Zoharariel:


Nairaminted - May Obatala bless you for this input. Mazeltov & ValerianSteel, where art thou? Come and tell us how NATO will crush Russia within 3days since you seem to know more than the Amerikan Army Chief of Staff - General Mark Milley

If NATO attacks Russia, kiss ya mama, ya papa, ya wife and ya kids cos there is no guarantee humanity is emerging unscathed. This is not Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Syria, kaza kaza.... THIS IS RUSSIA.

The Hegemon's best bet is with the 5th columnists and hybrid warfare (the Atlantic-integrationalists The Saker calls them) BUT full scale military conflict? Mba!

"Today NATO is indeed outnumbered, outranged, and outgunned by Russia in Europe and beset by a number of compounding factors that make the situation worse. Having said that, it is possible to begin restoring a more robust deterrent posture and to do so at a price tag that appears affordable in the context of an alliance with an aggregate GDP of $35 trillion. The enlarged European Reassurance Initiative announced by the administration is a step in the right direction, though not a complete solution. Also, NATO’s European members must begin making the necessary investments to fulfill their commitments to the alliance’s collective defense; this is not just America’s problem.

It seems unlikely that Vladimir Putin intends to turn his guns on NATO any time soon. However, the consequences should he decide to do so are severe. Probably the best outcome — if the phrase has any meaning in this context — would be something like a new Cold War, with all the implications that bears. A war with Russia would be fraught with escalatory potential from the moment the first shot was fired; and generations born outside the shadow of nuclear Armageddon would suddenly be reintroduced to fears thought long dead and buried."



They also have a podcast so I'll definitely be listening in

This is what i was trying to post yesterday. Rather than debate like arm-chair Generals that we are, why don't we look at what the experienced and informed Generals themselves are saying. All this Satan this, Minuteman that, etc doesn't make any sense if you aren't the one in charge of these systems yourself, aware of their present state - or capabilities - and that of your enemy's as well..

Now, as to if this is an actually an admission of the superiority that the Russians enjoy or as to if this is a ploy to justify an ever increasing budget geared towards addressing the much harped "Russian agression" and further encircling her, I do not know. Study and draw your own conclusions

Cc: Arm-chair Generals , Appleyard, Scully95, Zoharariel, etc

http://warontherocks.com/2016/04/outnumbered-outranged-and-outgunned-how-russia-defeats-nato/

OUTNUMBERED, OUTRANGED, AND OUTGUNNED: HOW RUSSIA DEFEATS NATO

Missy89:
Lol.
Someone is misrepresenting a sensational headline as usual. Common sense is definitely not common

Americanism is simply a form of psychopathy where greed, egomania and a love of violence are manifested in varying degrees of severity. I’ve known many pro-Americans and many are thus because stu.pid and brainwashed by Hollywood and TV, and are totally ignorant of real Amerikan history and society today. They worship a false, idealised, ‘America’. Most of the rest are nastier types who understand that the USA really embodies greed and hegemony, and a predatory way of life where other people are enemies, competition, suckers or prey.

Valeriansteel, Vedaxcool, Mazeltov belong to the former, Missy89 falls into the latter category. Missy 89 in particular has declared her love for "war and destruction"; a manifestation of years of brainwashing and mind controlling drugs serving in the 3rd world-bombing-innocent-people-killing-murder machine known as the United States Military. I have observed over the past couple of months that her (if "she" indeed is a she!) actions and views aren't that of a rationale person ready to take a step back and realize and acknowledge the destruction and carnage that policies and actions of the Hegemon has wrought on the world for the past 70 years or so. "She" scours several threads derailing them; disparaging and insulting fellow contributors whose views run contrary to her pre-packaged lies and distractions labeling such individuals "trolls", "Kremlin bots", "ignorant", "cranks", "tiny brains", "lacking common sense", etc but yet like the "war wh0re" "she" is, "she" keeps storming threads to engage these very same cranks and tiny brains in "intellectual" discourse. Beats me! I guess though when the narrative of what Amerika stands for starts to fall apart, you can't help but scurry in a desperate - but yet increasingly futile - attempt to pick up and put together any shred of legitimacy or credibility left. For newcomers (and gullible ones too) that aren't wary of "her" ways, they are easily swayed by "her" act of showcasing an appreciable knowledge of historical events and to some extent, military strategies and policies which in turn fools them into thinking this demonstrates a person with a balanced and rationale outlook on world matters. "Her" modus operandi has however been exposed in this thread here; https://www.nairaland.com/2945001/did-russia-just-threaten-turkey/3

