MH17: Russia liable for downing airliner over Ukraine

The first paragraph begets the answer - the Putin doctrine is out there and available to be researched:
Power and Ideology: Vladimir Putin and the Russian Political System | Evans | The Carl Beck Papers in Russian and East European Studies
Putin regime has long had an ideology – Great Power Imperialism -- Pavlova says | EUROMAIDAN PRESS
The Ideology of Vladimir Putin's Regime
Russia Has an Ideology—and It’s as Entrenched as Communism Was
How Russia Is Ruled By The Putin Doctrine | Standpoint
And although he distances himself from Aleksandr Dugin's more extreme pronunciations, Dugin's philosophies are a constant well of ideas for Putin.
The most dangerous philosopher in the world

The second paragraph is the Muscovite Mentality in all of its abjectness.
There is only one way of thinking and if Moscow thinks like that, then so must everyone else.
The Muscovite way: "Do unto others before they do unto you".
Do you mean that Russian ruling circles have an ideology?
Let's read one of your sources
Russia Has an Ideology—and It’s as Entrenched as Communism Was
Moscow can no longer claim leadership of an international ideological movement.
and at the same time
Vladimir Putin and his regime possess an official ideology, as they state plainly.
Really?
Unlike Soviet times, Russia hasn't any ideology. But of course as any big country (UK/France/Germany) has own national interests. But national interests and ideology are different matters.
The author believes that sex is in the center of World politics
Putinism has constructed itself in opposition to the post-modern West’s political, social and moral values across the board, especially in sexual matters.
Of course, interests of LGBT community is a paramount. So Putinism is anti-gay ideology?
...only a decade ago Barack Obama successfully ran for the presidency opposed to gay marriage. America, like most of the West, has advanced considerably in recent years, leaving behind large swathes of traditional morality in record time. Russia under Putin has not; indeed Moscow stands ready to resist these Western changes mightily.
So what? Russia should follow all changes in Western policy in sexual matters? Absurd.
And Russia is dangerous just because it doesn't blindly follow all Western fantasies?
You seem to be confused. Does Russia want to be a modern democracy or not?
What is the difference between democracy and modern democracy?
Does it mean that Russia should follow the West and copy all recent changes in legislation?
Allow gay marriges for example?
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted 154930

Guest
Do you mean that Russian ruling circles have an ideology?
Let's read one of your sources
Russia Has an Ideology—and It’s as Entrenched as Communism Was

and at the same time

Really?
Unlike Soviet times, Russia hasn't any ideology. But of course as any big country (UK/France/Germany) has own national interests. But national interests and ideology are different matters.
The author believes that sex is in the center of World politics

Of course, interests of LGBT community is a paramount. So Putinism is anti-gay ideology?

So what? Russia should follow all changes in Western policy in sexual matters? Absurd.
And Russia is dangerous just because it doesn't blindly follow all Western fantasies?
Does Putin have an ideology ?
Nationalism is fine and dandy, but some of the recent adventures, have damaged Russia, more than benefits gained. So on that scale, Russia is weaker and Putin is failing his country.
 
......... And Russia is dangerous just because it doesn't blindly follow all Western fantasies?
No Russia is dangerous because it is still in the grip of the "Muscovite Mindset" which is a world view based on paranoia and "might is right".

The Kremlin believes that it is a "dog-eat-dog" world and it is determined to be the the dog that eats the other dogs before it is eaten by them.

Offense is defence in the eyes of the Muscovite and he will not be happy until he has defeated all his potential enemies.

The first and greatest enemy is the Russian peoples, who must be controlled, muzzled and subservient to the whims of the Muscovite at the top of the power pyramid in the Kremlin. If they are not content with the way the are ruled, if there is any opposition - then it is traitorous and must be influenced by external enemies.

Russia is dangerous, because Muscovy rules Russia and Muscovite Mindset brooks no dissent and uses every means at its disposal to ensure that the peoples it rules are fed a warped view of the world that justifies Muscovite aggression and paranoia.
 
