When Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine last month the world took another step towards what is looking more and more like an inevitable conflict. Russian President Vladimir Putin was behind yet another provocative act of war, resulting in the murder of almost 300 innocent civilians.
Well, that was the line that offered by both the West’s governments and their media. Copious amounts of propaganda purporting that Ukraine based Russian rebels were behind the attack have been churned out over recent weeks, despite there being very limited factual evidence to support the claims, not to mention a host of discrepancies that throw a thick cloud of doubt and suspicion over the whole situation.
To begin with, the suggestion that Putin is interested in any international war at all to me seems to be unfounded. As far as international policy is concerned, the Russian leader is one of the world’s biggest protectors of national sovereignty. Which is the reason for why he made no attempt to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria. Unlike the West, Russia has no intention of warmongering or intervening in Syrian affairs.
The justification of the proposed war in Syria was based on the tyrant of a leader having chemical weapons, have we not heard a similar tale before? Over the following year it has transpired that the intention was to frame Assad, before intervening for humanitarian means. Quite how supporting a rebel organisation, riddled with extremism is in any way humanitarian, I am not quite sure. No real proof, despite what the media has offered has ever suggested that Assad used chemical weapons, simple logic would indicate that he would not have needed them for a war that he was winning.
The actions of Putin to point out that it was not necessarily Assad to have used chemical weapons, and to warn against any military action unless that the claims were proven “beyond doubt” was one of the key factors that led to there being no intervention in the country. And for those that suggest that it was our duty to wage war and to “free” or “liberate” Syrian citizens from the Assad government, I point you around 1300 miles west to Libya. A country that was “freed” and “liberated” a couple of years earlier.
Claiming that Vladimir Putin is one of the greatest protectors of national sovereignty is a statement that may appear rather silly following the Russian annexation of Crimea earlier in the year. However, as quite often with international politics, the picture is very rarely black and white, and a debate of good against bad.
What happened in the Ukraine back in February? A democratically elected leader, Victor Yanukovych was toppled with the backing of the European Union. Now, it is common knowledge that the European Union very rarely conforms with democracy. Following the economic crisis in Greece, a former Vice President of the European Central Bank as shoehorned in as Prime Minister, unelected by the Greek people. Not to mention that the EU Commission, the law-making body, is also unelected by the public.
I digress, what the European Union has done in regard to the Ukraine was offer the country, as it had previously done with Georgia an unrealistic dream of joining both the EU, as well as NATO. The prospect of the EU becoming an even larger union with an unprecedented growing political power is concerning enough in its own right. The very idea of national sovereignty, one of the cornerstones to a free and democratic world is being etched away.
The actions to try and lure the Ukraine over was both a violation of national sovereignty, as well as an act seen as deeply provocative by Russia. It must be noted that Ukrainian connections with Russia both culturally and historically have been much stronger than they have to Western Europe. The majority of Ukrainian’s also speak Russian whilst a third of all Ukrainian migration is to Russia, with the Russia-Ukraine border being the second biggest migration corridor in the world. Without attempting to explain a very deep and complex situation, any effort to try and move Ukraine away from Russia was always going to be seen as an unacceptable act, that the Kremlin would not let pass.
Putin is, to use pub talk, a no nonsense leader. Whilst generally not being prepared to involve his country in conflicts that are of no concern to Russia, he is not scared to act when the interests of his nation are challenged. Annexing Crimea was an action that was both undesirable and ugly. However, whilst I won’t try to justify it, it is worth making the point that Crimea was part of Russia until 1954, the majority of the Crimean population are ethnically Russian, and that in a poll over 90% of the Crimean people expressed a desire to become part of Russia. So when pro-Russian President Yanukovych, who it must be stressed was democratically elected by the Ukrainian people, was ousted by pro-EU protestors, seeing Russia act was not wholly surprising.
Seeing the European Union denounce an annexation also came as a major surprise considering that is what they have done since they advanced from being an organisation who’s main priority was that of free trade.
Fast forward to July and a passenger plane carrying almost 300 innocent civilians crashes over eastern Ukraine. The blame has been heaped almost entirely on Russia, the evidence to support it meanwhile is sketchy at best, and nowhere near strong enough to give the go ahead for the continued sanctions being placed on the country.
The widely publicised story was that Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine were behind the attacks, and that the weaponry used to carry it out, had been supplied by Russia. The actual concrete evidence supporting this however isn’t really there, or at least I haven’t seen it. What I have seen though is the citation of social media as “proof”, forged satellite images in attempt to divert the blame from Kiev, and the general fabrication of evidence.
People may question how I believe that governments could lie about a situation which could potentially have such grave consequences. From governments that lied continuously about Iraq, from claims that Saddam Hussein had links to Al-Qaeda to the country possessing WMDs, I have no hesitation in believing that I am not being told the truth. The only belief I hold with certainty about Western governments, is that they have no moral compass.
Serious questions need to be asked of Kiev and their involvement in the crash of MH17. Why did Kiev Air Traffic Control order that the plane’s route was changed to travel right through an area deep in conflict, an area that was deliberately avoided previously? Why did Kiev forge time-stamps in an attempt to clear themselves from any potential blame? It is essential that questions like these are asked, nor should someone be labeled a conspiracy theorist for pointing out hard factual evidence that goes against what you have been told.
If I was writing this to talk conspiracy theories, I would mention that Putin’s plane transporting him to Moscow was in the same airspace in the previous hour to the attack on MH17 and that he was the real target. But that isn’t the purpose of this article, the purpose is to make judgments based on fact, and question what is provided by the mainstream media. That is why I advocate at least watching RT (formerly Russia Today), a Kremlin-funded international news channel that offers a different perspective of the world news. Yes, it may sometimes be biased in favour of Russia, but is the BBC not guilty of being biased in favour of the West?
Wary of being subject to a misunderstanding in regard to my opinions of Vladimir Putin, as Nigel Farage was, it is essential I clarify them before rounding off the article. As far as domestic policies are concerned, I endorse nothing of what Putin does. That isn’t to say I disagree with everything, it just means that I don’t endorse them. On international policy, I respect anybody who looks to maintain national sovereignty, who doesn’t intervene in other countries affairs without worthwhile reason, and who isn’t looking to start a war.
Far from the deranged comic book villain that Putin has been portrayed as, he is an astute leader who knows what he is trying to do, whether you perceive it to be right or wrong. Comparisons to Adolf Hitler are both pathetic, as well as very dangerous, and should not be being made by a potential future President like Hillary Clinton. That to me is the real scaremongering and warmongering.
Perhaps Putin was behind the MH17 crash, and my assessments, as well as many others from people much more intelligent than me are wrong. From what has emerged post the event I find that scenario becoming increasingly doubtful. Regardless of what you believe happened, and who caused it, to base your opinion from a media who oppose Russia, funded by governments who are searching for conflict with Russia, is rather foolish.
Move away from mainstream media, or at least listen to it from both sides, and start forming your own opinions. They have lied in the past, do not doubt that they are capable of doing it again.