Selected Remarks and Responses

AI: Conclusion: Our comprehensive fact-check finds that Ron Unz’s article contains a mixture of accurate observations, selective reporting, and speculative leaps that are not supported by the full body of evidence. While the piece correctly notes certain historical and media facts – such as the MH17 death toll, the Western media’s immediate blaming of pro-Russian rebels, and the post-MH17 shift in European sanctions policy – it seriously misrepresents the cause of the MH17 disaster by suggesting a Ukrainian false-flag scenario that has been debunked by exhaustive investigations. Key claims used to cast doubt on rebel culpability (like the “machine-gun-like” holes or radar signals of a jet) are either misinterpreted or outright false. The article also elevates conjecture (e.g. the Maidan sniper theory and private anecdotes of unnamed academics) to a level far beyond what the evidence warrants.

Crucially, Unz omits the conclusive findings of the official MH17 inquiry, which by 2016 demonstrated that a Russian-made Buk missile fired from separatist-controlled territory was responsible. None of the “alternate accounts” presented in the article withstand scrutiny or have been validated by neutral experts. The strong insinuation that the Kiev government might have downed MH17 runs contrary to the international criminal investigation and court verdict, which placed responsibility on Russian-backed separatists and held Russia accountable for providing the weapon. Unz’s argument relies on the absence of publicly released U.S. intelligence and on coincidental advantages gained by Ukraine – neither of which constitutes proof of wrongdoing by Ukraine…

Overall, the article’s reliability is low regarding the central question of “Who shot down MH17.” It advances a narrative that is not supported by the available evidence and in fact contradicts the established record. Readers of Unz’s article would come away with a dramatically different understanding than what factual consensus shows. While it correctly surfaces some under-reported tidbits (like the Paet–Ashton call), it strings them together into a conspiratorial thesis that does not hold up under scrutiny…

The MH17 case is one where an avalanche of rigorous investigative work has been done – any article on the topic must be measured against those findings. In this instance, Ron Unz’s article fails that test, and any publication aiming for credibility should correct the factual inaccuracies and avoid the source misrepresentations identified above.

Unz: While I haven’t investigated this issue in depth, I stand by my extreme suspicion of the Western MSM narrative and strong doubts about its reliability on numerous other matters related to Russia and the conflict with Ukraine.

Preface

• American Pravda: Who Shot Down Flight MH17 in Ukraine?
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • August 14, 2014 • 1,600 Words

Understood. I will conduct a thorough fact-check of the article titled “American Pravda: Who Shot Down Flight MH17 in Ukraine?” from The Unz Review. This will include:

• Identifying and analyzing all factual claims related to historical and current events.
• Verifying the accuracy of each cited source, ensuring it is used ethically and not taken out of context.
• Cross-referencing claims with additional reputable sources.
• Evaluating the credibility of all cited works.

I’ll present the findings in a structured report with detailed explanations and source analysis. I’ll notify you once the full report is ready.

Introduction

Ron Unz’s August 14, 2014 article, titled “American Pravda: Who Shot Down Flight MH17 in Ukraine?”, explores the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 and alleges that Western media have misrepresented the incident. The piece suggests an alternative narrative implicating the American-backed Ukrainian government in the tragedy and in earlier violence during Ukraine’s Maidan protests. Unz asserts that nearly 300 people were killed when MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine in July 2014, and he accuses the mainstream media of uncritically blaming pro-Russian separatists (and by extension Vladimir Putin) while ignoring evidence that might point to Kyiv’s forces. The article raises several factual claims – from the presence of Ukrainian military jets near MH17 to alleged “machine-gun-like” holes in the wreckage – to cast doubt on the official account. It also draws historical parallels (suggesting past media cover-ups of espionage in the 1930s-40s) and cites various sources (an intercepted phone call, alternative media reports, and a prominent Dutch journalist’s analysis) to bolster its case. This report will scrutinize each major factual assertion in Unz’s article, verify them against credible sources, and evaluate whether the cited evidence is represented accurately or out of context. In doing so, we aim to assess the overall reliability of the article and identify any misrepresentations of source material.

Methodology

Our fact-checking process involved several steps:

• Thorough Reading and Claim Identification: We carefully reviewed the entire article, extracting each distinct factual assertion or implication. Key claims were noted, especially those about the MH17 crash details, the culpability for the shoot-down, related events like the Maidan sniper killings, and historical analogies. We also recorded what sources (if any) the article cited for each claim.
• Source Verification: For every claim tied to a cited source, we located the original source (e.g. news articles, official reports, or transcripts) to verify what it actually states. This included checking The Guardian report of a leaked call about Maidan snipers, an OSCE monitor’s remarks on MH17 wreckage damage, and references to media coverage (such as The Economist cover story on Putin). We ensured each source is reputable or an official record and confirmed that it is accessible and authentic. In cases where the article referenced unspecified “radar evidence” or anecdotal conversations, we sought out any available corroborating source (e.g. Russian Ministry of Defense briefings, statements by investigators, etc.).
• Cross-Referencing with Additional Sources: Beyond the sources cited by Unz, we consulted a range of authoritative sources to verify the facts. These included the official investigation findings (Dutch Safety Board and Joint Investigation Team reports on MH17), credible media reports from 2014 (e.g. The Guardian, TIME, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty), and later analyses (such as Bellingcat’s open-source investigation). We also checked historical records for context (e.g. casualty figures from the 2014 Kiev protests, and consensus among historians regarding Soviet espionage in the US government). Cross-verifying claims across multiple sources allowed us to see if there is a broad consensus or if the claim remains disputed.
• Assessment of Claims: For each factual claim, we determined whether it is accurate, partially accurate, misleading, or inaccurate based on the evidence. We documented the verification outcome and compiled quotations or data from sources to explain the reasoning. Each claim’s analysis includes citations to the verified sources (formatted as【source†lines】) so that readers can see the supporting evidence.
• Evaluation of Source Representation: We paid special attention to how Unz used his sources. We checked if the article’s portrayal of a source’s information is contextually accurate or if it twists the meaning. For instance, when Unz cites an OSCE monitor’s description of holes in the MH17 debris, we examined whether the original speaker actually concluded those were bullet holes. Similarly, we evaluated whether the article omits key context (such as what official investigations or majority expert opinions have determined) while selectively highlighting contrarian evidence. Any instances of citations being taken out of context or misused are noted in the analysis.
• Documentation: The findings are organized claim-by-claim in the next section, each with the original claim, the cited or relevant source(s), our verification outcome, and an explanation with evidence. We then provide an overall evaluation of how the article represents its sources in aggregate, followed by a conclusion summing up the article’s accuracy and reliability, including any corrections or caveats that emerge from our fact-check.

