VIDEO: MH17 Inquiry: "To Whose Benefit?"

Alexander Mercouris has written as good an analysis as you will read anywhere about the latest MH17 claims.
http://theduran.com/joint-investigation-team-mh17-case-still-open/
The key arguments may be summarized in 6 points:
[1] The MH17 Inquiry is being conducted by Ukraine, as confirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 2166 of 21st July 2016. The Netherlands, Australia and Malaysia were invited to join. This was not an investigation set up by the UN Security Council. Russia was not invited to join the investigation, and played no role in it. The countries which agreed to join the investigation were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement which gave Ukraine the right to veto publication of any findings. The evidence was gathered largely by Ukraine, under its supervision.
[2] Ukraine was, or ought to have been, a suspect in the case. MH17 was shot down in its airspace at a time of armed conflict. Any investigation set up by a suspect in a case in which the suspect continues to play a major role by definition cannot be impartial or independent. There was a presumption on the part of countries participating in the Inquiry of Ukraine’s innocence and of others’ guilt.
[3] A separate investigation into the tragedy was also carried out by the Dutch Safety Board, which reported last year. It was conducted under the aegis of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The Dutch investigation said that MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile but failed to identify the precise launch point, and did not name those responsible for launching the missile. It claimed that under the ICAO it was not authorized “to apportion blame or liability,” which is not the same as determining events or the cause which was its duty. Had they pursued this line the Russians would have been legally entitled to make submissions and receive written responses, an option they were denied.
[4] Ukrainian BUK missile launchers were in the area where MH17 was shot down yet the Dutch Inquiry made no mention of them.
[5] The Russians provided a deluge of technical evidence which was never acknowledged or reported on. The Dutch report paid no heed to detailed technical advice from Almaz-Antey, the manufacturer of BUK missiles. It claimed the missile and warhead combinations alleged by the Dutch Inquiry were not possible and that the MH17 launch had taken place in the village of Zaroshchenskoe — outside the area alleged by the Dutch Inquiry and close to Ukrainian BUK missile launchers. No mention of either of these details were made in the Dutch Report nor any response to their extensive technical submissions which disputed Dutch technical claims.
[6] The latest report relies principally on information originating from Ukrainian sources. It includes the eye-witness, radio intercept, video, and social media evidence, much of which has already been in the public domain for some time, where it has been vigorously contested. It is a template of a Ukrainian government prosecution case against Russia. It is not an independent, comprehensive examination of the evidence. It’s a political exercise.

This video is definitely Russian propaganda, but truthful at the same time. It advances Russia’s desire for peace between itself and Ukraine, and between Ukraine and Donbass. It throws out some very troubling accusations which may or may not be true, but which bear investigation. The Biden connection with the horrors in Donbass is nothing new, generally speaking, as American enterprise has been in the vanguard of war and regime change throughout the World (check South America for example). This may be same old, same old!