MH17 Evidence-Tampering Exposed

MH17 Evidence-Tampering Exposed: Cover-Ups, Hiding Records, Witness Misreporting, & FBI Seizures

 

Authored by John Helmer,

A new documentary from Max van der Werff, the leading independent investigator of the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 disaster, has revealed breakthrough evidence of tampering and forging of prosecution materials;  suppression of Ukrainian Air Force radar tapes;  and lying by the Dutch, Ukrainian, US and Australian governments. An attempt by agents of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to take possession of the black boxes of the downed aircraft is also revealed by a Malaysian National Security Council official for the first time. (…)

Full text here: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-23/mh17-evidence-tampering-exposed-cover-ups-hiding-records-witness-misreporting-fbi

 

The Buried Maidan Massacre and Its Misrepresentation by the West

Ivan Katchanovski  22.04.2019

The new Ukrainian government is faced with reopening an inquiry into evidence of an organized mass killing in Kiev that Poroshenko stonewalled. Ivan Katchanovski investigates. By Ivan Katchanovski Special to Consortium News Five years ago, the Maidan massacre in Kiev, Ukraine, of Feb. 18-20, 2014

Quelle: The Buried Maidan Massacre and Its Misrepresentation by the West

+++++

The author posted on Twitter:

Vor 4 Stunden

My article on massacre in , its cover-up and stonewalled investigation, and its misrepresentation by and US architectural company 3D model.

https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Screen-Shot-2019-03-15-at-12.19.50-PM.png

The full article you find here: KATCHANOVSKI Buried Maidan 20190422
Ivan Katchanovski teaches at the School of Political Studiesand the Department of Communication at the University ofOttawa. He held research and teaching positions at HarvardUniversity, the State University of New York at Potsdam, theUniversity of Toronto, and the Kluge Center at the Library of Congress. He received Ph.D. from the Schar School ofPolicy and Government at George Mason University. He is the author of “Cleft Countries: Regional Political Divisions and Cultures in Post-Soviet Ukraine and Moldova.”

Strategic Waterways and “The Kerch Strait Incident”: Towards Military Escalation?

Datum: Dienstag, 27. November 2018 um 08:05

Strategic Waterways and “The Kerch Strait Incident”: Towards Military Escalation?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, November 26, 2018

https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/tchernobyl-ukraine-map-400x296.jpgOn November 25, the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) reported that

“three Ukrainian warships had illegally crossed Russia’s state border in the Black Sea and entered Russia’s territorial waters performing dangerous maneuvers…

All three Ukrainian Navy vessels … were detained in the Black Sea” (TASS, November 25).

The incident took place in proximity of the Kerch Straits, the narrow maritime entry from the Black Sea to the Sea of Azov.

Since the union of Crimea with Russia in March 2014, the entry into the sea of Azov is fully controlled by Russia. (see image below). https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/kerch.jpg

Since May 2018, a new bridge links Eastern Crimea to Russia’s Krasnodar region. (image right)

Are we gearing towards a Kerch Strait Incident, namely a “Pretext” which could potentially lead to armed conflict?
.
In response to these events, the Ukrainian armed forces have been put on full combat alert, in consultation with NATO. The adoption of martial law was put forth by President Poroshenko (to be debated in the Kiev parliament)

Meanwhile Moscow has called for the convening of an emergency UN Security council meeting. According to the Guardian

“Russia’s foreign ministry has accused Ukraine of coordinating with the US and the EU in a “planned provocation” aimed at securing further sanctions against Moscow, as tensions mount after a dangerous clash between the two countries. (Guardian, 26, November 2018)

Will the Kerch Straits Incident lead to a process of military escalation? In recent developments (November 26), Russia has reopened the Kerch Strait to maritime navigation.

