The Putin diversion

Putin and Obama in serious discussion at the G20 summit. The political leaders need to be judged intelligently.

“The Putin diversion” could be the title for a n episode of the popular show “The Big Bang Theory.” Or, more appropriately, the name of a chess strategy. But I have found this diversion a real problem in discussing important issues.

How can we discuss , for example, the current Russian/Olympic doping scandal if a serious commentor simply responds “Russian authorities ran the doping! Putin is rotten, through and through.”

When I pointed out “Unfortunately, statements like “Putin is rotten” are hardly intelligent and they are certainly not a sensible response to this whole scandal,” and attempted to return to the doping discussion I get a response:

“Putin is a monster in one of the most oppressive countries. he has his critics assassinated in the best traditions of Russia. Your support for him is bizarre.”

So we make no progress discussing the issue of doping.

Similarly, I feel that diverting a discussion about the MH17 tragedy in eastern Ukraine with raves about Putin being a “petty tyrant” or that he has “been accused of assassinating or imprisoning his political rivals” is insulting to the memory of the innocent passengers who died in the  crash and to their loved ones.

So, my purpose with this post is to provide a forum for commentors to vent their feelings about Putin and the Russian Federation. Rave on about Crimea, Ukraine or Syria. Let’s discuss here some of the issues being inappropriately raised on comments on other posts.

It would be nice, though, if commentors present a bit more than feelings and prejudices – perhaps back up their claims with some citations or evidence.

To kick off, I do not know a terrific lot about Putin or have particularly strong feelings about the man. But he is certainly an important international figure today and any cultured person should make an effort to learn a bit about him. Two books that have perhaps influenced my thinking are:

First Person: An Astonishingly Frank Self-Portrait by Russia’s President

Based on interviews of Putin soon after he became president in 2000. I have attempted to read other books about Putin but find so many of them are extremely biased (he is a controversial figure) and so many authors approach him with their own political agendas – often very extreme ones.
Godfather of the Kremlin: The Decline of Russia in the Age of Gangster Capitalism

Not about Putin but describes Russia in the 1990s when it had become, as the author put it, a criminal anarchy.

It does go up to the period when Putin moved to Moscow and was given Yeltisn’s blessing as acting president. But it provides a very useful background to what preceded Putin – and provides some idea of what he has been combating during his presidency. Incidentally, it perhaps gives some insight into the current situation in Ukraine where conditions similar to Russia in the 1990s still continues.

Another book I have found useful is The Litvinenko File. Putin is only a peripheral figure in Litvenenko’s story but it provides a similar picture the the Godfather of the Kremlin about the role of the criminal oligarch Berezokovsky in promoting Putin, why he and Litvinenko felt betrayed when he refused to deliver and turned against him.

Seeing I have been accused of being “pro-Moscow” for this level of interest in this particular political figure I should note that while having read one book by President Putin (or at least his interviews) I have also read one book by the US president Obama – Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.  So, perhaps I should also be labelled “pro-Washington.” Or, perhaps, we should just keep away from such silly McCarthyist labeling and instead get on with a good-faith discussion.

I look forward to the discussion.

Similar articles

95 responses to “The Putin diversion

  1. Thanks for the recommended reading.

    Like

  2. Let’s just get rid of this name-calling for a start. I have been accused of being “pro-Moscow” or having a “pro-Moscow bias.” I see this as the same as the name calling I get from anti-fluoride people – being a “shill” for some business or other. And those people will cite my scientific publications and knowledge as “evidence.”

    So we can see the parallel. I have tried to rely on the evidence for my understanding of the MH17 tragedy, the situation in Crimea and Ukraine and in Syria. The fact that some of that evidence comes from a Russian source, or is contained in an official statement by a Russian official does not make me pro-Moscow, any more than the fact that some of my information comes from a British or US source (or wherever) makes me “pro-London” or “pro-Washington.”

    The fact that I use a range of sources makes me open-minded, not pro anything. I make no excuse for using different sources and I certainly make no excuse for using a Russian source or citing Putin if that is relevant to the discussion. And I make no excuses for drawing conclusions which are not in line with the official thinking we get from our main stream media.

    Might I suggest that when people use such ways of argument they are avoiding discussing the evidence. It is a way of closing down a discussion. Worse, it is a form of mind control because it encourages people to avoid looking for information from “unapproved” sources. (If we are honest we must admit that happens a lot). And let’s not forget the history of the use if such terms against people opposed to the Vietnam war, supporting the anti-nuclear movement, (in earlier times those of us attempting to present the science on fluoride were labelled communists) etc. it is, after all, a McCarthyist term.

    So, please, take issue with my arguments, let us discuss the facts, but please avoid such labeling.

    Like

  3. When propagandists are losing the battle with the brighter people they try to polarise and hang on to some of the less discerning populace. One of the techniques is to reinforce two-valued thinking. A political figure is all good or all bad.

    Or mankind walked on the moon or they didn’t, trying very hard to lead discussion away from in between versions such as they may have walked on the moon and not come back, and the TV film footage was a dramatised happy propaganda version.

    And they are devastated by Putin being the most popular figure in the USA, so they try to inculcate the two-valued picture in a big way. Putin admitted in relation to the Yanukovych affair that he had acted without full attention to agreements just signed, but said that no country was abiding by them.

    He also said Russia had been asked for help by him. It was obvious that it was a situation where the news action against Yanukovych was of dubious national source.

    Maybe Putin did have a bit of teritoriality in his action, which could be technically wrong but probably humanly understandable, moreso than USA expansionism.

    More from the 2014 Valdai Club question and answer session:

    “EASTERN EUROPE EDITOR OF THE FINANCIAL TIMES NEIL BUCKLEY (retranslated from Russian): Thank you. I am Neil Buckley from the Financial Times.

    Mr President, as I heard, one of your international colleagues said that you do not consider Ukraine a real country. You see Ukraine as a country formed out of what were pieces of other countries. Could you confirm this view? Is this your view? Do you think that Ukraine has the right to exist as a sovereign and independent state, and is it indeed a real country? Is Novorossiya – this region that has been spoken about of late – part of this country? If this is the case, why do the media, including reporters from my own newspaper, say that soldiers wearing Russian uniforms are in Novorossiya at this moment? I would like to take this opportunity to say that I trust the authenticity of the facts our reporter has provided, even though I know they came under inaccurate criticism from the Russian authorities today.

    Thank you.

    VLADIMIR PUTIN: First of all, regarding my view of Ukraine’s sovereignty: I have never disputed that Ukraine is a modern, full-fledged, sovereign, European country.

    But it is another matter that the historical process that saw Ukraine take shape in its present borders was quite a complex one. Perhaps you are not aware that in 1922, part of the land that you just named, land that historically always bore the name of Novorossiya… Why this name? This was because there was essentially a single region with its centre at Novorossiisk, and that was how it came to be called Novorossiya. This land included Kharkov, Lugansk, Donetsk, Nikolayev, Kherson and Odessa Region. In 1921–22, when the Soviet Union was formed, this territory was transferred from Russia to Ukraine. The communists had a simple logic: their goal was to increase the share of proletariat in Ukraine so as to ensure they had more support in various political processes, because in the communists’ view, the peasantry was a petty bourgeois group that was hostile to their aims, and so they needed to create a bigger proletariat. That is my first point.

    Second, what also happened I think is that during the Civil War, nationalist groups in Ukraine tried to seize these regions but didn’t succeed, and the Bolsheviks told their supporters in Ukraine: Look what you can show the Ukrainian people. The nationalists didn’t manage to get hold of this territory, but you have succeeded. But it was all one country at the time and so this was not considered any great loss for Russia when it was all part of the same country anyway.

    In 1954, Khrushchev, who liked to bang his shoe at the UN, decided for some reason to transfer Crimea to Ukraine. This violated even the Soviet Union’s own laws. Let me explain what I mean. Under Soviet law at that moment, territory could be transferred from one constituent republic to another only with the approval of the Supreme Soviets in each of the republics concerned. This was not done. Instead, the Presidiums of the Russian and Ukrainian Supreme Soviets rubber-stamped the decision to go ahead, but only the presidiums, not the parliaments themselves. This was a flagrant violation of the laws in force at the time.

    In the 1990s, after the Soviet Union’s collapse, Crimea pressed for and proclaimed autonomy with wide-ranging powers. Unfortunately, the authorities in Kiev then started abolishing these autonomous powers and essentially reduced them to zero, centralising all the political, economic and financial processes. The same goes for southeast Ukraine as well.

    As for western Ukraine, perhaps you are not aware that Ukraine gained territory following World War II? Some territory was transferred from Poland and some from Hungary, I think. What was Lvov if not a Polish city? Are you not aware of these facts? Why do you ask me this question? Poland was compensated through the territory it gained from Germany when the Germans were driven out of a number of eastern regions. If you ask around, you will see that there are whole associations of these expelled Germans.

    I cannot judge here and now whether this was right or wrong, but this is what happened. In this respect it is difficult not to recognise that Ukraine is a complex, multi-component state formation. This is simply the way historical developments went. The people of Crimea feared for their and their children’s future following a coup d’etat carried out with the support of our Western partners and decided to make use of the right to self-determination enshrined in international law. However, this does not in any way mean that we do not respect Ukraine’s sovereignty. We do respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and will continue to do so in the future. I hope very much for normalisation and development of Russian-Ukrainian relations and I think this is an inevitable process.”

    I often get two-valued stuff on this group, for example the older thread recently touched on: Stuartg | May 28, 2016 at 7:06 pm |

    “Binary approach?

    You mean like the belief: “fluoride bad, no fluoride good”?

    soundhill, Ken follows the science wherever it may lead. Your own beliefs demonstrate the “binary approach” you appear so concerned about – faith/belief in an idea and then cherry picking with rejection of anything that contradicts that belief.”

    In that thread Stuartg tries to capture simple minds Stuartg and make out I must be totally against fluoride. I suppose some non-discerning minds will be swung by him, but I have only talked of moderating the amount in water and trying to avoid genetically sensitive types such a some COMT variants getting protection when they are not aware what is happening. It is a gradual process of finding out for me and when I started here I was not aware of the COMT variant.

    Like

  4. Since we are talking propaganda on this thread I will place here this new Connett vid in which he discusses propaganda in the NZ fluoraidation scenario. I don’t claim all his points to be winners, but many deserve the thought. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2VFLW6IZxg

    Like

  5. Brian, you extended quote from Putin in the Q/A session is useful for demonstrating both the prejudices on the part of the reviewer and the clear explanation Putin gives.

    But, of course, you weaken your arguments (your’s not Putin’s) by falling back on the promotion of Paul Connett. Perhaps as one of his fans you should contact him and ask him to respond to my open letter. I am sure he knows about it but his supporters appear to be urging him not to get involved in another discussion of the science. I think they must have judged he lost the last one.🙂

    I don’t think any of Paul’s points made here were winners – which ones do you think were?