By following these steps, we ensured a comprehensive and unbiased examination of the article’s content against the factual record.

Findings (Claim-by-Claim Analysis)

Below we detail each significant factual claim from Ron Unz’s article, along with our assessment and evidence:

1. Claim: Nearly 300 passengers were killed when Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down over Eastern Ukraine in July 2014.
   Source: Unz mentions “the death of almost 300 passengers aboard Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, shot down last month over Eastern Ukraine,” referring to the July 17, 2014 incident.
   Verification: Accurate. MH17 was indeed a scheduled flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur that was shot down on July 17, 2014 over rebel-controlled eastern Ukraine, killing everyone on board. According to the official Dutch investigation, all 298 people (283 passengers and 15 crew) were killed. Describing it as “almost 300” is a fair approximation. This basic fact is well-established and not in dispute.
2. Claim: Western mainstream media unanimously blamed pro-Russian separatists (and by extension Vladimir Putin) for shooting down MH17, portraying Putin as having “blood on his hands.”
   Source: The article asserts that American and Western media “almost unanimously placed the blame on anti-government rebels backed by Russia,” insinuating Putin’s culpability. As evidence, Unz notes that London’s Economist ran covers about the threat of Putin, including one titled “A Web of Lies.”
   Verification: Mostly Accurate. In the immediate aftermath of MH17’s downing, Western governments and media did largely blame the pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, with heavy suggestion of Russian involvement. Headlines and magazine covers at the time were indeed damning toward Putin. For example, numerous international publications depicted Putin as directly or morally responsible – The Week (US edition) ran a cover showing Putin with “blood on his hands” next to a missile launcher, and Der Spiegel titled its cover “Stop Putin Now!” with images of victims. The Economist’s July 26, 2014 issue likewise portrayed Putin entangled in “a web of lies” regarding the incident rferl.org. Western officials like the UK Foreign Secretary stated that “all the evidence points” to a missile fired by Russian-backed separatists, and media reports echoed those assessments. While “unanimously” may be slightly hyperbolic (there were a few alternative media voices and a degree of caution in early reports), it is true that the predominant narrative in mainstream outlets pinned the blame on the separatists and, implicitly, on Putin’s support for them rferl.org. Unz’s characterization of the media coverage (e.g. Putin depicted as a murderous liar) is supported by these contemporary examples. Thus, this claim is accurate in substance – Western media did overwhelmingly hold the separatists/Russia responsible in their coverage.
3. Claim: In mid-2014, “neoconized” Republicans in the U.S. Congress were proposing legislation to make Ukraine an American military ally and to deploy American forces there, raising the prospect of a direct military clash with Russia.
   Source: This is mentioned in passing by Unz (“neoconized Republicans in Congress proposing legislation to incorporate Ukraine as an American military ally and deploy American forces there”). The article does not cite a specific bill by name.
   Verification: Partially Accurate. In 2014, U.S. legislators – especially Republican hawks – did introduce measures to strengthen military support for Ukraine and formalize ties, though direct deployment of U.S. combat forces on Ukrainian soil was not an official policy. For instance, in April 2014, a bipartisan Senate bill (S.2277, Russian Aggression Prevention Act) called for designating Ukraine as a major non-NATO ally of the U.S. and authorized providing military assistance. Later in December 2014, Congress passed the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which indeed authorized military aid and possible sanctions, and offered Ukraine a pathway to allied status (major non-NATO ally). These legislative moves stopped short of mandating U.S. troops be stationed in Ukraine for combat – the focus was on arming Ukraine and enhancing its status to receive U.S. support. There is no public record of Congress approving any plan in 2014 to deploy American combat forces to Ukraine, given the obvious risk of war with Russia. However, some U.S. units were sent later for training exercises (e.g. small contingents for joint exercises in western Ukraine, which began in September 2014), and lawmakers did urge robust military deterrence. Unz’s claim conflates alliance status and assistance with actual troop deployment. It is accurate that congressional Republicans (and some Democrats) pushed to formally treat Ukraine as a U.S. ally and significantly boost military aid. It is misleading to imply that there was consensus to deploy U.S. forces into Ukraine’s war zone – that step was not taken, apart from limited advisors/trainers. We rate this claim partially accurate: the legislative proposals for an alliance and military aid were real, but implying imminent American troop deployment overstates the situation.
4. Claim: The “official American story” is that MH17 was downed by rebels using a Russian-made BUK anti-aircraft missile system – but Ukraine’s military also has a large inventory of BUK missiles, whereas it’s unclear if the rebels possessed even a single operational BUK or the expertise to use it.
   Source: Unz writes that “according to the official American story, MH17 was downed by rebels armed with a BUK… the pro-American Ukraine government possesses a large inventory of exactly those weapons, while it is far from clear that the rebels have a single unit or the expertise to operate such devices.” This appears to be Unz’s commentary; no specific external source is cited here in the article.
