Please note this is an opinion piece and not an opinion piece masquerading as a news report. You will find plenty of those in the mainstream media (MSM) intended for your general consumption.
It is now more than a year since the tragic shoot down of Malayan flight MH-17. There has been immense suffering for those families involved in this incident and the great number that have lost their lives in the east of Ukraine. Many people have since brought to bear their thoughts and opinions on this event, no more so than the US government itself who were indisputably the first to apportion blame. Though, as with the boy who cried wolf, repeated claims do not necessarily make a truth. The Guardian throughout has been constantly faithful to the Washington narrative, as in all reporting of the Ukraine since the Maidan insurrection.
Off Guardian pointed out on 14th July about flight MH-17, that the Guardian’s journalists, despite copious reporting, still “stand on the sidelines” regarding balancing the facts. The most noticeable thing to date with the Malaysian flight MH-17 narrative is that the only definitive facts placed in the Public Domain have been released from sources other than the US. The fact is the Guardian’s predominant claim, that it was the separatists in the east of Ukraine backed by Russia that are to blame, is currently at odds with the available data. Unless of course they know something we don’t, in which case they would be failing in their job not to provide it, wouldn’t they? Fortunately there are a minority of journalists like Patrick Henningsen out there who are prepared to list the known facts and focus on the gaps in the data, gaps which point the finger at the US and Ukraine and not at Russia.
Pretty much most of the paid stenographers writing on this are to blame for what has become a sloppy exercise in deviant labelling. Kowtowing to their bosses editorial demands in a mass media which has been brought to heel at Washington’s command; in what has become a subterfuge of agitprop. This should act as a stark reminder to us all, as to just how in thrall to the ruling elite our so called western free media really is.
Now some might say the US has information, but no definitive information, which may well be the case. If this is so, then why will they not make it available? The only possible explanation is that it doesn’t corroborate what they have claimed. So concerned are some retired CIA staff and analysts with the lack of transparency behind the current direction of Obama’s foreign policy and the mis-informed line it is taking, regarding the handling of relations with Russia, that they have written asking for all known information of flight MH-17 to be released. The fact that this lack of transparency is a matter of national and global security is no understatement at all.
What really stands out is the omissions of key data. information which would be a real game changer. Such as the flight and cockpit recorders from MH17, which were taken to RAF Farnborough to be analysed and to date have never been made publicly available (despite the UK not being part of the official investigation). In addition to this there were the Air Traffic Control (ATC) recordings which were confiscated by the Kiev authorities and have never been released and may have been destroyed. These aspects are of huge significance, as they would no doubt clear up the basic questions about, not only what happened minutes before the crash, but also why the aircraft was made to deviate so radically from its planned flight path taking it right over the conflict zone.
If we couple with this the fact that it was Ukraine which had BUK systems and they were deployed in the vicinity at the time as well as two Ukrainian fighter jets, that were both witnessed by civilians and tracked by Russian radar, then questions appear about the current Washington driven MSM narrative. The other part of the story which gets almost no discussion is that Ukraine have veto rights on the evidence produced for the Dutch led investigation and the report. So one of the possible culprits is able to refuse the inclusion of facts they cannot or will not explain. How crazy is that? It’s like allowing the inmates to be in charge of the asylum.
There is also the case of the “Dog not barking”, as reporter Robert Parry puts it, where the US having made claims of possessing information, at the time of the tragedy, while pointing the finger at Russia and then having to go silent on it. Robert Parry cites a Pentagon briefed source as saying the intelligence goes in a different direction, or in other words does not fit the narrative which has been established. If we are to believe another story by Der Spiegel, which said the German intelligence agency, the BND, have a different take. Their conclusion is that the Russian government did not supply the Buk anti-aircraft missile suspected of the shoot down. Reporting that instead that the BND believed the rebels used a missile battery captured from Ukrainian forces. All of which leaves us with a glaring question as to what were the sanctions imposed against Russia for? The US also claims they have not done a report on the MH-17 incident as they have no new information. So if they have no new information, and what they have they refuse to release, then presumably they have no case against Russia. All they can do in this situation is pretty much what we see in the MSM. Keep up the same established story and sit on the data they have and consign the truth to the classified X files.
Of all the unusual series of events surrounding this case, the MSM and the journalists in their employ busily writing, not one has seen fit to ask this basic question. Who would stand to gain from such an incident? Well clearly Ukraine would gain from this kind of false flag operation, because it enables them to point the finger of blame at Russia and the ethnic Russians in the east of Ukraine. In order to justify their existence, it is clear the post coup government of Ukraine needs a war and an enemy. In fact without an enemy they would no doubt cease to exist, as they basically seized power on the basis of fighting Russians and ethnically cleansing Ukraine. This plot line serves that purpose well, although it is a pitiful situation when you consider the EU and US are backing these people; and so many Ukrainian’s have lost their lives.
Who would stand to gain from such an incident? A possible scenario based on the facts available.
The US gains from this as they instigated the 22 February coup, by providing funding and moral support to the agent provocateurs of the Maidan. But when the situation in Kiev turned out to be not the cakewalk these planners had in mind, that of another colour revolution, they needed a deflection and an enemy to justify their actions. Hence placing Russia in the crosshairs became the main direction. The Ukraine coup had probably always been the intended springboard for a subsequent regime change in Moscow, but now as many of Yanukovich’s supporters rejected the Nazi complexion of the Putsch in Kiev, they realised instead of creating regime change they had created war. So unfortunately the baby was already slipping through the midwife’s hands and what the US master puppeteers thought would be an instant hit turned out to be a massive flop and a greater flop with the Russia audience.
So someone needed a change of direction from the Europeans who were not fully backing this regime change plan, plus the civil war which had erupted in the east, running the risk of drawing criticism and the wrong publicity. To get the Europeans into line and to justify the war a mind changing event was required. Unfortunately this exercise in perception management also didn’t go according to plan. The stricken aircraft was guided by Kiev ATC onto a different flight path, but the planned interception took place too late, resulting in the aircraft crashing, not in territory under US jurisdiction controlled by their proxies in Kiev, but controlled by the separatists. This left the management of the aftermath of the MH-17 catastrophe out of the control of the perpetrators and it suddenly became necessary to hastily rewrite the planned narrative and chain of events.
Events including news releases implicating Russia, which had no doubt been meticulously planned, with all the relevant evidence easy to produce and control was not to be. Unfortunately as happens with the best laid plans Washington or rather Kerry went live with the planned news releases, but the situation on the ground had changed. The dog was already barking and had to be stopped. So after claiming intelligence to prove who shot down MH-17 the US state department went eerily silent. So some seven days after the disaster and world-wide claims that Washington had evidence, they went silent on it. Instead they went to providing information taken from the internet! In other words, “Browser surveillance”, much of which had been hastily produced in Kiev. So while intelligence from the US military, which were carrying out NATO exercises in regional proximity and with one of their spy satellites, recorded as being strategically placed over Ukraine at the time, they managed to provide no intelligence from these sources.
All of this seems to make this narrative really about the strange case of the dog that lost its bark while crying wolf, a case for the US X-files of mixed metaphor and even more mixed intelligence failures.