On Malaysian Crash, Obama`s Case Against Russia Disintegrates

Author: us-russia
Comments: 0
On Malaysian Crash, Obama`s Case Against Russia Disintegrates
Published 24-07-2014, 07:19

Daniel McAdams

Daniel McAdams is Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. He served as foreign affairs advisor to US Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) from 2001 until Dr. Paul’s retirement at the end of 2012. From 1993-1999 he worked as a journalist based in Budapest, Hungary, including as editorial page editor of the Budapest Sun. He also served as special rapporteur for the British Helsinki Human Rights Group while based in Europe, monitoring human rights and elections on the ground in various contentious states, including Albania during the 1996-1998 civil unrest, Montenegro, Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, Croatia, and Slovakia. He was a Phillips Foundation Journalism Fellow (1998-2000) and an American Swiss Foundation “Young Leader” (2006). He can be reached on Twitter or at dlmcadams@gmail.com
Tuesday the US government admitted it had been bluffing about its certainty that Russia was behind the downing of Malaysian Air Flight MH-17 over Ukraine. 

This dramatic turn of events started with State Department Spokeswoman Marie Harf claiming Monday that the State Department's certainty of Russian involvement in the apparent downing of the plane was primarily based on "social media" evidence.

That means with a likely budget of more than $100 billion, the US Intelligence Community is making decisions that may involve global nuclear war based on people's Tweets and YouTubes!

Asked in Monday's State Department briefing about US government evidence for its claims of Russian government involvement and separatist direct blame for the shooting down of the plane, Harf said:
You saw the Secretary yesterday speak very clearly about our assessment that this was an SA-11 fired from Russian-backed, separatist-controlled territory; that we know – we saw in social media afterwards, we saw videos, we saw photos of the pro-Russian separatists bragging about shooting down an aircraft.
She added:
Based on open information which is basically common sense, right – we know where it was fired from, we know who has this weapon
Who needs evidence — it's "common sense"! Right?

But then the Russian military command did an interesting thing. They held apress conference laying out the evidence they had, including information from air traffic controllers and satellites, and simply asked the US to do the same to prove its assertions of Russian complicity. They did not claim that the US-backed government in Kiev shot down the plane, they asked that government to explain why a jet fighter showed up on radar ascending rapidly toward the Malaysian plane shortly before it disappeared.

The Russians asked the US to share the intelligence upon which it based its claim that the Russians were directly or indirectly behind the attack on the passenger plane.

The State Department responded with its spokeswoman citing social media and secret information that could not be shared. 

It was a near exact replay of similar US government claims about Syria's Assad using chemical weapons last year. That time, Secretary of State Kerry claimed dozens of times  on television that "we know" Assad fired the chemicals into the village. Yet the US Intelligence Community refused to sign off on his claims and the Obama Administration was forced to release what it called a "Government Assessment" rather than the standard Intelligence Community consensus assessment.

And now once again — for the time being — the US was forced to back down. In an off-the-record briefing with "senior intelligence officials" Tuesday, this was what was left of Kerry's assuredness just days ago of Russia's blame in the matter:
[W]e don't know a name, we don't know a rank and we're not even 100 percent sure of a nationality. ...There is not going to be a Perry Mason moment here.
Was this another US Intelligence Community revolt against the warmongers and ideologues in the State Department?

From certainty that Russia and the "pro-Russian" rebels in east Ukraine were deliberately behind the attack, which as Obama stated Mondayinternationalized the conflict (hinting at a more aggressive response, perhaps NATO?), Tuesday's press briefing by senior intelligence officials sang a different tune:
"Five days into it (following the crash) it does appear to be a mistake."
After four days of threats from Obama and Kerry (and their Twittering minions) that Russia would be punished for its role in downing the plane, it is now the US Intelligence Community's assessment that the shoot-down was a "mistake" and they are "not even 100 percent sure" who shot it down.

About the claim that Russia was providing the rebels in eastern Ukraine with weapons, the US intelligence officials said, "[w]e think they’re continuing to do it.”

From Kerry's certainty to US Intelligence Community's "we think" is an enormous chasm, and as the excellent Robert Parry points out, it represents a certain amount of courage among US government intelligence analysts who come to conclusions very different from the pre-determined conclusions of their superiors.

Writes Parry:
If you were, say, a U.S. intelligence analyst sifting through the evidence and finding that some leads went off in a different direction, toward the Ukrainian army, for instance, you might hold back on your conclusions knowing that crossing senior officials who had already pronounced the verdict could be devastating to your career. It would make a lot more sense to just deep-six any contrary evidence.
So here we are, with no US smoking gun (thus far). Only social media and highly suspect voice intercepts and satellite photos of BUK launchers. 

Russia "shares responsibility" for the shoot-down because, according to the US, it provided training and weapons to the separatists in eastern Ukraine. Only according to a CNN report based on a classified intelligence assessment, "there is no intelligence suggesting Russia ever transferred [a BUK missile system] across the border."

Of course all of this might change. But in the meantime, despite the arrogance of the mainstreamers, those of us skeptical of another US cry for war appear to be justified.

 
Comments: 0
Experts' Panel
Are the U.S. and Russia...
The Sunday, February 24 edition of Russian state television’s...
Are the U.S. and Russia...
Top
popular in the journal
RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 9 JULY...

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 9 JULY...

RUSSIA AND COVID. Latest numbers: total cases 707K; total deaths 10843; tests per 1 million 151K. Russia has done 22 million tests (third after China and USA); ...
Beijing would join arms control...

Beijing would join arms control...

China would "be happy to” participate in arms control negotiations with the United States and Russia, but only if the US were willing to reduce its nuclear arsenal to ...
Happy Independence Day, America

Happy Independence Day, America

Для многих американцев и россиян стало традицией поздравлять друг друга с днями независимости, которые отмечаются 12 июня в России и 4 июля в Америке. В этом году ...
Do gods want to destroy America or...

Do gods want to destroy America or...

President Trump should make foreign policy pitches at upcoming global summits
Astronauts Should Use Venus’...

Astronauts Should Use Venus’...

Newly drafted research findings have provided the scientific community with a shocking revelation: a flight to Mars is far quicker and much cheaper if astronauts conduct ...