Time: 18:00-19:00, 17th July 2017
Venue: Committee Room 2A, House of Lords,Houses of Parliament, SW1A 0AA
Speakers: Matt Anderson PSM, Brechje Schwachofer, Oleh Pavlyshyn
Event Chair: Lord Risby
Lord Risby
Ladies and gentleman. First of all may I welcome you to the Palace of Westminster this evening. On behalf of everyone I would like to thank the Henry Jackson Society especially Andrew Foxall who takes an enormous interest in the subject of Russia and Ukraine. We just are here to remember first of all, that this happened three years ago, one of the most appalling incidents I think of modern history a tragedy for all those who got killed and their families. I’m Richard Risby and I chair the British Ukrainian society so this matter is something which is very dear to my heart and certainly has affected all of us who want peace and tranquillity in the region. We are very lucky this evening to have three excellent speakers who will discuss this matter all bringing considerable experience on the subject one way or another. What we really want to do is to just reflect on what happened, this terrible terrible accident, incident. The fact that we have a pretty clear idea of who was responsible and we really believe that people should be brought to justice for this. All of this is very difficult.
We also need to just consider this evening the, if I may say so, context of which this horror story actually unfolded which is he illegal occupation of a sovereign nation of Ukraine by another country. So we look with interest at what is happening. There are representatives here from Australia, from the Netherlands and of course Ukraine. I’m going to first of all going to ask Matt Anderson the Deputy High Commissioner for Australia to speak , then hand over to Ms. Brechje Schwachofer who is () of the embassy of the Kingdom of Netherland. Both have had distinguished records as diplomats and have been involved in this quite extensively and finally of course political councilor from the Ukrainian embassy. So may I very warmly welcome you. You were saying you haven’t been in this country for very long but certainly we are just delighted you are here. You bring considerable experiences I was saying before as a diplomat and of course, you’ve looked closely into the matter in the past. So welcome and again it’s so good to see all of you here this evening.
Matt Anderson
Thank you Lord Risby. Thank you Andrew for inviting us and convening tis group. My particular experience in this issue was I had the MH17 task force back in Canberra. It was Thursday night when the MH17 was shot down. The news broke in the small hours of the Friday morning during our school holidays and by early that morning we had convened our task force or convened our crisis group to try and understand what was happening to what we were treating as a purely controlee response. An aircraft had gone down, what’s often forgotten about the MH17 is it was flying from the Netherlands to Kuala Lumpur then it was going on, most passengers were going on from there to Melbourne because we were hosting the world aids conference in Melbourne in my home town in Melbourne.
We knew straight away that there were going to be a significant number of Australians on the flight and we had consoler response first and foremost. It was also be fair to say that in the crisis center in those days in those early hours and days of the situation, we didn’t have many maps in the Australian department of foreign affairs and trade that covered eastern Ukraine so we had to get very very busy about just trying to find out the geography of the place and the politics of the region. Things that my own background as a pacific expert with four postings in the pacific, was not something I was particularly attuned to but very very quickly had to come across the brief about the tragedy of the occupation and the circumstances that lead to the downing of the MH17. So just some prepared marks to start with. Obviously, today July 17th, we commemorate the third anniversary of the shocking loss of 298 lives, just remember that, 298 lives in MH17, over Eastern Ukraine.
On that day, our nation and many others were plunged into mourning over the senseless loss of innocent lives. In the immediate aftermath of the downing, our priority was to bring home the remains of the bodies with both dignity and respect and indeed then Prime Minister of Australia then tony abbot declared operation ‘Bring them home’, and that was a combined whole of government response to the bringing home of the remains of those killed. With ongoing heavy fighting around the area this obviously invited many many challenges. The assistance of the Ukrainian government and ordinary Ukrainians near the conflict side was vital to recovering the victims and the wreckage. The international community was also solidly untied supported by the strength and the feeling of the loss of innocence across the world. In the days after the downing Australia was a non-permanent member if the u security council at the time. So in the days after the downing as an elected member of the UN Security Council. Australia made the effort to secure a resolution to 2166, which demands and importantly still demands that this responsible for downing the MH17 are held to account and that further all states cooperate fully with efforts to achieve accountability. Australia, together with Malaysia, Belgium, the Netherlands and Ukraine, together with what you may hear me refer to as JIT, the joint investigating team has worked relentlessly towards securing accountability for this atrocious act and to achieve justice for the many victims and their families as well as the wider international community. We were deeply disappointed by Russia’s veto in July 2015 at the draft UN resolution that was hoped to establish MH17 international tribunal but we were not deterred.
