Parkac:

Method of Application
(vii) Names and ages of children
Source: http://hallmark.edu.ng/home/?p=773

Just stooopid!

Why do you need the ages/names of an applicant's children to assess his/her capability to do the job?

The stup'id Russians tend to get a high whenever the US claim to be "alarmed" by something.

In Russia's interpretation - We are so strong that the US is really afraid of what we have

In US interpretation - We are "alarmed" so we have a prelude to make a move based on "self defence"

For example - the US could claim to be "alarmed" by Russia's intermediate range missiles - therefore for "self-defence" reasons, it will station a full range of anti missile batteries in Eastern Europe.

Now the thing with these moves by the US is that they are often permanent moves as opposed to temporary ones. The US has 800 military bases around the world. Several of these basis are set up because the US claim to be responding to a "threat" - and even after the threat is no longer existing, the bases stay in place.

In reality, there's no technology that Russia has today that can really "alarm" or "surprise" the United States. - Forget even the US and look at junior NATO partners like Germany, UK and France. Even though these countries don't spend much on a gigantic military and will instead, piggy back on the US military - there is very little that Russia can really deliver in military tech that will be completely revolutionary or turn out to be a "surprise" factor to these guys. Germans don't spend on military, but there military hardware is the shit!

fajigirl:


I'll go, if there are other takers. Don't want to be thrown off the boat...

oh well, let's see. It doesn't have to be a boat stuff, that's just something i had in mind. Whereabouts are you based?

fajigirl:


Where in Spain? What is going on there?

Asides from the known fact that Spain is the party village of Europe, there's nothing much really going on down there. I am just thinking of a weekend get away to Ibiza --- get on a party boat sailing from Playa d'en bossa and enjoy a day or two on the med.

I don't have anything planned yet, but if there are takers, I am sure it shouldn't be too difficult.

This seems like an interesting idea -

Anyone in the UK interested in a weekend trip to Spain this summer?

tunery004:

As a capitalist, the company was looking for a way to enslave graduates with a promise of giving them a truck which efficiency would have worn out over the years a travelling Nigerian roads.

Another graduate with self entitlement and delusions of grandeur. The fact that you went through the walls of a university does not imply that the world owes you a living. Labour jobs are not the sole preserve of the uneducated - neither does a university education exempt you from getting your hands dirty. You do not only sound rude, the manner in which you berate a job that many would have gladly accepted - but for lack of opportunity - leaves one with nothing but dismay.

How does Dangote enslave you by offering you a job - which pays, at least (i assume) the national minimum wage - and concludes with other offers such as the opportunity to take the truck with you after a set period of time? You had the right to say no - you did so - well done, move on and let someone else take the job if they wanted to - where exactly is the enslavement part? Here in the UK, there are PHD grads who work at the bar and earn the minimum wage - there's no shame in doing a honest work, if it provides you a living.

I bet many of you treat your maids/security guards to much worse offers.

4. The company want you to bear any risk and pay for damages hereby freeing them from excess damages paid to victim of accidents when the insurance company had failed to pay due to the negligence of the drivers.

The company is not happy to bear risk? You don't say - tell me who is? While in principle, this is not ethically right, it is not the company's responsibility to regulate itself. The company's sole preserve is bottom line profits - it is in its interest to cut down its cost, insurance claims, expenses - as much as possible. In a capitalist economy, the company is expected to do so, even if that meant exploiting the weak labour laws of the country. This is why as a citizen, you should vote representatives whose responsibilities will be to improve existing laws to make working conditions fairer for their electorates.

Another way to see this - if the company were to account for insurance costs for all its drivers, it would either have to hire less people ( which implies that you probably wouldn't have had the opportunity in the first place) or it will have to pass the cost on to consumers, which will somehow affect your wallet nonetheless.

5. The company want to determine you life and they would plan it for you, they decide when you travel, where you go, when you rest without prior knowledge.

Every company wants to determine your life, why single out Dangote? There are those in 9-5 jobs who spend up to 2 hours travelling in between - In the end, they spend their whole day working for the company and all that is left is the weekends and public holidays.
This is a tough job - you can take it or you can take a hike.

8. The company should learn and hire professionals for each sector not someone who can't compose a good text message.

Is composing a good text message necessary to do the job? There are several jobs where the main requirement is a good work ethic and the good ol' common sense.

Finally Dangote and his coy should please spare us the insult on every graduate and please think out ever proposal before coming to the public with it. After travelling for over six hours the company couldn't deem it fit to entertain, or pay for all expenses of the trip knowing fully well where we were all invited from.

"insult on every graduate" - so you went to a school eh? and you think you are first of your kind eh? or you think you are now somewhat smarter than those who didn't?

Here's a bit of an advise for you - there are three ways to get by

a) If you have a skill set - either through formal or informal education - then sell it to the highest bidder and demand a premium for your skill

b) If no one is willing to pay enough for your skill, then roll the dice, monetize your skill set - set up your own business and see where the night takes you

c) If like any other "graduate" - your skill set is not unique or you cannot monetize it - then nothing makes you special really. You have to start really low like every one else and then work your way to the top, looking out for opportunities as they come your way.


I personally would likely hire a Dangonte driver - who tells me about his experience on the job, and the times he has had to make difficult decisions. To me, this person is likely very trainable, and will bring some soft skills -like negotiation, decision making - etc to my company. I would take this person any day, over someone else who spent the last three years of their lives- after graduation - doing nothing because they are too "cushy" for a driver job.

Can you at least give a range of prices for something like 30ft x 15 ft ?

Do you do indoor pools? Do you have more pictures? Do you have a website? Have you done similar work for other Nls?

Buhari cannot do anything about the Naira's value. So long as oil prices remain weak, the naira will remain under sustained strain.

Yevgeny:


Do you know that electronic reconnaissance ships can give you early warning of cruise missile launches hours ahead? and the time the missiles are in the air, or hey to their location the will he hitting duds and it will just be a waste.

How will it be jammed and tricked? You point 2 AND 3 are the same. But do u know that JSOW and Malds etc have to be deployed from a plane most times a transport plane very close to the combat area? and can only be effective against a country without Awacs or good radar to see it miles away a technology the Iranians have?


The idea of getting the SAMs is not to defeat America or Israel but to make any bombing mission ineffective. The combat range of those sams cant even cover half of Iran and the will just place them at their coast, nuclear facilities or nuclear research area. That way, America and the Israelis military will conclude that trying to take out the nuclear facilities will be costly or ineffective and only an all out war will solve the Iranian problem (A risk Israel is not willing to take since there are too many Iran's proxies around them).

