NOETHNICITY:
Look at you saying that all it requires is a few repairs. That's a jet the Americans want to dig out of the ocean because of fear of the chinese stealing it's intelligence secrets. They are seriously contemplating abandoning it right in the bottom of the ocean

They are in the process of retriving it. They will not abandon it.

BigBashiru:


Which anti-christ?? Let me advice you...forget all those talks and just live your life....I don't care about the rise of any anti Christ and that's why I don't do Christianity much these days.... leave all those talks and live your life....

many will backslide during that time. this is why Jesus Christ through his disciples is warning us. you may say today forget about anti Christ. but God is saying otherwise beware so u don't backslide

Nicenixon:
The reason why America can't be underated is that they don't display their latest advance weapon arsenal unlike China or Russia. They used helicopters with low sound to access Biladin's compound in Afganistan without raising alarm for the terrorist to escape, and that was the first time they used that kind of helicopter on a mission. No other country knew America have add that kind of helicopter to their arsenal. China or Russia will not attack America and neither will America attack any one of them. Economic power is the most powerful weapon now, not military power, no country is ready to go war because war disrupt economy.

One of the choppers crushed and the Chinese allegedly wanted to inspect it probably so they can build their own Chinese made.. lols.

okeysoninv:
many will backslide during that time. this is why Jesus Christ through his disciples is warning us. you may say today forget about anti Christ. but God is saying otherwise beware so u don't backslide

My brother leave all these talks and live your life ..been there done that.....

Hanks0000:


One of the choppers crushed and the Chinese allegedly wanted to inspect it probably so they can build their own Chinese made.. lols.

Bro, Americans make sure they destructed that chopper before they left.

NOETHNICITY:
Look at you saying that all it requires is a few repairs. That's a jet the Americans want to dig out of the ocean because of fear of the chinese stealing it's intelligence secrets. They are seriously contemplating abandoning it right in the bottom of the ocean

They can't and won't abandon it, just know that. Like u rightly said, they don't want the Chinese getting their hands on it

It’s not western propaganda, you have to think twice before going against the US. Russia got their own doze of casualty a few weeks ago. Have you read their response to Ukraine recently

BIDEN has made it clear to Russia that Ukraine being a member of NATO is non negotiable. They’ve accept that fact and are now trying to renegotiate a way out via a security deal.

You think having the biggest war chest is by mouth. [/quote]

Which Russian casualty are you talking about ?
You guys won't make research on issues before making reference...
NATO had a packed with Russia in 1990 not to expand Eastward towards Russia but today they in Russia's backyard and want Ukraine to be a member... As we speak Russian troops are still their border and Ukrainian president just said the issue is not as presented by the west and US that the US should stop escalating the situation

Kingpin1000:


Where is the fear in your quote?
This is not 1945, even North Korea can give any God forsaken nation a run for there money.
You listen to too much western propaganda, even US citizens knows they are no longer what they claim they are.
Even the radical Trump knows better.

u people will be quoting out of context, who be north Korea, do u think present north Korea can stand a one week conventional war with US? They no born that small boy well, his own army will desert him and run into south Korea others will be looking for the slightest opportunity to assassinate him. China no rish na come north Korea wey hungry dey catch

ChangetheChange:

So China dey fear and respect US, despite all the mouth and new weapons china has been displaying of recent, they still can't do shit to the plenty United States warships and warplanes scattered all over the south China sea which China has been laying claim to.

You just talked about Russia but you are here willing how China can't do anything with the American vessels allover the Chinese sea, the issue is what are the US vessels doing there when they are the one making media propaganda about Russia in Russian border are we this dumb or blind to determine who is right and who is wrong?

