ValerianSteel:
New Ipsos/Reuters poll.

Hillary-46%
Trump-35%

What do you expect from the media propaganda network and proxy networks that she represents as sanders refereed to it as media establishment ?
You expect the same media to say otherwise ?

scully95:


Boko Haram recruiter, return stolen land back to palestine. Everything I have written are facts. Was there Jewish state before world war 1 ?
See what you have turned middle east into because of your Bully state ? For how long tell me ?

You even faced an ugly defeat in 2006 with lebanon. When you believe too much in your propaganda, defeat is what you get and you got it in full back in 2006.

Return stolen land back to palestine. History will always be on Palestine side until justice prevail.

Golan Heights too was stolen from Syria. I think it's time to return these stolen lands for real.

Cliché No 7: The US and NATO are protecting East European countries
On paper and in the official NATO propaganda, all of Europe and the USA are ready, if needed, to start WWIII to defend Estonia from the revanchist Russian hordes. Judging at how the tiny Baltic states and Poland constantly “bark” at Russia and engage in an apparently never-ending streams of infantile but nonetheless arrogant provocations, folks in eastern Europe apparently believe that. They think that they are part of NATO, part of the EU, part of the “civilized West” and that their AngloZionist patrons will protect them from these scary Russkies. That belief just shows how stupid they are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first Secretary General of NATO did very openly spell out its real purpose “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” The Russians want it exactly the other way around: the Russians in (economically, not militarily, of course), the Americans out and the Germans up (again, economically). That is the real reason behind all the tensions in Europe: the USA desperately wants a Cold War v.2 while Russia is trying as hard as she can to prevent this.
So, what would a war between Russia and the USA look like? To be honest, I don’t know. It all depends on so many different factors that it is pretty much impossible to predict. That does not mean that it cannot, or will not, happen. There are numerous very bad signs that the Empire is acting in an irresponsible way. One of the worst ones is that the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) has almost completely ceased to function.
The main reason for the creation of the NRC was to make sure that secure lines of communications were open, especially in a crisis or tension situation. Alas, as a way to signal their displeasure with Russia over the Ukraine, NATO has now almost completely closed down the NRC even though the NRC was precisely created for that purpose.

Furthermore, forward deploying, besides often being militarily useless, is also potentially dangerous as a local incident between the two sides can rapidly escalate into something very serious. Especially when important lines of communications have been done away with. The good news, relatively speaking, is that the US and Russia still have emergency communications between the Kremlin and the White House and that the Russian and US armed forces also have direct emergency communication capabilities. But at the end of the day, the problem is not a technological one, but a psychological one: the Americans are apparently simply unable or unwilling to negotiate about anything at all.

Somehow, the Neocons have imposed their worldview on the US deep state, and that worldview is that any dynamic between Russia and the USA is a zero sum one, that there is nothing to negotiate and that forcing Russia to comply and submit to the Empire by means of isolation and containment is the only thinkable approach. This will, of course, not work. The question is whether the Neocons have the intellectual capability to understand that or, alternatively, whether the “old” (paleo-conservative) Anglo US patriots can finally kick the “crazies in the basement” (as Bush senior used to refer to the Neocons) out of the White House.

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

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

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

Zoharariel:


Now, I am convinced that Russia has already won the ww3 even before it starts.

To be honest they have won ww3 and history has shown us many times in the past that the minds that win war are those that are ready to fight till last blood. Having high morale is common with the Russian army even when they are not prepared the moral is always on a high level. Now compare to when they are fully prepared and together like the present day Russia.

OMG! The destruction Enemy will face will be too massive. But when you compare this to a crying soldier or marine that was captured in Iran lately. The difference is huge. I have never seen a carrying soldier before, only the U.S which did not face a real life threat in the Iranian waters. To compare that to a soldier that called fire to himself in Syria, the difference again is huge. The conclusion is, the west is sleep walking into war it will face total defeat with Russia.

The Russian effort is a vast and a complex one, and it covers almost every aspect of Russian force planing, but there are four examples which, I think, best illustrate the Russian determination not to allow a 22 June 1941 to happen again:
The re-creation of the First Guards Tank Army (in progress)
The deployment of the Iskander-M operational-tactical missile system (done)
The deployment of the Sarmat ICBM (in progress)
The deployment of the Status-6 strategic torpedo (in progress)

The re-creation of the First Guards Tank Army
It is hard to believe, but the fact is that between 1991 and 2016 Russia did not have a single large formation (division size and bigger) in its Western Military District. A few brigades, regiments and battalions which nominally were called an “Army”. To put it simply – Russia clearly did not believe that there was a conventional military threat from the West and therefore she did not even bother deploying any kind of meaningful military force to defend from such a non-existing threat. By the way, that fact should also tell you everything you need to know about Russian plans to invade the Ukraine, Poland or the Baltics: this is utter nonsense. This has now dramatically changed.

Russia has officially announced that the First Guards Tank Army (a formation with a prestigious and very symbolic history). This Guards Tank Army will now include the 4th “Kantemirovskiaia” Guards Tank Division, the 2nd “Taman” Guards Motorized Rifle Division, the 6th Tank Brigade, the 27th Guards Motor Rifle Brigade Sevastopol and many support units. This Army’s HQ will be located in the Odinstovo suburb of Moscow. Currently the Army is equipped with T-72B3 and T-80 main battle tanks, but they will be replaced by the brand new and revolutionary T-14 Armata tank while the current infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers will be replaced by the new APC and IFV. In the air, these armored units will be protected and supported by Mi-28 and Ka-52 attack helicopters. Make no mistake, this will be a very large force, exactly the kind of force needed so smash through an attacking enemy forces (by the way, the 1TGA was present at the Kursk battle). I am pretty sure that by the time the 1TGA is fully organized it will become the most powerful armored formation anywhere between the Atlantic and the Urals (especially in qualitative terms). If the current tensions continue or even worsen, the Russians could even augment the 1TGA to a type of 21st century “Shock Army” with increased mobility and specializing in breaking deep into the enemy’s defenses.

The deployment of the Iskander-M operational-tactical missile system
The new Iskander-M operational tactical missile system is a formidable weapon by any standard. While technically it is a short-range tactical missile (under 1000km range, the Iskander-M has an official range of 500km), it can also fire the R-500 missile has the capability of striking at an intermediate/operational range (over 1000km, the R-500 has a range of 2000km). It is extremely accurate, it has advanced anti-ABM capabilities, it flies at hypersonic speeds and is practically undetectable on the ground (see herefor more details). This will be the missile tasked with destroying all the units and equipment the US and NATO have forward-deployed in Eastern Europe and, if needed, clear the way for the 1TGA.

The deployment of the Sarmat ICBM
Neither the 1TGA nor the Iskander-M missile will threaten the US homeland in any way. Russia thus needed some kind of weapon which would truly strike fear into the Pentagon and White House in the way the famous RS-36 Voevoda (aka SS-18 “Satan” in US classification) did during the Cold War. The SS-18, the most powerful ICBM ever developed, was scary enough. The RS-28 “Sarmat” (SS-X-30 by NATO classification) brings the terror to a totally new level.

