671 NYT & WSJ admit MH17 felled by Shrapnel, but not that it was fired FROM BOTH SIDES

NYT & WSJ admit MH17 felled by Shrapnel, but not that it was fired FROM
BOTH SIDES

Newsletter published on 3 August 2014

This newsletter is at http://mailstar.net/bulletins/140803-b2433-MH17.rtf

(1) MH17 Cockpit photos: Get the pdf, not the jpg, and compare NYT & WSJ
(2) NYT: "Shrapnel" caused by fragmentary warhead carried by SA-11 (BUK)
missile
(3) NYT graphic: detonation shatters the warhead and creates a Shrapnel
cloud
(4) WSJ: OSCE find MH17 Pieces with Shrapnel-Like Holes (July 24)
(5) WSJ: Shrapnel could indicate Surface-to-Air missile OR Air-to-Air
missile (July 25)
(6) OSCE are uncertain if MH17 downed by missile fired from the ground -
Malay Mail
(7) MH17 entry and exit holes: “shrapnel-like, almost machine gun-like
holes” - OSCE
(8) MH17 was escorted by two Ukrainian fighter jets - Carlos, air
traffic controller
(9) Deleted BBC Report on MH17: "two explosions in the air ... another
aircraft, a military one, beside it." - Donetsk Eyewitnesses
(10) Blaming Russia as ‘Flat Fact’ - Robert Parry

(1) MH17 Cockpit photos: Get the pdf, not the jpg, and compare NYT & WSJ
- by Peter Myers, August 3, 2014

The article "German Pilot Speaks Out" at Global Research.ca

<http://www.globalresearch.ca/german-pilot-speaks-out-shocking-analysis-of-the-shooting-down-of-malaysian-mh17/5394111>

links to TWO photos of the Cockpit of MH17, one of much higher
resolution than the other.

One is a small .jpg file (only 17 KB):
http://www.anderweltonline.com/fileadmin/_processed_/csm_topelement_47299592d2.jpg
(17 KB)

The other is a big .pdf file (2.3 MB):
http://www.anderweltonline.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/Cockpit-MH017.pdf
(2.3 MB)

You need the pdf file to see the holes clearly. Note that you can see
both ENTRY holes (smooth edge) and EXIT holes (rough edge, bent
outwards). This shows that the shrapnel was fired FROM BOTH SIDES. For
more details read the above article closely.

The reason this is important, is that the Mainsteam media do not show
the Cockpit photo, but show photos of the Fuselage. They do identify
Shrapnel holes, but without distinguishing ENTRY from EXIT holes, and
they conclude that the Shrapnel was produced by a Missile
(surface-to-air eg SA-11 (Buk), or possibly air-to-air).

See the NYT graphic in item 3; it was reproduced in the Sydney Morning
Herald. Note that Shrapnel would pierce the Cockpit in only ONE
direction, as per this graphic.
<http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/07/18/malaysia-flight-17-qa/8152344ee75ccfd9e7abb79994992d698d327ac8/buk-ai2html-600.png>

(2) NYT: "Shrapnel" caused by fragmentary warhead carried by SA-11 (BUK)
missile

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/21/world/europe/wreckage-offers-clues-on-why-flight-17-went-down.html

EUROPE

Wreckage Offers Clues on Why Flight 17 Went Down

Photographs of a piece of wreckage found by two reporters for The New
York Times and analyzed by Reed Foster, a defense analyst with IHS
Jane’s, offer some clues about what could have caused Malaysia Airlines
Flight 17 to crash. While it is impossible from the photographs to
determine that a specific missile was used, Mr. Foster said, the damage
is consistent with the effects of a fragmentary warhead carried by an
SA-11, the type of missile that American officials have said was most
likely behind the attack. JULY 21, 2014

Analysis: The shrapnel came from outside the plane.

Mr. Foster said the contour of the aluminum and the blistering of the
paint around many of the holes indicate that small pieces of
high-velocity shrapnel entered the aircraft externally. Mr. Foster said
the two most likely causes were an engine explosion or an exploding
missile.

