Background on the membership of Malaysia of the Joint Investigation Team
On 7 August 2014, following the coordination meeting held at Eurojust on 28 July, authorities from the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium and Ukraine signed an agreement to set up a joint investigation team (JIT) to investigate the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, with the participation of Malaysia and Eurojust.
Malaysia was not invited to join the JIT. Which is very remarkable as the plane was operated by a Malaysian airline and also registered in Malaysia. Also 43 Malaysian people were among the dead.
The most likely reason for Malaysia not being a full member at the start was that Malaysia was too eager to investigate and bypassed Ukraine.
This is a reconstruction.
At August 7 an agreement was signed. This agreement has a non disclosure component. The existance of the agreement was secret for a long time.
At November 18 2014 Malaysia was still not invited to JIT. According Malayasia the Dutch had stated that also Ukraine and Australia had to approve the membership. (source)
Malaysia complained it was not allowed to recover the debris.
Finally at the end of November the Dutch sent a letter to Malaysia inviting the state to become a full member of JIT.
Dutch magazine Elsevier tried to request the JIT agreement. But the Dutch government refused to make the JIT-agreement public as the content could harm relations with other states (source)
At December 2 this was made public in Malaysian press.
At December 15 Malaysia was awaiting agreement from Eurojust after the country was accepted as a full member of the MH17 Joint Investigation Team (JIT). (source)
At the end of March 2015 a delegation of the Dutch prosecutor went to Malaysia to finalize the agreements with Malaysia on the full JIT membership. (source)
The reason why Malaysia was not permitted as full member to the JIT has never been made public. It could be because of Malaysia being neutral and did not want to point fingers to Russia as the culprit. Russia Today has some background here.
Another possible reason could be because Malaysia still has the death penalty. The Netherlands does not have. So this could be a conflict in joining JIT. (source)
A third possible reason could be the cooperation between Malaysia and the separatists. Malaysia was able to obtain the black boxes because of direct negotiations with the separatists. Ukraine did not want that and prevented the Netherlands to negotiate directly in order to recover the debris. The Netherlands always used OCSE to negotiate.
Malaysia announced at July 27 2014 that it has scored yet another agreement with the pro-Russia rebels controlling MH17’s crash site in Ukraine — this time to allow a group of international police personnel into the area to provide protection to air crash investigators.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak : “I hope that this agreement with Mr Borodai will ensure security on the ground, so the international investigators can conduct their work.”
At November 24 2015 the Malaysian deputy minister of Transportation admitted that Malaysia did not immediately give full cooperation in the DSB lead probe on the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 until it was made a full member in the joint international investigation team. In the DSB final report is is clearly documented that DSB had a hard time to obtain information and speak to Malaysian people.
“Initially, Malaysia was not appointed fully in the joint investigation team,” Abdul Aziz explained to Parliament.
“Therefore, we gave a response that we would not cooperate until we were fully appointed in the JIT. Finally, Malaysia was made a full member of the JIT and we gave full cooperation in the investigation,” he added, using the initials for the joint investigation team. (source)
by 
admin wrote : „The reason why Malaysia was not permitted as full member to the JIT has never been made public. It could be because of Malaysia being neutral and did not want to point fingers to Russia as the culprit.“
Some other reasons are obvious :
July 23rd, 2014
Prime Minister Najib Razak previously, strongly condemned those behind the geopolitical chess game that has led to the death of 298 people. While there is a Pandora’s box of rumors, mis- and disinformation that is being circulated, there is mounting evidence to support suspicions that the pilots of MAS flight MH17 were deliberately lured into a deadly trap.
http://nsnbc.me/2014/07/23/malaysian-government-and-opposition-call-for-mh17-justice-evidence-suggests-foul-play/
July 24, 2014
Speaking today, Prime Minister Najib Razak said:
“Last night, I reached an agreement with Alexander Borodai to bring an end to the standoff over the MH17 crash site. Our agreement rested on three conditions:
the return of the remains of those who lost their lives;
the handover of the black boxes;
and full access to the crash site so that the investigation may begin.