As you know on the 5th of July this year the countries took a decision to support the prosecution of those accused of crimes connected with the downing of the MH17 in the judicial system of the Netherlands. This joint decision represents a significant milestone in holding the perpetrators to account. It also reflects our resolve to deliver on the demands contained in resolution 2166. Allow me to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation for the ongoing support expressed by our friends and our fellow grieving nations including the United Kingdom for this endeavor, and for also for your unwavering support in the meticulous international criminal investigation being carried out by the JIT. Australia also deeply appreciated the Foreign Secretary Johnson’s statement following the announcement of the decisions of the continued support for and cooperation towards this prosecution process. Australia has the full confidence in the quality being (Inaudible 7.07) and the integrity of the Dutch system we reiterate our strong and endearing support for this endeavor. We look forward to working closely with the United Kingdom and other grieving nations in our efforts to achieve international accountability for this atrocity. While we cannot bring back those whose lives were lost to us that day or take away the grief of their loved ones we can and we must do everything possible to make insure justice is done independently, fairly and transparently. Thank you.
Lord Risby
Thank you very much for an excellent introduction. I think it’s just a reminder of the lives of people from so many countries, definitely Australia as well, who lost their lives in these tragic circumstances. And also the fact that the JIT is trying to come to the route of this. But the Dutch safety board has certainly had a role in this of course and we greatly admire how the Dutch government has responded to this and we greatly look forward to what you have to say.
Brechje Schwachofer
Let me start by thanking the Henry Jackson Society for convening the event and for hosting it. We think it is important to keep all of us engaged in this topic that still has no conclusion and needs a lot of attention in the years to come. Today three years that the plane went down and as was said by my Australian college 298 men women and children lost their lives , of seventeen different nationalities , 196 of them were Dutch but many of them were Malaysian, Australian and from this country. Today is the day we recall this tragedy and all those who died on the fatal flight. My thoughts are with the victims and their relatives. Today the Dutch King Willem-Alexander and his wife Queen Maxima unveiled a monument for the victims, which is a lasting and complete memory, that stands for hope and solidarity with them and their loved ones. Taking us back two three years ago the Dutch government in the carrying out the UN security council 2166 set out a three step approach in close cooperation with other affected countries. First, like the Australian government and all the governments concerned, we focused on repatriation and identification of the victims.
Secondly, we conducted a thorough and independent technical investigation into the cause of the crash as was referred to by Lord Risby and thirdly, the approach focused on justice for the victims and there next of kin. The repatriation and identification was carried out immediately after the crash and second the investigation into the cause of the crash was conducted by the Dutch safety board in accordance with guidelines of the international civil aviation organization and the third step currently on going is conducted by the joint investigation team as referred to by my Australian colleague where the Netherlands public prosecution office and the Dutch national police work together with the investigative authorities of Australia, Malaysia, Belgium and the Ukraine.
The purpose of this criminal investigation is to establish the facts, identify those responsible for the crash and to collect evidence that can be used in court. The jury presented last year the first results of the investigation which as I said before is still ongoing. We cannot and will not speculate on the timing outcome of the independent criminal investigation, which should be conducted in an independent manner. It is a legal trajectory which should run its course. The phase which we are now into was entering a moment where clarity was needed on the legal framework on which a prosecution should take place. We are therefore pleased to announce together with our GRT partners that the prosecution will take place in the Netherlands within our national legal system but embed it and that is very important enclose in ensuring international cooperation throughout.
This decision to opt for the Dutch national justice system is an important step to bringing those who are responsible for the downing of this flight to justice and towards establishing the truth and to obtain satisfaction for the relatives of the victims. The countries involved with whom we have an excellent cooperation have concluded that a prosecution in the Netherlands is an effective process for ensuring accountability and compliance with the highest international standards. As you all know our national justice system, the Dutch justice system, has an excellent international reputation. We believe as was stated just now that our GRT partners have every confidence in quality independence and impartiality of our system.
