What If Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 Was Never Shot Down?

The Actual History

On July 17, 2014, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17), a scheduled passenger flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, was shot down while flying over eastern Ukraine. All 283 passengers and 15 crew—a total of 298 people—were killed. The Boeing 777-200ER was flying over territory controlled by Russian-backed separatists during the War in Donbass, an armed conflict that had erupted in eastern Ukraine following Russia's annexation of Crimea earlier that year.

The timing was significant. In February 2014, Ukraine's pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych had been ousted following the Euromaidan protests, which had been triggered by his decision to reject an association agreement with the European Union in favor of closer ties with Russia. In response, Russia annexed Crimea in March 2014 and began supporting separatist movements in eastern Ukraine, particularly in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

By July 2014, the conflict in eastern Ukraine had escalated significantly. Ukrainian forces were engaged in combat with Russian-backed separatists, and multiple Ukrainian military aircraft had been shot down in the weeks preceding the MH17 tragedy. Despite the increasingly dangerous situation, commercial airlines continued to fly over eastern Ukraine, albeit at high altitudes deemed safe at the time.

Subsequent investigations by the Dutch Safety Board and the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) concluded that MH17 was shot down by a Buk surface-to-air missile launched from separatist-controlled territory. The missile system had been transported from Russia and returned there shortly after the incident. In 2019, the JIT announced criminal charges against four individuals (three Russians and one Ukrainian) for their alleged involvement in the downing of MH17.

The international response to the incident was swift and decisive. The European Union and the United States imposed additional sanctions on Russia, significantly escalating the economic pressure that had begun following the annexation of Crimea. The incident also marked a profound turning point in the relationship between Russia and the West, contributing to a new era of tensions reminiscent of the Cold War.

The MH17 tragedy had far-reaching consequences for global aviation as well. It highlighted the vulnerability of commercial aircraft flying over conflict zones and led to significant changes in risk assessment protocols for airlines and aviation authorities worldwide. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) developed new guidelines for conflict zone risk assessments, and airlines became much more cautious about flying over regions with ongoing military conflicts.

For the families of the victims, the tragedy sparked a years-long quest for justice. The Netherlands and Australia, which lost 196 and 38 citizens respectively, have been particularly vocal in demanding accountability. In 2022, a Dutch court found three of the four defendants guilty in absentia of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment, though Russia has consistently denied any involvement and refused to extradite the suspects.

The shooting down of MH17 remains one of the most significant civilian aviation disasters of the 21st century, not just for the tragic loss of life, but for its profound impact on international relations, aviation security, and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

The Point of Divergence

What if Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 had never been shot down over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where this tragic event—which claimed 298 lives and drastically altered the trajectory of Russia-West relations—never occurred.

There are several plausible ways this divergence might have happened:

First, Malaysian Airlines could have followed the lead of other carriers like British Airways, Qantas, and Cathay Pacific, which had already altered their flight paths to avoid eastern Ukrainian airspace entirely. In this scenario, MH17 might have been rerouted further south over the Black Sea or further north through airspace controlled by the Ukrainian government, avoiding the dangerous Donetsk region altogether. This decision could have been made either by the airline itself or mandated by Malaysian aviation authorities in response to the increasingly volatile situation in eastern Ukraine.

Alternatively, Ukrainian authorities might have closed their airspace completely to commercial traffic above eastern Ukraine earlier than they did in our timeline. Prior to MH17's downing, Ukraine had closed the airspace up to 32,000 feet, but allowed commercial traffic above that altitude. A more cautious approach might have seen all commercial overflights prohibited regardless of altitude.

A third possibility involves the Russian-backed separatists and their military capabilities. The Buk surface-to-air missile system that destroyed MH17 had been transported from Russia just days before the incident. In this alternate timeline, perhaps Russian military commanders decided against providing such advanced anti-aircraft capabilities to the separatists, fearing the potential for misuse or international backlash if civilian aircraft were endangered. Or perhaps the specific crew operating the Buk system received clearer instructions about identifying targets, preventing the catastrophic misidentification that occurred in our timeline.

Lastly, simple timing could have been the difference. If MH17 had departed Amsterdam slightly earlier or later, it might have avoided crossing paths with the fatal missile. Similarly, if the separatist forces had moved their anti-aircraft system to a different location or been engaged with Ukrainian military forces at the crucial moment, their attention might have been directed elsewhere.