“These were extraordinary circumstances which called for extraordinary measures. There were risks involved in pursuing this agreement. But we felt an obligation to explore all avenues to break the impasse, and secure the return of the remains and the black boxes. After meeting the families, I felt that we owed it to them to act.“
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/07/24/MH17-Liow-39-Malaysian-assist/
July 27, 2014
Malaysia announced today that it has scored yet another agreement with the pro-Russia rebels controlling MH17’s crash site in Ukraine — this time to allow a group of international police personnel into the area to provide protection to air crash investigators.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak : “I hope that this agreement with Mr Borodai will ensure security on the ground, so the international investigators can conduct their work.”
In the statement, Putrajaya also urged for an immediate cessation of all military activities in and around the conflict-ridden region.
The prime minister earned praise from both the local and international communities earlier this week when he successfully brokered a deal with the separatists on the retrieval of MH17’s victims’ bodied and the black boxes.
Analysts here agreed that Najib’s use of quiet diplomacy while his counterparts in other countries took on a more combative stance, had helped the leader succeed in securing the agreement with Borodai.
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/pm-rebel-leader-strike-new-deal-to-secure-mh17-crash-site
“Ex-Chief of Investigation Department of the Security Service of Ukraine Major-General
Vasyl Vovk:
Malaysia in the first stage was in general way affiliated with nearly one hundred percent with the Russian Federation. I’m not in a negative way about it to say, they can not trust the Ukraine, maybe they received one-sided information …”
http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/70292.html
“The most likely reason for Malaysia not being a full member at the start was that Malaysia was too eager to investigate and bypassed Ukraine.”
Yes. Malaysia negotiated directly with the terrorist. Some sources even say Malaysia even paid to get the black boxes.
That clearly was against Ukraine.
soltilspassi:
“Malaysia negotiated directly with the terrorist.”
The discussion goes much better without the extravagant name-calling of Ukraine’s war on its own separatist-citizens.
If they are “terrorists”, why do millions of people in Ukraine not just support them, but continue to live among them when they have had all the opportunity in the world to flee? Who are they terrorizing? The SBU, MIA, and the Ukrainian Armed Forces who attack them for advocating independence? On the same anti-self-determination theory, shouldn’t your Finland return immediately to either Russian or Swedish governance?
It’s not “Ukraine’s war on its own separatist-citizens”, it’s some Ukrainian citizens and some Russian citizens (and some regular Russian military) waging a terrorist war against the rest of Ukraine.
“why do millions of people in Ukraine not just support them, but continue to live among them” — there are no “millions” who support the terrorists actively though some hundred thousand may do; the rest who chose to stay are mainly just so inert and are eager to tolerate any power that imposes itself above them, while the others, mostly the elderly, have no means or possibility to leave the occupied territories.
What “self-determination” are you talking about? Who should be the subject of such a “self-determination” within Ukraine?
“Why do millions of people in Syria and Iraq not just support the “Islamic State”, but continue to live among the islamists when they have had all the opportunity in the world to flee? Who are they terrorizing? The Syrian and Iraqi Armed Forces who attack them for advocating independence?” — that’s what you would want to say?
Prosto Tak:
You asked the right questions.
Same cultures might become a state and form the United Stated of America. But an undemocratic state cannot force different cultures into one nation as the European Union tried in vain.
Hence, a state might be the consequence of same cultures. But a culture never can be concluded by a state. And this means Ukraine consists of Ukrainians and Russians. Ukraine government can force a state like former Sowjet Union, but it all will be temporary, unwise and in vain.
You are correct to say about different cultures, but it’s not Ukrainians vs Russians in the East of Ukraine: it’s “normal thinking” (not even “European thinking,” just “normal” but which now tends to be pro-Ukrainian and more pro-European) against “Soviet thinking” (which tends to be pro-Russian and more “pro-Eurasian”).
Contrary to what the Russian propaganda says, there’s nothing relating to the ethnicity in the problem, just mentality.
You could not build a “state” on a corrupted mentality only, with no real base — nor ethnic or economic, neither language-based, because while people speak mostly Russian in Eastern Ukrainian cities, they speak both languages in smaller towns and they mostly speak Ukrainian in the villages there.
The separatists in Eastern Ukraine pretend to do exactly that; but you’ll have to use dictate and terror for this — and that’s what they actually do in reality.
