The empire cries wolf: pipeline politics, the tragedy of MH17, and geo-strategic agenda bending

In her excellent article on the WhoWhatWhy website, titled Gaspipe Diplomacy: How Ukraine Set Off a New U.S.-Russian Energy Fight, writer and commentator Sylvia Todorova observes at the outset that the real reasons surrounding the conflict are often buried under the headlines and rhetoric, of which there have been plenty of both.

"So it shouldn't come as any surprise", she says, "that, behind the scenes, oil and natural gas are driving a big piece of the U.S. response to Russian involvement in Ukraine." According to Todorova, if anyone wants to get a handle on "where the rubber meets the geopolitical road" in the Ukraine situation, they need to clue themselves up about the 1,480-mile South Stream natural gas pipeline. She states that the pipeline is, "core to the larger battle being fought over Europe between Moscow and Washington…. ..[if] there's a crack in the unified front between the U.S. and Europe over Russia's role in Ukraine, South Stream is it.

Interestingly, Todorova makes no reference in her piece to the downing of MH17 even though it was written after the event; but after reading it one gets the feeling there was no need. The tenet of the piece without spelling it out places Washington's moral showboating and 'Bear'-bashing over MH17-along with the highly punitive economic sanctions already in place over the Crimea situation and those that are planned against Russia in the wake of MH17-in a whole new context, and not one that places the Obama administration in a favourable light by any stretch. It does that is for those prepped to take a different view.

One is reminded here of America's righteous grandstanding over Saddam Hussein in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, wherein we were led to believe it was moral and right to intervene in Iraq and remove Hussein from power in order to bring democracy, freedom and the rule of law to the country in the interests of the Iraqi people and get rid of his 'smoking guns' and 'mushroom clouds' in one feel swoop. And we all know how that panned out.

As per usual, the MSM and the pollies in the US (and here in Australia it would appear) are engaging in imperially inspired, geopolitical posturing and point scoring without the hindrance of all of the facts related to this tragedy. I have a feeling that Putin either 'bitch-slapped' Australian PM Tony Abbott during their recent phone call or quietly provided him with another side of the story. Abbott's hard-on for Russia-which hitherto had been poking a hole through his budgie-smugglers over the incident-seems to have been latterly overcome with a case of the diplomatic equivalent of brewer's droop, which is to say his 'Bolshie' position towards The Bear has (marginally) moderated.

If so this is a welcome development. Inflaming the situation in the name of political expediency or diplomatic one-upmanship-or as appears more likely in this case, in the service of an as yet to be identified, but most likely, self serving agenda-is not helpful in these matters. It insults and demeans the memory of those who died. For those playing this reprehensible game, it marks you out an just another opportunistic, cynical, serf serving, irresponsible politician, the kind that thinking, considered and politically reflective folk just love to hate, and the kind that give even half-way decent, upstanding, more circumspect pollies-and yes we hope there are a few of these left-a bad rap.

And whilst an in depth discussion of such goes beyond the scope of this post, for those wanting to get some idea of the challenges ahead for anyone group of people genuinely attempting to get a handle on exactly what happened-including whether either way it was indeed an accident or not-the piece The Malaysian Airline MH17 Crash: Sixteen Central Issues Which Cannot be Ignored by Julie Lévesque, a journalist and researcher with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), is an eye opener. Even more importantly, as the title itself suggests, her article is a must read for anyone wanting to assess the facts and reality of the tragedy for themselves rather than rely on traditional news mediums and outlets, whose track record in accurately and objectively reporting on such events has for the most part been less than steadfast.

Moreover, along with being a brutal indictment on opportunistic, self-serving, political 'agenda benders', an equally compelling insight into the tragedy is presented by author, blogger and political commentator Paul Craig Roberts, a former assistant secretary to the Treasury in Ronald Reagan's administration. Roberts is no 'Bear-hugging', 'neo-Bolshie', self-loathing American looking to relinquish his citizenship on his way out the door. So I guess we all can breathe a sigh of relief there!

An insightful, measured commentator on affairs stateside at the best of times, Roberts' analysis of the fallout from MH17 is a reality check for those still inclined to believe our corporate media shills, whose basic adherence to the fundamentals of old school journalistic ethics and standards-public trust, integrity, independence, honesty, fairness, accountability etc.-is best exemplified by their "this is the news…we choose to give you today" approach.

From a recent post published on the Global Research website and unambiguously titled How American Propaganda Works: "Guilt By Insinuation", the following is just one of the most compelling of his observations:

The way the entire Western news cycle was orchestrated with blame instantly being placed on Russia..…suggests that the downing of the airliner was a Washington operation. It's…possible the well-trained 'presstitute' [sic] media needed no orchestration from Washington in order to lay the blame on Russia. On the other hand, some of the news performances seem too scripted not to have been prepared in advance.

As for Roberts himself, he is another refreshing example of a rock solid American-yes there are a few-who is eschewing simplistic left/right, East v West analyses and jingoistic, knee-jerk, neo-Cold War responses and saying enough is enough of the imperial overreach that has increasingly become identified with American foreign policy enactment since the Fall of the Wall, and maybe ever since the Fall of the City that later 'lent' said Wall its name.