Arm-chair Generals and Cyber Military Analysts:


* Do numbers and "technological advantage" really count in modern warfare?

* Is this much harped "Russian aggression" a myth or fact? What side is stirring the pot and truly provocating?

* Does Russia truly harbour revanchist dreams and (for no apparent or explicable reason) looking to invade Europe and whilst doing so, overrun the Baltic States within 60 hours as the European alarmists like to warn (Never mind that this is the new revised projection from an initial scaremongering assessment of just THREE days a few months ago!)?

*Is the much vaunted Amerikan military as awesome as they say it is? What is it's track record like? How does the Amerikan military (and NATO) stack up against that of the Russians?

* Will this report allay our fears? Re-affirm our convictions? Deflate or inflate our egos?

Enjoy!



http://thesaker.is/debunking-popular-cliches-about-modern-warfare/

[size=18pt]Debunking popular clichés about modern warfare[/size]



“What would a war between Russia and the USA look like?”

This must be the question which I am most frequently asked. This is also the question to which I hear the most outlandish and ill-informed responses to. I have addressed this question in the past and those interested in this topic can consult the following articles:

Remembering the important lessons of the Cold War
Making sense of Obama’s billion dollar hammer
Why the US-Russian nuclear balance is as solid as ever
Short reminder about US and Russian nuclear weapons
Thinking the unthinkable
The Russia-U.S. Conventional Military Balance


It would be pointless for me to repeat it all here, so I will try to approach the issue from a somewhat different angle, but I would strongly recommend that those interested take the time to read this articles which, while mostly written in 2014 and 2015, are still basically valid, especially in the methodology used to tackle this issue. All I propose to do today is to debunk a few popular clichés about modern warfare in general. My hope is that by debunking them I will provide you with some tools to cut through the nonsense which the corporate media loves to present to us as “analysis”.

Cliché No 1: the US military has a huge conventional advantage over Russia

It all depends by what you mean by “advantage”. The US armed forces are much larger than the Russian ones, that is true. But, unlike the Russians ones, they are spread all over the planet. In warfare what matters is not the size of your military, but how much of it is actually available for combat in the theater of military operations TMO (conflict area). For example, if in any one given TMO you have only 2 airfields each capable of sustaining air operations for, say 100 aircraft, it will do you no good to have 1000 aircraft available. You might have heard the sentence “civilians focus on firepower, soldiers on logistics“. This is true. Modern military forces are extremely “support heavy” meaning that for one tank, aircraft or artillery piece you need a huge and sophisticated support line making it possible for the tank, aircraft or artillery piece to operate in a normal way. Simply put – if you tank is out of fuel or spares – it stops. So it makes absolutely no sense to say, for example, that the USA has 13’000 aircraft and Russia only 3’000. This might well be true, but it is also irrelevant. What matters is only how many aircraft the US and NATO could have ready to engage on the moment of the initiation of combat operations and what their mission would be. The Israelis have a long record of destroying the Arab air forces on the ground, rather than in the air, in surprise attacks which are the best way to negate a numerical advantage of an adversary. The reality is that the USA would need many months to assemble in western Europe a force having even a marginal hope to take on the Russian military. And the reality also is that nothing could force the Russians to just sit and watch while such a force is being assembled (the biggest mistake Saddam Hussein made).

Cliché No 2: an attacker needs a 3:1 or even 4:1 advantage over the defender.

Well, this is one “kinda true”, especially on a tactical level. There is an often used as a general rule of thumb that being in the defense gives you a 3:1 advantage meaning that if you have 1 battalion on the defense you should could about 3 battalions on the offense in order to hope for a victory. But when looking at an operational or, even more so, strategic level, this rule is completely false. Why? Because the defending side has a huge disadvantage: it is always the attacker who gets to decide when to attack, where and how. For those interested by this topic I highly recommend the book “Surprise Attack: Lessons for Defense Planning” by Richard Betts which, while relatively old (1982) and very focused on the Cold War, provides a very interesting and thorough discussion of the advantages and risks of a surprise attack. This is a fascinating topic which I cannot discuss in detail here, but let’s just say that a successfully pulled off surprise attack almost totally negates the advantage in theoretical forces ratios for the defender. Let me give you a simple example: imagine a front line of 50 km in which each 5 km are defended on both sides by a one division. So each sides has 10 divisions, each responsible for the defense of 5km of front, right? According to the 3:1 rule, side A needs 30 divisions to overcome the 10 divisions in the defense? Right? Wrong! What side A can do is concentrate 5 of its divisions on a 10km wide front and put the other five in the defense. On that 10km wide front of attack side now had 5 attacking divisions against 2 defending ones while on the rest of the front, side A has 5 defending divisions against 8 (potentially) attacking ones. Notice that now side B does not have a 3:1 advantage to overcome side A’s defenses (the actual ration is now 8:5). In reality what B will do is rush more divisions to defend the narrow 10km sector but that, in turn means that B now has less divisions to defense the full front. From here on you can make many assumptions: side B can counter-attack instead of defending, side B can defend in depth (in several “echelons”, 2 or even 3), side A could also begin by faking attack on one sector of the front and then attack elsewhere, or side A can send, say, one reinforced battalion to move really fast and create chaos deep in the defenses of B. My point here is simply that this 3:1 rules is purely a tactical rule of thumb and that in real warfare theoretical forces ratios (norms) require much more advanced calculations, including the consequences of a surprise attack.

Cliché No 3: high technology wins the day

That is a fantastically false statement and yet this myth is sacred dogma amongst civilians, especially in the USA. In the real world, high teach weapons systems, while very valuable, also come with a long list of problems the first one of which is simply cost.

[Sidebar: when I was studying military strategy in the late 1990s one of our teachers (from the US Air Force) presented us with a graph showing the increasing cost of a single US fighter aircraft from the 1950s to the 1990s. He then projected this trend in the future and jokingly concluded that by roughly 2020 (iirc) the USA would only have the money to afford one single and very, very expensive fighter. This was a joke, of course, but it had a very serious lesson in it: runways costs can result in insanely expensive weapon systems which can only be produced at very few copies and which are very risky to engage].

Technology is also typically fragile and requires a very complex support, maintenance and repair network. It makes no sense to have the best tank on the planet if it spends most of its time in major repairs.

Furthermore, one of the problems of sophisticated high tech gear is that its complexity makes it possible to attack it in many different ways. Take, for example, an armed drone. It can be defeated by:

shooting it out of the sky (active defense)
blinding or otherwise disabling its sensors (active defense)
jamming its communications with the operator (active defense)
jamming or disabling its navigation system (active defense)
camouflage/deception (passive defense)
providing it with false targets (passive defense)
protecting targets by, for example, burying them (passive defense)
remaining mobile and/or decentralized and/or redundant (passive defense)
There are many more possible measures, it all depends on the actual threat. They key here is, again, cost and practicality: how much does it cost to develop, build and deploy an advanced weapon system versus the cost of one (or several) counter-measures.

Finally, history has shown over and over again that willpower is far more important that technology. Just look at the absolutely humiliating and total defeat of the multi-billion high tech Israeli Defense Forces by Hezbollah in 2006. The Israelis used their entire air force, a good part of their navy, their very large artillery, their newest tanks and they were defeated, horribly defeated, by probably about less than 2000 Hezbollah fighters, and even those where not the very best Hezbollah had (Hezbollah kept the best ones north of the Litani river). Likewise, the NATO air campaign against the Serbian Army Crops in Kosovo will go down in history as one of the worst defeats of a huge military alliance backed by high tech weapons by a small country equipped with clearly dated weapon systems.

[Sidebar: on both these wars what really “saved the day” for the AngloZionists is a truly world-class propaganda machine which successfully concealed the magnitude of the defeat of the AngloZionist forces. But the information is out there, and you can look it up for yourself].

Cliché No 4: big military budgets win the day

That is also a myth which is especially cherished in the USA. How often have you heard something like “the billion dollar B-2″ or the “6 billion dollar Nimitz class aircraft carrier”? The assumption here is that if the B-2 or the Nimitz costs so much money they must be truly formidable. But are they?

Take the three hundred million dollar plus dollar F-22A “Raptor” and then look up the “deployment” subsection in the Wikipedia article about the F-22A. What have we got? A few Russian T-95 (date of introduction: 1956) bomber intercepts and one Iranian F-4 Phantom (date of introduction: 1960) interception. That, a few bombing runs in Syria and a motley assortment of overseas deployments for PR reasons. That’s it! On paper the F-22A is an awesome aircraft and, in many ways is really is, but the real life reality is that the F-22A was only used on missions which an F-16, F-15 or F-18 could have done for cheaper and even done it better (the F-22A is a crappy bomber, if only because it was never designed to be one).

I already hear the counter argument: the F-22A was designed for a war against the USSR and had that war happened it would have performed superbly. Yeah, maybe, except that less than 200 were ever built. Except that in order to maintain a low radar cross section the F-22 has a tiny weapons bay. Except that the Soviets deployed infra-red search and track systems on all their MiG-29s (a very non-high-teach fighter) and their SU-27s. Except that the Soviets had already begun developing “anti-stealth” radars and that nowadays the F-22A is basically useless against modern Russian radars. None of that negates that in terms of technology, the F-22A is a superb achievement and a very impressive air superiority fighter. But one which would not have made a significant difference in a real war between the USA and the Soviet Union.