    Like

  6. Linda and others here – regarding the recommended reading have a look at this link.

    Like

  7. Ken: “I don’t think any of Paul’s points made here were winners – which ones do you think were?”
    Then what is your comment on using baby bottle tooth decay, which shows in the upper teeth while the lower ones are protected by the tongue, to sell fluoridation to the Queensland legislators. Note that is a different question as to whether fluoridation works in general. It is about the ethics of using pictures which show a scenario not caused by lack of fluoride, but by lack of bottle feeding education, to sell fluoridation.

    Like

  8. So Brian, you haven’t produced a “winner” from Paul’s talk – just an allegation that somebody in Queensland may have implied that baby bottle decay was evidence supporting fluoridation.

    I actually discussed the propaganda used by both sided in Queensland during my debate with Paul. He was unhappy about me pointing him yo claims that CWF caused skeletal fluorosis (patently untrue) by his anti-fluoride mates.

    All that can really be said is that both sides from time to time exaggerate. The important point, though, is Paul Connett is blatantly misrepresenting the science and his fans in the anti-fluoride movement continually tell porkies about the science.

    But what were Paul’s “winners’ in his talk regarding the science?

    I think I covered almost all the claims in his presentation in my Open Letter but am keen to find out if I have missed something- “winner” or not.

    Like

  9. “All that can really be said is that both sides from time to time exaggerate.”
    Therefore how can we trust them?
    Connett, asking for caution could be expected to be erring on the cautionary side which is what his exaggeration would be about.
    That government with its officials and legislative power and final say needs to be exact.
    So you, Ken, admit there was unethical promotion of fluoridation to the Queensland Govt by portraying bottle-feeding upper tooth decay as a lack of fluoride.
    Connett also introduced the fraud in the “Napier/Hastings” study which was one instrumental in allowing fluoridation in NZ.
    http://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_12-26-13/

    And I see your earlier comment on your Connett debate:
    “Paul quotes John Colquhoun:
    “The school dentists in the area of the experiment were instructed to change their method of
    diagnosing tooth decay, so that they recorded much less decay after fluoridation began.”
    This just shows how simple facts can be distorted to fit a conspiracy theory. My own family
    remembers this change in dental technique by the school dental service because it was
    country wide – not restricted to Hastings as Colquhoun, and Paul, imply. There goes the
    conspiracy theory and Paul’s claim of a scientific fraud.”

    Connett said the fraud was not acknowledging the change in the study area. Whether it was done elsewhere in NZ has nothing to do with that.

    Ken: “Akers (2008) agrees these changes confounded the experiment:
    “The changing of NZSDS [NZ School Dental Service] diagnostic criteria for caries and the
    cessation of the NZSDS nurses’ practice of prophylactic restoration of fissures further
    confused interpretations. While later antifluoridationists justifiably claimed that the changed
    diagnostic criteria contributed to the fall in caries (Colquhoun, 1999), their “science or
    swindle” questioning of methodology and findings (Colquhoun and Mann, 1986; Colquhoun,
    168
    1998; Colquhoun and Wilson, 1999) simplified confounding variables and dismissed
    international evidence supporting community water fluoridation as one factor in declining
    community caries incidence (de Liefde, 1998).””

    But the Hastings study should not have its variables changed because somewhere else said there was a result. Very likely that would produce a feedback loop where the other place said the same about Hastings.

    “So science, probably bad science, but not the “swindle” Paul wants to believe – and wants us
    to accept.”

    A swindle: when you get something by less than honest means, that’s a swindle. And Ken I think you tend to categorise people as, “dishonest,” if saying something not true even if not intended to mislead. I think you are overdoing it a bit.

    ” As an aside, I think changes in dental practice like this will have also contributed to
    the graphs Paul and other anti-fluoride activists love to use to prove improvement of oral
    health in the absence of fluoridation – yet they never discuss that sort of detail. It is a
    potential problem with any longitudinal study and Colquhon was criticised for ignoring it in
    his own presentation of New Zealand data.”

    Your chance to expand, Ken.

    “Akers also refers to the problem with using Napier as a control city:
    “The abandonment of the control city (Napier) because it had a lower initial caries rate than
    that of Hastings (Ludwig, 1958) implicated soil science as a confounding factor in New
    Zealand cariology (Ludwig and Healey, 1962; Ludwig, 1963).”
    I referred to my memories of this discussion about the role of other trace elements in dental
    health in a previous article (see Why I support fluoridation).
    Yet, how does Paul express this: “after about two years the control city of Napier was
    dropped for bogus reasons.” So Paul considers the fact it was not suitable as a control to be
    bogus?”

    As the letter said they were not getting the results wanted. All they had to do to would be to allow ofor better dental health in Napier at the start and compensate following on.

    “The Hastings experiment (or “project” or “demonstration”) was also confounded by political
    changes, birth of the anti-fluoridation activity in New Zealand, loss of support from the
    Hastings City Council, and so on.
    That is the problem with conspiracy theories – they paint the world black and white which is
    very unrealistic. I expected far more professionalism from Paul than this.”

    Not clear.

    Like

  10. Brian, you ask “how can we trust them?”

    Come off it. An intelligent person judges the evidence – they don’t “trust” without evidence. This is science, not religion.

    No, Brian, don’t put words in my mouth. I said nothing about ethics regarding a story that Connett is telling. I myself could not find the promotion Connett claimed. But only a fool is going to ditch all the science because someone may have exaggerated something in a promotion. Christ almighty – the anti-fluoride people are doing that all the time. You want to discuss ethics – consider all the lies they continually promote, their refusal to allow discussion of their claims and their banning people like me from their web sites and Facebook pages.

    Is this really your concept of a “winner” by Connett?

    Connett labelled the Hastings trial a “fraud” – a serious charge which he cannot support. Ethically very bad as he is making serious accusations against people who are no longer here to defend themselves. Do you really think Connett’s defamatory claims, absence of any science, about the Hastings trial are a “winner?” Where are your brains?

    Connett didn’t even bother to discuss the data or publications from the trial – I suspect he has never even read the papers.

    I suggest you read that section of my Open Letter to Connett as I have discussed the points you raise. You say “Connett said the fraud was not acknowledging the change in the study area.” But, in fact the publications describe the diagnostic procedures used right at the beginning and refer back to them later. There is absolutely no evidence that diagnostic procedures, or filling procedures, changed during the trial. Quite the opposite. It is perfectly normal in such long-term trials to define procedures and stick with them, quite separately from what the rest of the world may be doing. And the abandonment of Napier was also honestly discussed at the beginning. Only a fool would see anything malicious in that change.

    I made the point that technician differences, or dental nurse differences in this case, can be an honest issue in long term trials. I know that from experience. But even the Mann and Wilson paper quotes from internal reports obtained under the OIA which indicate that all efforts were made to ensure uniformity, recognising the problem of operator resistance. The data also shows that the observed trend of improvement in oral health was there throughout the trial period – not just at the beginning which would be the case if the lies Connett tells were true.

    Where the hell do you get the idea that the “Hastings study [had] its variables changed because somewhere else said there was a result.” That is an incredible statement, completely unsupported.

    No “letter said they were not getting the results wanted. “ That is a defamatory lie.

    Really, you have no judgement if you think Connetts fraudulent defamatory statements are a “winner.” If the people he defames were still with it he may well be facing a very expensive legal situation. He is simply taking advantage of the fact they are no longer here to defend themselves.

    Connett’s behaviour on the Hastings trial is cowardly. This is not a winner by any definition.

    Like

  11. David, you accuse me of having a “pro-Moscow bias” because of points I presented in our discussion of the Crimean situation some time ago (see https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/07/18/mh17-tragedy-2-years-on/#comment-76268). I don’t want to get into playing the cherry-picked quotation game so will simply present my position again.

    1: My concept of “invasion” involves something like what happened to Iraq in 2003, Czechoslovakia in 1968, etc. In fact, some western media had presented pictures from previous conflicts show columns of Russian tanks as justification for the “invasion” claim. But nothing like that happened. The only movement of troops from the Russian Federation at the time involved a few helicopters (presumably special forces). During this whole period, the total number of members of the armed forces from the Russian Federation in the Crimean Peninsula remained below the numbers allowed for under the treaty.

    Compare that with the columns of tanks, personal carriers, artillery, etc., moving eastward within Ukraine aimed at Ukrainian citizens in the East – remember the pictures of unarmed citizens, old ladies holding icon, resisting those tanks?

    2: The legal situation – although, of course lawyers from each side will be able to argue their own case. The “invasion” of east Ukraine by forces of the illegal junta in Kiev violated the Ukrainian constitution which stated that Ukrainian armed forces should not be used against the Ukrainian people (remember that Yanukovych, for this reason, did not deploy the armed forces against demonstrators in 2013/2014). Simple trick – redefine those who disagreed with the Junta as “terrorists” and it makes it legal!

    Arguing out the details of the Russian-Ukrainian treaty regarding armed forces in Crimea, as you do, inevitably raises the question of who were the legitimate authorities in Ukraine and Crimea. Special forces of the Russian Federation had helped prevent the death of the legitimate president of Ukraine – hardly a violation of the treaty. The Kiev regime which took power at the end of February did so by illegal, armed and terroristic methods. It was not legitimate. The authorities in Crimea were legitimate, set out to defend themselves against the Maidan forces attempting to take over parliament and government and got help from forces of the Russian Federation based in the peninsula.

    So you can see it is easy to make a credible legal case for the assistance the Russian Federation provided to the legitimate authorities in Crimea.

    3: The intervention of the Rusian Federation was very passive. Not one resident was harmed by those forces (dubbed the polite green men). But their presence prevented the situation getting out of hand as happened throughout the rest of Ukraine – and in particular in eastern Ukraine. The vast majority of Crimeans must be thankful they have not had to suffer the bombing and deaths that eastern Ukrainians have. Repression in eastern Ukrainian produced a huge refugee crisis which we hardly ever hear about because the refugees were mostly ethnic Russians and the burden was carried bit the Russian Federation. For at least a period there the Russian Federation was registering far more refugees than any other country in the world.

    4: I guess the Crimeans are thankful they are now part of the Russian Federation (and despite issues people may have with the specifics of the referendum no one surely doubts the return to Russia was well supported) – not only because they have avoided the terrible conflict in the east of Ukraine but also because they now have far more freedoms, better standards of living, etc., (considering the ongoing blockade).

