Key question MH17 report fails to answer

The most important question not addressed by the Dutch-led inquiry into the downing of that Malaysian airliner in Ukraine on July 17 2014 was the one I raised three days later under the heading “Could President Obama have prevented the MH17 disaster?”

It was already clear that the airliner had been shot down by a Russian-made Buk missile, which evidence suggested had been captured by Russian separatists on June 29 from a weapons store inherited by Ukraine from the old Soviet Union. This had been the only missile with sufficient range to shoot down a Ukrainian Antonov 26 transport aircraft on July 13, three days earlier.

Both Kiev and US intelligence, which had been keeping a close eye on the area through satellites and intercepts, were well aware of this. But in an inflammatory speech 24 hours after the MH17 disaster, President Barack Obama – despite mentioning the Antonov – attempted to pin the blame wholly on President Vladimir Putin.

This is the same line now being taken by the new report, which claims, on remarkably flimsy evidence, that the missile launcher had been seen coming over the border from Russia and then returning there.

But whichever way the missile came to be there, the question I asked in 2014 is still equally valid. Since Washington knew that Buk missiles were on the loose in the area, why were steps not taken instantly to halt the 55 flights a day then made by international airlines along the very flight path used by MH17?

The new report makes no effort to explore this highly relevant if very embarrassing question.