 9.


The Great Game is afoot.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ That is all conspiracy theory. The statements and behaviour of the separatists and of Putin himself since the crash are all, as far as I am concerned, tacit and clear admissions of guilt.

Cameron is trying to get the Europeans to tighten sanctions on Russia but it will never work, trade and gas are far too important to them, not least the French, Germans and even the Dutch, who it seems enjoy an enormous trade balance with Russia.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Langham said:


> ^ That is all conspiracy theory. The statements and behaviour of the separatists and of Putin himself since the crash are all, as far as I am concerned, tacit and clear admissions of guilt.
> 
> Cameron is trying to get the Europeans to tighten sanctions on Russia but it will never work, trade and gas are far too important to them, not least the French, Germans and even the Dutch, who it seems enjoy an enormous trade balance with Russia.


Anything can be labeled "conspiracy theory" to keep it out of mainstream discussion.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Odradek said:


> Anything can be labeled "conspiracy theory" to keep it out of mainstream discussion.


No offence intended - but I looked through it all and that was how it struck me. I've no wish to stifle discussion.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Breeze 2014 had one purpose and one purpose only, the organisation of future training for the Bulgarian and Romanian navies. The Ukrainian navy was not involved. The presence of warships was necessary to show equipment and capabilities to the Bulgarians and Romanians, the same was true of the Nato exercise I was on in Georgia in 2012, it showcased modern methods and kit to the Georgians. Anyone who has ever been on an international Nato training exercise, knows how strictly and rigidly every element is controlled and how every action is scripted. I work on international Nato exercises every second year. 

That said, it is a given that even a Nato presense on exercise acts as a deterrent.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

Americans certainly have no appetite for an armed conflict with Russia, but that does leave the question of how to deal with the situation. The United States implemented increased sanctions in the days leading up to the MH17 incident. Due to China's increasing support of Russia, these had little effect on Putin's actions.

Of course, we now look to our Western European allies to further sanctions against Russia--likely to their own detriment. It has been reported that the Russians widely view themselves as the saviors of their expatriates throughout the former Iron Curtain. They are eager to escalate the situation if European sanctions are put in place.

Since further sanctions would only worsen the situation, I am inclined to believe our best opportunity would be to let the Ukrainian dilemma unfold on its own. However, to keep Putin from pushing further towards rebuilding the former Soviet Republics, we would be wise to increase military activity where we may and draw our own line in the sand. Otherwise, we may continue losing a game of chicken with Russia every few years and never show any real strength.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

universitystripe said:


> Since further sanctions would only worsen the situation, I am inclined to believe our best opportunity would be to let the Ukrainian dilemma unfold on its own. However, to keep Putin from pushing further towards rebuilding the former Soviet Republics, we would be wise to increase military activity where we may and draw our own line in the sand. Otherwise, we may continue losing a game of chicken with Russia every few years and never show any real strength.


Oh No!!

Not Obama and his red lines, or lines in the sand, or what have you, again.

He's beginning to sound like Larry Fine.

"I'm warning you..."


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

universitystripe said:


> Americans certainly have no appetite for an armed conflict with Russia, but that does leave the question of how to deal with the situation. The United States implemented increased sanctions in the days leading up to the MH17 incident. Due to China's increasing support of Russia, these had little effect on Putin's actions.
> 
> Of course, we now look to our Western European allies to further sanctions against Russia--likely to their own detriment. It has been reported that the Russians widely view themselves as the saviors of their expatriates throughout the former Iron Curtain. They are eager to escalate the situation if European sanctions are put in place.
> 
> Since further sanctions would only worsen the situation, I am inclined to believe our best opportunity would be to let the Ukrainian dilemma unfold on its own. However, to keep Putin from pushing further towards rebuilding the former Soviet Republics, we would be wise to increase military activity where we may and draw our own line in the sand. Otherwise, we may continue losing a game of chicken with Russia every few years and never show any real strength.


