Over 50 POWs killed. A military accident or a cynical war crime?

British mercenary Aiden Aslin, now a prisoner in the Donetsk People’s Republic, expressed real concern that he may die from the Ukrainian shelling of Donetsk. He has experienced many missile attacks that came close to the prison.
Is he still alive?

Understandably, we are always shocked about the losses of civilian lives during wars. Particularly relevant at the moment in the current war in Ukraine. But I find myself even more shocked by the news which broke last night that over 50 Ukrainian prisoners of war had been killed in a missile attack on their prison barracks prison near the village of Yelenovka in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR).

I was confused by my emotional reaction. After all, these prisoners were captured in Mariupol where Ukrainian units were using the civilian population as human shields.  Refugees from the city almost uniformly reported incidents of cruelty, looting, rape and even murder – particularly by the ultranationalist Azov Battalion in that city.

Many people might say they deserved to die. But whatever their alleged crimes they deserved their day in court, and the prisoners were being processed to collect evidence for an upcoming war crime tribunal hearing. Some of the collected testimony has been leaked in videos on social media.

But these prisoners were collected together in (presumably crowded) barracks. With no means of escape. Sitting targets shot like fish in a barrel. This explains the high casualty rate – something like 53 deaths, with 75 injuries (many serious) among 193 prisoners (as of this morning). Several prison guards were also killed. This almost seems worse than other reported cases where a smaller number of innocent civilians have died in similar attacks. And there have been many such attacks in Donetsk.

I guess the lack of freedom to take evasive action is a reason for our general abhorrence of crimes against POWs.

Collateral damage?

This could have been an accident – collateral damage inevitable in war. After all, Donetsk has been shelled continually for 8 years. Many innocent civilians, quite a few of them children, have been killed in what looks like indiscriminate shelling by the Ukrainian military.

The British mercenary Aiden Aslin, who was captured in Mariupol, was also kept in this prison camp. He has a YouTube channel which I watch. Strangely, I have got to like the guy. He makes good points. He seems sorry for his military roles in Syria and Ukraine. I don’t think he deserves the death sentence he has been handed down. I hope his appeal is successful.

But in the video above he describes some of the Ukrainian shelling near the prison and his fear that he may die from such an attack before his death sentence is carried out. Rather an ironic thought as he was fighting for the Ukrainians.

I certainly hope he survived. I understand that the prisoners in the shelled barracks were mainly from the Azov battalion or other Ukrainians who were providing evidence of war crimes. So, he may be safe – he didn’t serve in the Azov battalion and is extremely critical of it. I will keep an eye on his YouTube channel to see if he is and what his experience has been.

A cynical war crime?

I hope this is not the case. The deliberate targeting of one’s own soldiers who have been taken prisoner would be the height of cynicism. However, these prisoners were providing evidence which may have implicated the Ukrainian military or political leadership in war crimes. Indeed, some of the leaked testimony refers to soldiers receiving orders from the leadership on how they should torture or kill prisoners, etc.

Perhaps their political or military leadership decided to remove this evidence, no matter how cynical this seems. And no matter that these prisoners had been presented as heroes in Ukrainian propaganda.

One piece of evidence pointing to this possibility is the apparent use of HIMARS missiles in the attack. In the past Ukrainian missile attacks on Donetsk have not been accurate but the recent acquisition of HIMAR systems from the US has made possible pinpoint attacks which may have been the case here.

Confirmation bias is rife – a proper investigation is necessary

I follow The Military Summary Youtube channel which provided a summary of the attack and the way it was reported in Russia and Ukraine as well as the DPR. He is very objective (one could say to a fault) but at least he provides both sides. Here is his latest summary where he discusses the attack

It seems that the Ukrainian are denying their attack (they usually don’t provide reports of such attacks) and are instead going with the fantastical charge that this was a Russian atrocity. That the Russian killed the prisoners to cover up the evidence of torture.

I have been shocked how, during this war, people have been ready to believe anything to protect the honour of their “own side.” They will invent fantastic stories to explain away unpleasant evidence.

But this incident certainly raises the possibility that a very cynical and massive war crime has been perpetrated. The appropriate bodies should collect evidence and enable a proper investigation of the event.

Surely the victims of this attack are owed this – whatever other own crimes in the past.

 

86 responses to “Over 50 POWs killed. A military accident or a cynical war crime?

  1. What is fantastical is swallowing the Kremlin line that the Ukrainians are somehow guilty of war crimes then concocting some fairy story about the Ukraine targetting it’s own POWs. The mental gymnastics require to believe that sort of rubbish is unfortunately par for the course for Putin’s little on-line helpers who retain a yearning for the USSR. It is astonishing how many people are willing idiots for Russia. Russia is a fascist state rules by brutal dictator that has started a war of imperial aggression. It has a responsibility under the Geneva convention for the proper and safe treatment of POWs. Even if this isn’t simply yet another atrocity committed by a lawless and savage army of criminal desperadoes recruited from prisons and brutalised elements of Putin’s new empire responsibility for housing POWs well away from any danger lies with the captors.

    Like

  2. The attack is extremely unlikely to be by Ukrainians using HIMARS. It is likely to be be from a thermobaric weapon such as a TOS-1A. The reason for this is that there is little blast damage, no obvious crater (a key element of the outcome of a HIMARS strike), and most of the damage was from fire. You can see that from looking at the (Russian supplied) pics of the point of impact.

    The Ukrainians may have used a captured TOS-1A to make the strike it is true but the effective range of the TOS-1A is only a maximum opf 10 KM and as this location was 15 KM from the Ukrainian forward positions it is extremely unlikely (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1).

    Also, what purpose would targeting this known POW serve the Ukrainians? They have limited HIMARS ammunition so it would have to be a very good reason to do that rather than target ammunition dumps or command and control sites that they have been doing so far.

    Like

  3. Also the fact that the prisoners were being kept in a facility only 15 km away from the front line is also a breach of Article 19 of the Geneva convention which states the following:

    “ART. 19. — Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as
    possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough
    from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.
    Only those prisoners of war who, owing to wounds or sickness,
    would run greater risks by being evacuated than by remaining
    where they are, may be temporarily kept back in a danger zone.
    Prisoners of war shall not be unnecessarily exposed to danger
    while awaiting evacuation from a fighting zone.”

    So even if the Ukrainians DID target these prisoners deliberately (which I pointed out is highly improbable) The Russian military is partially responsible by keeping them in a location that was not safe.

    Click to access Doc.32_GC-III-EN.pdf

    Like

  4. The Red Cross is being denied access to this camp.

    “ICRC Ukraine
    @ICRC_ua
    To be clear, our request to access the POWs from Olenivka penal facility yesterday has not been granted.