    Just compare that with the situation in Ukraine – a government which is extremely unpopular (less support than there was the previous legitimate president even at the time of the biggest protests). A huge economic problem, Huge debts – which the government is reneging on. Armed brigades with clear fascist ideology not only terrorising people in the east but also intervening in Kiev. Assassination of journalists, etc., etc. And all the tiem the threat of another coup and a 3rd Maidan.

    I often think the Ukrainians now are suffering from the same type of criminal oligarchy that brought Russia to its knees in the 1990s (and incidentally which Putin has done much to remove in his terms of power).

    What I have described are facts – not fantasy resulting from bias. My sympathies do lie with the victims of the bombing and repression that occurred in the east of Ukraine and with the Crimeans who showed overwhelmingly (not for the first time) they did not want to be part of Ukraine – and particular the present-day Ukraine. I do not have sympathy for the pro-fascist and nationalist forces 0- their political parties or their armed brigades.

    Mind you – in line with my previous comment I do accept I am “pro-Kiev” – having visited the city and found it very beautiful. I stayed in the hotel used for treating victims of the sniper attacks during the Maidan demonstrations and my familiarity with the area really sparked my interest when the Maidan demonstrations took off in 2013/2014.

    Labeling me as “pro-Moscow” because I present the facts (that are often ignored by our media and politicians who are participating in a geopolitical information war) is simply a way of trying to avoid or discredit these facts. In exactly the same way as those anti-fluoridationists who accuse me of being a “shill” when I present the factual scientific information they don’t wish to be known.

    Surely the way to handle disagreements over things like Crimea is to discuss the facts and avoid labels.

    Like

  12. Ken: “No “letter said they were not getting the results wanted. “ That is a defamatory lie. ”

    12 Oct 1962: “I will certainly not rest easily until a simple method has been devised to prove the equation fluoridation = less fillings

    (G.H. Leslie)
    Director, Division of Dental Health”

    Like

  13. Read my Open Letter,Brian. A officer wanting to provide data understandable to the man in the street and expressing frustration about that happens all the time.  It is not evidence of fraud and to rely on that rather than the data and publications is really desperate.  If these scientists were alive today Connett would be facing expensive defamation  charges and would lose.  His charge of fraud in this situation  is simply cowardly Why does he avoid referring to the data and publications – he has had plenty of opportunity? And why has he refused to respond to my criticisms of this cowardly behaviour?

    Sent from my Samsung device

    Like

  14. So you translate: “No one is more conscious than I am of the need for proof of the value of fluoridation in terms of reduced treatment. It is something which has been concerning me for a long time. It is only a matter of time before I will be asked questions and I must have an answer with meaning to a layman or I am going to be embarrassed and so is everyone else connected with fluoridation.” to:
    “No one is more conscious than I am of the need for proof FOR THE LAYMAN of the value of fluoridation in terms of reduced treatment. It is something which has been concerning me for a long time, THOUGH OF COURSE WE HAVE THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF (REFS GIVEN). THE MOST CONCERNING PART OF BEING A PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIAL IS NOT PRODUCING RESULTS IT IS PERSUADING THE PUBLIC THAT THEY EXIST. It is only a matter of time before I will be asked questions and I must have an answer with meaning to a layman or I am going to be embarrassed and so is everyone else connected with fluoridation.

    Like

  15. Whereas I translate: “No one is more conscious than I am of the need for proof of the value of fluoridation in terms of reduced treatment. It is something which has been concerning me for a long time. It is only a matter of time before I will be asked questions and THE ANSWER I GET must ALSO BE an answer with meaning to a layman. UNLESS I CAN FULFILL BOTH THOSE CONDITIONS I am going to be embarrassed and so is everyone else connected with fluoridation.

    Like

  16. So what other “winners” did you find in Paul’s presentation, Brian?

    Sent from my Samsung device

    Like

  17. Coloqhoon: “The experimental control town, at first described as ‘ideal’, was abandoned following the discovery that after fluoridation commenced younger children had less tooth decay in the unfluoridated control town.”

    It seems to me VERY suspicious that that was not followed up by the Health Dept in the interests of improving dental health.

    Like

  18. Brian it is VERY suspicious for you to claim nothing was followed up regarding Napier. Your assumption is completely wrong.

    I was working at Soil Bureau in the mid 1960s and remember Bernard Healy discussing the work he did on this. There are several publications on the issue of dental health in Napier by Bernard Healy and others. refer to my debater with Paul Connett where I listed them.

    Healy, W.B.; Ludwig, T.G.; Losee, F. L. (1961). Soils and dental caries in Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand. Soil Science, 92(6), 359–366.

    Ludwig, T. G. (1958). The Hastings Fluoridation project I. Dental effects between 1954 and 1957. New Zealand Dental Journal, 54, 165–172.

    Ludwig, T. G. (1959). The Hastings fluoridation project: II. Dental effects between 1954 and 1959. New Zealand Dental Journal, 55, 176–179.

    Ludwig, T. G. (1962). The Hastings fluoridation project III-Dental effects between 1954 and 1961. New Zealand Dental Journal, 58, 22–24.

    Ludwig, T. . (1963). Recent marine soils and resistance to dental caries . Australian Dental Journal, 109–113.

    Ludwig, T. G. (1965). The Hastings fluoridation project V- Dental effects between 1954 and 1964. New Zealand Dental Journal, 61, 175–179.

    Ludwig, T. G. (1971). Hastings fluoridation project VI-Dental effects between 1954 and 1970. New Zealand Dental Journal, 67, 155–160.

    Ludwig, T. G.; Healy, W. B.; Losee, F. L. (1960). An association between dental caries and certain soil conditions in New Zealand. Nature, 4726, 695–696.

    Ludwig, T.G.; Healy, W. B. (1962). The production and composition of vegetables in home gardens at Napier and Hastings. New Zealand Dental Journal, 58, 229–233.

    Ludwig, T.G.; Pearce, E. I. F. (1963). The Hastings fluoridation project IV – Dental effects between 1954 and 1963. New Zealand Dental Journal, 59, 298–301.

    Like

  19. Move on, Brian. Give us a list of the “winners” you found in Connett’s NZ presentation you mentioned in this discussion.

    I am suspecting you didn’t find any at all.🙂

    Like

  20. So did Ludwig find it was not worth Health Dept of the time following up with better supplementation? It is very obvious why G.H.Leslie was fretting. As as a public health official he was trying to get proof of fluoride when something else was outdoing it that the public where aware of.

    Like

  21. You are away with the birds,Brian. They gave up on Napier because  they did not think it was a suitable control.  Oral health is influenced by a range of factors so it is sensible to avoid the problem of confound wes if one is looking at a specific effect. Move on.  Tell.me.about those “winners”

    Sent from my Samsung device

    Like

  22. “I am suspecting you didn’t find any at all.”
    You haven’t disagreed with my explanation of Leslie’s words as a better interpretation than yours.
    Connett’s lecture was about bringing out those ideas of Coloqhoun &c. If I am away with the birds then I have a better view of many strange coincidences. Such as the fluoride producing aluminium industry getting in “health” direction, and the payments to dentists to prove the benefits of fluoridation, which Leslie was intent on, but to the exclusion of other better things which you are still trying to put down, Ken.

    http://www.zerowasteamerica.org/fluoridechronology.htm

    I appreciated Connett’s description how the Gluckman/Skegg people admitted their fault when challenged on IQ points vs standard deviations, but did not correspondingly apply any change to their conclusion.

    All Blacks and even more their captains are at the tail of the distribution of rugby players and I appreciated what Connett’s graph showed about the effect on the tails of the IQ distribution when the mean is shifted by a fraction of an SD.

    Like

  23. You are presumably referring to the mistake in the summary (not conclusions) of the Royal Societ Review.  There was no mistake on the body of the report.  I was one of the people who pointed out the mistake and they corrected it after thanking me. Harvard University made the same mistake in their press release and had to correct it. Any sensible person aware of Connett’s dishonesty should know by now not take his claims as gospel and check things for themselves. Come on. All your “winners” have failed so far. Surely you can find something? Or is Connett a complete write off? ☺

    Sent from my Samsung device

    Like

  24. “Erratum: the previous version of the executive summary of this paper stated that the claimed shift of IQ from fluoride exposure was less than one IQ point; it should have stated less than one standard deviation. Updated 15 January 2015.”
    The new version says: “Further, the claimed shift of less than one standard deviation suggests that this is likely to be a measurement or statistical artefact of no functional significance.”

    And the old version would have been: “Further, the claimed shift of less than one IQ point suggests that this is likely to be a measurement or statistical artefact of no functional significance.”

    But one standard deviation is 15 IQ points.

    Like

  25. Brian, you are shifting the goal posts (in order to avoid admitting that Paul did not produce and real “winners.”)

    And you are inflating mean 0.45 of an average standard deviation to one standard deviation.

    The Royal society made the same mistake in their review summary (there was no mistake in the text of the body of the review as you had claimed) as Harvard University made in their press release. Both of them corrected the mistake when it was pointed out to them.

    Move on, Brian. Tell me about those “winners.”

    Like

  26. Connett’s whole discussion of fluoride and IQ is completely silly if he doesn’t confront the fact that even when no confounders are considered the “significant’ correlation can explain only 3% of the variance. He refuses to enter into any discussion of that fact. The last thing he is interested in is the truth.

    Like

  27. I didn’t inflate anything. I used the report’s words.

    It looks as if the erratum only went by a clerk. “Less than one iq point” would not be significant. Someone has told the typesetter they should have used SD rather than IQ point. And they have done that in the same fashion as if someone were to have said you shouldn’t say the NZ urban speed limit is 30 miles per hour and a complaint changes it to 50 kilometres per hour..That would a scarcely noticeable difference. But this change is worse than say putting in metres per second when it should have been kilometres per hour. I imagine someone disputing a speeding ticket and vouch they were only doing 50 because they measured it on a wind speed gauge. And they hope the judge doesn’t realise that the gauge has been set in metres per second. But they have got caught.

    If this went by the scientists could they be leaving themselves open to this criticism?

    For you, Ken, are acknowledging one SD, the amount they said, is a lot.
    Indeed it is 15 IQ points.

    When they stated, “less than one IQ point,” they had read 0.45 and called it less than one, and in terms of IQ point that would not be signficant. Now it has been pointed that the 0.45 is in terms of SDs, then if it is scientists have done the correction the difference between 0.45 and one makes a very big difference (as you note with your “inflation” accusation).and it appears they are trying to minimise the APPEARANCE of the effect, BY STILL CALLING IT LESS THAN ONE AND NOT COMMENTING ON WHETHER THEIR INSIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT HAS BEEN ABROGATED they are in disrepute.

    Like

  28. Move on, Brian, and tell us about these “winners.”

    Like

  29. In fact the amount is so glaring that if it were a scientist did it I would have to think they are trying to make the study look silly because they are worried. I think the next study they cite must be the Dunedin one. Connett’s people wrote to the AJPH about it and the authors replied, amongst other things saying that people with fluorosis did not have worse IQ. They were trying to say that means that fluoride is not worsening IQ.