Regardless of the specific mechanism, the absence of this tragedy would have significantly altered the subsequent course of events in Ukraine, Russia-West relations, and global aviation security. Without the downing of MH17 serving as a catalyst for international outrage and punitive measures against Russia, the evolution of the Ukraine conflict and the broader geopolitical landscape would have followed a markedly different path.

Immediate Aftermath

The Ukraine Conflict: A Different Trajectory

Without the MH17 tragedy, the conflict in eastern Ukraine would have likely continued along its previous trajectory, but with several key differences in international engagement and perception:

The Ukrainian military had been making steady progress against the separatists in the weeks leading up to July 17, 2014. In our timeline, the international outrage following MH17 placed immense pressure on both Ukraine and Russia to work toward de-escalation, culminating in the Minsk Protocol agreements. Without this catalyst, Ukrainian forces might have continued their offensive operations with less international scrutiny, potentially leading to a different military situation on the ground by late 2014.

President Petro Poroshenko, who had been inaugurated just a month before MH17, would have faced a different set of international pressures. Without the tragedy unifying Western support behind Ukraine, he might have received less military aid and diplomatic backing, forcing him to pursue alternative strategies to address the conflict.

The separatist republics of Donetsk and Luhansk would have developed without the shadow of international condemnation that followed MH17. This might have altered their leadership structure, diplomatic standing, and military tactics. Igor Girkin (also known as Strelkov), a key separatist leader implicated in the MH17 downing, might have remained longer in his position instead of being recalled to Russia shortly after the incident.

Sanctions and International Relations

Perhaps the most significant immediate difference would have been in the realm of international sanctions against Russia:

Prior to MH17, Western sanctions had been relatively limited, primarily targeting individuals and specific entities involved in the Crimean annexation. The destruction of MH17 catalyzed a dramatic escalation to sectoral sanctions against key parts of the Russian economy, including its financial, defense, and energy sectors. Without this trigger, the July 2014 package of EU and US sanctions would likely have been considerably weaker or potentially delayed.

Countries that lost citizens in the disaster, particularly the Netherlands (which lost 196 people) and Australia (38 victims), became vocal proponents of a harder line against Russia. Without this personal national tragedy, these countries might have maintained more moderate positions, fracturing the Western consensus on how to respond to Russian aggression in Ukraine.

Russia's international standing, while already damaged by the annexation of Crimea, would not have suffered the additional severe blow associated with MH17. President Vladimir Putin's approval ratings, which soared domestically after the annexation of Crimea despite Western criticisms, might have followed a different trajectory without the additional international isolation that followed MH17.

Aviation Security and Industry Impact

The aviation industry would have followed a dramatically different course without the MH17 tragedy:

In our timeline, the destruction of MH17 led to immediate changes in how airlines and regulatory bodies assessed risks associated with flying over conflict zones. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) convened a special task force and developed new risk assessment protocols. Without this catalyst, these significant changes to global aviation security practices might have been delayed or taken a different form.

Malaysia Airlines, already reeling from the disappearance of Flight MH370 earlier in 2014, suffered a devastating double blow with the loss of MH17. The airline underwent a complete restructuring and nationalization process in the aftermath. In a timeline without the MH17 disaster, Malaysia Airlines might have pursued a different recovery strategy following the MH370 incident, potentially maintaining its previous organizational structure and market position.

The absence of MH17 would also have spared the airline industry the immediate financial impact of rerouting thousands of flights to avoid Ukrainian airspace, which increased fuel costs and flight times for many European and Asian carriers.

Media Coverage and Public Perception

Without the MH17 incident dominating headlines, media coverage of Ukraine would have evolved differently:

The graphic images of the MH17 crash site galvanized public attention worldwide and simplified a complex conflict into a more comprehensible narrative of tragedy. Without this focusing event, Western public understanding of the Ukraine conflict might have remained more fragmented and less engaged, potentially reducing public support for a strong Western response.

Russian media narratives about Ukraine would have developed along different lines as well. In our timeline, Russian media had to respond to widespread international accusations of Russian complicity in the downing of MH17, leading to increasingly elaborate counter-narratives. Without this defensive position, Russian media might have maintained different messaging about the conflict.

