The list of confirmed civil aviation aeroplanes being shot-down by hostile forces, dates back to at least 1938, when the Airforce of Imperial Japan challenged and downed a Chinese-operated DC-2 just north of Hong Kong (killing 15 passengers with just 3 surviving). In 1973, the Airforce of Israel shot-down Libyan Airlines Flight 114, killing all but 5 of 113 people on board. In 1988, the US Navy shot-down Iran Air Flight 655 – killing all 290 passengers on-board. Interestingly, in 2001, the Ukrainian Military took responsibility for the mistaken shooting-down of Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 – killing all 66 passengers and 12 crew. This unfortunate action was deemed an ‘accident’ which occurred during normal military training exercises (with the Ukrainian government paying compensation to the families of the victims). This is just a brief list of civil airliners being shot-down and destroyed by military forces. The usual justification for these incidents is that the civil airliners strayed off-course from their intended flight-plans, and into prohibited air-spaces. These planes were immediately shot-down without warning, or were shot-down after refusing to acknowledge any attempted communication, or to follow any directions to change course. In this regard, many of the world’s major political and military powers have at one time or another in their respective histories, utilised military force against unarmed civilian airliners, with deadly effect. The dubious legality behind these incidents appears to lie in the internationally accepted principle that a country has a right to ‘defend’ its airspace. This is almost always justified as being an ‘accident’ when hundreds of civilians travelling on ‘unarmed’ airliners are killed by modern weapons-technology.
Since WWII, part of the problem has stemmed the US Cold War strategy of ‘spying’ upon the Soviet Union (and the Communist Bloc) from the air – using both military and civilian aircraft to do so. Following several high-profile examples of US military spy-planes being shot-down over the USSR – it is thought that the US started to gather information from unarmed civilian airliners fitted with long-range optical equipment. The problem was that these ‘civilian’ airliners still had to penetrate the forbidden airspace of Communist Bloc countries to utilise this sophisticated on-board equipment. The US thinking appears to have been that if the civilian airliner uses the excuse of an ‘accidental’ deviation off-course, no untoward action would be initiated against its presence in what was effectively ‘enemy’ airspace. The very fact that both the US (and its close ally Israel) have been prepared to use deadly military force against unarmed civilian airliners, demonstrates the absurdity of this type of thinking. Added to this picture of military force used against civilian airliners has been the ever present threat of terrorism, whereby small groups of dedicated fanatics are prepared to kill themselves to destroy an aeroplane (and its passengers). It is also not beyond the realms of possibility that a ‘terrorist’ type of government could seize political power, and in so doing, use the military hardware already existent in that country to perform acts of terror upon its own citizens, and the citizens of other Nation States.
During February, 2014, certain neo-Nazi groups encouraged by recent US high-level visits to Kiev (situated within Western Ukraine), initiated a number of violent and racially motivated assaults across the country, with the expressed aim of taking political power by force, from the democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych. Despite its obvious use of terror and murder to usurp the liberal, democratic process, the United States immediately granted legitimacy to the thuggish leaders of this despicable neo-Nazi regime, and predictably all the countries of the EU (and other US allies around the world) followed suite. This taking of political power by brute force was immediately presented in the Western media as a ‘Revolution’ and a ‘fight for freedom’, whilst all the evidence of the numerous and ongoing atrocities committed by the ‘Maidan’ neo-Nazi foot-soldiers were played-down or simply ignored. The ‘Maidan’ neo-Nazi uprising was encouraged and financed by the US Administration of President Obama, and is a strange testimony to the first African-American leader of that country. To think that a ‘Black’ President would support a neo-Nazi regime anywhere in the world, following hundreds of years of racial murder and abuse of African-Americans by exactly the same far-rightwing ideology in the US, beggars belief, but this is the situation that existed in 2014, and which has intensified in 2018 under the openly racist US Administration of President Trump. The US is attacking Russia’s history of fighting fascism (particularly during WWII), by actively encouraging, arming and financing neo-Nazi groups throughout Eastern Europe. Russia has reacted to this provocation not by force of arms, but rather ‘legally’ through the United Nations (UN). Russia tabled a Resolution demanding the ‘banning’ of the glorification of all neo-Nazi movements in the world – but on November 20th, 2015, despite the Resolution being over-whelmingly endorsed by the international community, nevertheless, the US, Canada, ‘Maidan’ Ukraine and Palau voted against this Resolution (this including a further 53 countries [including the UK] ‘abstaining’ due to US pressure). The US has retained this position throughout (with President Trump also refusing to support this Resolution), because it would seriously dent America’s anti-Russia activities in Eastern Europe, if it had to acknowledge and impose a ‘ban’ on all the neo-Nazi groups it is currently supporting in the region.