Many Americans or pro Americans are quick to mention the Iraqis as prove of America's military brilliance but they forget that most of the top Iraqi generals were bribed and did not fight (Why did you think they rioted weeks later when the Americans failed to deliver their own part of the agreement and pay them for laying down their arms?), Iraq was under sanctions and had poor equipment and the soldiers are not well trained. Most of them were even trained and left behind by the US only for them to flee and take of their uniforms when ISIS was on the way. The last time the US fought a real war against someone that really fought back was Korea/Vietnam. and even with the overwhelming firepower and technology superiority over 50,000 body bags came back home in each conflict. Unlike the Arabs, in a full scale war, the Persians will fight back and America and Israel seems to have realize this and are now only interested in extending Iran's breakout capacity instead of attacking it.

- Your point seem to be contradicting itself - if Iran had several hours of warning (which will be very unlikely) of incoming cruise missiles targeted against its SAM sites, would it try to move the SAMS out of the way? And if so, of what use are the SAMs?

- Do you understand how the tomahawk works? You don't just move targets out of the way of an incoming cruise missile. Those things are designed to constantly update the location of their targets while in flight, they were designed to hit even a fast moving target.

- let's assume that Iran chooses to destroy incoming cruise missiles with missiles fired from its S300 systems, how many cruise missiles can it defend against? 100? 200? 300?....On march 19 2011, the US fired 112 tomahawks against Libya in a single night from a single ship. Make that 4 ships and explain to me how Iran could defend against that.

-Under such a brute force scenario, it is unlikely that only the SAMs will be targeted, Iran's command and control structure will come under attack. It will be a combination of cyber, psychological and direct brute military force. There will be so much chaos, Iranian military commanders will struggle between striking back and defending their positions. The reason why i cited Iraq was very apt. Although the US persuaded top generals from fighting, it was the Shock and Awe that crippled fighting morale. How do you deal with 600 missiles flying through your airspace with each of them carrying 300 pounds of bombs?

-- You make a point about a good radar seeing an aircraft miles away, this is true. But the moment the radar spots the aircraft, the radar will immediately give away its own location and it will become a target. So a simple strategy could involve flying a couple of drones into an enemy airspace, map out its radar emissions, and then take them out with joint stand off weapons. Without the radar, the missiles are useless.

-- No one denies that taking out the nuclear sites will be costly. But they CAN be done. A simple test case is - can the russians take out the s300s if a potential enemy fielded their own technology? If the answer is NO, then Russia wouldn't have sold the technology to anyone. If the answer is yes, then if Russia can take it out, so also can the US, France, Britain, Israel...etc. It is an effective weapon but it is nothing revolutionary. It has not been combat tested, so no one can say for sure how it will perform in a real scenario.

Yevgeny:



So how will USAF or Israeli Airforce take out the S300 should they plan to attack Iran? i want to know your opinion from a military perspective.
That said, Neither US nor Israel will bomb Iran anyway. If that was on the table, It would have been done a long time ago.

Easy

1) Brute force. Each Arleigh Burke-class destroyer easily carries well over 90 tomahawks, all of which can be rapidly fired- the systems can be overwhelmed by three of these ships firing from a safe distance.

2)The systems can be jammed or tricked. - Since it hasn't been combat tested, its performance under such a scenario cannot be guaranteed.

3) Advanced Capabilities - JSOW, MALD, HARM etc have been proven to be combat effective against SAMs. Israel used something similar to JSOW in Syria about two years ago. Note that Syria also have advanced SAMs but nothing as effective as the S300s.

Finally, just take out the political context and ask yourself - If Iran did pose an immediate existential threat to the United States, and the United States took the decision to strike at Iran, can Iran really defend itself with S300s? Iran can use these systems to brag at home and maybe become a little bolder - but it knows that even hundreds of these wouldn't deter against the might of a determined US military. Saddam Hussein once had one of the world's largest armed forces (certainly the largest in the middle east). These army was crushed within a month when faced with the coalition forces.

The S300s is an old technology, military planners in the US are probably already considering combat scenarios that involve far more complex systems that these.

Max Fisher: One of the things you worked on in your time with the military was arms control agreements. You're outside the government now, of course, but it seems like arms control issues have become more contentious since the Ukraine crisis. Is that the case?

Evgeny Buzhinsky: Well, it has become difficult, but not because of the Ukrainian crisis. It started with the Bush administration and with [Bush's effort to introduce] missile defense, which actually undermined strategic stability [in Europe].

When President Bush announced his plans to withdraw from the ABM treaty, President Putin's response was that it doesn’t pose a danger to Russian deterrence capability for the time being. [Note: in 2003, Bush withdrew the US from an anti-ballistic missile treaty that forbid certain types of missile defense.]

What he meant is that if the plans had been limited to North America, it would be all right. But since he went beyond, that started to pose a threat to Russia’s deterrence capability.



Max Fisher: What is it about missile defense that you think has been so contentious?

Evgeny Buzhinsky: Missile defense is an issue of strategic balance.

The old metaphor is two gladiators with swords of equal length. One acquires a shield. What's the way out for the second one? Either to have a shield or to get a second sword. That's the answer.

So it's strategic balance. It's deterrence potential on both sides. If the US decided to acquire a missile defense shield — and not a limited one, it's a global one — then what does Russia have to do? Well, actually, to acquire more anti-anti-missile defense. That means the development of more sophisticated nuclear warheads with the capacity to overcome missile defense. And so on.


Max Fisher: In that view, is this US program defensive, or is there a concern that it might also be offensive?

Evgeny Buzhinsky: Well, you see, it's funny when you differentiate between defensive and offensive.

You see, in all the military academies, in all textbooks, missile defense is qualified not as a defense against the first strike. It's the defense against a retaliation strike, the second strike, which gives the illusion to the attacking side that it may survive retaliation strikes. Because you cannot repulse a first strike with any missile defense, or you've got to have tens of thousands of warheads.


Max Fisher: So there is a fear that, at least in terms of technical capability, American missile defense could be used as a cover for an American first strike against Russia?

Evgeny Buzhinsky: Of course. Russia has 1,500 warheads. During a first strike, half of that would be destroyed, so only 750 left. Then Russia decides to deliver a retaliation strike, and in this case missile defense may be quite effective.



Max Fisher: Are there other forms of American or NATO military buildup in Europe that are seen as potentially offensive?