The national prosecution in the Netherlands will be rooted in a jury of international cooperation and support. The close cooperation amongst the GRT partners will be reaffirmed by the signing of two memorandums of understanding by the countries involved, pledging their long term political and financial commitment to the prosecution.
Recently a treaty between the government of the Netherlands and the Ukraine has been signed to provide for the order of the transfer for criminal proceedings which is necessary and this will make it possible to prosecute suspects in respect of victims of all nationalities from 17 different countries on 5 continents. Cooperation between GRT partners will continue in this prosecution phase as well.
We are very grateful for the explicit support of the UK which has been deeply expressed by the Foreign Minister Boris Johnson as well as many others such as France and the US. We are also heartened by the positive actions we have received from relatives of the victims to this news.
Now a few words on the future. Looking at the future the criminal investigation needs to continue and support the international community and the full cooperation of states that are in a position to assist with the investigation and who prosecutors find responsible in line with Security Council resolution 2166. As we heard before this resolution demanded that those responsible be held to account and therefore we call on all countries to cooperate to this effect. The Netherlands will do everything in its power to achieve this, thank you.
Lord Risby
Thank you again for a very clear and very insightful presentation. But of the course the country that really is at the heart of this whole issue is the Ukraine and the tragedy of what has happened in the Ukraine and the divisions in the Ukraine which have resulted from the invasion of Ukrainian territory and of course the country which has been most effected by a huge amount internal displacement of people, big economic pressures and of course in the context of huge misinformation about what actually happened which was said by those who were against a proper legal process. Oleh Pavlyshyn is a Counsellor at the Ukraine embassy and coming from a country which has been most deeply impacted by the horror story that has happened in the Donbas so I very much look forward to what you have to say.
Oleh Pavlyshyn
Thank you Lord Risby and thank you to The Henry Jackson Society for this event. Indeed the tragedy of MH17 3 years ago it remains a big sorrow for my country. Three years ago at the time I guess I was sitting in my office that night collecting all my colleagues to compile the agreement with the government of Australia and the Netherlands for the initial stage of investigation. We were under huge pressure as we couldn’t provide to our Australian and Dutch colleagues reassurance that there was combat protection on the ground, it was ground we didn’t control and we do not control now that territory. We didn’t have any access to that place and it was very difficult for us to explain to our colleagues why we cannot go there and why we cannot pick up the remanence of people and the craft and why we can’t start a normal investigation.
Ukraine according to international law was the main country responsible for conducting this investigation on the principal of soil it happened in our territory. Taking into account the quantity of passengers and the air carrier we decided to empower the Dutch body responsible for the safety and conducting preliminary investigations and the civil aviation authority. So basically there were two investigations going on. Inaudible… investigation team reached from our initial information and our initial investigations of the stations which exist that it happened because of Russian military presence in our territory. The downing itself was caused by a Russian missile fired by the Russian military.
We do hope that the trial and investigations holds all perpetrators of this horrible crime will be brought to justice and for this reason a few days ago we signed an additional agreement with our Dutch colleagues which amongst other things gives the possibility to give a Dutch court judgement which is very important for this investigation. The Netherlands will have competence to prosecute crimes to which the law of Ukraine is not applicable so we agree that you will do it on our behalf. We transfer the full proceedings and responsibilities to the Dutch court. The court is a European convention and there will be a conventional transfer of proceedings.
What is the most important for us is that any suspect, any witness, any expert during the pre-trial stage and during the trial itself be present and stand trial in the Netherlands via video conference link. So basically by using modern technologies we agree that anyone who is present in Ukraine that is not able to go to the Netherlands can witness and can provide a statement to the court and stand the trial itself. So again it is quite important for us and it shows our resolve to help the Netherlands, Australia and Malaysia to see justice.
The most detailed study into MH17 destruction to date points the finger square at Russia. The September 2016 report by the joint investigation team found that without any doubt the missile was supplied by Russia and basically there is no doubt who did and how it was done. Russia has gone to great lengths to cast doubts about the responsibility for this and the Kremlin use a web of lies for the past 3 years, it is coming to absurdity. To support its aggression and agenda Russia has also stoned walls into international response to this case so they veto in the Security Council which was a vehement denial of any possibility to investigate on international arena. Definitely our preference well the initial one was international tribunal.
