It's been a year since the tragic event hit the news. The unaware public is growing inpatient expecting answers. Unfortunately there are no answers. Lack of evidence and obvious media manipulation created environment for conspiracies. Instead of reviewing those lets follow them without questioning the technicalities of the event. So rather than focusing on how it happened – lets try to explain how it should have been done in order to escape blame and suspicions aftermath.
Poland is a NATO member and a strike on the Polish PLF101-I-M flight might have resulted in an immediate NATO response. If there was a hypothetical plan of attack – it would have to include preparation of an evasive sub-plan ensuring the blame is put elsewhere. It is logical to assume the blame should be put on Poland as one of the only two parties directly involved in the event.
Putting blame on a country might involve several layers of informational warfare. Information should then be revealed gradually depending on the deceivers needs. The basic and most immediate action would involve blaming the pilots and their training. This however would never elude NATO with their sophisticated intelligence equipment and personnel. That is why there would have to be a need for further distraction and deeper manipulation. It is quite obvious the only way of preventing NATO from taking aggressive measures against the attacker is convincing NATO that the attacker is not attacking. So prior to taking any malicious actions, the attacking country must gather evidence to convince NATO that the other country has attacked itself instead.
How could Russians convince NATO that Poland is ultimately responsible for the crash?
Well, again, we should think like the attackers evaluating a plan. The attacking group would think NATO counterstrike is possible and they would have to estimate its probability. Depending on the outcome of that the attackers would have to prepare a plan to acquire evidence to be used in the event of the military retaliation after the crash. The evidence should be unquestionable and wouldn't be revealed if the strike was postponed or canceled. This evidence should be limited to electronic files easily distributable through electronic media on a short time notice and include clear materials, very easy to comprehend with absolutely no room for misinterpretation. It would also have to be easily verifiable. Video tape is the best method of convincing people of wrongdoing if you put a crime on it. The video would have to show someone tampering with the plane or maybe planting a bomb on the plane. It could also document meetings of people discussing such actions. It wouldn't even need to be a recording of actual conspiracy. It could just be a discussion of politicians, something not that innocent in light of the future events. It could be a voice recording or even an induced idea executed by locals. It is not hard to imagine. We need to remember who we are dealing with. It is the largest country in the world, country with 9 time zones, unquestionable military power, high tech industry and the largest intelligence in the world. They could have done that. Having materials like that could establish a long term control over persons directly involved or perceived as directly involved. This type of leverage would work even if the plane went down by accident. Most importantly it would give Russians a carte blanche in any event afterwords.
How do we verify if such evasive plan took place? Do we have a proof of the above?
Well, sort of, indirectly, it seems that we have. After a year of 'investigative actions' by Polish authorities it is quite clear there is no investigative progress at all. It was found the radar system gave wrong distance readings and that the MAK report contains incorrect data, misleading information and outright lies. Despite that - it seems - Polish authorities do not like the idea of finding the root causes of the event. President Komorowski said: "do not create an impression that [the crash] was caused by something other than landing in unsuitable conditions” [quote: “nie należy tworzyć wrażenia, że zadecydowało coś innego", "niż lądowanie w nieodpowiednich warunkach"http://www.radiozet.pl/Programy/7-Dzien-Tygodnia/Bronislaw-Komorowski].Gen. Petelicki, the founder of GROM , said he saw an SMS sent on the day of the crash to politicians of the ruling party that said quote: “The crash was caused by the pilots who went down bellow a 100m in fog. It has to be determined who led them to that.” The said SMS originated from the top of the government led by Prime Minister Tusk.
http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,48996,title,Gen-Petelicki-widzialem-SMS-z-10-kwietnia-2010-r-katastrofe-spowodowali-piloci,wid,13313904,komentarz.html?ticaid=1c253
Clearly Polish authorities are evading the public in order to hide the causes of the crash. What's holding them from releasing information? What are they so afraid of? There must be a reason for that behavior. Are they under pressure to deceive the public? Quite frankly only two scenarios emerge: One, which was described above and the other in which the role of the attacker was indeed Poland itself. There is simply no other possible explanation.The accident theory was ruled out by evidence long time ago - why would anyone cripple the investigation if that was only an accident? Why would anyone tamper with cell phones call logs and billings from the day? Why would anyone falsify the FDR recordings? Why falsify the flight data? Why falsify the IAS readings? Why tamper with radar distance reading? The list is so long and everything is well documented! How can the official story be trusted? Who knows, maybe there was a bomb on the plane? The impact site had no damage typical to a large plane hitting a soft wet surface – there was no crater and no large skid marks just parts scattered along a triangle shaped surface like the plane broke apart during flight!
