John Helmer: Australian Government Trips Up Ukrainian Court Claim of MH17 as Terrorism

By John Helmer, the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears

The Australian Government refuses to declare the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 a terrorist act, and is withholding state payments of $75,000 to each of the families of the 38 Australian nationals or residents killed when the plane was shot down in eastern Ukraine on July 14, 2014.

The Australian Attorney-General, George Brandis, has written to advise Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (lead image, left; right image, Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko) there is insufficient evidence of what and who caused the MH17 crash to meet the Australian statutory test of a terrorist act.  Because the Attorney-General’s legal opinion flatly contradicts Turnbull’s public opinions, Brandis’s advice is top-secret; he refuses to answer questions about the analysis of the MH17 incident which he and his subordinates, along with Australian intelligence agencies and the Australian Federal Police,  have been conducting for more than two years.

In public Turnbull said on Monday:  “Vladimir Putin’s Russia is subject to international sanctions, to which Australia is a part, because of his conduct in shooting down the MH17 airliner in which 38 Australians were killed. Let’s not forget that. That was a shocking international crime.”

On Wednesday Turnbull was asked to explain why, after so long, the Prime Minister, on the advice of the Attorney-General, refuses to designate the MH17 incident as criminal terrorism according to the provisions of the Supporting Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas Act. Turnbull replied through a spokesman that he is still investigating. “The criminal investigation of MH17 is ongoing. The outcomes of this investigation could be relevant in determining whether this incident should be declared for the purposes of the Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas Payment scheme.”

Brandis  was asked to explain the reason for the legal opinion Canberra sources confirm he has sent to the prime ministry denying the MH17 incident was terrorism.  That he has provided the advice on AVTOP  is confirmed by a source in Turnbull’s office.

AVTOP is the Canberra acronym for Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas Payment. This is how the AVTOP scheme operates, and how eligibility is decided, according to the Australian social security  ministry. It records that the last terrorism incident for which Australians qualify for AVTOP compensation was the Westgate shopping mall killings in Nairobi on September 21, 2013. There were 67 fatal casualties in that incident, and more than double that number of wounded. One Australian was killed.  On October 6, 2013, two weeks after the incident, the Australian prime minister issued a formal designation of the terrorist incident for AVTOP compensation.  That commenced on October 21, one month after the incident, according to the statutory filing in the Australian parliament.


The prime minister then was Tony Abbott; his attorney-general was Eric Abetz.

In March 2016 Turnbull had replaced Abbott as prime minister; the attorney-general was Brandis. They agreed to designate three bombing attacks in Brussels, at the airport and at a city train station, as  terrorist incidents for AVTOP. The date of the incidents was March 22 (pictured below). The date of the Turnbull-Landis designation was May 6 – 45 days later.

There are press reports that Australians were in Brussels, and were anxious; there are no reports of Australians being killed or wounded in the attacks.

Why were successive Australian officials so quick to designate the Nairobi and Brussels incidents as terrorism, before the local police and courts had time to investigate and prosecute,  and why have the Australian officials spent two years and eight months refusing to designate the Ukrainian incident? Canberra sources believe the answer is that there is no legal basis in the Australian Criminal Code for doing so because the evidence of terrorism in the MH17 case isn’t there.

The 2013 and 2016 designations, along with the Canberra sources, identify a terrorist incident according to the Australian Criminal Code.  Officials working under Brandis and Turnbull must satisfy the Attorney-General and Prime Minister that the incident comes under the Code’s sub-section 100.1(1).  This says a terrorist act “means an action or threat of action where: …(b)  the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and (c)  the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of:  (i)  coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or of part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or (ii)  intimidating the public or a section of the public.”

For background on the debate among government officials, police and lawyers about the impact of Australian law on the MH17 incident, read this.

Canberra sources explain that even if Brandis had told Turnbull there was enough evidence to certify the MH17 shoot-down as a terrorist incident, according to the criminal code provisions,  the prime minister still has a broad discretion in deciding whether or not to make a declaration regarding a particular incident.

That Turnbull hasn’t done so for the MH17 carnage means he doesn’t want to do so —  and not only because of his attorney-general’s advice. Turnbull was also behind press leaks that as a cabinet minister under Prime Minister Abbott in August 2014, he opposed a scheme of Abbott’s to send 3,000 Australian troops to join Dutch and other NATO forces in  a US-backed military operation in eastern Ukraine. Abbott and NATO had prepared the justification for the military operation as Russian state terrorism in downing the MH17. Turnbull arranged for his son-in-law to reveal the cabinet papers and intelligence reports from the time, and to record his assessment that Abbott was foolhardy.  For that story, click here.