We do see in this case not only the crimes against civilians but elements of war crimes. We do have war in Ukraine no matter what you think, however you will call it but there is military aggression with the armed forces of another country which occupied two big regions of Ukraine so the war crime elements are to there. The Kremlin’s strategy of running down the clock by delaying an investigation and hoping that other events in the international arena like in Syria or ISIS take priority so far has been quite successful. That is why it is very important that this investigation is trialed with the Netherlands being successful. We fully support this decision and we are quite resolved to assist any way we can for those persons to be punished for their deeds starting from the person who pressed the button and ended with the person who inaudible
There are no easy ways forward and we do hope that in a few years we will see the first result of this trial. The west must do all it can to set the record straight about this horrible event. To conclude I would like to thank our Dutch, Australian and Malaysian friends for their understanding of our situation of circumstances which we faced.
Lord Risby
Well thank you very much indeed. I think what comes out of it if I may say so is the acceptance of the quality of the Dutch judicial process. I wonder if I could just ask the first question. It would be obviously be right to try and identify the first person who pressed the button, planned it and everything else and we get into quite difficult territory when it comes to specific individuals and of course there is a denial on behalf of Russia. So what do you feel the sort of ultimate outcome process, desirable as it should be could be in these circumstances given the total lack of cooperation on certain obvious facts?
Brechje Schwachofer
I think for us for the Dutch government, which is by the way is not going to be in power for much longer because we are having elections and forming new government hopefully but the new government will undoubtedly have the same priority in this field, there will be no change whatsoever. For us the ultimate goal regardless of circumstances will be to fulfill the duties we have towards the relatives of the victims of this horrible event in line with Security Council resolution 2166 and this is what prosecution services together with international partners are aiming for. We are not lowering our ambition because it is difficult or because we fear we may run into barriers and opposition. The ultimate goal will remain the same and I of course can’t speculate about the outcome or the timing of the investigation but the only thing I can say is for us it remains the same and we will do whatever we can in our power and we hope that our friends and allies will do the same and we know that a lot of them do the same and keep smiling through this. We are not going to let go of the goal, we will in the end achieve finding those who are responsible in some way because there are different responsibilities probably for these events.
Lord Risby
Thank you I think that is very reassuring a very clear commitment which I would extremely welcome so thank you so much.
I am sure there are those of you who might wish to make comments or ask questions and I know the panel would be delighted to hear from you. Anybody who wants to indicate that they would like to say something or ask a question please feel free but if you could perhaps identify yourself at the same time.
Question 1
My name is Eric Lee I have two questions. The first is has there been any speculation why the missile was fired at a civilian aircraft, I haven’t read the report so I don’t know what was really decided. Second, more important what will be the involvement of the US in the investigation under the Trump administration? Will the US play a positive role here?
Oleh Pavlyshyn
We would also like to know why it was fired that is the purpose of the investigation. The United States is not a member of the joint investigation team and America doesn’t have any authority in this case and we consider that as this is an investigation of the joint investigation team it should continue as it has not yet finished, it is a big report quite a comprehensive one. Many questions need to be answered further so the investigation will go on. Inaudible the beginning of the court trial because a set of documents needs to be ready in order for the court for pre-trial proceedings. Indeed we would be very interested to know why this missile was delivered to the Ukraine for what purpose – what was the regional plan of Russians, why was this missile in Ukraine for what purposes. What was there thinking of this missile being used in another way. We would also like to know the reason why it appeared in our territory.
Lord Risby
Of course. Now Dr Andrew Foxall of The Henry Jackson Society has exceptional expertise on these matters particularly including Russia and its policies and we are very lucky for those of us who are parliamentarians to be able to access what Andrew has to say so would you like to comment.
Dr Andrew Foxall
Thank you Lord Risby. I suppose to answer your question of why the jet, why MH17 was destroyed, I suppose it comes back to a question that I would like to ask the panelists as well. There I a great deal of evidence about the destruction of MH17, it was a hideous event it was tragic so on and so forth but there was a great amount of evidence created in large part because of the stupidity almost of the pro-Russian proxies themselves. Immediately after the jet was the destroyed the pro-Russian proxies were boasting between themselves that they had shot down a Ukraine military aircraft. The proxies themselves amazingly posted videos and footage on Facebook of them at the crash site, at the fields and the surrounding area where the pieces of the jet landed. They stayed on social media and circulated on social media, not only on Facebook and Twitter but other Russian language social networks for hours after the jet was destroyed.