To understand these unfolding events, it is important to analyse the strategic role of the Kerch strait. The naval access from Ukraine Odessa’s port the sea of Azov transits through the Kerch Strait (see map below)

https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/kerch2.png

Strategic Waterways and the Kerch Strait

The following section is an edited version from an earlier 2014 GR article by Michel Chossudovsky

The union of Crimea in 2014 with Russia redefines both the geography as well as the geopolitical chessboard in the Black Sea basin.

It constitutes a major setback for US-NATO, whose longstanding objective has been to integrate Ukraine into NATO with a view to undermining Russia, while extending Western military presence in the Black Sea basin.

With the March 18, 2014 Treaty signed between Russia and Crimea, the Russian Federation has extended its control over the Black Sea as well over the Sea of Azov, the West coastline of which borders on Eastern Ukraine and the Donesk region. (see map below)

Under the agreement between Russia and Crimea announced by president Putin, two “constituent regions” of Crimea joined the Russian Federation: the “Republic of Crimea” and the “City of Sevastopol”. Both have the status of “autonomous regions”. The status of Sevastopol as an autonomous entity separate from Crimea is related to the location of Russia’s Naval base in Sevastopol.

Since the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia retained its naval base in Sevastopol under a bilateral agreement with Ukraine. With the signing of the March 18th 2014 Treaty, that agreement is null and void. Sevastopol including the Russian naval base become part of an autonomous region within the Russian Federation. The naval base is no within Ukraine under a lease agreement. Moreover, Crimea’s territorial waters now belong to the Russian Federation.

Following the union of Crimea to Russia now controls a much larger portion of the Black Sea, which includes the entire coastline of the Crimean peninsula. The Eastern part of Crimea –including the Kerch straits– are under Russia’s jurisdiction control. On the Eastern side of the Kerch straits is Russia’s Krasnodar region and extending southwards are the port cities of Novorossiysk and Sochi.

Novorossiysk is also strategic. It is Russia’s largest commercial port on the Black Sea, at the cross-roads of major oil and gas pipelines between the Black Sea and Caspian sea.

https://i2.wp.com/www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/blackseamap.gif
Historically, the Kerch strait has played a strategic role. It constitutes a gateway from the Black Sea to Russia’s major waterways including the Don and the Volga.

During World War II, the Kerch peninsula occupied by Nazi Germany (taken back by the Red Army) was an important point of transit by land and water. In the coldest months of Winter, it became an ice bridge linking Crimea to the Krasnodar region.

The Kerch strait is about 5 kilometers in length and 4.5 km. wide at the narrowest point between the tip of Eastern Crimea and the peninsula of Taman. Kerch is a major commercial port linked to railway, ferry and river routes.

[image right: Kerch straits, photo taken from Crimean side, (prior to the construction of the bridge) narrow width, below aerial view of straits]

https://i2.wp.com/www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/kerchstraits.png

The Sea of Azov: New Geopolitical Hub

Of significance, the integration of Crimea into the Russian Federation means that Moscow is now in full control of the Kerch Straits linking the Black Sea to the Sea of Azov. The Ukrainian authorities are no longer in control of the port of Kerch in Eastern Ukraine. The bilateral agreement between Russia and Ukraine governing the maritime route through the Kerch straights was scrapped.

Kerch Straits prior to construction of bridge

The straits also constitute an entry point into Russia’s major river waterways. The Sea of Azov connects with the Don River and the Volga, through the Volga Don Canal. In turn, the Volga flows into the Caspian sea.

The Kerch straits are strategic. The Kerch-Yenikalskiy Canal allows large (ocean) vessels to transit from the Black sea to the Sea of Azov.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Volgarivermap.png/300px-Volgarivermap.png

Moreover, the Kerch Strait links the Black Sea to the Volga which in turn connects to the Moscow river through the Volga-Moskva canal.

Full control of the narrow Kerch strait by Russia ensures unimpeded maritime transit from the Black Sea to Russia’s capital as well as the maritime route to the Caspian Sea. (Black Sea- Sea of Azov -Don- Volga Don Canal -Volga -Caspian Sea)

In December 2013 Moscow signed a bilateral agreement with the Yanukovych government in Kiev pertaining to the construction of a bridge across the Kerch Strait, connecting Eastern Crimea (which was part of Ukraine) with Russia’s Krasnodar region. This agreement was a followup to an initial agreement signed in April 2010 between the two governments.