Many of the holes are relatively small ...

Mr. Foster said “most of the smaller holes appear to have been caused by
a high-velocity projectile, as opposed to shearing or tearing caused by
the forceful separation of the panel from the airframe.” He said the
SA-11 family of missiles was designed to destroy fast-moving military
aircraft at high elevations. Rather than striking an aircraft directly,
the missiles intercept the targeted aircraft and then explode near it,
creating a cloud of shrapnel.... and uniform in size.

Most of the perforations are about the same size, and the fragments
seemed to have entered from a front angle, Mr. Foster said. He said that
fragmentary-warhead missiles try to “put as many consistently sized,
low-drag fragments into the airframe as possible.” The shrapnel damage
is different from what would be expected after an aircraft-engine
explosion, Mr. Foster said, which would have caused “longer, thinner,
oblique tears across the aircraft skin, with a slight hump toward the
point where the fragment entered the skin, rather than the majority of
punctures present.”

(3) NYT graphic: detonation shatters the warhead and creates a Shrapnel
cloud

The graphic is at
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/07/18/malaysia-flight-17-qa/8152344ee75ccfd9e7abb79994992d698d327ac8/buk-ai2html-600.png

The text is at
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/18/world/europe/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-q-a.html
http://www.smh.com.au/world/photo-of-mh17-wreckage-proves-missile-attack-claims-report-20140722-zvjur.html

Q. and A.
What Happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17
A summary of what is known and not known about the crash. UPDATED July
23, 2014
Q. What kind of missile shot down the plane?

An analysis by IHS Jane’s of photographs of wreckage <
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/21/world/europe/wreckage-offers-clues-on-why-flight-17-went-down.html
 > from the crash site found that the damage was consistent with the
effects of a fragmenting warhead carried by an SA-11 missile, known in
Russian as a Buk, the type of missile that American intelligence
officials have said was the probable culprit. It was impossible from
photographs to determine the specific model of the missile used. But the
SA-11 is a member of a class of weapon that carries a fragmenting
warhead with a proximity fuze. It is about 18 feet long and 1,500 pounds
before launch, according to an American ordnance document.

Q. How sophisticated was the missile?

SA-11 missiles can travel tens of thousands of feet into the air, much
higher than the altitude of Flight 17, which was flying at 33,000 feet.
Behind each missile’s antenna and guidance system is a warhead packed
with 46 pounds of high explosive. Rather than striking an aircraft
directly, these types of missiles are designed to intercept the targeted
aircraft and explode beneath it, creating a cloud of shrapnel.

{graphic}
As SA-11 missile carries about 46 pounds of explosives. It detonates
about 30 to 90 metres away from the target.

The detonation shatters the warhead and creates a shrapnel cloud that
strikes the aircraft many times with the intent of damaging critical
parts of the plane like the engines and wing flaps.
{end graphic} <
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/07/18/malaysia-flight-17-qa/8152344ee75ccfd9e7abb79994992d698d327ac8/buk-ai2html-600.png>

(4) WSJ: OSCE find MH17 Pieces with Shrapnel-Like Holes (July 24)

http://online.wsj.com/articles/mh17-pieces-with-shrapnel-like-holes-osce-says-1406230555

MH17 Pieces With Shrapnel-Like Holes, OSCE Says

Monitors Say More Human Remains Still at Crash Site

By ALEXANDER KOLYANDR

July 24, 2014 3:35 p.m. ET

DONETSK, Ukraine—Monitors from the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe reported that shrapnel-like holes were found in
two separate pieces of the fuselage of the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines
aircraft that was believed to have been downed by a missile in eastern
Ukraine.

Michael Bociurkiw of the OSCE group of monitors at his daily briefing
described part of the plane’s fuselage dotted with “shrapnel-like,
almost machine gun-like holes.” He said the damage was inspected by
Malaysian aviation-security officials.

