Introduction

The crash of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 in 2014 has remained one of the most controversial and unresolved events in recent history. Despite widespread demand for a secure site to preserve evidence and facilitate a thorough investigation, the area remains under uncertain conditions. This article delves into why the crash site has not been effectively secured by international agencies and examines alternative strategies that could be pursued.

Theoretically Optimal Security Measures

At the time of the disaster, the expectation was that a swift and definitive action would be taken to secure the crash site. A logical first step, according to some, would be for Ukrainian officials to contact NATO for military assistance. With NATO's formidable force, a rapid response could secure the area and prevent interference from rebels.

The idea behind this approach is to leverage the significant military clout NATO possesses. It's hypothesized that such a force could deter any resistance from pro-Russian separatists, and that Russia, the sponsor of these rebels, would have little incentive to escalate the situation. However, this theoretical scenario highlights a critical issue: the legal framework governing such a response is not clearly defined.

The Current Situation and Putin's Doctrine

The reluctance of international agencies to secure the MH17 crash site can be compared to the Putin doctrine. The Russian stance on annexation and territorial acquisition is marked by a pattern of quick and calculated aggression, followed by a strategic retreat from immediate conflict. This approach often leaves international bodies and neighboring countries to deal with the aftermath.

The current response involves Dutch and Australian military police securing the site. While this is a step in the right direction, it may not be sufficient given the complexity and the stakes involved. The challenge is to balance the need for security with the potential for military escalation, which could have catastrophic consequences.

Evaluating Other Options

Ukrainian authorities have the potential to secure the crash site themselves. Given the largely rural location and the sparse presence of separatist forces, it may be feasible to use Ukrainian military and the help of civilians to clear the area. However, there are two main concerns that deter such a move.

The first concern is the potential loss of life. Even with minimal resistance, any military engagement could result in casualties among Ukrainian forces. The second consideration is the PR advantage that could be gained from letting the rebels handle the situation. Exposing their lack of organization and respect for human life could tarnish their image and undermine their popularity. However, such an approach could also be seen as a significant misstep in terms of international relations and the need for a professional and respectful investigation.

Conclusion

Securing the MH17 crash site remains a complex issue with many moving parts. The tension between the need for a robust response and the risk of further escalation cannot be underestimated. While the current plan involving NATO and international police forces is a positive step, it may not be sufficient. Alternative strategies, such as direct engagement by Ukrainian forces or diplomatic negotiations, need to be carefully considered in a way that mitigates the risks.

The international community must continue to advocate for a secure and controlled environment to ensure that the tragedy of MH17 is fully investigated and the responsible parties are held accountable. Only through a well-thought-out and coordinated effort can the injustice of this event be appropriately addressed.