One year after the MH17 disaster: Many unanswered questions remain!

(Baonghean) - Yesterday (July 17th) was World Day of Remembrance for the victims of the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine. Exactly one year has passed, and one year has also been a year since the international commission launched a large-scale investigation, yet to date, no concrete results have been released. Who is responsible? To help readers answer these questions, a reporter from Baonghean newspaper interviewed Associate Professor, Doctor, Major General Le Van Cuong - former Director of the Institute of Strategy under the Ministry of Public Security - about this tragedy.

PV:Regarding the MH17 plane crash on July 17 last year, public opinion suggests that this tragedy is closely linked to the Ukraine crisis. What are your comments on this matter, General?

Major General Le Van Cuong:It is true that over the past year, there has been much public opinion suggesting that the MH17 plane crash in eastern Ukraine, flying from the Netherlands to Malaysia, is closely linked to the Ukrainian crisis. I completely agree with this opinion for the following reasons.

People lit candles and placed flowers in front of the Dutch embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, to commemorate those who perished on the ill-fated flight, many of whom were Dutch nationals. Photo: Reuters

Firstly, a civilian aircraft carrying over 290 people was flying over Ukrainian airspace. If the country had been peaceful, Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 certainly wouldn't have crashed. It can be asserted that the plane did not crash due to a technical fault, weather conditions, or crew error.

Secondly, according to the international commission's investigation, the MH17 tragedy was caused by an external "hard object," which was actually a missile. However, the type of missile and its origin remain inconclusive. But it's certain that without the crisis in Ukraine, the MH17 tragedy wouldn't have happened. From this, we can conclude that all current crises and hotspots around the world, such as the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula; the conflict in Syria; the war against ISIS; and the conflict in Yemen, can develop in many different directions with very negative scenarios that we cannot foresee.

PV:Over the past year, there have been many different theories, but they can be broadly categorized into two main ones. Firstly, that the missile was shot down by Russian-backed separatists using a surface-to-air missile; secondly, that the Ukrainian army fired "by mistake." Could the Major General elaborate on these scenarios?

Major General Le Van Cuong:Yes, there are currently two parallel theories surrounding the MH17 tragedy.

The first hypothesis is that separatist forces in eastern Ukraine (Donetsk and Lugansk) shot down the plane. In my opinion, this hypothesis is mainly put forward by the US, the European Union, and their allies around the world. However, to date, the US and its allies have not provided an explanation as to why the separatists in eastern Ukraine shot it down. Therefore, this hypothesis is primarily aimed at Russia, holding it responsible for this disaster, because the separatists in eastern Ukraine do not possess missiles.

The question is, why would Russia shoot it down? To date, no commentary from the US and its Western allies has convincingly explained the hypothesis involving Russia. I believe that a civilian aircraft differs from a military aircraft in that civilian aircraft always have a specific flight path, and any radar can track it. Meanwhile, as we know, Russia is currently a superpower in military technology, so there would be no mistake. Furthermore, in my opinion, Russia had no reason to shoot down MH17. Remember that at that time, tensions between Russia and the US and the West were at their peak, with a series of sanctions targeting Russia. Therefore, Putin wouldn't be foolish enough to shoot himself in the foot. Considering all these reasons, I believe the hypothesis that Russia shot it down is unconvincing, because the only reason to accuse them is the crash site.

The second hypothesis, put forward by Russia and also supported by its allies, is that MH17 crashed due to a Ukrainian air-to-air missile. Regarding this hypothesis, Russia has repeatedly stated that the MH17 crash was caused by a missile fired from a Ukrainian Su-25 aircraft. Moscow has raised several points in response to this viewpoint.

Firstly, in air traffic control observations, Russia obtained clear information and images of a Ukrainian Su-25 appearing near MH17 at an altitude of over 9,000 meters, and 15 minutes later, MH17 exploded. This information was released by a Lieutenant General, Head of the Operations Directorate of the Russian Armed Forces.

Secondly, the MH17 crash was due to Ukrainian military mistakenly shooting it down. On July 17, 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin was returning to Moscow from Brazil after attending the BRICS summit. Normally, flights from Moscow to Brazil and vice versa would fly over eastern Ukraine. However, before this flight, President Putin requested the crew to change the flight path to avoid flying over eastern Ukraine. Therefore, the Russian side claims this was a "mistake" by the Kiev authorities, and that the Su-25's target should have been the Russian President's plane, not MH17. For your information, between 2011 and 2013, Russian President Vladimir Putin narrowly escaped assassination twice, once in Ukraine and once while he was out in the forest. Therefore, it can be said that Putin is a target of foreign forces who see him as someone to be eliminated.

