Civilian Airliner Shot Down 298 Dead-- Consequences

[Bounder]

While I am certainly sympathetic to the average Russian citizen, the antipathy towards Russia is Russia's own doing.  Do you think that the Estonians are happy that they have had to take significant policy steps to protect themselves against Russian aggression?  And do you not think that the ethnic Russians in Narva feel that fear that the average Estonian has?

World War II started because Hitler proclaimed that he was protecting the ethnic Germans from the populace that they lived among.  Russian nationalism is great for Russia.  Not so great for the other nations that ethnic Russians live in.

When the conflict in Ukraine began, posters from various Russian ethnic groups came on this forum and stated that within six months Ukraine would be occupied by the Russian forces in conjunction with an uprising against the Ukrainian government.  Now, if polls are to be trusted (and I am somewhat skeptical) the Ukrainian population has lost around 10,000 people due to this conflict and the Ukrainian people not in Donbas and Lugansk are overwhelmingly disposed against the Russians.  I should also point out that the Ukrainians were considered a sub-class of the Russian people by a great majority of the Russian people if social media is to be trusted.

The Kremlin knew exactly what it was doing as it tried to fashion another Transnistria out of Ukraine.  I believe that, as time goes on, Ukraine will continue to polarize against Russia and establish a stronger sense of nationalism than previously thought possible.

Hi Jon, since you're speaking about Estonians, how did NATO get right on Russia's borders after verbal promises were made to Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't be seeking any further expansion.  Oh, I know, it was just verbal, not on paper, hell, it wasn't any agreement at all, just words.  And Russia has no one to blame but itself, according to you.  This is classic American exceptionalism.  Afterall, America doesn't do anything wrong.

While I have some serious misgivings about this, let me attempt the possibility of opening an actual serious and thoughtful conversation on this subject.  I think it boils down to this: When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Cold War was over, and it meant the Americans won and American Foreign Policy expected the Russians to bend over/bow down after that.  The Americans still didn't shake that idea out of their head.  On the other side, the Russians demanded and required respect as a sovereign nation. End stop.  Americans have not yet, accepted that they cannot own Russia and Russians have still not felt respected and herein lies our current problems.   This is the exact problem that defines our world now.

Since the old thread is locked and I have thrown out my honest thoughts, I think a new thread full of thoughtful comments about the current state of the world would be merited.

[BillyB]

how did NATO get right on Russia's borders after verbal promises were made to Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't be seeking any further expansion. 

Putin propaganda makes you believe that actually happened. From Gorbachev's mouth, he said The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. He also said that NATO not moving east was in reference to not moving into East Germany after German reunification which Russia did get it in writing that NATO kept their word not moving their hardware into East Germany.


http://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html


I do not blame Estonia, Poland and other nations that were under Russia's foot for many decades for trying to align themselves with nations they can trust. If Russia wants those nations to be under their sphere of influence, there's ways to do that without a gun. Russia needs to convince those nations doing business with them will improve their standard of living and that they'll provide a security blanket to protect them from outside threats. Ukraine trusted Russia and allowed Russian troops to be stationed on their soil. It didn't work out too well for Ukraine.

[Bounder]

Putin propaganda makes you believe that actually happened. From Gorbachev's mouth, he said The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. He also said that NATO not moving east was in reference to not moving into East Germany after German reunification which Russia did get it in writing that NATO kept their word not moving their hardware into East Germany.


http://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html


I do not blame Estonia, Poland and other nations that were under Russia's foot for many decades for trying to align themselves with nations they can trust. If Russia wants those nations to be under their sphere of influence, there's ways to do that without a gun. Russia needs to convince those nations doing business with them will improve their standard of living and that they'll provide a security blanket to protect them from outside threats. Ukraine trusted Russia and allowed Russian troops to be stationed on their soil. It didn't work out too well for Ukraine.

Do you chew sh*t?  Because clearly you eat and breath it.  The cold war ended bro. I know not for you, but it did really end. 