The Sarmat is nothing short of amazing. It will be capable of carrying 10-15 MIRVed warheads which will be delivered in a so-called “depressed” (suborbital) trajectory and which will remain maneuverable at hypersonic speeds. The missile will not have to use the typical trajectory over the North Pole but will be capable of reaching any target anywhere on the planet from any trajectory. All these elements combined will make the Sarmat itself and its warheads completely impossible to intercept.

The Sarmat will also be capable of delivering conventional Iu-71 hypersonic warheads capable of a “kinetic strike” which could be used to strike a fortified enemy target in a non-nuclear conflict. This will be made possible by the amazing accuracy of the Sarmat’s warheads which, courtesy of a recent Russian leak, we now know have a CEP of 10 meters (see screen capture)

[img]http://thesaker.is/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Sarmat-MIRV-CEP.jpg[/img]
The Sarmat’s silos will be protected by a unique “active protection measures” which will include 100 guns capable of firing a “metallic cloud” of forty thousand 30mm “bullets” to an altitude of up to 6km. The Russians are also planning to protect the Sarmat with their new S-500 air defense systems. Finally, the Sarmat’s preparation to start time will be under 60 seconds thanks a a highly automated launch system. What this all means is that the Sarmat missile will be invulnerable in its silo, during it’s flight and on re-entry in the lower parts of the atmosphere.
It is interesting to note that while the USA has made a great deal of noise around its planned Prompt Global Strike system, the Russians have already begun deploying their own version of this concept.

The deployment of the Status-6 strategic torpedo
Do you remember the carefully staged “leak” in November of last year when the Russians ‘inadvertently’ showed a super dooper secret strategic torpedo on prime time news? Here is this (in)famous slide:


[img]http://thesaker.is/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Status6-2015.jpg[/img]
What is shown here is an “autonomous underwater vehicle” which has advanced navigational capabilities but which can also be remote controlled and steered from a specialized command module. This vehicle can dive as deep as 1000m, at a speed up to 185km/h and it has a range of up to 10’000km. It is delivered by specially configured submarines.

The Status-6 system can be used to target aircraft carrier battle groups, US navy bases (especially SSBN bases) and, in its most frighting configuration, it can be used to deliver high-radioactivity cobalt bombs capable of laying waste to huge expanses of land. The Status-6 delivery system would be a new version of the T-15 torpedo which would be 24m long, 1,5m wide weigh 40 tons and capable of delivering a 100 megaton warhead which would make it twice as powerful as the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated, the Soviet Czar-bomb (57 megatons). Hiroshima was only 15 kilotons.

Keep in mind that most of the USA’s cities and industrial centers are all along the coastline which makes them extremely vulnerable to torpedo based attacks (be it Sakharov’s proposed “Tsunami bomb” or the Status-6 system). And, just as in the case of the Iskander-M or the Sarmat ICBM, the depth and speed of the Status-6 torpedo would make it basically invulnerable to incerception.

Evaluation:
There is really nothing new in all of the above, and US military commanders have always known that. All the US anti-ballistic missile systems have always been primarily a financial scam, from Reagan’s “Star Wars” to Obama’s “anti-Iranian ABM”. For one thing, any ABM system is susceptible to ‘local saturation': if you have X number ABM missile protecting a Y long space against an X number of missiles, all that you need to do is to saturate only one sector of the Y space with *a lot* of real and fake missiles by firing them all together through one small sector of the Y space the ABM missile system is protecting. And there are plenty of other measures the Russians could take. They could put just one single SLBM capable submarine in Lake Baikal making it basically invulnerable. There is already some discussion of that idea in Russia. Another very good option would be to re-activate the Soviet BzhRK rail-mobile ICBM. Good luck finding them in the immense Russian train network. In fact, the Russians have plenty of cheap and effective measure. Want me to list one more?
Sure!
Take the Kalibr cruise-missile recently seen in the war in Syria. Did you know that it can be shot from a typical commerical container, like the ones you will find on trucks, trains or ships? Check out this excellent video which explains this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbUU_9bOcnM

Just remember that the Kalibr has a range of anywhere between 50km to 4000km and that it can carry a nuclear warhead. How hard would it be for Russia to deploy these cruise missiles right off the US coast in regular container ships? Or just keep a few containers in Cuba or Venezuela? This is a system which is so undetectable that the Russians could deploy it off the coast of Australia to hit the NSA station in Alice Springs if they wanted, an nobody would even see it coming.

The reality is that the notion that the US could trigger a war against Russia (or China for that matter) and not suffer the consequences on the US mainland is absolutely ridiculous. And yet, when I hear all the crazy talk by western politicians and generals I get the impression that they are forgetting about this undeniable fact. Frankly, even the current threats against Russia have a ‘half-backed’ feel to them: a battalion here, another one there, a few missiles here, a few more there. It is like the rulers of the Empire don’t realize that it is a very, very bad idea to constantly poke a bear when all you are carrying with you is a pocket-knife. Sometimes the reaction of western politicians remind me of the thugs who try to rob a gas station with a plastic or empty gun and who are absolutely stunned with they get gunned down by the owner or the cops. This kind of thuggery is nothing more than a form of “suicide by cop” which never ends well for the one trying to get away with it.
So sometimes things have to be said directly and unambiguously: western politicians better not believe in their own imperial hubris. So far, all their threats have achieved is that the Russians have responded with a many but futile verbal protests and a full-scale program to prepare Russia for WWIII.

As I have written many times, Russians are very afraid of war and they will go out of their way to avoid it. But they are also ready for war. This is a uniquely Russian cultural feature which the West has misread an innumerable number of time over the past 1000 years or so. Over and over again have the Europeans attacked Russia only to find themselves into a fight they would never have imagined, even in their worst nightmares. This is why the Russians like to say that “Russia never starts wars, she only ends them”.

There is a profound cultural chasm between how the West views warfare and how the Russians do. In the West, warfare is, really, “the continuation of politics by other means”. For Russians, it is a ruthless struggle for survival. Just look at generals in the West: they are polished and well mannered managers much more similar to corporate executives than with, say, Mafia bosses. Take a look at Russian generals (for example, watch the Victory Day parade in Moscow). In comparison to their western colleagues they look almost brutish, because first and foremost they are ruthless and calculating killers. I don’t mean that in a negative way – they often are individually very honorable and even kind men, and like every good commander, they care for their men and love their country. But the business they are in in not the continuation of politics by other means, the business they are in is survival. At all cost.

