Mr. K.L. who is a regular reader here, found this extremely interesting "take" on recent events, including the downing of MH 17 in the Ukraine's Donetsk region, and the inability of American officials to offer anything like substantive proof to their claims that it was Russian-backed separatists that fired the missile:
There's a fly in the "attack Russia ointment," as Zero Hedge makes abundantly clear, citing the Associated Press coverage of the story:
"Senior U.S. intelligence officials say they have no evidence of direct Russian government involvement in the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.
"They say the passenger jet was likely felled by an SA-11 surface-to-air missile fired by Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine and that Russia 'created the conditions' for the downing by arming the separatists.
"The officials briefed reporters Tuesday under ground rules that their names not be used in discussing intelligence related to last week's air disaster, which killed 298 people.
"They said they did not know if any Russians were present at the missile launch, and they wouldn't say that the missile crew was trained in Russia.
" A senior official said the most likely explanation was the plane was shot down by mistake." (Emphases in the original)
Ok...so just Russia "created the conditions"? I think not. If Russia is to be held to blame for the incident simply by having "created the conditions," then surely the same must ultimately be even more applicable to the USA and the West's actions in fomenting the coup and creating the chaos in the first place, if indeed, even they are responsible, for recall my high octane speculation of a few days ago: neither the West, the Ukraine, nor Russia has anything to gain either by creating the incident, sponsoring proxies or cut-outs to create it, or even by "creating the conditions." But some independent rogue group might.
This is not, however, our focus here. The real focus is on the zinger that occurs at the very end of the Zero Hedge article with these two salvos:
"So - to sum up - having told the world that they would release details surrounding intelligence about the MH17 disaster, US officials have pulled a 'trust us' moment... blamed the 'terrorists' and given themselves an out with Putin... all with absolutely no public proof whatsoever...
"Which leaves us with one question - What happened between The White House and Putin (and perhaps Merkel) that ended with this lowering the tone of the debate?" (Emphasis in the original)
What indeed? Granted, it's hard to pull off a "trust us" moment when trust in the US government internationally is at an all time low.
Recall, for a moment, that President Putin phoned President Obama almost immediately after the downing of MH17, so what Zero Hedge is asking is what, exactly, did Putin(and perhaps Merkel) really convey to the White House, and why the subtle backpedaling from Washington?
Well, if the disclosure of Victoria Nuland's "phone call" comments prior to the Kiev coup are any indicator, if the USS Donald Cook incident are any indicator, and if the extensive Russian corporate networked contacts with the West and the Ukraine are any indicator, then perhaps Mr. Putin is sitting atop a mound of his own "classified information and sources," and may have conveyed that he was willing to "share it," leaving the Republicans in the US Senate to pick up the ball with the "Russian Aggression Act of 2014." Perhaps Mr. Putin also gently reminded the West that Russia never did buy into the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, and that for them, as for the late West German Chancellor Audenaur, nuclear weapons are "just another form of artillery."
And I'll bet, like Zero Hedge, that it was a conference call including Frau Merkel, present, perhaps, by Mr. Putin's invitation, and perhaps even unannounced and unbeknownst to the other end of the call.
See you on the flip side...