This history is important, because the US is influencing the manner in which the Ukrainian debacle of the neo-Nazi ‘Maidan’ regime coming to power is being portrayed as ‘heroic’ in the Western media. This is part of the neo-imperialist and neo-colonial activities of the US, attempting to sabre-rattle and muscle-flex within the Russian zone of geo-political influence. Russia, although capitalist since 1991, has not allowed a Rothschild Central Bank into Russia, and so remains outside of the US-dominated international capitalist system. The US and its extension of foreign policy – the EU – cannot unduly influence or control the direction of Russia ‘from within’. Added to this a resurgent Communist Party in Russia that is attracting substantial support (and votes), and President Putin pledging support for Communist China and Cuba, as well as wiping-out billions in African debt, the US (and its allies), are afraid of Russia’s independence, and paranoid about a possible re-appearance of the a ‘Soviet Union’ throughout the Russian sphere of influence (simply upon the grounds that life was ‘better’ for millions of people under Socialism, than it is now under exploitative capitalism). In this regard, even before the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the US had been engaged in a decades-long demonisation of the Soviet Union, busy generating a ‘false’ image in the minds of the average working-class westerner. America knows full-well that within two tiny, fledgling countries called Lugansk and Donetsk, the Socialist spirit of the USSR lives on, and this is exactly why the US feels that it must destroy both these States if it is to further its ambitions of forcibly establishing a Rothschilds Central Bank deep in the heart of Russia.
Working from basic principles, it is within the fascist ideology of Adolf Hitler that ‘lying’ and ‘terrorism’ are viewed as legitimate weapons in the political and military fields of operation. This is the US-supported ideology pursued by the neo-Nazi Maidan regime of Western Ukraine. On the other hand, the Socialist regimes of the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, pursue a Marxist-Leninist path that overtly ‘rejects’ all forms of ‘terrorism’ (as such acts are against the interests of the working class – which is usually the victim of it), as well as all forms of ‘fascism’. Although Socialism acknowledges the right of ‘self-defence’ (as do virtually all sane legal systems), both Lugansk and Donetsk do not possess any substantial military hardware, and are defended from the attacks of the neo-Nazi Maidan forces by a thin line of self-sustaining volunteers. All the artillery, aircraft and surface to air missiles are retained by the Maidan regime, and are being boosted regularly by US military equipment. In-short, neither Donetsk or Lugansk possesses the military equipment or the specially trained military personnel to shoot-down an aircraft, military or otherwise. Furthermore, neither Russia, Donetsk nor Lugansk would logically engage in such an insane activity, as it would be playing exactly into the hands of the US. Shooting-down a civilian airliner is not an act of self-defence, and so has no place in the strategy of the defence of the region. However, attempting to inflict the greatest amount of political damage upon the breakaway Republics (and their Russian ally) is typical of US Cold War behaviour, and ‘expected’ as typical for any neo-Nazi regime (which does not respect the sanctity of human life). This is the logical background to this story.
On July 17th, 2014, Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot out of the air and crashed near the village of Rassipnoe (situated in the Donetsk region of Eastern Ukraine) – killing all 298 passengers on-board. The US line on this tragic event is that Russia is responsible, and this approach has been reinforced and supported by Belgium, the Nederlands and Australia – three countries that have collaborated with the neo-Nazi Maidan regime. The neo-Nazi Maidan regime is a product of US anti-Russian foreign policy, and will always seek to further US interests in the region. By European countries uncritically engaging the neo-Nazi Maidan regime, it is clear that a priori, this fascistic and terroristic State is being absolved of any involvement or guilt in this terrible crime. To date, the neo-Nazi Maidan regime has given no explanation as to why one of its military planes was flying close to MH17, just prior to its downing. At the same time, a US satellite was flying over the Ukrainian region, but the US has steadfastly refused to release the photographic images to back-up its assertion that militias in Donetsk or Lugansk shot-down the civilian airliner with a shoulder launched, surface to air missile. The German media has also replicated this story, claiming that satellite images ‘prove’ that local militias shot-down the airliner, despite Dutch Authorities denying the existence of any such photographs. Another story circulating (even within Russian language sources) is that a motorised ‘BUK’ surface to air missile system was driven from Russia into Eastern Ukraine and ‘fired’ at MH17 before being quietly driven back into Russian territory, but what would be the point of this? None. Just as there is absolutely no reason for the defenders of Lugansk or Donetsk to shoot-down a civilian airliner when the borders of their small Republics are under continuous and brutal attack by the neo-Nazi Maidan regime. The US will not release the satellite images because such images would show that it was the neo-Nazi Maidan forces (which possesses all kinds of Russian and Soviet-era military hardware), that shot-down MH17 – and prove that the US is lying whilst supporting a resurgent neo-Nazism in the region. The neo-Nazi Maidan regime was probably acting upon US instructions as part of a broader plan intended to demonise Russia, Lugansk and Donetsk, and further the conquest of Eastern Ukraine by Kiev military forces. Interestingly, lawyers representing the three German victims of this tragedy have formerly held the neo-Nazi Maidan government ‘responsible’ (referring to it as the ‘Ukrainian Government’) for not closing the airspace above the conflict zone, so as not to miss-out on the substantial fees earned from allowing civilian aircraft to fly through Ukrainian airspace. This is considered a reasonable approach given that a number of aircraft were shot down previously in the area. Since Russia’s hint that it possesses evidence of US collusion in the tragedy, the direct anti-Russian rhetoric has subsided somewhat, presumably so as not to provoke the release of this proof into the public domain. In the meantime, the people of Lugansk and Donetsk are referred to in US legal documents as ‘insurgents’ living within their own countries, and because these people are exercising their self-determination and choosing a ‘Socialist’ pathway, any alleged support for these Republics by Russia is being referred to as a violation of human rights legislation. If this distortion of human rights legislation was not enough, the US continues to package its military and economic support for the neo-Nazis of Maidan Ukraine as a ‘Humanitarian’ act, despite the death and misery such a policy is generating in the region.