PV:One year after the tragedy, what has the international investigative committee accomplished, and are the investigation results truly objective, General?

Major General Le Van Cuong:As we know, the investigative committee, dominated by the US and the European Union, both view Russia as an adversary, so I believe objectivity is difficult to achieve. Currently, this committee is investigating whether Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine shot down MH17. This means they need to find evidence of a surface-to-air missile launched in the Donbass region. However, for the past year, the investigative committee has been unable to find any evidence, traces, or debris of such a surface-to-air missile. If they had found it, I believe this story would soon be over. Because the US and the West are always waiting to present evidence accusing Russia, they have no reason not to widely publicize it in the media.

In this story, I believe there are two possible scenarios. Either the investigation committee found nothing, which is illogical. Or the investigation committee found some evidence, some fragment of an air-to-air missile, but they couldn't release it. Because releasing it would be tantamount to concluding that Kyiv was the culprit and entirely responsible for the disaster. Therefore, in my opinion, the investigation committee will "never" find the true cause of the aviation disaster that occurred on July 17th last year, unless a fragment of a surface-to-air missile is found.

PV:On the first anniversary of the tragedy, the US and its Western allies planned to take the case to the International Court of Justice, but Russia voiced its opposition. What are your comments on Russia's reaction, and how do you predict this story will lead and end?

Major General Le Van Cuong:I believe that bringing the MH17 tragedy to the International Court of Justice is a major issue. Regardless of which power influences the court, a trial must be based on accurate and complete evidence to secure a conviction. As the saying goes, "judgment is in the file," so it cannot rely on baseless accusations from any side.

So why did Russia voice its opposition? In my opinion, Russia's comment was simply a denial of numerous accusations from the US and the West. As I said, the Russian Operations Directorate twice informed the world that air traffic control had clearly captured images of the Su-25 aircraft near MH17, and then 15 minutes later, the ill-fated plane exploded over Donbass. I believe that air traffic control technology preserved complete images, but the Russians, especially Putin, are very cautious, discreet, and shrewd. Russia usually only releases evidence at the last minute. I predict that if the US and its allies continue to aggressively take the issue to an international court, at the height of the conflict, Russia will release all its evidence to expose all of the West's deception. Thus, Russia's choice of timing will be a masterful move that the West may not have anticipated.

As we know, when Russia, under the leadership of President V. Putin, does something, the US and its allies find it difficult to escape consequences.

Remember the August 21, 2013 incident, when the US orchestrated the Syrian opposition's use of chemical weapons against protesters, then blamed the government forces to create a pretext for launching a war against Syria. This was followed by incidents on August 29, 2013, and August 31, 2013, when two Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from a US warship off the coast of Spain targeted the residence of President Bashar al-Assad. However, they were intercepted approximately 200 km from the Syrian coast. Russia subsequently informed the US government that the missiles were Russian. But to save face for President Obama, the then-Russian Foreign Minister suggested to his American counterpart that Tel Aviv should take responsibility for an unsuccessful missile test. If Russia hadn't shot down those two missiles on August 29 and 31, 2013, a "storm" of attacks by the US and the West against Syria would certainly have ensued. That was an extremely clever way for the Russians to halt the aggressive actions of the US.

For example, on April 10th last year, the USS Donald Cook, equipped with the most advanced American weapons, including 21 Tomahawk ballistic missiles launched in 2005, sailed near Crimea. Immediately, Russia deployed unarmed Su-24 aircraft to fly two circles over the American warship. Remarkably, in the first circle, all radar screens on the warship clearly displayed the Su-24; however, in the second circle, all screens on this modern warship were rendered ineffective. The Donald Cook then had to tow back to its naval port in Romania. As a consequence, 27 officers of lieutenant and captain rank working on the Donald Cook requested to be discharged from service. Their reason was that they could not gamble their lives against Russian weapons. This was the first time Russia used electronic warfare to warn the US, and they succeeded.

I gave those two examples to illustrate that once Russia acts, the US and the West will find it difficult to resist if they continue to pressure Russia without reason. As for the MH17 tragedy, it's probably not yet at its peak. Russia is waiting to see what other tricks the US and its allies will pull, and when the time is right, Moscow will release all the evidence to expose the mastermind and perpetrator of this act as the Kiev government.

PV:Thank you, Major General!

Canh Nam(Perform)