In the video linked above, we see part of the Ukrainian ethnic cleansing campaign involving the bombing of residential areas of the Russian speaking eastern part of Ukraine. The shootdown of Malaysian flight MH17 was cover for this bombing and also served as a pretext for NATO to invade this region and finish the ethnic cleansing operation. Only fear of Russia prevented a slaughter of the kind NATO perpetrated in Kosovo.
Shortly after the violent illegal US-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014, it became clear that the people living in the Russian speaking eastern region of Ukraine known as Donbass were in complete disagreement with the new government, which was intent on ethnic (cultural, linguistic) and political cleansing to rid itself of all traces of Russian sympathy, even though the majority of Ukrainians throughout the country were speakers of Russian at least as a second language and were not yet infected with the irrational Russophobia imported from the US.
The solution was the classic American one practiced in the Middle East and in Kosovo: attack the dissenters militarily. After all, as GW Bush famously said, if you are not for us you are against us. Thus the Ukraine military began a bombing campaign, starting by bombing the international airport in the region and then systematically shelling and bombing civilian areas. It was not until Russia warned them of consequences that they stopped the bombing. However, the shelling and cannon fire persist to this day and civilians are bearing the brunt.
It was during the first phase, the aerial bombing, that Malaysian flight MH17 was shot down over Donbass and immediately, before any investigation could possibly be conducted, the entire West blamed Russia. Many believed a BUK missile was the cause of the shootdown, because, as the accusers asserted, the missile was made in the Soviet Union and there were BUKs in the Russian army. What no one wanted to admit was that this was also the main missile in the Ukrainian armed forces as well, which used almost exclusively Russian made arms.
I had written about this MH17 story before:
MH17 TURNABOUT: UKRAINE’S GUILT NOW PROVEN
INVESTIGATORS REFUSE TO LOOK AT EVIDENCE IN MH17 SHOOT-DOWN FROM RENOWNED DETECTIVE
In the first of the two above-linked articles, we find a quote that would, if true, be the basis of a false flag shootdown of a commercial airliner ordered by a Western (probably Ukrainian) agent in order to justify a NATO attack that would slaughter civilian Russian speakers in Donbass:
Quote from Zero Hedge:
“In the film, Malaysian Prime Minister Mohamad Makhathia and the head of the Malaysian Government’s investigative team and Colonel Mohamad Sakri, director of the National Security Council, say that a 9,000-strong NATO contingent was ready to enter the Donbass.”
This, and the fact that the Ukraine military was using commercial air traffic as cover for its bombing campaign, would explain why the Ukraine authorities did not bother to close the air space above the civil war zone.
"Finally": the Dutch parliament investigates the crime of Ukraine
October 04, 2019
by Ukrainian political scientist Vladimir Kornilov
More than five years have passed since the tragedy of flight MH17 over the Donbass, but not until now has the Dutch parliament instructed the government to investigate the question that everyone reasonably asked from the very first minutes after the disaster: why Ukraine did not close its airspace over the military conflict zone. It is not surprising that a number of Dutch media outlets are adding the word "Finally" to the headlines of news about this event.
In the Netherlands, this issue has been stressed constantly at various levels. The local press described in detail the chronology of events that preceded the tragedy, clearly pointing to Ukraine’s guilt in allowing flights over the Donbass, although it was well aware of the danger to civilian aircraft. Moreover, the country's Security Council issued an unequivocal verdict in the fall of 2015: Ukraine is guilty, since it was obliged to close airspace, but did not.
However, the International Investigation Team, leading the investigation of the disaster, constantly ignored this conclusion. Politicians from different parties periodically requested a report from the government and the oversight bodies responsible for the investigation regarding the reasons for this strange position. Last year, after regular inquiries, Foreign Minister Stef Blok told parliamentarians that the government “has no evidence” of Ukraine’s guilt. In other words, the case is closed before it is even opened.