You cannot judge a military or, for that matter, a nation, by how it behaves when it triumphs, when it is on the offensive pursing a defeated enemy. All armies look good when they are winning. You can really judge of the nature of a military, or a nation, at its darkest hour, when things are horrible and the situation worse than catastrophic. That was the case in 1995 when the Eltsin regime ordered a totally unprepared, demoralized, poorly trained, poorly fed, poorly equipped and completely disorganized Russian military (well, a few hastily assembled units) to take Grozny from the Chechens. It was hell on earth. Here is some footage of General Lev Rokhlin in a hastily organized command post in a basement inside Grozy. He is as exhausted, dirty and exposed as any of his soldiers. Just look at his face and look at the faces of the men around him. This is what the Russian army looks like when it is in the depth of hell, betrayed by the traitors sitting in the Kremlin and abandoned by most if the Russian people (who, I am sorry to remind here, mostly were only were dreaming of McDonalds and Michael Jackson in 1995).

Read the rest here - http://nigeriaproperty-real..com/2016/05/how-russia-is-preparing-for-wwiii.html

This article was written for the Unz Review:http://www.unz.com/tsaker/how-russia-is-preparing-for-wwiii/

I have recently posted a piece in which I tried to debunk a few popular myths about modern warfare. Judging by many comments which I received in response to this post, I have to say that the myths in question are still alive and well and that I clearly failed to convince many readers. What I propose to do today, is to look at what Russia is really doing in response to the growing threat from the West. But first, I have to set the context or, more accurately, re-set the context in which Russia is operating. Let’s begin by looking at the AngloZionist policies towards Russia.

The West’s actions:
First on this list is, obviously, the conquest by NATO of all of Eastern Europe. I speak of conquest because that is exactly what it is, but a conquest achieved according to the rules of 21st century warfare which I define as “80% informational, 15% economic and 5% military”. Yes, I know, the good folks of Eastern Europe were just dreaming of being subjugated by the US/NATO/EU/etc – but so what? Anyone who has read Sun Tzu will immediately recognize that this deep desire to be ‘incorporated’ into the AngloZionist “Borg” is nothing else but the result of a crushed self-identity, a deep-seated inferiority complex and, thus, a surrender which did not even have to be induced by military means.



At the end of the day, it makes no difference what the locals thought they were achieving – they are now subjects of the Empire and their countries more or less irrelevant colonies in the fringe of the AngloZionist Empire. As always, the local comprador elite is now bubbling with pride at being, or so they think, accepted as equals by their new masters (think Poroshenko, Tusk or Grybauskaite) which gives them the courage to bark at Moscow from behind the NATO fence. Good for them.
Second is the now total colonization of Western Europe into the Empire. While NATO moved to the East, the US also took much deeper control of Western Europe which is now administered for the Empire by what the former Mayor of London once called the “great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jellies” – faceless bureaucrats à la François Hollande or Angela Merkel.

Third, the Empire has given its total support to semi-demonic creatures ranging from al-Khattab to Nadezhda Savchenko. The West’s policy is crystal clear and simple to the extreme: if it is anti-Russian we back it. This policy is best exemplified with a Putin and Russia demonization campaign which is, in my opinion, far worse and much more hysterical than anything during the Cold War.

Fourth, the West has made a number of highly disturbing military moves including the deployment of the first elements of an anti-missile system in Eastern Europe, the dispatching of various forms of rapid reaction forces, the deployment of a few armored units, etc. NATO now has forward deployed command posts which can be used to support the engagement of a rapid reaction force.

What does all this add up to?
Right now, nothing much, really. Yes, the NATO move right up to the Russian borders is highly provocative, but primarily in political terms. In purely military terms, not only is this a very bad idea (see cliché #6 here https://www.nairaland.com/3115365/what-war-between-russia-usa#45774141), but the size of the actual forces deployed is, in reality, tiny: the ABM system currently deployed can, at best, hope to intercept a few missiles (10-20 depending on your assumptions) as for the conventional forces they are of the battalion size (more or less 600 soldiers plus support). So right now there is categorically no real military threat to Russia.

So why are the Russians so clearly upset?
Because the current US/NATO moves might well be just the first steps of a much larger effort which, given enough time, might begin presenting a very real danger for Russia.
Furthermore, the kind of rhetoric coming out of the West now is not only militaristic and russophobic, it is often outright messianic. The last time around the West had a flare up of its 1000 year old chronic “messianic syndrome” condition Russia lost 20 (to 30) million people. So the Russians can be forgiven if they are paying a great deal of attention to what the AngloZionist propaganda actually says about them.

The Russians are most dismayed at the re-colonization of western Europe. Long gone are the days when people like Charles de Gaulle, Helmut Schmidt or François Mitterrand, were in charge of Europe’s future. For all their very real faults, these men were at least real patriots and not just US colonial administrators. The ‘loss’ of Western Europe is far more concerning for the Russians than the fact that ex-Soviet colonies in Eastern Europe are now under US colonial administration. Why?

Look at this from the Russian point of view.
The Russians all see that the US power is on the decline and that the dollar will, sooner or later, gradually or suddenly, lose its role as the main reserve and exchange currency on the planet (this process has already begun). Simply put – unless the US finds a way to dramatically change the current international dynamic the AngloZionist Empire will collapse. The Russians believe that what the Americans are doing is, at best, to use tensions with Russia to revive a dormant Cold War v2 and, at worst, to actually start a real shooting war in Europe.

So a declining Empire with a vital need for a major crisis, a spineless Western Europe unable to stand up for its own interest, a subservient Eastern Europe just begging to turn into a massive battlefield between East and West, and a messianic, rabidly russophobic rhetoric as the background for an increase in military deployments on the Russian border. Is anybody really surprised that the Russians are taking all this very, very serious even if right now the military threat is basically non-existent?

The Russian reaction
So let us now examine the Russian reaction to Empire’s stance.
First, the Russians want to make darn sure that the Americans do not give in into the illusion that a full-scale war in Europe would be like WWII which saw the US homeland only suffer a few, tiny, almost symbolic, attacks by the enemy. Since a full scale war in Europe would threaten the very existence of the Russian state and nation, the Russians are now taking measures to make darn sure that, should that happen, the US would pay an immense price for such an attack.

Second, the Russians are now evidently assuming that a conventional threat from the West might materialize in the foreseeable future. They are therefore taking the measures needed to counter that conventional threat.
Third, since the USA appears to be dead set into deploying an anti-ballistic missile system not only in Europe, but also in the Far East, the Russians are taking the measures to both defeat and bypass this system.

Cliché No 3: high technology wins the day

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

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

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

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

shooting it out of the sky (active defense)
blinding or otherwise disabling its sensors (active defense)
jamming its communications with the operator (active defense)
jamming or disabling its navigation system (active defense)
camouflage/deception (passive defense)
providing it with false targets (passive defense)
protecting targets by, for example, burying them (passive defense)
remaining mobile and/or decentralized and/or redundant (passive defense)

There are many more possible measures, it all depends on the actual threat. They key here is, again, cost and practicality: how much does it cost to develop, build and deploy an advanced weapon system versus the cost of one (or several) counter-measures.