Cliché No 5: big military alliances help win wars

One more myth about wars which is cherished in the West: alliances win wars. The typical example is, of course, WWII: in theory, Germany, Italy and Japan formed the “Axis powers” while 24 nations (including Mongolia and Mexico) formed the “Allies“. As we all know, the Allies defeated the Axis. That is utter nonsense. The reality is very different. Hitler’s forces included about 2 million Europeans for 15 different countries which added 59 divisions, 23 brigades, a number of separate regiments, battalions and legions to the German forces (source: here, here, here and here). Furthermore, the Red Army account for no less than 80% of all the German losses (in manpower and equipment) during the war. All the others, including the USA and the UK, shared the puny 20% or less and joined the war when Hitler was already clearly defeated. Some will mention the various resistance movements which did resist the Nazis, often heroically. I don’t deny their valor and contribution, but it is important to realize that no resistance movement in Europe ever defeated a single German Wehrmacht or SS division (10 to 15 thousand men). In comparison, in Stalingrad alone the Germans lost 400’000 soldiers, the Romanians 200’000, the Italians 130’000, and the Hungarians 120,000 for a total loss of 850’000 soldiers. In the Kursk battle the Soviets defeated 50 German divisions counting about 900’000 soldiers.

[Sidebar: While resistance movements were typically engaged in sabotage, diversion or attacks on high value targets, they were never designed to attack regular military formations, not even a company (120 men or so). The German forces in the USSR were structures into several “Army Groups” (Heeresgruppe) each of which contained 4-5 Armies (each with about 150’000 soldiers). What I am trying to illustrate with these figures is that the magnitude of the combat operations on the Eastern Front was not only different from what any resistance movement can deal with, but also different from any other theater of military operations during WWII, at least for land warfare – the naval war in the Pacific was also fought on a huge scale].

The historical record is that one unified military force under one command usually performs much better than large alliances. Or, to put it differently, when large alliances do form, there is typically the “one big guy” who really matters and everybody else is more or less a sideshow (of course, the individual combatant who gets attacked, maimed and killed does not feel that he is a “sideshow”, but that does not change the big picture).

Speaking of NATO the reality is that there is no NATO outside the USA. The USA is the only country in NATO which really matters. Not just in terms of numbers and firepower, but also in terms of intelligence, force projection, mobility, logistics, etc. Every single US commanders knows and understands that perfectly, and while he will be impeccably courteous to his non-US colleagues in Mons or during cocktail parties in Brussels, if the proverbial bovine excreta hits the fan and somebody has to go and fight the Russians, the Americans will count solely on themselves and will be happy of the rest of the NATO members get out of the way without delay.

Cliché No 6: forward deployment gives a major advantage

Day after day we hear the Russians complaining that NATO has moved to their borders, that thousands of US troops are now deployed in the Baltics or Poland, that the US has deployed anti-ballistic missiles in Romania and that USN ships are constantly hugging the Russian coast in the Black and Baltic Sea. And it’s all true and very deplorable. But where the Russians are being a tad disingenuous is when they try to present all this as a military threat to Russia.

The truth is that from a purely military point of view, deploying US forces in the Baltic states of sending USN ships into the Black Sea are very bad ideas, in the first case because the three Baltics states are indefensible anyway, and it the second case because the Black Sea is, for all practical purposes, a Russian lake where the Russian military can detect and destroy any ship within 30 minutes or less. The American are quite aware of that and if they decided to strike at Russia they would not do if from forward deployed ship but with long-range standoff weapons such as ballistic or cruise missiles.

[Sidebar: the notion that Russia would ever want to attack any of the Baltic states or sink a USN ship is ridiculous and I am in no way suggesting that this might happen. But when looking at purely military issues you look at capabilities, not intentions.]

The range of modern weapons is such that in case of war in Europe there will probably not be a real “front” and a “rear”, but being closer to the enemy still makes you easier to detect and exposes you to a wider array of possible weapons. Simply put, the closer you are to Russian firepower, electronic warfare systems, reconnaissance networks and personnel, the greater number of potential threats you need to worry about.

I would not go as far as to say that forward deployment does not give you any advantage, it does: your weapon systems can reach further, the flight time of your missiles (ballistic and cruise) is shorter, your aircraft need less fuel to get to their mission area, etc. But these advantages come at a very real cost. Currently forward deployed US forces are, at best, a trip-wire force whose aim is political: to try to demonstrate commitment. But they are not any real threat to Russia.

Cliché No 7: The US and NATO are protecting East European countries

On paper and in the official NATO propaganda, all of Europe and the USA are ready, if needed, to start WWIII to defend Estonia from the revanchist Russian hordes. Judging at how the tiny Baltic states and Poland constantly “bark” at Russia and engage in an apparently never-ending streams of infantile but nonetheless arrogant provocations, folks in eastern Europe apparently believe that. They think that they are part of NATO, part of the EU, part of the “civilized West” and that their AngloZionist patrons will protect them from these scary Russkies. That belief just shows how stupid they are.

I wrote above that the USA is the only real military force in NATO and that US military and political leaders all know that. And they are right. Non-US NATO capabilities are a joke. What in the world do you think the, say, Belgian or Polish armed forces are in reality. That’s right – both a joke and a target. How about the glorious and invincible Portuguese and Slovenians? Same deal. The reality is that non-US NATO armed forces are just fig leaves hiding the fact that Europe is a US colony – some fig leaves are bigger, other are smaller. But even the biggest fig leaves (Germany and France) are still only that – a disposable utensil at the service of the real masters of the Empire. Should a real war ever break up in Europe, all these pompous little European statelets will be told to get the f^ck out of the way and let the big boys take care of business. Both the Americans and the Russians know that, but for political reasons they will never admit this publicly.

Here I have to admit that I cannot prove that. All I can do is offer a personal testimony. While I was working on my Master’s Degree in Strategic Studies in Washington DC I had the opportunity to meet and spend time with a lot of US military personnel ranging from Armored Cavalry officers deployed in the Fulda Gap to a Chief of Naval Operations. The first thing that I will say about them is that they were all patriots and, I think, excellent officers. They were all very capable of distinguishing political nonsense (like the notion of forward deploying US carriers to strike at the Kola Peninsula) from how the US would really fight. One senior Pentagon officer attached to the Office of Net Assessment was very blunt about that and declared to our classroom “no US President will ever sacrifice Chicago to protect Munich”. In other words, yes, the US would fight the Soviets to protect Europe, but the US will never escalate that fight to the point were the US territory would be threatened by Soviet nukes.

The obvious flaw here is that this assumes that escalation can be planned and controlled. Well, escalation is being planned in numerous offices, agencies and departments, but all these models usually show that it is very hard to control. As for de-escalation, I don’t know of any good models describing it (but my personal exposure to that kind of things is now very old, maybe things have changed since the late 1990s?). Keep in mind that both the USA and Russia have the use of nuclear weapons to prevent a defeat in conventional warfare included in their military doctrines. So if we believe, as I do, that the US is not willing to go nuclear to, say, save Poland then this basically means that the US is not even willing to defend Poland by conventional means or, at least, not defend it very much.

Again, the notion that Russia would attack anybody in Europe is beyond ridiculous, no Russian leader would ever even contemplate such a stupid, useless, counter-productive and self-defeating plan, if only because Russia has no need for any territory. If Putin told Poroshenko that he did not want to take over the Donbass, how likely is that that the Russians are dreaming of occupying Lithuania or Romania?! I challenge anybody to come up with any rational reason for the Russians to want to attack any country in the West (or elsewhere, for that matter) even if that country had no military and was not member of any military alliance. In fact, Russia could have *easily* invaded Georgia in the 08/08/08 war but did not. And when is the last time you heard Mongolia or Kazakhstan fearing a Russian (or Chinese) invasion?

So the simple truth is that for all the big gesticulations and vociferous claims about defending the Europeans against the “Russian threat” there is no Russian threat just like the USA will never deliberately initiate a nuclear slugfest with Russia to defend Chisinau or even Stockholm.

Conclusion

So if all of the above are just clichés with no bearing on reality, why is the western corporate media so full of this nonsense? Mainly for two reasons: journalists are mostly “Jack of all trades, master of none” and they much prefer to pass on pre-packaged propaganda then to make the effort to try to understand something. As for the talking heads on TV, the various generals who speak as “experts” for CNN and the rest, they are also simply propagandists. The real pros are busy working for the various government agencies and they don’t go in live TV to speak about the “Russian threat”. But the most important reason for this nonsensical propaganda is that by constantly pretending to discuss a military issue the AngloZionist propagandist are thereby hiding the real nature of the very real conflict between Russia and the USA over Europe: a political struggle for the future of Europe: if Russia has no intention of invading anybody, she sure does have huge interest in trying to de-couple Europe from its current status of US colony/protectorate. The Russians fully realize that while the current European elites are maniacally russophobic, most Europeans (with the possible exception of the Baltic States and Poland) are not. In that sense the recent Eurovision vote where the popular vote was overturned by so-called “experts” is very symbolic.