    And though Broadbent knows that dental “fluorosis,” i.e. opaque tooth enamel is only partly caused by fluoride damaging the ameloblasts, he and his co-authors have not replied to me when I questioned them on that. I asked them to state whether they had distinguished between diffuse symmetrical whitening, the sort resulting from fluoride damage, and the more demarcated and asymmetrical damage in the permanent teeth resulting from other factors such as trauma to the overlying first tooth.

    Have they not got the data or do they want to keep quiet about it?

    Like

  30. Come on, Brian – what about those “winners?”

    Like

  31. Ken I know it can never be a real winner to healing a serious assault by putting the assailant in jail. Just maybe it helps for the future and we shall again see the gaussian curve in Auckland shift back to have its mean where it used to and they and NZ will have more quality All Black captains again. As Connett showed, shifting the curve half an SD (0.45) makes a big difference to the numbers of individuals in the very bright and very dull region. That is a winner for the future not for the infants hurt in Auckland since fluoridation in 1966.

    Like

  32. So no “winners” then?

    What a farce.

    Like

  33. soundhill,

    This blog post was about originally about Putin. Your comments almost immediately changed it to your support of Paul Connett in his blinkered inability to see the science of fluoride.

    Ken has asked you to show where Paul Connett has made an accurate interpretation of the science of fluoride. You have completely ignored Ken’s polite request and kept changing the goalposts, even though Ken has repeatedly tried to redirect your aim.

    You’re keen on rugby from your previous comments. I’m not. But even I know the goalposts are the white things ahead of you at the end of the field. You’re kicking to the right, to the left, and even turning around to kick between the posts you’re trying to defend. Why not try going for the goalposts and answer Ken’s question instead?

    Your comments show that, in your world, anything that Paul Connett says has no possibility of being wrong. You cannot even consider the thought. Inadvertently, you have provided an excellent example of the “binary thinking” that you so frequently accuse others of possessing.

    Now, since you have repeatedly ignored Ken’s polite request to show where any of Paul Connett’s comments have not been repeatedly shown to be inaccurate by the science, we must make the assumption that you cannot. OK, we can just ignore your blustering, goalpost shifting and binary thinking. Let’s move on.

    Like

  34. Stuartg you can see current posts on old threads listed on the right hand side of the page if you scroll back enough. Someone had continued the Repeating Bad Science thread a few days ago. So I replied there and as you see Ken asked me to bring it on to this thread. It seems easier to call it shifting the goalposts than to answer it any further than to say both sides exaggerate and that he hasn’t seen the post card himself.

    soundhill1 | July 22, 2016 at 4:18 pm |

    Ken: “Brian, I am happy to discuss each point on Paul’s list of 50 reasons to oppose fluoridation with you. In fact, I have covered most of them in my debate with him.”
    I don’t see you reply to Tony about Baby Bottle tooth decay.
    https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/fluoride-debate-part-1-perrott/#comment-46609
    In his Christchurch address Connett said how in Queensland, parliamentarians were each sent a post card of baby bottle tooth decay just before they voted about fluoridation. The upper teeth get eroded whereas the tongue protects the lower teeth, not fluoride. Education is needed not fluoridation says Connett.

    Like
    Ken | July 22, 2016 at 5:24 pm |

    Brian – let’s have the discussion at https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/07/22/the-putin-diversion/#comment-76293

    Like

  35. Connett actually gave two examples of that “exaggeration,” of similar nature. I would not call it exaggeration. The picture was nothing to do with fluoridation and only intended to mislead.

    Like

  36. Brian, if you want to pursue the “exaggerations you refer to could you actuality provide them? Authentic links to the perpetrators publication – not to an article by anti-fluoride activists.

    Not a reference to Connett (as I say, when I searched for an authentic origin of the example he gave in our debate I could not find it.

    More importantly though – could you confirm that you have exhausted your list of “winners” from Connett’s video you posted?

    Like

  37. Ken the same sort of picture is being used here:
    https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwicq53Tx43OAhXCkpQKHQ3JDPQQFgg6MAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww2.health.vic.gov.au%2FApi%2Fdownloadmedia%2F%257BB049976A-1356-4B12-976D-D45CED162D78%257D&usg=AFQjCNE5R1YvB1KottK1bMdf-65EEkzpxQ&sig2=LVoxAigEi3iVBS1vcs5-AQ&bvm=bv.127984354,d.dGo

    I have yet to get on to Connett’s reference to Barbier and whether neural damage may appear before dental fluorosis, so questioning the claim that if there is no dental fluorosis then everything is OK.

    Also I need to analyse your Scotland stuff.

    And to see what else arises.

    Like

  38. soundhill,

    I was unaware that Ken had requested that, I apologise for suggesting that you attempted to change the discussion from Putin.

    My browser shows the most recent 15 comments on the right side of the page. It does not scroll further back. All 15 comments listed are on “The Putin Diversion”.

    You still keep changing topic rather than answering Ken’s request to provide what you believe are Connett’s “winners”. That was the frequent changing of goalposts that I referred to, as in “kept changing the goalposts” (plural), not the single change from Putin.

    So, are you going to answer the polite request, or continue to avoid answering?

    What are Connett’s “winners”, where he proves your binary thinking belief that he is correct, and incidentally disproves the scientific consensus on fluoride? As you know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    Like

  39. Brian, please indicate the specific instance if exaggeration or misrepresentation Connett claims in this pdf. I cannot see any.

    Like

  40. Stuartg if you keep a watch on that list or else get email notifications.

    Perhaps Ken wants the discussion under the Putin heading so fewer people will see it.

    Don’t you think it to be a winner exposing government officers using bottle feeding upper tooth decay pictures to try to promote fluoridation when fluoridation will not fix it?

    In section 2.2 of the PDF I linked last article, the picture was sourced from
    Pictures provided by Prof M Morgan, The University of Melbourne.

    Putting in the university source is obviously just part of the propaganda. I wonder if they even asked him if he thought fluoride would prevent that.

    Like

  41. Ken I don’t know how to get the ref to what was sent to the Queensland Parliament. But I have given the example of the sort of the Connett is exposing from Melbourne, and there is Connett’s second example from 2014 about 17 mins into the vid: Dr Hazel Lynn, Owen Sound, Sun Times, Canada, Jan 31, 2014. It seems to be a common propaganda practice.

    Like

  42. Brian, that section and photo does not refer to fluoridation at all. The text around the images reads:

    “The following pictures show healthy teeth on the left and teeth with dental decay on

    the right; Deciduous (‘primary’, ‘first’, ‘milk’, or ‘baby’) teeth are shown in the upper

    two pictures, while permanent (‘secondary’ or ‘adult’) teeth are shown in the lower

    two pictures.”

    Hardly a “winner.” More an outright lie.

    Is this the sort of rubbish Connett peddles and his accolades regard as “evidence?”

    I suggested you put the specific question here because you had already raised the issue here. I have absolutely no idea why you raised it also in an old post.

    Yes, I am a bit disappointed that having provided a place for people to bitch about Putin and for us to discuss their bitches in a way that does not disrespect the victims of the MH17 tragedy the discssion then diverts to fluoride.🙂

    However, I am not concerned about disrespecting Putin – just disappointed we are not discussing the charges originally made.

    Like

  43. Another article silently linking in propaganda fashion, Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) community dental service clinical director Dr Martin Lee’s words on fluoridation as a means to prevent tooth decay to a picture with severe child upper tooth decay which looks like it started with baby bottle to people in the know, which should have been made explicit. Connett has increased the number in the know.
    http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/health/78269090/rotten-to-the-core–our-childrens-dental-decay-problem

    Like

  44. “Brian, that section and photo does not refer to fluoridation at all. ”
    haha in an article about fluoridation readers are supposed to somehow see through that the pictures have nothing to do with the article. Typical propaganda.

    You brought the Putin thing here for David, but he declined on the original thread by wishing you well.

    I’d be interested to find what Russia does with the fluoride waste from superphosphate manufacture. China sells a lot on Alibaba. But many countries have developed local disposal in community water supplies.

    Like

  45. Brian, another article and picture where fluoride is not claimed as being implicated. The only mention of fluoride in the whole article was reference to fluoridated tooth paste.

    “A diet heavy in high-sugar food and drink, often combined with a lack of regular brushing using fluoride toothpaste, causes decay.”

    Not referencing the image at all.

    The article concentrates on the role of sugar and socioeconomic problems.

    I am surpised you can sleepo straight in yiour bed at night with you readiness to tell such lies. Same for Connett.

    Again, no “€œwinner” here. None anywhere in Connett’€™s talk.

    Like

  46. You are desperately lying, Brian – the section does not even mention fluoride. It describes dental decay, it’s causes, and illustrates it.

    David did wish me will, but I do not interpret that for one minute as declining a discussion – simple politeness.

    How can a byproduct of a process be considered waste” if it is actually used, sold as a commodity and not dumped?

    Answer, if you are dishonest and want to promote the story of a conspiracy by “the man” to poison the population for mind control or birth control purposes.🙂

    Like

  47. Brian, neither could I get a copy of the image that Connett used from a reliable source. it is heavily promoted by Queensland anti-fluoride groups – who also promote pictures of skeletal fluorosis from India, etc., claiming they are the result of CWF.

    But nothing from the original sources which they claim were promoting it.

    All I can conclude is that such a figure may have been used by someone but was not considered respectable and therefore not included in official documents.

    Yes, it is a common propaganda practice by Connett and his anti-fluoride accolades – but obviously not at all common for official sources as shown by your inability to show even a single relevant example.

    Like

  48. Ken: “Brian, another article and picture where fluoride is not claimed as being implicated. The only mention of fluoride in the whole article was reference to fluoridated tooth paste. ”

    No Ken:
    “Lee says he would fluoridate Canterbury’s drinking water as a first step towards lowering the rates of decay.

    “It costs next to nothing and it would work.””

    But not for the decay shown big in the associated picture. Propaganda fashion.

    Like

  49. There is absolutely no claim that F deficiency is the cause of the decay shown in the photo. But, of course, only a fool would disagree with CWF as one step which would reduce decay.

    Like

  50. “There is absolutely no claim that F deficiency is the cause of the decay shown in the photo.”

    The way propaganda works is that simple people are led to believe things by clever articles. “Sugar is causing tooth decay. Oh by the way you ought to support fluoridation. Do you remember the picture of the child’s decayed upper teeth? I don’t care if you don’t realise there is no connection”

    “But, of course, only a fool would disagree with CWF as one step which would reduce decay.”

    And if you believe that then you think you are justified to use propaganda to persuade people to allow it?