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

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

Cliché No 4: big military budgets win the day

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

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

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

Cliché No 5: big military alliances help win wars

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

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

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

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

Cliché No 6: forward deployment gives a major advantage

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

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

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

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

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

This is a must read - By The Saker
Debunking popular clichés about modern warfare
This must be the question which I am most frequently asked. This is also the question to which I hear the most outlandish and ill-informed responses to. I have addressed this question in the past and those interested in this topic can consult the following articles:

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

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

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

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

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

Well, this is one “kinda true”, especially on a tactical level. There is an often used as a general rule of thumb that being in the defense gives you a 3:1 advantage meaning that if you have 1 battalion on the defense you should could about 3 battalions on the offense in order to hope for a victory. But when looking at an operational or, even more so, strategic level, this rule is completely false. Why? Because the defending side has a huge disadvantage: it is always the attacker who gets to decide when to attack, where and how. For those interested by this topic I highly recommend the book “Surprise Attack: Lessons for Defense Planning” by Richard Betts which, while relatively old (1982) and very focused on the Cold War, provides a very interesting and thorough discussion of the advantages and risks of a surprise attack. This is a fascinating topic which I cannot discuss in detail here, but let’s just say that a successfully pulled off surprise attack almost totally negates the advantage in theoretical forces ratios for the defender. Let me give you a simple example: imagine a front line of 50 km in which each 5 km are defended on both sides by a one division.

So each sides has 10 divisions, each responsible for the defense of 5km of front, right? According to the 3:1 rule, side A needs 30 divisions to overcome the 10 divisions in the defense? Right? Wrong! What side A can do is concentrate 5 of its divisions on a 10km wide front and put the other five in the defense. On that 10km wide front of attack side now had 5 attacking divisions against 2 defending ones while on the rest of the front, side A has 5 defending divisions against 8 (potentially) attacking ones. Notice that now side B does not have a 3:1 advantage to overcome side A’s defenses (the actual ration is now 8:5). In reality what B will do is rush more divisions to defend the narrow 10km sector but that, in turn means that B now has less divisions to defense the full front. From here on you can make many assumptions: side B can counter-attack instead of defending, side B can defend in depth (in several “echelons”, 2 or even 3), side A could also begin by faking attack on one sector of the front and then attack elsewhere, or side A can send, say, one reinforced battalion to move really fast and create chaos deep in the defenses of B. My point here is simply that this 3:1 rules is purely a tactical rule of thumb and that in real warfare theoretical forces ratios (norms) require much more advanced calculations, including the consequences of a surprise attack.

NairaMinted:
Western Propagandists Can't Handle the Sarmat

The work of Western propaganda is hard. High-ranking officials overseas declare Russia's economy is “in tatters”, the foreign press reprints their words with malice, but our economy is still alive. The specialists of the Washington propaganda machine release another fake, and it gets immediately refuted with facts.

And it happens that the Western media along with foreign official agencies themselves throw sand in the wheels of the local propagandists. For example, a year ago, "Radio Liberty" attacked the Russian military-industrial complex. Allegedly, the frequency of appearance of new products of the domestic military industry is not significant, because if war suddenly breaks out Russia would still go to battle with the junk and so-so new equipment: "Armata" tank stalled, while the remaining promising products — are "paper" samples and prototypes.

But to the West, this sedative pill from journalists has not worked. Smashing to smithereens the arguments of "Radio Liberty" about the corruptible state of the Russian military industry, the Pentagon and foreign media repeatedly reached panic mode while discussing Russian new designs.

For example, modelling of a tank battle between the stalled and nothing to worry about "Armata" and the American "Abrams", the Pentagon came to the conclusion that the Russian tank is an extremely dangerous opponent for the US equipment, a serious threat to infantry and almost invulnerable to the aerial attack.

The US also fears other news from our Defense Ministry and the MIC. For example, recently the U.S. military expressed concern about the development of Russian space technologies threatening military satellites of the Pentagon in the long term. The development of an underwater drone has also not escaped attention of the US military.

Here's another example. Less than a month ago, Deputy head of the Cyber command of the Armed Forces of the United States Ronald Pontius acknowledged that his country cannot keep up with the development of our military equipment, in particular, in his opinion, the danger of Russian reconnaissance aircraft, which the United States has nothing to oppose Also, according to the U.S. Department of Defense, America has nothing to counter our success in working on modern electronic warfare systems.it.

However, the danger in the sky is not only our aircraft, but also strategic weapons of Russia. The American missile defense system does not guarantee absolute protection, even with the current balance of power, not to mention the terrible new products of Russia’s Military industry. According to the commander of Russian Strategic Missile Forces Colonel General Sergey Karakayev, the development of the US missile defense system "does not currently lead to critical reduction of the combat capabilities of the Russia strategic missile troops".

Moreover, Russia considers the development of US missile defense, while planning the design of new Russian weapons.

"The implementation of our plans involves the use of fundamentally new and effective means and ways of overcoming any missile defense," says Sergey Karakayev.

One of these designs is the "Sarmat" Intercontinental Ballistic Missile - an article about which has already been published on the website "PolitiRussia".

"For its weight and size characteristics it is similar to its predecessor (SS-18 “Satan”). But along with this we will have new types of combat equipment, a promising means of overcoming missile defenses. Most importantly, the complex is being developed and will be manufactured at the enterprises of the Russian cooperation," said Sergei Karakayev, describing the missile.

Overcoming the enemy defenses in this case is one of the main highlights of the novelty.

"The main requirement for the new missile is a flexible response to the development of the US national missile defense system until 2030. In addition, energy should allow the missile to strike at targets not only across the North but also across the South pole," explains the former chief of staff of the strategic missile forces Viktor Yesin.

"The new missile will be able to withstand the space echelon strike weapons, and it can be launched from almost any area and in all directions," - said Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov, describing the capabilities of the missile.

Unusual attacks, for example via the South Pole, add a headache to the American missile defense system. But many more dangers is the hypersonic combat equipment of the missile. A year ago, The Washington Times wrote that America cannot defend itself against such systems.

Moreover, if these missiles will be deployed near the village of Dombrovsky, as planned, according to the newspaper, the US will not be able to shoot them down on the approach, but also to destroy them at home. The appearance of such missiles, said Janes Information Group, will become a serious trump card for Russia in the negotiations on limiting strategic nuclear arms.

The test of the "Sarmat" missile had been scheduled for the spring of this year, but it is already the second time they have moved it. The first launch did not take place because of the unpreparedness of a launch facility. Now problems have arisen in the rocket itself.

"It's a completely new product. It is clear that testing of new equipment can go wrong. And here, I think, we should not seek some kind of malice or far-reaching consequences. And, of course, it is better to identify problems with equipment before start than after..." said the chief editor of the "Arms Export" magazine Andrey Frolov.

"These are the risks, the things that you would expect. And I would not serve this situation from the point of view that, they say, as we all bad. We are not bad. The fact that we identified the problem in advance is good. Much better than if a rocket fell on someone's head" - the expert of Association of military political scientists, associate Professor of political science and sociology REU nam. Plekhanov Alexander Perendzhiev said in agreeement.