The first Secretary General of NATO did very openly spell out its real purpose “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” The Russians want it exactly the other way around: the Russians in (economically, not militarily, of course), the Americans out and the Germans up (again, economically). That is the real reason behind all the tensions in Europe: the USA desperately wants a Cold War v.2 while Russia is trying as hard as she can to prevent this.

So, what would a war between Russia and the USA look like? To be honest, I don’t know. It all depends on so many different factors that it is pretty much impossible to predict. That does not mean that it cannot, or will not, happen. There are numerous very bad signs that the Empire is acting in an irresponsible way. One of the worst ones is that the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) has almost completely ceased to function.

The main reason for the creation of the NRC was to make sure that secure lines of communications were open, especially in a crisis or tension situation. Alas, as a way to signal their displeasure with Russia over the Ukraine, NATO has now almost completely closed down the NRC even though the NRC was precisely created for that purpose.

Furthermore, forward deploying, besides often being militarily useless, is also potentially dangerous as a local incident between the two sides can rapidly escalate into something very serious. Especially when important lines of communications have been done away with. The good news, relatively speaking, is that the US and Russia still have emergency communications between the Kremlin and the White House and that the Russian and US armed forces also have direct emergency communication capabilities. But at the end of the day, the problem is not a technological one, but a psychological one: the Americans are apparently simply unable or unwilling to negotiate about anything at all. Somehow, the Neocons have imposed their worldview on the US deep state, and that worldview is that any dynamic between Russia and the USA is a zero sum one, that there is nothing to negotiate and that forcing Russia to comply and submit to the Empire by means of isolation and containment is the only thinkable approach. This will, of course, not work. The question is whether the Neocons have the intellectual capability to understand that or, alternatively, whether the “old” (paleo-conservative) Anglo US patriots can finally kick the “crazies in the basement” (as Bush senior used to refer to the Neocons) out of the White House.

But if Hillary makes it into the White House in November, then things will become really scary. Remember how I said that no US President would ever sacrifice a US city in defense of a European one? Well, that assumes a patriotic President, one who loves his country. I don’t believe that the Neocons give a damn about America or the American people, and these crazies might well think that sacrificing one (or many) US cities is well worth the price if that allows them to nuke Moscow.

Any theory of deterrences assumes a “rational actor”, not a psychopathic and hate-filled cabal of “crazies in a basement”.

During the last years of the Cold War I was much more afraid of the gerontocrats in the Kremlin than of the Anglo officers and officials in the White House or the Pentagon. Now I fear the (relatively) new generation of “@ss-kissing little chickensh*t” officers à la Petraeus, or maniacs like General Breedlove, which have replaced the “old style” Cold Warriors (like Admirals Elmo Zumwalt, William Crowe or Mike Mullen) who at least knew that a war with Russia must be avoided at all cost. It is outright frightening for me to realize that the Empire is now run by unprofessional, incompetent, unpatriotic and dishonorable men who are either driven by hateful ideologies or whose sole aim in life is to please their political bosses.

The example of Ehud Olmert, Amir Peretz and Dan Halutz going to war against Hezbollah in 2006 or Saakashvili’s attempt at ethnically cleansing South Ossetia in 2008 have shown the world that ideology-driven leaders can start absolutely unwinnable wars, especially if they believe in their own propaganda about their invincibility. Let’s is hope and pray that this kind of insanity does not take over the current US leaders. The best thing that could happen for the future of mankind would be if real patriots would come back to power in the United States. Then mankind could finally breathe a big sigh of relief.

The Saker

Appleyard, Zoharariel, Scully95, Underground, Capip120, Poseidon000, Fineguy11, Shymm3x, 1Tkester, Bonechamberlain, Seunny4lif, Phrenology, Lumiere91, hungryboy Romme2u, Jnhmaxxwell, Stalwert, Panafrican, Seagulsntrawler, Barram, NaijaTalkTown, Overhypedsteve & Januzaj

Cliche number one is just a straw-man argument. The US have a huge military advantage over Russia. You can take that to the bank anytime and cash in.

counting the number of airfields in a conflict area to determine how a military can take advantage of air superiority doesn't make any sense. It does maybe in the 40s Not anymore today. Modern fighters have long range capabilities and can be deployed from the high seas. They can even be refueled to extend range. There are modern fighter jets that do not even need an airfield to take off. ( Harriers and F35 usmc variant). So If a military has 1000 aircraft, they can still be concentrated to a single area of operation even if it does have 2 airfields. The Vietnam bombings and air campaign even destroys this argument. The Navy was bombing as much as the air force to the point that both services started competing for targets.

NairaMinted:


Finally, history has shown over and over again that willpower is far more important that technology. Just look at the absolutely humiliating and total defeat of the multi-billion high tech Israeli Defense Forces by Hezbollah in 2006. The Israelis used their entire air force, a good part of their navy, their very large artillery, their newest tanks and they were defeated, horribly defeated, by probably about less than 2000 Hezbollah fighters, and even those where not the very best Hezbollah had (Hezbollah kept the best ones north of the Litani river). Likewise, the NATO air campaign against the Serbian Army Crops in Kosovo will go down in history as one of the worst defeats of a huge military alliance backed by high tech weapons by a small country equipped with clearly dated weapon systems.

[Sidebar: on both these wars what really “saved the day” for the AngloZionists is a truly world-class propaganda machine which successfully concealed the magnitude of the defeat of the AngloZionist forces. But the information is out there, and you can look it up for yourself].

ValerianSteel, I hope you can read & digest the emboldened.

Missy89:
Cliche number one is just a straw-man argument. The US have a huge military advantage over Russia. You can take that to the bank anytime and cash in.

counting the number of airfields in a conflict area to determine how a military can take advantage of air superiority doesn't make any sense. It does maybe in the 40s Not anymore today. Modern fighters have long range capabilities and can be deployed from the high seas. They can even be refueled to extend range. There are modern fighter jets that do not even need an airfield to take off. ( Harriers and F35 USOC variant). So If a military has 1000 aircraft, they can still be concentrated to a single area of operation even if it does have 2 airfields. The Vietnam bombings and air campaign even destroys this argument. The Navy was bombing as much as the air force to the point that both services started competing for targets.

I don't think so cos even d Russians are also modernizing and awakening some of dere old beast frm subs to battle field kit and equipment.


the USA military have access to the media which is a great propaganda tool.


don't forget about the Russians show-off in Syria which the US is trying to downplay.....


d only edges the US have over the Russians are jst media n a strong economy

giles14:
I don't think so cos even d Russians are also modernizing and awakening some of dere old beast frm subs to battle field kit and equipment.

the USA military have access to the media which is a great propaganda tool.

don't forget about the Russians show-off in Syria which the US is trying to downplay.....

d only edges the US have over the Russians are jst media n a strong economy

Sorry but this doesn't make too much sense.

Using the media as an excuse for Russia's disadvantage in conventional forces instead of evidence that can be seen , debunked and compared is not an argument. You are only trying to set up a narrative that cant be refuted with facts

Cliche 5. Absolute Rubbish

I have never heard this before like EVER. No smart thinking person that knows anything about the military will say big military alliances help win wars. Strategic alliances win wars. That is like military education 101.So i dont know which part of the west actually believes this myth

Hitler was not already and clearly defeated when the US and the UK joined the war (The British has been in the war since the beginning anyway). Hitler still had at least one offensive after Kursk in the Ardennes. Besides, US and British War materials were helpful to defeat the Germans in the East. Over 15,0000 British and American air crafts, more than 10,000 tanks and armored vehicles, anti tank guns, food, boots, radars ambulances, trucks among other huge supplies were sent to Russia. And i have never seen a single military historian in the west that fails to acknowledge Russia's role in the war anyway. Why is this even an issue?

That said, Every military alliances always have one at the top of the Pyramid. The Axis powers had Germany, Warsaw pact had the Soviet Union, The central powers had German empire etc. So what is wrong with the US being in charge of NATO? That is how military alliances works.

There is no historical record that shows that only unified military forces performs better than large alliances. That is cherry picking history itself. Napoleon lost in Waterloo to a large alliance that was not even that unified (Seventh coalition) Thousands of examples out there.

Missy89:


The US have a huge military advantage over Russia.

Ofcourse you're right! That was Y the Russian northern fleet sent the overrated Amerikan aircraft carrier sorry, I meant floating bathtub running for cover & gasping for breath in the UK.

I won't even talk about the USS Donald Cook.

Missy - Pls stop already. Until Amerika develops counter measures against the almighty Magrav Tech, you should stop singing, or should I say whining about Amerika's non-existent edge over Russia.

Missy89:


Sorry but this doesn't make too much sense.

Using the media as an excuse for Russia's disadvantage in conventional forces instead of evidence that can be seen , debunked and compared is not an argument. You are only trying to set up a narrative that cant be refuted with facts

yes I know it makes no sense but dats d really. and pls wot are the russia disadvantage in conventional warfare

Cliche 7. Ignorance

If there is a conventional wisdom about any situation. The first thing that should be done is to look at the reason behind it. There is a lot of evidence to support the notion that NATO will defend the Baltic states and that Russia have always had wet dreams and imperial designs in Eastern Europe and there is a legitimate reason for Eastern Europeans to hate Russia. Why do you think Ritter von Leeb army was welcomed in the Baltics and over 1 million Ukrainians fought for the Nazis?