Now how about the 'Polish option'? It seems quite unlikely after all. On the military level there was no internal motive at all. From a perspective of a civilian politician such action made no sense at all. The currently ruling party had a major advantage in polls and won elections with no effort. They would have taken over regardless of the crash.
In my view there can only be one explanation: Deliberate, sophisticated attack with prepared counter measures aimed at blaming Poland. After an obviously weak NATO’s response [just an offer of investigative help - offer later rejected by the authorities] the Russian counter measures weren't released and are benefiting Russia enforcing its policy in Warsaw.
It is scary to think a NATO country is bending under pressure from Russia. It is even more scary the US is submitting a quiet approval to a government being run remotely by Putin. There are things that need to be discussed over and over. Again and again. Because uncorrected mistakes are mistakes repeated. If we are even remotely close to a situation of leverage by Russia over Poland – we may face consequences of epic proportions.It is not only a NATO safety hazard. Remember Kohl and the unification of Germany? Why not a reversed scenario - Poland being torn away from the European Union and assimilated towards Ukraine under Russian's influence? How about an internal European Union meddling by European Presidency? Poland is scheduled for this function starting from July 2011. Who will be in charge of that team? We know Poland will support Turkish bid for accession to EU. What other things may have the support of the Polish team? And who will hold the remote?
Mr. Sikorski, Polish foreign minister, spoke in Parliament about Polish Presidency in EU and also about Polish Russian cooperation. His views did not differ from those expressed in Washington - [http://www.msz.gov.pl/files/docs/komunikaty/20110301USA/Center%20for%20American%20Progress3.1.2011.pdf]
Quotes:
“Progressives are idealistic enough to believe change is possible, and practical
enough to make it happen. (...) I too believe that change is possible. And I hope that I am practical enough to make it happen.(...) We unblocked Russian negotiationswith the OECD. (...)We have set up a high-level Committee for Polish-Russian Cooperation Strategy. Newbilateral groups for Regions and Civil Society Dialogue and people-to-people links. (...)we have set up an appropriately named Joint Polish-Russian Group onDifficult Issues. (...)Poland is urging other EU members to extend local cross-border traffic tothe entire Kaliningrad region, and to make life easier for Russians wanting to travel to Europe. Together with my Russian colleague, Sergei Lavrov, we are jointly lobbying Brussels on this matter. (...)There are still controversies over Smolensk catastrophe. But on the whole, I have tosay that Russia has accepted Poland’s extended hand. (...)NATO and Russia can reach consensus on missile defence (…) I tell you without qualification: Poland wants to develop the current positiveatmosphere in our bilateral relations to help to achieve a wider redefinition of European and global security. We believe that it is right to offer the integration prospects to all Europeans including Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Moldavians, Georgians and other friends. We also support EU’s greater engagement with Russia, paralleling the continued development of the Eastern Partnership and its mission in the region. We don’t perceive the cooperation with Russia and the EU’s European neighbours as a zero-sum game. (...)
Progressives are idealistic enough to believe change is possible, and practicalenough to make it happen. That’s a fine motto for Poland and Russia to live up to in the years ahead. (…).”
There is nothing worse than an idealistic giver in a position of power. Maybe we are all friends after all. Maybe we are creating progress hand in hand with Mr.Sergei Lavrov – but I have a gut feeling it is something more than that. All those developments are designed for the Russian benefit. We can't misjudge this. US can not make any mistakes here. The politics of influence can end up in Russia's dependent Europe with only some US military bases. Lets say it out loud: it just takes time and could lead to another conflict. This time however the collateral damage would exceed anyone’s ability to cover.