Prosto Tak:
“Waging a terrorist war against the rest of Ukraine”
I think I have followed events in Ukraine very carefully for some time now from before Maidan.
It’s very clear to me that the irregular armed forces in Donbass have conducted themselves in a defensive war that is almost entirely contained in Donbass, and that there would not be any armed conflict at all if the Ukrainian Military had never left their bases to the west and invaded Donbass through force.
It is not as though the military was embraced by the people when they rolled into Kramatorsk and Mariupol in April/May, unless you call thousands of unarmed civilians standing to blockade armored military columns a loving embrace.
“Regular Russian military”
This is the great white whale of this conflict. The idea that Ukraine is fighting units of the Russian Army that have to invaded Ukraine, even though the Ukrainian Military denies it, as of course does Russia. I guess it makes it easier to give orders to kill your own countrymen if you pretend they are foreign invaders.
“There are no millions”
Sure there are. Around 3 million people live in the territory controlled by the DNR/LNR. And most certainly the only force terrorizing these people is the Ukrainian Army that continues to shell them. They are not terrorized by their own neighbors and kin who have taken up arms.
“What self-determination”
We all watched pictures and scenes from May11, 2014 when the people throughout Donbass self-organized and voted in a peaceful referendum for self-government. You can lie to yourself about it, and I know the Ukrainian authorities and press lie to the Ukrainian people about it, but you most certainly will not fool me into thinking that it did not happen or that the vast majority of the people were not behind it. You will also not fool me into forgetting the nearly identical results of a very similar referendum held in 1994 in Donbass. Regarding the question who should be the subject of such an expression of national will, it is obviously the right of any people to express their will for freedom in this way. It is in the UN Charter, it is a self-evident right exercised numerous times in history, and of course the Ukraine itself has no right to self-existence apart from a similar referendum in 1991. It’s rank hypocrisy to claim a right of self-determination for Ukraine and then deny a similar right to people who don’t wish to be part of Ukraine.
“Live among the Islamists”
People live among the ISIS terrorists because they share their beliefs in jihad, Shariah law, and the Caliphate. Surveys have shown widespread support among many Sunni Muslims in the Middle East for these positions, and it is why they have no trouble finding tens of thousands of recruits, and why there is little opposition within the conquered territories. The Shia/Christian/Secular Syrian and Iraqi armed forces are attacking them because the alternative is to surrender and be killed or enslaved by the ISIS forces and see their countries and communities physically liquidated.
You are obviously drawing a false equivalence here. If Ukraine had just left the Donbass (and maybe even other provinces) alone and let it go its own way, there could have been peace and mutual understanding between brotherly people. The Czechs and Slovaks were neither harmed by agreeing to live in different countries and go their own ways. The Serbs, Bosnians, and Croats turned themselves into international pariahs by fighting instead of looking for peaceful solutions and mutual understanding. It’s not as though it was not possible in 1992 to hold referendum on independence that would allow individual communities to vote freely to enable the establishment of new borders in line with the desires of the people. We already knew how to do that in 1920!after WWI. Ukraine chose the later route of war and the demonizing of the opponents of the new government as terrorists instead of accepting they were free citizens with a legitimate alternate view, and has now irrevocably poisoned relations and bankrupted and destroyed its country to achieve exactly nothing.
Let’s not forget who invaded who here. It certainly wasn’t the Donbass irregulars invading Kiev.
“I think I have followed events in Ukraine very carefully for some time now from before Maidan.”
Andrew, now it’s crystal clear you’ve obviously followed them at the Russian TV. You may have a sincere faith in all those Kremlin lies but they will not stop being total lies. Practically not a single word of Kremlin (and yours) is true.
Ukrainian Armed Forces stationed throughout the country did not “invade” one part of the country — they have been and are on their own soil. It was Russia that finally came to be the invader in Ukraine, though you don’t believe the numerous facts.
A very considerable part of the millions who live under occupation, both at the Donbas and the Crimea, don’t support the current situation but have no possibility for some (family, property etc.) reasons or the money to leave, and are terrorized by de facto authorities to be unable to dare to protest. Active supporters of terrorism at the Donbas (as well as at IS-controlled parts of Syria and Iraq) are much less numerous than the total population there, including children and the elderly. You can also think of the Palestinians at the Israeli-occupied territories — do you believe they all support the occupation?