The idea that Eastern European countries are barking does not even make any sense. I guess you will have a different view of Russia if your country has been under Russia's occupation for over 50 years during the cold war. Where your friends and family are dying on Mount Cassino in Italy fighting the Nazis only to come home and realized that your homeland has been annexed into Ukraine and you will have to live under communism for the foreseeable future imposed by a supposed ally.

If a hypothetical war breaks out today between NATO and Russia, saying "small boys" in eastern Europe will get out of the war doesn't even make any sense. Poland, Lithuania and the rest have fought the Russians before so why wont they fight Russia again to defend their homeland?

Now to say that there is no reason for Russia to Invade Eastern Europe again is just flat out ignorance. Historically, Russia have always seen Eastern Europe as a buffer. That is why Russia imposed her puppets on those places during the cold war and forced those nations to join the Warsaw pact. Countries that refused to fall in line were invaded (Hungary Czechoslovakia ). History ALONE proves that have always been and will always be a Russian threat to eastern Europeans. All you have to do is study history and learn Russia's geopolitics.

The logic that "No US President will ever sacrifice Chicago to protect Munich" is double edged. " Russian president did not Sacrifice Moscow to protect Cuba too". After all, The soviet deescalated the Cuba missile crisis buy withdrawing their nukes from the Island. So if America will never escalate a situation to prevent Nuclear annihilation, The Russians wont dream of it too. If there was a country that have refused to stand their ground. The only evidence we have is Russia so far. When NATO fights Russia maybe in the future, then we can test your theory

Cliché No 6 : Lies and Deception

To even claim that NATO is moving "thousands" of troops to Russia's border is a completely false. NATO expansion eastward has been political and before the Ukrainian crisis, The US did not even want a lot of troops in those places even thou that is what the Easten Europeans wanted.

There is nothing wrong with sending ships to allied territories to improve training and there is no law banning freedom from travelling in the high seas. Russia did not need US permission when she sent her ship to Cuba.

Hover Institution released a paper titled "The Decline of American Engagement: Patterns in U.S. Troop Deployments". First paragraph.


The number of U.S. troops deployed has been trending downward over the short and long terms,
and is projected to reach zero before mid-century. This paper analyzes a unified dataset of U.S.
troop deployments from 1950 to 2015, including annual estimates of “boots on the ground” in
hundreds of countries. Linear and nonlinear forecast models of troop levels agree that total and
deployed U.S. troop levels are declining rapidly. The trends are paradoxical as they contrast with
an increasing number of countries where U.S. troops are based above three different threshold
levels of troops in country per year. Econometric tests of causality indicate a link runs from total
troop levels to deployments, but not vice versa, implying that a smaller U.S. military will indeed
cause foreign policy to be less directly engaged.

Here is a piece of information from the paper which shows the amount of US troops deployed in Eastern Europe in the last 6 decades

http://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/16101_-_kane_-_decline_of_american_engagement.pdf

How is the US moving troops to surround Russia?

NairaMinted:
Cliché No 7: The US and NATO are protecting East European countries

On paper and in the official NATO propaganda, all of Europe and the USA are ready, if needed, to start WWIII to defend Estonia from the revanchist Russian hordes. Judging at how the tiny Baltic states and Poland constantly “bark” at Russia and engage in an apparently never-ending streams of infantile but nonetheless arrogant provocations, folks in eastern Europe apparently believe that. They think that they are part of NATO, part of the EU, part of the “civilized West” and that their AngloZionist patrons will protect them from these scary Russkies. That belief just shows how stupid they are.

I wrote above that the USA is the only real military force in NATO and that US military and political leaders all know that. And they are right. Non-US NATO capabilities are a joke. What in the world do you think the, say, Belgian or Polish armed forces are in reality. That’s right – both a joke and a target. How about the glorious and invincible Portuguese and Slovenians? Same deal. The reality is that non-US NATO armed forces are just fig leaves hiding the fact that Europe is a US colony – some fig leaves are bigger, other are smaller. But even the biggest fig leaves (Germany and France) are still only that – a disposable utensil at the service of the real masters of the Empire. Should a real war ever break up in Europe, all these pompous little European statelets will be told to get the f^ck out of the way and let the big boys take care of business. Both the Americans and the Russians know that, but for political reasons they will never admit this publicly.

Here I have to admit that I cannot prove that. All I can do is offer a personal testimony. While I was working on my Master’s Degree in Strategic Studies in Washington DC I had the opportunity to meet and spend time with a lot of US military personnel ranging from Armored Cavalry officers deployed in the Fulda Gap to a Chief of Naval Operations. The first thing that I will say about them is that they were all patriots and, I think, excellent officers. They were all very capable of distinguishing political nonsense (like the notion of forward deploying US carriers to strike at the Kola Peninsula) from how the US would really fight. One senior Pentagon officer attached to the Office of Net Assessment was very blunt about that and declared to our classroom “no US President will ever sacrifice Chicago to protect Munich”. In other words, yes, the US would fight the Soviets to protect Europe, but the US will never escalate that fight to the point were the US territory would be threatened by Soviet nukes.

The obvious flaw here is that this assumes that escalation can be planned and controlled. Well, escalation is being planned in numerous offices, agencies and departments, but all these models usually show that it is very hard to control. As for de-escalation, I don’t know of any good models describing it (but my personal exposure to that kind of things is now very old, maybe things have changed since the late 1990s?). Keep in mind that both the USA and Russia have the use of nuclear weapons to prevent a defeat in conventional warfare included in their military doctrines. So if we believe, as I do, that the US is not willing to go nuclear to, say, save Poland then this basically means that the US is not even willing to defend Poland by conventional means or, at least, not defend it very much.

Again, the notion that Russia would attack anybody in Europe is beyond ridiculous, no Russian leader would ever even contemplate such a stupid, useless, counter-productive and self-defeating plan, if only because Russia has no need for any territory. If Putin told Poroshenko that he did not want to take over the Donbass, how likely is that that the Russians are dreaming of occupying Lithuania or Romania?! I challenge anybody to come up with any rational reason for the Russians to want to attack any country in the West (or elsewhere, for that matter) even if that country had no military and was not member of any military alliance. In fact, Russia could have *easily* invaded Georgia in the 08/08/08 war but did not. And when is the last time you heard Mongolia or Kazakhstan fearing a Russian (or Chinese) invasion?

So the simple truth is that for all the big gesticulations and vociferous claims about defending the Europeans against the “Russian threat” there is no Russian threat just like the USA will never deliberately initiate a nuclear slugfest with Russia to defend Chisinau or even Stockholm.

Conclusion

So if all of the above are just clichés with no bearing on reality, why is the western corporate media so full of this nonsense? Mainly for two reasons: journalists are mostly “Jack of all trades, master of none” and they much prefer to pass on pre-packaged propaganda then to make the effort to try to understand something. As for the talking heads on TV, the various generals who speak as “experts” for CNN and the rest, they are also simply propagandists. The real pros are busy working for the various government agencies and they don’t go in live TV to speak about the “Russian threat”. But the most important reason for this nonsensical propaganda is that by constantly pretending to discuss a military issue the AngloZionist propagandist are thereby hiding the real nature of the very real conflict between Russia and the USA over Europe: a political struggle for the future of Europe: if Russia has no intention of invading anybody, she sure does have huge interest in trying to de-couple Europe from its current status of US colony/protectorate. The Russians fully realize that while the current European elites are maniacally russophobic, most Europeans (with the possible exception of the Baltic States and Poland) are not. In that sense the recent Eurovision vote where the popular vote was overturned by so-called “experts” is very symbolic.

The first Secretary General of NATO did very openly spell out its real purpose “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” The Russians want it exactly the other way around: the Russians in (economically, not militarily, of course), the Americans out and the Germans up (again, economically). That is the real reason behind all the tensions in Europe: the USA desperately wants a Cold War v.2 while Russia is trying as hard as she can to prevent this.

So, what would a war between Russia and the USA look like? To be honest, I don’t know. It all depends on so many different factors that it is pretty much impossible to predict. That does not mean that it cannot, or will not, happen. There are numerous very bad signs that the Empire is acting in an irresponsible way. One of the worst ones is that the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) has almost completely ceased to function.

The main reason for the creation of the NRC was to make sure that secure lines of communications were open, especially in a crisis or tension situation. Alas, as a way to signal their displeasure with Russia over the Ukraine, NATO has now almost completely closed down the NRC even though the NRC was precisely created for that purpose.

Furthermore, forward deploying, besides often being militarily useless, is also potentially dangerous as a local incident between the two sides can rapidly escalate into something very serious. Especially when important lines of communications have been done away with. The good news, relatively speaking, is that the US and Russia still have emergency communications between the Kremlin and the White House and that the Russian and US armed forces also have direct emergency communication capabilities. But at the end of the day, the problem is not a technological one, but a psychological one: the Americans are apparently simply unable or unwilling to negotiate about anything at all. Somehow, the Neocons have imposed their worldview on the US deep state, and that worldview is that any dynamic between Russia and the USA is a zero sum one, that there is nothing to negotiate and that forcing Russia to comply and submit to the Empire by means of isolation and containment is the only thinkable approach. This will, of course, not work. The question is whether the Neocons have the intellectual capability to understand that or, alternatively, whether the “old” (paleo-conservative) Anglo US patriots can finally kick the “crazies in the basement” (as Bush senior used to refer to the Neocons) out of the White House.