Evgeny Buzhinsky: Of course, we know the plans. First of all, there was the [US] plan to dig up silos in Poland, which is a very, very bad idea. And radar, which are to be transported to the Czech Republic.

Obama modified the plans, but still we are worried, especially the third and fourth phase where ground-based AEGIS [missile defense] systems with MK41 universal [missile] launchers are to be placed in Poland and then the deployment of AEGIS cruisers in the Baltic and North Seas.

Some of our experts, for example General [Vladimir] Dvorkin [who oversaw nuclear issues in the Russian military], say it's impossible to intercept our missiles, even with those cruisers and Aegis ground-based that were placed in Poland.

My answer for today is yes. With a speed up to two and a half kilometers per second, [missile defense] cannot intercept them. [Note: He is referring to Russia’s planned hypersonic missile, the BrahMos II, which would travel up to Mach 7 — 2.4 km/s].

But as far as I know, as far as we know in Russia, the plans [for missile defense] are to go to seven kilometers per second, and in this case they're quite able to intercept our missiles being launched from the European part of our country.



Max Fisher: What about the F-35?

Evgeny Buzhinsky: Well, F-35. I prefer to speak about real things, not about plans.



Max Fisher: Okay, so you've been to Washington. You're familiar with how this works. Even still, the US is spending a lot of money on developing this stealth fighter jet, and even if it ends up being just a fantasy —

Evgeny Buzhinsky: Well, you are spending a lot of money on a lot of fantasies, that's true. Missile defense, also — this [plan for] kinetic interception, bullet-to-bullet, is also to me and to many other experts, a kind of fairy tale. During tests, you illuminate the target and you know where it’s going and the speed, everything. I remember [from one test], out of 16 [attempted] interceptions, only nine were successful.

Anyway, the F-35, it's a good aircraft. It could be a good aircraft, but we have the same plan for a fifth-generation aircraft, also. Of course, you are ahead in yours. They're both good, but they're both in the testing phase.

Evgeny Buzhinsky has spent much of his professional life with the threat of global nuclear destruction hanging over his head.Buzhinsky retired a lieutenant general in 2009, after a long career on the Russian general staff, including several years heading the Russian Defense Ministry's international treaty agency, which brought him into frequent contact with European and American generals over some of the most contentious issues of the post–Cold War era. He now heads the PIR Center, a well-respected Russian think tank that focuses on military, national security, and arms control issues.




Max Fisher: I had a question for you about Ukraine. We've talked to people in Russia from a number of perspectives and political parties about their view of the crisis in eastern Ukraine and how Putin has handled it. But something we hear very little about is how the Russian military general staff views the crisis. I'm curious if you have any sense for how it's seen.

Evgeny Buzhinsky: For me, it seems to me that people in Donbas decided — because, you see, the dominant majority of the population are Russians. The plans to Ukrainize the east and southeast of Ukraine — this stupid law that everybody in Ukraine should speak only Ukrainian, although 75 to 80 percent in their day-to-day lives speak Russian — of course, this prospect frightened people.

And they decided that it would be as easy as it was in Crimea. But the cruelty with which the [Ukrainian] nationalists suppressed the pro-Russian activists in Odessa, that kicked off everything, and afterward, of course, the situation went out of anybody’s control.

A year ago, I was absolutely convinced Russia would never interfere militarily. I'm not talking about volunteers, instructors — I mean interfere with regular forces. Now I'm not so sure.

In the West, they say there is a peace party [among the Ukrainian leadership] headed by [President Petro] Poroshenko, and a war party of [Oleksandr] Turchynov and [Prime Minister Arseniy] Yatsenyuk. That's not true. All of them are from the same party, and they don't want a political settlement. For them, political settlement is a defeat. They all are for military victory.

As Putin said twice, we will not allow the physical extermination of the people of Donbas. I fear that it may — well, it's unpredictable. A war with Russia in Ukraine — if Russia starts a war, it never stops until it takes the capital. That's all the Russian wars.


Max Fisher: Is that something you're worried could happen in Ukraine?

Evgeny Buzhinsky: Yes. Well, I don’t exclude it. And then I could not predict the reaction of the United States and NATO.


Max Fisher: What would be the trigger for that happening?

Evgeny Buzhinsky: The trigger? A massive offensive on the Ukrainian side. The size of Ukrainian armed forces versus the people of Donbas, they are not comparable. Ukraine is stronger; it has much more equipment, personnel. The defeat of Donbas would definitely mean the physical extermination of a lot of people.


Max Fisher: So you think if that were to happen, then Putin will have no choice but to intervene, even if it meant going all the way to Kiev?

Evgeny Buzhinsky: Yes, definitely. He said twice publicly, "I won't let it happen." As he is a man of his word, I am sure he will.


Max Fisher: How do we avoid that?

Evgeny Buzhinsky: The US administration should press Kiev [for restraint] until we agree to political settlement of the issue, not a military solution.


Max Fisher: I think they're seeking a political settlement, aren't they?

Evgeny Buzhinsky: I don't think so. All this talk about supplying lethal weapons.


Max Fisher: So that, to you, that signals an American desire to push Kiev to end the conflict militarily?

Evgeny Buzhinsky: Frankly, that's a general opinion in the Russian Federation and among the military, especially.


Max Fisher: From what you’re saying, it sounds like if NATO troops were to intervene directly or were to heavily arm the Ukrainian military, then that could provoke a response that could be very dangerous.

Evgeny Buzhinsky: Of course. It seems to me that the Ukrainian goal is not just deliveries of sophisticated systems. It's the presence of the US crews and personnel on the front line in the east. And that is very dangerous, because the first US military man killed, wounded, captured — the reaction, for example, in Georgia [in the 2008 war], until the first Russian peacekeeper was killed, Russia did not interfere. Three were killed, and the order was given.


Max Fisher: That makes me wonder about the Baltic states, about Estonia and Latvia. They seem very stable, but there are NATO military vehicles parading 300 yards from Russia’s western border. Does that introduce a similar risk, in your view?

Evgeny Buzhinsky: Of course, it's not very friendly. Next time we'll have a parade 200 meters from the Estonian borders with the airborne division, and we'll conduct some kind of landing on our territory.

Max Fisher: Is there a concern that even if what everybody's doing is trying to signal deterrence, the signals could be misconstrued and there could be space for an accident or an unwanted escalation?