When you speak of the illegal “referendums” on the “self-determination” at the Donbas that broke all possible laws and regulations you forget there is no subject of such “self-determination.” There is no “Donbas nation or people,” as much as there is no “Bordeaux nation or people.” And ethnic Russians are by far not the majority there, and even not the plurality. So why should Ukraine “leave alone its part”? Why didn’t Russia leave Chechnya alone?
Don’t forget that Ukraine, very differently from Russia vs Chechnya case, didn’t bomb all the region killing tens or hundreds thousands of population indiscriminately but targeted those who took (Russian provided) arms against a legal government instead of looking a peaceful solution with it. Yes, civil people were also killed during the hostilities, by both sides (and sometimes deliberately killed by the separatists to put the blame on Ukraine) but the scale is incomparable.
Actually, Ukraine would have full right to enforce its Constitution at the Donbas the way Russia had done in Chechnya, but had no military means for that at the time. And when it was finally close to defeat the armed terrorists — Russia invaded.
And the 1994 referendum you’ve mentioned, as you may know, was non-binding and their questions were far outside of what a region of a country may decide for the whole country.
And, let’s not forget who started that Russian proxy war against Ukraine. It was not the Kyiv government.
Let’s not forget Russian’s treatment of separation.
This is not an image of Berlin in 1945, it is Chechnya 1995 (after the Serb Croatian conflict.)
Even Sarajevo did not look this bad.
http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000vtgu2AgbWlw/s/900/russia-chechnya-grozny-war-ru102563.jpg
From here – http://jeremynicholl.photoshelter.com/gallery/The-Chechen-Tomb/G0000G_h3L8w1Jiw/
The conflict started with a Kremlin media campaign to steal Crimea where they imposed martial law on Crimean territory, replaced the Parliament without a vote, and put in their puppet.
They brought RUSSIAN military there into Ukraine for occupation and change of ownership, not to protect ‘ethnic Russians’.
They attempted it in Donbas and there successes there were by force of Russian supplied arms and military (Strelkov was and has taken duty in other conflicts, Serbia, Chenchya, Georgia, Crimea and Donbas).
Also by stolen Ukrainian arms and Moscow organized creime groups, then you have the militia groups from Chechnya that were encouraged to participate by the Russian military, who also facilitated the transportation because they controlled border checkpoints.
It really is surprising Andrew that you continue to state the DNR partyline propaganda, while even now many in Moscow refute and do not accept it.
They have seen it for the farce it is.
As far as My 11’s referendum, I will just give you a statement that came from OSCE at the time, Made up of BOTH RF and International members.
– Parliamentary Assembly President Ranko Krivokapic called on the separatists to cancel the referendum, saying “The idea that free and fair voting could take place in these so-called referendums is absurd. Not only are these referendums completely illegitimate in the eyes of the international community, they would be taking place amid a climate of fear, violence and lawlessness that is sure to keep many away from polling places […] I call on the de facto authorities in Donetsk and Luhansk to call off these mockeries of a vote. All in Ukraine should instead focus on making their voices heard on 25 May, when the country elects a new president.”[86]
No, there were no millions that supported it then.
And there are no millions that support it now.
Fare thee well
Prosto Tak:
“Ukrainian Armed Forces stationed throughout the country did not “invade” one part of the country — they have been and are on their own soil.”
Okay, lets step back to first principles using American and Dutch history as an example. The Dutch rebelled against Hapsburg Spain, and the Americans against Great Britain. Since Spain and Britain lost their wars to repress the Dutch and American independence movements, we quite rightly say that Spain invaded the Netherlands and Britain invaded America to try to stop their independence. Obviously the Spanish and British feel otherwise, and would argue that they did not invade what they considered as part of their own country, but history is written by winners.