   Verification: Misleading with Missing Context. It is true that Ukraine’s Armed Forces have (and had in 2014) a large inventory of BUK surface-to-air missile systems – a legacy of Soviet weaponry. The Buk (NATO reporting name SA-11/SA-17) was in both Russian and Ukrainian arsenals. However, evidence has since shown that the separatists did possess and operate a Buk system on the day of the shoot-down. At the time Unz wrote this (one month after the crash), whether the rebels had a Buk was a matter of investigation and dispute. The Ukrainian government alleged the rebels either received a Buk launcher from Russia or captured one from a Ukrainian base. Indeed, German intelligence (BND) later assessed that separatists obtained at least one Buk unit from a Ukrainian military base and fired the missile (though the Dutch investigation concluded the launcher came directly from Russia). Subsequent exhaustive investigations – including the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT) – found that the Buk missile that downed MH17 was brought in from Russia (53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade) and fired from separatist-controlled territory, after which it was quickly sent back to Russia. This confirms the rebels did have a Buk launcher and the necessary personnel (likely Russian servicemen) to operate it, contrary to Unz’s insinuation that they lacked such capability. Furthermore, on 17 July 2014, separatist social media actually boasted of shooting down an aircraft (they thought it was a Ukrainian military plane) with a Buk before realizing it was a civilian airliner, though these posts were swiftly deleted – an incident noted by U.S. intelligence.Unz’s framing – “Ukraine also had Buks, so they could have done it, and we don’t even know if rebels had one” – omits the mounting evidence (even in 2014) pointing to rebel responsibility. While it is factually correct that Ukraine’s army possessed many Buk systems (and on paper, the rebels initially had none of their own), it’s incomplete and misleading because by August 2014 strong indications existed that the rebels had acquired a Buk and used it. The official investigations later solidified that the “official story” was essentially correct: the jet was shot down by a Buk fired by Russian-backed separatist forces. In short, Ukraine’s possession of Buks is not exculpatory, and Unz’s suggestion that the separatists might not have had any Buk is refuted by evidence. We rate this claim as misleading without the broader context.
5. Claim: There is radar evidence that Ukrainian fighter planes were in the immediate vicinity of MH17 just before it was shot down.
   Source: The article states “there apparently exists radar evidence” showing Ukrainian fighters near MH17 before the shoot-down. Unz does not cite a specific source, but this claim echoes the Russian Defense Ministry’s assertions shortly after the crash. On July 21, 2014 (a few days after the incident), Russian officials held a press briefing where they presented radar data and claimed a Ukrainian Air Force Su-25 ground-attack jet was detected climbing toward MH17 within a few kilometers before the crash. This was widely reported by Russian media at the time.
   Verification: Inaccurate. No trustworthy evidence has confirmed the presence of a Ukrainian military jet near MH17. The Russian radar claim was investigated and found likely false or misinterpreted. Independent radar experts (consulted by Dutch news outlet NOS) analyzed the Russian-released radar images and concluded, “no aircraft was in the vicinity of MH17” and that the supposed secondary radar blip was most probably a piece of the disintegrating airliner or debris, not another plane. The Dutch Safety Board, in its official report, also found no indication of any second aircraft in proximity to MH17 on radar. Moreover, the type of aircraft Russia suggested (Su-25) has a service ceiling barely equal to MH17’s altitude and would have struggled to intercept a Boeing 777 at 33,000 feet; Western analysts were highly skeptical of this scenario.It’s worth noting that even Russia’s narrative on this point shifted over time – later, Russian officials dropped the fighter-jet theory and instead floated other explanations (like claiming a Ukrainian Buk battery shot the airliner). The “radar evidence” Unz refers to came solely from the Russian Defense Ministry’s presentation, which is not corroborated by any neutral or investigative body. In fact, by 2016 the Russian government admitted its primary radar saw no other aircraft near MH17, and a Russian radar manufacturer provided data to the Dutch investigators which showed only MH17 and no military jets in the area (this data was one of Russia’s defenses in the later trial). Therefore, the claim that radar evidence shows Ukrainian fighters nearby is unfounded. The consensus of expert analysis is that no Ukrainian warplane was near MH17 at the time. Unz’s assertion here relies on a debunked Russian allegation, rendering the claim inaccurate.
6. Claim: Investigators on the ground reported that parts of the MH17 fuselage had “strong evidence” of heavy machine-gun fire, suggesting the plane was hit by aircraft cannon bullets (as used in air-to-air combat).
   Source: Unz refers to “firsthand reports from investigators on the ground” that some wreckage showed signs of 30mm heavy machine-gun/cannon fire. This is an allusion to remarks made by Michael Bociurkiw, a spokesperson for the OSCE’s special monitoring mission, who was among the first international observers at the crash site. In a July 29, 2014 interview with Canada’s CBC News, Bociurkiw described seeing pieces of the cockpit section that were “punctured” with what he said looked “almost like machine-gun holes.” The article cites this indirectly (with no name, but clearly referencing that report).Investigators at the MH17 crash site inspect a fragment of the airliner, which shows numerous small puncture holes in the wreckage. Claim (Machine-Gun Fire Evidence): Portions of the MH17 debris were riddled with holes resembling those from heavy machine-gun bullets, fueling speculation of an air-to-air attack.Verification: Misleading/Not Supported by Forensic Evidence. It is true that Bociurkiw noted the appearance of “almost machine-gun–like holes” in a piece of the wreckage. However, it must be emphasized that Bociurkiw is not a crash investigator or munitions expert; he was an OSCE monitor reporting initial observations. He later clarified his comments, explicitly saying he was not concluding the plane was hit by machine-gun fire. In an interview with The Moscow Times, Bociurkiw explained he was “just trying to describe what we saw – unique holes,” and “as we are not experts we cannot draw any conclusions nor say how they were caused.”. In other words, the OSCE team simply observed small round holes, but they did not identify them as cannon fire; this interpretation was seized upon by conspiracy theorists but was not the judgment of professional investigators.The actual forensic investigations (by the Dutch Safety Board and others) later determined that the damage to the plane was caused by a bursting 9N314M warhead from a Buk missile, which sprays a distinctive shrapnel pattern. Indeed, the DSB recovered distinctive “bow-tie” and cubic metal fragments from the cockpit and bodies, matching the Buk’s warhead, and identified perforation patterns consistent with high-velocity shrapnel, not gunfire. The small holes that looked like bullet holes were in fact shrapnel punctures. Even at the time, ballistics experts pointed out that a 30mm cannon (like on a Su-25) would leave different damage than seen – cannon shells would tear up the structure in ways not observed, whereas high-velocity missile shrapnel can leave relatively clean round perforations.