An American says, we defeated the Soviets and I don't blame all their neighbouring countries putting a gun to Russia's head.  Super.

Russians and Ukrainians have been together for time immemorial.   Your right, it isn't working out for Ukraine right now. 

[jone]

Hi Jon, since you're speaking about Estonians, how did NATO get right on Russia's borders after verbal promises were made to Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't be seeking any further expansion.  Oh, I know, it was just verbal, not on paper, hell, it wasn't any agreement at all, just words.  And Russia has no one to blame but itself, according to you.  This is classic American exceptionalism.  Afterall, America doesn't do anything wrong.

While I have some serious misgivings about this, let me attempt the possibility of opening an actual serious and thoughtful conversation on this subject.  I think it boils down to this: When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Cold War was over, and it meant the Americans won and American Foreign Policy expected the Russians to bend over/bow down after that.  The Americans still didn't shake that idea out of their head.  On the other side, the Russians demanded and required respect as a sovereign nation. End stop.  Americans have not yet, accepted that they cannot own Russia and Russians have still not felt respected and herein lies our current problems.   This is the exact problem that defines our world now.

Since the old thread is locked and I have thrown out my honest thoughts, I think a new thread full of thoughtful comments about the current state of the world would be merited.

Hey Buddy,

I hear you loud and clear.  Personally, I think it made Russia very uncomfortable to have the Baltics in NATO.  But, while the Baltics clearly wanted some protection against the very thing that has happened to Ukraine (that eschewed NATO participation) the thinking at the time was actually to engage Russia and bring Russia in as a member of NATO.  Bet not many people remember those talks. 

We were to live in a world that didn't have a great competition going on. 

Instead, from the time of Putin's second run on the Presidency, Russia has attempted to establish a second Soviet Union.  I had a personal interest in this.  I was conducting business in the Golden Ring.  Anyone who has read my posts for years knows that I embraced the Russia that was back 20 years ago, at the turn of the century.

Russian and US interests should intertwine.  Instead, Russia has turned backwards, with shades of the Evil Empire called out by Ronald Reagan when the Korean airliner was shot down.  The US hasn't done much better with all of the Nationalism we see daily.

I was in Russia because I believed in a revolution of infrastructure - stretching across the Urals and into Siberia.  Instead Russia has practically bankrupted herself and stands alone in many instances.  I also believe that the largest threat to Russia comes from China and its wish to develop the land to its north.  For all of the Russian apologists out there, what happens when enough Chinese citizens cross the border and establish enclaves in Southern Siberia?  Does China then say, as Russia did, that the majority in that area are Chinese so the land should be part of China?  Just wondering.

In the meanwhile, Bounder, I enjoy hearing your stories.  You are my friend and I hope you are doing well. 

[Bounder]

Hey Buddy,

I hear you loud and clear.  Personally, I think it made Russia very uncomfortable to have the Baltics in NATO.  But, while the Baltics clearly wanted some protection against the very thing that has happened to Ukraine (that eschewed NATO participation) the thinking at the time was actually to engage Russia and bring Russia in as a member of NATO.  Bet not many people remember those talks. 

We were to live in a world that didn't have a great competition going on. 

Instead, from the time of Putin's second run on the Presidency, Russia has attempted to establish a second Soviet Union.  I had a personal interest in this.  I was conducting business in the Golden Ring.  Anyone who has read my posts for years knows that I embraced the Russia that was back 20 years ago, at the turn of the century.

Russian and US interests should intertwine.  Instead, Russia has turned backwards, with shades of the Evil Empire called out by Ronald Reagan when the Korean airliner was shot down.  The US hasn't done much better with all of the Nationalism we see daily.

I was in Russia because I believed in a revolution of infrastructure - stretching across the Urals and into Siberia.  Instead Russia has practically bankrupted herself and stands alone in many instances.  I also believe that the largest threat to Russia comes from China and its wish to develop the land to its north.  For all of the Russian apologists out there, what happens when enough Chinese citizens cross the border and establish enclaves in Southern Siberia?  Does China then say, as Russia did, that the majority in that area are Chinese so the land should be part of China?  Just wondering.