Missy89 will lie about, twist, justify and rationalize precarious situations orchestrated by or atrocities perpetrated by Amerika or its vassal states:
-Mendacious State Department officials are "only doing their job and lie all the time",
-"The US never wanted Assad out of power,"
-"Someone is misrepresenting a sensational headline as usual" even though that headline is a stark departure from that of 20 months prior when blame was clearly apportioned.
-Etc

Missy89 is the type that would aspire to reach the upper echelons of power so that "she" can declare, like another war wh0re in the person of Madeleine Albright did, "It was worth it", in response to the death of 500,000 Iraqi kids as a result of U.S. sanctions.
Missy89 is nothing more than a meddlesome interloper; nothing more than an emissary of the Empire's lies and propaganda.

27/28 years on earth unfortunately doesn't guarantee maturity or the "common sense" that this individual always like to wax about. Ignore him or her

I do not engage in "debates" on military strength BUT see what the Amerikan military analysts and[i] generals[/i] themselves are saying:

http://warontherocks.com/2016/04/outnumbered-outranged-and-outgunned-how-russia-defeats-nato/

OUTNUMBERED, OUTRANGED, AND OUTGUNNED: HOW RUSSIA DEFEATS NATO
DAVID A. SHLAPAK AND MICHAEL W. JOHNSONAPRIL 21, 2016

T-90SM_-_RAE2013-04

When asked two weeks ago in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee whether the Army was “outranged” by any adversary, U.S. Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley said: “Yes … the ones in Europe, really Russia. We don’t like it, we don’t want it, but yes, technically [we are] outranged, outgunned on the ground.”

Given Russia’s aggression in the Ukraine, this is sobering testimony. But is it accurate? Unfortunately, yes: Nearly two years of extensive wargaming and analysis shows that if Russia were to conduct a short-warning attack against the Baltic States, Moscow’s forces could roll to the outskirts of the Estonian capital of Tallinn and the Latvian capital of Riga in 36 to 60 hours. In such a scenario, the United States and its allies would not only be outranged and outgunned, but also outnumbered.

Outnumbered? [/i]While the Russian army is a fraction of the size of its Soviet predecessor and is maintained at a level of imperfect readiness, we found that it could — in 10 days or so — generate a force of as many as 27 fully ready battalions (30–50,000 soliders in their maneuver formations, depending on precisely how they were organized) for an attack on the Baltics while maintaining its ongoing coercive campaign against Ukraine.

All these Russian units would be equipped with armored vehicles — tanks, infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs), and so forth. NATO, meanwhile, would be able to respond largely with only light, unarmored, or lightly armored forces. These would consist of the forces of the Baltic republics themselves and those that the United States and its partners could rush to the scene in the few days of warning that would likely be available.

Counting the “Very High Readiness Joint Task Force” (VJTF), NATO could optimistically deploy elements from three airborne infantry brigades, one Stryker brigade, and one U.S. armor brigade. Russia would achieve initial advantages in tanks (7:1), infantry fighting vehicles (5:1), attack helicopters (5:1), cannon artillery (4:1), long-range rocket artillery (16:1), short-range air defense (24:1), and long-range air defense (17:1).

[i]Outranged? But the problem is not just numbers. The Russians field cannon and rocket artillery with significantly longer ranges than their U.S. counterparts. Existing Army tube artillery can generally fire at targets 14 to 24 kilometers (9 to 15 miles) away. Unfortunately, the most common Russian self-propelled howitzer NATO forces would encounter in the Baltics has a range of 29 kilometers (or 19 miles). On the battlefield, these differences matter.

Moreover, at the moment, the United States has no Multiple-Launch Rocket System units deployed in Europe, but even if it were, and the range of its primary rocket is only 40–70 kilometers (25–44 miles) depending on payload. Meanwhile, Russian forces are richly equipped with two rocket artillery systems with ranges up to 90 kilometers (56 miles).

[i]Outgunned? [/i]Here the evidence is somewhat less clear, but the situation is certainly far less favorable to the United States than it is accustomed to. While Russia’s tanks and IFVs in some cases share the same designations as those that U.S. forces encountered in Iraq in 1991 and 2003, those weapons have little in common besides the name. They have much more advanced armor, weapons, and sensors, and in some areas — such as active protection systems to defend against anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) — are superior to their Western counterparts.