Australian sources who know Turnbull don’t agree in their interpretation of what he is now saying and doing.  Some sources believe that with his political mouth Turnbull is backing the US position against Russia and protecting himself from opposition party attacks that he is “soft” on the Kremlin.  With his legal mind Turnbull knows there is no admissible evidence and no prospect of prosecuting terrorism in the MH17 case.

The Australians haven’t realized that their decision that the MH17 is not a terrorist act undermines this month’s proceedings in The Netherlands, where the Ukrainian government has applied to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to convict Russia of financing, arming and aiding terrorist acts, including the destruction of MH17. The lawyers engaged this week at The Hague haven’t realized either.

The 45-page Ukrainian claim against Moscow to the ICJ is dated January 16, 2017, and can be read here.  The US law firm Covington & Burling is defending the Kiev government; the advocates for the Russian side include British and French lawyers.

Advocates for Kiev at the ICJ this week:  left US lawyer Marney Cheek; right, Olena Zerkal, Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine

According to the Ukrainian claim, the destruction of MH17 was an act of terrorism. “When the Russian Federation delivered this deadly surface-to-air missile system to the DPR, it knew precisely the type of organization it was aiding… The Russian government knew or should have known that their proxies would use these powerful antiaircraft weapons in a manner consistent with their previous pattern of disregard for civilian life.”

“By the early summer of 2014, the Russian Federation was well aware that its proxies operating on Ukrainian territory were engaged in a pattern and practice of terrorizing civilians. Yet rather than intervening to abate those actions, the Russian Federation’s response was to substantially increase these groups’ firepower by supplying them with powerful weapons. An early result of this decision was the attack on Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17.  In July 2014, as part of this escalation of arms supplies and other support, the Russian Federation delivered a Buk surface-to-air missile system to DPR-associated forces. Those illegal armed groups used the Buk system to commit a devastating surface-to-air attack, destroying a civilian airliner transiting Ukrainian airspace and murdering the 298 individuals on board…These perpetrators committed this terrorist attack with the direct support of the Russian government… There is no evidence that the Russian Federation has taken any responsibility before the peoples of the world for supporting this horrific terrorist act.”

“Ukraine respectfully requests the Court to adjudge and declare that the Russian Federation bears international responsibility, by virtue of its sponsorship of terrorism and failure to prevent the financing of terrorism under the Convention, for the acts of terrorism committed by its proxies in Ukraine, including: a.The shoot-down of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17.”

The Russian presentations in open court so far can be read here. Ilya Rogachev, Director of the Department of New Challenges and Threats at the Russian Foreign Ministry, testified in front of 16 judges of the court on March 7.  Rogachev  was followed for the Russian side by London Queens Counsel, Samuel Wordsworth.

According to Rogachev, “it should be noted that during the summer of 2014 the Ukrainian Army’s anti-aircraft missile regiment No. 156, equipped with ‘BUK-M1’ missile systems, was stationed in the zone of conflict. The regiment’s headquarters and its first division were located in Avdiivka near Donestk, its second division in Mariupol and its third in Lugansk. In total the regiment was armed with 17 BUK-M1 SAMs, identical to the one identified by the JIT.”

He went on to argue that whether the Ukrainian forces fired the BUK missile, or whether the separatists did, there is no evidence that either force intended to do so. “It is enough to note,” said Rogachev, “that neither the DSB [Dutch Safety Board]  nor the JIT [Joint Investigation Team] appear to be concluding that the civil airliner was shot down with malicious intent or, which is what matters most for today, that the equipment allegedly used was provided for that specific purpose.”

The JIT, according to Turnbull’s spokesman in Canberra this week,  includes Australia,Belgium, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Ukraine. The spokesman said they “remain committed to ensuring those responsible for the downing of MH17 are held to account.” On the other hand, the evidence so far produced by the JIT hasn’t satisfied the admissibility and prosecution tests of  the Australian Federal Police (AFP) officers on the JIT staff. The AFP’s Commissioner Andrew Colvin reports to the Australian Justice Minister and he, as well as the AFP, are part of the portfolio of Attorney- General Brandis.