Evgeny Buzhinsky: After they joined NATO, and the alliance decided to deploy a squadron of fighters in Lithuania on a rotational basis, we warned our partners that it could cause some accident. The international airspace between Estonia and Russia is so narrow that one day our pilot may be forced to land on the other side.

And it happened to a Russian pilot. I remember when our pilot, an inexperienced pilot, lost his way and interfered into Lithuanian airspace and was forced to land. He spent two, three weeks there while we negotiated his release. The same might happen now, but the pilot could be American or German, and who needs that? They say it's a demonstration of solidarity.



Amanda Taub: Do you think that on the American side there's a good understanding of Russia's positions?

Evgeny Buzhinsky: No. No.
The Ukrainian crisis was very much influenced by the spoiled relations between Obama and Putin. Because otherwise, they would have talked to each other. You mentioned the Cold War. In the Cold War time, there were definite red lines on both sides. And both sides knew there were red lines and tried not to cross them, tried to not even come close.

Ukraine, for Russia, is a red line. And especially a Ukraine that is hostile to Russia is a definite red line. But the US administration decided that it's not. [The Americans believe that] Russia will never dare, Putin will never dare, to interfere.


Amanda Taub: I think from the US side there's a similar perception that Russia thinks the US is weak. That Russia thinks the US is sort of unwilling to defend Ukraine.

Evgeny Buzhinsky: Objectively, the US is not weak. We could not stand on an equal footing with the United States using only conventional weapons. Only on nuclear [weapons] do we have parity, only on strategic nuclear [weapons] do we have equal footing. As for conventional warfare, we do not, and we recognize that, and we are trying to catch up.


Max Fisher: With NATO building up in Europe and especially in the Baltic states, does that necessitate some kind of Russian buildup to maintain parity?

Evgeny Buzhinsky: There is a nuclear equilibrium, the strategic balance. As for conventional forces, we'll never catch up with the combined capability of the United States and the [NATO members] in Europe. Nobody, as far as I know, is thinking about plans to catch up.



Max Fisher: Is the nuclear parity enough to make up for the conventional imbalance?

Evgeny Buzhinsky: Yes. Because with non-strategic nuclear weapons, Russia has the advantage. The United States does not need non-strategic [tactical or battlefield-use nuclear weapons] to defend its own territory.

But the Russian Federation has 17,000 kilometers of land borders and quite a few states with either nuclear capability or missile capability [nearby]. For us, it's a means of regional deterrence to compensate our relative weakness in conventional [capability].



Max Fisher: I wanted to ask you about tactical nuclear weapons. I feel like I do not have a good understanding of whether Putin believes there could be a scenario in which there is a limited nuclear use, which is to say there could be one or two battlefield uses of tactical nuclear weapons without things escalating into global nuclear conflict.

Evgeny Buzhinsky: Well, of course, it's impossible for me to say what Putin thinks. Okay, Moscow is destroyed and Washington is destroyed, and they both say "Okay, that's enough"? It doesn't happen in real life.



Max Fisher: But I would be surprised to learn that Russia had not developed any plans at all for a limited nuclear use. Because the Russian nuclear doctrine says if Russia is at risk of being completely overrun by a conventional military attack, then Russia could use nuclear weapons. But in that scenario, wouldn't it be preferable under the Russian nuclear doctrine to have a limited battlefield nuclear use?

Evgeny Buzhinsky: Well, if Russia is heavily attacked conventionally, yes, of course, as it's written in the doctrine, there may be limited use of non-strategic nuclear weapons. To show intention, as a de-escalating factor.

But Europeans don't have the capability to massively attack [Russia]. So it's on the United States. If the United States decides to massively attack the Russian Federation, it should be ready to meet all the consequences, limited or unlimited.

@poster:

what a joke!!!

Those S300s are capable systems, but they have never seen a real combat before. But forget that or a second. The truth is, If Iran has 10,000 S-500s, it wouldn't deter a determined foe like the US military. If the US actually determines to strike at Iran, it has the means to do so without impunity, S300s or not. Forget the US military, even Israel has the means to take these systems out.

@Sambarry

Is that you in the first picture?

Are you educated? You look like one of the "i travel go yankee" types. I am starting to wonder if i have simply been wasting my time debating with you as it appears you have nothing cognitively stimulating to offer besides outrageous innuendos!

SAMBARRY:
Wait wait wait so in your tiny little mind you think you are more knowledgeable than me

ignorance is a disease. Ok let me expose some of your Ignorance. Have you ever in your entire life heard of low sperm count? I know you haven't.
Hmnnn those are some of the repercussions of your shameless habits if you persist and look for members to join you. Oniranu alagbere omo

Please, stop this rubbish!

M@sturbation does NOT lead to a low sperm count. This is terrible. You are so ignorant. In the very least, if you don't have a clue about a subject, ask your doctor, don't just peddle the first rubbish that comes out of your mind.

There are people that are reading this forums to get informed, your types are a blight to the collective knowledge base by presenting what you thought is true as facts without first verifying them.

Stop being idiotic and just go away.

Here's a post from the UK's nhs...

Does m@sturbation affect sperm count?
M@sturbating will not affect a man's ability to produce sperm. Men will not run out of sperm, as they produce it continuously. After a man has ej@culated, it will take some time before he can ej@culate again. This is normal and doesn't mean there is anything wrong with his sperm.

SAMBARRY:
The more you post the more clownish you sound. Please tell me you're arguing for the sake of argument

if wankeen is normal and natural like you claim, why don't you do it publicly. Like wanking in the sitting room in the presence of your parents or visitors . continue arguing blindly, clown

This logic is so silly it makes me want to cry. You should be embarrassed for making such a flawed logic.

You wouldn't do it publicly because it involves the use of your private organs duh!!!....Just the same way you wouldn't (hopefully) have sex in front of your parents. They will be horrified.

Beyond the nonsensical & idiotic view of "w@nking away your destiny" ...by medical grounds, i think you will ( and should, as i am clearly more knowledgeable than you ) agree with me that m@sturbating is a perfectly healthy thing to do.

SAMBARRY:
If you don't know how to use Google to search for more information on the implications of wanking then your case is a hopeless one. I give up on your matter
continue wanking. The thing wey you sabi chop go belleful you

No, your case is the hopeless one. You are ignorant and your ignorance spreads misinformation.

There are no proven implications of w@nking -so long as it dosen't stop the man from having regular sex with his spouse. As i have said before more than 90% of men m@sturbate, the 10% who claim they don't are mostly terrible liars or simply asexuals. No healthy man on earth can resist an org@sm! Most males - more than 80% - experienced their first ej@culation from m@sturbation, a smaller percentage, from wet dreams. A healthy male must ej@culate at a bare minimum of once every two weeks - a perfectly healthy male, at least 6 times in a week!