    Granting ICRC access to POWs is an obligation of parties to conflict under the Geneva Conventions.”

    Like

  5. Sanctuary – who do refer to with your claim that someone is guilty of war crimes? If you read my article, I clearly prefer collateral damage as the cause and specifically say of the intentional missile attack scenario – “I hope this is not the case. The deliberate targeting of one’s own soldiers who have been taken prisoner would be the height of cynicism.

    However, I see from the rest of your comment that you are not interested in evidence or reason, or the proper investigation of this attack. So you are not going to listen to me, are you?

    Like

  6. There is no evidence this is collateral damage. There was nothing of military significance at the site. The building that was hit was only used for housing POW’s (who look to have been moved there quite recently from the rest of the POW camp). No other parts of the camp were hit.

    Like

  7. Why are my comments not appearing here Ken? You stated they should appear automatically.

    Like

  8. There are a lot of images and clearly there was a blast as well as a fire. A few of the POW bodies were charred. Can’t find the videos at the moment – some have them have been deleted because of the dead bodies, I think.

    prison

    As I said in my article, I favour the collateral damage scenario – Ukraine has been shelling Donetsk for 8 years (14,000 killed more than a million refugees) and Aiden Aslin confirms shelling near the prison during his time here (listen to his video above). Such shelling has also been reported in news channels. Independent journalists in the area confirm the arbitrary targeting of non-military areas in this shelling. Patrick Lancaster in one of his videos reported shelling near this prison some time ago.

    However, if one wishes to promote a war crime scenario there is plenty of motivation for a targeted Ukrainian attack. The prisoners were providing evidence which, together with them and civilian witnesses, is to be presented at Mariupol Tribunal which I understand is scheduled for September at this stage. Some of the leaked testimony suggested that war crimes such as torture and killing of prisoners and civilians were carried out by the Azov soldiers. The issue is very sensitive for Kiev because this testimony alleged political and military leaders in Kiev gave orders for these actions. It could be that the leadership in Kiev ordered these murders to remove such testimony. However there were quite a few survivors, many currently in hospital. They may still be able to testify, and their experiences will be useful for the UN and ICRC investigators.

    Like

  9. I said nothing of the sort. I only need to approve first-time comments which I do as soon as I see them – the rest is up to the internet.

    Like

  10. Grae O'Sullivan

    HIMARS are highly accurate (hence why they have been able to take out the bridges across the Dnieper river near Kherson). You do not get collateral damage from them unless they malfunction or they were aiming for something extremely close by. Thewre is nothing close by where these POW’s were being kept. Nothing else was hit. The only damage was the building that the POW’s were housed in and no Russian military personbel or their allies were even injured.

    Like

  11. Yes, there is, as far as I understand, no nearby military targets. But shelling of the area at least close to the prison has been going on for some time -= probably random or indiscriminate shelling. Many local residents have lost their houses. Patrick Lancaster has reported from the area using video.

    If true that no other parts of the camp were hit this does not look good for Kiev as it suggests the use of the high precision HIMAR missiles, (with the possible help of the US for targeting). Photographs are circulating of missile debris from the attack site with the claim these indicate a HIMAR missile was used.

    But shelling in the areas has been reported in recent days. Also, Kiev has generally used a mass attack using less accurate missiles together with the HUIMARS to saturate anti-missile defence systems and thus protect the more accurate HIMAR missile.

    At this stage I am not aware of aaaaaaaaaaaaaany other missle incoming in this area at 2 am that morning, but there may have been.

    Like

  12. That pic you posted is actually of a Russian Military strike on Odessa NOT on the POW camp.

    You can see the same building at the top centre of your pic in one of the images associated with this news report here

    https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/07/27/russia-airstrikes-target-ukraine-villages-along-black-sea/

    Like

  13. Yes, sorry. There are so many to choose from. What I wanted to find was the edited video. I will try to replace that soon.

    Like

  14. This is the image of the building that was hiot. Note that there is not the destruction that you saw in the pic you posted. There is very little blast damage and that there is a lot of scorch marks around the windows indicating a fire not a blast caused much of the damage inside.

    https://www.npr.org/2022/07/30/1114691075/russia-ukraine-deadly-attack-prison

    Like

  15. Artillery fire would not be as precise to hit a single building nor would it cause fire damage but not much blast damage. Thermobaric weapons cause that sort of damage.

    Like

  16. What I find interesting Ken is you claim to take a scientific approach and ONLY focus on the evidence yet I’ve presented a scientific analysis and you instead try to counter with mere speculation and opinion. You don’t address the scientific elements such a lack of blast damage, no crater, no shrapnel inside the building, and a lot of scorch marks from fire damage both inside the building and on the windows. These are all consistent with the use of a Thermobaric NOT blast weapon and therefore do not point to the use of HIMARS.

    Like

  17. Yes – one of the images. Eva Bartlett, an independent journalist reporting from Donetsk has visited the site (she may have taken the photo you used and gives this report together with photos:
    “Pretty horrific scenes today at the detention center near the village of Yelenovka which Ukraine bombed late last night with American HIMARS. Press Secretary of the DPR Military Command, Eduard Basurin, said there are a confirmed 53 Ukrainian POWs dead, 71 injured.

    The stench of death was everywhere. Burnt corpses, bodies cause of death shrapnel…blood splatters everywhere

    Ukraine did this, intentionally, to its own people, its own soldiers, soldiers who had surrendered and, as Basurin pointed out, were confessing their crimes against Donbass civilians, their murdering of Donbass civilians, which came from commanders’ orders, which came from Kiev.

    HIMARS are a powerful multiple launch rocket system with GPS navigation. It is indisputable, except in lying Western media, that Ukraine intentionally killed its own soldiers using Western weapons.”

    Like

  18. As would a HIMAR missile. The photographed missile debris is claimed to be from a HIMAR and typical of such. This is the sort of evidence the investigative committees will be checking.
    I am not claiming precision – as I said I prefer the collateral damage scenario. If you want to claim precision then you should go with the HIMAR and this raises the issue of a war crime.

    Like

  19. Your own images show the majority of the destruction was from fire not from a blast. A missile from a HIMAR system does not burn people Ken. That is a Thermobaric weapon. A Blast weapon causes bodies to be ripped apart and thrown about and walls to be destroyed. The blast radiates OUT from the point of impact which means aside from the point of entry the rest of the roof should be blown AWAY from the building. That missile debris does not suggest it is a HIMAR missile.

    Like

  20. Do you see the dead bodies in the bunks? They are burnt to a crisp. They shouldn’t even be in their bunks if this was a result of a blast. They should be blown out and scattered around the walls. You haven’t addressed that.