Now it slowly became apparent that it wasn’t a Ukraine military aircraft but instead was a civilian aircraft and at that point as Oleh suggested, it was at that point the Kremlin propaganda machine went into overdrive almost. It was at that point that the Kremlin says the Kremlin doesn’t initially accept that it is MH17 that has been shot down but they say if it were, so the Russian defence military says it wasn’t a civilian jet that was shot down but if it were then it was shot down by a Ukrainian military jet. So there is this accusation that it is a Ukrainian SU25 jet that shot down this plane if it were a civilian plane.
There is no acknowledgement initially that this is MH17 when it comes slowly apparent that it is then the producer of the book missile systems in Russia state corporation says it could possibly be a Ukrainian military jet that shut it down but instead it was a book missile system but it wasn’t one that was owned or operated by Russia. They were convinced that it was a missile system but not one that was owned and operated by Russia. Years later the Russian defence ministry themselves admit that it actually wasn’t a plane, an Ukrainian SU25 or indeed any other plane that shot down MH17 but instead it was a book surface to air missile. Again it wasn’t one that was owned or operated by Russia.
So I hope that goes someway to answering your question. My question for colleagues on the panel is as they say an awful lot of evidence was left in that field in Eastern Ukraine, it wasn’t easy to access admittingley but an awful lot of evidence was left there. Now the OSE and others have done a great deal of work to access that evidence and to be perfectly honest the amount of evidence is pretty overwhelming, I think it is pretty obvious who shot down the plane. In some senses collecting the evidence is much easier than prosecuting individuals in court the joint investigations team has done excellent work. They have put together profiles on 100, 125 individuals whom they believe to have been involved but at the moment as far as I am aware they have only named two individuals, named but not verified individuals. The Ukraine itself is doing a lot of work in terms of offering deals encouraging individuals from Eastern Ukraine to come forward in exchange for lesser sentences for their involvement in parts of the war that have been going on in the East. So what if anything can we in the West do to try and bring about justice and try to identify those individuals who were involved? Individuals or organizations like Belling Cat for example have done some great work on this but what if anything else can we do? So that is an open question and not an easy question either.
Matt Anderson
For those who are not aware of resolution 2166 it aims to do a number of things but part of it is supporting us to complete a full thorough international investigation in accordance with IKO. But the second part in common law requires actors to cooperate fully in relation to international investigations in the instant including with respect to the mediate and unrestricted access to the crash site. You know it has been referred to earlier on that is part of the challenge and that is why the third anniversary is especially important because families are still grieving and victims are still demanding justice. The Australian Prime Minister raised it with President Putin, the importance of what we attach the Russian side onto this, this is something new they agreed to this now we just need to hold them to the agreement that they made in the UN Security Council in July and 5 days later they agreed to this on the floor of the United Nations Security Council. They need to be held to account and they need to live up to their end of the bargain.
So what we can do, what Western nations can do, any peace-loving, law abiding nations can do is continue to hold Russia to account to support the commitments that they gave under 2166 first and foremost because that will ensure that any investigation is comprehensive and the outcomes will bring some justice. I always think about Lockerbie a terrible thing to talk about but if you think about how long that took to bring people to justice it is going to take a long time we all know that but because where it happened, because of the circumstances and because as you rightly say the area is still contested so there are going to be elements that we can’t establish firmly.
Again Australia has every confidence in the Dutch prosecutors, I have every confidence in the investigation process to this time. You mentioned that two names have been released but that doesn’t mean that they are not going through and building up a brief of evidence against others so we can’t speak of that for fear of comprising a legally binding outcome. I do have every confidence in the Dutch prosecutors to ultimately identify and then hold to account those who are responsible whoever they are and whatever regional country they are from.
Brechje Schwachofer
Andrew if I may I think what is important is that we protect the integrity of the prosecution you know it is a legal process and it should remain a legal process which doesn’t mean that it needs rounded political support by NGOs, by states etc. For us crucially the matter is we maintain the integrity of the legal system. It is a legal process and we can only successfully complete it if remains one and it is kept as such.