In the meanwhile, Bounder, I enjoy hearing your stories.  You are my friend and I hope you are doing well.

The Baltics are small and virtually meaningless countries.  NATO has no strategic need to be there, except to be on the borders of Russia, which the Americans promised wouldn't happen as part of the cold war de-escalation.

As to what happened and continues to be going on in Ukraine, this is another effort by the Americans to attempt to take over a historical Russian ally and put another piece on the Russian border, arrayed against her.  It is not so clear cut or black and white as you make it out to be.

"Russian and US interests should intertwine" - what a bizarro statement.  Why would anyone think that?  It sounds like some kind of inevitability, of the same flavour that says the Russians should bend over since they lost the cold war and get happily pumped up the ass.  Just because Russia isn't running lockstep with the Americans, doesn't mean it turned "backwards".  Far from it!  If anything, America is backwards in this world and has been for many decades, unless you accept your government's long standing war policy.

I definitely remember when Russia was in talks to join NATO.  It didn't come off because Russia was expected to join as a vanquished country.  It's a wonder they didn't agree and sign up!  How many countries actually preserve their sovereignty when push comes to shove?  And yeah, Russia was at that point - either bend over or stand up.

Here is what has happened in a free and sovereign country since the end of the Soviet Union.  In just over a short 25 years, almost every aspect of life in every part of this country has improved after basically a national bankruptcy.  Health, lifespan, infrastructure, economy is all better than really it should be.  Goodness only knows what would be if Russia agreed and followed Western austerity plans.  Democracy is flourishing here, on it's own timeline, led by a lively and rich culture.

After everything that's happened since 1991, Russians value stability above all else, because frankly there hasn't been a lot of that over the last 25-30 years.  I know Americans can't get their heads around it, being spoiled rotten to the point of obesity, but Russians don't know stability well and that's why they cherish it now since they've had it.  And that's why they support their President, which americans have tried to make into an insult.  After the drunken Yeltsin years, the runs on the banks, the free-for-all in the Oligarchic class, its no bloody wonder why people like Putin.  Russia has historically been an unruly and restive country that is notoriously difficult to govern.  Putin has managed to do this and that is why he is popular.  He will move on and out of political life when he is certain of someone who can ensure Russia's ongoing stability and continued economic and democratic development.  Laugh if you want, but come visit first.

I'm no apologist for Russia, but I am willing to try to defend it against BS.  As to China, I know it might be hard for you, but did it ever occur to you that not every country has the same mentality as the US?  Where as the US would simply takeover Siberia by might, being in the same position as China, just PERHAPS, China and Russia would negotiate a mutually beneficial agreement.  While it's allies try to be fair, the US ONLY EVER thinks about itself (this includes spreading "democracy" around the world while losing it at home).  Just look at the dealings with Canada now and how Canada is responding.

It's enough to look at the American's record to know who is right now and who can and can't be trusted.

Peace.

[BillyB]

Do you chew sh*t?  Because clearly you eat and breath it.  The cold war ended bro. I know not for you, but it did really end. 

Yes, the Cold War did end and nations are allowed to make new friends. You seem bitter those nations chose the West instead of Russia. Figure it out. It's not rocket science.

[Bounder]

Yes, the Cold War did end and nations are allowed to make new friends. You seem bitter those nations chose the West instead of Russia. Figure it out. It's not rocket science.

You sound like a gloater who can't recognize the duplicity of your own country.  But that's normal for a regular citizen of the victor country.  It's not rocket science.

[BillyB]

Okay Bounder, you know best. Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, Albania and Croatia, and Montenegro and other former Communist nations are stupid for joining or wanting to join NATO. I'd feel sorry for any woman who'd leave you. You don't handle rejection well.