As reported on this morning's news from the BBC, it is clear the White House is recoiling from the idea of being confrontational with Putin. Similarly, my prediction for countries such as France, Germany and Italy (i.e. the EU) is that they will do nothing about Putin because they are so dependent on Russian gas and trade. David Cameron is proving singularly maladroit in his efforts to steer other countries' foreign policy. Any calculating foreign minister would simply say why stick our heads on the line for the Ukraine? All they do there is grow sunflowers.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Oh No!!
> 
> Not Obama and his red lines, or lines in the sand, or what have you, again.
> 
> ...


I never mentioned Obama, though of course the President would need to act as a face to anything we choose to do.

How would you deal with the situation? Increase sanctions knowing it will escalate the situation? Do nothing knowing it sends a clear signal that Putin is allowed to do as he pleases?

It's difficult to drive hard foreign policy when Americans are not willing to die for something.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

universitystripe said:


> ...
> 
> It's difficult to drive hard foreign policy when Americans are not willing to die for something.


Strange, that never seems to have been a consideration in the past.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

Langham said:


> Strange, that never seems to have been a consideration in the past.


But when has it been effective? Besides, it's a common problem among world superpowers. Britain lost popular support during the American Revolution and had to come to a similar realization.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

universitystripe said:


> But when has it been effective? Besides, it's a common problem among world superpowers. Britain lost popular support during the American Revolution and had to come to a similar realization.


What popular support are you referring to? If you're referring to popular international support, Britain never had any anyway, so losing what she never had wouldn't have mattered!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

universitystripe said:


> I never mentioned Obama, though of course the President would need to act as a face to anything we choose to do.
> 
> How would you deal with the situation? Increase sanctions knowing it will escalate the situation? Do nothing knowing it sends a clear signal that Putin is allowed to do as he pleases?
> 
> It's difficult to drive hard foreign policy when Americans are not willing to die for something.


1) He is a better face than a leader, that's for sure!!

2) Serious and meaningful sanctions, as well as arms, money and natural gas for Ukraine had a better chance of ending the aggression instead of allowing it to escalate.

3) Were you alive during the Cold War??


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

universitystripe said:


> I never mentioned Obama, though of course the President would need to act as a face to anything we choose to do.
> 
> How would you deal with the situation? Increase sanctions knowing it will escalate the situation? Do nothing knowing it sends a clear signal that Putin is allowed to do as he pleases?
> 
> It's difficult to drive hard foreign policy when Americans are not willing to die for something.


Not to turn this into Obama bashing, but you're presenting a straw man argument. No one says that to drive foreign policy people need to die. War is certainly one conclusion but there are a lot of things short of that and I don't think anyone is even arguing for conflict unless it were an American airliner full of Americans.

To someone like Putin, pride and status matter. The president could make a speech from the Oval Office stating that what happened was a direct result of Putin's carelessness and a clear indication of his values, etc., etc. I'm sure a more skilled wordsmith could be much more dramatic.

Then to the nitty gritty, put unilateral sanctions on Russian banks and the economic sector. No clearing of rubles for dollars or anything of the sort. Beef up NATO in the east and reintroduce anti ballistic missile systems there as well. Work with Turkey to shore up defenses in the straits and move warships into the Black Sea. Nothing threatening or reckless, just a naval presence in the Black Sea to "protect the free flow of commerce in light of recent developments."

How about that for a start?


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1)
> 
> Serious and meaningful sanctions, as well as arms, money and natural gas for Ukraine had a better chance of ending the aggression instead of allowing it to escalate.


Would have, perhaps, but I asked what you would do now.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> To someone like Putin, pride and status matter. The president could make a speech from the Oval Office stating that what happened was a direct result of Putin's carelessness and a clear indication of his values, etc., etc. I'm sure a more skilled wordsmith could be much more dramatic.
> 
> Then to the nitty gritty, put unilateral sanctions on Russian banks and the economic sector. No clearing of rubles for dollars or anything of the sort. Beef up NATO in the east and reintroduce anti ballistic missile systems there as well. Work with Turkey to shore up defenses in the straits and move warships into the Black Sea. Nothing threatening or reckless, just a naval presence in the Black Sea to "protect the free flow of commerce in light of recent developments."