    All you are doing is what you are accusing me of which is Gish galloping by posting multiple Russian sources and expecting me to counter each one is turn despite none of them actually answering my points about the fact this is likely caused by a Thermobaric rather than Blast weapon.

    I thought you claimed you wanted to address the actual subject in a scientific manner. I would like to see you do so from now on.

    Like

  21. You simply do not know what evidence is, or the difference between opinion, informed opinion and actual facts.
    You definitely have not presented a “scientific analysis”. You have presented an opinion based on Twitter reports from mostly Ukrainian propagandists (and, yes, I have seen them too). You use all their arguments – that is confirmation bias, not scientific analysis. You have selected the reports that fit your prejudices.
    You have chosen only one of the scenarios presented by Ukrainian “intelligence” – the thermobaric weapon.
    The Ukrainians have presented a number of scenarios:
    1: Explosion from a planted bomb (claiming there was no missile whistle sound according to their witnesses – apparently Ukrainian “intelligence” had people on the ground at 2 am to make that report).
    2: An attack by the Wagner groups aimed at covering up corruptions, the stealing of money used for prisoner’s upkeep.
    3: A missile attack by “Russians” to hide evidence of torture of the POWs. They don’t explain how the surviving POW don’t show any torture. Nor will that explain the testimony of the survivors about the attack.
    There seem to be other variations. But clearly they are used for propaganda and disinformation purposes and not based on fact. The promotion of multiple scenarios is telling. They are not scientific analyses, and neither is your summary of them.

    As a scientist used to basing my reports on collected evidence I cannot offer a scientific analysis in this case – I simply have not facts, I cannot do the required checking or subject ideas to any experimental testing. I might draw an opinion based on videos and photographs presented on Twitter – but that is only an opinion. Of course I can make judgments on the reliability of the information presented, etc. My opinion may be “informed” to that extent. The scientific analyses will come from the experts who examine the site, the missile remains, the condition of the bodies and survivors and hear the testimony of the survivors and the guards. There may even be missile serial numbers among the debris as there were with the Kramatorsk railway station attack and the MH17 tragedy. That would be helpful to determine the culprits.

    I can only present a limited opinion, informed only to the extent of my reading and understanding. That is why I the favour collateral damage scenario. I do not have any evidence to label it a war crime but accept there are very strong motives for such. I don’t want to state that scenario as factual as that will make a judgment about motive that I do not have the facts to back up. That may well change, though.

    In the case of the 2014 Odessa massacre I did form the opinion this was the equivalent of a war crime. I watched the video evidence at the time of the burning of the trade union building and the shooting of people trying to escape the building. The video evidence was very helpful in that case.

    Like

  22. Having seen the limited and localized effects of the HIMAR blasts on the bridges I can understand that these missiles, unlike the larger ones, don’t necessarily cause wide blast damage. Don’t forget that images have been taken some time after the attack at 2AM. A lot of work had been done to collect corpses, recover the injured and clear debris.

    I have not presented multiple “Russian sources here” – simply Eva Bartlett’s report – she is a very capable journalist. I suspect Patrick Lancaster may also produce video evidence, although I understand he is in northern Donbass at the moment – I have seen some of his recent videos.

    The problem with official Russian reports is that there are never many of them. They are formal and stick with data – for example, the names of the victims and injured. In the end, people reporting on the war (Like the Military Summary Channel) tend to treat the official Russian reports as probably reliable but usually urge people to wait a few days for video and photograph confirmations. They tend to dismiss the equivalent Ukrainian reports as unreliable because they are often so wrong and very fanciful. The wise observer should critically assess information from each side and always look for confirmation.

    I never rely on either Russian or Ukrainian official reports them – I get more information from on-the-ground journals, war correspondents, etc. The chatter from citizens of the LPR and DPR can be informative. However, I understand that at this current stage of the war when the huge critical battle in the Ukrainian-occupied part of Donetsk Oblast is about to take place the Russians are clamping down on loose tongues and probably urging the DPR and LPR to do the same.

    Like

  23. Incidentally, thermobaric weapons are also capable of big blasts which will destroy property. So be careful of submitting to wishful thinking.

    Like

  24. As a scientist you should be able to identify if the facts are consistent with a potential hypothesis. In this case is the damage to the building in keeping with the blast impacts of a HIMARS missile strike. You keep prevaricating on that issue. Blast imapcts do not burn people to death. Also what is included in the construction of this building that would lead to greater fire damage because it is in an area of the World which is cold in Winter (Which it is not in Ukraine at the moment)?

    Like

  25. My “hypothesis,” really only a careful opinion in at this stage, is that this is collateral damage. Of course the photos and danage are consistent with a HIMAR missile, or many other missiles. Even in NZ we have flamible insulation (saw my neighbours house catch fire in the roof recently) and even prisons wlll have insulation in that part of world.

    Like

  26. Those wishing to promote a war crimes scenario as a hypothesis should consider motives- important for a war crime but not for collateral damage.
    Consider the value of the POWs. As Azov members they are most likely to have committed crimes in Mariupol. Civilian evacuees have already presented evidence but the testimony of these POWs in important and some of them will clearly face criminal conviction and punishment. Some have posted videos of their crimes on the internet, but testimony about who ordered the crimes is also important.
    The Mariupol Tribunal is planned for some time after September in Mariupol.
    So, these prisoners are extremely valuable to both the DPR and the Russians.

    These prisoners are also very valuable to Ukraine and to some extent NATO. Ukraine has made heroes of the Azovstahl fighters. Called their surrender and capture a “glorious evacuation,” awarded medals etc. NATO countries have since February stopped denouncing the Azov Battalion as neo-Nazis and has also presented these fighters as heroes. While previously being reticent about their arms falling into neo-Nazi hands, they no longer make restrictions.
    In negotiations over POW exchanges the Ukrainians have given preference to Azov soldiers and the Russians and their allies seem to have been willing to exchange them. This has annoyed many Russians who feel that captured no-Nazis should not be exchanged and should be made to pay for their crimes. (I would assume the Russians would only release POWs that they have cleared of such crimes). It has also angered Ukrainians who feel the more numerous non-Azov POW should get precedence in exchanges.
    There are probably extra reasons why the Ukrainians place such high value on the Azov fighters (the power of ultranationalists in the state structure, the effectiveness of the nationalist units compared with routine soldiers, etc).
    So, at first sight, both sides in this war place a high value on these POWs and should not have a motive for cynically killing them in this manner. Especially as the manner of the attack mean more than half survived to give evidence.
    The minor motives that have been argued:

