Malaysian Airlines MH317

[Skybird]

Forgotten to take your pills today? Cool down. Breathe. Relax.

And then, with a calmer mind, be thankful for living in a law culture where guilt is not proven by just claiming it, but needs to be proven.

I may be a repetitive offender, but once again I say: understand what I actually have written, not what you think your third eye can identify between the lines.

And then answer the obvious questions. Who benefits from shooting down intentionally MH317. The rebels? Russia? The West? The Ukraine?

Is it reasonable to assume that this and right this plane was targetted and decided on to be shot down? Did somebody on the ground wish these people, and no other people, being dead? Considering the fallout? In what way would Russia or the rebels benfit from this? The global PR payd off badly for them. I fail to see any gainm for them

Its a war down there. Shots get fired, targets get identified, moves trigger counter-moves, people die. Often innocent one sget into the firing line. And mistake shappen. Like in casde of the jumbojet shot down by the Sowjets ov er Sachalin. Or the airliner shot dopwn over the strait of Hormuz by the US navy. Where these killings indeed murder? In my understanding of what defines "murder", the intention to indeed kill this and no other victim, the detemrination to form an according plan and carry it out, is the criterionn. In Germna law, until today this is the difference between "Mord" und "Totschlag" or "Unfall mjit Todesfolge". The firts ione is inetionally, dertah was planned to be broght upomn the victim, the other two cases are unplanned circumstances getting out of control for a mutlitude of different reasons possible: empotional arousal, drugs, accident, chain of unfortunate events, whatever.

If you want to sentence the four identified indiviuduals for"murder", you have to porove that5 they wanted to kill the peopole aboard MH317 - these people, and no toher ones.

And while think about how you could achieve that, do yourself a favour: leave mepotions out of it. Emotions and vague feeling of what is right anhd what is wrong, have no place at court proceedings. Its about bureaucratic formalization, and evidence - or absence of evidence. Talking by own repeated experience. Law, and courts, are not about "justice". I say again: its about a formalized bureaucratic procedure. Its often not satisfying, I agree. But the alternative indeed is: suspect found guilty by merely claiming the suspect guilty, that is enough Do you want that? Be careful with a too easy answer.


It probbaly was a fault, an error, an accident with the kind of consequenes accidents in wars tend to have: lethal ones. I have no clue what went wrong, but I tend to think that probably several things came together, especially in the chain of command. You can agree or disagree with the motives of both sides in this war. But the definition of murder still stands. As long as you cannot present evidence for the intention to get right this plane killed and nothing else as a target, this incident is as much a case of mass murder as was the shooting down of the airliner in the Strait of Hormuz, or the Sachalin incident.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Skybird

While some people may tend to focus on the moral justice argument and how great it is that the small, tiny Netherlands dare to confront big, powerful Russia, I think the Netherlands go for high risk here. Charging the four suspects, in absence, for murder, means they have to prove that the intentional and explicit decision was made and carried out to bring down this plane and intentionally, explicitly killing these people aboard. Because the intention to kill these now dead victims is what separates murder from any form of accident or misjudgement in whatever a sense (mistaking this wrong plane for a valid target: another plane). And I think it will be terribly hard to prove this intention. It already starts with the question for the motive. Cui bono? Ironcially, the answer to this question would be: the Ukraine. Neither the rebels nor Russia could have had an interest for the PR desaster this incident meant for them - but the Ukraine.

The likelihood is quite high that either they must give up these charges, letting the state attorney looking bad then, or that they must construct a fictional case to work beyond the impossibility to prove by evidence the intention that MH317 indeed was the target and was decided on to be shot down, and then again the Netherlands and the attorney would look bad.

So I wonder whether they maybe have bitten off more than they could chew here - just so to feel morally good themselves. And that the Russians will not cooperate in any way, can be taken for granted.

My opinion is that they are already building a fictional political case. That said - the choice of those 4 persons is interesting, as they do not seem to expose Russian authorities.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Catfish

But how about shooting down the right plane, the Antonov, then? Was that a legitimate target, for Russia?
Russia is still intervening militarily, in the Ukraina.
"In December 2015, Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin admitted that Russian military intelligence officers were operating in Ukraine, insisting though that they were not the same as regular troops. Currently, 7% of Ukraine's territory is under occupation."
I am not sure whether war is declared, so is the death of people in this interval of time murder, homicide or legitimate killing in a war?

B.t.w. Netherlands, Belgium or Russia - international law should always stand above brute force regardless of the nation's size. Should.

While Ukrainian official narrative is that it is at war with Russia, there is no formal declaration of war and near peace time relations (trade, travel, etc) are maintained. The narrative is there to mobilise the Ukrainian population away from the obvious systematic failures of Ukrainian leadership. Poroshenko tried to pull the wartime declaration through to get through the elections but failed.

I would also say that while there is a degree of foreighn (and not just Russian) intervention the war could be summarised as a civil war in Ukraine and has local roots.