In two Australian coroners court hearings, the AFP has revealed serious reservations about the Dutch evidence and Ukrainian claims in the MH17 investigation; for details read this  and this.

Turnbull adds through his spokesman an additional qualification. “The outcomes of this investigation could be relevant” in determining whether the downing of MH17 was a terrorist act. In Australian law and in the Prime Minister’s judgement, could means not now – and not at the International Court.

“For the action to fall under the Montreal Convention,” Rogachev testified this week in The Hague, referring to the principal international treaty covering compensation for aircraft incidents, “the intention must have been to shoot down a civilian aircraft…”

Wordsworth told the ICJ judges that for every act alleged in the court papers by the Kiev regime, “there is a separate requirement of specific intent. So far as concerns Ukraine’s allegations with respect to Flight MH17, Article 2.1 (a) incorporates the offences under the Montreal Convention, which comprise the unlawful and intentional destruction of a civilian aircraft. So far as concerns the other allegations of Ukraine, there is a requirement of both specific intent and purpose. Article 2 (1) (b) refers to: “(b) Any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.”

Wordsworth was repeating in open court what the Australian Attorney-General has already advised the Australian Prime Minister. Because the Australians have decided there is no case for a terrorist act to justify compensating their own citizens, the Ukrainians have already lost their case.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Ivan

    Only a bloody fool would suggest that Putin has anything to gain by shooting down a civilian airliner. If Turnbull really believes this he should issue a travel advisory on all Australian airlines crossing Russian airspace. Whan I first heard of this it appeared that the rebels had shot the plane down thinking it was some kind of Ukranian plane. The Ukranian went full court with this to brand Russia a terrorist state, things went downhill from there. The Ukraine bears culpability for allowing transit flights over a disturbed area, thus they can’t really press for a neutral judgement.

    1. hemeantwell

      I’ll add the usual point that the charge is all the more incredible because none of the US’ radar and satellite coverage at the time has been brought to bear to “prove” Russian complicity. Ukraine air space 7/24/14, unplugged?

      1. Bill Smith

        There was one KH-11 (USA-161) (2001-044A) that provides optical imagery in position at that time that might have had chance to image the area. However it might no longer have been functioning as it was deorbited a few months later.

        There were also a number of commercial imaging satellites that passed through the area that day.

        On that day several radar imaging satellite / systems made passes over the area. Lacrosse 5 (2005-016A), FIA Radar 1, 2 and 3 (2010-046A, 2012-014A and 2013-072A), the SAR-Lupe satellites, the Hélios system and IGS. These are operated by the US, Germany, France and Japan.

        There were numerous (too many to list) SIGNIT satellites operated by a number of countries from LEO to HEO (SBIRS).

        My understanding is that the SBIRS saw the missile launch. Likely others ‘saw’ something. But likely, nothing any one satellite ‘saw’ is going to ‘prove’ anything. It would take the assembly of a number of things that were ‘seen’ to provide a weighted conclusion. Also a number of those satellites would have been looking at the Middle East instead of the Ukraine when they made those passes.

        But what do you mean by ‘prove’?

        1. susan the other

          This sounds like another sleazy compromise. Maybe the secret is that the Russians have cold hard evidence against Nato and Ukraine on this. Perhaps evidence that the Netherlands also compromised its notorious caution and allowed somebody to let MH17 fly over a war zone. So with this obfuscation about lack of intent both Russia and Ukraine have won. If intent cannot be proven against the Russians, it can’t be proven against the Ukrainian army either because the evidence presented eliminated all the above top secret details. So now the whole thing was an “accident”. When, if all the evidence were reviewed, a case for intent falls against Nato and Ukraine – they intended to frame Russia for the incident to gain support for their cause. And as such it does meet the definition of terrorism. At least Turnbull refused to call it Russian terrorism.

          1. Persona au gratin

            Putin almost certainly knows the truth of the matter and is wisely withholding it to prevent undue shame on the part of the Obama administration officials who created this mess and further political turmoil in the US. The fact that he knows and they know that he knows is trump card enough for now, although it has no doubt already had significant political repercussions which won’t ever be traced by our lapdog MSM. The west is playing with fire when they engage in this kind of skulduggery with a renowned spymaster like Putin. For all of our sakes, I sincerely hope that someone in the room with the NSC recognizes that fact, but I doubt it. Foreign policy jiu jitsu seems to be a lost art inside the DC beltway these days, having exchanged it for the currently in vogue cheap macho swagger.