A week after the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, remains of some
of the victims are still on the crash site, Mr. Bociurkiw said.

He said that as OSCE monitors examined a large unbroken part of the
fuselage in a wooden area, they also found children’s toys and games
that were apparently interrupted in midflight, which he described as
“heartbreaking.”

He said the crash site, as in previous days, hasn’t been fully secured
and locals are able to wander around and even harvest crops in a 12-km
wide area where the plane debris is scattered.

Bodies of the victims were flown to the Netherlands on Wednesday, and
more international investigators were preparing to travel to the crash
site.

Malaysian aviation experts are leaving Donetsk on Friday, the OSCE
spokesman said. They were joined Thursday by three experts from
Australia, and Mr. Bociurkiw said a few more Australians are arriving
Friday.

Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop is set to travel to Kiev, while
her Dutch counterpart Frans Timmermans met with Ukraine’s President
Petro Poroshenko in Kiev on Thursday.

Netherlands is coordinating the investigation of disaster.

Write to Alexander Kolyandr at Alexander.Kolyandr@wsj.com

(5) WSJ: Shrapnel could indicate Surface-to-Air missile OR Air-to-Air
missile (July 25)

http://online.wsj.com/articles/identification-of-bodies-from-malaysia-airlines-crash-could-take-months-1406222945

Shrapnel Damage Is Found on Debris From Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

'Almost Machine Gun-Like Holes' Are First Official Sighting of Evidence
Suggesting a Missile

By ALEXANDER KOLYANDR, MATINA STEVIS and ROBIN VAN DAALEN

Updated July 25, 2014 9:29 a.m. ET

Monitors at the crash site of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 said Thursday
they had detected “shrapnel-like” holes on parts of the plane, marking
the first official, on-the-ground sighting of evidence suggesting the
plane was downed by a missile.

Officials from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
mission deployed in eastern Ukraine spotted a part of the plane’s
fuselage dotted with “shrapnel-like, almost machine gun-like holes,” the
spokesman for the mission, Michael Bociurkiw, said.

The holes were found in two separate pieces of the fuselage and were
examined by the Malaysian aviation security officials who are part of
the international mission investigating the crash, Mr. Bociurkiw said.

The damage to the jet’s exterior is a crucial clue to understanding what
brought down Flight 17. Still, the presence of shrapnel damage may not
immediately point to the SA-11 surface-to-air missile that U.S.
officials have said was likely fired by pro-Russia rebels, as some
air-to-air missiles also are designed to destroy an aircraft with a
shrapnel-producing warhead.

Finding actual shrapnel would yield more certainty over the missile
type. Different missiles use different warhead materials, opening the
possibility for a chemical analysis that could sort out what kind of
weapon was involved.

The SA-11 has a high-explosive fragmentation warhead that sends a
“spherical cloud of shrapnel” that detonates nearby and is designed “to
sever the rods, hoses and wires” on the aircraft, said John Pike,
director at GlobalSecurity.org.

Such a determination still wouldn’t answer the most critical question of
who fired the missile. Ukraine, which also owns Buk antiaircraft
systems, has said it didn’t fire any of its systems, a claim the U.S.
has backed.

(6) OSCE are uncertain if MH17 downed by missile fired from the ground -
Malay Mail

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/mh17-investigators-say-machine-gun-like-holes-on-wreckage-suggest-missile-f

MH17 investigators say ‘machine gun-like’ holes on wreckage suggest
missile fire

JULY 25, 2014

A piece of the wreckage is seen at a crash site of the Malaysia Airlines
Flight MH17 in the village of Petropavlivka (Petropavlovka), Donetsk
region, July 25, 2014. — Reuters picKUALA LUMPUR, July 25 —
Shrapnel-like holes resembling machine-gun shots have been detected on
the wrecked fuselage of the Malaysia Airlines plane recovered from its
Ukraine crash site, which official investigators say strongly point to
the use of a missile to bring down Flight MH17.