F-35C fighter jet: Race is on to reach sunken US plane... before China
By Claire Hills
BBC News, Washington
1 day ago
A race against time is under way for the US Navy to reach one of its downed fighter jets - before the Chinese get there first.
The $100m (£74m) F-35C plane came down in the South China Sea after what the Navy describes as a "mishap" during take-off from the USS Carl Vinson.
The jet is the Navy's newest, and crammed with classified equipment. As it is in international waters, it is technically fair game.
Whoever gets there first, wins.
The prize? All the secrets behind this very expensive, leading-edge fighting force.
Seven sailors were injured when the jet came down on Monday after it struck Vinson's deck during a military exercise.
It is now lying on the ocean bed, but what happens next is a mystery. The Navy will not confirm either where it came down or how long it will take to retrieve it.
China claims almost the entire South China Sea and has increasingly taken steps to assert that claim in recent years, refusing to recognise a 2016 international tribunal ruling saying it had no legal basis.
US and Philippine Marines train in the South China Seas
On Thursday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian denied Beijing was after the stricken F-35C. "We have no interest in their aircraft," he said at a briefing.
Still, US national security experts say Chinese military would be "very keen" to get to the jet. A US salvage vessel looks to be at least 10 days away from the crash site.
That's too late, says defence consultant Abi Austen, because the black box battery will die before then, making it harder to locate the aircraft.
"It's vitally important the US gets this back," she says. "The F-35 is basically like a flying computer. It's designed to link up other assets - what the Air Force calls 'linking sensors to shooters'."
What might happen next in the South China Sea?
China doesn't have that technology so getting their hands on it would give them a huge leap forward, she says.
"If they can get into the 35's networking capabilities, it effectively undermines the whole carrier philosophy."
Asked if there were echoes of the Cold War here, she says: "It's all about who's the biggest dog in the park! This is basically The Hunt For Red October meets The Abyss - it's a brilliant three-act play."
What's so special about the F-35C?
a network-enabled mission system that allows real-time sharing of information it collects while in flight
US Navy's first "low observable" carrier-based aircraft which enables it to operate undetected in enemy airspace
larger wings and more robust landing gear make it suitable for "catapult launches" from carriers at sea
has the most powerful fighter engine in the world and it can hit speeds of up to 1,200 mph, or Mach 1.6
can carry up to two missiles on its wings and four inside
Ms Austen, a former adviser to the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and former senior Nato and EU diplomat, said she believes any attempt by China to try to claim salvage rights was them "stress testing" the US.
It comes at a vulnerable and dangerous time following what some perceived as a disorganised and disastrous Afghanistan pull-out, she believes.
There is no doubt China wants this plane, although cyber espionage may mean they already have some knowledge of its interior, layout and workings, says Bryce Barros, a China affairs analyst and security fellow at the Truman Project.
"I think they would want to see actual parts of the plane, to better understand how it is laid out and find its vulnerabilities."
The US Navy acknowledged in a statement that a recovery operation was under way following the "mishap" aboard USS Carl Vinson.
Why is everyone fighting over the South China Sea?
So how would the retrieval actually work?
A team from the US Navy Supervisor of Salvage and Diving would attach bags to the jet's fuselage which will then be slowly inflated to raise the wreckage.
This operation will be more difficult if the airframe is not largely in one piece.
The aircraft was likely to have been armed with at least a couple of missiles carried either on its wings or in the internal weapons bay which could also complicate recovery.
There is precedent for these winner-takes-all military cat and mouse games.
In 1974, at the height of the Cold War, the CIA secretly pulled a Russian submarine from the sea floor off the coast of Hawaii using a giant mechanical claw
Two years earlier, the Chinese military secretly salvaged the UK submarine HMS Poseidon which sank off China's east coast.
And it is widely believed that China got its hands on the wreckage of a secret US "stealth" helicopter that crash-landed in the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in 2011.
Mr Barros said: "We are sure the Chinese military got to see the onboard equipment and software then."
The Guinness World Record-holding deepest successful salvage operation was the raising of the wreckage of a US Navy transport aircraft from the floor of the Philippine Sea in May 2019.
It was some 5,638m (18,500 ft) below the surface,
One other option, of course, is to destroy the jet to stop it getting into the hands of Beijing.
"The easiest thing to do would be to torpedo it!" said one military officer.
But that's not thought to be an avenue under consideration.
Related Topics
China US Armed Forces
Top Stories
Features
Elsewhere on the BBC
Most Read
BBC News Services
On your mobile
On smart speakers
Get news alerts
Contact BBC News
Best of BBC Sounds
Home
News
Sport
Weather
iPlayer Sounds
CBBC
CBeebies
Food
Bitesize Arts
Taster
Local
Three
Terms of UseAbout the BBCPrivacy PolicyCookies
Accessibility HelpParental Guidance
Contact the BBCGet Personalised Newsletters
Why you can trust the BBC
© 2022 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking. Menu
Menu World Africa Asia Australia Europe
Latin America Middle East US & Canada
GETTY IMAGES
GETTY IMAGES
GETTY IMAGES
PM to call Putin and visit region amid Ukraine crisis
4 hours ago
Invasion of Ukraine would be 'horrific', US warns
3 hours ago
Ashleigh Barty wins Australia

