MH17 : J'ACCUSE NATO

Read this report:

Never-before-seen footage reveals Russian-backed rebels arriving at the wreckage of MH17 http://t.co/h4BApdaMp2

— Eliot Higgins (@EliotHiggins) July 16, 2015

The reporters claim to have seen a 17 minute video of separatists arriving at the crash scene of MH17. NATO media are pushing the idea that the separatists shot down MH17 by mistake. This report, based on separatist video, supports that claim, but it also shows that the separatists believed that MH17 was a SU-25.

Now, the Ukraine military says that it was not flying that day. If this is the case then how could the separatists mistake a civilian passenger plane for a military jet? One possibility is that NATO exercises ongoing at the time were able to spoof the separatist BUks into thinking MH17 was a SU25.

Or that the operators of the BUK were not highly trained Russian operators but amateur separatists.

But all this theorising about who is to blame misses the whole point: why was there a war in Ukraine in the first place?

And not only that, if Ukraine knew that the separatists had BUKs, as revealed at a press conference which occured virtually just as MH17 was shot down, then why did Ukraine not shut down the airspace over East Ukraine?

Take a look at this image from the above report:


When it was shot down, MH17 was flying well below the maximum operating height of a BUK missile!!

So I'll ask again: if Ukraine knew that the separatists had BUKs, and at a press conference on 17th July 2014 they stated they had videos of them, then why did they not shut down the airspace over East Ukraine?

But back to this question: why was there a war in East Ukraine in the first place?

When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 NATO promised Russia that it would not expand one inch east. However, this was only a spoken promise, a Gentleman's Agreement, if you will, and was not binding. One wonders why Gorbachev did not get this 'promise' in writing.

But still, a promise is a promise, particularly between such huge geopolitical powers like Russia and NATO.

Ukraine has been a key geopolitical prize for NATO for decades. In 2004 Ukraine experienced The Orange Revolution, prepared in the years previous by George Soros and the National Endowment for Democracy, among other NATO organisations.

In April 2008 at a NATO summit NATO stated that Ukraine would, at some time later, become a member of NATO. But at that same summit Putin spoke, and he drew a red line at Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO. I assume Putin expected a little respect because Russia had been allowing NATO transit across Russia to and from Afghanistan (on NATO's bogus hunt for an already dead bin Laden).

In August 2013 there was a terrible event on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria. I believe that this was a false flag run by Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia designed to provoke war by NATO/Zionist/Gulf powers on Syria because Assad had been (and still is) holding up their plan for war and regime change in seven countries that was originally planned to take 5 years after 9/11. Putin (and Ed Miliband) stopped the war, with Putin arranging for Syria to relinquish its chemical weapons.

In late 2013 Yanukovich agreed a deal with Putin, rejecting a deal with the EU and IMF. The deal would have firmly placed Ukraine in Russia's sphere of influence.

This was too much for the Kagans and their masters. Robert Kagan had co-created PNAC which was behind all the wars after 9/11, including that in Syria. With Putin supporting Assad, and now stealing Ukraine from the IMF, Robert Kagan's wife Victoria (Nuland) ran a coup in Ukraine.

The coup culminated with extreme violence after neo-Nazis shot protestors and police from The Observatory and other buildings in Kiev. These shootings drove the Maidan protestors into a rabid frenzy, which the neo-Nazis then used to invade government buildings and chase the legitimately elected government away.

During the confusion Victoria Kagan-Nuland discussed with the US Ambasador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, who should become the next leader of Ukraine. They agreed that it should be Arseny Yastenyuk. Lo, and behold! Yatsenyuk became the new PM. Yats was selected due to his allegiance to NATO and Wall Street. Yats runs a foundation called Open Ukraine Foundation, which is funded by Soros, the US Embassy in Kiev, Chatham House, NED and...NATO!

So who did Yats pack his junta with? Bona fide violent neo-Nazis.

Not surprisingly, the people of East Ukraine, who have significant historical links to and with Russia, not least due to the Nazi invasion of Ukraine during WW2, decided they did not want to live under a Nazi junta, and thus rebelled.

So what did the NATO/neo-Nazi junta do? They decided to send their neo-Nazi thugs into East Ukraine and bomb the East Ukraine civilians, with artillery and missiles from the Ukraine Air Force.

This is why there is a war in East Ukraine.

And without the war the separatists would not have decided to fight for the independence and they would not have had BUKs.

And it was during this unnecessary war, provoked by NATO, that MH17 was shot down.

Now, whether the separatists shot down MH17 or not? I don't know.

But I do know that if the likes of the Kagans and their masters had not decided that enough was enough and Putin needing taking down a peg or two then there would have been no Maidan, no NATO-supported neo-Nazis shooting protestors to provoke a violent revolution, no hand-picked NATO-sponosored Prime Minister, no neo-Nazi junta, no revolution in East Ukraine, no counter-revolution by the neo-Nazi junta, no civil war, and thus no MH17 disaster.

So, j'accuse NATO.