“This is the moment of truth for Russia,” US Vice President John Kerry stated three days after the downing of MH17 on July 17, 2014. The air crash, in which 298 passengers died, most of them Dutch, led to a tectonic shift in the relations between the EU and Russia. It’s clear who benefited from this.
Cui bono? Who benefits from it? This question, which is part of the standard arsenal of police inspectors to track down the perpetrator or perpetrators of a murder, does not appear to have played any role in the MH17 criminal investigation by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT). Public prosecutor Thijs Berger admitted during the court hearing on June 9, 2020 that the JIT had focused “from day one” on “the main scenario” of the Russian Buk missile. In order to track down the perpetrators, it was no longer necessary to ask whether anyone could have profited from the shooting down of a passenger plane over Ukraine, because it was immediately clear who was responsible for this: the separatists in Donbass and their secret supporters on the other side of the border. They had not intended to shoot down MH17. They had been foolish enough to mistake the Boeing for an enemy target. Really?
If anything has become clear in the aftermath of the MH17 disaster, it is that Russia far from profited from the murder of the 298 people on board MH17. Relations with the West have been seriously disrupted. Although American and European sanctions were already in force against Russia before July 17, 2014, due to the seizure of Crimea; those of the Europeans were not strict enough, according to Washington. The Americans urged Brussels to impose additional, tougher sanctions, The Washington Post reported on June 25 on the authority of an unnamed diplomat. Not without results either. On July 16, the European Council decided to expand the sanctions package. Until then, the sanctions had exclusively targeted individuals. Their bank accounts in the EU were frozen and they were no longer allowed to enter the EU. The European Council now wanted to extend the sanctions to 'entities'. This meant Russian companies. However, apparently the US was still not satisfied. “This is the moment of truth for Russia,” US Vice President John Kerry said in a television interview three days after the disaster. “We hope it is a wake-up call for some countries in Europe that have been reluctant to move.” Kerry referred to the sanctions package that the US had already imposed on July 16. It was an example for Europe to follow. That package included sanctions against numerous Russian companies in the energy sector, banking and arms industries. Americans were prohibited by law from doing business with individuals who had interests in these companies.
On July 21, the day after Kerry's TV appearances, Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Frans Timmermans gave his emotional speech at the UN Security Council in New York. "To my dying day I will not understand that it took so much time for the rescue workers to be allowed to do their difficult job, and that human remains should be used in a political game," he stated, before flying to Brussels to give a reprise of his speech. Several EU ministers reportedly had tears in their eyes when Timmermans said he had known personally some of the 194 Dutch passengers among the 298 people who died on the plane. The British news agency Reuters characterized the meeting in Brussels as “a turning point in Europe's approach towards Russia”. Countries that were previously on the brakes, such as Germany and Italy, now suddenly agreed to the measures desired by the US. “Within days of Timmermans' address, senior EU diplomats had agreed the broad outlines of potential sanctions on Russian access to EU capital markets, defence and energy technology,” Reuters wrote. “Timmermans' impassioned speech, several diplomats said, made it difficult for others to hold a firm line against sanctions at Tuesday's meeting. […] But like a supportive family, EU partners rallied around the bereaved Dutch, putting national economic interests aside and for the first time going beyond asset freezes and visa bans on individuals to envisage curbs on entire sectors of the Russian economy that could turn the screw on President Vladimir Putin.” On July 31, the significantly stricter EU sanctions against Russia became a reality. One of those affected was Buk producer Almaz-Antey. The EU followed the example of the US, which had already banned the arms company on July 16.
The MH17 disaster not only led to economic damage for Russia. The country's reputation also suffered a serious blow. Various Western media and politicians immediately pointed the finger at the Kremlin. President Vladimir Putin had a 298-fold murder on his conscience. While Russia could previously count on some understanding among many in the West for sending “green men” to Crimea, it was now a rogue state in the eyes of the masses. The separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk also experienced nothing but misery from the disaster.
The repercussions for Russia and the separatists stand in contrast to the outcome for the anti-Russian coup government in Kiev. It has benefited greatly from it. Until July 17, fear of a large-scale Russian invasion prevailed and there was concern about the poorly run 'anti-terrorist operation' on the border with Russia in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. The MH17 disaster changed this overnight. Kiev saw a significant increase in support from the West, morally, politically and militarily. On December 18, 2014, US President Barack Obama signed the so-called Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which paved the way for $350 million in military aid to Kiev. According to statements from the US Department of Defense, Washington donated one and a half billion dollars worth of military goods and training to Kiev from 2014 to 2019. NATO 'intensified' – in its own words – its cooperation with Ukraine. The tougher attitude of Brussels towards Moscow, so fervently desired by Kiev, also took shape.
This obviously does not show that Russia and the insurgents in eastern Ukraine had nothing to do with the disaster. It certainly does not mean that Kiev shot down MH17 on purpose. There is such a thing as a 'murder by mistake'. Theoretically, MH17 may have been downed accidentally by one of the parties involved in the conflict in Donbass. But one thing is certain: Russia and the separatists had no motive whatsoever to shoot down a Western passenger plane over Ukraine. And so, was the downing of MH17 really caused by some kind of blunder? Did some Russian Buk crew foolishly mistake the Boeing for an enemy target? And if not, what really happened? Was MH17 taken down on purpose after all? Let’s find out, by simply looking at the facts.
I will however take a pause from this blog. Until now the vast majority of my subscribers are Dutch. It therefore makes no sense to go on in English. If this blog does not gain traction from the English language community, I will maybe start a new blog in Dutch. In any case, my next book on MH17 will be published in Dutch only, unless some foreign language publisher shows interest. My book will give a full account of all that was said and done since July 17, 2014. I studied all relevant material and interviewed dozens of people.
If you liked this article and others I wrote in this series, please subscribe or donate. For donations please visit my website.