Last edited:
I asked how it will end?
Ukraine with another (pro-Moscow) government 'most likely' will recognize responsibility but not legal liability.
Ukraine anyway didn't closed its airspace that it had to do.
Details, names, exact place will not be disclosed.
Compensation will be eventually paid by Kiev.
That time pro-Moscow government will exclude all nationalists and pro-Western politicians from political life. Some will be jailed, some will have to emigrate.
Well there's a few ways it could end.

For most of the life of this thread we've been amused at your doggedness in defendinng Russian version of events and its denials.

JIT has come down, and confirmed views formed within a short time of the shoot down, that it was a Russian BUK.

What happens next is down to the various legal teams and involved governments. If it goes to trial we'll see if they're mere allegations. Won't we?

As part of the 'trial', inquest or whatever, it's possible that who was responsible for what will be thrashed out, including possibly whether the airspace should have been closed. As far as I remember, it was not envisaged that the separatists had BUKs so no need to close the airspace. Should it have been thought about? Maybe. But if Russia hadn't supplied the BUK and its team then this wouldn't have happened.
 
Well there's a few ways it could end.
Of course.
For most of the life of this thread we've been amused at your doggedness in defendinng Russian version of events and its denials.
You have absolutely wrong impression. To defend and to discuss - are different matters. I proposed and still propose to discuss all possible versions, to take into account all known facts, arguments, counter-arguments.
JIT has come down, and confirmed views formed within a short time of the shoot down, that it was a Russian BUK.
As Ukraine is a member of the JIT then it can not be regarded as absolutely unbiased investigative body. Its actions, conclusions 'most likely' are politically motivated.
What happens next is down to the various legal teams and involved governments. If it goes to trial we'll see if they're mere allegations. Won't we?
If we look at similar cases happened in the past. then we don't see any internationally approved trial. So hardly we will see any internationally recognized trial in the case with MH17.
As part of the 'trial', inquest or whatever, it's possible that who was responsible for what will be thrashed out, including possibly whether the airspace should have been closed. As far as I remember, it was not envisaged that the separatists had BUKs so no need to close the airspace.
That time Kiev claimed that Russian war planes violated Ukrainian airspace and Ukrainian military had BUK systems in the war zone to be used in this context. Any launched BUK missile could hit civil airliner by mistake. The separatists managed to down Ukrainian transport plane on altitude 6500m and they no doubt had OSA AD systems with missiles (in the most powerful variant) able to fly as high as 12000m (look at Wikipedia). Also the separatists captured some BUK hardware and could repair it (as it was not functioning).
Should it have been thought about? Maybe. But if Russia hadn't supplied the BUK and its team then this wouldn't have happened.
Still it is an allegation.
 
Last edited:
Of course.

You have absolutely wrong impression. To defend and to discuss - are different matters. I proposed and still propose to discuss all possible versions, to take into account all known facts, arguments, counter-arguments.

As Ukraine is a member of the JIT then it can not be regarded as absolutely unbiased investigative body. Its actions, conclusions 'most likely' are politically motivated.

If we look at similar cases happened in the past. then we don't see any internationally approved trial. So hardly we will see any internationally recognized trial in the case with MH17.

That time Kiev claimed that Russian war planes violated Ukrainian airspace and Ukrainian military had BUK systems in the war zone to be used in this context. Any launched BUK missile could hit civil airliner by mistake. The separatists managed to down Ukrainian transport plane on altitude 6500m and they no doubt had OSA AD systems with missiles (in the most powerful variant) able to fly as high as 12000m (look at Wikipedia). Also the separatists captured some BUK hardware and could repair it (as it was not functioning).

Still it is an allegation.
Same tired old lies, same old "allegations".
No, liar.
These are facts.
Russia fomented a war on its neighbour.
Russia supplied leadership, and weapons to a cardboard "separatists" movement made up of paranoid local idiots, and crime figures.
When these started to lose,Russia sent regular forces with regular equipment into Ukraine.
Some of these regulars, using regular equipment, stupidly shot down a civilian aircraft.
None of this would have happened if Russia hadn't decided to start a proxy war.
298 innocent people were murdered by Russia because they were (apparently) committing the sin of travelling through airspace above a piece of Russian political thuggery.