    And the question is in whom, and at what side-effect cost on large genetic minorities who don’t know they are being affected. e.g. COMT variants. And what better alternatives there are such as following up the Napier soil which was doing better than fluoridation.

    Like

  51. Brian you are just being silly. Move in.

    I realise you cannot find any real “winners” in Pauls presentation. You should never have made hat claim.

    Perhaps you should get back to discussing Putin?🙂

    Like

  52. So now Putin is being blamed for the emails revealing a Democratic campaign against Bernie Sanders. Putin is claimed to be promoting Trump.

    How silly can we get?

    blamed putin

    Like

  53. Sanders supports Clinton who is to the right of Trump.
    Here is Trump’s daughter supporting support for working mothers to have more time with their babies which the National Party just voted against here. It’s not in this speech but do you think the 5-year-old message of sustainability in the sourcing of her diamonds for her jewellery sales can grow to sustainable CO2 budget matters?
    Plus one on Clinton to the right of Trump, and Trump’s foreign policy if I didn’t post it before.

    http://mediaequalizer.com/brian-maloney/2016/06/is-hillary-running-to-the-right-of-trump

    Like

  54. Ken, I have read your post, however, for lack of time, I haven’t completely read the comment thread below it. I do see that you have directed a comment specifically to me, even though I hadn’t yet commented. This suggests that you are looking for an argument with me. That’s fine.

    Sometimes, when I want to argue, when my wife is asleep, I will try to start one up with that fanatic who calls himself Dan Germouse. Unfortunately, he won’t engage me any more. More’s the pity.

    The point of my comment here is simply to say, “Let’s be honest.”

    This post appears to criticize those who simply want to discus Vladimar Putin, in order to digress away from the topic at hand.

    Under your recent post about the downing of MH17, this was my original comment in its entirety:

    “According to U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, “We picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing, and it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar”

    “I honestly believe that John Kerry is a good man. His opposition to the Viet Nam war earned him nothing but hostility from the Nixon Administration . . . . And if anybody saw his first debate against George W. Bush, which focused mainly on the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq . . . Well I have to say, that’s when I became a real fan of John Kerry.

    Perhaps the way to go is to start a campaign and press the U.S. Secretary of State to release the intelligence to the global community that it says it has.” End Quote.

    My reference to John Kerry was two-fold. He said he had intel about the downing of MH17, and I also said that I believed he is a good man. I said that because I wanted it known that I wanted to believe him.

    You will not see the specter of the name “Putin” raised anywhere in it. So, where exactly does the mention of that Petty Tyrant first appear?

    Your quote: “I could say that Vladimir Putin is a “good man” and at least on this position he has maintained an honourable position (as I have said to some readers consternation – he has occupied the moral high ground). His position is not to disrespect the families and dead passengers by using the tragedy for political purposes and to let the investigation and criminal process take its course.”

    Forgive me for “cherry picking,” but that is the exact point where what you call a “diversion” actually appears. This is also what got the ball rolling.

    Of course I’m going to respond to that. My response was: I could also say Hitler was a “good man” based on the way he treated his dog. And so the “diversion,” which was a direct response to your comment, begins. . .

    Was my response a “knee-jerk” reaction? Probably. But I think you knew, based on your comments in this post, which were a recitation of your experiences with the mention of the name Putin, that a knee-jerk reaction would likely occur.

    So, who is guilty of diversion?

    In reality, all you were saying is that Putin took the moral high ground by not politicizing the issue . . by refraining from accusing any side from shooting the plane down.

    Ok, I’ll respond to that: He refrained from accusations because he believed his side shot the thing down. If you think you are guilty of something, you are going to try to keep the accusations to a minimum. And if it looks like you are taking the higher road, even better.

    So what is the point of this comment? I think if we were to be completely honest with ourselves, we would see blame on both sides, yours and mine, for what you have called “The Putin Diversion.”

    Like

  55. Ok, Ken, I’ve looked at your first comment. Personally, I have never condemned you for using Russian sources, nor would I ever do that. If I have, please point that out to me. You are free to use whatever legitimate sources you feel are relevant. . . . As am I.

    Using a particular source does not belie your bias, nor would I ever say that it does.

    I have called you pro-Moscow. As evidence for that statement (which you have requested) I pointed to a discussion we had about the illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea by Russia; an invasion which you bent over backward to defend.

    Your quote: “You ask me if I think “the Russian invasion of Crimea was a moral act?” I have to ask – what Russian invasion of Crimea? I am not aware of any invasion.”

    As evidence of its illegality, I pointed out specific terms of the Russian-Ukrainian Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet.

    A signed Treaty is a tangible, non-subjective document which carries the weight and holds the intent of being honored by all signatories. That is a non-deniable fact.

    You called those specific terms, which Russia violated, “minuta.”

    Your quote: “I don’t think the minutia of such treaties are important in this discussion as it is straw itching to use them to define such a obvious thing as an “invasion,”

    You don’t think the minutia of this Treaty, which was signed, authorized, and violated by Russia, is important in a discussion which defines its actions in Crimea as an invasion.

    To bend over backward to defend the illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea in the face of a violation of Treaty which was signed by authorized representatives of Russia belies your pro-Moscow bias.

    I hope this answers your request for evidence of your pro-Moscow bias. We’re all human. Don’t take it too hard.

    Like

  56. No, David, it is not my aim to criticize those who wish to criticize Putin. Simply to provide a place for them to do so without offending the memory if the victims of MH17. I am as interested as anyone in discussing Putin as I would like people to justify their comments. My response to your comment from the previous post was aimed at moving the discussion here.  Interesting  you interpret Putin’s unwilling guess to make political capital out of the tragedy as some sort of evidence he knew “his side” was responsible.  If that were the case maybe he would have done the opposite.  Blamed the other side and refused to cooperate.   Strangely this is exactly what the Kiev regime did. They obstructed movement of investigators into the war zone, whereas the local authorizes helped access and quickly handed over the black boxes and helped move bodies and wreckage to Holland.

    Sent from my Samsung device

    Like

  57. David, I have already commented on the exaggeration implicit in use of the word “invasion” regarding Crimea. Further I have pointed out that any legalistic discussion must take into account the illegal overthrow of the elected government in Kiev,and that the local Crimean government had resisted overthrow. Who were the competent authorities? The question  of ‘annexation’ or ‘return’ of Crimea must also take into account the wishes of the residents. I do not think here is any credible evidence which contrasts with the referendum result.

    Sent from my Samsung device

    Like

  58. David, I am pleased you do not see use of anything but the prescribed news sources as being “pro-Moscow.” Unfortunately many people do. IU have been jumped on for providing links to RT news reports as if use of such sources is a heinous crime.

    But you do interpret my different understanding of the events in Crimea as evidence for me being “pro-Moscow.” But surely all I have done is:

    1: question the use of an exaggerated term “invasion” of what was a very mild peacekeeping situation in which I do not think anyone was even scratched (compared with what was happening due to an internal invasion occurring in the eastern part of Ukraine.

    2: Attempted to put into context of the illegal actions in Kiev (which incidentally Obama admits to having facilitated) and the fact that the authorities in Crimea were still legitimate.

    I do not think I disagree with you about the details of any treaty – but such details have to be put into context. Continuing to ignore what was happening in Ukraine is very one-sided the situation in Crimea did not come out of the blue.

    I think it is very unfair to label someone because they wish to consider things in context. Surely we should encourage people to do so.

    Like

  59. David do you think the violent coup robbed Ukrainian leader Yanukovych of the right to ask for international help? Maybe you think he was allowed to ask but that no country should provide it? Say an ISIS coup were in Ireland. Would you disapprove of UK helping?

    Like

  60. David Fierstien

    Soundhill, Did someone have the right to ask for help? Sure, anybody can ask whatever they want. It was still a violation of Treaty. If by “help” you mean using military might to annex a large portion of prime real estate . . . Ok, whatever you say.

    In your unlikely hypothetical, the UK would have a right to interfere if its national security was threatened, as any nation has the right to defend itself. Was Russia’s national security threatened by internal political events that took place in another independent, sovereign country?

    Like

  61. David, I think you may have misunderstood Brian’s question about the right of Yanukovych to ask for help. This has nothing to do with Crimea (and I think Yanukovych was actually opposed to the return of Crimea to Russia – at least initially).

    Special forces of the Russian Federation helped rescue Yanukovych from almost certain death at the hands of those who illegally took power in Kiev at the end of February 2014.

    (Personally I can see a similar scenario possibly happening with the current Ukrainian president Poroshenko as his life is continually being threatened by the pro-Maidan nationalists at the moment).

    Your second question related to the national security of the Russian Federation I would answer yes. The loss of the Russian bases in Crimea would have been disastrous for Russia – especially as they would have (eventually) ended up in the hands of NATO. Putin denies this was the prime reason for intervention in Crimea claiming the defense of, and declared wishes of, the Russian population of Crimea was more important(but then again he is a politician and is appeal to the patriotic feelings of the Russian people).

    Yes, Ukraine is, and was, an independent country – but one with an economy, history, culture and security intimately entwined with that of the Russian Federation. So it is no wonder the events in Kiev would have major effects in Moscow. This is why the question of joining the EU free trade area was so problematic and the EU refused to agree to tripartite negotiations including Russia. These later happened (and the EU admitted they had been mistaken). It is also the reason for Moscow’s opposition to Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO as such a radical movement of a hostile military alliance to its borders cannot be ignored by Moscow which is already concerned with the encroachment of NATO since the collapse of the Soviet Union. An encroachment contrary to agreements made between Moscow and Washington during the withdrawal of Soviet forces from eastern Europe.

    It is not unusual for countries to be concerned about events in neighboring independent countries – as you must surely realise from the history of the USA and nits neighbors.

    Like

  62. David Fierstien

    Ken,

    1.) Your quote: “Strangely this is exactly what the Kiev regime did. They obstructed movement of investigators into the war zone, . . ”

    Your revisionist history once again belies your pro-Moscow bias. It was the Russian backed rebels who obstructed the investigation.

    “As militants kept international monitors away from wreckage and scores of bodies festered for a third day, Russian president Vladimir Putin urged the rebels to cooperate . .

    “Reuters reported rebels as telling the OSCE delegation they could not approach the wreckage and would simply be informed in due course of an investigation conducted by the separatists.”
    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/rebels-obstructing-efforts-at-mh17-crash-site-in-ukraine-1.1872224

    2.) Your quote: “Interesting you interpret Putin’s unwilling guess to make political capital out of the tragedy as some sort of evidence he knew “his side” was responsible. If that were the case maybe he would have done the opposite. . . . ”

    Again, let’s be honest. All the finger pointing was in Russia’s direction. Putin didn’t know who shot the thing down. What else is he going to say when everyone is pointing the finger of guilt in his direction? Do you seriously think he would say, “It’s not me, it’s them,” when the entire world was blaming him? Of course not. The only rational thing he could do was try to hold off any judgment and hope for the best.

