The loss of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 served as a cornerstone of Western propaganda targeting Moscow and its allies in eastern Ukraine. In the initial whirlwind of baseless rhetoric launched before any sort of investigation began, Russia was squarely accused of gunning the civilian airliner from the skies of Ukraine in a cold, callus display of inexplicable evil. Despite the otherwise illogical nature of this narrative, it was hoped that it would serve as the first of many strikes against Russia’s credibility and standing globally.

MH17 would continue to serve as a point of contention for weeks and months to follow. A stacked investigative committee was formed comprising of NATO members, NATO allies, and potential culprits in MH17’s downing, the regime in Kiev itself. Excluded, bizarrely, was Malaysia, to whom the aircraft was registered to, and the nation which lost the second largest number of nationals in the disaster. After much protest, Malaysia was finally admitted to the investigation, and with its inclusion, MH17 has predictably dropped from the headlines, and piecemeal, biased “conclusions” based on tenuous or non-existent evidence have all but ceased.

This is in part because of the finite nature of Western propaganda and its impact upon an increasingly well-informed global public. It is also in part because Malaysia is not a willing accomplice in skewing MH17’s investigation, obstructing NATO’s agenda to spin any investigation’s conclusion into implicating Russia as part of its greater agenda against Moscow.

Also worth considering is the gradual faltering of NATO’s anti-Russian agenda. Part of erecting a united front against Russia included sanctions and above all, the indefinite suspension or permanent cancellation of projects and contracts inked with Moscow. For Washington, London and the bureaucracy in Brussels, such tactics are but mere moves on a geopolitical chessboard. For those strong-armed into taking them on this trifecta’s behalf, such moves are critically damaging to national interests, both political and economic.

First, was the tussle over the proposed South Stream Pipeline, voluntarily cancelled by Moscow after EU pressured individual Union members to obstruct progress and delay the pipeline’s schedule. For capitulating to EU pressure, the deal has all but slipped entirely from the hands of benefactors of the project, and with it the profits and socioeconomic benefits the pipeline was to secure.

France has also felt the sting from capitulating to Washington, London and Brussels’ pressure amid attempts to isolate and “punish” Moscow. A deal involving the delivery of two Mistral-class amphibious assault ships has been indefinitely delayed over the conflict in Ukraine and the West’s attempts to frame the crisis as Russia’s doing. The deal, worth well over a billion Euros, if broken, will force the French government to pay back in full Russia’s already completed, full payment, as well as millions of Euros in penalty fees for violating its contract.

The pain for France doesn’t end there. Backpedaling on a contract with Moscow will not simply cost France the penalty of violating its contract with Russia, but will cost the entire nation in terms of credibility internationally. Prospective business and trade partners around the globe will look at France’s lack of policy independence within the shadow of Washington, London and Brussels as a new risk to consider before entering any deal with Paris. The long-term and lasting ramifications of France’s capitulation amid the West’s row with Russia will likely last long after the Ukrainian conflict is resolved.

The flames the West attempted to fan with the MH17 disaster were so deliberate, many suspect NATO itself may have been responsible for the tragedy, in line with the military conglomerate’s dubious past of staging terrorism against civilians across Europe in order to advance its agenda … the most notorious episode being that of NATO’s stay-behind networks now notoriously known as “Operation Gladio.” With its stacked investigative team broken apart by the more objective inclusion of Malaysia, and with individual members of NATO increasingly uncomfortable and impaired by this front erected against Russia, MH17 and many other canards of anti-Russian propaganda, have been increasingly dissolving from Western headlines.

The question now becomes, what happens next? Will NATO seek a new provocation to reignite anti-Moscow hysteria? Or will it begin slowly divesting from its failed campaign to isolate and punish Moscow, which while “successful,” has also clearly strained and “punished” many members within its own multinational ranks?

Additionally, has an increasingly informed public and the growing strength of the developing world, including BRICS and many developing nations along its periphery, produced a sufficient counterweight in terms of refuting the previously uncontested monopoly the West held over information and public perception? The loss of three Malaysian civilian airliners in a single year amid the growing global suspicion and awareness of NATO’s true nature means that even if future incidents occur coincidentally, the West is likely to be suspected of orchestrating them regardless. Such is the nature imperialism, particularly of the type that is growing in unpopularity.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.