If a fight broke out today in the Baltics, Russian attack helicopters, IFVs, and even some tanks could employ ATGMs with an effective range that could penetrate the armor of most if not all NATO combat vehicles, including the U.S. M1 tank. The M1s might maintain a slight advantage in the close-in fight, if they survived to get there. But given the current U.S. posture, there would at best be only a few dozen on the field, compared to about 450 Russian. The Baltic states themselves have no heavy armor, and our analysis indicates that no other European heavy forces could make it to the frontlines in time to influence the outcome of a short-warning Russian assault.

Beyond the disadvantages of being outnumbered, outranged, and outgunned, a slew of other issues compounds the problem. First, NATO allies and the U.S. military would be of limited immediate help offsetting these disadvantages. European allies followed the American lead by cutting armor and optimizing their remaining forces for “out-of-area” missions like Afghanistan. Thus, Great Britain is continuing with plans to withdraw its last troops from Germany, while Germany has reduced its army from a Cold War level of 10 heavy divisions to the equivalent of two.

But it’s not just the numbers here that matter. The United States and its partners have also steadily reduced the infrastructure necessary to support any kind of substantial deterrent or defensive effort in Europe. Today, there are no U.S. division or corps headquarters forward-based on the continent, nor any Army aviation, engineer, and associated logistics brigades. Our analysis — which assumed brigades could be received, moved to the front, and then commanded, controlled, and supported once there — may have ignored significant shortfalls in all these dimensions. Deploying brigades is not enough. Without a plan, without adequate logistics, without robust command and control, a better-prepared adversary would still overwhelm NATO.

Second, airpower has long been the U.S. trump card, and the Army relies on it to deliver fire support and protect its units from enemy air attack. This reliance has reduced the amount of artillery it deploys with its maneuver forces and, for all intents and purposes, has stripped them of organic air defenses.


While these choices were entirely sound in facing the Taliban and Iraq’s air force and integrated air defenses, Russia is an entirely different story. Russia fields perhaps the most formidable array of surface-to-air missile (SAM) defenses in the world. Operating from locations within Russian territory, these SAMs far outrange existing defense-suppression weapons and present a credible threat to U.S. and allied airpower that would be costly and time-consuming to counter. Unlike recent American wars, getting air support will not be as easy as making a call and waiting. Especially in the crucial early days of any conflict, allied ground forces may find air support available only in narrow windows of time and space.

And third, the Russians possess a credible air force of their own. Our analysis shows that Moscow could commit hundreds of fighter, attack, and bomber aircraft to an assault on the Baltic states. While such forces are ultimately qualitatively and quantitatively inferior to the alliance’s airpower, when teamed with Russia’s surface-to-air defenses, such forces could present a threat to U.S. and allied ground forces moving to reinforce or counterattack. Without ground-based air defenses of their own, and with limited overhead cover from NATO air forces, U.S. Army formations could suffer serious attrition from enemy air attack for the first time since World War II.

On top of all these issues, geography is a harsh mistress in this scenario. It’s about 130 miles from the Russian border to Riga, a distance that modern armored forces can traverse in a matter of hours. Even against fierce opposition from airpower, our analysis shows that there is simply not enough time to inflict sufficient damage to halt a Russian attack, absent sufficient NATO ground forces to slow their movement and force invaders to operate in ways that make them more vulnerable to air attack. This is intrinsically a joint fight, not one that can be won on the ground or from the skies alone.

Add in the fact that the Bush administration decided — and the Obama administration affirmed — that, beginning in 2019, U.S. forces will no longer use cluster weapons that leave more than one percent of their ordnance unexploded on the ground. While admirable on humanitarian grounds, this decision — for which there is no parallel on the Russian side — will significantly reduce the effectiveness of U.S. artillery and air fire against Russian artillery, air defense, and mechanized targets. Given the weakness of NATO’s overall posture, this is no trivial concession.

Today NATO is indeed outnumbered, outranged, and outgunned by Russia in Europe and beset by a number of compounding factors that make the situation worse. Having said that, it is possible to begin restoring a more robust deterrent posture and to do so at a price tag that appears affordable in the context of an alliance with an aggregate GDP of $35 trillion. The enlarged European Reassurance Initiative announced by the administration is a step in the right direction, though not a complete solution. Also, NATO’s European members must begin making the necessary investments to fulfill their commitments to the alliance’s collective defense; this is not just America’s problem.

