mh17 show trial
MH17-tragedien er tilbage i nyhederne efter begyndelsen af ​​denne sags show-retssag i Holland, som ikke handler om at bringe de påståede gerningsmænd til retfærdighed eller hjælpe ofrenes familier med at finde lukning, men fører informationskrig mod Rusland i et forsøg på at "endeligt" lægger skylden for denne forbrydelse på dens formodede fuldmægtige i det østlige Ukraine for at ødelægge præsident Putins internationale anseelse en gang for alle.

Verden taler endnu en gang om MH17-tragedien efter starten af ​​denne sags show-retssag i Holland, hvor fire af de påståede gerningsmænd beskyldes for drab. Det er usandsynligt, at de vises for retten, så hele processen handler mere om show end substans. I tilfælde af at læseren ikke kan huske nøjagtigt, hvad der skete på den skæbnesvangre sommerdag den 17. juli 2014, anbefaler forfatteren, at de gennemgår sin seneste analyse af emnet fra tidligere i år med titlen "Seneste MH17-dokumentar af SBU Whistleblower deler nogle chokerende Sandheder ", som dækker hvad han mener er den mest overbevisende version af begivenheder, der skete umiddelbart før, under og efter at passagerjetjet blev skudt ned over det østlige Ukraine. Kort sagt, den konventionelle fortælling om, at de russisk-tilpassede oprørere der var ansvarlige, debunkeres som en praktisk dækning for at maskere Kievs skyldfølelse, hvilket igen også gør regeringens vestlige bagmænd - og ikke Rusland - indirekte ansvarlige. Det er derfor forståeligt, at der investeres en masse magtfulde kræfter i at gøre deres fremstillede version af "sandheden" til den "officielle" en, deraf viser retssagen, som ikke er andet end et forsøg på at "endeligt" lægge skylden for denne forbrydelse på Rusland og dets formodede fuldmægtige i det østlige Ukraine.

Before going any further, it needs to be said that victims' families have every right to be upset about what happened, and that everyone should respect their right to draw their own conclusions about what took place even if one doesn't ultimately agree with them. The author doesn't believe that Russia or the Eastern Ukrainian rebels were responsible, but acknowledges that some of the victims' families think differently, especially after some of them staged a silent protest outside of the Russian Embassy in The Hague over the weekend. Nobody should criticize the victims' families and thus make this all the more harder for them to deal with, but there's also nothing wrong with talking about how their reaction to this tragedy is being exploited by those who are relying upon it to convince others that their interpretation of events is the only correct one. Politicizing the suffering of innocent people is wrong no matter who does it or why, which is why it's morally reprehensible that others are taking advantage of them under the guise of "giving them a voice" in order to push their narrative onto the broader public. The ongoing trial isn't about bringing the alleged perpetrators to justice or helping the victim's families find closure, but waging information warfare against Russia, the purpose of which is to ruin its international reputation and that of its leader once and for all.

President Putin is generally despised by the West but loved by the non-West because of his domestic and foreign policy successes over the past 20 years, which greatly contributed to bringing the emerging Multipolar World Order about. Even his detractors recognize that he's an epochal figure whose legacy will certainly be studied for generations to come by people all across the world, they just regard Russia's return to international prominence as being detrimental to their countries' zero-sum interests. Nevertheless, they also wisely understand that soft power is more important than ever before in today's interconnected, globalized world, especially after the information-communication technology revolution of the early 2000s, so they have a driving motivation to defame the Russian leader any chance they get. Regrettably, the MH17 tragedy is cynically seen as the "perfect opportunity" to ruin his legacy by forever associating him with what happened even though he played no role in those events whatsoever, nor did his countrymen. All that's important to the "perception managers" who manufactured this weaponized narrative is that the lingering suspicion of President Putin's possible involvement "credibly" exists, which explains the infowar importance of the ongoing show trial for supposedly "confirming" that.

Back to the show trial itself, it's predictable that the accused will probably be found "guilty" for the aforementioned political reasons of pinning the blame for that tragedy entirely on Russia and the Eastern Ukrainian rebels so as to defect from the "inconvenient" facts that have since come to light implicating Kiev and its Western backers, which was explained in the author's analysis that he cited in the opening paragraph of this article. The overall soft power impact of this seemingly inevitable conclusion will likely be minimal, however, seeing as how most people have already made up their minds about who was really responsible. Those who are convinced that Russia played a role will feel "vindicated" by the anticipated verdict, while those who have remained skeptical this entire time could use the newfound attention to this case to share the "inconvenient" evidence that was just touched upon with others. The takeaway from all this "legal" drama is that tragedies will almost always be politicized for information warfare purposes, especially if the case can remotely be made that Russia or any of the West's other geopolitical rivals might have had even an indirect role in whatever it is that transpired, so these countries should brace themselves to expect more such show trials in the future and take steps to ensure that their side of the story is heard by as many people as possible.