From all appearances, the Obama regime intends to turn the "international investigation" into an indictment of Russia, and the Dutch seem to be lined up behind this corrupt use of the investigation. As the Washington Post story makes clear, there is no room in the investigation for any suspicion that Kiev and Washington might be responsible.
By continuing to trust a corrupt West that is devoid of integrity and of good will toward Russia, the separatists and the Russian government have again set themselves up for vilification. Will they never learn?
As I write, more confusion is added to the story. It has just come across my screen that Reuters reports that Alexander Khodakovsky, "a powerful Ukrainian rebel leader, has confirmed that pro-Russian separatists had an anti-aircraft missile of the type Washington says was used to shoot down the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 and it could have originated in Russia."
Reuters says that this separatist commander (or perhaps former commander as later in its report Reuters describes Khodakovsky as "a former head of the 'Alpha' anti-terrorism unit of the security service in Donetsk") is in dispute with other commanders about the conduct of the war.
Khodakovsky makes clear that he doesn't know which unit might have had the missile or from where it was fired. He makes it clear that he has no precise or real information. His theory is that the Ukrainian government tricked the separatists into firing the missile by launching airstrikes in the area over which the airliner was flying and by sending military jets to the vicinity of the airliner to create the appearance of military aircraft. Reuters quotes Khodakovsky, "...Even if there was a BUK, and even if the BUK was used, Ukraine did everything to ensure that a civilian aircraft was shot down."
Not knowing the nature of Khodakovsky's dispute with other commanders or his motivation, it is difficult to assess the validity of his story, but his tale does explain why Ukrainian air control would route the Malaysian airliner over the combat area, a hitherto unexplained decision.
After the sensational part of its story, Reuters seems to back away a bit. Reuters quotes Khodakovsky saying that the separatist movement has different leaders and "our cooperation is somewhat conditional." Khodakovsky then becomes uncertain as to whether the separatists did or did not have operational BUK missiles. According to Reuters, Khodakovsky "said none of the BUKs captured from Ukrainian forces were operational." This implies that Russia provided the working missile to the separatists if such a missile existed.
I find the separatists' reply convincing. If we have these missiles why to the fools in Kiev send aircraft to bomb us, and why is their bombing so successful? The separatists do have shoulder fired ground to air missiles of the kind that the US supplied to Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion. These missiles are only capable for low flying aircraft. They cannot reach 33,000 feet.
According to Reuters, the reporting of its story was by one person, the writing by a second, and the editing by a third. From my experience in journalism, this means that we don't know whose story it is, how the story was changed, or what its reliability might be.
We can safely conclude that the obfuscations are just beginning, and like 9/11 and John F. Kennedy's assassination, there will be no alternative to individuals forming their own opinion from researching the evidence. The United States government will never come clean, and the British government and presstitute media will never stop telling lies for Washington.
Washington's bribes and threats can produce whatever story Washington wants. Keep in mind that a totally corrupt White House, over the objections of its own intelligence agencies, sent the Secretary of State to the United Nations to lie to the world about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that the White House knew did not exist. The consequences are that millions were killed, maimed, and displaced for no other reason than Washington's lie and rising instability in the Middle East.
The Obama regime lied on the basis of concocted "evidence" that Assad had used chemical weapons against the Syrian people, thus crossing the "red line" that the White House had drawn, justifying a US military attack on the Syrian people. The Russian government exposed the fake evidence, and the British Parliament voted down any UK participation in the Obama regime's attack on Syria. Left isolated, the Obama regime dared not assume the obvious role of war criminal.
Blocked in this way, the Obama regime financed and supplied outside jihadist militants to attack Syria, with the consequence that a radial ISIL is in the process of carving out a new Caliphate from parts of Iraq and Syria.
Keep in mind that both the George W. Bush and Obama regimes have also lied through their teeth about "Iranian nukes."
The only possible conclusion is that a government that consistently lies is not believable.
Since the corrupt Clinton regime, American journalists have been forced by their bosses to lie for Washington. It is a hopeful sign that in their confrontation with Marie Harf some journalists found a bit of courage. Let's hope it takes root and grows.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).