It seems unlikely that Vladimir Putin intends to turn his guns on NATO any time soon. However, the consequences should he decide to do so are severe. Probably the best outcome — if the phrase has any meaning in this context — would be something like a new Cold War, with all the implications that bears. A war with Russia would be fraught with escalatory potential from the moment the first shot was fired; and generations born outside the shadow of nuclear Armageddon would suddenly be reintroduced to fears thought long dead and buried.

A situation 20 years in the making will not be solved overnight, nor will solving it be politically simple or non-controversial for an alliance consisting of 29 members with different priorities and perceptions. Nonetheless, the potential consequences of failing to do so are so dire that prudent investments — in improved posture and thoughtful, targeted modernization of the joint force — to stave them off are warranted to assure allies living next to a belligerent Russia and to provide an insurance policy against the risks of a potential catastrophe.



David A. Shlapak is a senior international research analyst and Michael W. Johnson is a senior defense research analyst at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation.



Photo credit: Aleksey Kitaev

Ladies and gentlemen, the Russian regime will fall within the next year The end is nigh for this utterly despicable regime that won't allow the Hegemon spread its "democracy", "freedom" and "transparency" to this corner of the globe

"Imminent Russian collapse predicted by yet another desperate wishful-hoping self-hating liberast prognosticator shilling for a Western think tank for the umpteenth time - this time for the European Council on Foreign Relations (EU neocons' own version of CFR).
All based on the (demonstrably) false premise that Putin's government is illegitimate (in their eyes at least) and now only sustaining itself via "military conquests", countless opinion polls of the Russian people and elections before and after 2014 be damned. The reality is the polar opposite, stability and the public acceptance of necessary military operations and economic downturn stems from strong popular support of the Russian people for the current government, state institutions, and the social values and policies they evince.
No matter how many times such absurdist neocon fantasies are proved wrong, Western think tanks and commentariat continue to churn them out ad nauseum with factory-like regularity, without any accountability or credibility loss - because the Western elite so desperately wants and needs it to be true. It is the IR version of 'sex sells'."



Putin’s downfall: The coming crisis of the Russian regime
Publication
By Nikolay Petrov
19th April, 2016

Download:
PDF


The current trajectory of the Russian regime is unstable and without dramatic change it will crumble within the next year, according to a leading Russia specialist.

“Putin’s downfall: The coming crisis of the Russian regime” by Nikolay Petrov argues that Russia’s political regime is unsustainable and lacks capacity to reform in the face of economic turmoil. He argues that the regime has little room for manoeuvre, as excessive centralisation makes the system unstable and inefficient. Following previous domestic dissent, Vladimir Putin centralised all power in the presidency and weakened Russian political and state institutions in the process. Now, the regime needs to keep delivering military victories or face a loss of support.

[img]http://ecfr.eu/page/-/petrov-gaphic-for-twitter.jpg?v=1461071029880[/img]

Petrov asserts that the Russian regime has only two ways out of its coming crisis, both of which have limitations. The first is to reconcile with the West and so improve its finances, by reining in anti-Western rhetoric and appointing prominent reformers to key positions in the government. Petrov believes this is unlikely given the deeply entrenched hostility between Russia and the West.

The second way out, according to Petrov, is to change leader. With Putin having staked his political power on the legitimacy of military victory, the system will break down when Russia stops winning. The alternative is a new leader with a different – perhaps an electoral – mandate. However, this option too is fraught with dangers. With no clear ‘heir’, the current, highly centralised and highly personalised, system would need to be rebuilt.

The alternative to these exit strategies is a risky collapse. Uncontrolled regime change would leave Russia without visible leaders or effective state institutions. In this scenario, power could be assumed by a coalition of corporations, redistributed among various bodies, including government agencies, large companies, and even certain regions, such as Tatarstan and Chechnya.

What else do you expect from the old lady that proclaimed the death of 500,000 (five hundred thousand!!) Iraqi kids "was worth it"..... Dementia is probably creeping in at this stage so whatever shes says should either be ignored or used for comic relief

Chongaiman:
Wow! A nigger on the dollar!