However, the team of international investigators with the Organisation
for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) are uncertain if the
missile used was fired from the ground as US military experts have
previously suggested, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported.

In its report, the New York-based daily observed that “some air-to-air
missiles also are designed to destroy an aircraft with a
shrapnel-producing warhead”.

The MH17 crash investigators would have a higher chance of identifying
the missile model and type used if they find and chemically analyse the
actual shrapnel pieces, WSJ suggested.

Earlier this week, defence analyst Reed Foster told the New York Times
(NYT) that the MH17 plane was likely torn apart by shrapnel from a
missile that exploded near it rather in directly hitting it.

The assessment was based on photographs taken by NYT photographers, of
the holes on the pieces of wreckage at the crash site.

Foster, who is attached to defence consultancy IHS Jane’s, was cited
saying the shrapnel marks were consistent with a hit from a fragmenting
warhead, such as that of a surface-to-air missile.

The NYT report also noted that it was impossible to identify the exact
missile model based on the photographs.

American officials believe the missile belonged to the SA-11 class of
weapon, an old but powerful anti-aircraft system also known as Buk in
Russian that was widely used in the 1970s Soviet era that could go up to
25,000 metres, far surpassing the 10,000-metre altitude at which Flight
MH17 was flying when it was downed on July 17.

Ukraine has claimed that pro-Russia separatists had downed the plane
using the Buk missile, but the Ukraine rebels denied owning such equipment.

(7) MH17 entry and exit holes: “shrapnel-like, almost machine gun-like
holes” - OSCE

From: Ionut Dobrinescu <idobrinescu@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014
15:46:51 +0300

http://www.globalresearch.ca/support-mh17-truth-osce-monitors-identify-shrapnel-like-holes-indicating-shelling-no-firm-evidence-of-a-missile-attack/5394324

OSCE Monitors Identify “Shrapnel and Machine Gun-Like Holes” indicating
Shelling. No Evidence of a Missile Attack. Shot Down by a Military Aircraft?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, July 31, 2014

According to the report of German pilot and airlines expert Peter
Haisenko, the MH17 Boeing 777 was not brought down by a missile.

What he observed from the available photos were perforations of the
cockpit:

  The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of
speculation: The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry
and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards.
These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points
most likely that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile. (Revelations of
German Pilot: Shocking Analysis of the “Shooting Down” of Malaysian
MH17. “Aircraft Was Not Hit by a Missile” Global Research, July 30, 2014)

Based on detailed analysis Peter Haisenko reached  the conclusion that
the MH17 was not downed by a missile attack:

This aircraft was not hit by a missile in the central portion. The
destruction is limited to the cockpit area. Now you have to factor in
that this part is constructed of specially reinforced material

The OSCE Mission

It is worth noting that the initial statements by OSCE observers (July
31) broadly confirm the findings of Peter Haisenko:

Monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
reported that shrapnel-like holes were found in two separate pieces of
the fuselage of the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines aircraft that was
believed to have been downed by a missile in eastern Ukraine.

Michael Bociurkiw of the OSCE group of monitors at his daily briefing
described part of the plane’s fuselage dotted with “shrapnel-like,
almost machine gun-like holes.” He said the damage was inspected by
Malaysian aviation-security officials .(Wall Street Journal, July 31, 2014)

The monitoring OSCE team has not found evidence of a missile fired from
the ground as conveyed by official White House statements. As we recall,
the US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power stated –pointing a finger at
Russia– that the Malaysian MH17 plane was “likely downed by a
surface-to-air missile operated from a separatist-held location”:

The team of international investigators with the Organisation for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) are uncertain if the missile
used was fired from the ground as US military experts have previously
suggested, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported. (Malay Mail online,
emphasis added)

The initial OSCE findings tend to dispel the claim that a BUK missile
system brought down the plane.

Evidently, inasmuch as the perforations are attributable to shelling, a
shelling operation conducted from the ground could not have brought down
an aircraft traveling above 30,000 feet.