If I could come back to your question about the US and the Trump Administration. After we together announced that the Dutch legal system would be assisting to prosecute we received several public statements of support from this country, from France and the US for example. That is of course very important in putting pressure on and showing confidence that states have in this next step in the whole process.
Lord Risby
I think you had a very comprehensive response. Further questions.
Question 2
Ray Cornwell member of The Henry Jackson Society. I am just wondering what in the light of several airlines refusing to fly over this area at the time, what international mechanisms are there for deciding whether you can or cannot fly and are there some responsibilities for the airlines involved for deciding to fly over the area?
Brechje Schwachofer
I am going to be very frank I cannot respond to that.
Question 2
There were several international airlines refused so I think there needs to be some acknowledgement of responsibility by the airlines and mechanisms for deciding who fly’s and who doesn’t. Several companies did take action not to fly over that area.
Lord Risby
What is the current situation now does anyone know what the situation of the flight path is? There certainly was a question of speed and fuel economy but it certainly doesn’t excuse what happened.
Matt Anderson
I think the technical term they used was inaudible to airman where they published two areas of sort of conflict and when they talk about minimum safe altitudes for aircraft I think back in that time there was certainly a suggestion that there wasn’t a concern for missiles at the time that were used the book 11 missile with the altitude we have and those sorts of things so it is all minimum safe altitudes. What was striking to me was a number of airlines and Malaysian wasn’t the only ones flying over Ukraine at that time and I think on this occasion what was noticeable was in the days afterwards not one single airline was flying over Ukrainian airspace in the days that followed because they made a conscious decision saying now we know what is there, I don’t think there was any clarity at the time I think it was more advisory than directive if that makes sense. But I don’t know the answer to the question now, what exists now.
Question 2
I think it is an important question if some people decided not to fly because they considered it dangerous what is the criteria for putting yourself in harm’s way, it was really acknowledged was it.
Matt Anderson
Ultimately is boils down to the risk assessment of the airlines as well. For those who don’t know my last post was Afghanistan but what I can tell you it is a great surprise to people that I used to go to and from Afghanistan with Emirates and they would fly every day other airlines wouldn’t. They would take a risk assessment everyday about the areas around the airfield and they had a very comprehensive risk assessment but other airlines would say that doesn’t meet our risk so they didn’t fly at the time. So each airline is their own business they take decisions. I can’t speak for the action that Malaysian took on that day but it was instructed in the days and weeks that followed there wasn’t many airlines that chose to fly over Ukrainian airspace for very good reasons.
Question 2
I take it there is no international sort of body that monitors these things and actually gives advice on it’s decisions? Because there are conflicts all over the world.
Lord Risby
I am not aware of anything, I am not answering this question directly but for example you have the situation in Egypt whereby British flights do not go into Sharm El Sheik whereas flights from other countries do. That is entirely a matter than the British government has insisted on for apparent security reasons so it would suggest that there is no universality in this.
I think this point about the advice at the time and what has subsequently happened is something to explore.
Dr Andrew Foxall
If I may the thing that is interesting as well that you quite rightly say a war was happening at the time because it was but it wasn’t spoken about as being a war in July of 2014 it was a destabilization of Eastern Ukraine, it was an undeclared war. It was Russia’s, we spoke rightly of the Russians annexation of Crimea but I think politicians, especially Western politicians where a little weary at the time of declaring this a war. Putin hadn’t yet admitted that the existence of the so-called little green men as part of the annexation of Crimea. There were thoughts and evidence pointing towards the presence of regular Russian servicemen in Eastern Ukraine but actually the idea that Western politicians would call this a war was still a little way off at the time. It was a conflict zone was probably the phrase used then.
Lord Risby
I happened to be in the Northern Ireland office at a very difficult time and there where one or two airports, one we couldn’t use, one we could use that when taking off we had this terrible corkscrew thing which didn’t worry me but it certainly worried some others. Are there any further questions? Andrew is there anything more that you wanted to add?