Ukraine crisis: Russian attack would be 'horrific', US warns
2 hours ago
Ukraine escalation
General Mark Milley said a Russian invasion of Ukraine would be "horrific"
Top US General Mark Milley has said that a Russian invasion of Ukraine would be "horrific" and would lead to a significant number of casualties.
Gen Milley described the build-up of 100,000 Russian troops near Ukraine's border as the largest since the Cold War.
But US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin said conflict could still be avoided through the use of diplomacy.
Russia denies plans to invade and says US support for Ukraine is a threat.
At a news conference at the Pentagon on Friday, Gen Milley - US President Joe Biden's most senior military officer - warned that the scale of Russia's forces near its border with Ukraine meant an attack would have severe consequences.
"If that was unleashed on Ukraine, it would be significant, very significant, and it would result in a significant amount of casualties," said the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.
Fighting in dense urban areas would be "horrific, it would be terrible", Gen Milley added.
'Not inevitable'
US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin said the US was committed to helping Ukraine defend itself, including by providing more weaponry.
"Conflict is not inevitable. There is still time and space for diplomacy," Mr Austin said, calling on Russian President Vladimir Putin to de-escalate the situation.
"There is no reason that this situation has to devolve into conflict... He can order his troops away," he added.
Also on Friday, President Biden said he would send a small number of troops to Eastern Europe in the "near term", to strengthen the Nato presence in the region. He did not specify where they would be stationed or when they would arrive.
Earlier this week, the Pentagon said there were 8,500 combat-ready troops on alert, ready to be deployed at short notice.
Why Germany isn't sending weapons to Ukraine
What is Nato and why doesn't Russia trust it?
Is Russia preparing to invade Ukraine?
How big is the Russian military build-up?
The US has rejected a key Moscow demand that Nato rule out Ukraine joining the defence alliance - but insisted it was offering Russia a "serious diplomatic path".
Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the West of ignoring Russia's security concerns.
But he said he would study the US response before deciding what to do, according to a Kremlin readout of a call between Mr Putin and his French counterpart.
France said the two leaders had agreed on the need to de-escalate and that its President Emmanuel Macron had told Mr Putin that Russia must respect the sovereignty of its neighbouring states.
"We don't need this panic," Mr Zelensky said
'Don't create panic'
The warnings from the Pentagon come after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told reporters not to create panic over the build-up of Russian troops on his country's borders.
At a news conference in Kyiv, Mr Zelensky said he did not see a greater threat now than during a similar massing of troops last spring.
"There are signals even from respected leaders of states, they just say that tomorrow there will be war. This is panic - how much does it cost for our state?"
The "destabilisation of the situation inside the country" was the biggest threat to Ukraine, he said.
Diplomacy intensifies by the day. Everyone wants to be seen to be doing something but they don't want to do it - they don't want their own troops on the ground fighting a war in Ukraine against Russia.
Everyone has their own interest: President Biden is post-Afghanistan pullout debacle; Germany is post-Angela Merkel; Britain is post-Brexit, trying to carve out its own way in the world; and President Macron of France is pre-elections in the spring.
But they all want to prevent a war on Europe's doorstep; all want to stop President Putin's efforts to reshape this region. President Zelensky's extraordinary outburst asking everyone to calm down underlined the risks of escalating rhetoric. But he was equally clear: if this war escalates in Ukraine it will spill across borders, there will be proxy wars.
So telephone lines are burning. President Biden had his call with President Putin. President Macron had his. Now it seems Prime Minister Johnson will have his telephone moment too.
President Putin is where he wants to be - at the centre of world attention. In the dead of a very cold winter in the depths of a very old crisis, there's little clarity about the days ahead. No one can afford to lose, but it's not yet clear how they'll all pull back from this brink.
Russia last month made wide-ranging security demands from the West, including that:
Ukraine should be barred from joining Nato
Nato should end military activity in eastern Europe, pulling troops out of Poland and the Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania
The alliance should not deploy missiles in countries near or bordering Russia
The US and Nato responded by saying Ukraine had the right to choose its own allies, but offered Russia talks on missile placements and other issues.
If Russia were to invade Ukraine, it would not be the first time.
Russia annexed Ukraine's southern Crimea peninsula in 2014. It is also backing rebels who seized large swathes of the eastern Donbas region soon afterwards, and some 14,000 people have died in fighting there.
Watch the BBC's Sarah Rainsford as she tries to track down official bomb shelters in Kyiv
More on this story
Related Topics
Ukraine escalation Volodymyr Zelensky
Russia Ukraine
Top Stories
Features
Elsewhere on the BBC
Most Read
BBC News Services
On your mobile
On smart speakers
Get news alerts
Contact BBC News
Best of BBC Sounds
Home
News
Sport
Weather
iPlayer Sounds
CBBC
CBeebies
Food
Bitesize Arts
Taster
Local
Three
Terms of UseAbout the BBCPrivacy PolicyCookies
Accessibility HelpParental Guidance
Contact the BBCGet Personalised Newsletters
Why you can trust the BBC
© 2022 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the contents

US could sanction Putin if Russia invades Ukraine
2 days ago
Kremlin media: Ukraine the aggressor, not Russia
2 days ago
PM to call Putin and visit region amid Ukraine crisis
3 hours ago
Invasion of Ukraine would be 'horrific', US warns
2 hours ago

Why Germany isn't sending weapons to Ukraine

okeysoninv:
Branham has foretold us the end of America already during the reign of a "woman in purple". holy spirit specifically told him about coming of this two nation Russia and China. just watch out as things manifest. today 6th of 7th prophecies of about the end of America has already fulfilled. it's just remaining the nuclear Annihilation of America nation.

except the holy spirit never said they were the anti Christ.... Go and learn and stop posting

MOSCOW, January 27. /TASS/. Russia will not delay a reaction to the West’s responses to Moscow’s proposals on security guarantees but no immediate reaction should be expected, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Thursday.
"I cannot give a specific date. Clearly, no one will delay a reaction but it would be stupid to expect a reaction the next day," he said when asked when and how Moscow might publish its response.
Peskov pointed out that it took the US and Europe about a month to study the documents that Russia had presented. "So let’s not expect an immediate reaction from us," the Russian presidential spokesman noted.
In response to a question, if Putin planned to hold any meetings on the issue, Peskov explained that the president held consultations with Security Council members, his aides, and other senior officials when the need arose. Meanwhile, no decision has been made yet on how Moscow will react to the West’s responses to its proposals on security guarantees, the Kremlin spokesman noted. When speaking about the possibility for Russia to give a response publicly, he said that "a separate decision will be made on that."
The United States and NATO handed their written responses to Russia’s proposals on security guarantees over to Moscow on Wednesday. Washington asked Moscow not to make the documents public but US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg highlighted their basic provisions. According to their statements, the West declined to provide the concessions that Russia finds crucial but outlined areas for future talks.

Nice concept. forum is a good alternative to NL

canaan665: great site, Nigerians don dey full the site

mach7:
You need to study economics and costing. That somebody's spends more on something doesn't translate into the output being better than that of someone who spent less. The military spending of the US is high, because it has to maintain a lot of infrastructure around the world, pay exorbitantly higher salaries to its soldiers, give aid to it allied/vassal states like Israel and this is priced in Dollars. The Russians pay for their own costs in Rubles, the Chinese in Yuan and they don't have infrastructure all over the world to maintain.

Finally, what makes you think that the Russians or the Chinese don't make better research that the Americans. Please don't watch too much of Hollywood.