As to who has shot down the airliner - my opinion is that it was the Kiev loyalists, but again that was due to operator error, much like the 00s shot down over the Black Sea.

[Skybird]

In the Eastern Ukraine, it is war for sure, no matter bureaucratic subtleties. Tanks blow uo, artillery strikes, villages get set ablazed, bombs get dropped, machine cannons fire, trenches are dug out, helicopter and fighters fly and fire, fighters die, civilians die - cant get any more war-like than this. - Heck, the Germans until the turnover from defence minister Jung to Guttenberg insisted that it was not a war what they had in Afghanistan. Formalities, and a tuning of the public's perception of reality.

Russia since the little green men has done what it can to confuse perception of its involvement and being able to FORMALLY deny any responsibility. That black ops and military operations in the grey twilight zone start with formally disconnecting the troops from their nation's and governments' responsibility, is not really the first time ever being heard of. It follows the scheme of bucaneers and privateers. It is clear who gives orders to the affected units and names.


Nebelkerzen.

[ikalugin]

My point is that while various Russian state and non state actors participated in various ways during the conflict it is still a civil war inside Ukraine caused by internal issues and mostly fought by Ukrainians.

A classical example of this would be the civil war in Spain where plenty of foreign powers participated but it is still called a civil war.

[Skybird]

It started with the Crimean peninsula, and that was not a civil war, but an invasion by an external power sending anonymous troops without emblems and badges on their uniforms. Still they were Russian commandos for sure, with or without Russian uniforms.


A trick.


That I understand Russia's strong traditional, historical and geopolitical interest and claim in the Crimean peninsula, does not mean that I do not take the operation for what it was. I just recognize the fact that there is nothing the West can do about it. Russia will not give it up - period. The Eastern Ukraine trouble is a stirring in the hot pot to keep the Ukraine weakened and to remind the West of what could happen if once again it dares to move NATO onto Russian borders like in the early 00-years. It is not just a civil war there - it is a Russian proxy war.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

[...] the conflict it is still a civil war inside Ukraine caused by internal issues and Ukrainians. [...]

Of course, i take it Putin/Russia just had a friendly conversation before he seized the Crimea and Sevastopol
https://www.rferl.org/a/from-not-us-.../29791806.html

A classical example of this would be the civil war in Spain where plenty of foreign powers participated but it is still called a civil war.

Which foreign power attacked and occupied any part of Spain back then?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Which foreign power attacked and occupied any part of Spain back then?

None as far as I'm aware but in the final months of 1936 saw the arrival of foreign troops, International Brigades joining the Republicans and Italian CTV, German Legion Condor and Portuguese Viriatos joining the Nationalists.

All invited and welcomed by either side of the conflict.

[ikalugin]

It started with the Crimean peninsula, and that was not a civil war, but an invasion by an external power sending anonymous troops without emblems and badges on their uniforms. Still they were Russian commandos for sure, with or without Russian uniforms.

Crimean and Donbas situations were significantly different in nature.


Even if we assume that Crimea was exclusively caused by external factors (which considering their vote and the previous separatism attempts is questionable) the Donbas was not - the bulk of people fighting in Donbas were (and are) locals and/or non state actors and are there due to local (Ukrainian) or personal (ie personal agenda for non state actors) reasons.

Which foreign power attacked and occupied any part of Spain back then?

As a nuanced observer I separate Crimea and Donbas.



Donbas follows the same patern as the war in Spain did. You could easily find examples of where territory was occupied by foreighn powers during civil wars - ie during Russian Civil war not only were there many cases of separatism (some were maintained post civil war - Finland and Poland, etc), but there was plenty of outright foreighn occupation ie in the North and in the East.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

None as far as I'm aware but in the final months of 1936 saw the arrival of foreign troops, International Brigades joining the Republicans and Italian CTV, German Legion Condor and Portuguese Viriatos joining the Nationalists.

All invited and welcomed by either side of the conflict.

Certainly right.. Adolf Galland wrote an excellent book also describing what happened in Spain.

However none of the foreign powers involved were in the game to grab land. In the Ukraina Russia certainly was, one of the reasons being the Black Sea harbour of Sevastopol.

Even if the US had managed to keep or convert the whole of Ukraina to the West, and/or the EU to join them, none of them would have actually occupied and kept whole regions, and certainly not by concealed military.

I can understand Putin strategically so to speak and all that, but it does not change one yota from being a war.

[ikalugin]

If it is a war, why does Ukraine maintain peacetime relations (trade, travel etc) with Russia?
If this is a war between Russia and Ukraine, why are militias in Donbas formed from the locals who are fighting for local problems?
Were there any significant political disagreements between eastern and western regions of Ukraine pre 2014?
Would Crimea vote the same way as it did historically in 2014 and 1991 if it was allowed?

You really should be asking questions why you bundle Crimea and Donbas together and buying the un-nuanced Ukrainian "war with Russia" narrative non critically.


