Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative?

Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,154,757 members, 7,824,172 topics. Date: Saturday, 11 May 2024 at 02:32 AM

Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R - Foreign Affairs (4) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Politics / Foreign Affairs / Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R (10708 Views)

America Will Beat Russia And/or China In A War / Russia And Syria: The Die Is Cast / US And Uk Ready For Air Strike In Syria As Russia And China Defend (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by EMANY01(m): 11:42am On Oct 13, 2014

Missy89:

2. How did America backed out of the confrontation with the soviets in Cuba? The missile was removed and Khrushchev ran away like a chicken and the cretin was forced out of power because he was weak.Castro wanted him to strike first but he chicken out. and what did he get in return? removal of outdated missiles from Turkey that was scheduled to be removed.
Not to mention that the Russians decades afterwards have admitted that their nuclear missiles were in no shape ready for a conflict at the time as reliability was a long standing problem. .

Now lets talk Georgia. This is the point i have been making from the beginning of the thread that nation states are pragmatic and not emotional (apart from maybe Russia?) at all.Russia was a bigger strategic partner and had just helped America with a base in Tajikistan, Germany and France had made promises to Russia that Georgia wont be allowed to join NATO. When they meet in Bucharest, The french refused to adopt MAP(membership action plan to add Ukraine and Georgia to NATO)even after many midnight meetings and the Germans stood firm too. It was clear to the Americans that Russia had leverage with Sarkosy and Merkel. so what is the point of helping tiny Georgia? besides, Bush saved Saakashvili seat at least and signaled the Russians to stop advancing when they got to Gori.

The Victory might have been decisive but it exposed Russia's military a weak and outdated force. (I can go into details if you want me to). so there is nothing to be proud of here. But that has been addressed by Putin and in 2020 they should be strong as ever.

and on China,
That as to do with policy failures on the part of Truman and his rift with Douglas MacArthur. It wasn't because the Chinese were formidable. The only tactic they used were human waves and besides, it was the United nations not really the United states. the Brits has over 13,000 troops there so it was a general failure
MacArthur saw victory in site having beat the Chinese and their human waves back the Yalu river,he wanted to pursue them and size the north but Truman was insistent on the fact that the "objectives" of the intervention had been met.The curse of the US military is that the civilian authorities have always shackled them .If MacArthur had been allowed to push, we would be talking of a different geography today that is if North Korea survived .
I have never understood how people say the United States military was trashed in Vietnam.That conflict could have been won by the military if the politicians didn't write hobbling ROE's.

3.Yes i agreed that Spain wasn't a superpower. That is the point i was making. In every geopolitical area there can only be one superpower (that's what the word super implies) but when it is surrounded by great powers, the Super power status wont come without a fight. (The reason why i said China has many regional power beside it and she would have to fight to gain a superpower status). Britain fought the French, Germans, and the Spanish among others to attain that status.

4. If the India route is what was important to Britain, why did she declare war on Germany for crossing thru Belgium even thou Germany had sent signals to London to ask for their intentions without getting any straight response? why not attack the Ottomans directly to secure the route then or wait till the war spill over to the Mediterranean? care to explain?

5.U don't want to hear about what Truman (one of the most important figures in the war) had to say in his memoirs? how about what General Maurice Gamelin and Hans Oster (French general and who was in charge when Germany invaded France and German military intelligence officer) had to say about the prelude to war then? i made references to those u kind of ignored them didn't ya?

I do not think US is underestimating Chinese military capability. But it is clear to every military expert or analyst that it is still behind Russia not to talk of America. China wont even dare attack Japan. there is a US-Japan pact. and that will lead to the destruction of China.

I have to keep saying this.

I am not pro any nation.. I am just pro reality

1 Like

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by GuyFawkes: 12:10pm On Oct 13, 2014

Missy89:

Thats one of my favorite all time German generals!!!, Along with Rommel and Heinz Guderian.

Those were the true professional who did their work and kept politics out as much as they can. The 3 of them were highly respected even among the Allies.

Yeah you took the words outta my mouth those 3 generals were simply brilliant.

Guderian the master tank strategist and proponent of the blitzkrieg. He opposed the criminal order to kill all political commissars but there wasn't much he could to to stop it.

Amongst all the generals interrogated in 1945 the verdict was Erich von Manstein was the ablest commander in the german army. The decision to go through the thick woods of Ardenne was a masterstroke by him.

As for Rommel the british can testify to his genius, the american army greatly admired his tactics.

They all hated Hitler though and were very patriotic soldiers.

1 Like

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by NairaMinted: 12:39pm On Oct 13, 2014

I leave this thread for just a day and all of a sudden so much to catch up on! Seems to have digressed though. I'll come back and digest later

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Nobody: 3:35pm On Oct 13, 2014

GuyFawkes:
@ Missy89
Was Truman really one of the most important figues in the war? Seriously aside from giving the GO for the dropping of the bomb I think you give him too much credit. He was an inconsequential senator from Missouri foistered on Roosevelt as his VP , he only spoke to Roosevelt twice in his 82 days as VP. His tough man acts only served to infuriate the Russians hence building the distrust leading up to the cold war.

As for Maurice Gamelein his glory days were gone and he was the very cause of the defeat the french suffered, don't know what you read about him though, history has a way of being kind to some incompetent generals. He was a gutless commander no different from the french clowns parading themselves as politicians in those turbulent times. He never even stepped foot at the frontlines to raise the morale of his troops, his HQ was a french chateau on the outskirts of Paris , it had no communication with any other HQ in the field and messages were sent out by the hour on motorcycle.

@ the bold. That was why I laughed so hard when Missy89 said she can't be ar.sed about reading Yoruba history because most of it was based on ego. Yet she's the biggest proponent of America fallacies when it comes to historical account - the irony. A disservice to true history, with malicious twists of all historical accounts just to relay the ludicrous storyline of American pseudo-exceptionalism.

A look at this thread alone is enough to tell you that. grin

1 Like

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Nobody: 3:46pm On Oct 13, 2014

Missy89:

Typical Arrogant Brit trying to downplay America's role in the Falklands war

Here are some excerpts for you

1. The US provided the United Kingdom with military equipment ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles.

2. President Ronald Reagan approved the Royal Navy's request to borrow the Sea Harrier-capable amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (LPH-2) if the British lost an aircraft carrier.

3. The sophisticated weaponry supplied by the Pentagon, such as the Sidewinder air-to-air missile and the Stinger man-portable surface-to-air missile, helped to minimize British casualties. Especially crucial was US intelligence. That support was all the more surprising as it constituted a near-complete reversal of the centuries-old Monroe Doctrine demarcating the western hemisphere as an entirely American preserve.