    That’s all for now, more later.

    Like

  63. Unfortunately, David, your quote from a source on one side of the geopolitical information war does nothing more than illustrate the problem of obtaining good information. The fact is that the OSCE observers were ion the ground almost immediately. Of course local soldiers tasked with protecting the area would have redistricted access to protect evidence. That restriction would have been aimed at locals, reporters, etc., as well as OSCE personnel. I think the OSCE chief at the time commented on the good cooperation he received from the locals.

    The local authorities were actually pleading with investigators to do something about the bodies. The problem being that because Kiev refuses to talk with the local authorities (and still does in violation of the Minsk agreements) and the Dutch were following the same line the movement of the bodies was being hindered,. The OSCE was there because they were in contact with both sides.

    I wrote about this at the time in Some answers to the confusion about the #MH17 crash site.

    Its worth viewing Borodia’s press conference from 19th July to see what the attitude of the locals was.

    It is disrespectful to refer to my contribution as revisionist simply because I listened to the other side and did not naively accept news reports like those in the Irish Times. You should instead be asking why our news media did not show any of this press conference.

    Like

  64. David, when you day “All the finger pointing was in Russia’s direction” what you really mean is that all the sources you accessed were doing this. Might I respectfully suggest this is because your view was blinkered because of the restrictions you knowingly or unknowingly place on the news sources you use.

    I did not see things the same way and I have tried to objectively discuss this in a series of article here since the first few days after the tragedy.

    My same comments apply to your statement “the entire world was blaming him.” That is an incredible blinkered claim. I would be ashamed to admit my reading was so limited.

    Like

  65. https://www.corbettreport.com/dutch-safety-board-releases-mh17-report-guess-what-they-conclude/
    “JIT is not only under a “gag order” whereby the results of its investigation will be classified unless all members agree to its findings, but in that scheme Malaysia is not even entitled to the classified report if the other nations do not agree to it. Essentially, the Ukrainians are the co-investigators of an event that they are suspects in, and the Malaysians are junior partners who aren’t even worthy of full disclosure.”
    In whose interest is it to be keeping things secrect?

    Like

  66. <iTI listened to the other side and did not naively accept news reports like those in the Irish Times.

    I noted that the IT used the term ‘rebels’.

    I’m instantly on high alert regarding bias whenever this term is used by a news organisation.

    Like

  67. David Fierstien

    Ken, (And Richard Christie)

    Sorry, I still haven’t responded to your first set of comments, but I would like to make a quick observation about this comment:

    Your quote: “Unfortunately, David, your quote from a source on one side of the geopolitical information war does nothing more than illustrate the problem of obtaining good information. The fact is that the OSCE observers were ion the ground almost immediately. . . .

    “It is disrespectful to refer to my contribution as revisionist simply because I listened to the other side and did not naively accept news reports like those in the Irish Times. ”

    What I cited was a story by Reuters, one of the most respected news agencies in the world, as reported in the Irish Times.

    I find it ironic that you are now criticizing the use of certain sources by those with whom you disagree.

    This is my bias. I trust a globally respected member of the Free Press over a News Service that operates out of a country in which political rivals and news reporters routinely end up dead or missing because they said or did the wrong thing.

    Like

  68. Because mercenaries – killing for money – is illegal is it likely that Thomson Reuters will accuse “rebel volunteers” of being mercenaries? Note that Cechens have been volunteering on both sides. In Ukraine it has been difficult to get soldiers to kill their brothers. I suspect that “advisors” from other countries will be goading them to.

    Like

  69. David Fierstien

    Ok, let’s talk about this from you:

    ” I have already commented on the exaggeration implicit in use of the word “invasion” regarding Crimea. Further I have pointed out that any legalistic discussion must take into account the illegal overthrow of the elected government in Kiev,and that the local Crimean government had resisted overthrow. Who were the competent authorities? The question of ‘annexation’ or ‘return’ of Crimea must also take into account the wishes of the residents. I do not think here is any credible evidence which contrasts with the referendum result.”

    1.) You have commented on the word “invasion” in previous discussion. Unfortunately either you are in denial about Russia’s violation of Treaty, or you simply will not admit it.

    2.) ” . . I have pointed out that any legalistic discussion must take into account the illegal overthrow of the elected government in Kiev . . ”

    Irrelevant. Russia was still in violation of Treaty in Crimea. The internal affairs of Ukraine, a sovereign, independent nation were outside the legal jurisdiction of Russia. Moreover, meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine was another provision that Russia violated.

    3.) “The question of ‘annexation’ or ‘return’ of Crimea must also take into account the wishes of the residents.”

    Why exactly is that? Even if that was a valid point – and it is not – Russia was still in violation of Treaty when it invaded and annexed Crimea.

    4.) “I do not think here is any credible evidence which contrasts with the referendum result.”

    Here you are talking about a referendum held on March 16, 2014. There were to available choices. The referendum asked the people of Crimea whether they wanted to join Russia as a federal subject, or if they wanted to restore the 1992 Crimean constitution and Crimea’s status as a part of Ukraine. Since the 1992 constitution accords greater powers to the Crimean parliament including full sovereign powers to establish relations with other states, both available referendum choices would ultimately result in de facto separation from Ukraine.

    Moreover, not only were there serious allegations of fraud, but most countries that have taken a position on the Crimean referendum have condemned it as a breach of Ukrainian sovereignty. Only a few countries, including Armenia, Kazakhstan, Russia, and several breakaway states supported by Russia have endorsed the vote.

    Like

  70. “Moreover, not only were there serious allegations of fraud, but most countries that have taken a position on the Crimean referendum have condemned it as a breach of Ukrainian sovereignty.”

    When you say “countries” you mean entities with territorial interests who employ foreign advisors to goad local youngsters to go to their death.

    Nor do they want any democratic secession.

    Like

  71. David, this does not let you off the hook – “What I cited was a story by Reuters, one of the most respected news agencies in the world, as reported in the Irish Times.” Reuters would have reported the US claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – as a news service they were obliged to (and I am sure the Russian news services also reported the claims). This does not make them true.

    You need to intelligently and critically assess claims instead of cherry-picking them and “going with them” because the reinforce you own biases.

    I suggest you watch the video of the news conference I supplied where the authorities in Donetsk explain what was happening in the area in the days after the crash instead of relying on 3rd or 4th reports (often unattributed) in a news service – no matter how much you respect them.

    Incidentally, perhaps in making judgement on the reliability of Reuters on this you should check out if they actually reported, or even covered, the news conference in Donetsk.

    Like

  72. David Fierstien

    You’re not off the hook either. From my link to the Irish Times story if you had looked at it. Obviously you have not. This means you could not have critically assessed the story:

    “In the regional capital Donetsk, the prime minister of the separatist authorities Alexander Borodai told a news conference that Kiev was holding up the arrival of international experts whose mission to probe the cause – and potentially blame – for the disaster was authorised on Friday by the United Nations Security Council.”

    Also from the story:

    “Observers from Europe‘s OSCE security agency visited part of the crash site near the village of Hrabove for a second day on Saturday and again found their access hampered by armed men from the forces of the self-declared People‘s Republic of Donetsk. An OSCE official said, however, they saw more than on Friday.
    Reuters reported rebels as telling the OSCE delegation they could not approach the wreckage and would simply be informed in due course of an investigation conducted by the separatists.”

    So, unlike the WMD story that was manipulated by Cheney, Reuters had people on the ground and provided a first person account.

    Like

  73. David, I am pleased you have moderated “all the finger pointing” to “most countries.” Progress.

    Your refusal to even acknowledge, let alone consider, the context in which the return of Crimea to Russia took place is incredibly biased, How can a treaty outlining the responsibilities of the parties be discussed without considering the fact that one of these parties had been illegally overthrown? And why do you insist that the local authorities in Crimea were somehow not allowed to be involved in this relationship – especially considering they were still legal?

    It is also farcical for you to be concerned that the Crimea government did not include the recently current constitution of Ukraine in the referendum choice (seriously who would have supported it) when the junta in Kiev had already reneged on that Constitution and proceeded to replace it in the Rada. The February agreement cobbled together by the EU to resolve the Ukrainian problems also called for the then current constitution to be replaced – but democratically, not in the way the junta did.

    Of course there were allegations of fraud (we are in the middle of an information war) and there are currently serious allegations of fraud in the US election process – and yes the referendum took place in a very short time in a dangerous situation so there will have been some problems – but I asked if you seriously believe that many Crimean citizens oppose the final result. I don’t think any intelligent reporter has. And that is hardly surprising as Crimea has naturally been Russian for a very long time and was only joined to Ukraine (illegally as Khrushchev’s decision was not approved by the state authorities) at a time when the decision was meaningless. The Crimean issue is just one of the problems that arose with the sudden (and in details related to referenda in Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine illegal) collapse of the USSR.

    You seem unhappy with the nature of the 1992 constitutions. Yet this bears marked similarities to the broad outline of the Minsk agreement (supported by France, Germany and Russia) regarding the Donbass region. The problem of allowing language and ethnic rights in Ukraine (there are other minorities besides Russian) is one of the key issues in the country. If these rights had been allowed they may not have been in the mess they are in now.

    Your opposition to the 1992 constitution puts you in agreement with the most extreme nationalist and pro-fascist elements that are causing so much trouble in that country.

    Like

  74. Great, David, Reuters did mention the Donetsk press conference. But clearly you eliminated that part of the Reuters report because it did not agree with your bias.🙂

    I am just suggesting that you take a more balanced approach.

    I think I have referred to the OSCE comments before. I consider them fairly natural in a situation where the local armed forces were attempting to control the crash site.

    Have a look at the OSCE Ukraine monitor reports today – they come out daily. And almost daily they report they have been hindered, even shot at, to some extent by the armed forces on both sides of the conflict. Hardly surprising.

    The fact is the local authorities did cooperate in getting investigators to the site, the recovery of the body and the recovery of the wreckage. It is not them who hindered the investigators travelling from Kiev to the region or hid behind diplomatic niceties at that time. These investigators would have had more rapid access if they traveled via Moscow through the Donetsk border crossing – but imagine the diplomatic uproar. Look at what has happened with the humanitarian aid convoys.

    Like

  75. David, I can only repeat what I wrote and add that I always scan reports from any conflict situation for indicators of a priori bias on the part of the narrative.

    In this case the manner in which the word rebel is used is a classic example of use of loaded language.

    Ken recently provided a narrative on the Syrian civil war that was similarly biased, in fact, much more so.