You can say that again. And a mean mugging one at that. Lol! Welcome development anyway

Brainwashed black folks that can't celebrate anything of their own but would jump on anything foreign or white. Smh!

Add your own caption


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4N9C-rFTZo

ValerianSteel:
Very sad.This is a pain an apology won't wash away.

Condolences to the family of the lost.Madame Powers needs to step up and take responsibility for the tragedy.That you are being driven does not mean you can't control the wheels except of course she agreed to the speed.

Well put, comrade. Never would have believed we could see eye to eye on anything.

The Amerikan Freedom Express stops for no one, or child...

Well at least they aren't killing kids from high above in the skies anymore. They are doing it up close and personal now...

Samantha Power: America's UN ambassador's 60mph motorcade kills boy in Cameroon

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/samantha-power-americas-un-ambassadors-60mph-motorcade-kills-boy-in-cameroon-a6990401.html

mazeltov:
try that shit with Turkey as see how your ass will be plucked like a ripe mango on the tree

So in other words, Turkey has the cojones to do what Amerika can't do? Or is it that you are now pinning your hopes on Turkey's recklessness to teach Russia a lesson?

scully95:

You hit the nail on the head and where it hurts those trolls the most..

Lol!

Missy89:


Dictionary : A territorial dispute is a disagreement over the possession/control of land between two or more territorial entities or over the possession or control of land, usually between a new state and the occupying power.

So what part of Chinese territory is america laying claims to?

Since simple English is difficult for you. My question was rhetorical so you dont need to share anything from north korea

You didn't share the views of dailymail. you foolishly share the comments . One of them was from Anywhere, United states where is that located?

So tell me more about China

1. Aha! Knew you would finally come around! Now we are getting somewhere albeit ONLY after you backtracked and claimed rhetoric. So you were being rhetorical then & not implying that there is a shared view -or any relevance for that matter - between North Korea and China as far as the humiliating incident (second time by the way) in the Baltic sea is concerned. Phew! Good girl!

2. Second, at times I wonder if you actually exhibit signs of dimwitness (no insult, just couldn't find a better word) or that you are hoping that the person you are chatting with is dimwitted enough not to see through the game you are playing....I'm leaning towards the latter though...

So, because someone protected his/her privacy and refused to disclose his/her location, whatever he/she says doesn't count? Ok then, what about the other commenters that have got full identities? Oh! I forgot, these are comments - from readers that the papers are ironically addressing...Comments don't matter in the free world, people's opinions are irrelevant but only those of paid-for or invited editors or scholars right? So why then are the op-eds in papers such as the BostonGlobe, Washington Post & others that have increasingly exposed the mendacity and duplicity of Amerika not palatable to you? You see what I'm driving at, Missy89? Therefore my dear, PLEASE CHOOSE ANY western paper of your choice and let's see what the editors, writers abd readers have to say..... Isn't this mighty brave and benevolent of me? What more do you want?

3. Since the phrase "territorial dispute" doesn't seat well with you, what would you call the clashes (verbally and physically) beaten China and Amerika over the South China Sea? Have all these news media been using the wrong term? What would you rather have them use Madam English?

Again, all itemized for simplification. Answer all please... With a cherry on top

Missy89:


Stop running away from the question. What part of China is America laying claims to?

Smh! So I claimed that the Amerika is laying claim to a territory? I actually said that? That's the only way you understand of a "territorial dispute"?

Hold that thought... I'll help you in a bit..

My question again - and I'll itemize it since it's proving quite difficult for you:

1. Why must I share what the dailies in North Korea are saying.... Can you at least answer this question?

2. Since the views of a communist paper don't seat well with you, and since that of DailyMail isn't either (go figure!) I have been kind enough to allow you choose one. Please choose

Dailymail ain't good enough for ya I see.... What about The Telegraph? The Guardian?

Or perhaps let me allow you pick any that you fancy

Missy89:


I keep telling you your brain is tiny. Now this is amusing. You need to show me where i said Stalin was unifying Korea and China.

I can write on a daily mail website and claim to be from Newcastle even if i am in Abidjan. Again, which part of China is America trying to claim?

Oh my Missy! Liar liar pants on fire! Is it that time of the month? (Lemme copy your style.)