This is more or less what I had in mind. It doesn't even have to be spoken of to be a clear message of strength. Of course, those are American sanctions, not European.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

universitystripe said:


> Would have, perhaps, but I asked what you would do now.


Please don't take offense, but that's a silly question to pose.

No one on this forum is POTUS. No one has access to the intelligence and the collective foreign policy wisdom of several generations of diplomats and no one has a little red phone in his office where he can communicate instantly with other world leaders. No one has access to classified briefings, satellite recon and most importantly, no one on this forum asked to be POTUS, with it's awesome responsibility, twice!

Our current president asked for this job and the nation collective believed that he knew what he was doing. He laid out a strategy for moving forward and it doesn't seem to be working. I think it's a little much to ask those of us with day jobs what we would do; this is the president's day job.

Above I tried to indicate several things that could be done now. It may be a clumsy effort as I'm no expert, but I did suggest at least a few things that could be done now, unilaterally and without having to go around with one's finger up to see which way the political winds are blowing. Leaders lead; legislatures await public opinion before moving forward. That's why we have >500 members of Congress and 1 POTUS.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> Please don't take offense, but that's a silly question to pose.
> 
> No one on this forum is POTUS. No one has access to the intelligence and the collective foreign policy wisdom of several generations of diplomats and no one has a little red phone in his office where he can communicate instantly with other world leaders. No one has access to classified briefings, satellite recon and most importantly, no one on this forum asked to be POTUS, with it's awesome responsibility, twice!
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but I did respond to you and actually agreed with your propositions. The other gentleman to whom I responded offered criticism but no opinions of what we should do. I do not believe it is solely the president's responsibility to discuss issues of the day. In fact, I would argue that public opinion should at least be considered when making such decisions. If we are not here to discuss and debate, I apologize for doing so.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I apologize too if I came off as too harsh. 

Certainly this is as good a place as any to exchange ideas and to discuss and debate current events. It's healthy to do so and even more interesting to think that a forum such as this, and certainly our discussions, would land us in jail in some countries. 

I suppose the point I was trying to make is offering specifics would yield some very poor opinions as no one here has access to the information that those in the higher echelons of government do. That should not preclude us from offering our opinions but with the full knowledge that our opinions are based on incomplete information.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Above I tried to indicate several things that could be done now. It may be a clumsy effort as I'm no expert, but I did suggest at least a few things that could be done now, unilaterally and without having to go around with one's finger up to see which way the political winds are blowing. Leaders lead; legislatures await public opinion before moving forward. That's why we have >500 members of Congress and 1 POTUS.


This President insinuates executive authority into Legislative and other areas where he does not belong, 
and runs away when his executive authority is clear and required.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

universitystripe said:


> Would have, perhaps, but I asked what you would do now.


The same.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I apologize too if I came off as too harsh.
> 
> Certainly this is as good a place as any to exchange ideas and to discuss and debate current events. It's healthy to do so and even more interesting to think that a forum such as this, and certainly our discussions, would land us in jail in some countries.
> 
> I suppose the point I was trying to make is offering specifics would yield some very poor opinions as no one here has access to the information that those in the higher echelons of government do. That should not preclude us from offering our opinions but with the full knowledge that our opinions are based on incomplete information.


John Kennedy once said, "No one has a right to grade a President-even poor James Buchanan-who has not sat in his chair, examined the mail and information that came across his desk, and learned why he made his decisions." I have always understood his sentiment, but it is certainly important to our democracy that we do criticize and question our leaders. I simply am no fan of someone who can criticize without offering solutions. That may be unfair with a position as demanding as the President of the United States, but then JFK's quote bears repeating.

No hard feelings, certainly.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> This President insinuates executive authority into Legislative and other areas where he does not belong,
> and runs away when his executive authority is clear and required.


The problem he has is that he's always looking for the lowest hanging fruit and doesn't want to do anything that requires work or is difficult. He simply does not know, nor does he have an instinct for, how to lead! I mentioned this before, but I really believe he came into office in 2009 thinking that the Presidency was merely a symbolic post and that he would just assign people to work out the nuts and bolts, and he would be the guy making speeches.

The problem is that while others grow into the office, he seems to be in a state of arrested development. He's really the same guy he was in 2008 just with grayer hair and lower approval numbers.