    Like

  76. Ok, your quote: “How can a treaty outlining the responsibilities of the parties be discussed without considering the fact that one of these parties had been illegally overthrown?”

    Well, that’s easy to answer. The Treaty to which you refer forbade Russia from interfering in the internal affairs of Ukraine, a sovereign, independent nation.

    If Ukraine had been overthrown, legally or illegally, that would be by definition the internal affairs of Ukraine, a sovereign nation. Is this not correct? That means, if Russia involved itself in (or took advantage of) that situation, that would be a violation of Treaty. Is there something in the clear logic of this that you do not understand?

    In 1980, either a legal or illegal coup occurred in the nation of Iran. By your logic, Iraq was within its rights to invade and try to annex that country. By your logic, no treaties between the two countries were valid, since, as you have said, “How can a treaty outlining the responsibilities of the parties be discussed without considering the fact that one of these parties had been illegally overthrown?”

    Are you for real?

    Like

  77. Your quote: “Great, David, Reuters did mention the Donetsk press conference. But clearly you eliminated that part of the Reuters report because it did not agree with your bias.”

    Of course Reuters mentioned the Donetsk press conference. Reuters, as I have mentioned, is one of the most respected News Agencies representing the Free Press. Reuters presented both sides of this issue, critically and intelligently assessed it, and reached a conclusion. Take a look at the headline. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/rebels-obstructing-efforts-at-mh17-crash-site-in-ukraine-1.1872224

    You, on the other hand, did not.

    Moreover, Reuters isn’t threatened by a political leader which has caused reporters working some news services, like the Moscow Propagandist, to either disappear or wind up dead.

    By the way, onto another topic, have you heard Trump’s latest request to Russia? “I hope you find those 30,000 emails.”

    Like

  78. You may have found that easy to answer, David, because you completely ignore the interests of the Crimean people and their legitimate government. You are denying their right to request assistance, even though it was passive assistance, to resist the attempted overthrow of their Parliament and government and enable the people to determine their own fate.

    You also ignore the simple humanitarian aspects considering the danger from extreme anti-Russian nationalists and pro-fascist forces.

    And you ignore the security interests of the Russian Federation. Loss of the major Crimean naval bases would have lead to a crisis in the region. Have a look at the number of Russian bases outside their country – and the number of US/NATO bases outside the borders of the USA (and close to the borders of the Russian Federation). I think the Russian leadership was right to be concerned.

    Would you advance the same argument of the USA was threatened by loss of one of their bases in the region with a hostile and illegal government in Canada? One of the reasons Putin is so popular at home (and so unpopular with the US neocons) is his determination to stop sacrificing his countries interests. The Russian people experienced that with the previous leadership (and the early period of his leadership) and I think they have made up their mind that enough is enough.

    I am not saying a legal case cannot be made against the return of the peninsula or the role of the Russian forces – simply that an equivalent legal case can be made supporting the Russian actions.

    I have referred to the minutia of the treaty you refer to – and stick by the description. Considering the current and ongoing interventionist policies of the USA and NATO which are violating the national integrity of Syria, as it did with Libya and Iraq (and Yugoslavia), and ongoing violation of international law in the process it seems hypocritical to concentrate on such minutia when the people on the peninsula clearly got what they wanted. And were under threat from Ukrainian nationalists and pro-fascists.

    I wish more US citizens would start talking about not the minutia but the basic principles of International law their country violates every day at the moment.

    Perhaps to put the feelings of the Crimeans into context – have a look at this article I wrote about the village of Khatyn in Beloruss https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/05/14/dont-put-all-the-blame-on-the-germans-a-lesson-from-world-war-ii/.

    People in the area (I include Poles, Hungarians, Jews, as well as Belorussians and Russians) have a history and genuine reason to fear these forces.

    There comes a time when concentration on minutia (which can be argued both ways) becomes inhumane if it ignores what could be happening to the people concerned. Surely they are the ones who have national rights which must be considered as more important.

    Like

  79. “on the other hand” I did not – what, David?

    OK I did not read your link – but you have now quoted bits of it that you did not before – and should have. It would have been more balanced of you.

    Yes, I have heard of Trump’s latest pronouncements. We outside the USA sit back and laugh at the current fiasco you guys call an election. The Democratic leadership has been exposed as violating basic principles (who was it mentioned fraud in Crimea) and they divert it by blaming Putin.

    Seriously, why can you guys not face up to your own problems, including a very antidemocratic election process, without putting the blame on Putin.

    Surely this example just shows the real reason for the “blame Putin” hysteria – attempts to divert people’as attention away from the ongoing fraud and undemocratic processes your leadership is carrying out – internationally as well as nationally.

    Putin is a diversion.

    What a joke.

    Like

  80. Your quote: “You may have found that easy to answer, David, because you completely ignore the interests of the Crimean people and their legitimate government.”

    I was under the impression that the Crimea was within the borders of the sovereign nation of Ukraine. Outside the jurisdiction of Russia. Is this not correct?

    Your quote: “You are denying their right to request assistance, even though it was passive assistance, to resist the attempted overthrow of their Parliament and government and enable the people to determine their own fate.”

    By “assistance” you must mean illegal invasion and annexation by an outside power.

    Your quote: “You also ignore the simple humanitarian aspects considering the danger from extreme anti-Russian nationalists and pro-fascist forces.”

    Of course I ignore it. It is not relevant to Russia’s violation of Treaty. The United States has more gun violence than any other country in the world. This is a legitimate humanitarian consideration, but it wouldn’t give Canada the right to invade and annex Minnesota.

    Your quote: “And you ignore the security interests of the Russian Federation. Loss of the major Crimean naval bases would have lead to a crisis in the region.”

    I’m not the only one who ignores it, the overwhelming consensus of the international community, with the exception of Russia and a few of it’s minions, also considers the actions of Russia in Crimea illegal and inappropriate behavior. If Russia’s national security was an issue to be taken seriously, this would not have been the case.

    Your quote: “Would you advance the same argument of the USA was threatened by loss of one of their bases in the region with a hostile and illegal government in Canada?”

    If, according to your hypothetical, an “illegal” government existed in Canada, and a US base was threatened, the United States would have the right to defend that base. But there would be absolutely NO justification for the United States to annex a portion of Canada and make it part of the US, even if Canadian citizens wanted to join the US.

    This is NOT appropriate behavior for any member of the international community in the 21st Century! Do you not understand this?

    Now it’s time for my hypothetical. If a majority of Poles were Nazis in 1938, would that have given Germany a legitimate right to invade and annex Poland? Of course not. Do you not understand this?

    Your quote: “I am not saying a legal case cannot be made against the return of the peninsula or the role of the Russian forces – simply that an equivalent legal case can be made supporting the Russian actions.”

    Hooray, Progress!

    Your quote: “I have referred to the minutia of the treaty you refer to – and stick by the description. Considering the current and ongoing interventionist policies of the USA and NATO which are violating the national integrity of Syria, as it did with Libya and Iraq (and Yugoslavia), . . ”

    Irrelevant. These are separate discussions. Ironically, under a post which you have called “The Putin Diversion,” you are employing the “Syrian, Libyan, and Iraq Diversions.”

    Your quote: ” . . and ongoing violation of international law in the process it seems hypocritical to concentrate on such minutia when the people on the peninsula clearly got what they wanted. And were under threat from Ukrainian nationalists and pro-fascists.”

    Whatever argument you are making here, it does not negate the fact that Russia was in violation of Treaty when it invaded and annexed Crimea.

    Your quote: “I wish more US citizens would start talking about not the minutia but the basic principles of International law their country violates every day at the moment.”

    We are talking about the illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea here. We are not talking about whatever ax you have to grind with the United States. That is another diversion, Ken. Moreover, this is a philosophical argument. International treaties are not philosophical persuasions.

    Your quote: “There comes a time when concentration on minutia (which can be argued both ways) becomes inhumane if it ignores what could be happening to the people concerned. Surely they are the ones who have national rights which must be considered as more important.”

    This is an argument to be made in an international court, but since the overwhelming international consensus is that Russia’s actions in Crimea were illegal, I don’t much like Russia’s chances.

    Like

  81. There are so many things you claim are “irrelevant,” David. Fortunately for the people of Crimea you didn’t have a say. They decided what was relevant. And I suggest they are living better and more happily because they made that decision – they are certainly in a much better position than the residents of the Donbass – and probably Ukraine as a whole. They were not even scratched – which is more than can be said for assassinated journalists and historians, or the man in the street in Kiev at the moment, let alone in eastern Ukraine. Wouldn’t it be nice if the group massacred and burnt in the May 2 atrocity in Odessa (the burning of the Trade Union building by pro-fascists and football hooligans) had been living in Crimea at the time. Or the citizens of Mariupol shot outside a polling booth while trying to vote in their own referendum.

    But you keep coming back to use of this word “invasion.” You have never backed up your use of that emotive word.

    Wikipedia defines “invasion” as “a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity.”

    If such an “invasion” took place could you please provide the photographic evidence? Where is that “military offensive,” the tanks and combatants entering the territory, crossing borders.

    There is clear evidence this was happening internally in Ukraine, under command of an illegal junta and in violation of the constitution. But I have never see any such photographic evidence for the “invasion” of Crimea you talk about.

    Perhaps instead of going around in circles you should provide that evidence And, no those polite green men were not invaders, whether or not the Kiev junta approved of them standing outside their bases.

    I don’t think the discussion is helped by inappropriate emotive language like this.

    Like

  82. David Fierstien

    Yes, I’ve used a lot of words and phrases and the only one you seem to have an issue with is the word “invasion.”

    I’ve used the phrase “violation of Treaty.” Your response: None.

    I’ve used the phrase “illegal annexation.” While you dispute the word “illegal,” the international community does not. Since the act was a violation of Treaty, the international community is correct. You do not dispute the word “annexation.”

    I’ve used the word “irrelevant” in response to your diversions. I use the word irrelevant because nothing you have said negates the fact that Russia was in violation of Treaty in Crimea.

    I’ve also used the word “invasion.” Miriam Webster, the Dictionary, defines “invasion” as: “: an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder.”

    Conquest: ” something that is gotten or gained especially by force*”

    I submit, the illegal annexation of Crimea was conquest. Why?

    1.) The annexation of Crimea was “something that was gotten or gained.”

    2.) Military is only used as a show of “force*.” (If force was not meant to be displayed, flower children would have been used.) That military, in violation of Treaty, entered Crimea, and Russia annexed Crimea.

    ( “Military units shall conduct their operations in the areas of disposition in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, obey its legislation and refrain from interference with Ukraine’s domestic affairs”. Ukraine’s sovereignty was not respected, and Russia did not refrain from interference with Ukraine’s domestic affairs.)