And for the upteenth time, you donut, it's a natural healthy process, your body gets rid of built up seminal fluid. It has nothing to do with the flawed idiotic nonsense of w@nking away your destiny.

@Parents in the house

If you find your son m@sturbating, you must teach him about it and let him understand that this is a natural process...taking him to a pastor for fasting and prayer or scolding him for such is frankly out of order. He is not doing anything wrong, it will not affect his destiny as some stvipd half educated ignorant fvcks claim. You should learn about it and not cause psychological problems.

Think about it this way: Every male starts having frequent erecti0ns at about age 12 or 13, which feels different from erecti0ns he might have had before. Every male is going to touch his erecti0n at some point, probably within a few weeks of having those kind of erecti0ns. Then he's going to find it feels good to touch it. Within a few weeks -- perhaps years, in some cases -- he's going to touch it to the point of having an org@sm. At that point, he's counted among the legions of males who m@sturbate. Then he will do it again and again.

SAMBARRY:
Like seriously

you cleverly painted why it is good to self-service and how nobody will be affected

Google search engine is your friend and if in case you have not heard of it or know how to use it just type www.google. com and do the needful. Ignorance isn't bliss

that you wanc doesn't mean other men do, speak for yourself except you do group wancking where all of you men will be in one room wanking your destinies away and spilling your akamu on each other to drink

Abeg let me stop here before you read more your eyes don't bargain for

You haven't said anything new, besides your failed logic of - this thing is filthy & self damaging, i know it, but i don't know why - i find those who debate ignorantly and naively to be most amusing.

SAMBARRY:
When I thought I have read the most bizarre post ever, another fellow masturbation practitioner brings in another weird reason why his filthy self damaging habits should be left alone




op for your Information any bad habit your partner has doesn't just destroy himself. It destroys you too so you better be mindful of taking advice from weirdos

My post was not to meant justify anything - you only speak of justifying something when the rights and wrong of it are debatable - my intention was to educate the poster - and i guess the likes of you! It will be a shame if you ran around with so much ignorance.

First - what a man does with his own di*k in his privacy is REALLY nobody's business - the wife has a right to question the motives, but questioning the act itself is almost as ridiculous as someone questioning you if you choose to shave your own privates!

second - there's nothing filthy or self damaging about the act itself - the dude enjoys it and no one is harmed in the process, where's the filthy or self damaging part coming from? 90% of men m@sturbate, what's big deal?

Third - the man benefits from immediate sexual satisfaction without having to pay for it (via a prostitute) or wait for his partner - It dosen't affect sperm production either - it is really no different from having sex regularly -getting a bj or a handjob. Cut the dude some slack, the wife is not even at home all the time

So why does Sambarry get a heartache? Could it be because pastor/daddy/grandpa/...(fill in the gap) told him/her it's a really naughty thing to do? LOL!!! Nigerians have some really weird perspectives.

@OP: You need to ask yourself the question - Why are you concerned by his m@sturbation habits?

a) You think it will lead to difficulties with Child bearing!

This is a myth, m@asturbation has no adverse effect on reproduction, quite the contrary, the fresher the sperm sample is, the more it is likely to be accepted by the female reproductive tract and result in a fertilized embryo. Male masturbation is a natural way to shed old sperm and make room for new, fitter sperm.

b) You are concerned that this is a spiritual problem!

You are entitled to your spiritual views, but in my view, this is a myth and another in a long list of perfect nonsense that requires only a paradigm shift in the way people think in order to overcome. The urge to have sex is a natural thing. We all have sexual hormones flowing through our body. We are all sexually wired, although in different ways.

c) You have problems when having sex with him

M@sturbation often leads to loss of interest in real sex. Sometimes, it may led to delayed ej@culation! If this a real problem, the most practical thing to do is to work with him to reduce the frequency. You could for example, jerk him off, or watch the porn together..etc. It might even spice up your sex life, you never know.

Reporting him (to who?) for m@sturbating, is childish and stvpid! It will amount to humiliation! It will be the best way to damage your marriage.

Your should educate yourself more about his behavior and identify why you aren't happy with it.

..and why can't Nigeria, and why can't Sudan?

Your argument seems to naively rely on what is fair and just - but reality is far from fair and just.

The question of nuclear weapons is all a bit of paradox - a doomsday weapon and a necessary evil

If no country have nuclear weapons, the chances of major wars will be higher - big countries with big militaries will seek to gain military advantage over others

if all countries have nuclear weapons then the chances of a nuclear disaster is high

If some countries have it and others don't - then those with nuclear weapons will bully the ones without.

In all these three scenarios, it appears that the last one is the most convenient. Countries with nuclear weapons already have it - they can't unlearn the technologies that they've learnt. They can however prevent its proliferation and persuade/force other countries from having the same rights.

Missy89:

Iran signed the NPT Israel did not. Israel is the bigger threat.

Iran signed the NPT Israel did not,--- > does not make Israel a threat to Iran.

Iranian Leaders publicly calling for wiping out Israel -----> makes Iran a threat to Israel.

^^

Well, i meant a manned aircraft.

This was built in 1960s - only 61 years after the Wright brothers flew the first manned aircraft! And yet, till this day, holds the record as the world's fastest aircraft and it could reach an height of more than 70,000 feet. Simply amazing.

The engineers that worked on her were way ahead of their time.

These fascinating pictures show how engineers in 1960s California secretly developed the SR-71 Blackbird for the US Air Force – a plane which still holds the record for being the fastest ever aircraft.

The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird is a long-range, strategic reconnaissance aircraft and these once classified photos reveal how Lockheed built three types of Blackbird - A, B and C in top secret conditions in Burbank, California.

The aircraft were built by American aerospace company Lockheed under a 'black project' - a highly classified military defence project unacknowledged by the government until its declassification.
Since July 28 1976 the SR-71 Blackbird has held the world record for the fastest air-breathing manned aircraft with a record speed of 2,193.2mph.













Almost every aspect of its design required new approaches or breakthroughs in technology.

To withstand high temperatures generated by friction in the upper atmosphere during sustained Mach 3 flight, the Blackbird required an array of specially developed materials including high temperature fuel, sealants, lubricants, wiring and other components.