Peter Haisenko’s study is corroborated by the Russian Ministry of
Defense which pointed to a Ukrainian Su-25 jet in the flight corridor of
the MH17, within proximity of the plane.

Ironically, the presence of a military aircraft is also confirmed by a
BBC  report conducted at the crash site on July 23. [...]

While the MSN is saying that the “shrapnel like holes” can be caused by
a missile (see BBC report above), the OSCE has confirmed the existence
of what it describes as “machine gun like holes”, without however
acknowledging that these cannot be caused by a missile.

In this regard, the GSh-302 firing gun operated by an Su-25 is able to
fire 3000 rpm which explains the numerous entry and exit holes.

According to the findings of Peter Haisenko:

If we now consider the armament of a typical SU 25 we learn this: It is
equipped with a double-barreled 30-mm gun, type GSh-302 / AO-17A,
equipped with: a 250 round magazine of anti-tank incendiary shells and
splinter-explosive shells (dum-dum), arranged in alternating order. The
cockpit of the MH 017 has evidently been fired at from both sides: the
entry and exit holes are found on the same fragment of it’s cockpit
segment (op cit)

The accusations directed against Russia including the sanctions regime
imposed by Washington are based on a lie.

The evidence does not support the official US narrative to the effect
that the MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile system operated by the DPR
militia.

What next? More media disinformation, more lies?

(8) MH17 was escorted by two Ukrainian fighter jets - Carlos, air
traffic controller

{NB this is from a Travel website, not a Political one - Peter M.}

http://www.eturbonews.com/48079/ukraine-air-traffic-controller-suggests-kiev-military-shot-down-

ETN Global Travel Industry News

Jul 17, 2014

ETN received information from an air traffic controller in Kiev on
Malaysia Airlines flight MH17.

This Kiev air traffic controller is a citizen of Spain and was working
in the Ukraine. He was taken off duty as a civil air-traffic controller
along with other foreigners immediately after a Malaysia Airlines
passenger aircraft was shot down over the Eastern Ukraine killing 295
passengers and crew on board.

The air traffic controller suggested in a private evaluation and basing
it on military sources in Kiev, that the Ukrainian military was behind
this shoot down. Radar records were immediately confiscated after it
became clear a passenger jet was shot down.

Military air traffic controllers in internal communication acknowledged
the military was involved, and some military chatter said they did not
know where the order to shoot down the plane originated from.

Obviously it happened after a series of errors, since the very same
plane was escorted by two Ukrainian fighter jets until 3 minutes before
it disappeared from radar. ==

Tweets by Carlos (@spainbuca), a Spanish Air Controller on contract at
Kiev ATC, were deleted from his Twitter account (@spainbuca)
but are saved at https://twitter.com/spainbucaARCH
and at
http://slavyangrad.org/2014/07/18/spanish-air-controller-kiev-borispol-airport-ukraine-military-shot-down-boeing-mh17/

(9) Deleted BBC Report on MH17: "two explosions in the air ... another
aircraft, a military one, beside it." - Donetsk Eyewitnesses

http://www.globalresearch.ca/deleted-bbc-report-ukrainian-fighter-jet-shot-down-mhi7-donetsk-eyewitnesses/5393631

{BBC Report, since deleted, is saved at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro}

Deleted BBC Report. "Ukrainian Fighter Jet Shot Down MHI7", Donetsk
Eyewitnesses
The Catastrophe of #MH17: #BBC in the Search of the “#BUK” – The Video
Report Deleted by @BBC
Global Research, July 27, 2014

  The original BBC Video Report was published by BBC Russian Service on
July 23, 2014.

In a bitter irony, The BBC is censoring its own news productions.

Why did BBC delete this report by Olga Ivshina?

Is it because the BBC team was unable to find any evidence that a rocket
was launched in the area that the Ukrainian Security Service (“SBU”)
alleges to be the place from which the Novorossiya Militia launched a
“BUK” missile?