            1. sid_finster

              Putin may (or may not) have ironclad proof, but no amount of proof, logic, facts or evidence will matter to an establishment whose mind is made up.

              1. Ivan

                What was absolutely disgusting about the American attempt to push the Russians into a corner, was Kerry’s almost immediate insistence that the Americans had proof that the Russians were involved. Well in that case why didn’t you share this ironclad evidence with the Dutch investigators so that they can come to a definitive conclusion?
                It brought to mind the behaviour of the Americans when KAL 007 was shot over Soviet airspace in 1983. Then George Shultz claimed that the Soviets had deliberately shot down the 747 knowing that it was an airliner. Subsequent investigations confirmed that it was a tragic mistake on the part of the Soviet pilot, who had genuinely thought it was a military aircraft weaving in and out of a prohibited airspace. But the Americans whose own spy planes did not nothing to warn the pilot that he was veering into dangerous territory partied all month long with the tragedy.

                1. Ivan

                  The sad thing is the Malaysians whose property MH17 was, were not invited to sit on the investigation team. Though they had not exactly covered themselves with glory over the missing MH370, common courtesy would have required them to be offered a role in the investigation.

  2. rkka

    What I want to know is why the Ukrainian air traffic control system directed this flight over a zone of active hostilities, where the Ukrainian Air Force had previously had a good many military aircraft shot out of the sky.

    1. Bill Smith

      The answer to the first part of your question is that countries get paid for over flights. The second part of your question is that all the Ukrainian Air Force planes that had been shot down were flying much, much lower and it was assumed the equipment being used to do it couldn’t go as high as the commercial airliners were flying.

      You, know sort of like the Soviets couldn’t reach the U-2.

      1. sid_finster

        The aircraft could still overfly Ukraine without going over the combat zone. Not all of Ukraine is or was consumed with active hostilities.

        And the U2 was a spy airplane. MH17 was a commercial airliner, not a SAM target. Passenger safety is supposed to be Paramount, although the junta sure has milked that tragedy for all it was worth.

    2. zapster

      The Ukrainian air traffic control tower tapes disappeared immediately and never again resurfaced. Without them, there is a gaping hole in the entire investigation. There was also an air-traffic controller that tweeted the crash in real time, a “Carlos”. He disappeared when the military showed up at the tower, and has never been heard of since. His tweets indicated that Ukrainian fighter jets shot it down, which is also what the Australian coroners suspect.

      The evidence tends toward the fighter jet scenario, altho it may have been accidental. In any case, it’s clear there’s a whopper of a coverup here.

    3. uncle tungsten

      The Ukrainian air traffic control likely instructed MH17 to take that course as it knew there was a simultaneous air defense exercise underway in that region. MH17 was likely considered a convenient comparative radar image against the lower flying Ukranian Air Force Migs and likely would prove helpful in a real threat scenario.

      A Russian domestic flight was shot down some years before when Ukraine “accidentally” launched one of its BUK missiles. Human error is always a likely scenario.

      There is compelling circumstantial evidence pointing to a Ukranian accidental launch. The so called evidence pedaled by bellingcat is commercial propaganda and has been seen as such all along.

  3. dcrane

    Indeed – even if they had no reason to believe that a capability to shoot down airliners at 30,000 feet plus (i.e., a weapon like the Buk-M1) was present on the ground at that point, commerical airliners are sometimes required to descend rapidly to much lower altitudes (e.g., by pressure emergencies) so it makes no sense to rely on an assumption that hostile weapons can’t reach the usual cruising altitude. It is a fair question what the airline ops people were thinking as well.

    Agreed that this has always seemed more likely to be a reckless screwup by the people running the BUK than a deliberate terrorist act. (Then again, I think the host nations do make money from these flyovers.)

    1. Bill Smith

      I agree with your conclusion that it was a total screw up. Only part of the system was present and that cut down the ability to see the entire picture (or better see the entire picture).

  4. Quentin

    You make me think John Helmer. Yes, if Russian citizens, Putin or otherwise, are directly responsible for supplying the Buk that allegedly shot down flight MH17 to anyone in Ukraine or actually committed such an act, why are the Netherlands, USA, Australia, all countries of the world, especially those of Anglo-American persuasion, allowing their commercial aircraft to overfly Russian and Ukrainian territory? Why? Because they don’t believe the story themselves, see Australia’s stance, for instance. What a bunch of flaming hypocrites. The dead are dead so why not makt the best of them…use them as an unprincipled excuse to achieve political ends.