If we look at Ukraine in the same way, we would note that there was no Ukrainian military presence in the Donbass in April and May of 2014 when the Donbass declared independence. There was only a single military unit stationed in Donbass prior to March of 2014 – the 156th Air Defense Regiment – and it was withdrawn in March of 2014 to Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, leaving the Donbass a zone free of any Ukrainian military forces. The Ukrainian military forces that began coming into the Oblasts in April and May to stop the independence movement all came from places far to the west in the remainder of Ukraine. Since they failed to repress the independence movement and in fact Ukraine was forced to sue for peace and recognize it, we can apply the same principles as in American and Dutch history and say that Ukraine invaded the Donbass and lost its war.
“It was Russia that finally came to be the invader in Ukraine, though you don’t believe the numerous facts.”
I don’t think this “fact” is established at all, but even assuming it was, again referring back to American history, the French armed forces that came and helped America gain independence are not referred to as “invaders” of America. So any Russian forces who came to Donbass at the invitation of the Donbass government are also not invaders.
“Active supporters of terrorism at the Donbas (as well as at IS-controlled parts of Syria and Iraq) are much less numerous than the total population there, including children and the elderly.”
If you read the interviews of the elderly people in Zaroshchenske, for example, it is obvious they all support the so-called terrorists against those Ukrainians who they call “Nazis”. The same thing becomes obvious with the kids on line on sites like Overheard in Shakhtersk.
“You can also think of the Palestinians at the Israeli-occupied territories — do you believe they all support the occupation?”
Since they fight against it, obviously not. What kind of confusing example is that?
“When you speak of the illegal “referendums” on the “self-determination” at the Donbas that broke all possible laws and regulations”
People have an inherent natural right to proclaim their self-government against a government that utterly fails to represent them (for example factions twice overthrowing the government the people elected). This is the basis of American independence. This right does not require laws or regulations to be effective. As I mentioned, Ukraine’s own independence from Russia recognized in International Law relies on this same basis, as the Soviet Union referendum in 1991 was clearly against breaking-up Ukraine from Russia except in Galicia, and there was no basis in Soviet Law to destroy the central government.
“there is no subject of such “self-determination.” There is no “Donbas nation or people,””
On the contrary, the United States, my government, in its “Captive Nations” proclamation, lists “Cossackia” as a Captive Nation of the Soviet Union distinct from Ukraine and Russia. This would obviously be the Donbass and adjacent Cossack lands, the subjects in history of the Zaporozhye Sich and the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog National Republic, and now the Donetsk and Lugansk National Republics. You can deny this all you wish, but that won’t change anything.
“ethnic Russians are by far not the majority there”
What, pray tell, is an “ethnic Russian” as opposed to an “ethnic Ukrainian”? Especially as “Ukrainian” as a national epithet, was only invented around 1914. You may find it interesting to know that no people calling themselves “Ukrainians” immigrated to the US before 1914. Apparently they did not know their own name – they called themselves Russians. They called their Churches the Russian Orthodox Church in America and the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church. So I suppose what you are actually getting at is the identification someone was given in the Ukrainian census, whatever that is supposed to mean, seeing as the people in Donbass are indistinguishable from those in Kharkov and Odessa on the one side and Rostov and Kursk on the other, and speak one language and share one culture.
“Why didn’t Russia leave Chechnya alone?”
Russia did leave Chechnya alone for three years until the Chechens started a civil war amongst themselves and the ethnic cleansing of non-Chechens.
“Actually, Ukraine would have full right to enforce its Constitution at the Donbas the way Russia had done in Chechnya, but had no military means for that at the time.”
I suspect the conflict would have gone very differently had the new government in Kiev taken a view towards peace and co-development and offered to work out a via-media with Donbass and the other southeast regions instead of starting a military conflict to enforce its “rights” as you put it.
There certainly wouldn’t have been an MH17 shootdown. However, Ukraine was cursed with the leadership of two bloodthirsty men – Turchinov and Poroshenko – neither of whom understand the concept of peace and non-violence.
For example, the new government could have federalized the country and given greater powers to the regions in matters of culture, language, education, development, and taxation while maintaining overall Ukrainian national sovereignty. The problem is that such a respect for the identity and will of the people on a local and regional level was not in accord with the goals of the Maidan uprising and the Ukrainian hyper-nationalists from Galicia.
“And when it was finally close to defeat the armed terrorists — Russia invaded.”
