The downing of Malaysian Airlines MH17 and death of all 295 passengers on board is a heartbreaking tragedy. It ranks as the fourth deadliest single-plane disaster in aviation history, and the deadliest from a manmade cause. While the facts of the crash will take many days to determine, the political ramifications will come almost immediately. As Russia, pro-Russian Ukrainian separatists, and the Ukrainian government each cast blame from one to the other, it is important to understand how this terrible event might have happened.
First, the known facts: MH17 was most likely struck by a surface-to-air missile system, likely an SA-17 Buk 2, or similar, while cruising at 33,000 feet roughly twenty miles from Russian airspace. This is a portable weapons system capable of coming into firing position in five minutes. It has a range of roughly twenty miles and can hit a target at a maximum altitude of 72,000 feet. The Buk 2 has a combined optical and thermal range-finder, and its missiles are detonated by radar proximity. Civilian airliners do not have advanced warning systems to indicate if they are being targeted; MH17’s passengers likely would have had no idea.
All three regional actors—Russia, pro-Russian rebels of the “Donetsk People’s Republic,” and the Ukrainian government—had access or potential access to this weapons platform. Accordingly, there are two broad, potential explanations for this disaster:
- Purposeful targeting. There are a number of mechanisms in place—including a constantly broadcast four-digit transponder code—to clearly distinguish civilian aircraft. As Navy Pilot Lt. James Swiggart explained to the Washington Post, skilled radar operators can tell the difference between these two signatures. This means, for an actor with a more sophisticated air defense network, such a targeting decision would be purposeful. But what would be the gain from such an attack? International attention will surely refocus on the situation in eastern Ukraine—but to whose benefit?
- Misidentification and military incompetence. An unverified report suggests that Ukrainian separatists briefly bragged about downing an A-26 military plane (they previously shot one down on June 14). Meanwhile, AP journalists claim to have seen a Buk missile launcher within rebel-controlled territory earlier in the day. Moreover, if Ukrainian separatists do possess this platform, they lack the same verification network, link with air traffic controllers, and advanced radar instruction present in the Russian and Ukrainian systems. That said, the Russian and Ukrainian militaries are not so competent as to be immune from potential misfires; the conflict in eastern Ukraine has seen the employment of many sophisticated weapons without a lot of sophisticated soldiering.
The bottom line is that much of this confusion arises from the strange middle ground between war and peace that still presides in eastern Ukraine. Risk-averse airliners do not usually chart courses over international warzones—but is the conflict international (i.e. between Russia and Ukraine)? And is it really a war at all?
An immediate conclusion of this disaster should be the pressing need to dial down tensions in the region. The conflict is clearly escalating and becoming more dangerous; the risk of civilian casualties and spillover will only increase. There must be serious interesting shown by Western Europe to resolve the crisis—since it is literally happening in NATO nations’ backyards, just three to four hours away from European capitals who to date have dragged their feet in instituting biting sanctions against Vladimir Putin’s Russia. This should change.
As international investigators get to work, the question of blame will hopefully soon be answered. Resolving the deeper issues this tragedy raises, however, will take much longer.