    3.) Therefore, something was gotten or gained by the use of force; i.e., “conquest” took place.

    4.) Definition of “invasion.” “: an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder.”

    While plunder may not have occurred, conquest did.

    There is your invasion.

    Like

  83. David Fierstien

    Your quote: “And I suggest they are living better and more happily because they made that decision – they are certainly in a much better position than the residents of the Donbass – and probably Ukraine as a whole.”

    Wow! It almost sounds like Utopia, doesn’t it. More of that pro-Moscow bias making conditions in Crimea look ideal? Of course you can “suggest” anything you want. Since you like to use Wikipedia as a source, here we go. From Wiki:

    “In March 2014, Human Rights Watch reported that pro-Ukrainian activists and journalists had been attacked, abducted, and tortured.[229] Some Crimeans were simply “disappeared” with no explanation.”

    “Following the annexation of Crimea, according to report released on the Russian government run President of Russia’s Council on Civil Society and Human Rights website, Tatars who were opposed to Russian rule have been persecuted, Russian law restricting freedom of speech has been imposed, and the new pro-Russian authorities “liquidated” the Kiev Patriarchate Orthodox church on the peninsula.”

    “After the annexation, on 16 May the new Russian authorities of Crimea issued a ban on the annual commemorations of the anniversary of the Deportation of the Crimean Tatars by Stalin in 1944, citing “possibility of provocation by extremists” as a reason.[233] Previously, when Crimea was controlled by Ukraine, these commemorations had taken place every year. The pro-Russian Crimean authorities also banned Mustafa Dzhemilev, a human rights activist, Soviet dissident, member of the Ukrainian parliament, and former Chairman of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars from entering Crimea.[234] Additionally, Mejlis reported, that officers of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) raided Tatar homes in the same week, on the pretense of “suspicion of terrorist activity”.[235] The Tatar community eventually did hold commemorative rallies in defiance of the ban.[234][235] In response Russian authorities flew helicopters over the rallies in an attempt to disrupt them.”

    “In May 2015, a local activist, Alexander Kostenko, was sentenced to four years in a penal colony. His lawyer, Dmitry Sotnikov, said that the case was fabricated and that his client had been beaten and starved. Crimean prosecutor Natalia Poklonskaya announced that they were judging “not just [Kostenko], but the very idea of fascism and nazism, which are trying to raise their head once again.” Sotnikov responded that “There are fabricated cases in Russia, but rarely such humiliation and physical harm. A living person is being tortured for a political idea, to be able to boast winning over fascism.”[237] In June 2015, Razom released a report compiling human rights abuses in Crimea.[238][239] In its 2016 annual report, the Council of Europe made no mention of human rights abuses in Crimea because Russia had not allowed its monitors to enter.”

    Like

  84. Yes, David, you have used a lot of words and they could each be discussed in their own right. But I chose the word “invasion” because in this situation it is being used emotively and inaccurately (and for partisan political purposes).

    To illustrate this I asked for the photographic evidence of an “invasion.” In this day and age such evidence would be available if the term was correct.

    Might I suggest you have failed at the first step as you did not, and cannot, provide photographic evidence of an “invasion.”

    Agree or disagree with the “annexation” or “return” of Crimea and how this was done but I suggest use of the word “invasion” is completely wrong -but understandable in a situation of geopolitical information war where such words are used to confuse rather than inform.

    Liked by 1 person

  85. David, please don’t misrepresent me -and please don’t do so in such an emotive way.

    I never mentioned utopias – I simply compared the realities of the current situation in Crimea with what is and was happening in Kiev, Ukraine and especially eastern Ukraine (Odessa and Mariupol). Apparently you are afraid to go outside the borders of Crimea because the context is extremely dangerous and worrying. But, nevertheless it exists.

    As an aside, I was interested to see how the situation of the Tarters changed after Crimea’s return. Their situation had been completely neglected by the Ukrainian and Crimean authorities ever since the breakup of the USSR. One of the first acts of the Federation after Crimea’s return was a presidential decree that steps be taken to alleviate their position – and the position of other national groups like the Germans, who had suffered because of Stalin’s deportations.

    The local authorities (perhaps unwillingly because of ethnic feelings) have taken specific steps related to land ownership (important because when they returned from exile their land had been taken by locals) – and yes, I agree much more could be done.

    Politically one must be careful about accepting reports and specific claims (yes I realise how tempting confirmation bias is). The Crimean Tarters are not completely united. Most accept reunification but a minority were opposed and their organisations (while being rejected by the majority) do tend to get the headlines. They have members in the Rada in Kiev and are organising, together with the pro-fascist political groups and armed battalions, illegal blockades at the border .

    There is a complex history here because Stalin’s complaint about the Tarters had some justification. During the war they cooperated with the Nazis and were responsible for large scale massacres of Russians. So it is natural for some of the more extremist tarter groups to find common cause with the ultra nationalist and profascist Ukrainian groups who have caused so much trouble in Ukraine.

    David, you unfairly accuse me of being pro-Moscow. But in this misinformation war one must be careful about which side one takes. Are you really happy to be “fighting” alongside such unsavoury people?

    I actually think it is better to put the minutia of out of context treaty details aside and look at the bigger picture. Otherwise you may wake up one morning and suddenly realise you are in bed with some real tyrants.

    Like

  86. Your quote: “To illustrate this I asked for the photographic evidence of an “invasion.” In this day and age such evidence would be available if the term was correct.”

    Invasion? What exactly are you looking for, photos of a blitzkrieg? Do you also have a problem with Sky News?

    To quote you, “Are you really happy to be “fighting” alongside such unsavoury people?” Give it up. The entire international community disagrees with you. Doesn’t that tell you something?

    Like

  87. Your quote: ” I was interested to see how the situation of the Tarters changed after Crimea’s return. . . One of the first acts of the Federation after Crimea’s return was a presidential decree that steps be taken to alleviate their position . . ”

    Again: “Following the annexation of Crimea, according to report released on the Russian government run President of Russia’s Council on Civil Society and Human Rights website, Tatars who were opposed to Russian rule have been persecuted, Russian law restricting freedom of speech has been imposed, and the new pro-Russian authorities “liquidated” the Kiev Patriarchate Orthodox church on the peninsula. etc. . . etc.

    “In its 2016 annual report, the Council of Europe made no mention of human rights abuses in Crimea because Russia had not allowed its monitors to enter.”

    I simply cannot, nor will I, continue to debate someone who continues to try to justify the unjustifiable. Debate is too kind a word. This has been little more than an exercise in denial. Almost the entire international community disagrees with you. Doesn’t that tell you something?

    Like

  88. David, Novoazovsk is in Ukraine, not Crimea. I am, asking for the evidence to back up your claim of “invasion” of Crimea.

    Do you want to discuss the conflict in Ukraine now?🙂

    I imagine anti-fascist people in some countries being told to “give it up” when they objected to cooperation with Hitler’s Germany.

    You have reverted to extreme exaggeration again when you say the ” entire international community” disagrees with me. And so what if it did. One should discussions the facts not political endorsements.

    You are avoiding dangerous basic issues.

    Like

  89. Keep your hat on, David. I have no ill feeling about this discussion and neither should you. I actually enjoy discussing the subject. All I ask is for proper consideration of the evidence. I suspect I am actually justifying the justifiable and this is maybe upsetting you.🙂

    Of course the Tarters are divided (but the polls I have seen indicate the majority support the “return.”) So it is hardly surprising that some have been carrying out illegal acts and have been “persecuted.”

    I would be interested, though, in you claim of “liquidation” of the Orthodox Church – can you expand on this? I am aware of the conflict going on in Ukraine over the Orthodox Church (the major Ukrainian Orthodox Church is the Moscow Patriarch and they have been attacked by pro-fascist and nationalist elements (The Kiev patriarch church is very small and I imagine almost non-existent in Crimea – but I await more information). At the moment there is a huge “March of the Cross” (for peace) converging on Kiev. They have been attacked, hindered and had projectiles thrown at them although the authorities are providing protection.

    If you haven’t more information non the orthodox church in Crimea I will hunt it out for myself.

    Like

  90. David Fierstien

    “David, Novoazovsk is in Ukraine, not Crimea. I am, asking for the evidence to back up your claim of “invasion” of Crimea.”

    Thank you. You are admitting Russia invaded Ukraine. I was under the impression that Crimea was within the sovereign borders of Ukraine. Although I’ve already discussed the invasion of Crimea itself. More later, if you like, when time permits.

    “You have reverted to extreme exaggeration again when you say the ” entire international community” disagrees with me.”

    Hardly an “extreme exaggeration.” The statement was amended in the next comment when I said, “Almost the entire international community disagrees with you.”

    So what if they did? This isn’t science we are discussing. It is international politics. International laws and treaties are determined by members of the international community. That’s how it works. If the international community decides that it is inappropriate to simply annex a portion of another sovereign country — then it is inappropriate.

    As mentioned earlier, the comments about the Orthodox Church in Crimea were taken from the wiki article about the annexation of Crimea.

    Like

  91. Come on David. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

    I merely pointed out that the “evidence” you gave for an “invasion” of Crimea related to the a different area. As I said, I am happy to discuss the general situation in Ukraine (and have been attempting to interest you in look at that as the context, but you presented the video as an “invasion” of Crimea.

    So, please, more – at least something to back up your use of the word.

    I am vaguely interested in the different Orthodox factions because when I visited Kiev in the 80s I was struck by its beauty – and in particular the lovely orthodox churches along the Dnieper. Particularly the Pechersk Lavra (Monastery of Caves) and the St Sophia’s church which are UNESCO heritage sites. At that time the Kiev patriarch did not even exist (I think it was formed in 1992 and is not recognised by the main churches).

    The nationalist forces have targeted the main Orthodox church in Ukraine and especially their property. It pained me to such groups descending on the Pechersk Lavra – I would had to see destruction of those sites.

    From what I can gather there have been issues with the Kiev patriarch church in Russia (and in Crimea) over property. In Crimea there is the added problem of the Kiev patriarch churches refusing to register (because they do not accept the new situation). But this does not amount to liquidation of the Church.

    I have no more time for the Orthodox churches than I have for any religion – but would hate to see such beautiful buildings destroyed.

    Like

  92. Ken your Olympics article is not working for comments.
    Maybe there is some overlap to this thread.

    https://newcoldwar.org/danger-excessive-trump-bashing/
    http://www.naturalnews.com/054870_Zika_pandemic_aerial_spraying_globalist_agenda.html#

    Like

  93. Which Olympic article is that, Brian?

    Like

  94. Ken an email notification about a WADA matter. Maybe you cancelled it?

    Like

  95. Maybe you are referring to the post I put up this morning – Ethics and the doping scandal – a response to Guest Work

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s