4. The OAS(Organization of American states) was quick to denounce the United States’ support for Britain. A spokesman for the Venezuelan embassy accused the U.S. of “siding not with its little brother but with its stepmother.” One Brazilian commenter claimed that it was now clear America had first- and second-class allies. Only the former British colonies in the Caribbean took Washington’s side. But the die was cast, and the United States moved quickly to make good on its promises.

5. The United States provided everything except for manpower. The American base at Ascension Island (ironically, leased from the British) was now the closest one to the combat zone, albeit still 3,800 miles away. Weinberger took steps to cut through the “infamous” Pentagon bureaucracy and deliver materiel to the British as quickly as possible, reducing the usual procurement time of six weeks to about twenty-four hours, with some even arriving within six hours of the initial request. He gives an account of the weapons and equipment being delivered:The first requests were for missiles, particularly our Sidewinders, the AIM 9-L air-to-air missiles, with which the British wreaked such havoc on the Argentines, and aircraft fuel. But initially we had to, and did, add enormously to the facilities at Ascension to receive and deliver the fuel and other supplies to the British task forces’ ships and planes (we also sold them twelve of our F-4 fighter planes at a “bargain basement” price after the war, in order to allow the British to keep a Phantom squadron on the Falklands)

6. The Sidewinders certainly were state-of-the-art; as one of the first all-aspect air-to-air missiles in the world, it allowed RAF pilots to shoot down Argentine planes from any angle in the sky. Between 1 May and 23 June, 27 Sidewinders were launched. 24 hit their targets. No longer were the British confined to trailing behind enemy fighters.

7. The standing of Margaret Thatcher was affirmed in American popular opinion: the ‘Iron Lady’ was now a fixture on the world stage and a major player in the coalition of the west. Her reelection in 1983 came easily, the war having solidified the Tories’ position. British opinion of America did get a boost from the latter’s support, but it was short-lived, shrinking back to prewar levels by winter 1982 and evaporating after the 1983 American invasion of Grenada

And Finally here is a quote from Paul Sharp an associate professor of Political Science who has written many books on Margaret Thatcher

“had the Americans decided to oppose Britain’s recovery of the Islands, then the war would have been impossible and Thatcher’s political demise all but assured".

Sources:

Christopher Chant, Air War in the Falklands, 1982

Caspar Weinberger, In the Arena: A Memoir of the Twentieth Century, with Gretchen Roberts

David Dimbleby and David Reynolds, An Ocean Apart: The Relationship between Britain and America in the Twentieth Century

John Norton Moore, “The Inter-American System Snarls in the Falklands War,”

Dumbrell, A Special Relationship, 202.

Jorgen Rasmussen and James M. McCormick, “British Mass Perceptions of the Anglo-American Special Relationship,” Political Science Quarterly

Better don't bring up any war stories. i am kind of obsessed with almost all of them
Enough Banter, Lets get back to the main discussion.

Everything you posted here is inconsequential, and as a special friend, due to the British colonial legacy and the domination of America by Anglo-Americans - the covert help was deserved. Coupled with the fact that the war took place in the Americas, which happens to be within America's sphere of influence.

However, the facts we can deduce from the war are:

- The UK fought a formidable or should I say a decent military power (based on the decline of the British military power), on its own turf, and achieved a decisive victory.

- America predicted an impending defeat for the UK.

- The war was prosecuted solely by the British Military.

Not holding brief for the UK. And you know I'll always keep it objective when it comes to the UK, because objectivity is the British way. However, you're stuck on American propaganda, and you need to allow it.

The American military isn't a tested one and it's always going to be a paper-tiger to most folks. Also, when you put into account how vulnerable the US military is whenever there's no air superiority - you just have to question the guts of the yanks.

Also, to know why I don't rate countries with excessive military weapons - you have to go back in history and look at what happened in the Battle of Marathon between the Persian empire and Greece. The Persian had all the tools and naval power in the world to subjugate the Greeks. But we all know what happened.

1 Like

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Nobody: 4:20pm On Oct 13, 2014

Missy89:

WRONG AGAIN!

1.inconsequential US technology u say? Did you read the 61 page report i sent you or u are just arguing without facts here? I NEVER said China benefited from us nucelar technology overtly in fact, i stated on another thread before that they use the Soviets template to design their weapons. I said the benefited from US technology transfers and are using some of them for military purpose and i sent a DETAILED report for you to read about how that might have happened thru US statlite policies with China.

Few Excerpts from another source:(U.S. Technology Transfer Policies and the Modernization of China's Armed Forces
Larry M. Wortzel)

***Four other agreements were then under negotiation. Including a memorandum of understanding on the provision of a Landsat system, for China and a telecommunications agreement and one between the US Army corps of Engineers and the Nanjing Institute of Hydraulic Research to cooperate on hydraulic engineering.

**in May 1983, Dr George Keyworth, President Reagan's Science adviser, signed other significant agreements while visiting China, including agreements to cooperate in fields as nuclear physics and controlled magnetic fusion and aeronautical science and engineering. Of the agreements to which the state department information papers refers, 13 deal with technological areas that have military applications.

***All of China's neighbors seems to want a strong china but not too strong. India too must scrutinize US arms and technology transfers to the PRC with some trepidation. China and India fought over the disputed territory in the early 60s, and India is still threatened by China's Nuclear forces. (This is the original point i was trying to make)

**Transfer of military technology that affects the balance of air power in the region may be the US provision of avionics equipment to china in a effort to make the F-8 interceptor more effective.

**China will manufacture, with US help, new avionics for its own Y-7 aircraft, a version of soviets AN-24 twin engine turboprop.

**All these manufacturing operations will be controlled with Siemens or IBM computers and china may progress to computer aided design with assistance from IBM

I can keep going. Now you have a paper and a book to read

i will reply the other lines in a minute.

1). Have you heard about China's Project 640, and its Academy of Anti-Ballistic Missile & Anti-Satellite that was established in 1969, with the help of the Soviet? The report you posted is inconsequential since it didn't state any military technology that was transferred, apart from innuendos and assumptions. Need I remind you of the UN military arms embargo influenced by US that was placed on China for over two decades now? Also, most of the improvements in the Chinese missile technology was done based on espionage - like they just stole the Israeli Iron Dome technology via the same medium.

Also, there's no country that isn't dependent on other countries for little components in its military technology. US for example used to be heavily dependent on Rolls Royce engines, and other British technology. The UK is dependent on a few countries for components. Ditto Germany, France, Russia etc.. So, to now start giving credits for little components just shows your argument makes no sense at all, when it's normal practice everywhere else. We're talk about major components here, and there's next to nothing that's American in the Chinese military technology - apart from a few stolen via espionage and rogue defense technology executives.

Like I already told you, I don't read fictitious history books written by American authors. That's the same country that passed fictitious tales written by Joan Peters "From Time Immemorial" as an accurate historical account, before the obvious lies were exposed by Norman Finkelstein. The same country that takes pride in winning world war 2, when it joined the wat three years late etc.