Your ignorance is delusional. Google the most advanced military companies in the world and tell me their country of ownership. Also, in other sectors like automobile where’re Russia and China? Keep deceiving yourself.
Most of the US military budget is in R&. Go and read and stop baseless arguments.

Amojii:
China or Russia doings...

Story!

More like staged by the US for reasons best known to them.

Jokerman:

as in eh.. Utter rubbish.

KaluwisxPRO:


It’s not western propaganda, you have to think twice before going against the US. Russia got their own doze of casualty a few weeks ago. Have you read their response to Ukraine recently

BIDEN has made it clear to Russia that Ukraine being a member of NATO is non negotiable. They’ve accept that fact and are now trying to renegotiate a way out via a security deal.

You think having the biggest war chest is by mouth.

Casualties in Russia? Pls enlighten me.

f
OPINION
Even without war, Russia has defeated Europe already
Vladimir Putin (second left) with senior military officers on Moscow's Red Square. 'Washington just cannot afford a war with Russia now that China has become so powerful' (Photo: Romania Libera)
By JONATHAN HOLSLAG
BRUSSELS, 14. JAN, 07:06
LISTEN TO ARTICLE
Whether or not Vladimir Putin moves his troops into Ukraine, he has once again confronted Europe with a most painful reality: while being too weak to defend itself, it can no longer rely on the United States to come to its rescue.
We are facing a reality in which Russia, despite its economy only having the size of Italy's, can bully and intimidate a continent thanks to its energy reserves and its readiness to project vast military power.
Sure, any Russian invasion of Ukraine would cost Russia a fortune and likely degrade into a grinding war of attrition. Invasion is unlikely to be president Putin's preferred option. Yet, this game of brinkmanship has another part of the equation. If Russia invades Ukraine, the costs for Europe will be equally devastating.
It will force gas-addicted European countries to find expensive alternatives and to severe billions in infrastructure, from pipelines, over pumping stations, to dedicated storages.
Russia also remains a key export destination and a supplier of other resources than oil and gas. Think of titanium. While the Kremlin has long prepared a gradual decoupling from Europe, the opposite remains unthinkable for most Europeans.
While a sizeable part of the Russian population would support an intervention in the eastern part of Ukraine, citizens in many European countries will find it hard to accept soldiers to die for what they consider a strange, peripheral country: Ukraine.
Countless times, I have heard very senior European business leaders sympathise with the leadership of Putin, to the point that one got the impression that they were more attracted to Russian strong leadership than Western liberalism.
Cannon fodder
Let's also be fair. If, at this stage, European countries would have to stand up to a large Russian land invasion, many soldiers would end up as cannon fodder.
Western European land forces have decayed into a bulky peace corps, their wheeled armoured vehicles hardly suitable for combat in the muddy battlefields in eastern Europe, their fire power no match for Russia's, and their command and communication infrastructure highly-vulnerable to Russia's immense electronic war-fighting capabilities.
Chasing poorly-equipped terrorists is one thing; facing a formidable conventional army, ready for sacrifice yet another.
Many European land forces struggle with a predator complex from the 'Global War on Terror'. They are used to being superior, at least in terms of technology and fire-power, and have huge difficulties imagining that the hunter of the last decade might become the hunted in a large-scale conflict.
The whole strategic mindset in that regard has become skewed towards defense; tactics towards limited surgical offense, often even from a distance.
Stand-off, it is called. Land powers like Russia have also trained in precision and long-range strikes, yet always combined with blunt power: wearing volleys of missiles and artillery and big division-size units moving in.
Sacrifice and attrition
If everything in Europe is about efficiency; armed forces like Russia still factor in sacrifice, redundancy, and attrition. Clean wars do not exist in the Russian strategic lexicon.
Europe has a lack of everything. Even if it tries to steer clear of frontline involvement, supporting from behind will not be much in evidence either. Many countries lack stand-off missiles or their ammunition stockpiles are dangerously low. Advanced fighter jets, capable of penetrating Russia's air defence, are still rare. Special forces that would, a crucial asset, are stuck in Africa and struggle to enlist enough quality recruits.
The US is slowly restocking their arsenals, with new long-range precise ammunitions, but will prefer to send them to the Pacific. It preserves a sizeable conventional deterrence in Europe, including 70,000 troops, hundreds of prepositioned armoured vehicles and dozens of fighter jets.
Yet, this is not sufficient to counter a Russian invasion in a country like Ukraine - and Washington just cannot afford a war with Russia now that China has become so powerful.
We can endlessly reflect on what drives Russia in amassing its vast military presence on Ukraine's border, on how we came to this point, the misgivings and frustrations on both sides.
What is clear, however, is that we enter a new tournament of great power politics and that Europe arrives at the start not as a strong, unified team, but as throng of plump puerile pygmies.

Nigeria my country will go n buy this jet now for it's airforce n claim they bought it for 150 million

Elder0001:

You love Russia a lot, but you live in a nato country.

I don't love or hate Russia, I'm neutral. I defended my position with facts.

PeaceJoyLove:

You arent up to date. If you are, you will never write this. The christians in the US interceding for her are just so many. Nothing will happen to the US. We have been hearing this kind of talk for ages, but the US has been growing stronger.

Oga, as along as "In God we Trust" is on their paper (dollar bills) they spread round the world, nothing is shaking "Nomerica". Even Chinese people hold in their hands "In God we Trust". Iranians, Arabians, Bla bla bla...all hold it in their hands. Do you really know the spiritual implication of that?