[mhr7]

The only promise made by NATO-

The agreement on not deploying foreign troops on the territory of the former GDR was incorporated in Article 5 of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, which was signed on September 12, 1990 by the foreign ministers of the two Germanys, the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France. Article 5 had three provisions:

1.Until Soviet forces had completed their withdrawal from the former GDR, only German territorial defense units not integrated into NATO would be deployed in that territory.
2.There would be no increase in the numbers of troops or equipment of U.S., British and French forces stationed in Berlin.
3.Once Soviet forces had withdrawn, German forces assigned to NATO could be deployed in the former GDR, but foreign forces and nuclear weapons systems would not be deployed there.

Straight from the horses mouth (Mikhail Gorbachev)-

M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.

Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been observed all these years. So don’t portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West’s finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia at first did not object.

http://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

http://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html

The sovereign countries of the former Warsaw Pact are completely free to choose their own future. Why should Russia have any say over this? If Russia had the authority to determine the future of these countries, they may as well still belong to the Warsaw Pact.

[jone]

I think Bounder has an ax to grind. 

I will say that had the Baltics and other countries not joined NATO, I believe that they would now be victims of Russia's belligerence.

But then who am I to say?  I am a spoiled rotten and obese American.

[Boethius]

In just over a short 25 years, almost every aspect of life in every part of this country has improved after basically a national bankruptcy.  Health, lifespan, infrastructure, economy is all better than really it should be.  Goodness only knows what would be if Russia agreed and followed Western austerity plans.  Democracy is flourishing here, on it's own timeline, led by a lively and rich culture.

Their own statistics don't support you.

http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/ias/ias05.php?tim=0&cou=26&terr=1&ind=1&Submit=OK

Birth rates have increased since the collapse, but are not at the rate they were before the Soviet collapse.

http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/ias/ias05.php?tim=0&cou=26&terr=1&ind=26&Submit=OK

The World Bank disagrees with you on Russia's infrastructure.

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/477441484190095052/pdf/FINAL-Russia-SCD-Dec-22-ENG-12222016.pdf

Essentially, Russia is the same as Ukraine - unbelievably corrupt, with a small elite disproportionately siphoning the national wealth.  The two differences are that Russia has significantly more resources, so the pie can be spread more, and that in Ukraine, oligarchs control the politicians, while in Russia, politicians control the oligarchs.

[JayH]

  Putin has managed to do this and that is why he is popular.  He will move on and out of political life when he is certain of someone who can ensure Russia's ongoing stability and continued economic and democratic development.  Laugh if you want, but come visit first.

I'm no apologist for Russia,.

It's enough to look at the American's record to know who is right now and who can and can't be trusted.

Peace.

No apologist ---laugh -well I am for sure --at you not with you !

Russian stability  - oxymoron in action ( stable -- something you are clearly NOT!)
Democracy --  and your no apologist 
You cajole Americans -- regardless of being imperfect --there is no scale where Russia and America are within range.

The Russian invasion has seen the deaths of over 10,000 Ukrainians and millions displaced --  for what? The interests of Russian democracy?  sheesh

The very title of this thread should give you a clue ---- Putin,Russia and Russian scum are responsible for those deaths -- and idiots like you want to sing Putin's praises !

[Boethius]

But then who am I to say?  I am a spoiled rotten and obese American.

Although I understand where the sentiment is coming from, America and the IMF do bear some responsibility for what happened in the post Soviet world.  American economists David Lipton and Jeffrey Sachs argued that "shock therapy" was the antidote for inefficient communist systems, and the IMF pushed this on Russia, Ukraine, and much of Eastern Europe.  The end result was misery - bread and milk lines in Russia, abject poverty, the theft of state enterprises by the well connected, murders for properties.  This, the West bears a great deal of responsibility for.  We, as Westerners, are also indirectly responsible for the rise of Putinism and the bellicosity that has occurred because we advocated this economic exploitation.  Shock therapy was incredibly cruel, and its effects proved no better than those in countries with gradualism. 


Would a Putin have arisen in Russia even without the economic chaos?  Possibly.  Russia has a history of authoritarianism.  However, unlike today, it may have developed a rule of law, which it did have in Tsarist times.  But, that ship has sailed, and its best and brightest emigrate.