Like Emeritus Prof. Noam Chomsky told Norman Finkelstein:
"I warned him, if you follow this, you're going to get in trouble - because you're going to expose the American intellectual community as a gang of frauds, and they are not going to like it, and they're going to destroy you."

2 Likes

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Missy89(f): 5:01pm On Oct 13, 2014

So shymexx defense is that all American authors are rubbish , and he wont give us any source for his work. He just makes stuffs up and want us to believe him. (male version of Linda ikeji grin

)

Ok then!

I still have few aces up my sleeve (I have been reserving some authors for the rainy day) . do you want me to quote British authors or that wont be enough too?.

3 Likes

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Missy89(f): 5:06pm On Oct 13, 2014

SirShymex:

@ the bold. That was why I laughed so hard when Missy89 said she can't be ar.sed about reading Yoruba history because most of it was based on ego. Yet she's the biggest proponent of America fallacies when it comes to historical account - the irony. A disservice to true history, with malicious twists of all historical accounts just to relay the ludicrous storyline of American pseudo-exceptionalism.

A look at this thread alone is enough to tell you that.

Now you pretended as if you did not see my reply to Guyfawks.

I did not quote a personal achievement or endeavor from the memoir but i mentioned what both Leaders at that time saw as the general strategy of the west. Are you saying Truman crossed the Atlantic to coordinate the Lie with Maurice Gamaeline and they both agreed to put the same thing in their memoirs? (keep in mind, both of them were talking about a perception and i refrained from quoting any of their personal exploit during the way.)

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Nobody: 5:37pm On Oct 13, 2014

Missy89:

2. How did America backed out of the confrontation with the soviets in Cuba? The missile was removed and Khrushchev ran away like a chicken and the cretin was forced out of power because he was weak.Castro wanted him to strike first but he chicken out. and what did he get in return? removal of outdated missiles from Turkey that was scheduled to be removed.

Now lets talk Georgia. This is the point i have been making from the beginning of the thread that nation states are pragmatic and not emotional (apart from maybe Russia?) at all.Russia was a bigger strategic partner and had just helped America with a base in Tajikistan, Germany and France had made promises to Russia that Georgia wont be allowed to join NATO. When they meet in Bucharest, The french refused to adopt MAP(membership action plan to add Ukraine and Georgia to NATO)even after many midnight meetings and the Germans stood firm too. It was clear to the Americans that Russia had leverage with Sarkosy and Merkel. so what is the point of helping tiny Georgia? besides, Bush saved Saakashvili seat at least and signaled the Russians to stop advancing when they got to Gori.

The Victory might have been decisive but it exposed Russia's military a weak and outdated force. (I can go into details if you want me to). so there is nothing to be proud of here. But that has been addressed by Putin and in 2020 they should be strong as ever.

and on China,
That as to do with policy failures on the part of Truman and his rift with Douglas MacArthur. It wasn't because the Chinese were formidable. The only tactic they used were human waves. and besides, it was the United nations not really the United states. the Brits has over 13,000 troops there so it was a general failure

3.Yes i agreed that Spain wasn't a superpower. That is the point i was making. In every geopolitical area there can only be one superpower (that's what the word super implies) but when it is surrounded by great powers, the Super power status wont come without a fight. (The reason why i said China has many regional power beside it and she would have to fight to gain a superpower status). Britain fought the French, Germans, and the Spanish among others to attain that status.

4. If the India route is what was important to Britain, why did she declare war on Germany for crossing thru Belgium even thou Germany had sent signals to London to ask for their intentions without getting any straight response? why not attack the Ottomans directly to secure the route then or wait till the war spill over to the Mediterranean? care to explain?

5.U don't want to hear about what Truman (one of the most important figures in the war) had to say in his memoirs? how about what General Maurice Gamelin and Hans Oster (French general and who was in charge when Germany invaded France and German military intelligence officer) had to say about the prelude to war then? i made references to those u kind of ignored them didn't ya?

I do not think US is underestimating Chinese military capability. But it is clear to every military expert or analyst that it is still behind Russia not to talk of America. China wont even dare attack Japan. there is a US-Japan pact. and that will lead to the destruction of China.

I have to keep saying this.

I am not pro any nation.. I am just pro reality

Lmao @ Khrushchev running out like a chicken when JFK was the one sweating profusely, and had to demolish American missiles in Turkey, and also another promise not to invade Cuba. The Soviets gained more out it than the American - FACT. And even American military experts have alluded to this. I've never seen a country so scared in my life, with the cries everywhere about, "The Russians are coming" and the whole country getting jittery and scared about an impending attack. And what happened to the American U-2 spy plane?

Did Dubya threaten, raved, and ranted during the Russian-Georgian war, like all American leaders always do - all talk but no bite - YES or NO? America is the most emotional brawn ever. Also, how many red-lines has Obama given since he became POTUS, and how many have been crossed? Please, post facts and not innuendos.

And Sarkosy and Merkel stopped the Russian advancement, with Sarkosy travelling to Moscow a few times to plead with Putin, and beg for a ceasefire because of their close relationship. Also, wasn't Russia underestimated before that war? Giving credit to Bush again, are we? I'm bored of this nonsense - if you can't post facts, keep your ignorance from public glare. How did the victory expose Russia, when everyone knew Russia was militarily weak then, due to the Yeltsin and the fall out of the Soviet Union? I'd say Russia shocked a lot of people, with how decisive the victory was. The Georgians were prepared for the war, with tons of American weapons - and hundreds of American military advisers who stayed behind after the military excercise prior to the war.

On China

Yes, the only tactic was human wave, yet they chased them all the way back to South Korean territory, from the Chinese border. And this debate isn't about the UK. It's about your assertion on how a paper-tiger is insurmountable, militarily. When it has never been tested. I never alluded to the British army being super-strong. So, don't go an a tangent. Douglas MacArthur was going to nuke China and cheat again, like they did against Japan lol. Typical cowardly and paper-tiger attribute - cheat a la throw a sucker-punch when you can't fight squarely.

You're pro-delusion and pro-fallacies. Reality is interchangeable with practicality. And when a military power has never been tested against a formidable power, it will always remain a paper-tiger, with nothing special. So, to say its lack of achievement is insurmountable, is just ludicrous and borderline insane.

Will post more later.

2 Likes

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Missy89(f): 6:20pm On Oct 13, 2014

Now i can see that you are a very big liar. trying to lie and you keep repeating the same lie just to have your way.

1. After the sarkosy deal with Putin and Sahakasvilli. Russian personnel kept moving for two more days. I wanted to post a source but of course you would dismiss it

2. If the Khrushchev got what he wanted how come the Cuba adventure led to his downfall? and When the US navy started a Cuba quarantine, why did he turn most of his ship back? the missiles in Turkey were due to be removed before and at that time, Kennedy was no longer interested in invading Cuba. the war hawks in Pentagon thou saw it as an opportunity to make do on the bay of pigs invasion.

