Germanwings co-pilot made a "deliberate attempt" to crash the plane

by Maciej Buczowski

It seems that the crash of the Germanwings plane (flight 9525) was caused by the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz. According to investigators, the plane crashed in the Alps because the co-pilot used the time he had when the pilot left the cockpit (probably to go to the bathroom). The co-pilot then locked the door, which prevented anyone from entering the cockpit and decided to fly the plane to its demise [see 1]. It seems that Lubitz wanted to commit suicide, though it is hard to understand why a suicidal person would want to kill 149 other people as well.

These days doors to the cockpit are fitted with special systems preventing anyone from the outside from entering. Sometimes they are referred to as "Anti-terrorist doors". In 2001 the BBC mentioned that they may pose a more serious threat to the lives of the passengers than the terrorists themselves [see 2].

"[...] if a pilot became ill the other pilot would be unable to get help without leaving the controls to unlock the door. And if both pilots were incapacitated, possibly by smoke inhalation, it would be impossible to reach the controls in a cockpit fortress. [...] strengthened doors also carried the risk of the cockpit floor collapsing in the event of violent depressurisation in the plane, a danger avoided by the current flimsy design"

Does this indicate that the pilots should have a key, or a code or some other way to ALWAYS be able to return to the cockpit? Well someting like that already exists. There are two such codes: normal (or standard) and the emergency code. When the former is entered, the pilots inside the cockpit see it and receive a notification. They have to look at a monitor to verify who is on the other side and what it is they want. If there is no threat they can open the door. The latter  is used when the pilots are unable to open the door (due to loss of consciousness for example) This is when the flight attendants can enter the cockpit. However, the emergency code has a time limit. The pilots can override it and prevent anyone from entering the cockpit. This protocol is there to avoid situations of someone threatening crew members and forcing them to provide the code. If that happens the pilots can still prevent anyone from entering. If the pilots are unconscious and do nothing - the door opens automatically. Perhaps there is a need for additional procedures, codes or forms of authorisation?

What seems clear is that additional or more frequent psych tests should be given to pilots and possibly other crew members in order to prevent similar situations (assuming the theory about the suicide is correct). This is something that the pilots themselves have supported [see 3].

There is a possible additional question worth investigating. How difficult would it be for someone affiliated with ISIS to gain a job as a co-pilot on a commercial flight, wait to be left alone and crash the plane. No usage of guns, knives or any other weapons of any kind. Just the plane. The whole process of preparing an operation like this would be lenghty but can anyone protect us against such an approach?






Read more:

1. Conference about the crash: http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/26/europe/france-germanwings-plane-crash-main/index.html?sr=fb032615germanwings820pVODtopPhoto
2. Anti-terrorist cockpit doors: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1629465.stm
3. Pilots call for a larger focus on mental health: http://www.vocativ.com/usa/travel/germanwings-crash-pilot-suicide/
4. Airbus safety record: http://time.com/3759354/airbus-safety-record-germanwings-crash/
5. Blackbox recordings: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germanwings-crash-one-pilot-was-locked-out-of-the-cockpit-before-crash-claim-us-reports-10134659.html

European Parliament wants Russia to return the wreckage of the Polish President's plane that crashed in Smolensk in 2010 - NOW!

by Maciej Buczowski

On April 10th 2010 the Polish Tu-154 with the President and his wife on board, as well as 94 other people crashed near Smolensk in Russia. There were no survivors. Poland has attempted to regain custody of the wreckage ever since. However, the Russian government has decided that they will not return the plane. Why? Because time, weather conditions, people, etc. can distort any evidence and that could potentially shed some light on what actually happened as there still are many unanswered questions.

In the middle(?) of the war between Ukraine and Russia, with the latter suffering from sanctions and international scrutiny the European Parliament has apparently just realised that perhaps it can help Poland in its struggle in the long and gloomy process of acquiring the wreckage. I ask is there anyone (sane) who thinks that Russia will agree to return the plane (or what is left of it) despite the current conflict in Ukraine and the increasing tensions with the West? Probably not. The resolution however, is a long overdue sign of solidarity with Poland finally expressed by the EU. It would have had more merit about 4 years ago though...

Complying with such resolutions is somewhere on the bottom of Putin's to do list (if it EVEN is there), who has to deal with the war in Ukraine, crippled Russian economy and the ramifications caused by the assassination of the main Russian opposition leader - Boris Nemtsov (we all wonder who is responsible for that crime, as in really responsible.... because let's face it those who were tortured in order to make them confess to the assassination- probably had nothing to do with it).