So, you expect the devil to fold hands and not hit America. Those homosexuality acts and other stuff are normal. Even when power was in Rome, devil pushed it there. So, it's normal. But the US has been able to rise up to the occasion evertime.

You better keep supporting US to be in power. See eh. You will return to darkness if otherwise. Go on the internet and see the volume of free info the US releases daily. Harvard Review, Stanford papers, free online udemy education, Coursera cheap courses, etc. Is it not US? Ok, go support China and see if they wont close up all. Or is it Russia? Go ask anyone who has traveled to russia how secretive they are. They wont show you details. Because of the US, many of us in Africa can partake from the goodness in technology. Why? They released free materials for us in this underdeveloped world to connect with them. Is that not wonderful?

If not for America, many of us in Africa will never see light. Who supported Ngozi Iweala to be the WTO boss? Is it not the US?

You cannot be world power and not face challenges. Decisions must be made. But let me tell you, there are genuine christians in that country praying for the peace of the nation.

Even, America is a friend of Israel more than Nigeria. Lol. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem is what the Bible says.

Forget it bro. US is not going down any soon. I am also a christian, and I see in the spirit. US is not going down soon. The US is the world power and will continue to be for many years to come. If you want us discuss it, I will give you facts and figures you can check. And if it is spiritual insights, I have so much that if you are spiritual sensitive, you will know God is still with the US.

See, maybe my friend Eviana will tell you more. This is a topic I would love the moniker to speak on. I can trust the moniker's unbiased analysis here. Where the US is failing, I know the moniker will say it the way it is. I have read some of the moniker's analysis in the past. For me, I can listen to anyone who can teach me. In this regard, listen to that moniker so you can learn well.

Goodluck sir!

Don't mind communicating with you. Here is my e-mail- angelezeus@yahoo.com

goodheart01:


Imagine u saying all these because a war jet skidded off the carrier runway?? The way Africans reason ehn, no wonder we're still backwards. That stuff happens normally to jets on carriers and all it will take is just few repairs and that deadly jet will fly again. How about when Russia's mighty warship caught fire while still under construction... Lol. As u can see that jet is an A-class stealth fighter which many people never knew it exists until now. Keep deceiving yourself with beer parlor analysis of international matters.

Mr. Know it all that don't know that he know nothing; where did you see in the post that the jet skipped off the carrier run way? You are the one that's is backward in this aspect not me nor my fellow Africans, Do you even know the meaning of a jet *CRASH-LANDING*?

Remman:
the US that does many checks before flying anything into the air? Lol... Only a fool will think it's a genuine crash. they're faking the crash to pass a false message about the US navy in order to trigger a rival country to attempt an attack. It's an intentional crash otherwise it wouldn't have happened on the water. Who knows how many things went into the sea as it crashed just to penetrate China? Lol. We've seen this kind of scenerios in movies. This is a big brain and NASA has made us know that many "media geniune news approved by the government" are faked. Ask them about the moon landing as well as UFOs in space and see the answer you'll get

You deserve this treatment

Cyprian221:


Mr. Know it all that don't know that he know nothing; where did you see in the post that the jet skipped off the carrier run way? You are the one that's is backward in this aspect not me nor my fellow Africans, Do you even know the meaning of a jet *CRASH-LANDING*?

Oga may common sense not be far from u. U didn't read the part where the jet crash landed on the carrier before landing in water... So what do they call that?? Isn't it skidding?? So u expect everything to be spelled out for u. Na ya type dey copy expo for exam hall still dey beg make them explain am for u. Yes I'm Mr. know it all, try to avail yourself with knowledge so u can know it all too.

u are wasting ur precious time with the conFUSED mushroom ,self made Pastor .@Peacejoylove,go and read all his comments b4/after US election ,u’ll understand the conFUSED soul beta.

PeaceJoyLove:

You arent up to date. If you are, you will never write this. The christians in the US interceding for her are just so many. Nothing will happen to the US. We have been hearing this kind of talk for ages, but the US has been growing stronger.

Oga, as along as "In God we Trust" is on their paper (dollar bills) they spread round the world, nothing is shaking "Nomerica". Even Chinese people hold in their hands "In God we Trust". Iranians, Arabians, Bla bla bla...all hold it in their hands. Do you really know the spiritual implication of that?

So, you expect the devil to fold hands and not hit America. Those homosexuality acts and other stuff are normal. Even when power was in Rome, devil pushed it there. So, it's normal. But the US has been able to rise up to the occasion evertime.

You better keep supporting US to be in power. See eh. You will return to darkness if otherwise. Go on the internet and see the volume of free info the US releases daily. Harvard Review, Stanford papers, free online udemy education, Coursera cheap courses, etc. Is it not US? Ok, go support China and see if they wont close up all. Or is it Russia? Go ask anyone who has traveled to russia how secretive they are. They wont show you details. Because of the US, many of us in Africa can partake from the goodness in technology. Why? They released free materials for us in this underdeveloped world to connect with them. Is that not wonderful?

If not for America, many of us in Africa will never see light. Who supported Ngozi Iweala to be the WTO boss? Is it not the US?

You cannot be world power and not face challenges. Decisions must be made. But let me tell you, there are genuine christians in that country praying for the peace of the nation.

Even, America is a friend of Israel more than Nigeria. Lol. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem is what the Bible says.

