Moscow reacts to UN aviation agencys MH17 vote
The investigation into the shootdown of the passenger airliner in Ukrainian airspace in 2014 was biased against Russia, the Foreign Ministry said
Russia has rejected the UN civilian aviation agency's claims that it was responsible for the 2014 downing of the Malaysia Airlines flight over eastern Ukraine. Moscow insisted that the Dutch-led investigation into the incident was politically motivated and relied on "questionable" evidence submitted by Kiev.
"Moscow's principal position remains that Russia was not involved in the crash of MH17, and that all statements to the contrary by Australia and the Netherlands are false," the Foreign Ministry said on its website on Tuesday.
The statement came after the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) voted that Russia failed to uphold its obligation to "refrain from resorting to the use of weapons against civil aircraft in flight."
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17) was shot down in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, killing all 298 people on board, most of whom were Dutch, Malaysian, and Australian nationals. The incident occurred as Ukrainian troops were attempting to retake the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, which voted to secede following the Western-backed coup in Kiev. The two entities later voted to become part of Russia in September 2022.
In 2015, the investigation - conducted by the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, Malaysia, and Ukraine - concluded that the plane was shot down by a Soviet-era Buk surface-to-air missile system delivered by Russia to the Donbass militias. Moscow denied providing heavy weapons to local forces and argued that the aircraft was hit by a version of the missile used by Ukrainian, not Russian, troops. It also criticized its exclusion from the investigation.
The Foreign Ministry condemned the ICAO Council's decision as politically motivated, alleging "multiple procedural violations." It said the ICAO ignored "ample and convincing factual and legal evidence" submitted by Russia to demonstrate its non-involvement in the shootdown.
"The conclusions of the Dutch investigation were based on the testimonies of anonymous witnesses - whose identities were classified - as well as on questionable information and materials submitted by a biased party: the Security Service of Ukraine," the statement read.
The Foreign Ministry added that Ukraine should ultimately be blamed for the tragedy because Kiev "launched a military operation in Donbass under the false pretense of combating terrorism."
Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that, because Russia was not part of the investigation, it "does not accept biased conclusions."
(RT.com)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
21 minutes ago
- New Straits Times
Defiance and resignation in Ukrainian town
Sitting on camping chairs with sunglasses and sodas in hand, Yevgen and his friends soaked up the searing Mezhova sun. Russia has said it is advancing into the surrounding eastern region of Dnipropetrovsk for the first time in its three-year invasion. Mezhova, a town just 13km from the flashpoint Donetsk region, now risks becoming a target for a Russian ground offensive. Few locals dare venture into the nearest village to the east, where drones reportedly strike nearly every vehicle. Yevgen Grinshenko, 26, and his friends fled Pokrovsk, a Donetsk mining town that has suffered intense Russian-Ukrainian clashes. "I'm no longer afraid of anything. We've been through it all," said the round-faced aid volunteer, wounded by Russian projectiles in Pokrovsk. "That fear has become a part of my life," he said. But the apparent calm in the town is deceptive. Most of its original residents had fled, said Yevgen. "Everyone who remains is displaced." Since an order to evacuate local children was issued last month by the authorities, the town is "panicking a bit", said an elderly passerby. In Mezhova, colourful Soviet-era cars have been replaced by khaki 4x4s, and eerily quiet streets are patrolled by soldiers. Olga Motuzenko, a 66-year-old teacher, fled fighting in Pokrovsk and reached Mezhova. Wearing a small white lace hat, she was selling onions from her garden by the side of the road. "They could be here in two days," she said. She and her husband had believed Mezhova would be safe, that the front would hold. "But it didn't work out," she said with a sigh. Her home in Pokrovsk "no longer exists", and she had to leave with her husband, taking barely half of their belongings. "I don't feel good here. We are thinking about moving elsewhere again," she murmured in a frail voice. For now, she stays so her ailing husband can still receive treatment. What would force her to leave? "If everything is bombed." But Russian explosive drones were already flying overhead, and some vehicles had been hit, she said. Lt-Col Oleksander came to a cafe to mark his 60th birthday with fellow soldiers — a celebration he once pictured sharing with his wife and grandchildren, not on the front lines. "It's unfortunately true, fighting is happening here and there," said the trim-moustached officer, warning that the Russians "are already very close" to the regional border. "They are advancing slowly, very slowly, but they are advancing." In fruitless talks with Ukraine, Russia demanded recognition of its annexation of Crimea and four other regions where its forces are deployed — including Donetsk — as a condition for any negotiations. Asked whether he feared Moscow might lay claim to a sixth Ukrainian region, Oleksander brushed off the idea. "They could claim all of Ukraine belongs to them. It won't matter. Our resistance won't change," he declared. For his birthday, Oleksander had just one wish — for the war to end quickly. He was weary of seeing young people "die every day". "It's hard," he said. "Impossible to accept."