   Unz’s article portrays Bociurkiw’s comment as if “investigators” found solid evidence of machine-gun/cannon fire, which overstates and misrepresents the situation. The actual investigator teams (from the Netherlands, Malaysia, etc.) never reported machine-gun damage; they concluded a surface-to-air missile downed the jet. Bociurkiw’s off-hand description was speculative and was later walked back by himself. By presenting it as “strong evidence” of an aircraft attack, the article is misleading readers. In summary, while the observation of small holes was real, the interpretation that they prove machine-gun/cannon fire is inaccurate. This claim lacks support from any official investigation and omits Bociurkiw’s own clarification that he did not mean to imply MH17 was brought down by a fighter’s guns.

7. Claim: The U.S. government “repeatedly refused to release” the evidence supporting its narrative of rebel culpability, whereas the Russian government “released copious evidence” backing the opposite perspective (i.e. implicating Ukraine).
   Source: This is Unz’s commentary on the transparency of evidence. He suggests that despite U.S. officials accusing the separatists, they did not publicly share their intelligence proof, while Russia publicly presented various data (radar tracks, satellite images, etc.) supporting an alternate theory.
   Verification: Partially Accurate (the facts) but Lacking Context. In the weeks after the crash, the U.S. government did make strong statements pinning blame on pro-Russian forces, citing intelligence – but it is true that they did not immediately declassify or release all underlying evidence (such as high-resolution satellite imagery of the launch). American officials provided some details in press briefings: on July 22, U.S. intelligence released a four-page report with annotated satellite photos and maps, stating a Buk missile launched from rebel-held territory near Snizhne brought down MH17. They also pointed to social media posts and signals intelligence intercepts supporting that conclusion. However, much of the U.S. evidence (e.g. infrared satellite data or radar tracks of the missile) remained classified. This led to calls – including by a group of former U.S. intelligence officials (VIPS) – for the government to show more proof. In a memo to President Obama, these veteran analysts criticized the administration for not presenting “any satellite imagery” or a comprehensive intel assessment even 12 days after the shoot-down wsws.org wsws.org. They warned that relying on “fuzzy” social media snippets without releasing hard evidence was eroding credibility wsws.org. It’s clear that the U.S. had highly classified data (e.g. from spy satellites) but was unwilling to fully publicize it, likely to protect sources and methods. Even years later during the Dutch trial, the U.S. only provided a summary statement of its satellite findings to the court rather than raw data, citing national security. So Unz’s point about U.S. “refusing to release evidence” has some validity: the U.S. did hold back certain detailed intelligence (which understandably fueled skepticism in some quarters).On the other hand, Russia did flood the public sphere with “evidence” and theories – but the quality and honesty of that evidence were highly questionable. For example, the Russian Defense Ministry’s touted satellite photos (allegedly showing a Ukrainian Buk battery in rebel territory) were later found to be manipulated or from the wrong dates, according to independent investigators. Russia’s government media also floated a fabricated scenario involving a Ukrainian jet, even airing a clearly fake “satellite image” purporting to show a fighter firing on MH17 (which was quickly debunked by experts as fraudulent). The “copious evidence” from Russia included the radar claim (addressed above, which experts dismissed) and contradictory narratives (first claiming rebels shot down a Ukrainian military transport, then claiming Ukraine shot MH17 to frame rebels). In short, Russia released a lot of information publicly, but much of it was disinformation or unverifiable at best. Meanwhile, the strongest evidence (e.g. phone intercepts of separatists, which Ukraine released and U.S. verified, and the Buk’s serial number trail) pointed toward the rebels and Russia’s involvement, not toward Ukraine – but those supporting data were either released by Ukraine or later uncovered by investigative journalists, rather than by the U.S. directly.To summarize, Unz’s claim has elements of truth but omits critical nuance. Yes, the U.S. did not make a full public disclosure of its intelligence (much to the frustration of some, who wanted more transparency) wsws.org. And yes, Russia very actively presented what it claimed was evidence to counter the Western narrative (radar data, etc.). However, much of Russia’s so-called evidence has been discredited, whereas the evidence withheld by the U.S. was eventually shared with investigators behind closed doors and aligned with the final findings. Thus, portraying the situation as America hiding “truth” and Russia providing “proof” is misleading. A more accurate statement is: The U.S. was cautious in declassifying intelligence publicly, whereas Russia publicly aired multiple (later debunked) claims to sow doubt wsws.org. We rate this claim as partially accurate (regarding the behavior of each government in sharing information) but incomplete. The implication that the Russian side’s evidence was valid or that the U.S. lacked evidence is not supported by the full record.
8. Claim: The timing of MH17’s shoot-down was a fortuitous windfall for the embattled Kiev (Ukrainian) government and its American backers, because European governments had been reluctant to impose harsh anti-Russian sanctions – and this tragedy immediately bolstered the case for sanctions. In other words, cui bono? (who benefits) – suggesting Ukraine had a strategic motive if it were a false-flag.
   Source: Unz notes that just before the MH17 incident, Germany and other major EU states had balked at tougher sanctions on Russia, but the airliner tragedy changed the political mood. The article implies that the sudden shift in Europe’s stance benefited Kiev and Washington’s agenda, raising suspicions about motive.
