Russia solely to blame
Dear Editor:
RE: Narrative silenced, Aug. 3.
Like most reasonable people and like the writer, I too would like to see an end to the war in Ukraine.
However, the writer appears to be implying that the impediment to peace is the supply of weapons and money to Ukraine by the western allies under the NATO umbrella, and specifically the United States.
Yet it was not the United States or any of the western allies who invaded Ukraine and caused this horrendous conflict. That responsibility rests solely with Vladimir Putin and Russia. Perhaps the writer should address her concerns to President Putin.
It was Russia that invaded and then annexed Crimea in 2014, territory that was until then part of the sovereign state of Ukraine. This was and is in direct violation of the 1997 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Russia and Ukraine as well as international law and the United Nations Charter. The 1997 treaty, amongst other things, stated the “recognition of inviolability of existing borders and respect for territorial integrity”.
Following that, Russia then began to arm and support separatist forces in the eastern territories of Ukraine known as the Donbas.
Apparently not content with the slow pace of that conflict, Putin and the Russian government authorized a full invasion of Ukraine beginning in February of 2022. Since that invasion, Russia has received arms and military technology from several countries including Iran, North Korea, Belarus and possibly China. Hardly bastions of freedom.
I would suggest that the quickest path to peace in Ukraine would be for the invading Russian troops to withdraw from the sovereign territory of Ukraine (including Crimea) and for the Russian government under Putin to stop supporting separatist forces in Ukraine.
Until that day, I fully support our government and the other NATO members providing military and humanitarian assistance to the Ukrainians.
Michael Vasil,
Fergus
‘Clearly in error’
Dear Editor:
RE: Narrative silenced, Aug. 3.
In reading Janet Calderwood’s letter, I immediately thought of a quote from U.S. President Ronald Reagan which resonates when I read articles such as the above. A part of that quote applies here: “It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”
A single paragraph stood out in sharp contrast to the others. I will only quote the beginning words of that single sentence paragraph: “Anyone who even slightly knows the long history of the United States …”
I know the “long history,” as it was a subject which I taught for more than three decades, and Calderwood is clearly in error when she characterizes the U.S. as having “limitless desire for land and power,” and comparable to Russia’s current invasion of Ukraine.
An implication to link U.S. military bases in “80 countries” immediately follows, apparently to justify earlier statements. A number of those bases are in countries which first attacked them and they exist to help prevent recurrences, but the majority are by invitation in countries for support and mutual protection. Think NATO.
Perhaps if she were to learn about the Marshall Plan? Or do a study of SCAP ? Or Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” consequences? Or, for that matter, the Ogdensburg Agreement?
There are many Canadians who bash the U.S., knowing little about them, but are more than happy to take advantage of the more than 60% of our imports that we get from them. Perhaps they can demonstrate their displeasure by having no connection to them? Especially with their foodstuff exports to us? After all, actions speak louder than words.
Edward Vanover,
Guelph
‘Utterly untrue’
Dear Editor:
RE: Negative image, Aug. 3.
The renowned scientist and cosmologist Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
I see none of the latter in the anti-MAID (medical assistance in dying) arguments offered by Chris Woode. For example, “We have heard that MAID (medical assistance in dying) has been offered to people in place of treatment geared to getting better…”
We have also heard that childhood vaccines cause autism, that Donald Trump is an agent of God, and that climate change is a hoax. Just because this type of conspiratorial silliness is out there does not mean we have to be taken in or, worse yet, embrace it.
Based on the fact that two physicians and/or nurse practitioners have to independently approve a MAID request and that they would do so if there is a chance of recovery is absurd.
Similarly, the notion that doctors are compelled to practice euthanasia and they are not able to opt out is utterly untrue.
The balance of the letter dealing with the government’s allocation of funds and the billing practices of physicians I am going to place in the realm of conjecture unless and until I am provided with specific documentation.
Allan Berry,
Fergus
‘Logic out the window’
Dear Editor:
It is not unusual to see Brian Paleczny’s (“Letter writer ‘wrong,’” July 27) lack of logic to say Canada should do better than accepting our emissions at 1.6% despite the fact our emissions are insignificant.
Alarmists like to point out per-capita stats which are meaningless in the big picture. He goes on to mention 1989 fire stats of 7.6 million hectares burned yet he ignores 2020 with only 0.5 million hectares burned. Did climate change take a rest?
In the 1990s and 2000s, Canada has seen its largest outbreak of Douglas fir bark beetles, spruce bark beetles and balsam bark beetles, which as decimating trees in BC’s Pacific North West and Canada’s boreal forest. Tens of millions of hectares have been impacted. Might explain fire intensity.
I would suggest Mr. Paleczny go to the CNFDB site and look at the graph which shows number of fires and area burned from 1980 to 2021. The numbers are up and down but what it doesn’t show is that fires are trending up. One bad year is not a trend. In fact, 1981, 1989, 1994 and 1995 had close to 30 million hectares burned in total.
Ron Moore, in his letter to the editor (“Missed the point,” July 27) says we should worry about a livable future for our grandkids, and Liz Armstrong writes (“Back from the brink,” July 27) that we are looking at a future which is not livable, and yet Jim Skea, the new head of the UN’s IPCC, said it’s not helpful to imply that a temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius is an existential threat to humanity.
Who should we listen to? I prefer not to listen to the media’s climate change sound bites.
Mr. Moore goes on to suggest that we lower our emissions to match the Chinese who emit 27% of the world’s emissions because their per capita emissions are lower than Canada’s. Logic is out the window with that idea. He is also big on sequestering carbon, which is very expensive and in my mind would be better spend on tangible improvements for Canadians.
Mr. Moore’s pronouncement that fossil fuels are a dying industry could not be more inaccurate. Norway has just approved $18.5 billion in new oil and gas projects to meet growing global demand.
My worry about the future is that we won’t spend money where it will benefit the people of the world, but rather on trying to control our climate, which is affected by La Nina and El Nino, to say nothing about the 40 billion gallons of water vapor which was shot up into the stratosphere by the Tonga volcano eruption of Jan. 15, 2022.
Experts say it could remain in the stratosphere for several years exacerbating our climate change effects for decades. As we know, water vapor traps heat. We will see how this plays out.
Peter Mandic,
Fergus