Continued hearings in the case of the downing of Malaysian Airlines passesnger jet flight MH17 over Donbas in July 2014 brings higher risks for Russia’s top leadership.
In fact, the MH17 downing case is comparable to the Nuremberg trial, as it is about bringing to responsibility a state regime involved in the crime.
Jerry Skinner, a lawyer for relatives of those killed in the Boeing 777 crash over Donbas, has filed a class lawsuit against Russia and Putin on behalf of 40 families of MH17 victims. They demand compensation worth $330 million. The attorney stresses that the Buk air defense missile launcher could not have crossed out of Russia without a highest-level go-ahead, and that it was President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin who gave such permission. Back in the day, Skinner succeeded in getting through court compensation from the Libyan authorities for blowing up an airplane in the sky above Lockerbie in 1988. So there’s an analogy with the Lockerbie case, where Libya, led by Muammar Gaddafi, was a defendant, seen as an accomplice of terrorism. Then, in 1988, a Boeing 747-121 flight PA103, operated by Pan American on route Frankfurt — London — New York — Detroit, crashed after a bomb, planted by Libyan intelligence officers Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi and Lamin Khalifah Fhimah, detonated in the cabin.
The Lockerbie terror attack case resembles that of MH17 in the context of a state leadership denying own involvement in the destruction of a civilian airliner. Libya stated they did not intend to plead guilty in the terrorist attack over Lockerbie, but, under pressure of solid hard evidence, agreed that the explosion was organized by one of the Libyan state officials.
The MH17 case consists of more serious charges, as it raises the issue of illegal transfer of the Russian anti-aircraft missile system across the border of the sovereign state of Ukraine without the sanction of the Russian parliament and consent of the Ukrainian parliament, which is an act of military aggression.
The fact of sending a regular Buk air defense missile launcher from the 53rd air defense brigade of the Russian army across the Russian-Ukrainian border demanded a direct order from Russia’s military-political leadership, since it assumed the transfer of Russian military hardware abroad in the absence of either martial law or the declaration of war . Thus, the deployment of the air defense system either with the Russian crew manning it or without it required the order of the Russian president and defense minister.
The logic of the prosecution, as well as that of Mr Skinner, is that, de jure, their actions are complicity in a crime (the downing of a civilian jetliner) in the form of:
– Provision of means and weapons of crime (transfer of a Buk air defense missile launcher)
– Concealment of criminals and means of committing a crime (exfiltration of the air defense missile launcher back to Russia, concealment of launcher’s crew on its territory), and
– An attempt to discredit the investigation and the JIT, as well as spinning conspiracy theories and misinformation to confuse the investigation.
Thus, judicial evidence of the MH17 downing by a Russian air defense system brought to Ukraine from Russian territory automatically gives rise to charges against Russia’s top military leadership.
In the longer term, court hearings could lead to designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism.
On August 2, 2017, a group of American congressmen introduced a bill to impose sanctions on Russia, designating it as a state sponsor or terrorism.
Senator Cory Gardner said Russia should be recognized as a state sponsor of terrorism over its invasion of Ukraine, propping up Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, interference in American elections, and the use of chemical weapons in Salisbury.
Co-author of the document, Rep. Mike Coffman, mentioned as grounds for introducing sanctions Russia’s attempts to destabilize Ukraine, the downed MH17, and the covert use of armed forces.
Despite the fact that the verdict in the case will be handed down nearly in a year – that’s according to optimistic forecasts – the evidence voiced in court will lead to the circulation in media space of proven episodes of Russia’s involvement in this case. Thus, the hearings will entail negative consequences for Russian leadership throughout hearings, even without taking into account the content of the verdict as such.
Further analysis of the evidence in the case will lead to a refutation of the Kremlin’s position that no Russian armed forces have been deployed in Donbas. Thus, the trial in The Hague strikes two Russian narratives at the same time:
– Russia’s non-involvement in the downing of MH17 and
– Russia’s non-deployment of its troops in the occupied regions of Donbas.