Around 93% of the Blackbird's airframe consisted of titanium alloy that allowed the aircraft to operate in a regime where temperatures range from 450 degrees to 950 degrees.

On July 24 1964, US President Lyndon B. Johnson publicly announced the existence of the classified Lockheed SR-71 program.
The first flight was held on December 22 and operational aircraft deliveries began in 1966.

The plane flew around the entire United States of America in 64 minutes!!!

lolaredvelvet:
Its easy. You could:

Go to a good church..Although there are a lot of pretenders in church these days but there are still a few good girls.

I agree that this is probably the easiest route, but we don't even know if OP is Christian or not.

Try enrolling into postgrad school.. hang out in libraries, interact with course mates, go to parties (especially house parties)

Enroll in a postgrad school just to meet a naija girl in the UK?

Join a gym. Great way to meet fit and healthy people.

Naija girls in gyms? I have never met one before? Not a single one!

Nigerian girls hardly socialize in the UK, so I am not surprised at all by your dilemma. Like someone said, networking is your best bet. If you are a christian, attend local RCCG churches, you should also consider the bi-annual festival of life event. That said, you may need to lower your expectations a little.

damn spam bots! why does it keep hiding your posts @appleyard?

take the following steps

1) Download a bunch of 2 hour porn

2) Put it on play and repeat

3) turn the volume up

4) go on vacation.

Appleyard:


Yes! Ukraine has lost a huge chunk of its territory because, the people in that territory (Crimea) refused to be identified with Nazis that has taken over in Kiev. And You forgot to mentioned that over 90% of those people (Crimeans) voted overwhelmingly to reunify with Mother Russia. Tales of brazen coup you say? Even blind Bathemos knew that what happened in Kiev was a US sponsored coup. It wasn't just tales, It is a fact. US sponsored coup is a global phenomenon. Oh. are you saying that Russia should have sat with hands crossed and watch neo-Nazis controlling affairs around its borders, and do nothing about it? Cuba you said; how did the US react in the 70s when the then Soviet Union moved missiles into that country? you and i knew how that almost brought the world under nuclear confrontation. And now that the equation has changed, Russia should just sit closed up in a closet and forget about a vital and strategic neighbor like Ukraine, a place that harbors its Main naval fleet? There are times postulations like this make me wonder aloud if we humans actually have conscience and judgmental fairness. So, the US can fight for its strategic interest, even thousands of miles away from its borders, but Russia or other nations should not protect even their immediate environs, right?

Lets assume that Pearl harbour is in Cuba, how would the US react should Russia move to hijack the government over there? Or, better still, if Russia or the SCO is to make Mexico a member or a strategic ally, i guess the US will just sit and allow that to happen, huh?

Leave your emotionally charged argument for once, and debate with sound intelligence like a proper lawyer should.

You claim that those that have taken over in Kiev are Nazis - that's line of argument that mirrors closely the Russian narrative, what you have failed to do is provide evidence for your logic. Why are they Nazis? Why is Poroshenko a Nazi?

You argue that Crimea voted overwhelmingly to join Russia. But you neglected to mention that this "referendum" was conducted by a foreign state with its own troops on the ground, lawyers that are worth their salt are very likely to see why this must be illegal. You forgot to reference that 100 countries at the United Nations voted for a bill that asserts that the referendum is illegal and 58 countries abstained - many of which included Russian allies.

Let's take your fact as true that this is a US sponsored coup, what you have failed to explain is why even if it is a US sponsored coup, has Russia violated Ukraine's territorial integrity, and also violated its own commitment under the Buadapest agreement.

You referenced US's reaction to Cuba, yes its true, the US instituted a blockade against CUBA - but it did not - annex its territories even though it had the military power to do so.

Ukraine is a strategic neighbor to Russia - it will therefore make sense that Russia should seek to achieve its objective in Ukraine through soft power means rather than the threat of war or the actual hybrid war against Ukraine. 30 years from now, Ukraine would have drifted far away from Russian orbit and Russia would be weaker for it. Ukraine may one day become the present day Poland. Russia has played the short term game here and it has gained Crimea plus some parts of Eastern Ukraine, the long term game will not be in its favor.

The talk of consciences and Judgmental fairness bears no play. That's simply your emotions speaking, that sh1t clouds your judgment.

Who is dismissing one's argument now? you didn't consider, if at all you read, the information containing the 34 reasons why the US economy is not as it is widely perceived to be, yet you are saying i don't have any backing. well, it is apparent that in your view, analytical discourse must be one sided, thus, no amount of proof i may bring forth would consistute anything as facts relating to such discourse. Not to mention that ""we are not on equal footing"" on such matters. But if there is anything i have learned in my entire life as it relate to disputed topics and debates, it is the doctrine of "audi altarem patem", which simply means, "hear the other side".

Anyway, since this is not the issue here, i think it will be better sticking to our own narratives and perceptions, and allow events take their course inline with the divine laws of nature and human imperfect conduct. Stay well.

I checked out the link, and i stopped immediately i realize that it is mostly crap - the writers are probably journalists, not real economists. They even ignore the role of inflation with national debt. The face value of debt gets eroded with inflation over time - GDP on the other hand has been growing faster than inflation so that the real DEBT/GDP ratio is actually much lower than may seem.

It is easy to make politically charged argument about national debt since the average Joe (meaning folks like you) only hear the absolute number and you go ballistic! The US currently have a public debt of 17 trillion dollars ~108% of its GDP, but some of that debt includes the money that the Federal reserve has lent to the US government. i.e the US government owes the money to itself!

I can go on and educate you more about national debts - but i suspect that such wouldn't do you much good. And although you may have attempted to hold the moral angle on "audi altarem patem", i suspect that your inability to produce counter debate is what puts you in this position, not because you've "truly heard the other side". Obviously, since the other side is producing arguments that run completely counter to what you genuinely wish to believe.

Whatever your arguments about the current situation in Ukraine is - there are simple facts that are not contestable - Ukraine has lost much of its territory and a huge chunk of it now belong to Russia. Ukraine has therefore been dismembered. Justifying this with tales of "coup" is brazen at best. The US should not simply annex cuba because it feels that a coup has taken place there.


I am going to go on a limb and conclude that you haven't studied much of economic history - I have - and you likely don't have much economic/global trade intuition - i do - so a debate between us on such topic will not be on equal terms since you are much likely to simply purge out what someone else thinks or have written - I on the other hand will provide you with economic arguments based on my knowledge, experience and work in such a field.