Or is it because every eyewitness interviewed by the BBC team
specifically indicated the presence of a Ukrainian military aircraft
right beside the Malaysian Airlines Boeing MH17 at the time that it was
shot down?

Or is it because of eyewitness accounts confirming that the Ukrainian
air force regularly used civilian aircraft flying over Novorossiya as
human shields to protect its military aircraft conducting strikes
against the civilian population from the Militia’s anti-aircraft units?

Highlights of Witness statements (see complete transcript below)

Eyewitness #1: There were two explosions in the air. And this is how it
broke apart. And [the fragments] blew apart like this, to the sides. And
when …

Eyewitness #2: … And there was another aircraft, a military one, beside
it. Everybody saw it.

Eyewitness #1: Yes, yes. It was flying under it, because it could be
seen. It was proceeding underneath, below the civilian one.

Eyewitness #3: There were sounds of an explosion. But they were in the
sky. They came from the sky. Then this plane made a sharp turn-around
like this. It changed its trajectory and headed in that direction
[indicating the direction with her hands]. [...]

(10) Blaming Russia as ‘Flat Fact’ - Robert Parry

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/27/blaming-russia-as-flat-fact/

July 27, 2014

Blaming Russia as ‘Flat Fact’

The American rush to judgment blaming ethnic Russian rebels and Russian
President Putin for the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 continues
unabated despite other possible explanations, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

As nuclear-armed America hurtles into a completely avoidable crash with
nuclear-armed Russia over Ukraine, you can now see the dangers of
“information warfare” when facts give way to propaganda and the press
fails to act as an impartial arbiter.

In this sorry affair, one of the worst offenders of journalistic
principles has been the New York Times, generally regarded as America’s
premier newspaper. During the Ukraine crisis, the Times has been little
more than a propaganda conveyor belt delivering what the U.S. government
wants out via shoddy and biased reporting from the likes of Michael R.
Gordon and David Herszenhorn.

The Times reached what was arguably a new low on Sunday when it accepted
as flat fact the still unproven point of how Malaysia Airlines Flight 17
was shot down. The Times dropped all attribution despite what appear to
be growing – rather than diminishing – doubts about Official
Washington’s narrative that Ukrainian rebels shot down the plane by
using a powerful Russian-supplied Buk missile battery.

U.S. and Ukrainian government officials began pushing this narrative
immediately after the plane went down on July 17 killing 298 people
onboard. But the only evidence has been citations of “social media” and
the snippet of an intercepted phone call containing possibly confused
comments by Ukrainian rebels after the crash, suggesting that some
rebels initially believed they had shot the plane down but later
reversed that judgment.

A major problem with this evidence is that it assumes the rebels – or
for that matter the Ukrainian armed forces – operate with precise
command and control when the reality is that the soldiers on both sides
are not very professional and function in even a deeper fog of war than
might exist in other circumstances.

Missing Images

But an even bigger core problem for the U.S. narrative is that it is
virtually inconceivable that American intelligence did not have
satellite and other surveillance on eastern Ukraine at the time of the
shoot-down. Yet the U.S. government has been unable (or unwilling) to
supply a single piece of imagery showing the Russians supplying a Buk
anti-aircraft missile battery to the rebels; the rebels transporting the
missiles around eastern Ukraine; the rebels firing the fateful missile
that allegedly brought down the Malaysian airliner; or the rebels then
returning the missiles to Russia.

To accept Official Washington’s certainty about what it “knows”
happened, you would have to believe that American spy satellites –
considered the best in the world – could not detect 16-feet-tall
missiles during their odyssey around Russia and eastern Ukraine. If that
is indeed the case, the U.S. taxpayers should demand their billions upon
billions of dollars back.

However, the failure of U.S. intelligence to release its satellite
images of Buk missile batteries in eastern Ukraine is the
“dog-not-barking” evidence that this crucial evidence to support the
U.S. government’s allegations doesn’t exist. Can anyone believe that if
U.S. satellite images showed the missiles crossing the border, being
deployed by the rebels and then returning to Russia, that those images
would not have been immediately declassified and shown to the world? In
this case, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence – absence of
U.S. evidence.