And despite the rescheduling of the test for the West it is extremely difficult to gloat about it in the press, given the panic foreign media expressed about the development of the "Sarmat" in recent years.

For example, the day before the release of information about the delay, several British media agencies published horror inducing articles about the Russian missile. The Daily Mirror, Daily Express, Daily Star, and Daily Record at the same time labored panic materials that were dispersed in the Western sector of the world wide web.

"It's a doomsday weapon so powerful that in just a few seconds can wipe a vast territory off the face of the Earth. The West has nothing to counter it, so it can easily bypass all missile defense systems", - said the newspaper, quoting British experts.

"A huge area" comparable, for example, with the state of Texas or France as a whole. The long range of the missile also scares the British. The "Sarmat" is able to both the West and the East coast of the United States or to get into the center of London, they write.

However, it was not only the British who were alerted — the American press also wrote about the "Sarmat" cautiously, albeit more restrained. Ahead of the English counterparts, National Interest has pleased us with publications about the promising missile.

"The United States is significantly behind Russia in the development of land-based ICBMs... the project of the European missile defense and ground-based missile defense system midcourse flight (complex missile defense designed to intercept approaching warheads) in the foreseeable future will not be effective against Russian missiles," - makes a disappointing conclusion to the publication.

Whatever rocket did not come to replace the current US "Minuteman-3", it is unlikely it will be as awesome as the Russian, sums up the author of the National Interest.

Moreover, while the development of a new ICBM will be completed, the Russian missile defense system, too, will not stand still.

"We are working on the modernization of the "Minuteman", but the command of the US air force told Congress that this outdated system is unlikely to provide guaranteed containment in connection with the improvement of missile defenses," says the publication.

Maybe I would like to believe Western propaganda that carefully describes the decline of the Russian armed forces. But how to do it when the live reaction of the foreign press on the coming test of only one of our missiles is so eloquent?

#StraightFace

Missy89:


I hope you are not having any brain damage since laughing without any reason Brain overload?

You should educate yourself about the treaties signed in those conflicts. I am still waiting for your battle list from 1700-1940. Name those 294 or whatever battles. I dare you

The more you type, the more you make me laugh hahahahahahahahahaha. Do you know how many treaties were signed even without a gun fired, conflict, battle not to talk of major Wars ?
Please go back to primary one and debate with the kindergarten . So if you call Putin a foolish man and I agree this means you have won a war of words, then agreement will be signed ?

You don't know anything about Wars! Argument closed, this will be my last comment here to you because I can't even stand it lol.

Let sign new agreement that Obama is foolish and add it to the war of words since there is war there it must also be counted yes ?
You lack any brain. Even Conflict is War right ? If I slap you now and you did not respond or you even responded but we quickly resolved it before our countries declare war (Assuming you are from Cambodia and I am from Nigeria), it's war right ? When U.S sided with Biafra back in the day, U.S lost the War right ?

You don't know anything and for this reason stop disgracing yourself. Learn the difference between a Battle, conflict and proper War before you type anything next time. Argument with you is closed on this topic.

Missy89:


List the 279 battles won by Russia during that timeline.

Do you have any brain cells at all? I said Brest-Litovsk treaty DID NOT GO INTO EFFECT because Germany lost in the west. It is like speaking to a hopeless zombie. English too difficult for you to understand?.

Waiting for the list of the 279 battles the Russians won.

1900s alone

Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905)- Defeat
World War I -(1914-1918) - Defeat
Finnish Civil War (1918) Defeat
Latvian War of Independence (1918–1920) - Defeat
Lithuanian–Soviet War (1918–1919) - Defeat
Polish–Soviet War (1919–1921)- Defeat
Georgian-Ossetian Conflict (1918–1920) - Defeat

So where did you get the myth of 3 loses in 34? ( The Russians fought over 40 wars in that period by the way)

lol!! You are the funniest man in the world. Even Finnish Civil War, Russia is fighting Civil war with Finland ? Are you ok ? You see where you don't know anything. Mixing battle with War. Battle is just minor conflict between the two which usually ends very quickly. War is not the same thing with just minor conflict or battle.

You see now that you don't know anything. Hahahahahahaha Even Finish Civil war Russia is fighting Civil war with Finland ?? Hahahahaha Defeat lol. Conflict too is war Hahahahaha !!

Why did I waste so much time answering you ?

Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces (Strategic Missile Troops) Commander Sergey Karakayev said on May 10 that Russia is developing new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with special focus on the capability to penetrate US ballistic missile defense (BMD).

He said the decision to expedite the implementation has been provoked by US BMD deployment in Europe.

The General emphasized that Russian missiles are capable of delivering warheads via energy optimal trajectory and striking from multiple directions, «which forces the opposing side to ensure perimeter missile defense».

According to him, Russia will have an equal number of stationary and mobile ground ICBM launchers by 2021.

The service plans to test 16 intercontinental ballistic missiles in 2016.

Out of a total 16 test launches, 14 are to be conducted as part of the development of new missiles and warheads.

Overall, Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces are planning to test around 160 new weapon systems in 2016, twice as many as in 2015.

Some of tests are likely to involve a new hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV), the YU-71, which eventually could be mounted on the RS-28 Sarmat (SS-X-30), the country’s newest super heavy liquid-propelled thermonuclear intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

The development of the Sarmat silo-based missile system with a heavy missile is nearing completion.

Russia will station its new RS-28 Sarmat heavy liquid-propelled intercontinental ballistic missiles in Siberia and the southern part of Urals when the new weapon becomes operational in 2018.

The system will gradually replace the obsolete Voyevoda R-36M2 Satan (SS-18) ICBM.

Sarmat will use the same silos that house Satan at the moment, but the two missiles have quite different specifications. The silos would be rebuilt for the new missiles and equipped with interceptors to protect them from a pre-emptive strike.

The first prototype missiles have already been built. The first test launches are scheduled for later this year at Plesetsk site after a short period of on-site preliminary trials.

According to a defense industry source, a missile is ejected from a silo to an altitude of 30-40 meters by a hot-gas generator in drop tests. This is the altitude for starting the first-stage cruise engine in 'regular' launches.

With a range of at least 6,000 miles, the largest ICBM ever built, the RS-28 Sarmat will carry as many as 15 independently targeted thermo-nuclear warheads: 10 heavy warheads or 15 lighter ones depending on the mission.

The missile will weigh at least 100-tons and carry a 10-ton payload. It will use a combination of decoys, a massive array of countermeasures systems and sheer speed designed specifically to overcome ballistic missile defenses. It will be equipped with maneuvering warheads to complicate interception.

The planned deployment of RS-28 is one of measures taken by Russia in response to the US Prompt Global Strike (PGS) and ballistic missile defense plans.

The PGS is an effort to develop a system that can deliver a precision-guided conventional weapon airstrike anywhere in the world within one hour. The program encompasses numerous established and emerging technologies, including conventional surface-launched missiles and air- and submarine-launched hypersonic missiles.