The Donbass rebels were never close to defeat. Maybe in the press in Kiev they were, but not on the battlefield. Ukraine’s military was hopelessly undermanned to attempt to do more than take back Slavyansk – 20,000 men defeated 2,000 rebels there. Ukraine would have needed 300,000 to 600,000 men to defeat the 30,000 to 60,000 rebels present in August in all of Donbass.
“And the 1994 referendum you’ve mentioned, as you may know, was non-binding and their questions were far outside of what a region of a country may decide for the whole country.”
It was non-binding only because Kiev refused to recognize the same rights in its sub-units that it claimed for itself as a whole – self-determination. Further, Donbass was only deciding something for itself, not the whole country, and the questions were not far outside what a region should be able to decide. Same for Crimea with its multiple referendums in the early 1990’s.
“And, let’s not forget who started that Russian proxy war against Ukraine. It was not the Kyiv government.”
Of course not. The actual Kiev government was headed by Yanukovich, the legitimate and democratically elected president. The proxy war was started by the Galicians and other Western Ukrainians, who seized military armories, dragged field artillery into the streets and towards Kiev, and declared independence on February 19, 2014 using the uprising on the Maidan as cover. If they had only waited a few more days, this wouldn’t have been as obvious. But they did it, and it was immortalized in history forever.
Andrew, ohhh… There’s such a mess in your head…
There are no mandatory rules on the relationship between states and underlying cultures, except that state formation should be derived from shared cultural identity.
State formation assumes equally felt underlying cultures. These feelings may be based on lies. Then it does not matter if Kremlin opinions are called lies to Ukraine or the other way around. Truth simply does not matter, only feelings do.
And in the end any cultural agreement might be based on lies about the perception of between within variance among groups.
So this discussion is completely senseless because cultures anyway crystallize into feelings and not into rational thinking.
Basically I agree with your analysis, you obviously follow the conflict, and develop your own thoughts on it. So do I, or at least I try. The only thing I disagree with you is that the people murdering “Moskalis” in the Ukraine are not regular Ukraine Army Units, but Right Sector Terrorists, left unchecked by the “Euromaidan” authorities. From the Snipers in Kiev, the massacres in Odessa, Kharkov, Mariupol, and elsewhere, to the downing of MH17: it is this breakdown of state control, and the emergence of Nazis to highest levels that have created even more problems in the Ukraine, on top of the corruption and cleptocracy, which had been the same already under Yanukovytch.
Thomas, I don’t know who do you address now but there are several critical flows in your thoughts about “following the conflict” with Kremlin’s eyes.
First, there were no people in Ukraine systematically murdering the “Moskals” (which can be one of the pejorative terms for the Russians — but can have other, non-derogatory meaning).
While I can imagine some mentally disturbed persons within the whole Ukrainian population wanting to kill ethnic Russians, and some of them might even have been members of the ‘Right Sector,’ no one within the ‘Right Sector’ movement leadership has ever propagated “murdering the Russians” as they are.
As you might know, the “snipers of Kyiv,” i. e. the then state police special units, were the creations of the former Ukrainian authorities that eventually chose to make a flight to Russia, an authoritarian country they tried to copycat (unsuccessfully).
And the main cause of the massacre in Odesa was the complacency and the direct support of the then police units to the aggressive and equipped with firearms pro-Russian and anti-Ukrainian mob — who had shot and killed at least six members of a pro-Ukrainian march before they themselves and their supporters were encircled in a building that went on fire because of Molotov cocktails from both sides (the anti-Ukrainian side trying to throw them from within the building at the first place).
In Kharkiv, the anti-Ukrainian Kremlin plans (that had, errrr, “success” in Donetsk and Luhansk) haven’t succeeded. In Mariupol, several dozen Kremlin stooges finally lost their attempt to take the city under their control (which was “successful” for several hundreds of them in Donetsk and Luhansk).
As for the downing of MH17, it’s rather well known now “whodunit” generally while we don’t have any names officially, even Putin’s.
And the “Nazis on the highest levels” in Ukraine have emerged only in your own (and the Kremlin’s) head. While there are some Nazis in Ukraine, as in practically any other country of the world, you might know the real problem with mass Nazi and neo-Nazi attitudes is now in Russia, not in Ukraine.