QED.

Now, you are a willing apologist for this behaviour.
Have you begun to understand just why you and your country are held in such utter contempt?
You revolting specimen of a human being.
 
"KGB_resident, post: 8627391, member: 8026"]Of course.

You have absolutely wrong impression. To defend and to discuss - are different matters. I proposed and still propose to discuss all possible versions, to take into account all known facts, arguments, counter-arguments.
You were being defensive in your discussion which included stretching credulity. I could say cynically as well.

As Ukraine is a member of the JIT then it can not be regarded as absolutely unbiased investigative body. Its actions, conclusions 'most likely' are politically motivated.
Claiming something is political is your standard defence.

The JIT is being run by the Dutch and unlike Russia, the legal process I should think by and large follows western practice of separating the judiciary and investigative institutions from government control.

Of course for Ukraine a 'guilty' verdict against Russia is highly desirable. But the case against Russia seems fairly clear cut to me (but of course the trial will out) so Ukraine wouldn't need to have to fiddle any evidence. If it did it would work against it.

If we look at similar cases happened in the past. then we don't see any internationally approved trial. So hardly we will see any internationally recognized trial in the case with MH17.
I presume you mean not recognised by Russia and its puppets.

That time Kiev claimed that Russian war planes violated Ukrainian airspace and Ukrainian military had BUK systems in the war zone to be used in this context. Any launched BUK missile could hit civil airliner by mistake. The separatists managed to down Ukrainian transport plane on altitude 6500m and they no doubt had OSA AD systems with missiles (in the most powerful variant) able to fly as high as 12000m (look at Wikipedia). Also the separatists captured some BUK hardware and could repair it (as it was not functioning).
Of course, as you keep defending. But the investigating team found otherwise based upon the evidence.

Still it is an allegation.
So you keep saying. This can be tested in court of course. But Russia will take the political and self interest stance of not recognising it.
 
So you keep saying. This can be tested in court of course. But Russia will take the political and self interest stance of not recognising it.
There is a good reason for it. There was no any court, any tribunal in similar cases happened previously.
It is a very serious argument.
I mentioned Iranian airliner downed by US military, Russian airliner downed by Ukrainian military.
Let's recall another case
Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 - Wikipedia
Israeli commanders, pilots knew pretty well that it was civil airliner. But nevertheless it was intentionally downed.
The Israeli government also revealed that LN 114 was shot down with the personal authorization of David Elazar, the Israeli Chief of Staff. Israel's argument was that the heightened security situation and the erratic behaviour of the jet's crew made the actions taken prude...
The United States did not accept the reasoning given by Israel, and condemned the incident.
But note, there was no any court or tribunal.

I'm ready to hear counter-arguments to my argument.
 
Last edited:
There is a good reason for it. There was no any court, any tribunal in similar cases happened previously.
It is a very serious argument.
I mentioned Iranian airliner downed by US military, Russian airliner downed by Ukrainian military.
Let's recall another case
Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 - Wikipedia
Israeli commanders, pilots knew pretty well that it was civil airliner. But nevertheless it was intentionally downed.

But note, there was no any court or tribunal.

I'm ready to hear counter-arguments to my argument.
[/QUOTE]

So, more whataboutery.

You don't HAVE an argument. Just a dog eared file of worn out lies you have repeated so many times even you can't remember which one you or one of your alter egos are telling today.

You are a liar.
That is it.
 
There is a good reason for it. There was no any court, any tribunal in similar cases happened previously.
It is a very serious argument.
I mentioned Iranian airliner downed by US military, Russian airliner downed by Ukrainian military.
Let's recall another case
Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 - Wikipedia
Israeli commanders, pilots knew pretty well that it was civil airliner. But nevertheless it was intentionally downed.

But note, there was no any court or tribunal.

I'm ready to hear counter-arguments to my argument.
Argument for what? That Russia will escape a trial in any court?

You're showing a 'so what' view of this. Given the evidence you should be hanging you head in shame for cynically arguing other scenarios and being seemingly accepting that no one and Russia will likely be put to justice.