3. It was marred with operational failures. There was no dedicated line of communication, Their SAM batteries shot down few of their own planes because they didn't know the air-force was involved in the fighting and the ground forces did not have a LOC with the air wing (Imagine?). The US blocked the GPS service in the area and Russia's GLONASS was not accurate. pilots had to fly lower to drop bombs WW2 style (if Georgia was a country with decent air-force/air defense. those Migs will be easy pickings) and some munitions couldn't be used. And they could not achieve air superiority over tiny Georgia.
Here is a paper from the US army strategic institute if you want to check this facts. (they have citations from the Russian ministry of defense!)

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/09spring/mcdermott.pdf

But like i said, those errors have been fixed but they shouldn't brag too much about Georgia.

4. You are a liar

5. You are a liar

2 Likes

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Nobody: 8:56pm On Oct 13, 2014

Missy89:
So shymexx defense is that all American authors are rubbish , and he wont give us any source for his work. He just makes stuffs up and want us to believe him. (male version of Linda ikeji )

Ok then!

I still have few aces up my sleeve (I have been reserving some authors for the rainy day) . do you want me to quote British authors or that wont be enough too?.

Well, I'm debating you off the top, like someone with vast and extensive knowledge should. And everything I said are out there for anyone who wants to check, including the timeline.

However, if you want me to start spamming resources, from neutral authors, and proven academics - I will start doing that now.

1 Like

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Nobody: 8:59pm On Oct 13, 2014

Missy89:

Now you pretended as if you did not see my reply to Guyfawks.

I did not quote a personal achievement or endeavor from the memoir but i mentioned what both Leaders at that time saw as the general strategy of the west. Are you saying Truman crossed the Atlantic to coordinate the Lie with Maurice Gamaeline and they both agreed to put the same thing in their memoirs? (keep in mind, both of them were talking about a perception and i refrained from quoting any of their personal exploit during the way.)

I'm just saying Truman is inconsequential since the yanks were not in the thick of the action, and all the pacts signed before the Second World War. Heck, US influence in Europe back then was negligible and it wasn't that much of a super power. It arrived after the war.

Timeline and facts again.

I will reply your other posts later. I'm not at home at the moment.

1 Like

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Missy89(f): 10:21pm On Oct 13, 2014

SirShymex:

I'm just saying Truman is inconsequential since the yanks were not in the thick of the action, and all the pacts signed before the Second World War. Heck, US influence in Europe back then was negligible and it wasn't that much of a super power. It arrived after the war.

Timeline and facts again.

I will reply your other posts later. I'm not at home at the moment.

I already mentioned this before on another thread. I even explained how America did very little as compared to Russia in WW2. But that is not what we are talking about here. I was more concerned about what the leadership knew and what their strategy was. The only thing you have been doing is bashing america without facts.

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Nobody: 6:12am On Oct 14, 2014

You keep going on a tangent, and jumping from one place to the other with your rebuttals. Honestly, I never knew you were this emotional, but it seems I made you catch feelings, and I'm absolutely loving it. This is what happens when folks have been indoctrinated with too much lies, and selective reading, without any sense of objectivity.

I never argued about, or alluded to the Russian military being the best thing since slice bread during that period. It's an open secret that Russia was militarily weak then, hence a lot of military experts underestimated it, and their performance in Georgia took everyone by surprise - especially the navy, and the deployment of the ground forces. Personally, I think Russian air force was the weakest link, and despite its air superiority, it performed woefully IMHO.

Also, once you analyse Russian performances during the Chechnya wars - there was no way anyone would have expected a decisive victory, against a Georgian military that was better trained and modernised by the US, with a lot of heavy US equipments - including the ones used for a military drill before the war. With hundreds of US advisers still in Georgian helping throughout the war. Then you also need to understand that after the fall-out of the Soviet Union, and subsequently during the Yeltsin regime - Russia ceased to be a military power. Yes, it only had tons of nuclear warheads - but everything else was Soviet era relics; poorly trained forces with soviet era doctrine; and almost everything it had militarily was auctioned and sold off by the IMF, world bank, and America. Heck, America bought a few bases there just for research purposes. It was in shambles. And Putin built everything again from the scratch.

So, whatever you alluded to as its failures during the war are inconsequential to the debate. Since I never said it was the best thing since slice bread, or strong back then. Obviously, it had numerous weaknesses at that time. However, its performance did shock a lot of people. It's very strong now, and Putin did a miraculous job, I must say.

Anyway, time for a little education:

Since you want sources, I'll make my counter-argument primarily based on PDF files from US sources. I'll start with a research paper by US strategic institute, in-conjuction with USCENTCOM (not UK, EU, or Russian sources - just to prove you wrong at your own game). This is the PDF file: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1069.pdf

And here are a few points in the summary (paraphrasing):
- The war demonstrated the weakness of both NATO and EU security system.
- The US intelligence gathering and analysis was found lacking (like it has always been, and it still is - take a look at Crimea. And you still want me to accept your tripe about China based on US analysis? -laughable).
- The US provided over $2 billion military assistance to Georgia.
- Military and geographical victory for Russian.

Another link from the US Congressional Research Service: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34618.pdf

And here are a few points in the summary:
- French President Nicolas Sarkozy (not George Bush), serving as the president of the European Union (EU), was instrumental in getting Georgia and Russia to agree to a peace plan on August 15-16.

- Russia recognised the independence of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia. George Bush and the US barked, but couldn't bite despite all the sabre-rattling before and during the war about protecting Georgia's territorial integrity.

Also, read about the implications of that war, to US strategic interests (including transit to Iraq, and its foothold in Eurasia), and how it changed a lot of things here: http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/Silkroadpapers/0902Chicky.pdf and here: https://www.csustan.edu/sites/default/files/honors/documents/journals/crossings/Farhadian.pdf

3 Likes

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Nobody: 6:56am On Oct 14, 2014

Missy89:

I already mentioned this before on another thread. I even explained how America did very little as compared to Russia in WW2. But that is not what we are talking about here. I was more concerned about what the leadership knew and what their strategy was. The only thing you have been doing is bashing america without facts.

Bashing America without facts? Ain't no one got time for that. Just stating facts, unlike you who went from alluding to US propaganda to dismiss China as a military power - and moved to bashing the UK, like I care. grin

Stop catching feelings and getting emotional. Well, I somewhat like it cos I've never seen you like this before. So, I must be doing something right. grin

2 Likes

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Nobody: 7:00am On Oct 14, 2014

Missy89:
Now i can see that you are a very big liar. trying to lie and you keep repeating the same lie just to have your way.