    1: The allies wanted to cover up evidence of torture. Where is that evidence? These POW are regularly contacted by the ICRC and their conditions are checked. (If anything, there is a problem that the ICRC has not responded to all the requests from the allies and have not done their job properly. See my article about the experience of one woman attempting to locate her POW husband – she had to travel to Donetsk where the local authorities found her husband for her. The Ukrainian and ICRC authorities would not help – A heart-warming story about a Ukrainian prisoner of war.
    2: The Ukrainians want to kill these POWs because they would evidence which would discredit the political and military leadership in Kiev. Again, less than half the POWs were eliminated. This evidence will still be given. A missile attack was not a very efficient way of eliminating the problem. And the fact is that the Mariupol tribunal will be actively demonised in Ukraine and the west. Its findings will be effectively suppressed. We have seen this method of information management in a media for a long time. There is no reason for such an attack.
    3: The Wagner group wanted to remove evidence of corruption. Same arguments apply. There are far more efficient ways of covering up corruptions and both the Russians and Ukrainians have vast experience in this area.
    4: The Russians want to make the Ukrainians look bad. Come on – the Ukrainians are doing an excellent job of this themselves. One just has to listen to the testimony of the people from Mariupol and the liberated areas of Donbass.
    These are the main motives suggested. All the others seems as farcical as number 4 above.

    The whole areas provide plenty of scope for confirmation bias, for hatred of Russians (the last acceptable racism) and nerdy games. But they in no way are evidence.

    The most reasonable provisional judgement at this stage is that is one of the many instances of collateral ag in this war. The high casually rate is explained by the fact of the POW concentration in a single place.

    Like

  27. Let’s analyse your claims of taking a scientific approach.

    There are multiple possible hypotheses to explain what happened in Ukraine with the Azov POW’s.

    – The event never happened and has been invented
    – There was an accident in the barracks which killed the POW’s
    – There was an attack by Ukrainian artillery or missile that went off target and the POW’s were collateral damage
    – The POW’s were deliberately targeted by a Ukrainian artillery or missile strike.
    – A Russian artillery or missile strike went off target and the POW’s were collateral damage.
    – A Russian artillery or missile strike deliberately targeted the POW’s.
    – The Russian’s deliberately burnt the barracks with the POW’s in them and made it look like an artillery or missile strike.

    Of these possible explanation you have only accepting two possible alternatives which is the POW were either deliberately or accidentally targeted by Ukrainian artillery or missiles. There has been ZERO attempt to look at any other option and you have seemingly ruled out the possibility of Russians being the cause of this simply because they arranged for the cease fire, provided green corridors, provided medical assistance in the past which ignores the fact that the Ukrainians ALSO were party to those things which would make little sense if they wanted the soldiers all dead.

    You also rely on information from a source who makes a statement that it is indisputable to all but the lying Western media that the Ukrainians intentionally killed their own soldiers using Western weapons despite you yourself being in dispute with her view.

    You seem to discount any information on the subject from the Ukrainian side or from sources that disputes your preconceived viewpoint and blindly accept the Russian take and do not even look at the possibility that there are other possible explanations.

    How is your approach to this in any way scientific?

    Like

  28. Your comment about thermobaric weapons also being incapable of creating big blasts is an irrelevant red herring. It may well be the case but as the issue is that there was not a lot of blast damage nor noticeable impact crater the more scientific question should have been are GMLRS munitions which HIMARS fire capable of producing more fire than blast damage. As that is YOUR assertion it is beholden on you to produce the evidence for that following scientific principles around burden of proof.

    Like

  29. Sorry – should read capable not incapable

    Like

  30. What fammable insulation was present in the building the POW’s were in that was hit ? There is nothing to suggest there was material in the ceilings and the walls do not show anything either. The fire looks like it was on the inside not outside of the room. Again though you made a claim so the burden of proof is on you to show the material you think contributed to the massive fire that burnt many of the POW’s to a crisp.

    Like

  31. My approach is not “scientific” – I have never claimed it is. I understand how science works and all that one can do in this situation is form an opinion based on what unverified information is presented on the internet. I do not have access to the real evidence, I have no way of properly verifying it, and I cannot carry out a scientific investigation. I should add that confirmation bias will be very actively for the internet “scientists” claiming to do a proper analysis at this stage.

    Unfortunately, I think neither the UN nor ICRC inspectors will have the skills for proper scientific investigations and there are problems of geopolitical influence as we saw with the ICPW reports on Syria. The job of the UN and ICRC will be to inspect the condition of the POWs.

    Personally, I think we will get the best scientific assessment from the professional investigators currently in Ukraine that are investigating claims of war crimes going back to 2014. They are actively working on this and will deliver reports. (Unfortunately for some biased people, I don’t think they will seriously investigate this incident as a Russian war crime).

    Like

  32. Don’t misrepresent me yet again. I do not rely on Eva Bartlett’s reportage (I am fully aware that everyone has their prejudices and have followed her long enough to know some of hers). I always advocate one should treat media reports critically and intelligently – whatever the source. What I did was present her photos as an independent report actually on-the-ground.

    Like

  33. I note you have now decided to take the “I don’t know what happened really so let’s leave it up to the investigators” approach which is a departure from your initial take that there was really only two explanations for it as either being collateral damage from a Ukrainian strike meant for somewhere else or a deliberate targeting of the POW’s to keep them quiet. I suspect this is because you realise you can’t really justify that any longer in the face of my argument. I commend your retreat from the argument although I would prefer you change your blog post to reflect the reality that the possible war crime could be from the Russian and not just the Ukrainian side.

    Like

  34. BTW you didn’t just present her photo’s (which would have been fine by me. You actually QUOTED her.You did not need to quote her and in fact it would have been better if you didn’t as it took away from the analysis of the photos and added NOTHING to this discussion.

    Like

  35. For what it is worth this is what one of Russian blogger (Conflict Intelligence Team) makes of this attack at this stage:

    “Yelenovka : there is still no absolutely reliable version of exactly what happened there.

    We do not believe in the version of an explosion from within: it is impossible to carry something and hang it on a crane beam so that no one out of 200 people wakes up; also the survivors say that they first heard one arrival in the distance and lay down.
    We also doubt the version with thermobaric ammunition through the windows. Yes, we do not see a large crater, but some walls are covered with mini-craters from shell fragments, ie it can be seen that it was a high-explosive fragmentation projectile, and not a thermobaric weapon. Also, most windows have bars or at least frames, the thermobaric munition would detonate from the window and we would see the center of the explosion there.
    In the version with the Solntsepek heavy flamethrower system, it’s hard for us to imagine that the Russian military could hit so carefully and accurately without hitting any adjacent building.
    We agree that this is clearly not HIMARS. It makes no sense to shoot the GMLRS from such a short distance, plus there would be more destruction inside (and the debris that we are shown on the bench could have been brought from anywhere).
    The version that it was the Ukrainian side who deliberately killed their own seems to us an incredible conspiracy theory.
    The option that the Ukrainian forces fired at the military positions of the pro-Russian separatists, but accidentally hit this hangar, is also untenable. It has long been well known that in Yelenovka there was a colony of prisoners of war.