But if Hillary makes it into the White House in November, then things will become really scary. Remember how I said that no US President would ever sacrifice a US city in defense of a European one? Well, that assumes a patriotic President, one who loves his country. I don’t believe that the Neocons give a damn about America or the American people, and these crazies might well think that sacrificing one (or many) US cities is well worth the price if that allows them to nuke Moscow.

Any theory of deterrences assumes a “rational actor”, not a psychopathic and hate-filled cabal of “crazies in a basement”.

During the last years of the Cold War I was much more afraid of the gerontocrats in the Kremlin than of the Anglo officers and officials in the White House or the Pentagon. Now I fear the (relatively) new generation of “@ss-kissing little chickensh*t” officers à la Petraeus, or maniacs like General Breedlove, which have replaced the “old style” Cold Warriors (like Admirals Elmo Zumwalt, William Crowe or Mike Mullen) who at least knew that a war with Russia must be avoided at all cost. It is outright frightening for me to realize that the Empire is now run by unprofessional, incompetent, unpatriotic and dishonorable men who are either driven by hateful ideologies or whose sole aim in life is to please their political bosses.

The example of Ehud Olmert, Amir Peretz and Dan Halutz going to war against Hezbollah in 2006 or Saakashvili’s attempt at ethnically cleansing South Ossetia in 2008 have shown the world that ideology-driven leaders can start absolutely unwinnable wars, especially if they believe in their own propaganda about their invincibility. Let’s is hope and pray that this kind of insanity does not take over the current US leaders. The best thing that could happen for the future of mankind would be if real patriots would come back to power in the United States. Then mankind could finally breathe a big sigh of relief.

The Saker

Blah Blah Blah #Yawns

Can Russia just try invading a Eastern Europe State.Then we'll put these ill conceived theories to test.

Zoharariel:


ValerianSteel, I hope you can read & digest the emboldened.

Hezbollah did the same Chechen rebel fighters did in Grozny.Israel took the war to them giving them a home advantage.

They dug trenches,built bunkers and tunnels which they successfully used to launch surprise attacks on our Merkava tanks by firing shoulder anti-tank missiles then immediately disappear causing heavy damage to the tanks cause they were fired at close range with little chances to intercept or maneuver the tanks away from the incoming missiles.Hezbollah snipers took refuge in high rise buildings with already prepared escape routes.Majority of the war was a booby trap for the IDF as mines were practically everywhere,Hezbollah was highly organized and they knew they could not meet Israel in the open field so they used their cities to their advantage.The tunnels proved effective for Hezbollah just as the sewers were for Chechen fighters in Grozny.

Don't forget Israel's airpower was limited cause of civilian casualties within Hezbollah refuge.

Today Hezbollah wouldn't gun for a second bout cause they would meet their worst nightmare.That said,Hezbollah never won the war with Israel,the damage was of equal proportions on both sides until the ceasefire.

Nice write. I don't agree totally with all but there's a lot of truth being said.

Missy89:
Cliche number one is just a straw-man argument. The US have a huge military advantage over Russia. You can take that to the bank anytime and cash in.

counting the number of airfields in a conflict area to determine how a military can take advantage of air superiority doesn't make any sense. It does maybe in the 40s Not anymore today. Modern fighters have long range capabilities and can be deployed from the high seas. They can even be refueled to extend range. There are modern fighter jets that do not even need an airfield to take off. ( Harriers and F35 usmc variant). So If a military has 1000 aircraft, they can still be concentrated to a single area of operation even if it does have 2 airfields. The Vietnam bombings and air campaign even destroys this argument. The Navy was bombing as much as the air force to the point that both services started competing for targets.

Airfields aren't needed ke? Lol! I thought you served in the Amerikan Airforce? Or were you serving in the kitchen?

Why then is Amerika building an airfield in Northern Syria within Kurdish territory? Why is the Incirlik Airforce base in Turkey very important?
Or Diego Carcia in the Indian Ocean?
Why did Amerika make use of the Khanabad airfield in Uzbekistan in its Afghanistan campaign?
Why did Amerika fly most of its sorties during the Gulf War out of Satan Arabia?
How many jets can 11 super carriers - assuming they are all deployed at once - possibly carry?
And even if jets took off from carriers, how different would their mission be (in terms of payload & duration) compared to that taking off from a forward operating base for instance? Out of the thousands of aircrafts that Amerika possesses, how many are F-35s (in total)- never mind the ones that are functional and combat ready?
And how many are jump jets such as the Harrier II that Amerika uses? Are we to assume that these jets would just appear on the battle field and fly back to their land bases several thousands of miles away or their carriers off the coast because from your projection, there is always a carrier just over the horizon by the coast and of course the hostile country is always small enough territory wise, doesn't possess sophisticated coastal and air defense systems and it's not at all bordered by other perhaps allied countries to allow this style of air campaign abi? That easy?
Even if they don't land in the theatre of operation, how many aerial tankers could possibly support that many planes in the air if we were to imagine all those planes were deployed at once?
Troop and cargo carriers such as C-130s, C-5s and C-17 Globemasters and heavy gunships such as the AC-130 would take off from super-carriers just off the coast abi? Lol!
F-22s and other crafts that aren't designed for carrier take-off would take off from carriers as well abi?

Even the Vietnam war air campaign that you gleefully - yet naively - mentioned, well here's a bit of history lesson for you:

"majority of strikes during Rolling Thunderwere launched from four air bases, in Thailand: Korat, Takhli, Udon Thani, and Ubon.

Navy strikes were launched from the aircraft carriers of Task Force 77, cruising off the North Vietnamese coast at Yankee Station. Naval aircraft, which had shorter ranges (and carried lighter bomb loads) than their air force counterparts, approached their targets from seaward with the majority of their strikes flown against coastal targets."

You see the folly of your analysis? What kinda history were you studying when whipping up meals in the kitchen for the Cheeseburger Airforce?
Every warring army/ Air Force needs a forward base of operation. End of story.

Missy89:
Cliche 5. Absolute Rubbish

I have never heard this before like EVER. No smart thinking person that knows anything about the military will say big military alliances help win wars. Strategic alliances win wars. That is like military education 101.So i dont know which part of the west actually believes this myth

Hitler was not already and clearly defeated when the US and the UK joined the war (The British has been in the war since the beginning anyway). Hitler still had at least one offensive after Kursk in the Ardennes. Besides, US and British War materials were helpful to defeat the Germans in the East. Over 15,0000 British and American air crafts, more than 10,000 tanks and armored vehicles, anti tank guns, food, boots, radars ambulances, trucks among other huge supplies were sent to Russia. And i have never seen a single military historian in the west that fails to acknowledge Russia's role in the war anyway. Why is this even an issue?

That said, Every military alliances always have one at the top of the Pyramid. The Axis powers had Germany, Warsaw pact had the Soviet Union, The central powers had German empire etc. So what is wrong with the US being in charge of NATO? That is how military alliances works.

There is no historical record that shows that only unified military forces performs better than large alliances. That is cherry picking history itself. Napoleon lost in Waterloo to a large alliance that was not even that unified (Seventh coalition) Thousands of examples out there.

I sorta agree with you on this. But it's actually 50-50.....Even The Saker can't be right on all matters abi?

Missy89:
Cliche 7. Ignorance

If there is a conventional wisdom about any situation. The first thing that should be done is to look at the reason behind it. There is a lot of evidence to support the notion that NATO will defend the Baltic states and that Russia have always had wet dreams and imperial designs in Eastern Europe and there is a legitimate reason for Eastern Europeans to hate Russia. Why do you think Ritter von Leeb army was welcomed in the Baltics and over 1 million Ukrainians fought for the Nazis?

The idea that Eastern European countries are barking does not even make any sense. I guess you will have a different view of Russia if your country has been under Russia's occupation for over 50 years during the cold war. Where your friends and family are dying on Mount Cassino in Italy fighting the Nazis only to come home and realized that your homeland has been annexed into Ukraine and you will have to live under communism for the foreseeable future imposed by a supposed ally.

If a hypothetical war breaks out today between NATO and Russia, saying "small boys" in eastern Europe will get out of the war doesn't even make any sense. Poland, Lithuania and the rest have fought the Russians before so why wont they fight Russia again to defend their homeland?

Now to say that there is no reason for Russia to Invade Eastern Europe again is just flat out ignorance. Historically, Russia have always seen Eastern Europe as a buffer. That is why Russia imposed her puppets on those places during the cold war and forced those nations to join the Warsaw pact. Countries that refused to fall in line were invaded (Hungary Czechoslovakia ). History ALONE proves that have always been and will always be a Russian threat to eastern Europeans. All you have to do is study history and learn Russia's geopolitics.

The logic that "No US President will ever sacrifice Chicago to protect Munich" is double edged. " Russian president did not Sacrifice Moscow to protect Cuba too". After all, The soviet deescalated the Cuba missile crisis buy withdrawing their nukes from the Island. So if America will never escalate a situation to prevent Nuclear annihilation, The Russians wont dream of it too. If there was a country that have refused to stand their ground. The only evidence we have is Russia so far. When NATO fights Russia maybe in the future, then we can test your theory

Once again, Missy89 beating about the bush, flailing all over the thread and being incoherent. As the The Saker has asked,
why would Russia want to engage in a silly, useless, counter-productive and self-defeating act of invading Europe? Can you explain this?