    1. zapster

      What’s interesting is that the rebels never used a BUK to shoot down the continuous fighter and bombing runs that were turning the Donbass into rubble, either before or after the MH17. Seems to me that if they had one, they’d have used it much more productively than shooting down an airliner–something that could not have any benefit to them whatsoever. The Ukrainian government, tho, has made hay on it, by demonizing Russia and garnering support from western media.

    2. Yves Smith Post author

      I don’t want to belabor the issue, but “suppling the BUK” is also misleading since until the hostilities, Ukraine was buying military equipment from Russian, hence the Kiev government had plenty of BUKs too. So the fact that the plane was allegedly taken down by a BUK doesn’t even prove it was separatists that did it. That is to show how lousy the caliber of the reporting on this topic has been.

  5. The Rev Kev

    This whole MH17 incident stinks to high heaven and I cannot believe how much of our media here in Oz is uncritically accepting the official story. What is worse is knowing that all those deaths are being used as a convenient political football, the truth be damned. I can think of a dozen things that set of my BS Indicator here with MH17 such as the Ukrainians absolutely refusing to release the ground control comms to the downed airliner or that, unlike the Russians, the US has refused to release detailed radar and radio intercepts for that day. They did reference a nice YouTube clip of a moving truck though.

    How many people know that the Ukrainians had their own BUK missiles in the area because they were shit-scared of the Russian Air Force maybe paying them a visit. Or that they had previously shot down an airliner – and had refused to accept responsibility? I think that Turnbull does not want the crash labelled a terrorist incident as when the full truth comes out (and it always does in the end) it would open up all sorts of legal liabilities and it could be him left swinging in the wind.

    Following American policy for this area, of which Australia has no connection, has led to all sorts of weird repercussions. Tony Abbott wanted to send a brigade of our troops to eastern Ukraine as part of a NATO force. That would of worked out well! If you asked people in Australia if it was a good idea to ship uranium to a semi-failed state in the middle of a civil war that has made indications that they would like to acquire nuclear weapons most of them would say no way. And yet last year we signed an agreement to do precisely that with Ukraine.

    1. andyb

      As a former combat veteran, I can attest that the “smoking gun” in the MH17 case is the clearly identifiable circular holes in the fuselage which could only have been caused by the cannons of a fighter aircraft and not from shrapnel produced from an exploding missile. Shrapnel does not produce perfectly circular and consistent holes. MH17 was most likely brought down by the fighter jet following it in eyewitness accounts.

      1. Persona au gratin

        Agreed. This would not be an issue at all were it not for the propaganda smoke screen the western MSM was ordered to throw up to protect those who must never be named.

      2. Dead Dog

        I’ve read everything (or almost on this). Yes, there is evidence the aircraft was strafed by cannon from an aircraft.

        The autopsies were not released (no evidence of any BUK shrapnel in bodies of anyone, let alone pilots…

        Of course it all stinks and so does the Australian Govt.

        It’s not about the money. Our fellows went all in on the Russians, they can’t back down now, even if the evidence points elsewhere.

      3. animalogic

        For me the smell of BS & conspiracy occurred within a few hours of the downing of the aircraft. That is: the Ukraine released audio of the “rebels” apparently discussing the plane’s downing. This audio proved to be a fabrication. So either the Ukrainian state is hyper fast in producing such taped nonsense or it had foreknowledge….
        which suggests, at least, complicity…or intention.

    2. Praedor

      The whole MH17 thing brings 3 words to mind: Gulf of Tonkin

      Happily, in this case the attempted Gulf of Tonkin lie was killed in the uterus.

  6. originalone

    Perhaps I’m wrong here, but I remember reading that Putin was traveling back to Russia and his flight path was changed prior to the shoot down of MH17, which was on the same flight path, but wasn’t altered. A mistake by the Ukrainians who didn’t get the word? As for the silence of the U.S., seems to go with the territory considering who is/was at center stage in the overthrow revolution.

  7. Patrick Donnelly

    What a tangled web we weave …..