    Separately, it is worth noting that by placing prisoners of war so close to the front line (10-15 km), Russia violates international humanitarian law ( the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War ).
    We hope that experts from the UN and the International Red Cross will be able to view the scene and conduct an investigation. On July 30, representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Ukraine failed to get into the colony in Yelenovka.”

    Like

  36. Shock, Horror. Do you react this way when you see mainstream media reports about this conflict? About Russia? About Putin.

    Come on. As an adult, you should be able to separate aspects of a report which are biased opinions from the evidence and facts presented in the report. Hell, I must do that all the time.

    Like

  37. There was ZERO added value for you top add her comments which you would have had to copy and paste in. The only reason I can see that you would have done that is that you actually think it helps frame the possible explanation for what happened. Why did you decide to quote her rather than just post the pics?

    Like

  38. I note your latest link at least acknowledges that it is not a HIMARS dired weapon.

    Like

  39. Don’t be silly. One could say most of your comments have zero value but I don’t exclude them.

    Like

  40. You don’t quote me though. Quoting implies a level of agreement unless you are directly trying to counter which you weren’t.

    Like

  41. As for my comments having zero value. I’ve got you to acknowledge by you posting of the Russian internet investigators (Conflict Intelligence Team) views that it is extremely unlikely the attack was carried out by a missile fired by a HIMARS.

    Like

  42. Nothing of the sort. I have never claimed a specific missile was used – only that claims for a HIMAR had been made. I simply referred to the reports of “the apparent use” of a HIMAR. I think if this is a war crime the HIMAR would provide the accuracy evident. It is possible the debris will be used to identify what particular missile what used (and with luck a serial number may be found).

    The Russian blogger’s moments were weak relying on the argument that the range wasn’t required.

    A blogger can use any name they wish like “Investigator.” That name choice may fool the naive, and particular those wishing to confirm a bias, but it means nothing.

    Like

  43. No, it doesn’t – you are being silly.

    Like

  44. The Russian blogger’did not rely on the argument that the range wasn’t required so therefore it is improbably a HIMARS fired munition was used. He stated that there was not much blast damage and in essence confirmed the point I made to you.

    Like

  45. They did actually say “It makes no sense to shoot the GMLRS from such a short distance.” Of course, if the accuracy was required, it was urgent (some of the testimony of the involvement of political leadership in Kiev has surfaced) it would make sense because of the accuracy.

    But, remember I am not one who is promoting the war crime scenario – you are.

    Like

  46. This is another Russian commenter’s account for what it is worth. This from Rybar – which has a very high reputation for its reports of the military actions and is used by all the summary sites offering credible progress reports. Of course, this does not mean Rybar has credibility in analysing a specific missile strike.

    “Who and why struck the Volnovakha penal colony in Yelenovka – Rybar’s analysis

    Yesterday, all the world news broadcast footage of the destroyed barracks where Ukrainian prisoners of war were kept: on the night of July 28-29, an artillery strike was carried out at the place where the prisoners were kept. The incident took place east of the village of Yelenovka in the Volnovakha penal colony No. 120. As a result of the incident, 50 servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine were killed (https://t.me/boris_rozhin/58816), 75 were injured.

    Our team has analyzed information from open sources and presents our analysis to your attention.

    🔻Where did the blow come from?

    The blow was inflicted on an extension located in the northern part of the Volnovakha correctional colony No. 120. Given the limited number of places in the correctional institutions of the LDNR and the total number of prisoners of war over 10 thousand people, the colony is used at full capacity. All possible spaces are filled.

    Extension coordinates: 47.8285224941822, 37.71083412073798

    Analysis from the scene confirms that the eastern part of the building suffered the most damage, where a powerful fire and explosion occurred that blew out the windows. However, the place of impact is the same: a breach in the roof near the ridge.

    The direction of the roof breach and the source of fire directly indicate an attack from the north-western direction: the shooting was carried out from the trajectory of Marinka – Kurakhovo – the triangle Sergeevka – Pokrovsk – Udachnoe.

    We can neither confirm nor deny the version about the use of the American MLRS HIMARS: given the frequency of the use of “chimeras”, it is not a problem to collect fragments. The media noise around the American MLRS is intended, first of all, to show the whole world the real price of the supply of foreign weapons to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

    ❗️But we have no reason to doubt that the blow to the Volnovakha correctional colony was inflicted precisely by a rocket from the Ukrainian formations.

    In our infographic (https://i.ibb.co/y6kV3Cy/1.jpg), we indicated a distance of 70 km, corresponding to the maximum firing range of the GMLRS M30 ammunition from the HIMARS MLRS. But in fact, a blow could have been delivered from any MLRS.

    🔻Why is the strike beneficial for Ukraine?

    Chronology of events:
    ▪️The soldiers of the Azov National Regiment who surrendered were taken (https://t.me/milchronicles/530) to the Volnovakha Correctional Colony No. 120 on May 20. As of February 24, the territory of the complex was completely empty, according to (https://t.me/kyivoperativ/98367) Mariupol Mayor’s adviser Petr Andryushchenko. Only Ukrainian prisoners of war could be kept on the territory.

    ▪️As early as June 5, it became known (https://t.me/russica2/46486) about the plans of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, at the behest of British curators, to strike at the colony in Yelenovka.

    ▪️On June 20, it was already reported (https://t.me/kremlinprachka/19615) about regular shelling of the colony: Ukrainian formations regularly fired aimed at the territory of the complex.

    ▪️On June 27, we reported (https://t.me/rybar/34462) that the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine is putting pressure on Deputy Prime Minister Irina Vereshchuk and demanding that the military personnel of the Azov National Regiment be included in the exchange lists, counting on the maximum media promotion of cases on return from captivity.

    ▪️On June 29 (https://t.me/rybar/34623) the largest exchange of prisoners of war was carried out according to the formula 144 for 144. 43 servicemen of the Azov National Regiment returned to Ukraine. The fact of the return of the “Azov”, inconsistency in decision-making, as well as unfulfilled promises caused a storm of indignation on the territory of Russia.

    ▪️Most likely, the reaction of the Russian society greatly complicated the process of returning the “Azov” and, possibly, ruled out the possibility of their exchange. It was no longer possible to carry out the extraction procedure, and the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine began to work out alternative scenarios.