However, let's see. The report is out and Russia is in the frame
 
There is a good reason for it. There was no any court, any tribunal in similar cases happened previously.
It is a very serious argument.
I mentioned Iranian airliner downed by US military, Russian airliner downed by Ukrainian military.
Let's recall another case
Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 - Wikipedia
Israeli commanders, pilots knew pretty well that it was civil airliner. But nevertheless it was intentionally downed.

But note, there was no any court or tribunal.

I'm ready to hear counter-arguments to my argument.
You really do earn your pay don't you. As I commented on other threads, it's all deflection from you. Like a sly naughty child caught with his dirty paws in the biscuit tin and saying he only had the custard creams (look them up) and left the chocolate digestives (look them up) for mummy as though that was a good thing. And, because he only ate the custard creams not only should he not be punished, he should be rewarded for leaving the chocolate digestives for mummy.

You really should read Animal Farm by George Orwell and then 1984 by the same author.
 
So, more whataboutery.

You don't HAVE an argument. Just a dog eared file of worn out lies you have repeated so many times even you can't remember which one you or one of your alter egos are telling today.

You are a liar.
That is it.
You repeat it (liar, liar...) so frequently as a parrot but I dare to disagree.
Downing of MH17 is a tragedy but not something exceptional, unseen previously.
There were no any international courts, tribunals in similar cases and there is no ground for them in this case as well.
Legal liability was never recognized by the side that was responsible and in this case legal liability 'most likely' will not be accepted.
You mr.Truthseeker, fighter with wind mills could disagree.
 
Last edited:
Argument for what? That Russia will escape a trial in any court?
It is a very hard thing to debate with people that don't understand or pretend not to understand English language.
So I repeat my point.
1. In similar (to MH17) cases happened previously there were no any international trials or tribunals. There were no any demands to stage such trials or tribunals. So I make a conclusion. In the case with MH17 there will be no any international trial or tribunal. It could create very dangerous (for the USA, for Israel) precedent.
2. Legal liability (no matter what side is responsible) will not be recognized just because it was not recognized previously in similar cases.

As for 'evidence' then one could call allegations as 'evidence' thousands times but allegations will remain merely allegations.

I propose you to present your counter arguments
1. Say why MH17 tribunal should be established?
2. Why in this case legal liability should be recognized?
 
Have you found Animal Farm by George Orwell and then 1984 by the same author yet?
You mean a book about pres.Bush and his Poodle, do you?
 
No darling and you know it.

I assume you are only allowed redacted versions of Orwell's work.

It appears you have no sustainable argument and are attempting to deflect again.

I suggest you and your colleagues find another forum to work on as you are really just clogging up this site.
 
You repeat it (liar, liar...) so frequently as a parrot but I dare to disagree.
Downing of MH17 is a tragedy but not something exceptional, unseen previously.
There were no any international courts, tribunals in similar cases and there is no ground for them in this case as well.
Legal liability was never recognized by the side that was responsible and in this case legal liability 'most likely' will not be accepted.
You mr.Truthseeker, fighter with wind mills could disagree.
You are nothing BUT a liar.
You may "venture" what you like. This is just a "oh, you are being nasty to the poor Russian" whine.

MH17 was exceptional. Previous shoot downs have occurred, BUT this one was notable by the utter dishonesty and cowardice displayed by Russia. It stank of guilt and to be honest, terror.

You were shitting yourselves that you had just given NATO a causus Belli to intervene and throw your shitty bandit army out of Ukraine, and that would have forced your robber baron to either escalate or back down.


You are a liar.
You are a tedious,repetitive troll account, manned by a rota of cheap and disinterested drones, using a worn out play list of misdirection, false equivalence and outright fiction clearly prepared by a central source.

What you 'write" is either irrelevant or dishonest.

So, you had better get used to being called a liar.

Liar.
 
...you had just given NATO a causus Belli to intervene and throw your shitty bandit army out of Ukraine...
No problem. Just accept Ukraine into NATO and unleash Crimean war v2.0.
Though ... even Gavin the Kid understands how it would end.
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top