The ballistic missile defense is being created to counter a counterstrike in case of war. The US strives to create an effective global missile defense system consisting of various integrated types of missile interception means, be it kinetic or laser systems, deployed in all environments, including in space. It believes that such multi-layered defense would be able to engage missiles in the air and warheads in space.

In 2002 the US unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty.

The move was very destructive for the arms control regime. It was perceived in Russia as an attempt to make the US immune to a retaliatory strike.

Now, the Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defense system has already been deployed in Romania. According to the plans, in 2018 its upgraded version will be stationed in Poland. US missile defense capable ships are homeported in Rota, Spain. These are just a few examples of US BMD global effort.

Moscow has stated on many occasions that if the US continues to push the issue, Russia will find asymmetrical means of responding to the missile defense system. The long-term development plans of Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces have been corrected accordingly. The service plans to introduce some brand new and effective means and techniques to penetrate any missile defense system, capable of engaging targets anywhere in the world. RS-28 is an example testifying to the fact that abandoning the ABM Treaty and implementing programs to gain superiority over Russia has not made America safer. Quite to the contrary, arms control is the best way to keep the threat away. Hopefully, the next US administration adopts more realistic approaches to the problems of nuclear security.

Missy89:


If i list 200 battles during ww1/2( till 1940) will you get on your knees and kiss my shoes? If you say yes i will give you a list. Stop quoting Wikipedia. That was really dumb. I just gave you a reason to doubt what is on there since the list was very incomplete.

Go back to where I started correcting you. "Between 1700 and 1940 Russia/USSR fought in 34 wars and won 31 and in 392 battle and won 279." Out of 392 battle and Russian won 279 battles. 71% of Russia's battles were won.

These are facts you cannot change if you like go to Neocons'hell and return. I have already countered you so anything you say is irrelevant. Again you were claiming Russia lost most of its territory to Germany, what happened to German-soviet-nonaggression-pact or Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact ? Russia lost Poland to Germany and Germany still invaded Poland. Does it make any sense to you ? If you speak of Treaty of Brest-Litovsk as a defeat to Russia what would you call German-soviet-nonaggression-pact or Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact ? Another defeat to Germany ?

Stop typing already because I won't reply you again. You lack any sense of argument.

Missy89:


Lol

Wikipedia is your source? Are you really that dumb

I will give you one example that blows your "prove" out of the water. Battle of Jastków is not you your wikipedia list. That happened on the Eastern Front in July 1915, The Kerensky Offensive in July 1917 i can keep going. Come back with another prove

I did not say Germany won the first world war. I said, Germany won the Eastern front of the first world war and imposed her conditions on the Russians. It didnt go into effect because she lot in the West. That said, The Russians lost a huge chunk of their territory in that war. Now that is a fact.

The total number of battle in word war 1 is not up to 200 as you claimed and fact still remains Russia won 71% of its battle. I posted the Wiki for you because I know that is where you are getting your info from. Facts still remain World war 1 saw major Empires weakened or Broken.
Have you ever seen Germany celebrated any victory or anywhere writing that Germans won world war one ?

There is no point arguing with you because you have flawed twice. You can't back up anything you say. Just repeating hearsay. How many battles were in world war 1 altogether ? You said eastern front alone is more than 200. Most of the battles in World war one were mainly between ottoman Empire, British and French Empire. Only a few with Germany and Russian empire. It saw major empires broken. So where did you see your 200 in eastern front ?

World war two was a total defeat of Nazis empire by the same Soviets in which other forces joined when they saw Nazis were being pushed back by the Soviets. Again you are twisting facts. I can not continue arguing with a slowpoke that knows nothing about wars except hearsay.

Where did you see 200 battles ?

Missy89:


Stup1d Niggah.

I dont need to hear what Pootine has to say to clearly know for a fact that Russia DID NOT win the first world war.

I meant WW1/2. corrected! Now go and check the facts and come back

By the way, what is the difference between the Russia Soviet with other Soviets

Even without arguing with you because you know nothing. I have just countered you and you immediately accepted defeat. Let me even help you out with this simple use of sense or hypothesis to wash your illusive world completely.

If Germany Had Won World War 1 why do they still need to fight world war 2 ? You see that it does not make any sense, just watch the video to understand what really happened.

Again World war one to me is like nobody won and lost except the U.S that lost soldiers it should never participated in the first place it was just the pre-world war 2 which should be single in the first place.

Even the total number of battles in world war 1 is not up to 200 that you claimed. Anyone can use Google Chrome to visit the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_I_battles to confirm it.

After visiting, click Ctr+F a box will appear at the top right of the Chrome, type Battle there,it will show the total number of battles in world war 1. So your eastern battle is not up to 200 no matter how you try to twist it. The total battle is about 130 out of the 130, the eastern fronts were not up to 130. So where did you get your over 200 ?


For example "Second Battle of Krithia" The Battle of Eski Hissarlik took place on 1 May 1915 and was an attempt made by the Ottomans (Turks), commanded by Liman von Sanders to push Allied (British and French) troops back to the sea. Many like that happened and you can't count it.
So where did you get your over 200 ? Again you know nothing about wars and you should stop spreading lies. Fact still remain Russia won 71% of its battles. These are historical facts.

Missy89:


Responding to you is always a waste of time.

1[s], The Russians were roundly defeated in the first world war by Germany. They lost polish Russia forever after that war. The treaty was so bad, people like Trostsky walked out and had to be persuaded agree to terms by his comrades and the fact that the German army was marching towards Petrograd. The only reason most of it wasn't enforced was because the US and the western allies defeated Germany on the western front.

You should go back and study history and you will know that the Russia empire lost about 30% of her territory after the first world war. Poland Russia, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Bessarabia.

2, The nonsense idea about Hitler being a western proxy lacks common sense. It was the Russians that collaborated with Hitler to carve up Poland and it was the Russian's rendering help to the Germany navy in the early stages of the war. Stalin was on record saying Britain started the war and not Germany and he even promised to aid Germany in future conflicts before Hitler turned on him

3, The half backed idea that Russia fought 392 from 1700-1940 is again a stup1d statement. The Eastern front of the second world war alone had over 200 battles involving the Russians.

4, Japan totally defeated the Russians and lost control of Port Arthur. There was no draw. In fact, The Japaneses are the first Asian country to defeat an European power in battle
[/s]
Lolz

You know nothing about history. Just this video bellow confirmed what happened during that time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfosguuwTF4

Putin answered the lady very well and straight answer as expected of him. This is fact checking, Russia did not lose Word war one. You need to understand how the soviet works so Russia never lost world war one. Watch the video again and stop spreading lies and propaganda as usual. I am following this thread closely. You are mixing Russia Soviet with other Soviets. Scully95 is more accurate than you are about the War and Battles, you are counting just battles in world war 2. Scully is very right and if you count from world war 2 which is from 1939 to 1945, the number of battles here is just within 1 year which is not up to 200 as you claimed. The second world war started September, you are saying the battles within 3 or 4 months is over 200 Battles ?