    ▪️On July 28 (https://t.me/RtrDonetsk/7956) a video confession in the crimes of one of the “Azovites” Dmitry Kozatsky was published. Everyone understood perfectly well that sooner or later such testimony would appear from his comrades. And the reputational success of the Azov National Regiment as a symbol of the Ukrainian nation will be nullified.

    On the night of July 28-29, the Armed Forces of Ukraine struck at the Volnovakha correctional colony No. 120, once and for all closing the issue of the extraction procedure”

    Like

  47. Looks like the ICRC has refused to take part in the investigation of this possible war crime. Probably understandable – it’s not their job.

    Like

  48. This is another report from Eva Bartlett. I should note that the Ukrainians and some western media are claiming that these anti-personal mines in Donetsk were rained down from a Russian missile. Where have I heard such nonsense before?
    “Ukraine turns Donetsk into a minefield using banned ‘butterfly’ mines
    2 Aug 2022 The use of PFM-1 ‘butterfly’ mines against civilians is prohibited by the Geneva conventions – but this evidently isn’t stopping Ukraine

    Saturday night, just after 9 pm, thunderous explosions rocked central Donetsk. Shortly after, there were announcements that air defense had shot down Ukrainian-fired missiles containing “Butterfly” (or “Petal”) mines.

    Given that over 300 of these mines are packed into each of the Ukrainian-fired rockets, central Donetsk would literally be a minefield.

    While Ukraine has been using these mines on the Donbass for many months, in recent days they have intensely bombarded Gorlovka and Donetsk neighbourhoods with them. Initially targeted were the hard-hit districts of Kievskiy in the north, Kirovsky in the southwest, and Kuibyshevkiy in the west.

    But as of Saturday night, Ukraine hammered central Donetsk with them. And now, walking in the city centre is a nightmare, one I had to endure to document how widespread these mines are here: in central streets and walkways, near apartments, in parks…

    Like

  49. Talk about Gish galloping. The discussion is about the attack on the POW camp NOT on supposed Ukrainian mining operations in Donetsk. Keep to the topic Ken.

    Like

  50. “But, remember I am not one who is promoting the war crime scenario…”

    Ummm…. yes you are. This blog post is titled “Over 50 POWs killed. A military accident or a cynical war crime?” in which you offer up only TWO possible options out of the many (which I listed for you).

    You have taken a position that the attack was carried out by Ukraine hence you continually posting comments and links from Russian supporting sources stating so (by the way where is the balance in your reporting because you do not seem to look at ANY that are pro-Ukrainian?). You even state that while you hope it was a tragic accident the very fact that it was so precise and no other parts of the POW camp were hit this does raise concerns for you. You have essentially stated it was a deliberate strike by the Ukrainians but given yourself wiggle room to argue you are being “impartial”.

    I find it laughable that ALL of the things that you accuse the Western media of in terms of ignoring contrary evidence and only presenting a narrative that is anti-Russian and pro-Ukraine (which has a degree of truth behind it) you are guilty of but in the opposite direction. Then you have the nerve to argue your position is considered and based on scientific reasoning when the reality is you are at least as biased for the Russian side. In short you are pro-Russian. Just own it. Some people are pro-Western and some pro-Russian. It isn’t a crime to be so.

    Like

  51. I think Eva Bartlett’s report is very relevant.
    1: you have attacked this Canadian reporter claiming she is Russian.
    2: Eva is reporting from Donetsk. One of the few English language reporters in the area.
    3: She has been placed on Kiev’s kill list for her reporting.
    She is reporting the results if continual, apparently random, Ukrainuan attacks on civilians areas – similar to that on the nearby prison.
    4: Her reporting is very relevant. As is that if Geaha6m Phillips, sanctioned by his own government for his reporting, and Patrick Lancaster, an American who has been reporting from Donetsk since 2014.
    5: All these very informative journalists are ignored by our media. They are also all on Kiev’s kill list.
    6: Finally, you are promoting g a “Russia did it” war crime scenario for the murder of the POWs. That simply taps in to the same “Russia did it” war crime scenarios Kiev promote every time they commit their oine war crimes.

    Like

  52. I actually do look at a range of sources including Ukrainian – for Instance, I follow Zelensky and several members of his team – have done for a long time. I follow the remnants of the Azov Twitter feed. And if you look at my article How is the war going? I recommend several sites, a couple of them very or blatantly pro-Ukrainian. If you wonder why I rarely use Ukrainian sources – this is because they are mostly demonstratable unreliable. For example, most of them claim Ukraine is winning the war – that should tell you something!

    However, you obviously rely on Ukrainian sources. I recognize the arguments you use as virtually copy-pasted from some I follow.

    Can your recommend to me the Ukrainian sources you follow, that you believe are reliable and worth following?

    Like

  53. You claim I am “continually posting comments and links from Russian supporting sources” stating that Ukraine carried out the attack. Please list the sources you refer to.

    The US state department also acknowledged this as a Ukrainian attack (perhaps they are a Russian supporting source) – except the state Ukraine would not purposely kill the POWs. A bit like my position of collateral damage. I find the idea of deliberate killing of the POWs reprehensible. Then again, I found the Odessa massacre reprehensible too and saw it happen on live video.

    Like

  54. Please link to the US State Department officially claiming this was likely a Ukrainian attack.

    As for your Pro-Russian sources:

    – Video report from Patrick Lancaster
    (https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxneb4/ukraine-patrick-lancaster-journalist details how he is pro-Russian)
    – Pics and quote from report from Eva Bartlett
    (https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/russian-propaganda-efforts-aided-kremlin-content-creators-research-fin-rcna32343 details how she is pro-Russian)
    – Analysis and links from Rybar Telegraphaccount
    (https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russian-war-report-pro-kremlin-telegram-channels-twist-iaea-words/ details how this is is pro-Russian site)

    Like

  55. Patrick is American but lives in Donetsk. His videos show locals in the liberated areas giving their views of Russia and Ukraine. Many of them are anti-Russian and pro-Ukrainian. He attempts to convey the truth which you don’t get from journalists in New York or Kiev on this issue. In common with similar English-speaking journalists in the area (Graham, Phillips for example) Patrick also does humanitarian work taking food and medicine to people he interviews (many who have suffered the very recent loss of family members (bodys still on the ground) from indiscriminate Ukrainian shelling of civilian areas.

    Evan Bartlett is Canadian, currently reporting from the Donbas area. On the ground reporting again.

    The Rybar comments and other Russian blog comments I quoted because they, to some extent, accord with your views. I actually don’t follow them because they post in Russian. I should because translation is easy.

