MH-17: Russia Convicted By Propaganda, Not Evidence Paul Craig Roberts

MH-17: Russia Convicted By Propaganda, Not Evidence

July 17, 2016 

MH-17: Russia Convicted By Propaganda, Not Evidence

Paul Craig Roberts

Today is the second anniversary of the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, and we still do not know the explanation.

Washington and its European vassal politicians and media instantly politicized the event: The Russians did it. End of story. After 15 months of heavy anti-Russian propaganda had imprinted the message on peoples’ minds, the Dutch Safety Board issued its inconclusive report.

By then, it was irrelevant what the report said. Everyone already knew that “the Russians did it.”

I remember when pre-trial media accusations resulted in dismissed cases. Anyone declared guilty prior to presentation of evidence and conviction was considered to have been convicted in advance and unable to receive a fair trail. Such cases were dismissed by judges.

Washington’s story never made any sense. Neither Russia nor the separatists in the Donetsk region had any reason to shoot down a Malaysian airliner. In contrast Washington had enormous incentives as Washington’s propaganda machine could place the blame on Russia and use the incident to compel European governments to accept Washington’s sanctions placed on Russia.

It worked for Washington. Washington successfully used the incident to wreck Europe’s political and economic relationships with Russia.

Four months into the anti-Russian propaganda campaign, a website called Bellingcat, claiming to be an open source site for citizen journalists, but which could be a MI-5, MI-6, or CIA front, issued a report that the Buk missile was fired by a Russian unit, the 53rd Buk Brigade, based in the Russian city of Kursk. This allegation exposed the propaganda for what it is.

Whereas it is possible that separatists unfamiliar with the Buk weapon system could accidentally shoot down a civilian airliner, it is not possible for a Russian military unit to make such a mistake.

Moreover, it is unclear why separatists or the Ukrainian government would have any reason to use Buk missiles in their conflict. The separatists have no air force. The Ukrainians attack the separatists at ground level with ground attack aircraft and helicopters, not with high altitude bombing. The Buk missile is a high altitude missile. The only way the separatists could have acquired Buk missiles is by overrunning and capturing Ukrainian positions that for unfathomed reasons had deployed Buk missiles.

It seems to me that if a Buk missile was present in the conflict area, it was moved there for a reason unrelated to the conflict.

A European air traffic controller said that MH-17 and the airliner carrying Russian President Vladimir Putin were initially on the same course. Possibly Washington and its vassal in Kiev thought MH-17 was Putin’s plane and destroyed the Malaysian flight by mistake.

In order to avoid the consequences of such a provocation, the Russian government would deny that Putin’s plane was on a similar course.

Even the Western presstitute media reports that separatists found the Malaysian airliner’s recorders, or black boxes, and turned them over to the investigation and that the recorders had not been tampered with. If the separatists were responsible for the attack, why would they hand over evidence against themselves?

Why does Kiev refuse to release the communications between Ukrainian air traffic control and MH-17? 

Why was a civilian airliner routed over a combat zone? 

The Dutch report does not answer these questions. Washington prevented all answers that conflict with its propaganda.

Only Washington, whose presstitutes can be relied on to control the explanations for Washington, and Washington’s vassal in Kiev had anything to gain from downing the airliner. Whether intentional or an accident, the downing of MH-17 was used to blacken Russia and to convince the EU to go along with Washington’s economic sanctions and military moves against Russia.

As the Romans always asked: “Who benefits?” The answer to that question tells you who did it.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.