Forget it bro. US is not going down any soon. I am also a christian, and I see in the spirit. US is not going down soon. The US is the world power and will continue to be for many years to come. If you want us discuss it, I will give you facts and figures you can check. And if it is spiritual insights, I have so much that if you are spiritual sensitive, you will know God is still with the US.

See, maybe my friend Eviana will tell you more. This is a topic I would love the moniker to speak on. I can trust the moniker's unbiased analysis here. Where the US is failing, I know the moniker will say it the way it is. I have read some of the moniker's analysis in the past. For me, I can listen to anyone who can teach me. In this regard, listen to that moniker so you can learn well.

Goodluck sir!

Mescana22:
A Class Stealth Fighter?
I bet my balls some people on nairaland never knew such machines exist!

China said they have no interest in there jet, Lol I doubt if they can even operate the avionics

USA is not anyone’s mate! Once found they jet will fly again, it just skipped the runway! Not a normal crash!

I stand with China in peace ! But if they USA are not there, will they not bully the smaller countries? Hypocrites

Most ppl ar ignorant on dis nairaland o , how can F35 be a jet ppl never hear b4, just dey googgle things once in a while b4 vomitting rubbish, the useless jet news plenty all over the internet always problematic, the F22 still has beta ratings

ntyce:


Lol, to you CNN is the official news channel of the US govt abi?

What do they gain by not publishing it?

O ga ooo

It took CNN 3 days to report it bro

lereinter:



You think CNN is like theNation

Took them 3 days to report it

Opinion: Biden should resist the calls for war with Russia
By Branko Marcetic
January 24, 2022 at 12:43 p.m. EST
Branko Marcetic is a staff writer at Jacobin magazine and the author of “ Yesterday’s Man: The Case Against Joe Biden.”
Joe Biden was rarely known as the coolest head in the room. He once backed deploying troops against terrorists on U.S. soil, and his panic-fanning comments about the 2009 swine flu caused a mini-crisis for the Obama White House. So it’s more than a little surprising to see the president become a lonely voice of moderation in the escalating Ukraine crisis.
Opinions to start the day, in your inbox. Sign up.
Biden has been caught in an uproar since
suggesting a “minor incursion” by Russian President Vladimir Putin into Ukraine might not invite full-scale U.S. pushback. The White House moved quickly to walk back the comment, but for Biden’s critics, it seemed to confirm their preconceptions: Biden is a weak leader who can’t stand up to a crafty authoritarian such as Putin.
It’s certainly true that the president has been unenthusiastic about conflict with Russia. Last year, Biden pushed back on members of the press corps egging him into a more aggressive posture, while
postponing military aid to Ukraine and waiving sanctions on Moscow’s pivotal natural gas pipeline. Since the outbreak of this latest crisis, he has been similarly cautious, initially dragging his feet on sending military assistance to Kyiv and threatening sanctions only should a Russian invasion materialize.
Look around, and Biden seems increasingly isolated. Republicans are pushing him to escalate tensions, with one senator putting a ground war and nuclear strikes on the table. Democrats such as Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) and former Obama administration official
Evelyn Farkas want him to, respectively, “impose military costs” on Moscow and “use our military to roll back Russians.” Usually level-headed NATO allies like
Britain and Canada are making similar noises. Even the press corps is back at it, with a Fox News reporter demanding to know why Biden was “waiting on Putin to make the first move.” The fact that Biden is reportedly mulling sending thousands of troops, plus warships and aircraft, to Eastern Europe suggests this pressure is already having an effect.
But which position here is really outside the mainstream?
Any hostilities with Russia have to be weighed against the potentially catastrophic outcome of the world’s two leading nuclear powers going to war. Accidents and misunderstandings have nearly triggered nuclear exchanges between the two in peacetime, so it’s not hard to imagine how full-on war, with all its escalations and movements of troops and aircraft, would heighten this risk. It’s why the two mortal enemies did everything possible throughout the Cold War to prevent direct armed conflict.
If U.S.-Russian hostilities led to the use of nukes, it wouldn’t end well. Imagine if the web of alliances that led to crisscrossing declarations of war in 1914 had triggered hundreds, maybe thousands of nuclear warheads being
fired across continents instead. The United States, whose missile defense systems have a far from 100 percent success rate, would not escape unscathed. And even if a ground war managed to avoid triggering a nuclear holocaust, it would still precipitate an economic downturn, considering Europe’s dependence on Russian natural gas and the costs accrued from U.S. wars against weaker countries than Russia.
Ukraine, on whose behalf war hawks would risk such disaster, is a country 5,700 miles away from American shores, and one that, as a non-NATO member, Washington has no obligation to defend. Its government and security forces are also infected with neo-Nazis who have
trained and directly inspired homegrown far-right terrorists. If you’re reading this from one of the dozens of major metropolitan and military centers that would sit in the crosshairs of a Russian nuclear strike, ask yourself: Is Ukraine’s territorial integrity really worth the costs?
Those like Farkas imply it would, to defend “international law and sanctity of international borders.” But this is hard to take seriously. Both have already been
serially violated by Washington this century. And just as George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, as outrageous as it was, didn’t justify a Russian war with the United States, neither does a similarly outrageous Russian invasion now make the same conflict any more preferable.
This also ignores that Putin’s actions are driven by the expansion of a hostile military alliance, NATO, up to his borders, a longtime Russian complaint that has been central to Moscow’s
demands throughout this current crisis. U.S. officials well understand Russian objections to this, given that they view the prospect of Russian troops and missiles in Latin America as similarly unacceptable.
Because even war involving Russia and Ukraine alone would set back the fragile
American and world economies, ideally, cooler heads would prevail here just as they did 60 years ago. The Cuban missile crisis was resolved with a quid pro quo , each side removing missiles from mutually threatening positions. A similar compromise can be found here that satisfies each party’s security concerns while letting them save face. And should Putin make good on his threat, a
potential quagmire along with sanctions that further strangle his economy aren’t exactly minor consequences.
Biden entered politics admiring and drawing comparisons to John F. Kennedy, who was also called weak and an appeaser by those who measure toughness by recklessness. Decades later, there’s no question Kennedy’s way was right. Should Biden resist the calls for war, he won’t be popular in Washington, but he, too, will be remembered more kindly than his critics.
Comments Gift Article President Biden speaks during the U.S. Conference of Mayors winter meeting in D.C. on Jan. 21. (Eric Lee/BLOOMBERG)
Story continues below advertisement
Story continues below advertisement
Story continues below advertisement
POPULAR OPINIONS ARTICLES HAND CURATED