[Boethius]

Russians and Ukrainians have been together for time immemorial.   

Not really.


Though I'm certain it is "sold" that way in Russia.

[Doll]

I was born in the USSR))) Russians, Ukrainians and Byelorussians were and are the closest nations ever.

[Boethius]

HAHAHA.

[BillyB]

America and the IMF do bear some responsibility for what happened in the post Soviet world.  American economists David Lipton and Jeffrey Sachs argued that "shock therapy" was the antidote for inefficient communist systems, and the IMF pushed this on Russia, Ukraine, and much of Eastern Europe.  The end result was misery - bread and milk lines in Russia, abject poverty, the theft of state enterprises by the well connected, murders for properties. 

So...America and the IMF are responsible for bread lines and crime? USSR broke up. Bankruptcy can put people in bread lines and people steal. Would you freely give money and have no control over it to a guy you were just in a war with? Responsibility lies with USSR. Communists think the have the best system. When they go bankrupt and have to endure misery, they blame it on the Capitalists. Go figure.

[Boethius]

Gradual economic reform was employed in China.  No people starving or looking to escape by marrying foreigners 3X their age and 5X their weight.

The IMF and American advisors who crafted "shock therapy" for the FSU and Eastern Europe created a huge amount of misery, for little net benefit. 

Lots of academics (economists) have written about this, and most agree that shock therapy was a mistake.

[BillyB]

Gradual economic reform was employed in China.  No people starving or looking to escape by marrying foreigners 3X their age and 5X their weight.

Chinese soldiers shooting at us in the Korean War and 25+ years later we're open to doing business with China. When the Cold War ended, people can't expect America to do business with the FSU right away without establishing trust. Don't want to pump in money right away into a system that may grow and turn on us. Everybody wants America to stay out of their business until they need us to bail them out. America isn't responsible for the FSU breadlines just as you're not responsible for the homeless guy who's hungry. There needs to be self accountability.


As far as Chinese not wanting to marry foreigners. I've never met a man who said Chinese women are the most beautiful in the world. When guys are attracted to Asian women, they tend to buy plane tickets to Philippines or Vietnam. There are websites out there to get hooked up with Chinese women though.

The IMF and American advisors who crafted "shock therapy" for the FSU and Eastern Europe created a huge amount of misery, for little net benefit.

Exactly why does the IMF and America need to give money to a struggling nation that we just had a war with? To put them back on their feet so they can go to war with us again? Even if America did pump a lot of money into the FSU, you seem to believe the management team at the government level would distribute money to the people. What years have the governments in the FSU been trustworthy enough to distribute financial aid to the people? Gross mismanagement of their own money led them into bankruptcy.

[wallm]

I was born in the USSR))) Russians, Ukrainians and Byelorussians were and are the closest nations ever.

Oh! that explains the weird English and the ass kissing of that thug Putin.

[Doll]

Oh! that explains the weird English and the ass kissing of that thug Putin.

Sure- English is my second language, what surprises you so much?
My English againts you Russian. Deal?

Yes, Putin IS my President. Proud of it.
You like when Russians here b%%%tch their country?  You sure do.

Anyway, we are discussing the suggested topic but not personalities and by NO means their language.

[JayH]

The follow up attempts to deny and divert are a story in themselves !
It has a very particular relevance today as  attempts to create "alternative facts" and discredit news sources has become fashionable around the world.
The problem is that often it is the loony fringe that runs and promotes that garbage. In this case --it is state sponsored loonies !


Russia Cannot Acknowledge MH17 Role without Exposing Secret Ukraine War

Despite mounting evidence pointing toward Russia, the Kremlin has consistently refused to acknowledge any responsibility for the deaths of those on board the civilian airliner. Instead, Moscow has mounted a major campaign of diplomatic denials and alternative theories that offers invaluable insights into the Kremlin approach to disinformation while highlighting the limitations of hybrid warfare.