But, finally, you are mostly correct on the corruption and the kleptocracy. The previous Ukrainian governments either directly promoted them, as it was with the generally pro-Russian authorities of Presidents Kuchma nad Yanukovych, or did nothing to eradicate it, as it was under President Yushchenko.
The current authorities of President Poroshenko have a very much mixed approach, as most of their members were risen under Yanukovych bribery rule, so they have nothing to boast about.
So, while commenting on Ukraine, please don’t see the situation there just through the Kremlin propaganda lens! (And Ukraine is losing there because it doesn’t have its own propaganda side; for now, it only has some supportive media but nothing of the kind of the full scale Kremlin propaganda machine.)
>Ukraine’s war on its own separatist-citizens.
Get real. Everybody knows the truth. Even “separatists” have told the truth. Still you believe in Putin+Lavrov lies.
“Everybody knows the truth. ”
Arrogance as usual. Nothing can change the crusader mentality of White supremacist. If not luck westerners would continue thinking that Earth is flat.
In the meantime, it’s Russians who now preach the Earth is flat. I think you can read Russian: http://ulgrad.ru/?p=140226
For those who can’t, it’s an article about a movement of Russian, well, scientists and academicians named “For a Sovereign Science” who are dead serious about the “facts” that the main thing in science is Russian Orthodox spirituality and Earth is flat for sure, despite what Mason-dominated official science claims.
Hahaha. This creature is pure product of democracy and suspension of forced psychiatric treatments. For those who can read Russian the comments section is good indicator of people’s level. Although things are not as good. The guy in charge of Khurchatov Institute is indeed a Crook that believes in magic. So yes, with situation unchanged the flat earth “knowledge ” is behind the corner. But it is not just Russian problem. Mysticism in USA is even higher. So we are all doomed.
But your example is still invalid. Western crusaders destroyed advanced civilizations that were just not as bloodthirsty. Nothing changed since then
Everybody knows the Emperor has the most beautiful clothes of all. Who would listen to a small child?
sotilaspassi wrote : „Some sources even say Malaysia even paid to get the black boxes.“
Is something wrong with this (if true) ? Malaysia was only interested to find out the truth. And they were the only state which wanted to not get bogged down in Kiev. The other experts were trapped in Maidan coffee shops for a long time.
But regrettably, Malaysia was brought gradually silenced.
Let’s see how their role will be in the JIT.
And about the „terrorists“ the DSB wrote :
„In light of the circumstances, the recovery and transport of the human remains was carried out with the utmost care.“
The event happened in Ukraine where Russia had sent Igor Girkin and his team to start the war. I find it very understandable that Malaysia’s actions were illegal.
„terrorists“…
In reality, they let bodies rot in the sun while they stole the cargo etc. +they let dogs eat some of the remains. +they dug out shrapnel from the bodies
And you are the one who accuses Russia of lies. ;))) total incapacity of self-reflection
sotilapassi wrote : “„terrorists“…
In reality, they let bodies rot in the sun while they stole the cargo etc. +they let dogs eat some of the remains. +they dug out shrapnel from the bodies”
IT WAS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE !
Osce, ICAO and UN-Resolution 2166 called on the separatists not to move the bodies !
But in spite of this prohibition, the separatists had recovered the bodies on humanitarian grounds.
Read the sources carefully :
UN-Resolution 2166 (July 21, 2014) :
6. Demands that the armed groups in control of the crash site and the surrounding area refrain from any actions that may compromise the integrity of the crash site, including by refraining from destroying, moving, or disturbing wreckage, equipment, debris, personal belongings, or remains, …
http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2166.pdf
Rebel political leader Alexander Borodai reportedly said the bodies would remain in Torez until international aviation inspectors arrived. He said they had moved the bodies “out of respect for the families”, adding: “We couldn’t wait any longer because of the heat and also because there are many dogs and wild animals in the area.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28389991
July 18
Bodies at the Ukrainian crash site of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 are already “starting to partially decompose in the hot sun,” a member of the first investigative team to arrive at the scene told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Friday.
http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/18/investigators-arrive-at-malaysia-airlines-crash-scene-say-bodies-decomposing/
July 20
All bodies, including that of a woman who had lain naked under a tarp about 50 meters away, had been removed.