1. After the sarkosy deal with Putin and Sahakasvilli. Russian personnel kept moving for two more days. I wanted to post a source but of course you would dismiss it

2. If the Khrushchev got what he wanted how come the Cuba adventure led to his downfall? and When the US navy started a Cuba quarantine, why did he turn most of his ship back? the missiles in Turkey were due to be removed before and at that time, Kennedy was no longer interested in invading Cuba. the war hawks in Pentagon thou saw it as an opportunity to make do on the bay of pigs invasion.

3. It was marred with operational failures. There was no dedicated line of communication, Their SAM batteries shot down few of their own planes because they didn't know the air-force was involved in the fighting and the ground forces did not have a LOC with the air wing (Imagine?). The US blocked the GPS service in the area and Russia's GLONASS was not accurate. pilots had to fly lower to drop bombs WW2 style (if Georgia was a country with decent air-force/air defense. those Migs will be easy pickings) and some munitions couldn't be used. And they could not achieve air superiority over tiny Georgia.
Here is a paper from the US army strategic institute if you want to check this facts. (they have citations from the Russian ministry of defense!)

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/09spring/mcdermott.pdf

But like i said, those errors have been fixed but they shouldn't brag too much about Georgia.

4. You are a liar

5. You are a liar

I already discussed point 1 and 3, in my previous post. So, I'll discuss point 2 here:

The Cuban adventure played little or no role in Khrushchev's downfall. Even if it did, it was inconsequential. Prior to the crisis, Khrushchev angered his communist party base with reforms that they viewed as threats to the socialist ideology. The opposition to his government was very strong even before the Cuban missile crisis, and it was only a matter of time before he was kicked out. His ostracisation of China, a key ally, which tore both countries apart, also played a huge role in his fate.

The Cuban missile crisis was just a mere appendage, and more of a politcal failure, because the US never openly announced the concessions it made. This is a UK source, if you're interested in objectivity, and not US propaganda: http://www.theredhillacademy.org.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=2263 (doc file) and you can read the html version here: www.theredhillacademy.org.uk/mod/resource/view.php">http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CKeAz29bVD8J:www.theredhillacademy.org.uk/mod/resource/view.php%3Fid%3D2263+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Also, how were the missile in Turkey due to be removed, when it caused a rift among US decision makers, with JFK's advisers calling it, 'unacceptable'? More US propaganda, and outright lies, no? lool. Have you even been opportuned to see the Kenedy Tapes, and everything that happened in the White House during that crisis? It's on youtube, you can watch it, if you want to learn - rather than spouting propaganda everywhere.

Lmao @ US winning the Cuban missile crisis, when it's part of the GCSE history I took in Secondary Sch. - and the answer has always been Russia because they achieved both objectives. Then Cuba, to an extent.

Anyway, let me direct you to a Veteran US journalist, who lived through the crisis, with the Oped he wrote for HuffingtonPost in 2012 (excerpts):

Who Really 'Won' the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis?

Then, the blustering but crafty Khrushchev offered to take Soviet missiles out of Cuba if the U.S. pledged never to invade the island. Kennedy readily accepted the deal. In a secret codicil, Kennedy agreed to quietly withdraw U.S. nuclear-armed Thor and Jupiter missiles targeted on the USSR from Turkey and Italy.

The deal was done. Washington hailed it as a huge victory for President Kennedy, who became a national hero and icon. This mythology persists in the U.S. today. The American public is still largely unaware of the secret deal.

In the end, the Soviet Union came out ahead. Cuba was saved from a U.S. invasion, which was Moscow's principal strategic goal, along with preserving the Castro regime. U.S. missiles in Turkey and Italy (and likely Britain) threatening the USSR were removed, but the story remained secret for decades. Unaware of it, the Soviet politburo ousted Khrushchev a year later for "reckless, hare-brained schemes" and made the dim Leonid Brezhnev chairman.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-margolis/who-really-won-the-cuban-missile-crisis_b_1981613.html

2 Likes

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Missy89(f): 8:01am On Oct 14, 2014

Now that we have gone too far way from the topic, i will make a few

points on the Georgia war and then move on to make my final arguments and wait for your reply

First,
After the US supported rose revolution, America didn't not started training and equipping Georgia troops. That policy started when the Russians asked America to do it. The Russian security forces were bogged down in Chechnya and Ingushetia and most of the insurgents have crossed into Pankisi Gorge in Georgia and they started doing a hit and run attacks on the FSB counter terrorist units inside Russia.Russia then told the Americans to pressure Georgia to do something about it and it was agreed that The Georgian troops would receive american training. So stop making it look like Bush Armed shakasvilli to Fight Putin.

Now lets go back to China shall we. I will give you up to few good reasons why China will never be a superpower. Now i want you to disprove this reasons one after the other and do not try to deviate from the topic

1. China is not an ideological country. Every superpower in history have been ideological. That is what made them a superpower. They get
involved in issues and believe that their model would be the best for the world and try to push this by any means.
Examples:
Soviet Union - Communism
America - Democracy
British Empire - British civilization (White mans burden)
Roman Empire - Roman civilization/culture.

Now tell me, what Ideology will China push? communism? press repression? internet censorship?. China has nothing to sell the world apart from cheap T shirts and substandard phones. all other powers i have mentioned were able to sell an ideology(weather for political purposes or not their actual intentions is beyond this topic) Even the people living inside China do not even share the same ideology.

2.China has many territorial claims with her neighbors and have expansionist policies. They want the Senkaku Island from Japan, In south east Asia, she claims territories belonging to Vietnam(which US is currently arming), Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines. In the Himalayas, she claims the India territory of Arunachal Pradesh. and stole Aksia chin from India too in the 60s. With Japan, Vietnam and India arming, How do you think China will deal with those considering India and Japan as just as relatively strong as China and both have nuclear capabilities (Japan US PACT). Or will your so called Super power, keep making claims to territories and not get them and control them? (If she can't she ain't no super power)

3. China has no Blue water navy. which means she can only project limited naval power. Now India, Japan, Russia and China are all developing Blue water Naval capabilities. China is way behind on Nuclear Submarine technology as compared the Russia. How would China deal with this impending threats of having 3 naval powers within her borders in years to come?

4. China standard of living is still way behind the west. Do you see it being the same with the west on the next decade?

5. China has to deal with labor and social reforms. They are still far behind as compared to the west. Do you think the communist party can deal with this issue has their middle class keep increasing and be as the same standard as the west?

6. There are 2-3 Separatist regions within China. wouldn't this be used by the west to undermine China?. If will China grant them referendums like civilized countries (Britain) or keep suppressing them with the barrel of the gun like a country that doesn't belong on the 21st century?

7. Can china be able to project the kind of military power america now have in the near feature? (don't tell me they are not imperialist. I want to know if they can have the capability.)

Conclusion.

China will be an economic Superpower. and a great military power. But her geographical location, lack of general ideology,style of government and internal constraint would NEVER make china a superpower.