Social media companies might not have faced the same immediate pressure regarding Russian disinformation that followed MH17, potentially delaying some of the platform governance changes that occurred in subsequent years.

The absence of MH17 would not have prevented the Ukraine conflict from continuing to unfold, but it would have significantly altered the international context in which that conflict was understood, reported, and addressed. The immediate impact would have been a less unified Western response, potentially allowing Russia greater latitude in pursuing its objectives in eastern Ukraine, while simultaneously sparing it some of the economic pain of the enhanced sanctions regime that followed.

Long-term Impact

Evolution of the Ukraine Conflict

Without the MH17 tragedy serving as a turning point, the Ukraine conflict would likely have evolved along a substantially different trajectory through the remainder of the 2010s and into the 2020s:

Modified Minsk Process

In our timeline, the first Minsk Protocol was signed in September 2014, less than two months after the MH17 downing, when international pressure on Russia was at its peak. Without this catalyst, the diplomatic process might have taken longer to materialize or assumed a different form altogether. The resulting agreement might have contained terms more favorable to Russia and the separatists, as Western bargaining power would have been diminished without the unified response that followed MH17.

The Minsk II agreement of February 2015, which followed a significant separatist offensive, might never have materialized in the same form. The fighting in eastern Ukraine might have stabilized along different front lines, potentially with more territory under separatist control if the Ukrainian military had not received the same level of Western support.

Different International Monitoring Framework

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine gained significant additional resources and attention following MH17. Without this catalyst, the mission might have remained smaller and less effective at documenting ceasefire violations and military movements, potentially allowing for a different evolution of the conflict.

Earlier Russian Integration of Separatist Territories

Without the intense international scrutiny that followed MH17, Russia might have moved more quickly to integrate the separatist-held territories economically and politically. The "passportization" process—granting Russian citizenship to residents of Donetsk and Luhansk—which began in earnest in 2019 in our timeline, might have started earlier and proceeded more rapidly without the same level of international backlash.

Altered Russia-West Relations

The relationship between Russia and Western powers would have developed along a distinctly different path:

Sanction Regime Differences

Without the dramatic escalation of sanctions that followed MH17, Russia's economy would have faced less severe challenges. The sectoral sanctions targeting Russia's financial, defense, and energy industries might have been implemented more gradually or in a more limited fashion. This could have resulted in:

Less economic contraction in Russia during 2014-2016
Fewer incentives for Russia to develop sanction-proofing measures like import substitution policies and the development of alternative payment systems
Different investment patterns in Russia's economy, with potentially more continued Western involvement in key sectors like energy

NATO and European Security Evolution

NATO's response to Russian aggression might have been less cohesive without the unifying effect of the MH17 tragedy. The enhanced forward presence in the Baltics and Poland, decided at the 2016 Warsaw Summit, might have been more modest or faced greater internal opposition from NATO members more inclined toward reconciliation with Russia.

European defense spending increases, partly motivated by the perceived Russian threat following Crimea and MH17, might have been less pronounced. The European Union's steps toward greater strategic autonomy might have developed differently without the shared trauma of MH17 affecting key member states.

U.S.-Russia Relations Trajectory

Without MH17 as a major inflection point, the deterioration in U.S.-Russia relations might have followed a more gradual curve. The Obama administration's "reset" policy was already effectively dead following the Crimean annexation, but without MH17, there might have been more opportunity for cooperation on issues of mutual concern, such as Iran's nuclear program and counterterrorism efforts.

The Trump administration's approach to Russia would have likely still generated controversy, but without the MH17 backdrop, there might have been more political space for rapprochement attempts. Congressional sanctions like the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) of 2017 might have been less comprehensive or faced stronger opposition.

Global Aviation and Security Implications

The absence of the MH17 tragedy would have left significant gaps in global aviation security development:

Delayed Reforms in Conflict Zone Risk Assessment

The comprehensive reforms in how airlines and regulatory bodies assess the risks of flying over conflict zones would likely have been delayed or taken a different form. The ICAO's Conflict Zone Information Repository, established after MH17, might not have been created, leaving airlines without this centralized resource for risk assessment.

National aviation authorities might have maintained their previous, more fragmented approaches to risk notifications, potentially leaving gaps in the global aviation safety system that could have been exposed by subsequent incidents.

