The "blame Russia!" narrative is collapsing — again.
We knew we were in for a real treat when the United States announced that Russia had bombed a U.N. aid convoy in Syria. What a terrible crime against humanity, timed perfectly to distract from the fact that, for lack of a better term, the U.S. was caught giving air support to ISIS. As always, Russia is guilty until proven deserving of more sanctions.
Of course, even a casual news consumer will quickly recognize that the "Russia did it!" narrative is severely lacking. Let's see how Reuters frames this terrible (Russian) crime:
Two Russian Sukhoi SU-24 warplanes were in the skies above the aid convoy at the exact time it was struck late on Monday, two U.S. officials told Reuters, citing U.S. intelligence that led them to conclude Russia was to blame.
And here's a fun follow-up from the Guardian:
The White House and state department said they could not confirm the allegations, while the Russian foreign ministry rejected them with “resentment and indignation”.
Oh, and look what we have here. The BBC says it was a helicopter attack:
But here's the best part of this terrible Russian helicopter/fighter jet/whatever attack which cannot be confirmed by anyone:
"The U.N. in Syria was informed of the attacks as they unfolded. Despite our efforts and communications with parties to the conflict, further attacks continued throughout the night, hampering efforts to reach and attend to the wounded," the statement by the coordinators, Massimo Diana and Kevin Kennedy, said.
An original version of the statement referred to "air strikes" rather than "attacks", but it was amended within minutes.
"The explanation is that we are not in a position to determine whether these were in fact air strikes. We are in a position to say that the convoy was attacked," said Jens Laerke, U.N. humanitarian spokesman in Geneva.
Remarkable. So a convoy carrying U.N. aid came under fire, and the U.N. was updated on the attacks as they happened, but it's impossible to determine whether the attacks were from the air or not? We're even told that the attacks "continued throughout the night" which hampered "efforts to reach and attend to the wounded."
So the U.N. was well aware of the attacks, and there were even people on the ground, as the attacks were happening, attempting to help those who were wounded, but, it's absolutely impossible to say if these attacks came from the air! Yes, how could the U.N. know if bombs were dropping from the sky? They were only "informed of the attacks as they unfolded...throughout the night". It's really unreasonable to expect the U.N. to be able to determine if these attacks came from the air, or from the sea, or maybe even from a sinkhole, right?
The new and improved headline of this Reuters story is: "Russian aircraft believed to hit Syria convoy, U.S. officials say", and no, we're not joking.
You know what this is called? Covering your ass.
Of course, the U.N. won't come out and say it, but there's a very good reason why they've dropped the "air strikes" from their statement: It's because they know it's utter bullshit.
So to answer our own headline's question: Yes, in its own cowardly way, the United Nations just confirmed what we already know: Russia shot down MH-17!!
Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider. It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider. Licensed Creative Commons.