Russia will be smiling now

DEFEAT IS POSSIBLE
EDWARD GEIST
JUNE 17, 2021
COMMENTARY
Horns of a Dilemma
YOU CAN’T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU SEE ON TV
Commentary
WHY INTERMEDIATE-RANGE MISSILES ARE A FOCAL POINT IN THE UKRAINE CRISIS
Commentary
BEING A BETTER PARTNER IN THE PACIFIC If the United States is to have a reasonable hope of winning a war, it needs to think very seriously about what it would be like to lose. For several years, analysts have been sounding the alarm that the United States and its allies might not prevail in a high-level conflict with a near-peer adversary. While Russia and China fall short of the United States in overall military power, they enjoy local overmatch in key theaters that might allow them to defeat U.S. forces. In 2019, analyst David Ochmanek of the RAND Corporation remarked that “In our games, when we fight Russia and China, blue gets its ass handed to it.” In November 2018, the National Defense Strategy Commission found that “If the United States had to fight Russia in a Baltic contingency or China in a war over Taiwan … Americans could face a decisive military defeat … Put bluntly, the U.S. military could lose the next state-versus-state war it fights.” These findings suggest that, in a pitched battle with a near-peer adversary such as China, American forces may be defeated even if its commanders don’t make any mistakes. Unfortunately, there exists a longstanding taboo in American strategic culture against the contemplation of defeat. To the extent that the possibility U.S. forces might lose on the battlefield is acknowledged at all, prescriptions for dealing with it fail to account for all the ways in which this defeat might transpire. If defeat is to be prevented, U.S. strategy and planning may need to think about all the different forms defeat might take so as to be ready for alternative kinds of conflicts and concepts of operations.
Thinking about defeat is not merely taboo in U.S. strategic culture. It is illegal in some cases. In August 1958, Sen. Richard Russell expressed outrage that he had heard on the radio “that some person or persons holding office in the Department of Defense have entered into contracts with various institutions to conduct studies to determine when and how, and in what circumstances, the United States would surrender to its enemies in the event of war.” Russell proposed an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill then under consideration that “no part of the funds appropriated in this or any other act shall be used to pay” for studies of this kind. While the Eisenhower administration (which protested that Russell misrepresented the studies he was condemning) and some senators pushed back against the amendment, it ultimately passed with 88 votes for and only two against.
BECOME A MEMBER
The Department of Defense and the RAND Corporation protested that the study that sparked this controversy, Strategic Surrender: The Politics of Victory and Defeat, was not really about the prospect of the United States surrendering to its communist enemies at all. Instead, its author Paul Kecskemeti argued that the policy of “unconditional surrender” that the United States and its allies had insisted upon during World War II had been counterproductive and had prolonged conflict with the Axis powers. What little discussion the study contained of a prospective U.S. surrender was limited to the final chapter, which examined the implications of surrender in the nuclear age. That merely hinting at the possibility that U.S. surrender might be possible elicited a law prohibiting any federal funding of research on the topic exemplifies the American allergy to thinking seriously about defeat. In an era when it appeared that a major war would end in a mutual annihilation rather than surrender, this tendency was perhaps excusable. But, in the present, when near-peer adversaries are increasingly capable of defeating U.S. conventional forces on a theater level, U.S. decision-makers can no longer afford to pretend that defeat is not a real possibility. And, so long as policymakers do not take losing seriously, they are unlikely to take the difficult steps needed to prevent such a defeat.
There is a natural tendency to avoid thinking about how America might lose by imagining how U.S. forces might win instead. Recent debates in U.S. defense policy circles about how to address the possibility of near-peer conflict have focused on denial strategies that would prevent Chinese or Russian territorial grabs from succeeding in the first place. Robert Work contends that the capability to “Sink 350 Chinese navy and coast guard vessels in the first 72 hours of a war, or destroy 2,400 Russian armored vehicles” would have this effect. Work also suggests that, with some relatively affordable investments (about $8 billion per year for three years), the U.S. military could actualize such capabilities in the near term.
But as Evan Braden Montgomery of the Center of Strategic and Budgetary Assessments argued in War on the Rocks last year , conceptualizing the problem in narrow operational terms could prove very risky. Montgomery pointed out rightly that doing so might undermine both the deterrence of potential aggression and allies’ confidence in U.S. security assurances, as foreign observers might doubt the United States will to act with the swiftness essential for destroying invading ships or armor before the invader attained its objectives under the assumptions of the denial strategy. Should an adversary invasion appear underway, it may become necessary to launch the campaign against it as quickly as possible. But, with feints, provocation, and deception, the adversary may obscure whether an invasion has begun, sowing uncertainty and undermining U.S. decision-makers’ willingness to take the fateful step of attacking Russian or Chinese forces. If adversary leaders come to doubt U.S. resolve, then deterrence could fail. If strategic partners come to doubt it, they may feel compelled to appease their neighbors rather than entrust their security to Washington.