    Just remember, tsun ami kill tens of thousands …… Russian ex Intel operative has stated that nuclear moles are buried into the USA coastline. I doubt that he was telling the truth, but it will be AWFULly CONvenient should there be waves …

  8. Jacob

    MH-17 is likely the second passenger airliner shot down by the Ukrainian military. In 2001, they shot down a Russian TU-154 airliner that was en route from Novosibirsk to Tel Aviv.

  9. John Wright

    IF this is a statement of indirect liability

    “According to the Ukrainian claim, the destruction of MH17 was an act of terrorism. “When the Russian Federation delivered this deadly surface-to-air missile system to the DPR, it knew precisely the type of organization it was aiding… The Russian government knew or should have known that their proxies would use these powerful antiaircraft weapons in a manner consistent with their previous pattern of disregard for civilian life.””

    Would not the USA/UK/France also have to be very careful that THEIR weapons systems did not fall in the wrong hands for liability reasons?

    If Russia is liable in this case, because they should have known their weapons COULD be used this way, why not hold other countries to the same standard?

    I can see peace breaking out when all countries have to pay damages for the weapons they, or their corporations, supply around the world.

    1. sid_finster

      Because restrictions and limitations apply only to the other guys.

      Look, I am going to break down the entire corpus of public international law into three words: “might makes right.”

      That’s it. Everything else is the self-justification of sociopaths.

      Were to God that things were otherwise.

      1. animalogic

        For me the smell of BS & conspiracy occurred within a few hours of the downing of the aircraft. That is: the Ukraine released audio of the “rebels” apparently discussing the plane’s downing. This audio proved to be a fabrication. So either the Ukrainian state is hyper fast in producing such taped nonsense or it had foreknowledge….
        which suggests, at least, complicity…or intention.

        1. sid_finster

          I did not know that the discussion of the downing of MH 17 was proven to be a fabrication.

          Suspected, yes, but proven?

  10. animalogic

    For me the smell of BS & conspiracy occurred within a few hours of the downing of the aircraft. That is: the Ukraine released audio of the “rebels” apparently discussing the plane’s downing. This audio proved to be a fabrication. So either the Ukrainian state is hyper fast in producing such taped nonsense or it had foreknowledge….
    which suggests, at least, complicity…or intention.

    1. The Rev Kev

      I had the same thought myself. They were too quick off the mark with that video which as you said was totally bogus. Here is another thought. Does it not seem an enormous coincidence that it was a Malaysian Airlines that was destroyed? This was not long after another Malaysian Airliner went missing remember. Good for PR purposes that coincidence.

      If this was pre-planed with a video good to go, you wonder too if they also selected which plane was going to be the one to get hit beforehand. That Malaysian plane was routed direct over the combat zone whereas previous flights were directed more north of this zone by Ukrainian air traffic control. We don’t know why as the air traffic control transcripts have never seen the light of day.

      If the people behind the maiden movement were prepared to shoot 100 fellow Ukrainians to get to power, how hesitant would they have been to kill three hundred foreigners to secure total western support. A nasty thought but you have to wonder as this sort of stuff has happened before.

  11. alienatedlabor

    For me the smell of BS & conspiracy occurred within a few hours of the downing of the aircraft. That is: the Ukraine released audio of the “rebels” apparently discussing the plane’s downing. This audio proved to be a fabrication. So either the Ukrainian state is hyper fast in producing such taped nonsense or it had foreknowledge….
    which suggests, at least, complicity…or intention.

  12. VietnamVet

    It has been several years since Malaysian Airlines lost two 777s and a total of 534 lives. All that is know is that one was shot down and the other disappeared in the Indian Ocean. It cannot be a strange coincidence that the exact chain of events that caused these deaths are unknown. Once again, the power of the 21st century corporate empire supersedes finding closure for the families of the lost or the safety of the flying public.

  13. Kalen

    The behavior of Dutch and Australian and recently Malaysian authorities is nothing short of appalling.

    First they refused to investigate on site claiming danger, while families of the victims have been there and return safely within week of the disaster and later western governments did everything to cover up clear Ukrainian involvement in the shooting down by their own Buk AA missile systems located in the vicinity of MH17 flight path on that fatal day as documented by Ukrainian videos clips and Russian satellite images presented already in 2014.

    Those lies of politicians and members of the commission were abhorrent and must stop. Families must be able to sue for destroyed lives of their love-ones and the responsible in Kiev Regime must pay and their crime not covered up for political propaganda reasons by western governments.

    More on that and Ukrainian war can be found here:

Comments are closed.