Monday, 2 November 2015

Eygtian aircraft crash .... am I a bit paranoid?

Sadly, I would not put it past Putin to have the KGB / MDV bomb its own plane.

The KGB and Russian State have a long tradition of masktroiska ...... killing their own for a political advantage while blaming others. Putin is also smarting after the proven use of a Russian BUK missile taking out the Malaysian Airline flight o
ver the Ukraine. Isis do not have the capability, that leaves the Egyptian or Israeli military as the only culprits, that or an on-board bomb. Neither the Egyptians nor Israelis gain from taking out a civilian airliner in this manner, no one but Putin gains politically from this attack.

Putin was KGB, is KGB, the operational process is the same, no matter the name the KGB  may now give themselves
(MDV); leopards do not change their very effective spots.

Putin now has an 'excuse' to put Spetsnaz on the ground in Syria, in support of Assad, if Putin has not already done so in response to US special forces going in on the ground. This has nothing to do with Egypt, Israel, Isis or anything else it is about confounding US policy in the Middle East. Putin needs to able blame Islamic extremists so he can clamp down on Muslim ethnic groups still within the Russian Federation who are seeking greater autonomy.

If you compare the debris fields from the Malaysian Airliner (AA Missile), Lockerbie (bomb) and this one. The debris pattern and spread being currently reported by the Egyptians has more in common with Lockerbie (wide dispersal) than Ukraine.

The Airbus air frame has a very good safety rating so unless the Russian Airline's maintenance program was really shoddy any main frame fractures or failures likely to cause such a rapid decompression and implosion are unlikely.

We return to reality: in that region only the Egyptian or Israeli military have the ability to launch a surface to air or air to air missile effective at the airliner's operational height of 10,000 metres plus.

Isis are only known to have hand held 'Stinger' style anti-aircaft missile systems which even the newest variant has only an 8,000 metre ceiling with a heat seeking 3 lb annular warhead compared to the Buk system (the SAM alleged to have brought down the Malaysian Flight) which has an 150lb annular warhead. The problem for the Stinger at 8,000 metres is it would be more likely to be decoyed by the sun rather than lock onto a modern, relatively cool, turobfan engine (when compared to military jets).

The other technical problem is this: modern surface to air missile systems as sophisticated as the BUK style of system need acquisition and targeting radars plus a highly technically trained crew. Basically, even for the top of the range, hand held SAM to hit this aircraft at over 10,000 metres up would be a pure fluke. To then cause it to break up in mid air is doubly so.

This leaves catastrophic failure of the hull or an on board bomb as the most likely cause.

So why are the Russians in such a hurry to deny it could have been an on board bomb?

Simply because Putin needs some sort of atrocity like this to get Russia behind him for another ground war against Muslim religious radicals. The Russian people and military remember Afghanistan with no fondness and have little appetite for another foray into the Muslim world, so an airliner downed by alleged Muslim radicals might just do the PR trick.

This may also explain why Putin and his cohorts need it to be an 'external' device as it gets round the question: 

"Why or how did Russian / Egyptian airport security, in an area already on a high state of alert due to Isis activity, allow a bomb on board?"

Sadly this old, ex-cold war warrior is highly cynical about the timing of this attack on a Russian civilian aircraft, it just feels all wrong and is even more reason for us in Scotland to take a step away from Syria before either Russia or the USA lights the touch paper on a full scale Middle East War which will inevitably flash back into Europe via an increasingly unstable Turkey to the Muslim Balkan States.

Then there is the Israeli nuclear weapons in the hands of a nutter like Netanyahu. In a situation like this in a full blown Middle East War, where the future of Israel would be under great threat, he would be under pressure to use nuclear weapons as a 'first strike' from his right wing, Zionist supporters in Israel and the USA. Iran would then respond in kind then where will be be?

An Assad regime change in Syria is not worth this growing potential risk nor is any further UK military involvement in a situation which is rapidly spiraling out of control as the USA and Russia keep upping the stakes.

There is a need for regime change, not in Syria but here in Scotland, as there is much more at stake than Brown's, "How now, non existent vow?" - I am thinking our young men and women's lives in yet another war about oil and other resources we neither need nor wish to die for.


  1. {IMO, o'course, the question is, Peter, "Am I paranoid enough?}

  2. I think Putin has a number of things in play in the Middle East.
    His desire to be taken seriously as a world power (personally) and further destabilising
    the region in the hope of raising oil prices in order to rescue his failing economy must be paramount.
    With his background and personality,I agree that your analyses is more than feasible.