The Star
31 minutes ago
- The Star
Forlorn Gaza – the world's shame
ON June 4, exactly a month ahead of the country's independence day, the United States vetoed – for the fifth time – a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for 'an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza'. The draft resolution vetoed by the solitary US vote received 14 in favour. It also called for the 'immediate and unconditional lifting of all restrictions on the entry and distribution of humanitarian aid in Gaza, calling for safe and unhindered access for UN and humanitarian partners across the enclave'. In what appeared to be a move coordinated with the veto, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the US was sanctioning four judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for 'targeting'with arrest warrants Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Earlier, the US had sanctioned the ICJ prosecutor for the same 'crime'. These US actions came as the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Mirjana Spoljaric, described Gaza as 'worse than hell on earth'. In an interview with the BBC at the ICRC headquarters in Geneva, she said 'humanity is failing' as it watched the horrors of the Gaza war. Israel's policy, backed by its US-led Western allies and the acquiescence of the regional Arab governments, has always been aimed at the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, and its governing coalition leaders have been unequivocal in explicitly stating their military objectives. The systematic destruction of any and all infrastructure that supports human life is near complete, with water, power, homes, schools, universities, and even hospitals bombed to rubble. Of the number of functioning hospitals in Gaza, only two remain. The UN has called for the protection of these last two hospitals, particularly providing emergency services to the Strip, which is being bombed and hit by missiles daily, causing dozens of casualties, young and old. The UN also says the percentage of malnourished children is rising by the day. This malnourishment is due to the Israeli food blockade on Gaza. Israel has brushed aside all aid organisations' protestations to introduce its own 'food distribution' points, where dozens of starving Palestinians, including women, have been killed by Israeli tank-mounted machine gun fire. The Conservative member of the UK Parliament, Kit Malthouse, defied his party's pro-Israel policy to offer the most apt description of what is happening. Speaking in the Commons, he said Gaza has become 'an abattoir where starving people are lured out through combat zones to be shot at'. 'If the situation were reversed, we would now be mobilising the British armed forces as part of an international protection force,' Malthouse said, exposing Western hypocrisy and his own government's inaction. Adding another twist to the food crisis in Gaza is the Israeli Prime Minister's confirmation – after Israeli defence sources had earlier told local journalists that accusations made by the Opposition politician Avigdor Lieberman were correct – about the arming of a group that many believe comprises criminals. Lieberman, according to the BBC, told the state broadcaster that the Prime Minister had unilaterally approved the arming of the Abu Shabab clan and transferred weapons to it. 'The Israeli government is giving weapons to a group of criminals and felons, identified with the Islamic State group.' Sources in the know say the group is led by Yasser Abu Shabab, who was an IS commander, and is an Israeli intelligence asset. His band of about 300 men, according to the Israeli Occupation Forces, has been armed to 'protect food trucks' trickling into Gaza. But sources on the ground say the group is doing the opposite, commandeering the trucks and looting the vital food supplies for the malnourished, starving Palestinians. It is this one-sided ethnic-cleansing, being facilitated by the US and its envoy Steve Witkoff, that may be impacting public opinion in Europe at least. Public opinion is shifting, which is also reflected in the robust questioning of the Israeli Hasbara spin doctors in the media. These advocates for the Israeli cause are outraged even by some basic questions a few journalists are beginning to ask because they have had a free pass to spin their lies since October 2023. European government leaders are beginning to express unease – only in words and not deeds, though – in calling the Gaza situation intolerable and unacceptable but stopping well short of any concrete measures such as an arms embargo. This rhetoric too is driven by the changing public mood reflected in a recent YouGov poll across Europe. The poll showed Israel as being viewed most unfavourably since they started polling on this issue in 2016. And Israel's actions in Gaza are seen as disproportionate and unjustified. Even then, US President Donald Trump is likely to be convinced his Gaza Riviera plan is on course and in the end the Palestinians will be displaced. With few friends in the Arab world, whose leaders generously opened up their cheque books for the US president and applied little, if any, pressure to secure an end to the genocide, the Palestinians seem to be on their own. The (resource-starved) government of the ummah's most potent military power may have co-sponsored the vetoed UN resolution, but its powerful elite queued up at the embassy gate for hours to be able to have the honour of celebrating US Independence Day inexplicably on June 4, a month earlier than July 4. The ethnic cleansing in Gaza and, don't forget, the West Bank will continue. The collective conscience of the people around the globe will not be able to stop it on its own. This is the world we inhabit. — Dawn/Asia News Network Abbas Nasir is a former editor of Dawn.
Focus Malaysia
an hour ago
- Focus Malaysia
Rethinking SEATO: A new maritime pact for ASEAN?