And then suddenly everything changed. The reason was the former volunteer of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Vladimir Tsemakh, or rather, the fact that Ukraine extradited him to Russia during a recent exchange of prisoners. The Dutch media, for lack of culprits in the case of the downed Boeing from the filing of Ukraine, spread reports that Tsemakh was almost a key witness, and therefore they painfully took up the report that he was returning home. Now they’ve decided to get their revenge on Kiev.
Initially, a debate in the lower house of parliament on the MH17 trial was scheduled for this Tuesday; the trial is set to begin next March. Minister Blok was going to report on the government’s decision the previous day to allocate 54 million euros for a trial that, according to the Ministry of Justice, could last four years.
In fact, however, the entire meeting discussed the actions of Kiev in the Tsemakh case, and this resulted in accusations against Ukraine. The corresponding draft decision was submitted by deputies from the Christian Democratic Appeal party, a member of the ruling coalition, and the opposition Socialist Party. Then the deputies of almost all parliamentary factions joined him.
By this decision, the parliament obliged the government to take steps to investigate the inaction of Ukraine, which did not completely secure the airspace for civilian flights, and to report to the deputies about the results. Moreover, this should be done as soon as possible. The initiator of the project, Chris van Dam, simply explained hurriedly: "Time is running out. Memory is erased, data is lost." It seems that the decision and especially the complete unanimity of the parliamentarians was an unpleasant surprise for the government.
The media reported that the lower house of the Dutch parliament intends to initiate an investigation into the role of Ukraine in the case of the crash of flight MH17. Political analyst Yuri Pochta on Sputnik radio commented on the initiative of the Dutch parliament.
Moreover, the arguments of the head of the Dutch Foreign Ministry, who tried to fight off the pressure of the deputies, are amazingly frank. For example, Blok repeated several times that in order to investigate the acts of Ukraine, "they will also have to cooperate with Russia." Apparently, the minister considers this a big problem for himself. Even parliamentarians expressed surprise during the debate about what prevented the head of the foreign ministry from meeting with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov during their recent meeting at the UN General Assembly.
Most surprisingly, the Dutch deputies and newspapers quite calmly give arguments about the responsibility of Kiev. No one is particularly embarrassed to write that so far this country [Ukraine] has been perceived as an ally and partner, and now, after the extradition of Tsemakh, "good relations with Ukraine have changed." The parliamentarians spoke directly about this during the debate, outlining the approach of their authorities with a simple formula: "Geopolitics versus justice."
So much for the whole push for justice, for the rule of law. Thus the Dutch do not hesitate to admit that the results of the investigation into the downed Boeing’s case directly depend on their country's relations with Russia, Ukraine or someone else. They would quarrel with Malaysia – they would also blame it, but so far geopolitics does not require this.
It is thanks to this original approach of the Dutch to justice that we should not expect a sharp change in the rhetoric of this country and the general course of the investigation. In the course of the parliamentary debate, almost unambiguous conclusions were sounded about the direct involvement of Russia in the aforementioned tragedy. The ambiguous preliminary results of investigators, who clearly ignored data on the Ukrainian origin of the Buk missile shell, which was allegedly found in Donbass, were not called into question. And, of course, none of the deputies demanded to consider alternative versions of the tragedy.
But in any case, the unanimous decision of the Dutch parliament to begin the process of investigating the actions and, most importantly, the criminal inaction of Ukraine in July 2014 can be considered a breakthrough. Now the government is obliged to inform the deputies of the steps taken in this direction as soon as possible. Thus, the response is unlikely to be limited to unscheduled furloughs.
The investigation will be required to assess the decision of the Kiev authorities not to close the airspace above the war zone at an altitude of more than ten kilometres and the actual use of civilian airliners to cover their military aircraft heavily bombing the peaceful cities of Donbass. Since Ukraine’s guilt in this is obvious and does not require special evidence, it is possible that ultimately the conclusions of the investigation on this issue will be associated with the trial. And then some of the former Ukrainian high-ranking officials will find themselves in hot water.