Along with imperiling deterrence and assurance, a denial strategy framed in narrow operational terms may also increase the risks of defeat should conflict occur. The most effective deterrent force is not necessarily the same thing as the most effective war-fighting force, as the military capabilities that appear most impressive to either adversaries or allies may not be the same as those that prove most effective on the battlefield once conflict begins. Even if planners make the optimistic assumption that the capability to sink Chinese ships and destroy Russian armor can be made a reality at modest cost, as argued by Work and others, this does not mean that the associated denial strategy is a sure bet in case of war. Firstly, one or more necessary enablers of the capabilities may prove more technically challenging than anticipated or even impossible. Secondly, even if the requisite capabilities could be realized quickly and cheaply in the abstract, this does not mean they necessarily will be in practice. The history of U.S. defense procurement in the post-Cold War period is littered with examples of technologically ambitious systems that consumed huge development budgets without becoming operational realities . Implementation of the new capabilities may simply be flawed or delayed for all-too-familiar mundane reasons. The denial strategy also hinges on presidential resolve, as Montgomery pointed out. Even if the capability works, if the United States fails to use it promptly, the effect could be the same as if it didn’t exist. Finally, defining the problem in narrow operational terms simply invites the adversary to devise an alternative mode of attack. Explicitly signaling that U.S. leaders think of the problem this way makes it makes it clear for the other side how to begin planning accordingly.
Because of these considerations, the national security establishment may need to contemplate some kinds of near-peer conflict that it would rather not think about if it is to minimize the chances of defeat. If a near-peer conflict is not terminated on terms favorable to the United States and its allies in its opening phase, then there are two basic possibilities. The first of these is that the adversary managed to accomplish some or all of its goals in the opening phase of the war, but that the United States and its allies have refused to give up the fight. This presumably means a transition to a protracted war, possibly one of attrition. Even if the status quo ante could not be restored, Washington decision-makers might still feel it necessary to pursue such a conflict. Rationales for this could include a desire to shore up the faith of other allies in U.S. security guarantees and to impose costs on adversaries to deter them from further aggression. Unfortunately, U.S. strategy has not planned seriously for protracted near-peer conflict since the early Cold War. Being prepared for this contingency could demand considerable preparation and significant opportunity costs, but these may prove the best defense investment budget planners could make in the case of high-level conflict.
The second way that a protracted near-peer conflict might begin would be if the United States and its partners successfully parried an initial assault but the adversary refused to retire, initiating a protracted war on their own terms instead. While it seems like Western analysts have neglected this scenario, it seems all too plausible in some of the contingencies of interest (such as a Chinese invasion of Taiwan). Such a campaign might allow an aggressor to attain their goals even if these eluded them at first. For example, if a U.S. denial campaign depended upon an inventory of some hard-to-replenish resource (such as precision-guided munitions) and these assets were depleted in the opening phase of the war, the adversary might be able to regroup and mount another more successful attack before the United States could reconstitute its denial capability. Moreover, the failed initial attempt would also provide learning opportunities that might be exploited to neutralize U.S. advantages in the rematch. And, even if an adversary campaign of attrition fails to achieve its objectives, the United States and its partners might have to deal with its consequences.
It is much more unpleasant to envision losing than winning — but this does nothing to change the fact that defeat is an increasingly plausible possibility in a war with Russia or China. Brad Roberts has argued forcefully that the United States should have clearer “theories of victory,” but, in addition to “theories of victory,” defense planners need to have “theories of defeat” in order to turn those theories into self-negating prophecies. In order to forestall defeat, the Pentagon may need to envision how it could lose. Defense intellectuals could contemplate all the diverse ways U.S. forces might be defeated instead of one or two specific ways in which they would prefer to win. At the very least, planners could begin formulating contingency plans to continue the fight should the opening phase of a near-peer conflict fail to go as desired. An essential first step could be to start taking the prospect of protracted near-peer conflict seriously. Whether or not U.S. policymakers want such a conflict, one may be imposed upon them — and at present, America is woefully underprepared for it.
BECOME A MEMBER
Edward Geist is a policy researcher at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation. Geist received a Smith Richardson Strategy and Policy Fellowship to write a book on artificial intelligence and nuclear warfare .
Image: U.S. Navy (Photo by Mass Communication Spc. 3rd Class Quinton Lee)
COMMENTARY
ABOUT
MISSION
PEOPLE
FOUNDER'S CLUB
CONTACT
MEMBERS
JOIN
WARCAST
WAR HALL
PODCASTS
WOTR
BOMBSHELL
NET ASSESSMENT
JAW-JAW
HORNS OF A DILEMMA
PRIVACY POLICY |
TERMS & CONDITIONS | SITEMAP |
COPYRIGHT © 2022 METAMORPHIC MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. GET MORE WAR ON THE ROCKS
SUPPORT OUR MISSION AND GET EXCLUSIVE CONTENT
BECOME A MEMBER
FOLLOW US
NEWSLETTER
SUBSCRIBE
SIGNING UP FOR THIS NEWSLETTER MEANS YOU AGREE TO OUR D