All your talks about government conducting trades in local currencies amount to nonsense - If trades between Turkey and Russia are conducted in local currencies, Turkey pays Russia in Ruble and Russia pays Turkey in Lira, since neither currencies have a reserve status, the Russian/Turkish central bank will immediately convert them into dollars/swiss francs/Euro/yen. No central bank in the world will hold another emerging markets local currencies as a reserve currency, it is simply suicidal to do so. For example, If for some crazy reason the BRICS could offer a better risk/return situation than dollars, then you could still do the transaction and swap or arbitrage the risk away. In dollar markets. But it is crazy to think that if all the Russian pipeline costs are going to be dollars, that they will want to finance in roubles, or even Yuan. That is a lot of risk that will have to be hedged away over a long period of time. Just to get your hedge, you will have to hit dollar markets

Secondly, your argument is even more nonsensical since you haven't factored global trade. Russia and Nigeria can trade in local currencies for all they want, but if Nigeria were to trade with the US, the US will demand dollar payments. Since Nigeria conducts more trade with the US than with Russia, it simply makes more sense for Nigeria to demand that Russia pays it in dollars rather than in Naira/Rouble. As long as the US continues to maintain a trade deficit with much of the world, it will remain in their interest to keep selling more to the US than what the buy from the US.



Your arguments about prosperity in the US being an illusion is nonsensical - it is backed by no evidence and just more of innuendos. You haven't actually said what will happen if the government adopts a balanced budget. How does this affect US households/companies? This is further evidence that you don't know what you are talking about. For a matter of fact, the US has actually moved towards a balanced budget in the last couple of years, see the chart below.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-states-government-budget.png?s=fddsgdp&d1=19700101&d2=20151231

It's budget deficit has considerably narrowed, this is simply because its economy is growing faster so government spending can be funded via tax revenues, and some excessive spending has been cut, for example in military spending.

Debt is never an issue so long as they are issued in local currencies and you have the economy to pay for it. Looking at absolute debt is just illiteracy. This is why you scream to high heavens about the mountains of debt (~17 trillion dollars) . For a country like the US, this is sustainable, for a country like Nigeria, it is not. The debt to GDP ratio and the total external debts is what counts. If the US has 17 trillion dollars in debt and three-quarters of that was borrowed from US citizens, then it is not an issue. Japan's Government debt to GDP ratio is approximately 300%. But it doesn't matter because much of that money is owed to Japan citizens.

And here's one bit of juice for you and the many others out there who have no iota of understanding of monetary policies - No central bank in the current world, and i mean none! - will ever back their currencies with gold! It is really quite simple, central banks can control their own currencies via their printing press - backing your currency with gold will take away the flexibility of such central banks to control inflation or stimulate growth. What you have going on in the current global market is a currency war with each country trying to devalue their currency against the other to get a trade advantage. Uncle Same got a head start with it post the financial crises - Now the ECB is on to it with the huge monetary stimulus, Japan has announced similar programs, and China has more than twice cut its borrowing rates. When a country's currency is backed with gold, it loses this ability.

Let's even assume that some countries intend to back their currencies with gold - The total number of gold in the world is limited, and the Gold held by the US is approximately 3 times as much as all the BRICS country combined. They will never have enough gold to back their currencies unless they can convince the US and all its allies to sell them gold at a discounted price.

Stop your innuendos and simply read more about how economies work.

@bookface.
Yes, it is a ''mild'' but unmistakenly strong show of support. Did you in any of the statements see where the Chinese at any time condemn whatever actions Russia has taken so far since the Ukrainian crisis began? Rather the Chinese have publicly made it ''clear'' to the West that it must have to understand Russia's position in this matter, and should things get tougher, one should no longer doubt where China's position lies. It is as simple as that.

Now, you mentioned that China's support for Russia can not change the direction of things as they happen or would happen. This is a very grave error on the part of our thinking.
Make no mistake about it, China is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that cannot be ignored. Whomever, the Chinese throw their support behind in the event of war between the US and what is left of NATO, will be the likely winner.
But that is for another day.

Now, on the economic front like you rightly pointed out, it is true that the Chinese economic growth is tied to the West, hence, the talks of;

A strong show of support or not - it wouldn't move a shoe! simple as that! China's official position has long been against territories breaking off - hence, taiwan, tibet etc. A strong support for dismembering Ukraine will undermine China's stance on breakaway regions on its own turf, hence its neutral stance. But the Chinese understand that the conflict cannot go on for ever, there's benefit to keeping Moscow on the side. When the conflict is all over, China will be the beneficiary - it will have Moscow in the pouch and it will keep its business interest with the West, win win. There's no point jeopardizing one for the other.

I am not going to speculate what will happen in the event of a war - but my gut feeling is that China will keep its neutral stance unless its territory is directly threatened as in the case of the Korean conflict.

(2) MORE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MOSCOW?

Yes. The Chinese needed Moscow to be stable financially. A meltdown in Russia's financing ability would mean low or zero Russian productivity level in machineries/hardwares, and sophisticated technologies, areas in which the Chinese primarily relies on Russia. Thus, China and Russia signed a three-year currency-swap line of 150 billion yuan ($24 billion) in October, an agreement that can be expanded with the consent of both parties.
Chinese and Russian premiers Li Keqiang and Dmitry Medvedev met in Kazakhstan, signed extensive deals on railways, infrastructure and development in Russia’s Far East region, north of China. Loans, cooperation in major projects, and participation in domestic infrastructure investment in Russia are options on the table, notwithstanding China's own debt.(besides, everybody owes debt).
These offers of assistance cut across the economic war on Russia launched by US and European imperialism to punish Moscow for opposing their neo-colonial restructuring of Eurasia.

I have read on the news about the hundreds of deals that are being signed left, right and center - but you are missing the point. Infrastructure/Government spending is NOT what Russia needs! Russia already has very good infrastructure. What Russia needs is a renewed business confidence - and this is exactly what is behind hindered by sanctions. US and European imperialism, could really kill off Moscow's ability to become an economy down the line. What is being introduced by sanctions are long term shocks to the economy that will take years to fizzle out. In the last century, no country has prospered economically by being antagonistic against the West.

Then why is China seeking to move away from the US economic sphere (the Dollar), since thier economics are relatively tied to one another? It is very simple. It was a failure on the part of Chinese financial planners as it relate to its finamcial and strategic interest. Why, how?