As to the annexation - if EU is moving towards being a federative government with their legislative, executive and judicial branches, armed forces and treasury, foreighn policy and so on and so forth, then a colour revolution sponsored by EU (and other parties) followed by an attempt to join EU is annexation by the EU via a coup.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

[...] You really should be asking questions why you bundle Crimea and Donbas together and buying the un-nuanced Ukrainian "war with Russia" narrative non critically. [...]

Maybe because up to 2014 and under international right the Ukraina was one state/nation/country, and the Crimea region belonged to it?
Just because one group of people wants to become citizens of another state does not include any right for them to do so. And it certainly does not allow foreign nation to interfere, and send "helpers".

If german Bavaria wanted to become a part of Austria, held a referndum without allowance of Berlin and then even voted 90 percent to leave, this means nothing.
If Austria would then send concealed military to help them, and just annex the county from Germany, there would be some certain direct response.

Also, i do not really believe in russian 'elections' or 'votes" as long as your "civilian society" does not exist, and this russian "federation" (lol) is rather guided by a one-man dictatorship.

"The final date and ballot choices were set only ten days before the plebiscite was held. Before, during and after the plebiscite was proclaimed, the Crimean peninsula was host to Russian soldiers who managed to oversee public buildings [including voting cabinets] and Ukrainian military installations. The official result from the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was a 96.77 percent vote for integration of the region into the Russian Federation with an 83.1 percent voter turnout."

How utterly.. believable

[...] As to the annexation - if EU is moving towards being a federative government with their legislative, executive and judicial branches, armed forces and treasury, foreighn policy and so on and so forth, then a colour revolution sponsored by EU (and other parties) followed by an attempt to join EU is annexation by the EU via a coup.

The EU has no collective armed forces, and most legislative, executive end judicial branches depend on every single nation, with different laws. There is no president alone deciding as well, it is about consent, elections and votes. Real ones. Let us not discuss possible russian or whatever influence on western elections for now.

[ikalugin]

So when NATO bombs Kosovo and then Kosovo is in the process of being annexed by the EU it is ok?

That is an uninformed position to have, not only the 2014 referendum results are supported by varied polling, they are also supported by historical precedent such as the 1991 referendum and are explained by the broad long term disdain of Kiev for the region and the selective abuse of ethnic minorities there.
Compare and contrast with the 2014 Maidan which was an un-democratic armed and violent take over in Kiev preceded by the same sort of events happening in the western and central regions of Ukraine.

EU does have armed forces under CSDP. As BREXIT and recent legislation within EU shows member states no longer have any degree of real sovereignity. Moreover one of the key reasons for BREXIT was that the EU leadership is not accountable to the people of the member states, so EU is even worse than Russia as it has an unaccountable and unelected tyranical executive and rubber stamp powerless legislative.

[ikalugin]

Example of western reporting on polling:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapo.../#3d7522ce510d

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Catfish

If german Bavaria wanted to become a part of Austria, held a referndum without allowance of Berlin and then even voted 90 percent to leave, this means nothing.

It would mean EVERYTHING. You imply that a syndicate of any sort has the right to subjugate people to its rulership and that the so owned subjects have no right not wanting to be governed by it. But that is a violation of two of the three essential human rights. Its also a fallback into the formal reality of the darkest medieval, and ancient times.


Any law, or constituion, that rejects a local, regional population the right to freely decide whether it wants to continue a partnership or not, is invalid in itslf, by itself.

Becasue if people living in a reigon cannot voluntarily deicde ton it,, but get forced to stay in, they are beign woned then, and de facto are seen as the other'S property.

We call that slave owning.

If -bavaria thus would vote in a referendum to leave the federal republic system, then other federal states - namely those who get passively subsidized by Bavaria so far - have no claim for the bavarians that they are not allowed to leave. Any according law and constitutional paragraph must be seen as invalid in itself and as a violation of human rights.

Partnership, alliances, must be voluntarily. Where they are not, it is about conquest, dictatorship, and subjugation. Every partnership, every alliance in principle can be cancelled, no matter whether any rule or treaty say that cancellation is explcitly ruled out. Such a regulation is just the self-justification of the supressor, the slave owner.

Thats what nationalists and career potlicians f today and the eU do not understand, becasue it psut the very fundament fotheir powers and priviliges into question. It would make potlicians fear the people and force them to follow the demands of the people. But i insist on that givenrments must be afraid of the people, and must see themseves as the servants of the people, not the people being servants to the government. People'S interest go first. Parties' interests should not just go last, but should not even exist, for parties themselves should not even exist. Becasuewhere thexy exist, they do so at the explicit cost of putting their interests above that of the people.


No man and no poeple lives for the sake of another man or another people, and no man and no people has any right to demand that other men or other people live for the sake of the first. Its not just about humand rights, most profound basic human rights, about freedom - but also dignity.