Andrew Foxall
I would say I think to go back to what Oleh was saying earlier I don’t think that anybody in the West seriously believes the lies that the Kremlin has told about this but in Russia they have been quite convincing. There was a recent poll I saw that only 5% of the Russian public believed that Russia or the Russian proxies in Eastern Ukraine where to blame, only 5% believed that ultimately Russia was to blame for this. Something like between two quarters and three thirds believed that it was Western Special Forces that where to blame for the destruction of MH17.
So I think that as I say nobody in the West believes what the Kremlin says on this, there are two optics to the lies that they tell. One of them is international and usually those sort of lies are laughed at but there is also domestic optic to this as well and the Kremlin’s lies as I said have been quite convincing. So that throws up the question actually of when and I am sure that we will establish the truth, no matter how long it takes the truth will be established in Dutch courts or international courts but the issue that flows from that is actually then convincing the Russian people I think. Not even convincing them making the Russian people aware of the truths that their government wants to keep from them.
I think that President Putin is concerned about the Russian people finding out the truth about what his regime has done in Ukraine not only with the destruction of MH17. We saw in late 2015 President Putin over the state Duma made it illegal for reporting on the deaths of Russian servicemen, military personnel, even during peace time. It is illegal in Russia to report on the deaths of military personnel during peace time – that to me suggest an awareness on the Kremlin’s behalf of the truth being established for what has happened in Eastern Ukraine.
One of the best things that we the West can seek to do is make the Russian people aware of what the government has done in their name.
Lord Risby
Well I think if I may just say this that is an optimistic thought. I heard a rather important Russian explain to me what had happened in Crimea for example, let’s just say it was a very interesting and imaginative of the reality.
I think we would like to sum up is there anything additional that you would like to say?
Matt Anderson
Mine would just be to add that as important as it is to try and encourage President Putin to be honest with his people the honesty is also owned to the victims and their families and regardless of what continues to be told within Russia’s borders we owe it to the families to give them their day in court. That is one of the things that will come out of it, the families of the victims will be given the opportunity for them to understand, for them to know precisely what has happened to their families over Ukrainian airspace that morning and ultimately as you say it will take some time but I have every confidence that ultimately justice will be prevailed for those innocent lives. They were doing what probably everyone in this room has done – had strapped themselves into an aero plane with every expectation with every expectation that they would arrive safely at the other end; they did not expect to be shot down. I thank each and every one of you for coming out on their anniversary and for your interest.
Question 3
Could I just ask one final question please? This particular missile does it actually need authorization like computer codes or something from very high up in the military or could it be fired by a rouge general who has had too much drinks or drugs or who is politically inspired? Technically that should be quite easy to find out.
Matt Anderson
My understanding is that it is the latter.
Oleh Pavlyshyn
But you definitely don’t do it without authorization from high authorities and definitely…
Question 3
Someone could make a terrible mistake though
Oleh Pavlyshyn
I have strong doubt that it was a terrible mistake – from the beginning from the fact it was brought to Ukraine it was not a mistake. They did it intentionally for which purpose we would also like to know. Again Russia is unlikely to participate in the proceedings in the Dutch court and what we do not want to happen, we do not want to have the situation like what happened in 1983 with South Korean inaudible shut down by the Russians and there was no punishment for this crime. This one should be punished we should avoid a situation where we cannot explain to our citizens why we cannot prosecute the people that betrayed us in this crime. This is very important. We should use all our efforts to convince the Russian society that people on the occupied territories who observed how it was happening to come forward and to participate. That is my answer to the previous question, my government is ready to provide all necessary security, whatever you ask just to bring those people before the Dutch court to witness and to explain before the trial.
Lord Risby
Let me end this by thanking everybody for coming and on behalf of everybody I would like to thank the Henry Jackson Society and the other three panelists. I think Matt what you said is just entirely correct that whatever the outcome of this process is at the heart of this is a shocking humanitarian tragedy and the most important thing we can do is just demonstrate that the people who so tragically lost their lives are not forgotten and the circumstances around their hideous deaths are not forgotten. To give some sort of reassurance to those who have been dealt such tragedy through the departure of loved ones and friends. Thank you all very much for coming, I certainly learned a great deal more about this situation, it is a timely moment 3 years on to be focusing on this and we will watch with interest what I know will be an extremely good and clear process that will take place in the Netherlands to come to some sort of resolution.