    What you are objecting to is my citing anyone who is presenting the truth (as they see it on the ground). You see this as “pro-Russian.” That suggested to you that I should only cite or quote reports from people who are well-known ad anti- Russian. But see how difficult this is when you will end up describing the US State Department as pro-Russian.

    How about the Ukrainian source you recommend?

    Like

  56. Why can’t you just accept that both Lancaster and Bartlett are reporting from a pro-Russian perspective? There isnothing wrong with that. All journalists have bias. It doesn’t mean you can’t get useful information from them but you just need to be aware. You seem to think there is some sort of ideal unbiased take on the topic. That is not the case.

    Like

  57. I’m still waiting for your link which shows the State department claiming the attack originated from the Ukrainians.

    Like

  58. It’s around somewhere. Perhaps you can look for it I do not have the time.

    Like

  59. “It doesn’t mean you can’t get useful information from them, but you just need to be aware.” That is always my approach to all media. But I don’t accept the argument that information presented by people on the ground should be rejected because you describe them as “pro-Russian.” That is bias. There is just so much rubbish reported about this war from Kiev, London, Washington, New York etc. I can find some sensible stuff from such sources but most of it is rubbish.

    Do you reject anything from a source that is obviously anti-Russian? Do you? What about my request for your Ukrainian sources you trust?

    I have never claimed there is an unbiased source – I have always advocated critical and intelligent processing of information for all news media.

    The advantage of Eva Bartlett, Patrick Lancaster, and Graham Phillips. Alina Lipp, etc.. is that that are actually on the ground. They see the missile attacks. They visit the maternity hospitals that are targeted. they visit the homes of people whose relatives are gilled.

    This raises the question of censorship. Why have people here been so docile about censorship? Doi they like being fooled.

    And why are people ignoring the fact that independent journalists like Graham Phillips are sanctioned by their own country? That his bank account and property has effectively been stolen by the UK government? Or the stealing of money from the accounts of Alina Lipp by her government – simply because she reported from Donetsk? And why is she facing 3 years imprisonment in Germany if she returned home because of that reporting?

    These are things we should all be concerned about – but so much silence. You are concerned because these people don’t irrationally condemn Russia in the way you would like. That is pathetic.

    Like

  60. I get my information from multiple sources both pro-Ukrainian, pro-Russian, and some who qualify as more neutral. Unlike you I don’t think that because someone is “on the ground” it means they will have a better take than someone who is more removed from where the action is happening. I have seen Ukrainian people at the front line make outrageous claims as I see Eva Bartlett has made in relation to the attack on the POW camp. Equally a Russian milblogger can be incredibly useful at giving a perspective of how the operation is going even though they aren’t on the ground.

    Like

  61. I am concerned with those people you listed because they irrationally condemn Ukraine without much thought. Eva Bartlett’s take on the attack is a prime example of that. You should be concerned about how she frames her reporting.

    Like

  62. If you can’t be arsed to back up your own claims with evidence that is your choice. Don’t expect me to do your leg work for you. I suggest you don’t continue making the claim though if you don’t have the time because
    I will continue to request you back it up with evidence if you do.

    Like

  63. It’s not a claim of mine – it’s an observation. I will only take the effort to hunt it down if I write about It. Its not important.

    Like

  64. How so? I am used to seeing all sorts of nonsense and biased framing in our media. You seem upset because she doesn’t reflect your bias. Get used to it. There are a lot if views in this world. The shocking thing is that the honest on the ground reporting like hers is censored and the stupid stuff is promoted.
    And isn’t it shocking that honest reporters have their property stolen by the state and threatened with imprisonment for their reporting. Even more shocking that no one here worries about this censorship.

    Like

  65. Are you not concerned by this statement from Eva Bartlett?

    “It is indisputable, except in lying Western media, that Ukraine intentionally killed its own soldiers using Western weapons.”

    You dispute that as you have postulated that it is probably collateral damage from a Ukrainian missile intended for somewhere else. This would suggest she would regard YOU as lying Western media.

    Like

  66. When you make a statement that the State department has made a comment about something that is a claim not an observation. It becomes an observation only if you link to the original statement.

    Like

  67. No, it’s an observation. You take or leave. If I come across it again in my reading, I will pass it on. If not, no bother.

    Meanwhile, this is the sort of thing that is going to provide some more evidence about what happened with these POWs

    Like

  68. Artillery shells are usually not that accurate and do not burn people to a crisp like the pictures you yourself shared.

    Like

  69. Accuracy is only required for the intentional, war crimes, scenario which I have been opposing as unlikely. The important thing is that there is important information for any investigation from the surviving POWs and guards, as well as the site information.

    I do not think either the UN or ICRC are willing or able to carry out a proper investigation, despite strong insistence from the Russian side, but I am sure the Russian war crimes investigative groups, already active in the areas, will do their job.

    Like

  70. Are you trying to argue that the UN is now hopelessly biased? Why bother having the UN if that is the case ? Why would nations like Russia be interested in being a member of an organisation that is out to get them?

    Like

  71. You keep avoiding the fact that a number of the POW’s were burnt to a crisp. This is not what happens with a standard artillery shell which causes damage via the blast and shrapnel not from fire.

    Like

  72. Not true. There is ample evidence that a few of the POWs were burned. I am sure this will all be considered by the investigators. Isolated facts like this cannot be used to support a war crimes scenario.

    Like

  73. Is your position now that until such time as an investigation is carried out there is no point speculating what happened at the POW camp? In which case you should really revise your whole article and remove anything that suggests it might be either collateral damage from a Ukrainian missile attack meant for some place else or it was a war crime as the Ukrainians deliberately targeted them. It COULD be those things but it equally COULD be a Russian missile either missing it’s target or actually deliberately aimed at the building housing the POW’s. You admit you don’t know yet you spread disinformation as much as the pro-Ukrainian side does.

    Like

  74. Your attitude on this reminds me of how you approached the shooting down of Malaysian Airways MH17. You basically dismissed the official investigation as being completely biased against the Russian side and then stated you would wait until the separate investigation that you claimed the Malaysian authorities were setting up independently. Then you pretty much ignored the topic and moced on to other things, You weren’t interested in finding the truth of the matter. You are seemingly only interested in presenting the non Western side as being more credible and once you’ve sewn the doubt you move on to the next situation and repeat.

    Like

  75. Don’t be silly. My article called for an investigation. While giving preference to collateral damage is the most likely explanation I didn’t exclude anything. While utterly repugnant a war crime is a possibility and the Ukrainian ultranationalists have certainly shown they are capable of one. But that is not a reason to declare this actually happened.