   Verification: Accurate in describing the sanction dynamics, but speculative in implying a plot. It is historically true that prior to the MH17 disaster, several EU countries (notably Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands) were hesitant to escalate sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine crisis. Europe was divided on imposing “Tier 3” sectoral sanctions, largely due to economic ties with Russia and uncertainty among some leaders. Unz correctly observes that after the shoot-down of MH17 (which killed 298 people, mostly Europeans), there was a dramatic hardening of European attitudes. The outrage acted as a catalyst for unity on sanctions. For example, Britain’s Prime Minister and others convened emergency talks urging that “the outrage over MH17 means they’ll finally have to take meaningful action against Vladimir Putin’s regime”. Within days, the EU did move forward with broad sanctions against Russia’s finance, defense, and energy sectors (announced in late July 2014). Reports at the time noted that “since the downing of the Malaysian airliner with the loss of 298 people, [leaders] have emerged calling for a tougher EU approach … countries that had been most wary of confronting Putin are now on board”. Even Germany’s government, under public pressure after the death of German citizens and many Dutch (their close trading partners), shifted to support stricter measures. The Netherlands, which lost 196 citizens, went from one of the most Russia-friendly EU members to a leading voice for accountability. In short, the tragedy did unite Europe to impose the very sanctions that the White House had been advocating theguardian.com.From a factual standpoint, Unz is correct about who benefited politically: the Ukrainian government (and its Western supporters) gained increased international backing and a more hawkish EU stance against Russia as a result of MH17, whereas Russia was politically hurt, becoming more of a pariah in Europe. “Cui bono” in this context is a fair question: the incident did conveniently strengthen the West’s hand. However, implying this amounts to evidence of a false-flag operation (i.e. that Ukraine shot down the airliner intentionally to blame Russia) is purely speculative and is not supported by any concrete evidence. It’s a post-hoc suspicion: just because Kiev benefited from the outcome does not mean they caused the event. No credible investigation or intelligence has ever found Ukrainian forces culpable for MH17; on the contrary, intercepted communications, forensic analysis, and court verdicts have all pointed to pro-Russian separatists and Russian involvement. Thus, while the political analysis is accurate – MH17’s downing galvanized European sanctions as if on cue – the insinuation of a Ukrainian “ghastly false-flag operation” has no factual basis. We acknowledge the accuracy of the timeline and sanctions outcome, but emphasize that correlation is not causation.
9. Claim: A previous event in Ukraine – the deadly sniper fire during the February 2014 Maidan protests in Kiev – was likely a similar false-flag orchestrated by pro-Western forces. An intercepted phone call between an Estonian diplomat and the EU’s foreign affairs chief revealed that the bullets that killed both police and protesters in Maidan came from the same guns, suggesting the massacre was perpetrated by provocateurs (not the Yanukovych government), to spark regime change.
   Source: Unz references “an intercepted telephone call” (cited via The Guardian) between Urmas Paet (the Estonian Foreign Minister) and Catherine Ashton (EU foreign policy head). In that leaked call, Paet relays a report that the same snipers might have shot both protesters and police. Unz states that the call “later confirmed to be genuine” revealed bullets in bodies from both sides that “apparently came from the same guns.” He concludes that the most plausible explanation is hired sharpshooters used by those who wanted to topple the government – which is indeed the essence of the conspiracy theory about the Maidan massacre.
   Verification: Partially Accurate (regarding the call’s content and authenticity) but unproven hypothesis. The February 2014 Maidan sniper killings remain a contentious and unresolved episode. What’s factual: on Feb 20, 2014, unknown snipers in Kiev shot dead dozens of people. Around 48 protesters and 3 police officers were killed on that single day, with scores more wounded, contributing to the chaos that led to President Yanukovych’s ouster. The leaked call between FM Paet and Baroness Ashton did happen and was authenticated by Estonia’s Foreign Ministry. In that conversation, Paet says that a doctor (Olga Bohomolets) who treated victims told him the ballistic evidence suggested the same type of bullets killed both policemen and demonstrators. Paet says, “all the evidence shows… the people were killed by snipers from both sides, among police and protesters, and it was the same snipers killing both… this is really disturbing that the new coalition doesn’t want to investigate”. Ashton replies, “If true, that’s interesting” and agrees an investigation is needed. This call indeed fueled the theory that the anti-Yanukovych opposition (or aligned provocateurs) staged a massacre to blame the government and trigger international outrage – essentially a false-flag. Unz accurately recounts the gist of the call: that bullets were alleged to be of the same origin, hinting one side orchestrated shootings of both protesters and police to sow chaos. The call is genuine and part of the public record.However, it’s important to clarify that this was one report, not a confirmed forensic finding. The doctor in question, Dr. Bohomolets, later said she never did ballistic comparisons herself and that her input was misinterpreted – she only observed similar wounds, not proof of identical bullets (which would require forensic matching). As of today, the Maidan shootings have not been fully solved. Competing theories exist (some evidence suggests some snipers fired from buildings controlled by the protest side, while the Ukrainian investigation blamed the Berkut police special forces). There is no definitive conclusion accepted by all. Unz’s claim that the snipers were “professionals brought in to cause the bloodshed necessary to overthrow the government” is speculative, although not implausible. It aligns with one interpretation of events and is supported by the leaked call’s suggestion and the immediate coup outcome. But it remains unproven.In summary: Unz’s recounting of the Paet–Ashton call is accurate – that high-level conversation did note the possibility of provocateur snipers and expressed concern the new authorities weren’t investigating. The call’s existence does lend credence to the theory that the opposition may have had a hand in the sniper violence (since even an EU diplomat took the allegation seriously). Yet, it is not confirmed that “the same guns” killed both sides; we only know one interlocutor passed on that claim. The identity of the Maidan snipers has never been officially determined. So while the fact of the call and its content is verified, the claim that “it was exactly a false-flag” is an allegation rather than an established fact. We classify this claim as partially accurate: the key evidence cited (the leaked call) is real, but the conclusion drawn (snipers were hired by the new regime’s backers) remains a conspiracy theory not decisively proven or accepted by independent investigators.
10. Claim: Ron Unz’s personal assessment – “I think there’s a high likelihood that forces aligned with the current pro-Western regime were responsible for the Maidan massacre, and a better than fifty-fifty chance they more recently shot down MH17” – acknowledges uncertainty but posits that Kyiv’s side probably perpetrated both events (the sniper killings and MH17) as false-flag operations.
    Source: This is a direct quote of Unz’s own conclusions in the article. It’s not information from another source but rather his synthesis of the suspicions raised. Our task is to fact-check this assertion against known evidence.