Scully95 wrote "1700-1940" and you are speaking of World war 2 that started 1939-1945. You see that you are not smart by twisting facts as usual ? How much do they pay you for doing this fact twisting ?

Russia did not lose world war 1.

Now my question is, out of 34 wars Russia lost 3 wars and Angozionist Empire thinks he can win any war with Russians ? You that is backing the empire need to start talking to your fellow goons about Russians.

We can say so many things in regards to the preferences and weaknesses of going to motion picture theater and watching films at home. At last, everybody will pick a side as per the personal scale of preferences and convictions. On the off chance that you are a genuine motion picture fan yet don't like for crowds, watching trailers and listening to irritating remarks you are not keen on or don't have any desire to hear by any means, you should check out CDs and DVDs category for more info or anyone has any idea where to watch the latest video film free of charge ?

ValerianSteel:
What fvcking facts are there to debate with propaganda infused clowns?

I deal in matured and logical conversations.The Kremlin clowns can keep on gangbanging Putin's asshole for all I care

You can't stand the debate anymore ? Where is the Propaganda now ? Just point to one ? Did Russia not help Syrian Armies to liberate Palmyra from Western backed terrorists ? If this is what you call propaganda then you are the propaganda yourself. These are facts on the ground. Just mention one thing that is propaganda ? Now you see who is clown and who is not ?

This is why Putin like you said is winning all its fronts. Even your propaganda front, Putin is winning by countering all the media lies. The Empire of lies. How times flies the table has turned around now.


Watch your favorite hoodlum in UK's reaction to Orchestra played in Palmyra. First time Washington department says something that makes a little sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo0joUwY4_4

Zoharariel:
That we may subject Mazeltov, Vedaxcool, ValerianSteel, Obagadaffi & Lucasbalo to house mountain arrest on mount kilimanjaro - leaving them with only 5 British heated blankets, 5 Israeli Mattresses, 5 Turkish Pillows, 5 Saudi-Arabian donkeys (for their sexual pleasure), 5 French solar-powered lanterns, 1 Amerikan goat (for Asun) & 5 crates of Orijin. grin cheesy grin

Wow!! This is explosive, trust me those about to be subjected to house arrest on mount Kilimanjaro (Mazeltov, Vedaxcool, ValerianSteel, Obagadaffi & Lucasbalo) will never dare to debate in facts like this. They will run as usual.

CSTR2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2ovCvrS7jk

Where is the propaganda video ? It's not playing for too much propaganda ?

Zoharariel:
And It came about in the spring, at the time kings go out, that Zoharariel sent Vedaxcool - his Amerikan conquered servant and they ravaged all the Amerika cities and besieged Washington DC , but Zoharariel remained in Moskow along with his loyal Russian 5star Generals - Appleyard, Nairaminted, Scully95, Fineguy11, Tkester, Cyprus000, Shymm3x, Bonechamberlain, Capip120, Romme2u & Jnhmaxxwell, for they are all men of valour.

It happened late one afternoon that Zoharariel got up from his Dolce & Gabbana's waterbed and walked about on the roof of the king’s court, and he saw a woman bathing on her roof. Now the woman was very beautiful for she has curly pubic hair and big breast with the shape of banana.

So Zoharariel sent and inquired about the woman, and Mazeltov - another conquered servant said, “Is this not Missy89 the Ex-girlfriend of Papa Shymmex, and the new wife of ValerianSteel the Jew? 

Then Zoharariel sent messengers headed by Lucasbalo and took her, and she came to him, and he slept with her from dusk till dawn. (Now she enjoyed the 7inch-curved lamba of Zoharariel for her husband ValerianSteel is a quick ejaculator a.k.a 1minute man ) And she returned to her house. The woman became pregnant, and she sent and told Zoharariel, and she said, “I am pregnant.” 

And Zoharariel was very happy for he knew he had deposited the seed of kain & abel into her womb.


**Story to be continued because Zoharariel is currently on his 4th bottle of Heineken and a bowl full of Asun, for his brain has begun vibrating like the Russian ICBM - Topol-M in its boost stage and most especially because it is about RAINING Russian cat and Amerikan mouse in ijebu

A bowl full of Asun LWKMD!!

Where is the rest ?

adorable29:
Jhnmaxxwel... you sound too unintelligent for me to deal with jor. I am not ready to reduce my IQ this nite.

At least scully is smart. Although too intelligent for his own good.

Kosi lo jo mumu wey carry first class degree. mumu ni e jo. Who you eep? You don chop ? at least Teebillz help person and the person fck up now because she dey fck another prick. Donjazzy,Tuface, Dr Sid. Even if I no believe the rest that 2uface own, I believe am die. 2uface can fck anything fckable.

mumu u. sit down there.

onstelly:



Well said but I don't think that's what she meant
The baby in question is still very small and is still breastfeeding

So maybe when he is now all grown, he can go back to the dad but for now, the poor child needs the mother

This is the only comment that makes super sense.

adorable29:



You see what I am saying and why I am calling your rants senseless even with all your phantom first class. You are just going here, there and NOWHERE......

SO UNBELIEVABLY POINTLESS. Your moniker should be called OP(out of point).


Dad:
Cocaine addict. Threat to child
Womanizer who brings harloots to his matrimonal home. Threat to child
Lives irresponsibly above his means. Threat to child
Serial debtor wanted by authorities. Threat to child
Drunkard. Threat to child
Deadbeat. Threat to child
Sucidal. Threat to child
Has kids everywhere whom he doesnt even cater for. Threat to child

Cocaine addict. Threat to child ----Na your papa be cocaine addict so Tiwa talk am or catch once that means say na so e bi right. Mumu ni e.
Womanizer who brings harloots to his matrimonal home. Threat to child ----- Tiwa no dey f(u)ck like Teebillz revealed right. Mumu you dey believe Tiwa but no believe Teebillz. Hypocrite.
Lives irresponsibly above his means. Threat to child ----- Pointless, why Tiwa sack him ? him bi dey look for job and job na going to clubs meeting people...

Serial debtor wanted by authorities. Threat to child --- mumu talk again
Drunkard. Threat to child --- Now i see you bi dumb more than Tiwa
Deadbeat. Threat to child --- Tiwa is a classless bltch wey dey f(u)ck Don jazzy and she said it herself when she talk say Teebillz did not get any endorsement. So she f(u)cked as usual to get the endorsements right just like she did when the cajoled Teebillz with her smelling hole
Sucidal. Threat to child ----- say another thing, mumu
Has kids everywhere whom he doesnt even cater for. Threat to child-- now i know you are mumu wey carry first from mumu competition

scully95:


Stop trying so hard to prove anything. Nigeria has more than 150 million people. First of all, you did not choose anyone from this 150 million you are calling one Obama ?

Secondly, if you check what i wrote, i said only a very few cases, you have the child turn out very good. The chances are very very low. The best is when the two parent are together and just watch their kids grow.