The Russia-Ukraine 2013 agreement pertaining to the construction of the bridge had, for all purposes already been scrapped before March 16, 2014.

Crimea’s union to Russia was already in the pipeline prior to the referendum, it was a fait accompli. Less than two weeks before the March 16 Referendum, at the height of the crisis in Ukraine, Russia’s Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev ordered the state-road building corporation Avtodor, or “Russian Highways” “to create a subsidiary company that will oversee the building of a bridge across the Kerch Strait”.

This bridge would largely be geared towards train transport routes linking Western and Eastern Europe to the Caspian Sea basin, Kazakhstan and China. It is therefore an integral part of the Eurasian Project (linking up with China’s Belt and Road initiative)

The Kerch bridge inaugurated in May 2018 is under Russian ownership and control. The Kerch strait is within Russian territorial waters on both sides of the strait.

* * *

https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/poster-unchained-social-media.jpgCan you help us keep up the work we do? Namely, bring you the important news overlooked or censored by the mainstream media and fight the corporate and government propaganda, the purpose of which is, more than ever, to “fabricate consent” and advocate war for profit.

We thank all the readers who have contributed to our work by making donations or becoming members.

If you have the means to make a small or substantial donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture would be much appreciated.

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/2cc48fb30f331d97157a65aa2/images/5d629581-fa65-4649-a1eb-65715b85953b.png
https://cdn-images.mailchimp.com/icons/social-block-v2/color-link-48.png Visit our website
https://cdn-images.mailchimp.com/icons/social-block-v2/color-facebook-48.png Follow us on Facebook
https://cdn-images.mailchimp.com/icons/social-block-v2/color-twitter-48.png Follow us on Twitter
https://cdn-images.mailchimp.com/icons/social-block-v2/color-youtube-48.png GRTV
Copyright © 2018 Centre for Research on Globalization, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this e-mail because you signed up for our newsletterOur mailing address is:Centre for Research on Globalization

P.O. Box 55019

11 Notre-Dame Ouest

Montreal, Qc H2Y 4A7

Canada

Add us to your address book

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

https://globalresearch.us11.list-manage.com/track/open.php?u=2cc48fb30f331d97157a65aa2&id=2257c05c2a&e=f2d9d84fc7

Making the Case for the Breakup of Ukraine

Just as the corporate media is not reporting that the USA and Russia are on a collision course which can end up in nuclear war, the corporate media is not reporting that the Ukraine is falling apart. That does not mean, however, that this is not happening. It is. In fact, it has been for a long while already, but since that collapse is smoothed out by a lack of military action and by the political support of the Empire, it does not appear to be catastrophic (in the sense of causing a sudden dramatic change).

Quelle: Making the Case for the Breakup of Ukraine

Originally appeared at The Vinyard of the Saker 01.09.2016

STATEMENT BY THE FOREIGN MINISTRY OF RUSSIA on terror attacks in Crimea

STATEMENT BY THE FOREIGN MINISTRY OF RUSSIA on terror attacks in Crimea5454 ViewsAugust 11, 2016 55 Comments STATEMENT BY THE FOREIGN MINISTRY OF RUSSIAAugust 11, 2016Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) has disrupted a plot to carry out terrorist attacks in the Republic of Crimea. The attacks, planned by the Ukrainian Defence Ministry’s Chief Intelligence Directorate, targeted…

über — Eirenae’s blog

DOKUMENTIERT: Ivan KATCHANOVSKI The “Snipers’ Massacre” on the Maidan in Ukraine – NDS 15.09.2015

Dank eines Hinweises der Nachdenkseiten dokumentiere ich eine Neuveröffentlichung des Canadiers Ivan Katchanovski:

The “Snipers’ Massacre” on the Maidan in Ukraine
This academic investigation concludes that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and carried out with a goal of the overthrow of the government and seizure of power. It found various evidence of the involvement of an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland. Concealed shooters and spotters were located in at least 20 Maidan-controlled buildings or areas. The various evidence that the protesters were killed from these locations include some 70 testimonies, primarily by Maidan protesters, several videos of “snipers” targeting protesters from these buildings, comparisons of positions of the specific protesters at the time of their killing and their entry wounds, and bullet impact signs. The study uncovered
various videos and photos of armed Maidan “snipers” and spotters in many of these buildings. The paper presents implications of these findings for understanding the nature of the change of the government in Ukraine, the civil war in Donbas, Russian military intervention in Crimea and Donbas, and an international conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. Original PDF below
Quelle: Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D. School of Political Studies University of Ottawa

Snipers_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine_APSA_Conference

(Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association in San Francisco, September 3-6, 2015)

Alexander MERCOURIS: A Top US Foreign Policy Magazine Warns Negotiations Preferable to US Defeat in Ukraine; RI Aug 31, 2015

RI, Aug 31, 2015 — http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/washington-warned-us-faces-humiliating-defeat-ukraine-urged-seek-negotiations-moscow/ri9414

A Top US Foreign Policy Magazine Warns Negotiations Preferable to US Defeat in Ukraine

  • Article in The National Interest* warns against escalation and says US is setting itself up for a humiliating defeat in Ukraine
  • Washington urged to seek a negotiated solution with Moscow – which holds all the cards in the conflict – to avoid humiliation
  • TNI is a magazine connected to the Center for the National Interest representing the realists in the US foreign policy establiment

By Alexander MERCOURIS

As we first disclosed in January, a debate is underway within the foreign policy establishment in Washington about what to do with the Ukrainian crisis.
On the one hand are the realists, who appear to be led within the administration by Secretary of State John Kerry.
Pitted against them are the hardliners, who include Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice, US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.
Obama, characteristically, refuses to commit himself clearly to one side or the other. Instead, he tilts one way or the other, depending on which side appears stronger.
Since the late autumn, as Russia’s help for the deal with Iran has moved into focus, and as it became clear that Russia would not let the Ukrainians overrun the Donbass, the balance of advantage has tilted towards the realists.
However, as we discussed shortly after the Kerry-Putin meeting in Sochi, it is essential to understand the nature of the discussion.

The realists in Washington are not friends of Russia. On the contrary, they think of Russia as an adversary – just as the hardliners do.
The people we call the “realists” are not seeking friendship or a rapprochement with Russia. They simply see no sense in confronting Russia in Ukraine where Russia is strongest, whilst at the same time being willing to work with Russia on some issues such as the deal with Iran where there is a mutual interest in doing so.

True realists, people like (from their very different perspectives) Henry Kissinger and the historian Stephen Cohen, who understand that US national interests are best served by good relations with Russia, and that these require an honest acknowledgement of Russia’s legitimate interests, have no voice in the present administration, or in any likely succeeding one.

An article (attached below) has just appeared in The National Interest, an international affairs magazine published by the Center for the National Interest, a US think-tank known to be close to the realists in the US foreign policy establishment, which provides a clear statement of their views, and which is obviously intended to make them public as part of the ongoing policy debate.
What sets this article apart is its frank admission of the point we repeatedly make: in Ukraine it is Russia that holds all the high cards.
That admission could not be made more clearly. In essence what the article says is that Ukraine matters a lot to Russia, but does not matter anything like as much to the US – and matters even less to the US’s European allies.

The result is that US and EU support for Ukraine is essentially rhetorical. Though they talk big about backing Ukraine and “stopping Putin”, what they do in practice is less than little.
The result is that Ukraine actually gets from the West microscopic amounts of economic and military support, whilst the West’s overblown rhetoric simply encourages it to engage Russia in a conflict it cannot win. (…)