    Yes, a Russian missile missing its target is a remote possibility, but very remote given that they had no targets in the areas. An unfortunate accident involving anti-missiles is also a remote possibility. This appeared to happen in Donetsk when a Ukrainian missile was shot down, but its bomb still landed in the town square. It also happened in Kiev when a Ukrainian anti-air missile missed incoming Russian rockets and instead hit an apartment building.

    While the DPR has anti-air munitions around Donetsk I doubt they have anything close to this prison.

    The trouble with you is that because I am careful and refuse to advance a specific explanation based only on ideological prejudice, as you do, then you don’t like it and want me to withdraw mu careful approach and instead commit to your biased approach.

    Not going to happen. There is no reason to commit to such an approach given that an investigation will surely take place.

    Like

  76. As it turned out the MH17 investigation proved to be biased as it turned down all offers of Russian help despite the special security classification lifting on the nature of the likely BUK missile involved and the actual data in the construction and posting to Ukraine of the specific missile identified by the serial numbers the investigation team asked for information on. The team refused all requests to travel to Moscow to see the hard data from the Russian files. They also dismissed the important experimental evidence obtained by Russian investigators from the manufacturers of these missiles because it was performed in the ground and not in a flying platform (a silly objection).

    I followed all the reports issued by the investigation team and reviewed them on this blog (see https://openparachute.wordpress.com/?s=MH17). Since then, the investigation has gone to court. No information is made available (and I gather from some Dutch commenters) the court has prevented a lot of information to be submitted as evidence.

    Everybody seems to have ignored the topic since then – and I certainly would post something if any new report were to be issued. I think a crucial factor is that one of the possible criminals, the Ukrainian government, was included in the team and they have veto rights on any information release. Of course, this might change in the future as this government may be history in a few months.

    However, please don’t divert the discussion here. You are welcome to comment on any of the several blog posts I have made on the MH17 tragedy if you feel you have anything sensible to add (see https://openparachute.wordpress.com/?s=MH17). The only thing I can add at this stage is the information provided by an SBU member who was closely involved in what was happening in the east and defected last year (I think). I am not aware of any other evidence that has become available but welcome what you can add. I stress evidence is what I want – not personal attacks because I do not follow the obligatory lies on this tragedy.

    I assure you I am interested in the truth of this tragedy. I just think the search for this has been torpedoed by geopolitical interests. This situation is not helped by political smearing.

    Like

  77. It looks as if a UN team at least has accepted the request for an investigation of the POW deaths. This woman may have an unusual interest in the Azovstahl fighters but at least she is providing up to date information about them.

    Like

  78. Richard Christie

    Hi Gosman, it appears you are suddenly championing scientific inquiry.
    Admittedly the following question is off topic but do you you still deny the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change as exemplified by the IPCC reports?

    Like

  79. I’ve never denied any consensus on anthropogenic climate change as exemplified by the IPCC reports. I have no idea what you are meaning. I have always been a big proponent of using the scientific method to ascertain the validity of claims.

    Now back on topic – Do you think Ken’s take on the attack on the POW’s in Ukraine is biased towards a pro-Russian point of view?

    Like

  80. Richard Christie

    Ok well, your answer is inconsistent with a large volume of your comments made on-line over the past decade and more, comments that questioned the credibility of scientific conclusions and sought to downplay the threat climate change presents to the environment and society. You appeared to consistently oppose measures to mitigate the problem. But ok, since you now champion scientific inquiry we’ll move on.

    In answer to your question, no, I don’t think Ken presents a pro Russian viewpoint in this blog, although he may well have one, it’s not overtly evident.

    What Ken does do, is provide a check to the automatic acceptance of the tsunami of anti-Russian propaganda we are currently drowning in. Questioning anti Russian narrative is not the same as promoting pro Russian narrative.

    In my view you are foolish to believe any narrative in times of war, particularly from any party in or allied to those involved in the conflict. It may be years or decades before the truth emerges. MH17 is a case in point, we still have no credible explanation.

    Like

  81. If you are going to make a claim about me you better have evidence backing you up.

    Where is your evidence for your statement:

    “your answer is inconsistent with a large volume of your comments made on-line over the past decade and more, comments that questioned the credibility of scientific conclusions and sought to downplay the threat climate change presents to the environment and society. You appeared to consistently oppose measures to mitigate the problem.”

    ?

    Like

  82. Looks like some of the trials of the Ukrainian neo-Nazis have begun

    This tweet is from Vasily Prozorov – a former Ukrainian SBU officer who served in the east of Ukraine and has himself lots of documentary evidence about what happened there after 2014. He defected last year.

    His interest may indicate these trails concern crimes committed between 2014 and February this year.

    Like

  83. Richard Christie

    Where is your evidence for your statement:

    Perusal of almost any discussion thread “Gosman” has participated in on proposed measures for climate change mitigation will show him/her nay-saying all proposals that are not “market” initiated and directed.

    This is akin to consistently championing business as usual, as it is blindingly obvious to all but the free-market fanatics, that market mechanisms will not and cannot address the problem within adequate time frames.

    Gosman also denigrates organisations that attempt to communicate the problem of AGW:

    “Any views on one of the father’s (sic) of the modern enviromental (sic) movement, Dr Patrick Moore’s recent comments about the problems with Greenpeace and how the movement has been captured by the extreme anti-developmentalist (sic) left?
    http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/confessions_of_a_greenpeace_dropout/
    Essentially there is not much I disagree with him on here. It is pretty much my position in a nut shell.”

    https://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-29737

    (The link in the thread comment is no longer active so we can surmise these views can be found here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(consultant)#Views

    But yes, I apologise and withdraw my claim that you deny scientific consensus, you reluctantly made your position clear a few years ago

    http://tumeke.blogspot.com/2011/01/100-pure-cow-shit.html#c3543563282956794873

    However I call you out as a distraction troll ( despite me also being guilty of being off topic in this thread), your M.O. is to snipe at and undermine confidence in any constructive plans to combat AGW that have any hint of state intervention (after all, in your viewpoint these are creeping tentacles of socialism).

    Rather than call out Ken for bias you might want to consider that your hard right free market positions colour your own viewpoint on Russia.

    Like

  84. It seems to me the debates on the war in Ukraine are a bit similar to the debates on fluoridation and climate change – except that the distraction trolls are even more extreme. I have also never seen people so ready to block discussion partners or accuse them of crimes amounting to treason.

    I also find it disturbing that no one seems at all interested in problems caused by censorship, the wholesale denigration of a whole nationality and the imposition of collective responsibility onto a nation.

    So many people have reacted to this atmosphere by pulling there heds in – judging that their as absolutely no value in engaging on the issue.

    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 )

Connecting to %s