    Verification: Largely Inaccurate (based on available evidence). Unz is careful to couch these statements as his opinion (“I think…”, “better than fifty-fifty chance… I really can’t be sure”). As an opinion, one might say it’s not a factual claim to prove or disprove; however, it’s grounded in factual implications that we can evaluate. Essentially, Unz is suggesting: (a) The Maidan Feb 2014 bloodbath was likely caused by the anti-Yanukovych faction (or its covert allies) – a claim we addressed above as unproven but conceivable; and (b) The MH17 shoot-down in July 2014 was likely carried out by the Ukrainian government’s forces (accidentally or deliberately) rather than by the rebels – a claim that is contradicted by the robust body of investigative findings. We focus on (b) here, since MH17 is the central topic. All credible investigations into MH17’s downing have found no involvement by Ukrainian government jets or missiles. To the contrary, the evidence – debris analysis, missile parts, intercepted communications, witness testimony, and even judicial verdicts – points squarely to a Russian-supplied Buk fired from separatist territory. In 2018, the JIT formally concluded the missile came from Russia’s 53rd Brigade. In November 2022, a Dutch court found three men (two Donbas separatist leaders and one Russian officer) guilty in absentia of murder, affirming that MH17 was shot down by a Buk missile launched by Russian-controlled forces. No evidence in these exhaustive investigations implicates Ukrainian forces, and Russia’s alternative scenarios (fighter jet or Ukrainian Buk) have been refuted or remain unsupported by verifiable data.Unz’s “better than 50/50 chance” for Ukrainian culpability on MH17 was thus a speculative opinion that runs counter to the established facts. At the time of writing (Aug 2014), one could argue the investigation was ongoing, but even then, the preliminary indicators (intercepts, rocket contrail photos, etc.) favored the rebel-Buk explanation. By now (2025), we can definitively say the claim that Ukraine shot down MH17 is inaccurate – it is the conclusion of multiple nations’ investigators that the pro-Russian separatists did it, and even Russia has not produced credible evidence otherwise. As for the Maidan massacre, Unz’s hunch might have some anecdotal support (as discussed, the leaked call raised questions), but there is still no consensus or proof of who gave the sniper order. It remains an open question in historical discourse, with ongoing trials in Ukraine that have yet to fully resolve it. So labeling the Maidan violence as a false-flag by “pro-Western forces” is at best unproven and at worst unlikely (given that Yanukovych’s forces certainly were shooting at protesters as well – dozens of protesters were killed with government-issued ammo, though the possibility of a third-party provocation is not ruled out).In conclusion, Unz’s core insinuation – that the new Ukrainian regime likely committed heinous attacks on both protesters and an airliner to frame their enemies – is not supported by demonstrated evidence. The MH17 portion is overwhelmingly contradicted by facts, and the Maidan sniper allegation, while not completely implausible, is unverified and heavily debated. We rate this overarching claim as largely inaccurate. It reflects a conspiracy belief rather than a fact.
11. Claim: Major Western media outlets ignored or suppressed these alternative facts and theories. Unz argues that the American mainstream media provided “total silence” on such obvious suspicions, proving it to be “worthless” on these matters. He cites as evidence that prominent voices (like the Dutch journalist Karel van Wolferen or ex-US intelligence veterans) who question the official story are not given platform in outlets like The New York Times.
    Source: This is an evaluative claim about media behavior. Unz mentions that he republished counter-narrative columns (by Mike Whitney in CounterPunch and Paul Craig Roberts) on his own site because mainstream liberal sites weren’t covering those points. He then introduces Karel van Wolferen – “one of the world’s most prominent Dutch journalists” – who wrote a detailed piece on MH17 and media corruption, and notes that despite van Wolferen’s credibility, the NY Times would never publish such an alternative perspective unz.com. He also references how during the Iraq War a similar media “boycott” happened to dissenting experts (like General William Odom). Essentially, Unz is accusing mainstream media of a conspiracy of silence around any narrative that contradicts the U.S. government line.
    Verification: Mixed – subjective but with some truth regarding media focus. It’s beyond our scope to “fact-check” media bias per se, but we can assess the specific examples:
    • Karel van Wolferen’s credentials: It is factual that van Wolferen is a highly respected Dutch journalist and author. He won major awards (including the Netherlands’ top journalism prize in 1987) and has authored best-selling books (his 1989 book The Enigma of Japanese Power sold hundreds of thousands of copies worldwide). Unz is correct that van Wolferen is prominent in the Netherlands and that his MH17-critical article (titled “The Ukraine, Corrupted Journalism, and the Atlanticist Faith”) was published on Unz’s site in August 2014 unz.com. It’s also true that Western mainstream media did not amplify van Wolferen’s contrarian take. That said, van Wolferen’s piece was an opinion challenging prevailing narratives; it’s not surprising that U.S. outlets didn’t rush to feature it, especially when the facts of MH17 were still being determined by investigators. This is more an editorial choice than a suppression of established facts.
    • VIPS memo and other skeptical voices: Unz notes a public statement by a group of former CIA/NSA officials questioning the evidence against Russia. Indeed, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) sent memos in July/Aug 2014 urging caution on MH17 accusations wsws.org wsws.org. Those got limited coverage in the mainstream press (they were mostly circulated in alternative media and sites like Consortium News). Unz’s implication that mainstream outlets ignored such dissent is largely true – big newspapers did not give front-page space to theories of Ukrainian culpability or to the VIPS criticism of US intel. However, whether this is due to bias/censorship or simply an editorial judgment that these theories lacked merit is a matter of perspective.
    • Media silence on certain details: Unz points out that facts like the Maidan sniper call or the MH17 alternative scenarios appeared “nowhere within the mainstream American media” unz.com. It’s correct that such angles were scarcely covered in outlets like CNN, NYT, etc., which overwhelmingly stuck to the narrative blaming Russia and did not delve much into opposing theories (except occasionally to debunk them). For example, the Paet–Ashton sniper call got some coverage in European press (Guardian, etc.), but U.S. media paid it little attention. Similarly, early claims about a Ukrainian fighter or questions raised by Russia were usually mentioned only to be dismissed, rather than explored in depth. This can indeed be characterized as a “conspiracy of silence” or simply as editorial consensus that these claims were not credible.