Russia "have always had wet dreams and imperial designs in Eastern Europe and there is a legitimate reason for Eastern Europeans to hate Russia"

Bullsh*t! Complete BS! What history of Russian geopolitics? This is 2016, not 1956 dear cyber analyst! Why didn't Russia seize Georgia and Eastern Ukraine when it was for the taking even when Donbass begged that it be annexed by Russia? Why hasn't Russia overran the Baltic States since y'all claim it needs only THREE days to do so? Care to explain?

Missy89:
Cliché No 6 : Lies and Deception

To even claim that NATO is moving "thousands" of troops to Russia's border is a completely false. NATO expansion eastward has been political and before the Ukrainian crisis, The US did not even want a lot of troops in those places even thou that is what the Easten Europeans wanted.

There is nothing wrong with sending ships to allied territories to improve training and there is no law banning freedom from travelling in the high seas. Russia did not need US permission when she sent her ship to Cuba.

Hover Institution released a paper titled "The Decline of American Engagement: Patterns in U.S. Troop Deployments". First paragraph.


The number of U.S. troops deployed has been trending downward over the short and long terms,
and is projected to reach zero before mid-century. This paper analyzes a unified dataset of U.S.
troop deployments from 1950 to 2015, including annual estimates of “boots on the ground” in
hundreds of countries. Linear and nonlinear forecast models of troop levels agree that total and
deployed U.S. troop levels are declining rapidly. The trends are paradoxical as they contrast with
an increasing number of countries where U.S. troops are based above three different threshold
levels of troops in country per year. Econometric tests of causality indicate a link runs from total
troop levels to deployments, but not vice versa, implying that a smaller U.S. military will indeed
cause foreign policy to be less directly engaged.

Here is a piece of information from the paper which shows the amount of US troops deployed in Eastern Europe in the last 6 decades

http://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/16101_-_kane_-_decline_of_american_engagement.pdf

How is the US moving troops to surround Russia?

You posted a fancy chart showing declining Amerikan troops presence in Europe thinking that would sway a non-discerning fella into thinking that, "Alas! They are indeed scaling down their presence!"

First, there was an existing Cold War during those years justifying why the troop numbers were that high.
The 50s to 80s was the height of the Cold War.

Second, modern technology (and increasing costs in wages & operations) doesn't require a country to maintain a large number of military personnel as it once did. Things are a bit more streamlined now and besides, professional soldiers rather than conscripts dominate most armies now. That's the trend worldwide: from China to India to Amerika to Russia - leaner, yet robust, very mobile and versatile fighting armies.

Lastly, Amerika necessarily doesn't need to move troops in numbers. The eastward expansion of NATO and incorporation of new member nations is a threat enough.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/30/us-to-station-armoured-brigade-in-eastern-europe-from-2017/

"The Pentagon now aims to rotate in an Army armored brigade each year and divide the rotational force of 4,200 among six eastern members—Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria."

These are countries that are immediate neighbors to Russia.

An ABM shield is up in Romania, another to follow suit in Bulgaria. Whose ballistic missiles are they targeting? Care to answer?

ValerianSteel:
Blah Blah Blah #Yawns

Can Russia just try invading a Eastern Europe State.Then we'll put these ill conceived theories to test.

Oga-It-Took-Russia-6-Months-To-Win-Back-Territory in Syria, I have already posed the question why Russia would want to engage in a silly, useless, counter-productive and self-defeating act of invading Europe to your "girlfriend" since I know you are incapable of answering.

Must you follow Missy89 upandan threads seconding Missy's views and liking Missy's posts like some love sick puppy? I recollect an instance Missy even ordered you not to reply on one particular thread but like the meddlesome interloper that he/she is, he/she came back and you also followed suit! Hilarious!
Are you incapable of any independent thought at all? Are you trying to score points? Trying to get ya Jewish paws in those pants eh? That's if Missy is actually a missy. Lol!

NairaMinted:


Must you follow Missy89 upandan threads seconding Missy's views and liking Missy's posts like some love sick puppy? I recollect an instance Missy even ordered you not to reply on one particular thread but like the meddlesome interloper that he/she is, he/she came back and you also followed suit! Hilarious!

Hhahahahhahaaaaa! Don't mind the asshole, he's doing so just to get into Missy's panties but he doesn't know Missy has been betrothed to me by the cosmic order, and the only way he can have access to her with my blessings is if he provides me with “7” 15year-old female jewish virgins.

Afterall, it is written in their Talmud (Jew's blueprint for deception, debauchery & racism) that “A Gentile girl who is three years old can be sexually violated." - Qboda Sarah 37a

Below are my other favourite laws from the Talmud.

1.) A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old. - Sanhedrin 54b

2.) A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a Jewish priest. A woman who has sex with a demon is also eligible to marry a Jewish priest. - Yebamoth 59b

3.) Thou shalt not do injury to thy neighbor, but it is not said, 'Thou shalt not do injury to a non-Jew.' " - Mishna Sanhedryn 57

4.) All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples. An orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other tribes. He may act contrary to morality, if profitable to himself or to Jews in general' - Schulchan Qruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348 (Ehyaaaa! The Palestinians are really in a big trouble. )

5.) A rabbi debates God and defeats Him. God admits the rabbi won the debate. - Baba Mezia 59b (This is Y I have never for once, taken Yahweh seriously )

6.) A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave. - Menahoth 43b-44a.

7.) A Jew should and must make a false oath when the non-Jew asks if our books contain anything against them." -Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore 17 Page 40 of 44.

8.) If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Whoever will violate this order shall be put to death." - Libbre David 37

9.) To communicate anything to a non-Jew about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the non-Jew knew what we teach about them they would kill us openly." -Libbre David 37 (Ehyaaaaa! Adolf Hitler must have read this one )

10.) Abodah Zarah 17a - States that there is not a LovePeddler in the world that the Talmudic sage Rabbi Eleazar has not had sex with.

On one of his whorehouse romps, Rabbi Eleazar learned that there was one particular prostitute residing in a whorehouse near the sea, who would receive a bag of money for her services.

He took a bag of money and went to her, crossing seven rivers to do so. During their intercourse the prostitute broke wind (farted).

After this, the LovePeddler told Rabbi Eleazar: "Just as this gas will never return to my anus, Rabbi Eleazar will never get to heaven." - Abodah Zarah 17a.

Source: www.takeourworldback.com/short/talmud.htm

NairaMinted:


Oga-It-Took-Russia-6-Months-To-Win-Back-Territory in Syria, I have already posed the question why Russia would want to engage in a silly, useless, counter-productive and self-defeating act of invading Europe to your "girlfriend" since I know you are incapable of answering.

Must you follow Missy89 upandan threads seconding Missy's views and liking Missy's posts like some love sick puppy? I recollect an instance Missy even ordered you not to reply on one particular thread but like the meddlesome interloper that he/she is, he/she came back and you also followed suit! Hilarious!
Are you incapable of any independent thought at all? Are you trying to score points? Trying to get ya Jewish paws in those pants eh? That's if Missy is actually a missy. Lol!

What territory did Russia win back?Last I checked ISIS still holds 40% of territories in Syria,rebels still hold 11%.How is that winning?

Aren't you the one boasting of how Russia would over run NATO in sixty hours,and now you come up with theories that can't be backed up in reality.Let's take invasion of a sovereign state out.

If Russia truly believes in their might and these theories of yours,they should attack an American or British vessel in the Black Sea or Baltic.Something is so much of a threat to you,yet you believe you will easily crush the threat yet you can't do nothing for years as the threat parades itself in front of you.

Zoharariel:


Hhahahahhahaaaaa! Don't mind the asshole, he's doing so just to get into Missy's panties but he doesn't know Missy has been betrothed to me by the cosmic order, and the only way he can have access to her with my blessings is if he provides me with “7” 15year-old female jewish virgins.

Afterall, it is written in their Talmud (Jew's blueprint for deception, debauchery & racism) that “A Gentile girl who is three years old can be sexually violated." - Qboda Sarah 37a

Below are my other favourite laws from the Talmud.

1.) A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old. - Sanhedrin 54b

2.) A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a Jewish priest. A woman who has sex with a demon is also eligible to marry a Jewish priest. - Yebamoth 59b

3.) Thou shalt not do injury to thy neighbor, but it is not said, 'Thou shalt not do injury to a non-Jew.' " - Mishna Sanhedryn 57

4.) All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples. An orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other tribes. He may act contrary to morality, if profitable to himself or to Jews in general' - Schulchan Qruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348 (Ehyaaaa! The Palestinians are really in a big trouble. )

5.) A rabbi debates God and defeats Him. God admits the rabbi won the debate. - Baba Mezia 59b (This is Y I have never for once, taken Yahweh seriously )

6.) A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave. - Menahoth 43b-44a.

7.) A Jew should and must make a false oath when the non-Jew asks if our books contain anything against them." -Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore 17 Page 40 of 44.