In the context of this current thread, it's all the more evident. He just does not know when to step up and take the lead. I think he's either scared or just doesn't know what to do. It's outside of his comfort zone and outside of his core competency.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> The problem he has is that he's always looking for the lowest hanging fruit and doesn't want to do anything that requires work or is difficult. He simply does not know, nor does he have an instinct for, how to lead! I mentioned this before, but* I really believe he came into office in 2009 thinking that the Presidency was merely a symbolic post and that he would just assign people to work out the nuts and bolts*, and he would be the guy making speeches.


I believe that's how his handlers told him it would be, and he believed them.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I believe that's how his handlers told him it would be, and he believed them.


Too right.

Meanwhile... 
*Company In Which Joe Biden's Son Is Director Prepares To Drill Shale Gas In East Ukraine*



> _Recall what we said earlier today: the proxy Ukraine war just like that in Syria preceding it, "is all about energy."_
> 
> _Recall also the following chart showing Ukraine's shale gas deposits, keeping in mind that the Dnieper-Donets basin which lies in the hotly contested eastern part of the nation and where as everyone knows by now a bloody civil war is raging, is the major oil and gas producing region of Ukraine accounting for approximately 90 per cent of Ukrainian production and according to EIA may have 42 tcf of shale gas resources technically recoverable from 197 tcf of risked shale gas in place._


Follow the money...


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

While not correctly sourced, these articles as believable as anything coming from a U.S. politcian's mouth...






https://en.itar-tass.com/russia/741248


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

justonemore said:


> While not correctly sourced, these articles as believable as anything coming from a U.S. politcian's mouth...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Surely you mean more believable than the current US/UK propaganda feed.
I've been reading about those 2 Ukrainian fighter jets since the day of the incident.

Check out the Spanish air traffic controller "Carlos" who was working in Ukraine. His twitter account was most informative but then mysteriously disappeared.

Zerohedge has been very on the ball with this story...
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014...-were-malaysian-flight-17-when-it-was-shot-do



> The Russian government claims Ukrainian fighter jets were flying very close to Malaysian Flight 17 when it was shot down.
> 
> Eyewitness interviews by BBC Russia lend weight to these allegations:
> 
> ...


*Senior U.S. Intelligence Officials: Russia Was Not Directly Involved, and The Most Likely Explanation Was the Plane Was Shot Down By MISTAKE*


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

BS is BS. It can't be "more" but it can be equal. While all sides benefit from a lie, there is only one version of the truth. When everything else coming out of a politician's mouth is a lie, why should I believe that on this 1 topic they are somehow telling me the entire truth in an undistorted manner? At least "Carlos" doesn't have a habit of lying to the public. :rolleyes2:


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Odradek said:


> I've been reading about those 2 Ukrainian fighter jets since the day of the incident.
> 
> Check out the Spanish air traffic controller "Carlos" who was working in Ukraine. His twitter account was most informative but then mysteriously disappeared.
> 
> ...


"Carlos" thoroughly debunked as Kremlin propaganda: 




Air-to-air and surface-to-air missles work differently. Shrapnel patterns on the fuselage indicate a SAM, and you can even in places see green paint, the same color as the Russian-made BUKs.

I get the sense though that you like conspiracies, so it's unlikely you'll be convinced by evidence.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Dhaller said:


> This one really bothers me.
> 
> Part of it is the idea of three lap infants on board - children less than a year old, flying in lap seats - just flying through the air, separated from their parents' grasps. Dead already, of course - one hopes - but the sheer wrongness of it haunts me to no end, perhaps in part because I travel internationally with my own (not yet two-years old) daughter.
> 
> ...





Pentheos said:


> Your imagination is disturbingly vivid.


And yet, unfortunately, Dhaller's imagination would seem to have been (in the main part) an accurate indicator of the events that, it is now reported, were indeed taking place at the crash site.


----------



## NoahNY (Sep 2, 2014)

The technology this government is employing to deceive us is 50 years ahead of anything we're aware of. Think for yourself because fact is a virtually non-existent commodity.


----------

