If Russia is not involved in the destruction of the Malaysian Boeing above Ukraine, why is she so stubbornly opposed to the creation of an international tribunal to try those responsible? asks the Ukrainian newspaper.
There is one year, July 17, 2014, above the city of Thorez, a missile put an abrupt end to the existence of the 298 passengers and crew members of the flight MH17 left Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur . Now if the bloody traces of this terrible catastrophe clearly back to Russia, Moscow, in his defense, continues cynically to present evidence falsified, if not shameful.
While the Dutch Security Council, who oversaw the investigation into the tragedy of Boeing, is preparing to publish its findings, the Russian side, it continues to place obstacles in the way of the formation of a supposed court judge those responsible for the death of 298 people in the sky of Donbass.
Access to limited crash site
A year after the tragedy, the question arises: why the investigation has she lasted that long [the final report will be released in October]. This slowness has several causes. Firstly, access to the crash site is limited because it is in an area controlled by the militants [pro-Russian separatists].
Proof that the MH17 was shot by pro-Russian?
The experts came together unit debris to determine the origins of the disaster have experienced the worst difficulties. Local looters were able to make use of, and some elements had been hastily dispatched to Russia. Dutch prosecutors say it took them handle more than one million documents, photos and videos. It is no coincidence that the Russian special services tried to hack data during the investigation, including by striving to penetrate the computer networks of the police and justice in the Netherlands.
Russia has played a big role in the delays in the investigation, while Russian experts regularly offered new versions of the drama and exhibited new witnesses cans. At the same time, Moscow has done everything to hide the traces of his involvement. The online message militants who boasted at the time of shooting an Antonov transport plane An-26 (confirmed by telephone conversations between separatists, intercepted by the Ukrainian secret service) have been cleared.
Evidence “trafficked”
Meanwhile, Russian sources have aired evidence “trafficked” (false radar recordings and satellite photos retouched) intended to demonstrate that the Boeing had in fact been shot down by a Ukrainian fighter-bomber Su-25. Hypothesis one voice belied by experts: the Su-25 is a device physically unable to destroy a target flying at ten thousand meters, since it is designed to intervene at low and medium altitudes. In addition, Boeing has disintegrated, which lends support to the use of a surface to air missile rather than air-air.
When it became clear that the Russian version of the destruction of the aircraft Malaysian online was absurd, Moscow then slurried evidence to support another fable of the Kremlin. The new version is as follows: the MH17 has been shot down by an anti-aircraft missile. But neither Russia nor the “militia” of Donbass there are for something: the murderer missile was fired by the Ukrainian army.
A “war crime”
Since then, the Russians claim that everything suggests that Boeing was not destroyed from the territory controlled by the separatists. When the Western media began to suggest that the findings of the Dutch experts finally ensured that the Boeing had indeed been destroyed by a missile “Buk” fired from Russian territory held by the militants, the Russian Foreign Ministry gave the voice. The Deputy Russian Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov, said that the Russian side does not agree with the content of the report and that it demanded modifications.
As for the will to set up an international tribunal to judge what would eventually be treated as a “war crime” – project which is the subject of a preliminary examination by the United Nations Security Council – Moscow denounces as a move “illogical and politically against-productive.” “This idea does not please us, Gatilov said. First, the investigation is ongoing, no definitive conclusions have been made. The Netherlands presented an intermediate version of the report, the story does not end there. They themselves recognize that they will complete the investigation and report towards the end of the year. We must wait until the investigation is completed and not vote for early resolution to establish the tribunal. ”
MH17, a drama for nothing
According to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Vladimir Putin would meanwhile telephoned Prime Minister of the Netherlands Mark Rutte. The Kremlin leader would have been indignant to see that the Dutch media evoked the version “politicized” of a “war crime.” And he would have also criticized the decision to create an international tribunal, which would be premature and against-productive.
One can not help wondering what would have been the reaction of Moscow on this court if the preliminary report had made Ukraine responsible for the crash.
