Replies

I stand corrected, no problem, I just can't type well due to a recent injury I'm recovering from

Sucks, too, making typos and taking forever to say something, blah. You should see the ones when I can't get my fingers on the home row. Like "oq mdc, 23yoql;lw??"

But so what if it's Dogpatch Airlines or any other? Shangra La, whatever?

IMHO the point isn't which airline in that case or this. The point is there's a history of lax controls and mistakes in the Ukraine military when it comes to SAMs. A separatist who knew how to use the missiles learned how in that lax system. People shoot down planes by mistake and the shooters try to hide the facts. So Putin is the evil dude in the mix in both cases? The Ukraine is not responsible even when they control the trigger, right? Not then, not now if it had been Kiev Army units doing the shooting? That's what comes across from some people if that's what they are trying to say or not.

I'm sure that if Kiev Army units had done it, had video of a Kiev NG guys tracking, launching, following the path of the missile, and cheering over the shoot-down, someone would assure me it was all a Russian clandestine operation within the ranks of the Kiev NG and Russia is really responsible.

The most likely shooters are the separatists, no doubt about it. Russia has nothing to gain by downing an airliner but Kiev has plenty to gain by pretending Russia had some say in the plane being shot down. Like I've said before, it doesn't matter what happens a lot of people are happy say "Russia did it" the same way people say, "It's Bush's fault" about everything to this day.

Fine with me if they think that way but it doesn't make a bit of sense.

Russia probably wasn't covering when at first they said Ukraine didn't do it back in 2001. It's probably a case of their taking the word of unreliable people in Ukraine and finding out they were lying only after having egg on their face. So, people in charge in Ukraine who came up through the same corrupt system that probably lied to Putin then are now more reliable sources?

It seems to me Putin isn't covering for anyone. He's avoiding anything but the "larger picture" by saying that had there been no coup there would have been no shoot down and were there no fighting no one would be using SAMs.

That's no different than the US claim that cutting off aid to Egypt because the Egyptian military went after the MB hammer and tong is standing up for democracy. Well, maybe so in the broadest theoretical sense, but in reality it's aiding the MB the only way we can by trying to weaken their Egyptian opposition. Putin is at best avoiding damning the separatists, not "covering" for them now and I doubt he was deliberately doing so in 2001. Is that aiding them? Not a whole Hell of a lot as of yet.

IMHO, Putin xhould have condemned the shooters right off the bat whether he identified them as one group or another. But right off the bat Kiev blamed Russia when Putin knew it wasn't his units why wouldn't he hang back and listen to those who wanted to believe Kiev may have done it if they were anxious to blame him rather than the most probable shooters? Maybe there was a reason to doubt it was separatists, maybe not, but blaming Russia first was bound feed the theory that Kiev forces may have done it however unlikely that may be.

Avoiding the issue by moving to a broader view is the nature of idiotic international game playing that passes for diplomacy these days. It's always about abstracting away anything between you and your goal no matter who "you" is. Kiev routinely blaming Russia for what Ukrainians are doing is a way of deliberately trying to get Russia more involved, not a way to avoid it.

Regards, thanks for the correction.