“There were five or six over here, and two or three over there,” said a young man with a rifle guarding the site, who declined to give his name. “They took the bodies away to the morgue. Firstly, they were decomposing. And secondly, the smell was horrible.”
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/horror-over-treatment-of-victims-bodies-from-malaysia-airlines-flight-2014-7
Could you give me a link to this : “they dug out shrapnel from the bodies” ?
Hello Admin, why did you not accept my answer to sotilapassi?
Is it not allowed to speak about resolution 2166 ?
Post with URLs in it are put in a waiting list. I just approved your post.
Liane, if you read the DSB report, regarding autopsies.
It states in there that a few bodies (specifically the Captain’s, I believe, had been dug into.
The guess is it was not animals.
It was not moving decomposing bodies.
It was someone digging in there to remove H style shrapnel identifying the guilty party.
There are a few places to look besides the report.
I forget the page.
A variety of articles can be found by searching with these terms altogether.
shrapnel autopsies MH17 removed
Fare thee well
The downing of MH17 occurred in the context of a proxy war between the US and Russia, and Malaysia’s strained relationship with other JIT members should be viewed in light of this context.
A fundamental problem is that Malaysia refuses to be a vassal of the United States. After the International Criminal Court failed to act, Malaysia formed its own war crimes commission to investigate the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and suspected war crimes committed during that war. Four years ago the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC) concluded that the invasion of Iraq was a war crime, and they convicted in absentia Tony Blair and George W. Bush for crimes against peace. Six months after that the WLWCC investigated alleged atrocities at Abu Ghraib prison and convicted former President Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Deputy Assistant Attorneys General John Yoo and Jay Bybee, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former counselors David Addington and William Haynes II of conspiracy to commit war crimes, specifically torture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_and_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_War_Crimes_Commission
Malaysia’s refusal to be a team player was further demonstrated when Malaysia ignored questions about the legitimacy of separatists and negotiated directly with them to obtain the black boxes and gain access to the debris field.
I don’t buy the speculation by a NOS reporter that Malaysia’s practice of capital punishment is a significant stumbling block. It is impossible to imagine the coup government of Ukraine having genuine qualms about capital punishment. They were born in violence and have shown no regard for even innocent life in the management of their airspace and approach to resolving internal dissent.
I have yet to see confirmation that Malaysia actually signed an agreement in late March or at any other time. There is very little evidence that Malaysia is a full and equal partner with the other JIT countries. Malaysia remains an occasionally useful outsider. They are no more a full and equal member of the JIT than Russia was a full and equal party to the technical investigation.
Malaysia continues to chart an independent course. They officially refuse to say whether they blame Ukraine or Russia for the downing of MH17. They are prone to leaking information about the JIT. Most recently they leaked that a meeting of the JIT occurred September 21-21, 2015 at Canberra, Australia. Ukraine apparently is drafting a concept paper concerning criminal trials in national courts, while Netherlands is drafting a concept paper about treaties needed to form an international trial. The reports about the Canberra meeting are vague, but it Malaysia hadn’t leaked then we would never know the meetings there occurred at all.
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/putrajaya-avoids-picking-sides-in-mh17-tragedy
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2015/11/24/Parliament-MH17-concept-papers/
“The downing of MH17 occurred in the context of a proxy war between the US and Russia” — this argument which copycats the Kremlin teachings is profoundly wrong. It’s a war of Russia against Ukraine, first a proxy war and then a full invasion.
As for the US supporting Ukraine against Russia in this war, don’t forget about the level of this support. And don’t forget what other “civilized countries,” especially European, do to support Ukraine. While Washington does much diplomatically and rather much financially, it still has not provided Ukraine with any of so badly needed weapons to defend it from the invasion — while some European countries silently did.
So, if you still want to look for “enemies of Russia,” it’s not the USA only, it’s the EU and G7 as well. And it was the Kremlin itself that made much part of the world its “enemies.”
And with Malaysia, the fundamental thing seems to be the fact that this country finally refused to act as a vassal of Russia, though they initially acted this way at the beginning of the investigation.