AS geopolitical tensions escalate in the Indo-Pacific, Southeast Asian nations find themselves increasingly vulnerable to the turbulence sweeping the region. China's growing assertiveness in the South China Sea, the rising strategic competition between the United States (US) and China, and the proliferation of non-traditional maritime threats such as piracy and illegal fishing have converged to create a volatile security environment. Against this backdrop, a provocative question has resurfaced: Should the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) revive the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) as a mechanism to bolster regional maritime security? SEATO, founded in 1954 and dissolved in 1977, was originally designed as a Cold War-era collective defence pact aimed at containing communism. Its legacy is, at best, mixed. With only two Southeast Asian members i.e., Thailand and the Philippines and heavily dominated by external powers like the US, United Kingdom, and France, SEATO was often criticised for its lack of cohesion and legitimacy within the region. Its failure to evolve into a true collective security mechanism contributed to its irrelevance and eventual dissolution. Yet in 2025, the strategic landscape has changed dramatically. Today, the Indo-Pacific is the epicentre of global power politics, and ASEAN's role has never been more crucial. The organisation stands at a crossroads: continue with its consensus-based, non-aligned approach, or adapt to a more assertive and structured security framework in response to rising threats. The idea of reviving SEATO or at least, reimagining it should be explored seriously, but with critical adjustments grounded in current realities. Maritime security: ASEAN's Achilles heel Southeast Asia's maritime domain is a focal point for multiple overlapping claims, economic interests, and military ambitions. The South China Sea alone sees one-third of global shipping pass through its waters. Yet, maritime security remains ASEAN's Achilles heel. Despite initiatives like the ASEAN Maritime Forum and joint patrols in the Sulu and Celebes Seas, the region lacks a comprehensive, cohesive maritime defence structure. In the face of China's continued island-building, coercion of fishermen, and incursions into Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), ASEAN's diplomatic toolbox seems increasingly inadequate. Reviving SEATO or creating a SEATO 2.0 could offer a more robust framework to pool resources, share intelligence, and establish clear deterrents. Unlike its Cold War predecessor, a modern version would need to be rooted in ASEAN leadership, rather than being externally driven. This could transform it from a symbol of neo-colonial entanglement into a proactive regional safeguard. A reimagined SEATO: ASEAN-led and inclusive Any modern iteration of SEATO must be fundamentally different in design and intent. First and foremost, it should be ASEAN-led, preserving the centrality of the organisation. External partners such as the US, Japan, Australia, and India could serve as dialogue or strategic partners, but not dominant actors. This would maintain ASEAN's long-held position of neutrality while enabling it to take a more assertive role in shaping regional security. The objectives of a new SEATO would also need to evolve. Rather than being a purely anti-China alliance, it should focus on enhancing maritime domain awareness, building naval interoperability, strengthening coast guard cooperation, and securing sea lines of communication. These goals are inherently defensive and could gain broader support among ASEAN's diverse members, many of whom are wary of becoming pawns in great power rivalries. This reimagined SEATO could also be integrated into the broader Indo-Pacific security architecture. Coordination with initiatives like the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), the Indo-Pacific Partnership for Maritime Domain Awareness (IPMDA), and the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia (ReCAAP) would create a multi-layered and resilient defence posture. Challenges and caveats However, reviving or rebranding SEATO is far from a silver bullet. ASEAN's core principles are non-interference, consensus-based decision-making, and respect for sovereignty, often inhibit swift or unified responses to crises. Member states have varying security priorities and relationships with major powers. For instance, Cambodia and Laos maintain close ties with China, while the Philippines and Vietnam are more confrontational. This divergence makes the formation of a formal security pact challenging. Moreover, introducing a SEATO-like structure risks undermining ASEAN unity if not managed carefully. It could exacerbate intra-regional tensions and provoke backlash from China, which may interpret it as an encirclement strategy. Balancing deterrence and diplomacy will be crucial. The path forward: Pragmatic regionalism Rather than a wholesale revival of SEATO, ASEAN should consider a flexible, modular approach. A 'SEATO-lite' framework beginning with joint maritime exercises, intelligence sharing, and capacity-building—could evolve organically based on the needs and consensus of member states. This incremental strategy would avoid the political costs of formalising a defence pact while still enhancing maritime cooperation. Additionally, ASEAN should push for institutional reforms that allow for 'ASEAN Minus X' models where willing members move forward on specific security initiatives without requiring unanimity. This would preserve the group's cohesion while allowing progress on urgent maritime issues. Conclusion The notion of reviving SEATO as a means to strengthen maritime security in Southeast Asia is both provocative and timely. While the historical baggage of the original SEATO looms large, the current strategic environment demands fresh thinking. A reinvented, ASEAN-led security framework whether called SEATO or something new could be a pivotal step in safeguarding the region's maritime future. ASEAN must not allow itself to be paralysed by its past or by external pressures. The Indo-Pacific is evolving rapidly, and so too must Southeast Asia's security architecture. Whether through a revived SEATO or an entirely new model, one thing is clear: the time for passive neutrality is over. ‒ June 9, 2025 R Paneir Selvam is the principal consultant of Arunachala Research & Consultancy Sdn Bhd, a think tank specialising in strategic national and geopolitical matters. The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia. Main image: AP Photo/Sakchai Lalit