The U.S. government’s case also must overcome public remarks by senior
U.S. military personnel at variance with the Obama administration’s
claims of certainty. For instance, the Washington Post’s Craig Whitlock
reported last Saturday that Air Force Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, U.S.
commander of NATO forces in Europe, said last month that “We have not
seen any of the [Russian] air-defense vehicles across the border yet.”

Whitlock also reported that “Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press
secretary, said defense officials could not point to specific evidence
that an SA-11 [Buk] surface-to-air missile system had been transported
from Russia into eastern Ukraine.”

There’s also the possibility that a Ukrainian government missile –
either from its own Buk missile batteries fired from the ground or from
a warplane in the sky – brought down the Malaysian plane. I was told by
one source who had been briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts that some
satellite images suggest that the missile battery was under the control
of Ukrainian government troops but that the conclusion was not definitive.

Plus, there were reports from eyewitnesses in the area of the crash that
at least one Ukrainian jet fighter closed on the civilian plane shortly
before it went down. The Russian government also has cited radar data
supposedly showing Ukrainian fighters in the vicinity.

Need for a Real Inquiry

What all this means is that a serious and impartial investigation is
needed to determine who was at fault and to apportion accountability.
But that inquiry is still underway with no formal conclusions.

So, in terms of journalistic professionalism, a news organization should
treat the mystery of who shot down Flight 17 with doubt. Surely, no
serious journalist would jump to the conclusion based on the dubious
claims made by one side in a dispute while the other side is adamant in
its denials, especially with the stakes so high in a tense confrontation
between two nuclear powers.

But that is exactly what the Times did in describing new U.S. plans to
escalate the confrontation by possibly supplying tactical intelligence
to the Ukrainian army so it can more effectively wage war against
eastern Ukrainian rebels.

On Sunday, the Times wrote: “At the core of the debate, said several
[U.S.] officials — who, like others interviewed, spoke on the condition
of anonymity because the policy deliberations are still in progress — is
whether the American goal should be simply to shore up a Ukrainian
government reeling from the separatist attacks, or to send a stern
message to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin by aggressively helping
Ukraine target the missiles Russia has provided. Those missiles have
taken down at least five aircraft in the past 10 days, including
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.” [Emphasis added.]

The link provided by the Times’ online version of the story connects to
an earlier Times’ story that attributed the accusations blaming Russia
to U.S. “officials.” But this new story drops that attribution and
simply accepts the claims as flat fact.

The danger of American “information warfare” that treats every
development in the Ukraine crisis as an opportunity to blame Putin and
ratchet up tensions with Russia has been apparent since the beginning of
the Ukraine crisis – as has been the clear anti-Russian bias of the
Times and virtually every other outlet of the mainstream U.S. news
media. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Will Ukraine Be NYT’s Waterloo?”]

Since the start of the crisis last year, U.S. officials and
American-funded non-governmental organizations have not only pushed a
one-sided story but have been pushing a dangerous agenda, seeking to
create a collision between the United States and Russia and, more
personally, between President Barack Obama and President Putin.

The vehicle for this head-on collision between Russia and the United
States was the internal political disagreement in Ukraine over whether
elected President Viktor Yanukovych should have accepted harsh
International Monetary Fund austerity demands as the price for
associating with the European Union or agree to a more generous offer
from Russia.

Angered last September when Putin helped Obama avert a planned U.S.
bombing campaign against Syria, American neocons were at the forefront
of this strategy. Their principal need was to destroy the Putin-Obama
collaboration, which also was instrumental in achieving a breakthrough
on the Iran nuclear dispute (while the neocons were hoping that the U.S.
military might bomb Iran, too).