Amerika doesn't have any territorial dispute with China? Google is your friend my dear...Dwelling on that important interjection (which is a fact by the way) won't save you... "Tiny brain" has got you busy, scurrying for a point eh? Lol!

ebamma:
those guys are annoying, and almost all of them always sound the same, sometimes i always think the are bots.

You can see the weak attempt digress by resorting to insults and disparaging remarks TOTALLY failing to answer a simple question a "tiny mind" that she she keeps coming back yet and yet again to engage. Comical really.

ebamma:
Just watching this thread
like Russia watching Crimea,
To the average pro America zombie, all is fair and nice in Washington Dc., America can do no wrong, though, their Major Media organisations support their wars, with biased reporting, the are no propaganda tool of the government, but when Russian or Chinese Media do same, the are propaganda tools of the government

Oga, zombies abound o. Even here on Nairaland but nice guys like us are doing our best to assist with their pre-programmed minds. We can't but help and not give up on them even it seemingly looks like a lost cause.

Missy89:


Are you okay? laughing for no reason is the first sign your tiny brain is about to combust. be careful o. If you want to talk about the difference between the 3 countries, you should return to the thread you cowardly ran away from. Hanging on to straws like a drowning clown are we?

If you are an avid reader of the "paper of the people" in China, I would expect you to have the latest news for us about what North Korea people daily is saying (I can see you are having a hardon for my rhetorical question). Now tell me which Chinese territory US is trying to claim.


Your tiny propagandist brain is overloading already?

Butt-hurt Missy, throwing an issy fit. I am laughing at your incoherence and the hole you dug yourself into - or you would rather have me express sadness? You just don't seem to be able to score a lucky break so that at least some bit of your propaganda will fly.

Again.....Why must I share the views of anyone from North Korea?What is the connection between North Korea and China? After all their "unifying factor Stalin is dead" according to you!

Why do you keep vacillating? Same manner that one moment, you are supporting Putin, tomorrow, you are not! Are you schizophrenic? Abi all those historical facts that you like to wax about have got you confused?

Whilst I await my answer, perhaps you care to agree with the views from the paper below: Pro-Western, non-communist, acceptable ...

Missy89:


Comrade nairaminted. You are a gift that keeps giving

I see you always have a problem understanding complex issues. First i need you to tell me which territorial dispute China is having with the "hegemon"

Will deal with the rest your gibberish later.
In other to prevent your propagandist brain from overloading,I will let you answer my questions one at a time

Hahahahaha! Boxed yourself into a corner didn't you? Realized your folly?
Stick to the Koko...

Why must I share the views of anyone from North Korea?

You can't answer that can you Madam Juche-Mao-Lenin? Yeye

Missy89:


You do know i can see thru your feint right? trying to make this about my rhetorical question.

And talking about logic, How can anyone in their right mind expect to find an objective quote from a paper owned by the Chinese communist party?. Looks like you dont even know what you are doing.

Your ignorance amuses me

First I'm glad I amuse you.

Second, So I post an rticle of ridicule penned from within a country that has its own ongoing territorial dispute with the Hegemon, I should then look for an article from North Korea as well..... because? Because? Because?

Why Missy89? Why..............Why..........Why must I group the thoughts of the Chinese communist party together with that of North Korea? What's the sense? What the point? What are you getting at?

Besides weren't you the one clearly separating North Korea from Russia and from China just yesterday? Declaring that they do not operate the same form of communism or even share the same ideology? Aha! Now you want to group them together?

You can see that whenever you are seating high and mighty admonishing one for his "ignorance" it's you that's actually displaying shocking ignorance (and suspected Schizophrenia) and conflating two totally unrelated matters.

The same way you threw a tantrum when your service men were humiliated, made to get on their knees and sh*t their pants by the Iranians is the same way you are now acting up shouting upandan now that Donald Duck has been buzzed cos it's now so obvious that your much vaunted military is all fluff and no substance, all Hollywood validated.

Missy89:


Help? I dont read communist party papers. You are the one posting them here or you have no idea what you are doing?

Looks like you are in over your head just like your crank comrades.

So I should then post from every communist country right? Towards what end? What kinda logic is this?

Missy89:


Of course the Chinese communist paper is full of wisdom thoughts and quotes. What is the North Korea's people daily saying today?

I have no idea. Perhaps YOU can help?

I got Exceptionalist fever. And the only prescription is to read the Global Times.