Following the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement, that established the dollar (i.e. the Petrodollar) as the world’s reserve currency, the dollar immediately became the second best invest long-term investment on the planet, next to the actual owning of gold. Subsequently, when the Chinese made the decision to purchase US debt, it had to appear to the Chinese that they were purchasing a sure thing which would return untold amounts of wealth.
What the previous generation of Chinese leaders did not foresee was that the US would purchase themselves into such a quagmire of debt, and would someday cause the US to be on the verge of committing economic suicide. The Chinese have come to realize that they have purchased a declining asset.
Twenty five years ago, if the Chinese financial planners could not have foreseen that the US would be 17 trillion dollars in debt, have an unfunded mandate liability (e.g. social security, Medicare, etc.) of 240 trillion dollars and would have assumed the liability of over one quadrillion dollars of credit swap derivatives debt that resulted in the “need” for the bailouts. If they had, the Chinese would have run from the dollar a long time ago and then would have moved in to clean up after the coming crash of the dollar occurred. In short, the Chinese failed to anticipate that the US would commit financial suicide in slightly more than a generation.

The Dollar, aside arms, is the basic commodity the US is exporting. Without it, the US can do little or nothing against other nations.

Now, on the part of Russia-China relationship, China knew that Russia is an irreplacable neighbour/ally, and both have a common enemy-the US.

Apply some common sense!

How exactly will China move away from the US dollar? - I marvel at the number of people who spit out this garbage without an iota of common sense! China is tied to the dollar, simple! It is tied by trade! The US is the biggest buyer of Chinese products, and it pays in dollars, if China demands to be paid in some other currency, the US will simply stop buying from China and turn to some other marginal low cost producers out there - Phillipines, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, etc.

Chinese made a decision to buy US government debts because they simply have no choice! - The economics works out this way - every dollar that is issued is a debt backed by the taxing power of the US government. Every time someone buys an item from China, they exchange this debt for goods or services. China does not have a primary exchange for easy convertibility of Yuan to dollars, so Chinese products manufacturers/service providers exchange this debt with the central bank of China for yuan/reminbi at a fixed exchange rate. This process goes on and on - and at the end of the day, the Central bank of China has lots of dollars in its account - US dollars can only be spent in one place - in the US. So the Central Bank of China must choose between buying gold (/other commodities) or buying US treasuries - Gold does not pay interest, is more risky and its value is not guranteed by anything except for its face value - US treasuries pay interest, and its backed by the taxing power of Uncle Sam, so the choice is crystal clear, the Chinese central bank buys more treasury. This process simply goes on and on...


The US government has 17 trillion dollars in debt, but US households and banks have been deleveraging for the past 6 years. The contrary is true for China. The Chinese government has very little debt, but its households have a huge amount of debt. In the event of a crises, household debts are automatically transferred off to the government balance sheet. The total debt in China is now more than 250% of its GDP!!! Additionally, of the 17trillion dollars debt, more than 75% is held by US household/corporations.

The statement on unfunded liability is also without some common sense - let's assume that the government plans to spend 900 million dollars on free health-care in the case that everyone in the US becomes sick this is a liability, not a debt! This liability does not have to be funded, but budgetary provisions can be made available. And in any case, it is unlikely that everyone in the US will become sick in any given year. But none-the less, it is still a liability. This is more like given everyone a car insurance, some people will make a claim, others won't. In any case, this liability is owed to US citizens.

There's no point going into your "quadrillion" dollars argument, its just too dumb and painful.

"that the West have to play their part"

This doesn't sound like an open support for Moscow's policies. This more or less sounds like reinforcing a neutral position. Beijing made its neutral position clear when it abstained from the UN vote that criticized Moscow on Crimea. An about-turn position will simply be too embarrassing and will give the US a moral ground on its policies vis a vis Taiwan and other break-away regions.

That asides, lets even assume that this is a strong support for Moscow, it is not going to influence events in any way. Western policy makers already assume that Moscow has a tacit support from Beijing anyway. There's nothing more that an open support will do beside the political nature of it. Let's take it step by step, what will China do if it openly supports Moscow?

1) Sanction the West?

Well, it will simply crash its economic growth overnight. Europe and North America (and Japan) account for more that 70% of Chinese economic growth story, it makes no sense that China will deliberately seek an economic war for the sake of Moscow.

2) Provide more financial assistance to Moscow?

It is already doing this by extending bilateral trade corporations on oil contracts, and buying more military hardware. Moscow desperately needs more than that. Beijing unfortunately cannot provide more. Chinese banks are simply refusing to lend money to Russian companies and when they do, they charge ridiculous interests compared to what can be obtained in the west. Borrowing money is much cheaper in developed economies right now compared to Emerging markets.
Additionally, China is currently facing a huge debt burden on its own from local companies, there is simply no economic sense to expand more heavy loans to Moscow - a country that is commodity based and thus more risky.

3) Provide sophisticated technology to Moscow?

This wouldn't make sense, as Moscow is likely to rank higher on the technological curve than Beijing itself.

4) Veto UNSC resolutions that are directed at Moscow?

This is very possible, but again the effect is only political as opposed to a real bite. Moscow already has a Veto power.

5) Deepen Bilateral corporation with Moscow against Washington.?

China's economic prosperity is tied to the US than it is to Russia. By trade, US consumers by more Chinese products than any country's products. By services, US companies offshore there services to China than any where else. By balance sheet China owns trillions of assets in US than anywhere else. Both countries don't agree on geopolitics. One is a hegemony, the other is seeking to become one. Both contest for power and influence in East Asia, but both countries have managed to separate politics from business.

China's ties to Russia are less obvious. Both countries are resource rich. Even though they share borders, Russia does not have the wealth to replace the US as a trading partner with China. Russians have a lower disposable income so they can't buy much stuff from China. Russians also have a lower productivity growth, so they can't sell much to China. More than likely, Russia's trade with China will only be dominated by oil & gas and military hardware. Both of which will only benefit China and increase Moscow's trade deficit with respect to China. In the not too distant future, China may likely overtake Russia in the military technology space ( they will do this by stealing from everybody else). So that Russia will only have one thing to sell to China - Oil & gas!
In the Emerging Europe space, Russia's economic clout will grow thinner and thinner as it does less business with the West. Countries like Poland are likely to be the dominant economic players in Europe in the future, probably overtaking even Germany.

So again, besides the bark, an open Chinese support for Moscow offers no real Bite. It will only alienate it from its other key economic interest, it will also provide a moral argument of support for its own key breakaway hubs. So it is more likely that China continues its tacit support and at the same time by policy remain neutral