    This claim is more of a general critique than a specific fact to verify. There is evidence supporting Unz’s view that mainstream media had a strongly one-sided coverage on these events – for instance, the near absence of doubts about rebel culpability in major outlets, and the heavy emphasis on Putin’s guilt (as shown by magazine covers) rferl.org. Unz stretches it by suggesting this is intentional “utter corruption” rather than perhaps groupthink or risk-aversion. Ultimately, whether the media is “totally worthless” on these issues is an opinion. The factual element we can check is whether mainstream media reported the kinds of alternate facts Unz cites. They largely did not (except to knock them down), which lends some validity to the claim that the Western press didn’t highlight inconvenient details like the OSCE monitor’s remarks or the sniper controversy.

    Therefore, we find a kernel of truth – Western media coverage of MH17 was overwhelmingly aligned with the official Western position, and counter-narratives were marginalized. The degree to which that constitutes a willful cover-up versus standard journalistic filtering of what they consider fringe is debatable. For the purposes of fact-checking: it is accurate that voices like van Wolferen or VIPS did not get mainstream exposure unz.com wsws.org. However, calling this a “conspiracy of silence” or “boycott” is a value judgment. It’s worth noting that as the evidence solidified, the mainstream narrative turned out to be correct in MH17’s case. Nonetheless, Unz’s portrayal of media behavior has some factual basis (lack of coverage of certain angles), but his conclusion about media integrity is an opinion.

Source Representation Analysis

In this section, we evaluate whether the article accurately and ethically represents the sources it cites or alludes to, and highlight any instances of misquotation, out-of-context usage, or source credibility issues.

• The Guardian (Paet–Ashton call) Source: Unz references a Guardian article about the leaked Estonia–EU call. He conveys its content correctly – that it discussed the same bullets killing people on both sides in Maidan. The call was indeed confirmed genuine by Estonia. Here, Unz’s use of the source is accurate; he didn’t distort what was said. However, he omits that this was a hearsay report within the call (from one doctor’s observations) and that it wasn’t a conclusive investigation. He uses it to strongly imply the opposition’s guilt in the sniper affair, which goes beyond what the source definitively proves. This is a case of selective emphasis: the source is real, but other evidence or viewpoints (like the Ukrainian government’s denial or the complexity of the forensic situation) are not mentioned.
• Michael Bociurkiw’s MH17 Wreckage Comments: Unz relies on Bociurkiw’s remark about “machine-gun-like holes” to suggest evidence of an air-to-air attack. He calls these “firsthand reports from investigators,” which is somewhat misleading – Bociurkiw was a monitor, not an official crash investigator, and he never asserted it was machine-gun fire, only that it looked like that kind of damage. Crucially, Unz fails to mention Bociurkiw’s later clarification that he was not implying a Ukrainian fighter shot MH17. By elevating a casual description into “strong evidence” and not providing the context that experts believed those holes were from shrapnel, the article misrepresents the source’s weight and intent. Bociurkiw’s quote is real, but Unz uses it in a conclusory way that Bociurkiw himself explicitly cautioned against. This is a clear instance of a source being taken out of context to support a claim the source did not actually make.
• Russian Defense Ministry “Radar evidence”: The article alludes to radar evidence of a fighter jet without citing a specific source, but it’s effectively repeating the Russian MoD’s claim. Unz treats it as apparently credible (“there apparently exists radar evidence…”). The actual source (Russian MoD briefing) was not directly cited, and as we found, experts disputed that interpretation of the radar. Here Unz presents a contested claim as if factual, without noting it originated from one party (Russia) or that others found alternative explanations (debris). This borders on misrepresentation through omission – not of a specific document’s content, but of the credibility of that “evidence.” Essentially, he gave the Russian claim unearned validity by calling it “evidence” with no caveats.
• Use of VIPS Memo / NoQuarter Blog: Unz mentions a statement by ex-intel officers and provides a link (to noquarterusa.net). He characterizes it as “sharply criticizing the lack of evidence” for U.S. claims. We accessed a summary of that memo wsws.org wsws.org, and indeed VIPS did express those concerns. Unz’s representation of that source is fair – he doesn’t exaggerate it, he just notes it exists and what it broadly said. The only caveat is that VIPS, while composed of former officials, is an advocacy group with its own angle (often aligning with skepticism of U.S. policies). Mainstream media might consider them biased. But Unz treats them as “highly-experienced” professionals, which is true in terms of résumés. There’s no distortion here, aside from perhaps overstating how “highly-regarded” they are (opinions vary).
• Patrick Lang’s Blog and Other Blogs: Unz cites Colonel Patrick Lang’s blog analysis on MH17 and a commenter’s blog (Ronald Thomas West), as well as “Washington’s Blog” publishing a reconstruction by a “prominent leftist journalist”. These sources are presented as additional information. Unz doesn’t detail their content, just implies they raise similar doubts and strengthen his suspicions. There is no direct misquotation since he barely quotes them, but there is a question of credibility: these are personal or partisan blogs, not investigative agencies. By listing them alongside intelligence veterans and van Wolferen, Unz elevates relatively fringe sources to suggest a broad array of informed skeptics. This is a rhetorical strategy. While it’s true those blog posts exist, an ethical presentation might weigh their credibility. Unz instead simply urges readers to explore them, lending them a tacit endorsement. This is not exactly misrepresentation of the blogs (he doesn’t misquote what they said), but it is arguably a misrepresentation of evidentiary strength – treating blog speculation as equivalent to, say, official data releases.
• Karel van Wolferen’s stature: Unz accurately introduces van Wolferen and his article. There’s no issue with how he cites van Wolferen’s credentials (which check out: he is a distinguished journalist) unz.com. The only potential issue is calling him “one of the world’s most prominent” Dutch journalists – that’s subjective, though van Wolferen is indeed very prominent in the Netherlands. Unz also implies the NY Times should publish van Wolferen if it weren’t biased. That’s an opinion on editorial choices, not a source misrepresentation. Van Wolferen’s piece was real and popular on Unz’s site, as Unz notes in an update (he even cites the number of tweets etc.). No factual misuse there.
• Omission of Contrary Evidence: Perhaps the most significant way the article misrepresents the overall situation is by omitting key sources and findings that contradict Unz’s theory. For example, Unz never mentions that the official Dutch investigation (which by August 2014 hadn’t reported yet, but preliminary findings were coming) would show evidence of a Buk missile. He doesn’t mention the intercepted phone calls released by Ukraine of rebels discussing a downed plane (widely reported on July 18, 2014). He doesn’t acknowledge that within days of the crash, U.S., UK, German intelligence all independently pointed to a rebel missile. Ignoring these sources while highlighting fringe or initial reports skews the picture. In a sense, the entire article misrepresents by imbalance – it presents alternative claims as if they are on equal footing with the official account, without disclosing that much of the alternate “evidence” was weak or later discredited.
• Tone and Language: Unz frequently uses loaded language about sources – e.g., calling The Economist “once-respected” and their covers “shrill”, or calling the Maidan sniper theory “outlandish ‘conspiracy theory’” only to say an academic confirmed it (suggesting it isn’t so outlandish). These are editorial choices, but they frame reliable sources (like The Economist or mainstream sites) as suspect and elevate contrarian sources as truth-tellers. This doesn’t misquote any one source, but it does mislead by biasing the reader’s trust.

