Russian invasion of Ukraine

Peter wrote:

Somebody pressed the button, and knew what the target was…

They actually thought they were targeting a Ukrainian AN26 as they had done several times. When they reached the crash site, they found differently.

It was an error and should have been admitted as one. When the US shot down the Iranian A300, they did admit the mistake. However, as the Russians were not “officially” there and the launch system was not supposed to be there in the first place, Russia started to lie and stall.

Also with KAL007 they tried the same tactics. They thought it was a military elint platform based on the 707.

Of course the question remains if it was appropriate to leave the airspace over Donbass open while everyone knew there was a shooting war and that several relatively high flying AN26 and similar had been shot down. Yes, it was only from FL300 up but as they found out, those anti aircraft missiles reach there.

arj1 wrote:

They’ve had different versions – some were claiming that it was an ELINT platform on the 707, the others were – that it was a “modified 747 with ELINT hardware onboard (!)”.

(heavy sigh)

Yea well. Remember the old TPC charts? "Aircraft flying over “unfree” territory may be fired upon without warning."

Well, turns out the authors of these lines were quite right….

The fact that intelligent people in the west will defend Russia’s actions and say they weren’t deliberate act is a demonstration of how well it works as a tactic. I take the old-fashioned view that a country’s military is responsible for what it shoots down, whether by accident or not.

What about Litvinenko and the polonium? Skripal and the nerve agent? Accidents too, I suppose?

Airborne_Again wrote:

There’s evidence that it was not deliberate. How can you be so sure?

What evidence? It was a Russian missile fired either by Russian troops or those they supply/train/encourage. The question of whether they were told to do it from the top can never be proven one way or the other.

I’m not “so sure”, but neither do I feel the need to be. Russia long ago lost any right to the benefit of the doubt.

Graham wrote:

The fact that intelligent people in the west will defend Russia’s actions and say they weren’t deliberate act is a demonstration of how well it works as a tactic.

Defend? Hell no. Deliberate or not, they are unspeakable. Lie about it when they were unintentional makes it a lot worse too.

Graham wrote:

I take the old-fashioned view that a country’s military is responsible for what it shoots down, whether by accident or not.

Absolutely. And that country’s military should have enough honour left to own it.

In the case of the missile in Poland, it appears that even the Polish President now calls it “most likely Ukrainian”. Which does not take away much blame from Russia, they are the reason that missile was fired.

Graham wrote:

The fact that intelligent people in the west will defend Russia’s actions and say they weren’t deliberate act is a demonstration of how well it works as a tactic. I take the old-fashioned view that a country’s military is responsible for what it shoots down, whether by accident or not.

Now you’re being dishonest. You can’t possibly construe anything I’ve written as “defending” Russia’s action. I just point out that it is far from certain that they knew it was a civilian airliner.

What evidence?

Immediately after the shooting pro-russian separatists posted on social media that they had shot down a Ukrainian military transport aircraft. After they realised it was actually MH17 the posts were erased.

the shooting pro-russian separatists posted on social media that they had shot down a Ukrainian military transport aircraft. After they realised it was actually MH17 the posts were erased.

That’s what I would have done

And I am not even getting paid to be a duplicious bastard

Airborne_Again wrote:

Now you’re being dishonest. You can’t possibly construe anything I’ve written as “defending” Russia’s action. I just point out that it is far from certain that they knew it was a civilian airliner.

I don’t give two hoots whether they knew or not. If you’re going to launch missiles, I think there’s a certain obligation to know what you’re firing at. And if you don’t, you’re just as responsible for the consequences as if you did.

‘Pro-Russian separatists’ is code for Russian troops operating in a country where they’re not officially supposed to be. The fact that this term is now used in general discussions regarding that part of the world shows the extent to which the BS Russia spreads has taken root. I find it very hard to believe there are any such genuine pro-Russia agitators in these countries…. there are collaborators, perhaps paid, promised power, threatened, etc. But I don’t think anyone in the countries neighbouring Russia wakes up one morning and without outside influence decides they’d prefer to live under Putin’s boot and are willing to fight for it.

Perhaps defending is a bit strong. But you certainly seem to give the impression that you feel Russia is entitled to the benefit of the doubt in some of these cases. I say it isn’t. Ever.

Graham wrote:

But you certainly seem to give the impression that you feel Russia is entitled to the benefit of the doubt in some of these cases. I say it isn’t. Ever.

In my opinion everyone is always entitled to benefit of the doubt. How much benefit depends on the situation. Very little for Russia right now, I’d say. But some.

It is always better to avoid jumping to conclusions when facts are not known. Facts are in most cases better than emotions – certainly when it comes to international conflicts. Just look at how everyone (well, most) confidently stated that Russia launched the missile that struck Poland. Now Poland itself and NATO says it was likely a stray Ukrainian air defense missile. Russian propaganda has always spread lies about what’s going in in Ukraine. Now for once they can say “we were right, even NATO admits it.” That’s a propaganda advantage they didn’t deserve.