To put it in a nutshell, the wreckage will probably remain in Russia..........








Article about the resolution in Polish: http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/swiat/rezolucja-pe-w-sprawie-stanu-rosyjskiej-demokracji-i-zwrotu-wraku-tu-154m/3rqx33

Article about forcing out the confession of assassinating Boris Nemtsov: http://news.yahoo.com/nemtsov-killing-suspect-likely-confessed-under-torture-russia-072215582.html

Article about forcing out the confession of assassinating Boris Nemtsov (2): http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-tortured-confession-boris-nemtsov-murder-suspect-zaur-dadaev-rights-group/

Will Russia attack Belarus as its next step on the way to recreate the great Russian Empire?

by Maciej Buczowski

Matthew Rojansky, an expert on U.S. relations with states of the former Soviet Union has recently said the following: “Russia for the first time is openly at war ... with an East Slavic, white Christian, post-Soviet country, which in many respects is just like Belarus”. It is true that from a socio-cultural point of view there are many similarities between the countries of Ukraine and Belarus. They are both former members of the Soviet Union, as mentioned by Rojansky, they are both politically and economically outside of the European Union and they both have struggled in their relations with the East and the West - with Ukraine becoming increasingly more pro-European and Belarus pro-Russian. 

Those choices of connecting with the West (Ukraine) and the East (Belarus) have had significant long-term ramifications for both countries. In the case of Ukraine those ramifications have cumulated in the form of the current on-going war with pro-Russian separatists and the Russian state itself. Belarus, on the other hand, has been largely excluded from European political life, cultural exchanges and out-side investments. The last dictator of Europe, Alexander Lukashenko decided to disengage all significant talks with Western Europe and become Russia's 'right-hand state'. 

The following sections are an analysis of a theoretical (possible though far from certain) scenario in which Belarus may become the next Ukraine in all meanings of this phrase. The recent developments in Ukraine have indicated that Russia is ready to do a lot in order to increase its domination in the region and take the stance of the scary, mean bear of Europe, the big bully at school that everyone is afraid of, but nobody respects. In the early 1990s most, if not all, post - Soviet Union countries had a very similar economic position. Some of those countries implemented a multitude of intricate changes to their economic systems in order to strengthen their finances, be able to develop heavy industries, invite foreign investors, etc. Some countries did that more efficiently than others. As a result, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia are currently members of the European Union. Many of the former Soviet Union states have been accepted into NATO structures as well. However, Belarus and Ukraine have not walked that line - instead the former tightened its ties with Russia, while the latter, it seems, overslept and forfeited its chance for a swift transition from a Soviet dependency into a EU country. 

Both Belarus and Ukraine have been influenced in a larger degree by Russia in the 1990s simply because of their proximity to their great imperialistic brother. It stands to reason that the current war in Ukraine has been planned for many years. It stands to reason that Russian aggression aimed at Georgia in 2008 may have been a test for the West more than an attempt to 'free' South Ossetia and Abkhazia. When we take a look at the build-up for both conflicts the Russian justification in both cases seems to be similar. In both cases Russia claimed to have acted in order to defend and protect a Russian ethnic (and national) minority from the oppressive government of the targeted country. The West failed the Georgian test as Russia managed to separate the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia before the West even had a plan how to react. The war lasted five days during which all the West did was express concern and promise future aid in reaching a ceasefire. 

Similarly, the Ukrainian-Russian war was overlooked for too long by the West. Only after the separatists had shot down a plane flying from the Netherlands to Malysia, did the West increase its interest in the ongoing conflict. In a large degree, the slow reactions of the West are caused by the system in which the EU and NATO operate. There is an argument to be made that both (especially the EU) require too many politicians to discuss a coherent reaction, too many steps have to be made before a conclusion is agreed upon. This takes time. This takes negotiating a unified and meaningful response to Russian aggression. In reality, when the EU actually responds, the response really concerns the situation dating a week or more back. In the cases of Russian aggression on Ukraine and Georgia the European Union reacted too slowly and too mildly for far too long. Does this mean that in case of another, similar situation, for example in Belarus, the West will show the same amount of incapability and immaturity in the face of a constantly developing Russian threat? Perhaps. 

