October 2nd, 2016 – Fort Russ News –
– RT feat. J. Flores –
RT interviews FR’s own J. Flores on September 28th, on the MH17 investigation ‘findings’, put out the same day by the Joint Investigative Team (JIT). While much criticism of the investigation has focused on the technical aspects of the report, or lack thereof, Flores offers a rejoinder which cuts to the very origin of the JIT itself. Flores reminds us that NATO and Malaysia created the JIT after efforts to create a real and truly ‘Joint’, unbiased team, failed at the level of the UN Security Council.
The originally proposed investigation was to include Ukraine as a possible suspect, for a few very obvious reasons discussed below. Once Ukraine was included as an investigative party, even though it remains a suspect, and once the Netherlands – a NATO country – was to lead the investigation, instead of a neutral country not party to the conflict by way of the relevant alliances in play, the resulting investigative team constituted a conflict of interest.
Furthermore, once it became clear that the point of the investigation was to be to determine how exactly it was that Russia was responsible, instead of determining who was responsible, the bias was built into the JIT effort from the start.
Flores concludes that Ukraine is ultimately responsible, and undeniably so, regardless of which of the two – empirically speaking, Ukrainian warring factions – pushed the button. This is because there was quite obviously a war underway, and yet the Ukrainian government felt quite naturally alright to authorize their air traffic control authority to issue a flight path to a commercial passenger plane directly over the conflict zone.
This alone establishes, at the very least, criminal negligence and such a degree of culpability, that the Ukrainian state was immediately responsible unless they were able to claim some sort of technical error or mistake at a lower level of some sort, despite checks. But the JIT inquiry did not even turn its attention here.
Another point that is interesting, is that the NATO version of Russian possible guilt, does not allege that Ukrainian rebels (i.e. Novorossian rebels) intentionally shot down the plane, but rather that it was an accident. NATO claims that it was impossible for the Novorossian rebels to believe that such a plane would be a passenger plane, for precisely the reasons laid out in the above – it was a war zone. But rather than exonerating the Novorossiyan rebels from actual allegations of wrongdoing, it forms NATO’s central thesis of guilt.
This would then, of course, even if established that pro-Russian forces were involved, create a series of further obstacles before any blame could be placed on the Russian Federation itself. Given the lack of intent, one would have to establish criminal negligence, wanton disregard for human life. At the level of the Hague, in international law, and in past precedence, this criteria has certain obstacles that must be met, and for the very reasons which NATO says that pro-Russian rebels ‘made a mistake’, we are drawn away from a simple path towards either wanton disregard or negligence. Furthermore, a chain of command, from the ‘button pushers’ to official Russian leadership would probably have to be established. This irony on top of insult really underscores the criminal psychopathy of the US’s imperial outlook.