8.) If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Whoever will violate this order shall be put to death." - Libbre David 37

9.) To communicate anything to a non-Jew about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the non-Jew knew what we teach about them they would kill us openly." -Libbre David 37 (Ehyaaaaa! Adolf Hitler must have read this one )

10.) Abodah Zarah 17a - States that there is not a LovePeddler in the world that the Talmudic sage Rabbi Eleazar has not had sex with.

On one of his whorehouse romps, Rabbi Eleazar learned that there was one particular prostitute residing in a whorehouse near the sea, who would receive a bag of money for her services.

He took a bag of money and went to her, crossing seven rivers to do so. During their intercourse the prostitute broke wind (farted).

After this, the LovePeddler told Rabbi Eleazar: "Just as this gas will never return to my anus, Rabbi Eleazar will never get to heaven." - Abodah Zarah 17a.

Source: www.takeourworldback.com/short/talmud.htm

SMH

ValerianSteel:
What territory did Russia win back?Last I checked ISIS still holds 40% of territories in Syria,rebels still hold 11%.How is that winning?

Aren't you the one boasting of how Russia would over run NATO in sixty hours,and now you come up with theories that can't be backed up in reality. Let's take invasion of a sovereign state out.

If Russia truly believes in their might and these theories of yours,they should attack an American or British vessel in the Black Sea or Baltic.Something is so much of a threat to you,yet you believe you will easily crush the threat yet you can't do nothing for years as the threat parades itself in front of you.

Oga I didn't claim Russia can invade any country(s) within 60 hours. Neither did Putin or anyone in his government.
The CIA and their complacent so-called mainstream media did.
You didn't catch where I mocked the Anglo-Zionist alarmist at the beginning of this post abi?

Again - just for sh*ts and giggles - why Russia would want to engage in a silly, useless, counter-productive and self-defeating act of invading Europe??

NairaMinted:


Once again, Missy89 beating about the bush, flailing all over the thread and being incoherent. As the The Saker has asked,
why would Russia want to engage in a silly, useless, counter-productive and self-defeating act of invading Europe? Can you explain this?

Russia "have always had wet dreams and imperial designs in Eastern Europe and there is a legitimate reason for Eastern Europeans to hate Russia"

Bullsh*t! Complete BS! What history of Russian geopolitics? This is 2016, not 1956 dear cyber analyst! Why didn't Russia seize Georgia and Eastern Ukraine when it was for the taking even when Donbass begged that it be annexed by Russia? Why hasn't Russia overran the Baltic States since y'all claim it needs only THREE days to do so? Care to explain?

Simple answer. Russia did not size Georgia because of the following reasons

1) Bush ordered US troops to start "humanitarian aid" mission in Georgia to warn Russia not to move into Tiblisi. Russia wanted Shakasvili gone. The proposal was flat out rejected by the US and the conservation was leaked by US officials in the UN. Go read about it

2) Russia could not bomb the Tbilisi airport because American Hercules planes were on the tarmac and US Fifth Fleet which entered the Black Sea monitored on its radars the airspace in the Tbilisi-Moscow-Volgograd triangle. That was according to Dmitri Shashkin former Georgian defense minister

3) Nicholas Sarkozy who was the EU president or whatever at that time was also instrumental in stopping Russia from going further. You can read this up easily.


Russia cannot and will NOT seize the whole of Ukraine not because it cannot do it militarily but because more sanctions will be imposed and western countries might decide to start arming the Ukrainians which will make the effort futile anyway.

If you think Russia's invasion into Eastern Europe is self defeating, apply that same logic to the deployment of troops to Russia's border. Why would the US want to Invade Russia? give me one reason. Just one

NairaMinted:


You posted a fancy chart showing declining Amerikan troops presence in Europe thinking that would sway a non-discerning fella into thinking that, "Alas! They are indeed scaling down their presence!"

First, there was an existing Cold War during those years justifying why the troop numbers were that high.
The 50s to 80s was the height of the Cold War.

Second, modern technology (and increasing costs in wages & operations) doesn't require a country to maintain a large number of military personnel as it once did. Things are a bit more streamlined now and besides, professional soldiers rather than conscripts dominate most armies now. That's the trend worldwide: from China to India to Amerika to Russia - leaner, yet robust, very mobile and versatile fighting armies.

Lastly, Amerika necessarily doesn't need to move troops in numbers. The eastward expansion of NATO and incorporation of new member nations is a threat enough.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/30/us-to-station-armoured-brigade-in-eastern-europe-from-2017/

"The Pentagon now aims to rotate in an Army armored brigade each year and divide the rotational force of 4,200 among six eastern members—Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria."

These are countries that are immediate neighbors to Russia.

An ABM shield is up in Romania, another to follow suit in Bulgaria. Whose ballistic missiles are they targeting? Care to answer?

Your charts and pictures only proved my point. NATO enlargement to the eastern European countries have been political. US is deciding to move troops there now because of what happened in Ukraine. You are showing projections of what will happen in 2017. You carefully failed to see the reason why it is was done. There is no argument here at all

I should be asking you the ABM shield question. If i install a bullet proof glass on my car, why should you be mad at me if you are not trying to break into my vehicle? Russia nuclear flight path to the US does not even go over Europe, it goes over Canada in the arctic that is what NORAD is for.

giles14:
I don't think so cos even d Russians are also modernizing and awakening some of dere old beast frm subs to battle field kit and equipment.


the USA military have access to the media which is a great propaganda tool.


don't forget about the Russians show-off in Syria which the US is trying to downplay.....


d only edges the US have over the Russians are jst media n a strong economy

Na only God go bless you for this rare truth you tell that my pikin. them think say war na film..

NairaMinted:


Airfields aren't needed ke? Lol! I thought you served in the Amerikan Airforce? Or were you serving in the kitchen?

Why then is Amerika building an airfield in Northern Syria within Kurdish territory? Why is the Incirlik Airforce base in Turkey very important?
Or Diego Carcia in the Indian Ocean?
Why did Amerika make use of the Khanabad airfield in Uzbekistan in its Afghanistan campaign?
Why did Amerika fly most of its sorties during the Gulf War out of Satan Arabia?
How many jets can 11 super carriers - assuming they are all deployed at once - possibly carry?
And even if jets took off from carriers, how different would their mission be (in terms of payload & duration) compared to that taking off from a forward operating base for instance? Out of the thousands of aircrafts that Amerika possesses, how many are F-35s (in total)- never mind the ones that are functional and combat ready?
And how many are jump jets such as the Harrier II that Amerika uses? Are we to assume that these jets would just appear on the battle field and fly back to their land bases several thousands of miles away or their carriers off the coast because from your projection, there is always a carrier just over the horizon by the coast and of course the hostile country is always small enough territory wise, doesn't possess sophisticated coastal and air defense systems and it's not at all bordered by other perhaps allied countries to allow this style of air campaign abi? That easy?
Even if they don't land in the theatre of operation, how many aerial tankers could possibly support that many planes in the air if we were to imagine all those planes were deployed at once?
Troop and cargo carriers such as C-130s, C-5s and C-17 Globemasters and heavy gunships such as the AC-130 would take off from super-carriers just off the coast abi? Lol!
F-22s and other crafts that aren't designed for carrier take-off would take off from carriers as well abi?

Even the Vietnam war air campaign that you gleefully - yet naively - mentioned, well here's a bit of history lesson for you:

"majority of strikes during Rolling Thunderwere launched from four air bases, in Thailand: Korat, Takhli, Udon Thani, and Ubon.

Navy strikes were launched from the aircraft carriers of Task Force 77, cruising off the North Vietnamese coast at Yankee Station. Naval aircraft, which had shorter ranges (and carried lighter bomb loads) than their air force counterparts, approached their targets from seaward with the majority of their strikes flown against coastal targets."

You see the folly of your analysis? What kinda history were you studying when whipping up meals in the kitchen for the Cheeseburger Airforce?
Every warring army/ Air Force needs a forward base of operation. End of story.

Dude save the kitchen questions for the female members in your family & friends.

The Khanabad airfield you mentioned was used mainly for transportation of troops and supplies. I was talking about air crafts directly engaging in combat.

The coalition flew over 100k sorties during the gulf war, over 3500 alone were by harrier jets most of which launched fro AA ships in the gulf. They even flew over 1000 sorties from ships during the 2003 invasion from the coast.

Super carrier can carry around 80 jets each. Multiply that to get your answer.

You dont even seem to understand your own question. During the gulf, US cruise misses were flying over Iran 247. So the idea that if a country under attack is bordered by another country with better coastal defense means you can operate, that doesnt make any sense. tomahawk missiles were specifically configured to fly over Iran's Zagros mountain.

Even a six year old knows that heavy gun ships cannot take off from carries so you are only making yourself look stupid here. Those are long range aircraft that hardly even operate in conflict areas anyway which is the topic being discussed. So stick to it

Bottom line. You can still operate a lot of aircrafts even if you have two airfields if you have carriers and tankers. And you cant really prove that is false. All you did was cite wishy washy things that are not related to what i said.

You even mentioned Vietnam and got it all wrong again as usual. Now lets look at what i said, I mentioned the vietnam war, Your ran to Wikipedia and quoted one Operation in the whole war. Can i cite operation linebacker too to buttress my point? After all, The same Task force 77 of the US navy flew more sorties in that operation. Now can you see how silly you sound?

