MH17 - War of words - Threat of extension of anti-Russian sanctions

Financial Times (Source - FT - here) is running with a western ultimatum to Russians and a push for extension of anti-Russian sanctions story.

Putin's the villain because he supposedly has control over the eastern Ukraine 'rebels' (otherwise known as the 'self defence force').

Nobody condemns Ukraine's Petro Poroshenko for calling off the ceasefire in the first place:

Early on Tuesday, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko announced that the armed forces, national guard, border troops and security service are no longer restrained by the ceasefire regime, thus enforcing his decision against another extension of the ceasefire in east Ukraine. According to Poroshenko, the move to call off the ceasefire was dictated by the fact that protection of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, safety and the lives of civilians require offensive as well as defensive action against independence supporters. The president’s most recent initiative is inconsistent with his previously voiced intention of crisis-resolution, because the peaceful settlement effort was intended to immediately stop the violence. Ukraine’s government promised to stick to the implementation of the peace plan, which envisages disarmament, decentralization, unrestricted use of the Russian language and reconstruction of destroyed housing at the government’s expense. Earlier Tuesday, Russia’s lower house speaker Sergei Naryshkin stated that without a comprehensive ceasefire, peace in Ukraine cannot be restored. [Source - RIA Novosti- 15:05 01/07/2014 - here]

John Kerry reckons 'evidence' points to a Russian SA-11 downing MH17.  But the west is jumping up and down because of lack of access to 'evidence', so wouldn't this make Kerry's 'evidence' speculation at this point in time?  Irrespective of the exact device which may have taken down the MH17, does John Kerry actually know who fired the weapon?  I highly doubt that.  So this is more US-biased anti-Russian speculation floated about in the press.

Much is made of the lack of access to the site; but the site in question is a war-zone.  And it was the west's Poroshenko that reinstated it as a war-zone, on the strength of his US support not to extend the ceasefire:

Tuesday after President Petro Poroshenko announced he would not renew a ceasefire but go on the offensive to rid Ukraine of "parasites". ... The United States said the separatists had not abided by the ceasefire and Poroshenko had "a right to defend his country". Within hours of Poroshenko's early morning announcement, his military went into action against rebel bases and checkpoints, bombarding them from the air and with artillery. [SOURCE - Reuters - here]

'Right to defend' etc ... hmmmm, that rings a bell.  Oh, that's it; it reminds me of the US position on Israel and Gaza!  Look how well that's working out.

Philip Hammond UK Foreign Secretary gets in on the act, as does Frank-Walter Steinmeir, German's Minister for Foreign Affairs.

UK wants an immediate extension of sanctions passed.  Of course, they do.  They're tight with the US and they themselves probably have UK corporate interests to consider when it comes to the grab in Ukraine.

Financial Times provides a link to their story on Obama's 'MH17 Wake Up Call to Europe Over Sanctions'.

The alleged rebel wiretaps get a mention, but all this does is drag unsubstantiated allegations into the impression-creation mix -- like it's supposed to.