What about THIS pearl of wisdom:

"The Russian pilots have demonstrated high professional skills to conduct such extremely dangerous maneuvers. The US military, which intends to provoke Russia in the Baltic Sea, was humiliated by its Russian counterpart instead. The US must feel furious."

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/978616.shtml#.VxFbBEVPTgs

Missy89:



Finally, The same poll that gave him 75% approval rating also said 60% of Russians DO NOT like the direction their country is heading.

Which means??

Answer below:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although they are worried about the economy but they are solidly behind him nonetheless. In other words for example, you could say Obama has an approval rating of 70% amongst blacks but 80% do not approve of his LGBT views...
Russians will weather the storm and hunker down for as long as it takes. It is the nature of the Russians from time memorial - an attack on one is an attack on all...

Why does any sliver of news outta Russia that is remotely unpalatable to the Kremlin, blown out of proportion, plastered on the front pages and widely celebrated as sign of an imminent collapse of the "Russian regime"?

In the meantime, please name ONE western leader that has an approval rating of "75%"?

Missy89:



By the way, Wh0re sounds feminine. You were playing with the idea that i was a guy few days ago. changed your mind already?

Aaawwwwww ... I was only teasing you my cherry... Damn, I need to improve on the delivery of my "jokes"...
And I can see that it's important to you that everyone knows you are female. Don't worry, I believe you...

Dear Nairalanders, Missy89 is female! Should anyone come on here and run their mouth, we shall bomb such a person to oblivion...

Missy89:


Common sense is usually not common for cranks. The simple question i asked you

How does the use of a delivery vehicle (rocket) equals parity in satellite technology?. No one is talking about how reliable Russian rockets are. The subject is about satellites not how the satellites gets into space.

What is the point of buzzing a warship when you wont attack it. If the drunk pilots were so brave they should have opened fire and see if they will return home.

Hahahaha! Since we are name calling now, can I call you a War Wh0re? Seeing that you have proclaimed your love for war and destruction. I don't blame you though. That's what keeps food on your table lest you be rendered redundant and kicked off that military base in Guam.

True, delivery vehicles have no relation to satellite technology. That is very obvious and shouldn't a ground breaking revelation but what I do find amusing is that you think that I, Nairaminted, is equating the two. I was only pointing out that that Russian prowess which you sought to discredit with that latest piece of propaganda is still very much alive and flourishing so much so that even Amerikans are dependent on Russia for aspects on their space program.

I hope you got the explanation above? Cos I won't break it down any further.

About those drunk pilots, lol, what else do you expect? They after all fly for the "Vodka Air Force" don't they? Thy were probably too drunk to find the trigger buttons.

Missy89:


As usual your ignorance is in fully display.

The US space program use Russian rockets because they are cheaper. there is a difference between a rocket that delivers a satellite etc to space and the satellite itself. If you have a delivery vehicle (the rocket) does that translate to having the latest satellite technology or the funds to build one that you will put on it?

Rockets can be used once, hence the reason why it is a better idea to buy the cheapest one ( SpaceX successfully tested a reusable rocket already putting the US in the forefront of rocket technology anyway so there is no competition there)

Lol! See dis wan...

Is Amerika making use of Russian rocket engines or not?

Are Russian spacecrafts transporting astronauts and cosmonauts (and supplies) to the ISS?

Does a pragmatic company (or country) go for cheaper but yet reliable and rugged options to increase profitability (or save operational cost)?

Does cheaper necessarily mean less reliable or does it in some cases (like the Russian one) mean ingenuity and resourcefulness? An Example is, is the super duper expensive but junk worthy F-35 better than the considerably cheaper yet formidable and effective SU-35 for instance?

You can see that it's you that's ignorant?

Don't lash out at me again cos you are butt-hurt that the Donald Duck keeps getting hopelessly buzzed brazenly by skillful Russian pilots and since this isn't some backwater 3rd world country that you can bomb at will, then putting your faith in your increasingly toothless sanctions.

You haf hear?

Appleyard:
Lol. Theirs is Desert airforce that specialized in bombing desert children and women, hospitals and parties, but can't take out ordinary tankers.... Cheeseburger indeed!

I thought of Apple-pie Air Force as well (AA) but I figured cheeseburger was a more common Amerikan staple.

Why would they take out the tankers of their proxy armies? To starve them of funds? Lol!

Trivia: What campaign has the Amerikan military successfully waged over the past 50 years sef?