Putin’s “favorite journalist,” Andrei Kolesnikov from Kommersant, is relaying something very interesting. Relaying it, specifically—not expressing his own opinion; that’s obvious from the text.
Basically, Putin supposedly doesn’t know who shot down the plane, but if it was (SUDDENLY) the separatist fighters, then he’ll disown them. A pretty obvious signal to Western public opinion.
What will apparently follow is the usual tactic: “no one will ever know the truth,” “there are many different opinions,” and “it’s not all so clear-cut.”
Obviously, no “black boxes” are going to clarify anything here. A black box can’t show who pressed the button.
So I decided to write a few words about what I would say, if I were Putin, in the situation with the Boeing.
I understand quite well those who, despite everything, keep trying to convince both themselves and everyone around them that someone other than the separatist fighters shot down the Boeing. I remember very clearly how, when I was still in high school, I watched a documentary about the South Korean Boeing shot down in 1983 (Korean Air Lines Flight 007). The film tried to be objective: it showed different points of view, there was heartbreaking underwater footage with children’s toys and the like, they interviewed pilots, and so on. And even though it was obvious that the Boeing had been shot down by Soviet pilots carrying out an idiotic order, I sat there convincing myself: well, surely there must have been some kind of spy equipment on board. Obviously there was something suspicious about it—that’s why they shot it down.
That’s a normal human trait: even in your internal dialogue with yourself, you defend the interests of your own side—as you understand them, based on your age, education, and life experience.
Now everything is known about that South Korean Boeing—even what Andropov said:
And many of us still keep trying to prove to ourselves that somewhere among the passengers on that plane there was a spy who wanted to photograph the Soviet country from the air. What’s the point of that? None at all. We just refuse to admit it, that’s all.
To my mind, this is a classic example of a false understanding of the country’s interests.
So it was shot down by mistake. Because of a wrong command. A terrible tragedy. It happens. You apologize, you mourn, you pay compensation, and you move on. No one ends up hating us.
With the Malaysian Boeing, it’s a similar situation. I’m not going to assemble evidence in this post that it was shot down by the separatist fighters, but there is enough of it. They announced they had shot down an An-26 military transport plane, and an hour later a fallen passenger Boeing was found. What more is there to discuss?
Of course, people can keep talking, but I’m sure that anyone who has looked into the technical facts even a little understands perfectly well that the Boeing was shot down by a separatist-operated Buk missile system. Some admit it; others deceive themselves and everyone else, thinking that by doing so they are defending Russia’s interests.
The main question here is this: did the separatist fighters—and Russia behind them—intend to destroy a passenger plane, to carry out a terrorist attack against civilians? I’m convinced there was no such intent. There is fighting going on. People are shooting at each other, including with missiles. Maybe the intelligence was wrong, maybe they didn’t know how to use the Buk properly, but they brought down a passenger aircraft. A tragedy. But this is war. It happens.
The Americans, too, have shot down a passenger plane, and there’s no need even to get into civilian ground convoys that were mistaken for military ones and destroyed, with dozens of casualties—in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Serbia. This has happened many times, everywhere. This is war.
It’s not just civilians—troops fire on their own side too; there’s even a special term for it: “friendly fire.” Modern military science knows no way to wage war without collateral damage.
It seems to me that things would be easier for everyone if both the separatists and Russia said the following: the plane was shot down by armed formations operating in eastern Ukraine. In a combat zone. No one intended to do this. It was a tragic mistake. These things happen, though that makes it no easier for anyone. We share in the grief and mourn with the victims’ families. We will pay compensation to the relatives of those affected. (Those compensation payments would cost us less than Sechin and Yakunin—powerful Russian state executives—steal in a month. The Americans paid the relatives of the passengers on the downed Iranian Airbus $300,000 each.)
What, is the Earth going to fly off its axis because of that? Or will Crimea be taken back? Nothing will change for the worse—on the contrary, public opinion in European countries will soften. All those hellish front pages will go away. Because our current position today—including what Kolesnikov said—is being perceived as: “not only did they shoot down the plane, they’re mocking the victims as well.”
After that, there will still be a million and one Ukrainian problems left—we’ll be digging ourselves out of all this for years—but that’s a separate conversation.
But in the specific case of the Boeing, it seems to me that this would be the most advantageous position for Russia from a strategic point of view.