The District Court of The Hague refused to consider alternative versions of the crash of the MH17 flight in the Donetsk region in 2014 offered by the defence. This eloquently demonstrates that it is not the purpose of the Hague trial to establish the true culprits.
This is a recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the downing of Flight MH17 and against the MH17 criminal trial.
The Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT) concluded that the BUK missile system belonged to the Russian army and that the place from which the missile was launched was controlled by the separatists at the time. The JIT consists of investigators from the Netherlands, Malaysia, Australia, Belgium, and Ukraine.
On the basis of the investigation conducted by the JIT, the Dutch Public Prosecution Service is prosecuting Igor Vsevolodovich Girkin, Sergey Nikolayevich Dubinskiy, Oleg Yuldashevich Pulatov, and Leonid Volodymyrovych Kharchenko for causing the crash of MH17 and murdering the 298 persons on board. The trial began on 9 March 2020 in the Netherlands. The hearings are broadcasted in a video on the website of the trial.
On 13 November 2020, the Public Prosecution Service responded to the investigative wishes of the defence in the MH17 trial, the request for further investigation was denied for a number of reasons:
(1:53:52) The investigation has been already extensive and expensive. The JIT has spent years collecting so much data, investigating so many scenarios and following up so many mysterious paths that really there is not so much left to investigate in order to asses the guilt or innocence of the defendants. The result is a weighty file which the court has given adequate time to study and respond to. We already got in this file things that are important for defence. We have witnesses who say they saw a fighter jet, we see the Russian authorities denying all involvement of the 53rd brigade and we see code words in an intercepted phone call conversations. It is not easy for Pulatov to identify, we understand that but that can't be a reason to allow defendant to carry out its own investigation if he wants to have any impact on the court eventual decision. Many investigation requests should be declined because even after hearing from defence what relevant questions could be asked to the witnesses or experts being requested, and it should not be asked for an information that is already on file. And there is also another point: in setting up interview with people we already know we cannot find. Let alone people who already died. In a criminal case we must observe the rules of criminal procedure that is to say; the equality and legal certainty. Pulatov has still opportunity to put his side of the case, for example, back in July he was put in a position to nominate a person of his own choice to investigate.
Read also similar stories: MH17: JIT ignores Russian contributions, JIT's goal was not to establish facts but to substantiate accusations against Russia, MH17 tribunal is a politically motivated process against Russia and DNR.
NATO is increasing its military presence near the Russian border. The Alliance is using the “Russian threat” to justify this actions. The Baltic States are also using the “Russian threat”. They are concluding high-cost security agreements with the US and are deploying NATO military contingents in their territories.
Moscow has said many times that it has no plans to attack any country. NATO knows it.
Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative, portraying NATO as having a belligerent agenda against Russia and claiming that the “Russian threat” is a false idea.
NATO does not seek confrontation with Russia. The Alliance indicated this position in the Brussels Summit Declaration in 2018. However, this declaration concludes that “Russia’s aggressive actions, including the threat and use of force to attain political goals, challenge the Alliance and are undermining Euro-Atlantic security and the rules-based international order”.
The work of the Soros Foundation and some other Western organisations can be equated with the activities of the special services of foreign states. This is part of a hybrid war of the collective West against the countries of the post-Soviet space. In Ukraine, Soros’s scheme is already in effect at all levels. In Armenia, Soros’s projects have not yet reached the final stage of implementation, at which one can state a complete loss of sovereignty. But Ukraine is a vivid example of how Soros NGOs have brought the country “to the brink”.
Conspiracy theory based on recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives about George Soros.
Ukraine is a sovereign and independent state with a democratically-elected President and parliament. You can find here numerous disinformation cases on Ukraine being under foreign control.
Donald Trump did not accept the transition. He agreed to pay the transition funds but he did not give up contesting. And he is right to contest the election since massive fraud took place.
A president who claims to rule the country on the basis of massive fraud is a president who has no legitimacy. A lot of people in the United States will continue to challenge the legitimacy of a hypothetical Biden administration. If Donald Trump accepted this it is for a very clear reason that he announces in his press release: Emily Murphy who is in charge of this has suffered threats, multiple threats. So he [Trump] preferred that the threats stop. When you threaten someone in an administration, you behave in an unworthy manner. And it wasn’t just there that there were threats. There is a very murky situation right now in the United States and it’s part of this very murky situation.
Disinformation about the US in the context of the US presidential election.
In its interim assessment on the conduct of the election, the OSCE finds that the contest was "competitive and well managed" (p. 1), noting that "evidence-deficient claims about election fraud" (ibid.) have been refuted by "election officials at all levels" (p. 3) and "national security agencies" (p. 11).