When future historians come to explore the fake news phenomenon of the early twenty-first century, Russia’s response to the MH17 tragedy will surely serve as a key case study. The many competing MH17 narratives promoted by the Kremlin contain all the requisite elements for a comprehensive examination of contemporary disinformation tactics, including everything from photoshopped satellite images and phony eyewitness accounts to distracting counter-accusations and social media trolling tactics.


http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russia-cannot-acknowledge-mh17-role-without-exposing-secret-ukraine-war

[JayH]

Relating to previous post --




The Kremlin’s Shifting, Self-Contradicting Narratives on MH17


Just a few hours after the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 (MH17), the circumstances that caused the tragedy came to light: a Buk-M1 Russian-made anti-aircraft missile system was fired by either Russian-led separatists or Russian forces from an area near Snizhne, Ukraine, leading to the death of 298 civilians aboard the passenger plane. Over three years since the downing, every credible investigation into the tragedy has confirmed this initial claim, with each photograph, video, and independent forensic investigation reinforcing the “Russian/separatist Buk” claim and adding new details that give us a greater understanding of how this incident happened. In short, the “narrative” from Western governments, the official Dutch criminal and forensic investigations, and the site you are reading now has been linear.

This same linear trajectory towards greater clarity and away from self-contradiction cannot be attributed to the Kremlin’s narrative, or narratives, related to MH17. On July 21, 2014, just four days after the downing, the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) held a press conference that made a series of self-contradictory claims blaming Ukraine, rather than Russia or Russian-led separatists, for the Boeing 777’s shoot down. Today, the Kremlin–via its Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), Ministry of Defense, state-funded media outlets, and state-funded defense company “Almaz-Antey”–has silently abandoned, while never explicitly retracting, nearly every piece of evidence it presented four days after the downing.
http://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/01/05/kremlins-shifting-self-contradicting-narratives-mh17/

[msmob]

JayH

If you didn't use copy and paste - used your own words - with links to 'reinforce' -  people might be more interested  and read what toy're trying to get across

Why not list the Kremlin 'excuses' ?

e.g Monday 21st July- Kremlin organises Military run press conference with huge panoramic screens to tell the world that two Ukrainian Sukhoi Su-25's were spotted on Military radio 'shadowing' MH-17 and climbed up to attack...

The fact that an armed SU-25 cannot fly as fast and the 777 nor climb half as high ( let alone climb as 'fast') ..

A: 'prove' a modified SU-25 can fly as high .. but don't point out it hasn't been armed with cannon / missiles..

...then wonder why anyone WITH a clue wonders, "Hmm if they are prepared to so obviously LIE ....  what ARE they covering up ? "


That was just one example .....

From 'Carlos' - the 'missing Spanish air-controller' who had to 'disappear' because the SBU ( Ukrainian secret service) stole the radar evidence in Kyiv'  ( er, the flt was being controlled from Dnipropetrovsk) to 'Ukrainian ATC instructions to turn / descend' or 'The Ukrainians were after Putin's flt' ( like it would fly anywhere near ) it's all been nonsense emanating from Moscow..

Other than ..

If Ukraine knew that it had had two military aircraft shot down by a powerful weapon - at great height - even stopping military flt operations on the evening of 16th July - WHY did it not close the airspace to civilian traffic - not impose a ceiling that a BUK system missile could easily exceed ( and did) and WHY were airlines - like Malaysian ( and others) STILL opting to use this route, anyway ?

The tragedy of 17th July was totally avoidable

[JayH]

Moby--    as I said elsewhere-- you really are a dunce.

The point of the linked articles is that they show why all the nonsense alternative explanations offered by the Russians are nonsense,

Quite pointless me repeating what the Russians offered- it is all in the linked article itself.

Once again -- you show you have not actually read -let alone understood what is contained.

You did a skim for a bit of info to pad your post -- you should have spent your time actually reading instead of wasting all our time typing in some dumb effort to look like you are knowledgeable.

As said elsewhere - don't bother keeping up your dumb cannot be wrong posts - it only serves to reinforce your inadequacies.