So, on Sept. 26, 2013, Carl Gershman, a leading neocon and longtime
president of the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy, took to
the op-ed page of the neocon-flagship Washington Post to urge the U.S.
government to push European “free trade” agreements on Ukraine and other
former Soviet states and thus counter Moscow’s efforts to maintain close
relations with those countries.

The ultimate goal, according to Gershman, was isolating and possibly
toppling Putin in Russia with Ukraine the key piece on this global
chessboard. “Ukraine is the biggest prize,” Gershman wrote. “Russians,
too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not
just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.”

To give the United States more leverage inside Ukraine, Gershman’s NED
paid for scores of projects, including training “activists” and
supporting “journalists.” Rather than let the Ukrainian political
process sort out this disagreement, U.S. officials, such as neocon
Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and neocon Sen. John
McCain, also intervened to encourage increasingly disruptive
demonstrations seeking to overthrow Yanukovych when he opted for the
Russian deal over the EU-IMF offer.

Though much of the ensuing violence was instigated by neo-Nazi militias
that had moved to the front of the anti-Yanukovych protests, the U.S.
government and its complicit news media blamed every act of violence on
Yanukovych and the police, including a still mysterious sniper attack
that left both protesters and police dead.

On Feb. 21, Yanukovych denied ordering any shootings and tried to stem
the violence by signing an agreement brokered by three European nations
to reduce his powers and hold early elections so he could be voted out
of office. He also complied with a demand from Vice President Joe Biden
to pull back Ukrainian police. Then, the trap sprang shut.

Neo-Nazi militias overran government buildings and forced Yanukovych and
his officials to flee for their lives. The State Department quickly
endorsed the coup regime – hastily formed by the remnants of the
parliament – as “legitimate.” Besides passing bills offensive to ethnic
Russians in the east, one of the parliament’s top priorities was to
enact the IMF austerity plan.

White Hats/Black Hats

Though the major U.S. news media was aware of these facts – and indeed
you could sometimes detect the reality by reading between the lines of
dispatches from the field – the overriding U.S. narrative was that the
coup-makers were the “white hats” and Yanukovych along with Putin were
the “black hats.” Across the U.S. media, Putin was mocked for riding on
a horse shirtless and other indiscretions. For the U.S. media, it was
all lots of fun, as was the idea of reprising the Cold War with Moscow.

When the people of Crimea – many of whom were ethnic Russians – voted
overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, the U.S. media
declared the move a Russian “invasion” although the Russian troops were
already in Ukraine as part of an agreement with previous Ukrainian
governments.

Every development that could be hyped was hyped. There was virtually no
nuance in the news reporting, a lack of professionalism led by the New
York Times. Yet, the solution to the crisis was always relatively
obvious: a federalized system that would allow the ethnic Russians in
the east a measure of self-governance and permit Ukraine to have cordial
economic relations with both the EU and Russia.

But replacement President Petro Poroshenko – elected when a secession
fight was already underway in the east – refused to negotiate with the
ethnic Russian rebels who had rejected the ouster of Yanukovych. Sensing
enough political support inside the U.S. government, Poroshenko opted
for a military solution.

It was in that context of a massive Ukrainian government assault on the
east that Russia stepped up its military assistance to the beleaguered
rebels, including the apparent provision of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft
missiles to fend off Kiev’s air superiority. The rebels did succeed in
shooting down some Ukrainian warplanes flying at altitudes far below the
33,000 feet of the Malaysia Airlines plane.

For a plane at that height to be shot down required a more powerful
system, like the Buk anti-aircraft batteries or an air-to-air missile
fired by a fighter jet. Which brings us to the mystery of what happened
on the afternoon of July 17 and why it is so important to let a serious
investigation evaluate all the available evidence and not to have a rush
to judgment.

But the idea of doing an investigation first and drawing conclusions
second is a concept that, apparently, neither the U.S. government nor
the New York Times accepts. They would prefer to start with the
conclusion and then make a serious investigation irrelevant, one more
casualty of information warfare.

This newsletter is at http://mailstar.net/bulletins/140803-b2433-MH17.rtf