Because Obama became President, yes what's the big deal.. Who is Obama.. Ok do you even want me to define obama for you ? Obama is nothing put a pure Zionist puppet. Controlled by the Zionist regime in the U.S.

The fact that he got there did not stop the killing of innocent African Americans. So who the bloody fck is Obama. When we talk about real president, i would choose Putin, Hu Jintao, Buhari anyday anytime against Obama. Cos Obama is nothing but a demon that has blood on his hands. Now the same zionsit regime wants Hilary so bad because they need to continue war and Hilary is the best bet for the game.

So what is special about obama ? How has it benefited anyone even in Baltimore to start with not to talk of Kenya or any African country..

If you don't know, the future is BRICS, AIIB, SCO and African development banks. These are the future frontiers or Economic power house and this Obama wants to destroy and any POTUS will do. So what is the big deal. If you got deceived, Im not oh.

Im not Obama fan one bit. Obama is a complete failure to humanity and a bloody liar. It really shows who brought him up for real.

You hit the nail on the head here ! Nigerians are too backward, always deceiving themselves

Missy89:


You keep showing you have little understanding of the country you support everyday. You are in over your head

Contrary to your opinion, ''All personal activities'' are not been watched in Russia. That's an exaggeration of the highest order that even a lie dedector will get angry with. Russia is not a police state like Amerika where a man and a woman's bedroom civil war are watched and recorded by the NSA, with no privacy of their own.

Have you heard about SORM?


Finally you said,

Opining that oppositions are not tolerated in Russia under Putin, is a script from western media narative

Do you know the only MP that voted against the Crimea annexation is now in exile just because he had a different opinion?

You see, i don't need to say much but I can't just read this junk from you and not reply.

MP that voted against Crimean Referendum (Not annexation here first of all) is now in Exile ?
Where is he ?
Who is chasing him?
What is he hiding in his wardrobe and why run ?
Why all the 5th column not running or going on exile After-all they run the western bank style and are serving the interest of the west. So when you copy and paste propaganda, you should try to stop sharing misinformation again from the west. 90% of anything you share from the west is pure propaganda.

I will share a video of Putin lashing of one those 5th column here.
They were just having a normal conversation.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl90fme0XEc

Why is this guy he blasted no on exile ? Now let me share a typical example of an opposition story in Russia recently.

To trap the liberals in their own webs, Kadyrov posted on his Instagram account a video taken by a hidden camera of Kasyanov, an apparatchik from so called “PARNAS” party, in Strasbourg meeting with the official representatives from NATO countries to receive money to conduct anti-government operations in Russia.

Second photo bellow shows Kasyanov with the NATO members here. Is this your definition of opposition because this what it means in Russia and the fact that you have such, that does not mean a Russia will kill Kasyanov. What they always do, is just ban the party. Simple as abc.

Now that is asymmetric measure Russia has taken against all the Non governmental associations sponsoring a colour revolution and others in the country. A Russia will not kill you. A party sponsoring by NATO on a secretive visit to Strasbourg.

So you need to get to the bottom of it before posting anything here.

"The USA needs to get it through their thick numb skulls that Russia has them out-gunned, out-manned, and out-womanned."



Bomb Proof: Russian Terminator Girl Tests Next-Gen Personal Armor (VIDEO)

This intrepid girl has no fear of explosions and shrapnel, utterly confident in the quality of the protective gear she was testing.

It may be a harrowing experience for some, but to this girl it was apparently just another day at work as she calmly marched across a testing range amid detonating explosive devices and flying shrapnel.



The next-generation protective suit she was testing was developed by Central Research Institute of Precision Machine Building (TsNIITochMash) for Russian Armed Forces.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obU7lMflH0c

Cool technology.

CocaineDreamz:


The difference between the American and Russian Targeting systems it that they are designed to explode once their done targeting, we all know how Americans don't want any of the equipment to end up in the wrong hands.

No, let me explain the concept for you. The Russian uses shtora or a similar jamming system on T90. This uses an intense IR floodlight to shina back at the missiles trajectory and blind the control unit to make the missile go out of control and ground itself.

For a wired ATGMs, Tube launched, Optically tracked, Wire guided missile. I guess the important part here is - Optically tracked. I guess that, simply speaking, it IR "blinds" those binoculars the operator uses to track the target. The system sends error data via the wire so the missile misses the target.

Wire-guided SACLOS missiles use an IR flare at the base of the missile to allow the launch/control unit to identify the position of the missile in relation to the target while it is in flight. If the launcher gets blinded by an IR floodlight, it will lose track of the missile's position and be unable to give it any accurate corrections. This in turn causes the missile to go loco and do pretty much what you can see in the video I shared earlier today or what is seen on T90.

Now upgrade this to Nuclear level, the same logic can be applied and is what SCULLY95 is lecturing those kids that knows nothing about military hardware. Guided ICBMs or unguided is the easiest to kill because you have not only Shtora here, you have other powerful Russian jamming capabilities to deceive it or even turn it off.

scully95:


Stop living in the past. You know what @jnhmaxxwell said, U.S should just test run it and aim moscow for example and see the End. There is no point argueing with you. You like to believe in crap and speed. It's not about speed again in the 21st century. it's about manuaverbility, again ability to dulge anti-missile deffense. You like living in the soviet era. Wake up.

Minute or trident or even even build another one and call it second man, it will be deceived/shut down via powerful jamming capabilities. Russia has arsenal of this capabilities.
You are so archaic.. Unjammable ?? lol

Even U.S itself agreed that she was in Ukraine learning about Russia's jamming capabilities. Here you are saying the same U.S has tested those minute or secondman junk in Russia access denial area ? The last time I checked the empire of lies U.S is looking for who can break into the Access Denial space to re-enforce its own. Again living in the past.

Stop already pls..

As long as what is powering the missile uses Electronics. It can be jammed. Except if it will only be firing stone like and just project it to Russia without anything powering it. Which is not possible.


For those who do not understand how jamming capabilities has gone in Russia.. Here it creats a shield over an area or space. An incomming missile once in that area will either be deflected and this may even explode it. Now you have an incomming missile that is lost in the area where the shield is being activated.

This has been proved in syria on T90 that was supplied in the video bellow.

Here a TOW missile was deflected via the same Active protection shield.. This same but a more powerful shield being used during an access denial zone or space.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W9xEWyarEw

Poeple with no idea of how it works should see a small version of it installed on T90 above.

You are too advance for these kids, please don't answer them again. Even the video you shared is not clear, see one that is very clear bellow.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNCRgWIhxJw
This video above proofed your points and it looks like magic to those kids so when you write try to come down to their level. It's like you are talking in tongues, they don't know anything.

Another video below shows the same U.S TOW missile could not penetrate T90. The video bellow shows T90 was opened and Active Protection system won't work at the time it was being targeted. After the hit, you could see the crew guy jumping out of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeNfEhCrS0A

Chai! Someone still copying from CNN in this modern day to proof a point. I laugh in Swahili, kids playing with keyboard need to grow up