Different Airline Industry Development

Malaysia Airlines' corporate trajectory would have been dramatically different. Without the second devastating incident in 2014, the airline might have eventually recovered from the MH370 disappearance without requiring the complete restructuring and nationalization that occurred in our timeline.

The global airline industry's approach to risk might have evolved more slowly, potentially maintaining practices that accepted overflights of active conflict zones as long as they occurred at high altitudes—a practice definitively abandoned after MH17.

2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Perhaps most significantly, without the heightened tensions and entrenched positions that developed following MH17, the pathway to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 might have been significantly altered:

Different Preparedness Levels

Without the years of intense Western support and training that followed MH17, Ukraine's military might have been less prepared for a full-scale invasion. Conversely, with potentially weaker sanctions in place, Russia might have had more economic resources to dedicate to military modernization and preparation.

Alternative International Responses

The swift and unified Western response to the 2022 invasion was built partly on the foundation of cooperation established following MH17. Without this shared history, the coordination of sanctions, weapons supplies, and other support measures might have been more challenging to organize quickly.

Public Opinion Factors

Western public opinion, less primed by the MH17 tragedy to view Russia as responsible for civilian casualties in Ukraine, might have been slower to support the extensive aid packages and sanctions that followed the 2022 invasion in our timeline.

By 2025, the cumulative effects of this alternate timeline would have produced a substantially different geopolitical landscape. Russia, having experienced less economic isolation following its initial intervention in Ukraine, might have maintained stronger ties with parts of Europe, particularly in the energy sector. Ukraine itself might have developed along a different political trajectory, potentially with a different relationship to both Russia and Western institutions.

The absence of a single tragic event—the downing of Flight MH17—would have removed a critical catalyst that sharpened Western responses to Russian aggression, potentially allowing for a more ambiguous and gradually evolving situation in eastern Ukraine that might have avoided some of the immediate suffering while potentially enabling conditions for different, possibly even more significant conflicts in the longer term.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Alexandra Novak, Professor of International Relations at Georgetown University and former State Department advisor, offers this perspective: "The MH17 tragedy functioned as what we call a 'focusing event' in international relations—a moment that crystallized Western perceptions of the Ukraine conflict and Russia's role in it. Without this event, I believe we would have seen a much more fragmented Western response, with countries like Germany, Italy, and Hungary potentially maintaining a more conciliatory approach toward Moscow. The sanctions regime would likely have evolved more gradually and been more narrowly targeted. This doesn't mean Russia would have 'won' in eastern Ukraine, but the conflict might have settled into a frozen state much earlier, with less international attention and support for Kyiv. Paradoxically, this might have either postponed the 2022 invasion by creating a more sustainable status quo or accelerated it by giving Russia more room to maneuver without unified Western opposition."

Colonel James Blackwell (Ret.), former NATO strategic planner and Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, provides a military analysis: "Without MH17, the Ukrainian armed forces might have received less Western support between 2014 and 2022, leaving them more vulnerable when the full-scale invasion came. The tragedy fundamentally altered how the U.S. and other NATO countries viewed the conflict—from a regional dispute to a situation where Russian-backed forces had demonstrated a willingness to use advanced weapons systems with catastrophic consequences. This directly influenced decisions to provide training and eventually lethal aid to Ukraine. In the alternate timeline, I suspect we'd have seen a much more cautious approach to military support. That said, Russia also paid a price—the international isolation following MH17 accelerated its pivot toward China and pursuit of military self-sufficiency, which had long-term strategic consequences that might have developed differently without that catalyst."

Maria Terekhova, Senior Aviation Security Analyst and consultant to international airlines, notes: "The aviation industry's approach to conflict zones underwent a revolutionary change after MH17. Prior to that tragedy, there was an implicit assumption that civil aviation at high altitudes remained safe even over conflict zones where fighting occurred at ground level. This belief was shattered on July 17, 2014. Without that watershed moment, I believe the industry would have continued with incremental, reactive approaches to risk assessment rather than the proactive, collaborative framework we have today. This alternate timeline would have left passengers potentially more vulnerable when flying near conflict zones, as airlines would have continued relying on fragmented information sources and cost-benefit analyses that didn't fully account for the evolving nature of modern conflicts and the proliferation of advanced anti-aircraft systems. It might have taken another tragedy—perhaps over Syria, Libya, or another active conflict zone—to eventually trigger the reforms that MH17 accelerated."