Now if you have objections,disprove my submissions without personal attacks and don't tell me to go and read a book

5 Likes

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Nobody: 7:13pm On Oct 14, 2014

Missy89

I have been cracking up at ya last post all day, and you will have to wait till late in the night for reply. Not going to rush it, but make sure you grab ya pen ready because you still have a lot to learn.

Your post clearly shows you don't understand the meaning of ideology, and the concept of democracy. America isn't even a democracy, it is a constitutional republic and whatever "ideology" it pushes is military humanitarian intervention under the aegis of responsibility to protect (R2P). Also, to say China isn't united under one ideology is ludicrous, when there is no country on the planet that is united under one ideology. Hence US has republicans and democrats, with other ideologies that have been suppressed.

Wait for my reply, I will cover everything and explain better.

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Missy89(f): 8:13pm On Oct 14, 2014

SirShymex:
Missy89

I have been cracking up at ya last post all day, and you will have to wait till late in the night for reply. Not going to rush it, but make sure you grab ya pen ready because you still have a lot to learn.

Your post clearly shows you don't understand the meaning of ideology, and the concept of democracy. America isn't even a democracy, it is a constitutional republic and whatever "ideology" it pushes is military humanitarian intervention under the aegis of responsibility to protect (R2P). Also, to say China isn't united under one ideology is ludicrous, when there is no country on the planet that is united under one ideology. Hence US has republicans and democrats, with other ideologies that have been suppressed.

Wait for my reply, I will cover everything and explain better.

The bolded clearly shows you do not understand the concepts of geopolitics but you think you do.

You are blinded by the short comings of the American system and you keep repeating the same thing i was warning you against. You are more concerned about how false the American "perfect" system is but i have been talking about America's ability to sell that "false" ideology (democracy promotion) around the globe just like previous superpowers and the fact that China has nothing to sell anyone (Therefore undercutting her diplomatic power as regards geopolitics & security globally).

Military intervention under the responsibility to protect is the principle (or should i say strategy) of every super power that ever existed. Weather the polices are good or bad is not what is under discussion.

Your ridiculous claim that Britain single handedly defeated the Argies (Without any US help) tells a lot about the way you are debating the issue from the beginning and your short response, just like the previous ones reeks of American hate and personal jabs (as expected) even thou it is quite clear that is not the topic under discussion. It is really disappointing.

Weather America is a democracy or not is not what is under discussion.(Again I was talking about the model America(other superpowers)always want to push on every other nation in other to shape their political lives .)

4 Likes

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Nobody: 11:49pm On Oct 14, 2014

Missy89:
Now that we have gone too far way from the topic, i will make a few

points on the Georgia war and then move on to make my final arguments and wait for your reply

First,
After the US supported rose revolution, America didn't not started training and equipping Georgia troops. That policy started when the Russians asked America to do it. The Russian security forces were bogged down in Chechnya and Ingushetia and most of the insurgents have crossed into Pankisi Gorge in Georgia and they started doing a hit and run attacks on the FSB counter terrorist units inside Russia.Russia then told the Americans to pressure Georgia to do something about it and it was agreed that The Georgian troops would receive american training. So stop making it look like Bush Armed shakasvilli to Fight Putin.

Let me take the Georgian one first, and I'll get back to the rest of your posts.

You're like a gift that keeps on giving. Every time you get exposed for telling baseless lies, or spouting tripe out of ignorance - you always come back with another one. When has US ever done any favours without its own interests? So, you think US would train Georgia, and give it over $2 billion military aid, without trying to get it into NATO, to expand its sphere of influence in that axis, no? Especially where Georgia is geographically, and how it's an important route to Afghanistan, in which the US can't afford to lose.

Just to confirm US military assistance to Georgia before the war, I'll cite a few sources.

1). According to this research paper by US strategic institute, in-conjuction with USCENTCOM - PDF file: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1069.pdf The US gave Georgia over $2 billion in military aids before the war in 2008.

2). I'll quote excerpts from an article on wired.com to buttress my point:

Since early 2002, the U.S. government has given a healthy amount of military aid to Georgia. When I last visited South Ossetia, Georgian troops manned a checkpoint outside Tskhinvali — decked out in surplus U.S. Army uniforms and new body armor.
The first U.S. aid came under the rubric of the Georgia Train and Equip Program (ostensibly to counter alleged Al Qaeda influence in the Pankisi Gorge); then, under the Sustainment and Stability Operations Program. Georgia returned the favor, committing thousands of troops to the multi-national coalition in Iraq.

One of the U.S. military trainers put it to me a bit more bluntly. “We’re giving them the knife,” he said. “Will they use it?”
http://www.wired.com/2008/08/did-us-military/

^^^The last paragraph there is self-explanatory.

3). And Russia's protest about how US was arming Georgia:

Now, the Russian Ministry of Defense is claiming that military assistance to Georgia is destabilizing the region. The Russian-language page "On military help for Georgia from other countries" details Georgia’s outside assistance; the United States, not surprisingly, is the largest contributor, providing training and equipment for several years now.
http://www.wired.com/2008/05/russia-tallies/

So, how did Russia ask the US to train Georgian forces, when there were protests in Russia when the programme was announced? Yes, Putin never openly critiqued it because that was the period when Russia was trying to get back in the fold. However, to call it a Russian initiative just shows how far you would go just to twist facts, or should I just call it ignorance on your part?

1 Like

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Missy89(f): 12:46am On Oct 15, 2014

Geezzzz! Stop making stuff up where there is none. I did say. Russia's pressure on Georgia about dealing with the terrorist in the Pankisi Gorge is what gave US an opening to train Georgia troops and they kept training any giving them weapons after what they came there to do initially was done. The Russians didn't expect the Americans to stay but they welcomed the idea of the US training the Georgians in the first place.

Again, Ur lack of understanding and your interest in personal attacks against me and the US is blinding your ability to read and get the point i was trying to make.

I never said the US didn't have motive, What i said was it was the pressure from Russia on Georgia to deal with the insurgents inside Georgia's territory that gave US the pretext to star arming the Georgians and sending them equipment.
I don't even need a reference. Read what you posted from Wired magazine yourself.You are just making my point for me!

Again, saying Georgia is an important route to Afghanistan and US cant afford to loose it is just comical. do i even need to disprove this? The important route for US troop for Afghanistan is the 376th Air Expeditionary Wing in Manas, Kyrgyzstan and Russia overflights permission (4,500 military flights a year) and not Georgia. That is one of the reason the US did not intervene when Russia attacked(Russia cooperation was considered more strategic at that point) and there was overwhelming reasons to believed that Shakasvilli started the hostilities.

Joining NATO is different from protecting Afghanistan supply lines. The only reason the US was courting Georgia was because of NATO and has nothing to do with Afghanistan. Looks like another fail again! and you think i am the Ignorant one?