This is from the Naval Institute

During the five and one-half month period of Linebacker I, the Navy contributed more than 60 percent of the total sorties in North Vietnam, with 60 percent of this effort in the "panhandle", two large regions between Hanoi and the DMZ. Tactical air operations were most intense during the July-September quarter with 12,865 naval sorties

NairaMinted:


Oga-It-Took-Russia-6-Months-To-Win-Back-Territory in Syria, I have already posed the question why Russia would want to engage in a silly, useless, counter-productive and self-defeating act of invading Europe to your "girlfriend" since I know you are incapable of answering.

Must you follow Missy89 upandan threads seconding Missy's views and liking Missy's posts like some love sick puppy? I recollect an instance Missy even ordered you not to reply on one particular thread but like the meddlesome interloper that he/she is, he/she came back and you also followed suit! Hilarious!
Are you incapable of any independent thought at all? Are you trying to score points? Trying to get ya Jewish paws in those pants eh? That's if Missy is actually a missy. Lol!

Hahahaha, this gat to be funny. Lol

Missy89:


Simple answer. Russia did not size Georgia because of the following reasons

1) Bush ordered US troops to start "humanitarian aid" mission in Georgia to warn Russia not to move into Tiblisi. Russia wanted Shakasvili gone. The proposal was flat out rejected by the US and the conservation was leaked by US officials in the UN. Go read about it

2) Russia could not bomb the Tbilisi airport because American Hercules planes were on the tarmac and US Fifth Fleet which entered the Black Sea monitored on its radars the airspace in the Tbilisi-Moscow-Volgograd triangle. That was according to Dmitri Shashkin former Georgian defense minister

3) Nicholas Sarkozy who was the EU president or whatever at that time was also instrumental in stopping Russia from going further. You can read this up easily.


Russia cannot and will NOT seize the whole of Ukraine not because it cannot do it militarily but because more sanctions will be imposed and western countries might decide to start arming the Ukrainians which will make the effort futile anyway.

If you think Russia's invasion into Eastern Europe is self defeating, apply that same logic to the deployment of troops to Russia's border. Why would the US want to Invade Russia? give me one reason. Just one

Hogwash! Russia hesitated cos she was afraid of further sanctions? How ridiculous and disingenuous of you! So why was Crimea taken? How is Donbass different from Crimea. Wasn't Crimea part for Ukraine as well? Eh?

Georgia:you might as well have claimed that the presence of a B-2 bomber just outside Russian airspace and that a call from George Bush threatening to nuke Moscow stopped the Russians in their tracks. Yes, Russia didn't take Tbilisi but this more as the Russians allowing diplomacy to prevail, primary due to effort from folks such as Sarkozy - not because some Amerikan cargo plane was parked at the airport.

Missy89:



Your charts and pictures only proved my point. NATO enlargement to the eastern European countries have been political. US is deciding to move troops there now because of what happened in Ukraine. You are showing projections of what will happen in 2017. You carefully failed to see the reason why it is was done. There is no argument here at all

I should be asking you the ABM shield question. If i install a bullet proof glass on my car, why should you be mad at me if you are not trying to break into my vehicle? Russia nuclear flight path to the US does not even go over Europe, it goes over Canada in the arctic that is what NORAD is for.

Missy, biko, ehn? I believe that by now you should be familiar with whom you are chatting with. Put some respeck on it ehn?

Here you are trying to argue that Amerika only retroactively took action in Eastern Europe after the events in Ukraine? Hmmmm...
That's a bold faced stinking lie! Have you forgotten the roles of Victoria Nuland and Amerika's CIA station Chief in any host country - the ambassador - and in this case Ambasador Jeremy Pyatt? The leaked phone call? The over $5 billion invested in so called "democratic" movements, euphemism for color revolutions?

And these ABM shields which you woefully wishfully tried to explain away, you still explained what they are for. What if Russian ICBMs take a northern route? Aren't they launched within Russia? Aren't they at their most vulnerable stage at the early stage of flight which these ABM shields are now well placed to take out?

Ok! Let's agree to your silly excuse, Russian ICBMs follow a northern route. Who are these ABM shields that have been planned for Bushe's presidency meant for? Abi the Generals at the Pentagon are now psychics that saw "Russian aggression" way into the future?

NairaMinted:


Hogwash! Russia hesitated cos she was afraid of further sanctions? How ridiculous and disingenuous of you! So why was Crimea taken? How is Donbass different from Crimea. Wasn't Crimea part for Ukraine as well? Eh?

Crimea:you can as well claimed that the presence of a B-2 bomber just outside Russian airspace and that a call from George Bush threatening to nuke Moscow stopped the Russians in their tracks. Yes, Russia didn't take Tbilisi but this more as the Russians allowing diplomacy to prevail, primary due to effort from folks such as Sarkozy - not because some Amerikan cargo plane was parked at the airport.

How can you park a B2 bomber outside an airspace? If you are talking about the bombers in the Baltic, How can you compare it with the Georgia situation? Is Estonia part or Ukraine? I cant remember any US installations in Crimea or Ukriane.

Those were the words of people involved in the war. Direct quotes. When Bush announced US humanitarian aid to Gerogia, Saakashvili said and i quote "You have heard the statement by the US president that the United States is starting a military-humanitarian operation in Georgia,. It means that Georgian ports and airports will be taken under the control of the US defense ministry". During the same period, Russia and France were trading blames about cease fire violations.

I listed a number of reasons why Gerogia was not invaded altogether. These chain of events played a crucial role in stopping Russia's advance. I did not say one of it played all the role. but as usual, trying to misrepresent facts and trying to cherry pick

Russia's intention is to have enough leverage and they already have. going further will increase sanctions. You dont even need to be smart to know this. The Donbass is different from Crimea because it had a Russian majority and military installations. It was easier to take. Most of the Uprisings in the Dobass failed in places like Karkov,Sloviansk and few other cities. That is why the rebels retreated and hanged on to what they could. If Russia decides to invade Ukraine today. Arms will start flowing to Ukraine for free and the cost will be too great. That is a a fact and that is why Putin will rather keep what he got and bargain with it.

So why would the US want to invade Russia. You have not answered that question. I guess you never will.

NairaMinted:



Missy, biko, ehn? I believe that by now you should be familiar with whom you are chatting with. Put some respeck on it ehn?

Here you are trying to argue that Amerika only retroactively took action in Eastern Europe after the events in Ukraine? Hmmmm...
That's a bold faced stinking lie! Have you forgotten the roles of Victoria Nuland and Amerika's CIA station Chief in any host country - the ambassador - and in this case Ambasador Jeremy Pyatt? The leaked phone call? The over $5 billion invested in so called "democratic" movements, euphemism for color revolutions?

And these ABM shields which you woefully wishfully tried to explain away, you still explained what they are for. What if Russian ICBMs take a northern route? Aren't they launched within Russia? Aren't they at their most vulnerable stage at the early stage of flight which these ABM shields are now well placed to take out?

Ok! Let's agree to your silly excuse, Russian ICBMs follow a northern route. Who are these ABM shields that have been planned for Bushe's presidency meant for? Abi the Generals at the Pentagon are now psychics that saw "Russian aggression" way into the future?

You are not making any sense. The 5 billion myth you are still spreading has been debunked like 100 years ago. Do your research. Nuland was talking about how much the US has spent in Ukraine since 1992. keep in mind at the same time, the US spent around 20 billion in Russia.

This is from The Moscow times (Top 5 Myths About U.S. Meddling in Ukraine)

Yes, the U.S. State Department spent about $5 billion in Ukraine, but this money — which was spread out over 20 years, long before Maidan — was spent on programs promoting civil society and on charitable programs. U.S. law prohibits the funding of opposition leaders and movements, and there have been no violations of this law in Ukraine.

This is from Politifact

We had a feeling that folks repeating the claim missed important context from Nuland’s speech. Wasn’t Nuland talking about money given since Ukraine broke away from the Soviet Union?

Since 1992, the government has spent about $5.1 billion to support democracy-building programs in Ukraine, Thompson said, with money flowing mostly from the Department of State via U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as the departments of Defense, Energy, Agriculture and others. The United States does this with hundreds of other countries.

About $2.4 billion went to programs promoting peace and security, which could include military assistance, border security, human trafficking issues, international narcotics abatement and law enforcement interdiction, Thompson said. More money went to categories with the objectives of "governing justly and democratically" ($800 million), "investing in people" ($400 million), economic growth ($1.1 billion), and humanitarian assistance ($300 million).

The descriptions are a bit vague, which could lead people to think the money was used for some clandestine purpose.

But even if it that were so, the money in question was spent over more than 20 years. Yanukovych was elected in 2010. So any connection between the protests and the $5 billion is inaccurate.

And Obama was elected in 2008, so any connection between $5 billion and Obama also is inaccurate.



You saw a chart that showed there were very few troops in Eastern Europe that is the fact. If Russia is not taking territories there will be no justification to put troops there in 2017. NATO expansion there has been largely political in those areas.FACT!

Sorry but you still dont have any argument to explain away why the US needs Russia's permission to install a Ballistic shield. Why should i explain the reason for having an electric fence is you are not trying to rob me? Explain that. ABM shields are part of NATO ballistic defense and no one need Russia's permission to install them. NONE whatsoever.