Why is it possible that Russia would invade Belarus? After all it seems that in modern day Europe Belarus is possibly the only 'friend' Russia has. Though this might be an inaccurate statement as Hungary, Greece and several other European countries have indicated in the past that it is their opinion that Russian-aimed sanctions should come to an end. In any case, Belarus and Russia have established a special connection over the last decades - why would Russia want to invade Belarus. As I've mentioned earlier, most of the post-Soviet states have travelled a similar journey of changes, modernisations, growth, development aimed at joining the EU and NATO. Ukraine's peaceful revolution before the Russian invasion was one of the steps that country took in order to join politically, socio-economically and culturally, the West. The nation led by ordinary, yet extraordinarily courageous members of the Ukrainian society managed to overthrow a president (a pro-Russian president, just like Lukashenko). From the Russian perspective, this was the last possible moment to claim the Crimean Peninsula and later, most likely depending on the reaction of the EU, NATO and the US, possibly claim enough of Ukrainian land to join the Crimean Peninsula with Russia. It is still possible that Russian endgame is to create a dependent state like, South Ossetia or Abkhazia between Crimea and Russia. This would allow to absorb that area into the Russian Federation. 

The conflict in Ukraine is becoming rather complicated, it is most likely lasting longer than V. Putin had predicted and the Russian economy has been suffering due to sanctions. One day Belarus will have a new president, Lukashenko will die, or be overthrown and the people will demand changes, democracy and the end of international exclusion. This is when Russia will once again try to claim land, and obedience of the people - just like it is doing today in Ukraine. Belarus has a similar ethnic division to Ukraine - so the Russian argument of protecting the Russian minority in that country may be used once more, just like in Georgia and later in Ukraine. 

Russia may be thinking. Instead of waiting for Lukashenko's end it seems plausible to take those steps now. Russia is already suffering from international sanctions and other forms of objection. Why not prolong the current period of international ostracisation and add a Belarusian cherry on top of the Ukrainian and Crimean cakes? Is it not better and more efficient to just get it over with, instead of waiting 5? 10? 15? years or more and creating the whole ani-Russian stance from scratch? The fear of a Russian invasion seems to be present in Belarus as the country passed a new law. It does not refer to Russia specifically, however, appears directed at Moscow. The law says that: “sending of armed groups, irregular armed forces, mercenary groups, or regular armed forces who use arms against the Republic of Belarus by a foreign country or countries or on behalf of a foreign country or countries will trigger a declaration of war."  In 10 or 15 years from now few of us will still hold the current Russian aggression against them. It's sad and not popular but probably true. There will be new conflicts, new international threats that one day will grow and overshadow Russia's current atrocities. It may be ISIS.... it may be a conflict in Asia... may be a revolution in Africa.... it might be something we can't even predict today. But it will happen and by then Russia may be seen (by comparison) as one of the good guys. 

The inability of the West to react swiftly and adequately is echoed by Andrey Illarionov, a former advisor to Russian president Vladimir Putin. In a recent interview he said that: "As for the military forces, the NATO countries could have deployed considerable military forces and the newest weapons on the borders of Russia. Besides, Russia would feel the sanctions if currency assets on the accounts of the Russian national reserve system or on European accounts of the Russian Central Bank were frozen. These are sums of about 500 – 600 bn dollars, and faced by such a threat, Moscow would have returned its soldiers from Ukraine immediately”. Moreover, the same expert claims that an escalation of the Ukrainian conflict is very likely: "Aggression against Poland and the Baltic States could happen in different ways. We should remember that Vladimir Putin is not a commander of ground forces, but a colonel of special services. I believe that most likely we should expect a hybrid war, not a military incursion. Subversion groups trying to destabilize the situation in the abovementioned countries could emerge". Who knows Vladimir Putin better than his own former advisor? Assuming that Russia is ready to provoke and destabilize Poland and the Baltic States is a preemptive attack on Belarus so unlikely?

The simple fact is that change, improvement of life and the need of freedom are features that all people strive for. Maslow's pyramid of needs supprots that claim - no question about it. Citizens of Belarus will sooner or later aim at living in a democracy, they will feel the need of freedom and justice. When that moment comes, the people may become divided, just like the Ukrainian has, because of a similar ethic composition of the society. The events that follow may resemble those in Ukraine, but they also may develop differently, if and only if the West learns its lessons and discovers the optimal way to counteract the hegemonic Russian policy in eastern Europe. 








Belarus introduces a new law aimed at Russia: http://www.ibtimes.com/scared-ukraine-war-belarus-strongman-lukashenko-mulls-ditching-russia-1801070

Andrey Illarionov opinions: http://charter97.org/en/news/2015/1/12/134885/

Separatists claim that Belarus and Lithuania are next: http://www.belsat.eu/en/articles/volunteer-fighter-if-ukraine-loses-war-belarus-lithuania-will-be-next-attacked-russia/