In conclusion, the article’s use of sources is selective and sometimes out-of-context. It accurately conveys some factual pieces (like the Paet–Ashton call content, or Bociurkiw’s initial remarks), but fails to provide the necessary context or follow-up that would alter their interpretation (such as Bociurkiw’s clarification, or expert analyses of the radar claim). It presents contested claims from partisan sources (Russian MoD, blogs) as if they were established evidence. There are instances of exaggeration (calling preliminary observations “strong evidence”) and labeling (casting doubt on mainstream outlets rather than addressing their reporting). All these tactics serve to support Unz’s narrative but do not meet a balanced standard of source representation.

Notably, no source in the article outright refutes the mainstream conclusion – instead, they raise questions. Unz leans on those questions to insinuate an alternate conclusion (Ukrainian guilt) which none of his cited sources definitively state. In that sense, he is using the sources beyond what they actually prove. This can mislead readers who aren’t aware of the broader evidence.

Conclusion

Our comprehensive fact-check finds that Ron Unz’s article contains a mixture of accurate observations, selective reporting, and speculative leaps that are not supported by the full body of evidence. While the piece correctly notes certain historical and media facts – such as the MH17 death toll, the Western media’s immediate blaming of pro-Russian rebels, and the post-MH17 shift in European sanctions policy – it seriously misrepresents the cause of the MH17 disaster by suggesting a Ukrainian false-flag scenario that has been debunked by exhaustive investigations. Key claims used to cast doubt on rebel culpability (like the “machine-gun-like” holes or radar signals of a jet) are either misinterpreted or outright false. The article also elevates conjecture (e.g. the Maidan sniper theory and private anecdotes of unnamed academics) to a level far beyond what the evidence warrants.

Crucially, Unz omits the conclusive findings of the official MH17 inquiry, which by 2016 demonstrated that a Russian-made Buk missile fired from separatist-controlled territory was responsible. None of the “alternate accounts” presented in the article withstand scrutiny or have been validated by neutral experts. The strong insinuation that the Kiev government might have downed MH17 runs contrary to the international criminal investigation and court verdict, which placed responsibility on Russian-backed separatists and held Russia accountable for providing the weapon. Unz’s argument relies on the absence of publicly released U.S. intelligence and on coincidental advantages gained by Ukraine – neither of which constitutes proof of wrongdoing by Ukraine.

Source credibility and usage were also a problem: The article leans on sources like Russian government statements, personal blogs, and anecdotal comments, while discounting or ignoring credible sources such as forensic reports, the Dutch Safety Board, and verified intercepts that contradict Unz’s narrative. In several cases, Unz’s portrayal of sources is incomplete or misleading – for example, quoting an OSCE monitor’s description of damage but not his caveat that he wasn’t an expert, or citing a leaked phone call about snipers but glossing over its tentative nature. This selective use of evidence points to a confirmation bias: only facts that fit the conspiracy angle are highlighted, sometimes without proper context.

Recommendations for Corrections/Clarifications: If this article were to meet high journalistic standards, it would require several corrections or at least clarifications:

• It should clarify that the “radar evidence” of a Ukrainian jet came solely from a Russian Defense Ministry claim that has been refuted by independent experts and the official investigation (currently the article presents it as apparently factual, which is misleading).
• It should update or annotate that the holes in the wreckage were determined by investigators to be from missile shrapnel, not machine-gun bullets, and include Bociurkiw’s own clarification to avoid misrepresenting his observation.
• It must acknowledge the findings of the Dutch-led investigation (available since Oct 2015 for the DSB report and 2016 onward for JIT updates) that directly oppose the article’s speculation about MH17. Ignoring those makes the article outdated and inaccurate.
• If discussing the Maidan sniper theory, it should be framed clearly as an allegation under investigation, not as a proven fact (“revealed” suggests it was confirmed, which it wasn’t definitively). A balanced account would mention the ongoing debate and lack of closure on that case, rather than assuming one side’s guilt.
• The piece should also correct the implication that Congress was on the verge of sending American troops to Ukraine in 2014; at most, Congress was moving to arm Ukraine and give it ally status, but not to deploy U.S. combat forces, so that phrasing is hyperbolic.
• Finally, labeling the mainstream media “totally worthless” is an opinion; if kept, it should be clearly distinguished as the author’s viewpoint. But more importantly, if citing media silence as evidence, one should also consider whether those media had legitimate reasons (like waiting for solid proof) rather than malicious intent – a nuance missing in Unz’s piece.

Overall, the article’s reliability is low regarding the central question of “Who shot down MH17.” It advances a narrative that is not supported by the available evidence and in fact contradicts the established record. Readers of Unz’s article would come away with a dramatically different understanding than what factual consensus shows. While it correctly surfaces some under-reported tidbits (like the Paet–Ashton call), it strings them together into a conspiratorial thesis that does not hold up under scrutiny.

For editors and journalists, this fact-check underscores the need for scrutinizing extraordinary claims and ensuring that cited sources are presented in proper context. A critical reader should note that absence of evidence publicly released by authorities is not evidence of a cover-up, and that coincidences of benefit (“cui bono”) do not equal culpability. The MH17 case is one where an avalanche of rigorous investigative work has been done – any article on the topic must be measured against those findings. In this instance, Ron Unz’s article fails that test, and any publication aiming for credibility should correct the factual inaccuracies and avoid the source misrepresentations identified above.

Sources: The analysis above has referenced information from the official MH17 investigation reports, credible news outlets like The Guardian, TIME, RFE/RL rferl.org, statements from involved officials wsws.org, and other primary documents to substantiate each point. These sources, listed in the footnotes, provide a transparent basis for each verification made.

Responses

• Selected Remarks and Responses