MARCH 2014
UKRAINE
Western Ukrainians took to the streets protesting a recent deal by
their (legally?) elected pro Russian president with Russia. Their
government resigned. The protesters and their western supporters
demanded the President's resignation and early elections. The
President, supported by Putin, said no. Violence escalated until
a few dozen protesters were shot, whereupon the President fled.
An interim, western (pro Euro) government was formed. It promptly
put out "wanted" notices for the ex-president for murder. Crimea
was taken over by Russian soldiers posing as "patriots", and a vote on
the region's future as part of Russia is planned for mid March
2014.
The Euro-US bloc objects to partition, saying it is against all sorts
of treaties that the Russians have signed. Putin has retorted
that the constitution of the UN did not stop the partition of
Serbia.
I have spoken before on the issue of creating new states. If the
people of a state have irreconcilable differences, (or even distaste)
what should be done? Majority (democratic) rule is not always the
answer. Secession has happened in Serbia, Sudan, Pakistan,
Singapore, Israel, Chechen, Timor to name a few. It is a better
solution than the continuing killing that goes on. But there are
powerful interests that resist secession. Politicians seem to
take it as a personal insult if some of their subjected population
should want independence of their rule. Examples are Scotland,
Kurdistan, Basque, Canada, and (from time to time) various states of
the USA.
How can we object to a peaceful plebiscite by Crimeans on
partition? And if the vote is for partition, how can we object?
MH370
This blog is a guess at the fate of a Malaysian airliner Boeing 777
that went missing.
Consider the following geopolitical facts:
- Iran is attempting, against Israeli protestation, to
remove US and European trade sanctions.
- Iran is the leader in the Muslim world of the major
Islamic faction called "Shia".
- Malaysia is a Muslim nation. (As an aside, I,
personally, have until now felt safer from a terrorist attack when
flying with the airline of a Muslim nation. I somehow felt that
Terrorists would preferentially hijack the airliners of Israel or
Western nations.)
- The aircraft was carrying a fuel load that would have
taken it to Beijing, or anywhere that is approximately the same
distance from Kuala Lumpur (KL) as is Beijing. Engine
information sent by MH370 was received by a
satellite near the equator at about the longitude of India. The
maximum range
from the satellite to the plane is determined by the curvature of the
Earth and means that the Boeing 777
was within an arc centred on Kuala Lumpur and stretching from
Kazakhstan in the north to the Indian ocean in the south.
- Experts are of the opinion that a skilled pilot was
involved. They are also impressed by the manoeuvres, (Changes in
height and direction) that were employed to escape detection.
That is probably bullshit. In his book "Reamde" published 2011,
Neale Stephenson described (just before the middle of the book) how
terrorists took over a plane between air control management systems and
managed by altitude changes to fly through controlled air space from
that point. If
this was a hijack (and the only other possibilities such as sabotage
and catastrophic systems failure are highly improbable) then it was
well planned.
So the facts indicate that flight MH370 was flying somewhere
inside a sector centred on Kuala Lumpur, with a maximum range that
would take it to Kazakhstan in the North, in an arc stretching down
through a few other "?stans", through Iran and the Indian ocean down
into the South Indian ocean. All are inside the range determined by
the fuel.
Based on the 9/11 experience, a gang of at least five seems to be
required to take over an aircraft. Since installing lockable
cabin doors, fewer than five might be needed.
So my explanation. A group of about five or less Muslims were
trained and
advised on covert procedures. They took over the aircraft
(protesting something?). They flew to Iran expecting a hero's
welcome.
They did not meet the welcome they expected. The Iranians were
trying to be friends to the West. If the facts were revealed,
they would have had (as good global citizens) to immediately return the
hostages, and arrest and execute the Hijackers.
But remember. Iran is a leader of revolutionary Islam. How
could the Iranian people allow trial of those heroes?
OK. So here is the solution. Iran should tell the world
- That the Hijackers landed the aircraft in Iran.
- That they (Iran) have with considerable difficulty and
great skill, negotiated the release of the crew and passengers (for
ransom and anonymous escape.
comments