3 Likes

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Nobody: 12:53am On Oct 15, 2014

1). Ideological in what aspect? And how do you define an ideology? In case you don't know, you're just feigning ignorance, or just back to spewing myopic propaganda like you have done all over this thread. Ideology is interchangeable with policy, principle, beliefs, ideals, and doctrine.

So, if China has no ideology, how come its foreign policy is about non-interference? How come it has a system of government that works for it, and has been able to create something great with that. Call it communist, socialist, or one-party state - with a capitalist economy. However, it has been able to build something strong with it. If you understood Chinese history, and how it lost close to 200 million people due to the colonial legacy, and divisions - you'll understand why whatever system of government it's practising, is the best for China. And never again, will they allow what happened during the colonial period happen again. Western-styled democracy is never going to work in China - that's the truth. Also, how dare you say country with over 2,000 years of great history has no ideology? That's basically why I think you're very ignorant.

From the example you cited, let's leave the rest, and debate America - since that's what this debate is about. When did America become a proper democracy, and when did democracy become an American ideology? Do you even understand the concept of democracy, and what it's about? The last I checked, Western-styled democracy started in ancient Greece, and that became the model for Europe, and the different European countries created their own different system of governments - with democracy as the nucleus. And transferred the concept to their colonies. And that was way before the US arrived.

So, basically, how's democracy the ideology of America, that's a constitutional republic, and a two-party state, with both parties as two sides to the same coin? Apart from Nigeria, and maybe Ghana, I honestly don't know that many countries with the same system of government as America.

Also, to say China has nothing to sell to the world apart from fake t-shirts and phones just shows how ridiculously ignorant you actually are. The same China signed billions of pounds deal to build bullet trains in the UK, has built so many things in Africa and so many other countries around the world. What has your US offered the world, apart from bombing innocent folks everywhere, under the guise of humanitarian intervention?

2). And which country on the planet doesn't have expansionist policies? Why is the UK still trying to claim Falklands? Why did America push NATO further into Eastern Europe, after promising never to do so, when the Berlin walls came down? Why does America have over 200 military bases in over 100 countries?

3). Yes, China is building a blue water navy, just like Japan, India, and Russia. And it will deal with the impending threats of having 3 naval powers within her borders in years to come, the same way Great Britain dealt with the threats of about 6 naval powers within her borders when it reigned supreme. Apart from Japan, all these other countries have different strategic interests.

Russia is trying to be a military power, with its pivot against NATO in Europe, and America and Canada in the North Pole. India isnt trying to be a super-power, and it's more concerned about Pakistan, than any other country.

4). You keep spouting social reforms about the West. What do you know about the West? When did reforms get to the UK for example? Or you want me to start telling you story of how UK used to be like 100 years ago, at the height of its empire status. And how extreme poverty was rife everywhere, with folks feeding from waste bins? Or how the standard of living used to be terrible in US in the 60s, and how black folks used to be suppressed?

5). And did the UK grant Scotland a referendum, or Holyrod granted itself a referendum? If it were that easy, why were the IRA separatists suppressed in the UK? And why weren't granted an opportunity to have a referendum? You're ignorant about the UK and Europe. Just stop citing it to buttress your point.

What happened to "Occupy Wall Street" protesters in Oakland, New York, and other parts of America? Don't let me start digging out files on how America suppressed and destroyed more than three generations of black dissidents, and government critics. And we all saw what happened in Ferguson, and highly militarised the America police are, and how they treated peaceful protesters.

America is so perfect, according to Eric Holder, it is just 5% of world population, but has 25% of prison population in the world. What's more of a police state than that? And how has that stopped it from being a super-power?

Anyway, I'm bored of this back and forth with you. You keep going in circles, without posting facts. And whenever you get caught out, you jump into another thing. You're basically just utterly ignorant. I honestly used to think you were knowledgeable, but I never expected this. Then again, I should have seen a glimpse of this on how you always discard everything about African history.

I'm done. If I were to continue, I might end up cursing you out, to be honest. Ignorant people irk me.

P.S: Just checked your last reply, and you just shifted goal post again. I thought you said Russia asked US to train the Georgians? Now, it's back to US having its motives, and other nonsense. I'm bored now. You just basically read junk stories and spam them everywhere.

Hell yeah, China can never be a military super-power - go stop it when it becomes one.

2 Likes

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Nobody: 1:30am On Oct 15, 2014

Yes, Georgia isn't an important strategic route to Afghanistan for the US. But the European Institute doesn't agree with that:

Largely under-reported and unnoticed by the public at the time, these bilateral accords finally took shape as a whole by mid-2008 in what the U.S. military has dubbed the “Northern Distribution Network (NDN).” In fact, the NDN comprises several itineraries, commencing at one of two “western hubs” in Latvia and Georgia. From these secure jumping-off points, the cargo goes by combinations of trains, trucks and ferries across Russian territory and the adjacent ex-Soviet “stans” to enter Afghanistan from the north. All of the new routes share the same attraction of altogether avoiding Pakistan. Taken together, these new routes in the NDN provide redundant paths for overland supplies that, however expensively, make it logistically sustainable for the U.S. and its allies to wage their Afghan campaign.

http://www.europeaninstitute.org/index.php/e-a/archive/93-february--march-2010/959-new-supply-front-for-afghan-war-runs-across-russia-georgia-and-the-stans

^^^That was in mid-2008. If that isn't strategic, I don't know what it's. Like I said, I abhor ignorant folks.

I'm not even pro-china. I'm just pro-objectivity, and I'll never get carried away by propaganda and outright lies.

1 Like

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Missy89(f): 1:32am On Oct 15, 2014

SirShymex:
1)

P.S: Just checked your last reply, and you just shifted goal post again. I thought you said Russia asked US to train the Georgians? Now, it's back to US having its motives, and other nonsense. I'm bored now. You just basically read junk stories and spam them everywhere.

Hell yeah, China can never be a military super-power - go stop it when it becomes one.

You really need to stop exposing yourself

What i meant by Russia asked the US to train Georgia was that Russia's pressure on the US to force Georgia to act in the Pankisi (since the US was Georgia's protector at that point, allowed the US to train Georgian troops and the Russians Agreed with the policy) (should have explained that properly)

Go and read about the GTEP (Georgia Train and Equip Program) and What Putin said about it when he meet Georgian president Eduard Shevardnadze in 2002.

in his words, "If we today are speaking about a fight against terrorism in the Pankisi Gorge, we support this fight no matter who takes part in it, American or European partners or our Georgian colleagues directly," Putin said.

You are confusing what Russian officials say to what Putin said. US officials do not always agree with US position on every policy either

I will keep refraining from personal attacks. It is a dirty tactic reserved for someone who doesn't have facts. keep ranting. i will Ignore it.

