The following questions come to mind.
Does the U.S. have "high resolution" satellite imagery to back up Obama administration claims that it was resistance forces that brought down the plane?
If so, why is the Dutch prosecutor uncertain that they have the U.S. images?
Can we infer that if the images are in possession of the Dutch prosecutors, they're not compelling enough to make the case against the resistance? It would seem so.
If the images have not been provided by the U.S., why not?
What was the basis of German BND claims that the militia shot down MH17?
It's fair to conclude that the Dutch prosecutor hasn't seen the BND evidence. That's the clear implication from the Westerbeke's statement, "We will need evidence."
The Obama administration, German BND, and others in the EU asserted with certainty that the resistance forces of Donetsk and Lugansk were responsible for the shoot down. This certainty carried over to the mainstream media, which accepted the claim uncritically.
It is absolutely clear that the dangers of a superpower confrontation, the disruptions caused by sanctions, and the hostilities that may last for years were all based on claims that lacked conclusive evidence. Why else would those making the claims fail to provide the evidence to the official investigative body at this late date?
Creative Commons 3.0
See series on the Ukraine crisis
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
5
4
3