3 Likes

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Missy89(f): 1:36am On Oct 15, 2014

Your long rant did not even answer any of the question

3 Likes

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Nobody: 1:39am On Oct 15, 2014

Missy89:

You really need to stop exposing yourself

What i meant by Russia asked the US to train Georgia was that Russia's pressure on the US to force Georgia to act in the Pankisi (since the US was Georgia's protector at that point, allowed the US to train Georgian troops and the Russians Agreed with the policy) (should have explained that properly)

Go and read about the GTEP (Georgia Train and Equip Program) and What Putin said about it when he meet Georgian president Eduard Shevardnadze in 2002.

in his words, "If we today are speaking about a fight against terrorism in the Pankisi Gorge, we support this fight no matter who takes part in it, American or European partners or our Georgian colleagues directly," Putin said.

I will keep refraining from personal attacks. It is a dirty tactic reserved for someone who doesn't have facts. keep ranting. i will Ignore it.

Lmao... this is what you said in your own words, "That policy started when the Russians asked America to do it." So, how did that change to Russia putting Pressure on the US to tell Georgia to act? How about post proofs, apart from Putin openly not going against it because it had other things to deal with in Chenchya, and it was trying to get back in the fold? And why were there protests in Russia, when the programme was announced?

Now, you said you have explained properly.

I'm not even doing personal attacks...I posted facts, but you were spewing propaganda, and that's what I'm calling you out for. If I were to attack you, you should know how I attack folks by now. You're the one ranting, by posting all kinds of jejune tales, from ludicrous sources, with selective reading. And you keep shifting goal post every time you're exposed. grin

3 Likes

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Nobody: 1:41am On Oct 15, 2014

Missy89:
Your long rant did not even answer any of the question

Or your long epistle is basically the same porkies I see in MSM all the time.

And I just made comparisons with your "perfect" empire, just to ask you to tell me how the two countries are different from eachother. Since both countries are basically the same, when it comes to everything you cited.

So, what's your point again?

1 Like

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Nobody: 7:13am On Oct 15, 2014

I think this analysis on The National Interest of Chinese military somewhat adds credence to what I've been talking about underestimating China. I'll outline key areas as bullet points.

China's Rising Military Might: A Grand-Strategy Surprise?

- It has becoming increasingly apparent that Beijing’s military modernization—including its adoption of an anti-access/area denial strategy and its acquisition of sophisticated, conventional precision-strike capabilities—has the potential to upend the military balance in its neighborhood.

- Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has grown accustomed to fighting adversaries that cannot seriously threaten its information networks, its air and naval platforms, or the en route and in-theater infrastructure that it needs to deploy, operate and sustain its expeditionary forces. China, however, is developing the ability to target the satellites, computer systems, airborne surveillance and strike platforms, surface naval forces, and forward bases that underpin U.S. power projection.

- Military reach and military effectiveness are not always synonymous. This is true today in East Asia. Thanks to advances in precision guidance, China can project combat power over significant distances right from its own territory—for instance, by launching highly accurate ballistic- and cruise-missiles attacks against aircraft carriers and air bases located hundreds of miles away. In short, it is developing the ability to take on the United States and counter outside intervention, but without the apparatus of blue-water naval forces, strategic lift assets, and overseas facilities that would undermine Washington’s unique role as a global military power. While the United States is likely to remain dominant in most areas of the world, therefore, and might be able to deploy forces abroad on a scale that no one else can match, the conventional military advantage it enjoys on paper might not translate into an effective deterrent or coercive capability—at least not in East Asia, a region that Washington has identified as its number-one priority.

- Because unwarranted optimism can be a barrier to much-needed adaption, the confidence that deep engagers and offshore balancers both evince when it comes to American military power should be treated with skepticism.

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by NairaMinted: 9:56am On Oct 15, 2014

Hmmm... It must admit, I found it hard to catch up with the entire gist but from what I can gather, seems SirShymex and Missy89 have got history - and a lot of time on their hands!

Nice to see possible future intelligenstia slugging it out though...

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by castrogee(m): 10:37am On Oct 15, 2014

Hmm, this is interesting; how I wish I have all the time to read these intelligent posts. Reading through these barrage of posts imbues in me the hope for a better Nigeria. Knowing full well that 'Nigeria Has got talent'. Surprisingly this is the first time I see someone take on 'almighty Missy89' and giving her a run for her knowledge. All the same kudos to missy89 and shymex, you guys are simply outstanding.

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by Nobody: 12:42pm On Oct 15, 2014

Thanks castrogee and NairaMinted.

Missy89 is a good e-friend, and hopefully, she will come back on thread, and let's kiss and make-up. I just don't agree with a lot of things she posited because I see them as US propaganda, and rightly so. And if you're conversant with alternative sources, and opportuned to always read scholarships from European academics - you will understand America's folly in always trying to twist history to fit into this pseudo-exceptionalism.Thus painting blue as black and red as green. However, the decision makers in Pentagon and Washington know better. Hence they'll always threaten in the media, but end up looking for a back-door secret deal to save face.

Furthermore, I somewhat have interests in the rise of super powers in the far east, especially China and Russia. And as a black man, and an African - anything to tilt the balance in world politics and provide an alternative to the Anglo-American/Zionist domination is something we should all be praying for. Because for 3rd world countries to ever have a chance in making progress, there has to be a paradigm shift, a change in consciousness, and a new world order - in form of a bipolar or multipolar world, to free a lot of things. Too many countries have been stifled by Anglo-American domination, and no sane person would pray for the status quo to remain the same forever. A free and more balanced world is everyone's prayer.

China is definitely on the march to make that happen, and no amount of propaganda can stop the sleeping giant from taking over. Say what you want about its style and system of government, but that's what made China great today. And what has been able to keep it as one. It worked and is working for China, and it has been able to keep the country as one - despite the dark colonial past of Chinese holocaust, in which divisions made them lose over 200 million people.

Re: Will Russia And China Hold Their Fire Until War Is The Only Alternative? — P.C.R by NairaMinted: 2:28pm On Oct 15, 2014

SirShymex:

.......And as a black man, and an African - anything to tilt the balance in world politics and provide an alternative to the Anglo-American/Zionist domination is something we should all be praying for. Because for 3rd world countries to ever have a chance in making progress, there has to be a paradigm shift, a change in consciousness, and a new world order - in form of a bipolar or multipolar world, to free a lot of things..........

And that right there is the reason I post what I post. The emergence of the black man has equals ONLY begins when our minds have been emancipated. He have been entrapped in our minds for so long that its almost impossible to make even a very intellgient typical black individual see the tricks the West uses to achieve world hegemony. My hope is that should there be a confrontation between East and West, the black race can pick up the pieces and emerge stronger from it..

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (Reply)

Bridgestone Suspending Tire Production and all Capital Investment in Russia / South Sudan Becomes 54th African State / Ghana's Incumbent President Mahama Wins Election

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 218
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.