₦airaland Forum

Krismas:
First, it’s illegal. It canbe challenged in court. Secondly, no serious nation like China, India and co, will denominate their assets in Dollars again, after a thing like that. Lose lose for the dollar and western financial system

Yeah Indian still have a foreign reserve in dollars. No country has of today has converted their foreign reserve to local currency.

You're talking about lose lose. Wait do you think the only thing India buys is oil and coal?

Bring your head, I want to check something

gamechanger547:
T72 tanks are the main tanks used by Russia in Ukraine and Ukraine is also using same with T80, T55 etc.

Both countries are using almost similar weapons and equipment, just that those of Russia are more advanced and powerful.

Go and check your Russian records since you're good at copy and paste you'll see that the T-90 has been used in Ukraine and a couple of them have been destroyed.

More advanced and powerful and they can't still withstand small javelins. tell me something else abeg

Fmghewzy:
I hate how Nigerians comment ignorantly, imagine how people from other countries will perceive you;a proud unintelligent slowpoke.

So the javelin is a small tool Hun,and the Moskva ship has no vulnerability.
Tell me just 1 tank that can defend itself against the javelin.
You all just be saying nonsense with pride.

It's Ukraine I pity, innocent people dieing ,their pains and the destruction going on in their country undereported just so as to make Putin look like he his losing.

The rest of the world debating over who is losing and winning as though it's a game.

Just check Reddit, TikTok and YouTube and see how Ukraine is being destroyed.

yen yen yen, cry me a river.

The javelin is man portable and lightweight so yeah it is small.

You're asking me if Moskva doesn't have vulnerability? have you seen its specs on paper? It houses up to 4 S-300 equivalent for its defense and 6 AK-630 CWS. For it to be hit by just 2 neptune missiles clearly shows how fake these specs are or hyped they are. 2 missiles can overwhelmed such a system na.

and you're talking about ignorance. Bro educate yourself first

zinaunreal:
War is now advanced and Ukraine is nato and Americas testing ground for new weapons.

well I don't take people that say US and NATO seriously

Trevor007007:
You want righteousness22 the Russian supporter to cry for you

lol... that one is still looking for how to spin it to how America has fallen because of this and Russia attack Israel

hope4nigeria:
I've said it here before, US and NATO just use ucrain to set trap for Russian to test her capabilities, Russian fall for the traps, Russian are just noice maker

empty vessels.

They fumble so big in Ukraine, US is now sending attack weapons to Ukraine in their latest funding round

DerrickzB:
I don’t think you read the full article bro!! After the missile hit the ship, there was a chain of explosions by the ship’s missiles!! It was this same ship they used to capture snake Island hope you know!! Just one Russia ship sank you guys are celebrating?? Lool.. smh!! Thousands of Ukrainian troops are surrendering and right now air raid alarm are roaring all over Ukraine!! It’s about to get bloody!!

e sink abi e no sink?

DerrickzB:
[s][/s]

Did you read in detail or you just ran to display your character here

e sink abi e no sink??

no long talk. where is Moskva resting now?

HBB1:
What Tank can withstand the 250K USD a shot javelin?

The Abrams tank
Israeli tank
British tank
and of 2024, The Leopard 2 or 3 if the name will change after the upgrade.

The all have tank defense system built and manufactured by Israel

Bigchristo:
Lets just agree with you Russia is North Korea wit land mass but your super power couldn’t stand them that’s what baffles me

Because it's 3 years now since the US don't rate Russia as on the grade 1 threat level anymore.
They are more concern with China that have prospects unlike the wannabe regional power that's a paper tiger

SarkinYarki:
We know it was American stealth missiles that hit that ship ..there is no way that that Ukrainian copy called Neptune could have hit this ship

really?
I thot you guys said anything American is western propaganda and Russia is more advanced technologically than the US and their defense system is the best in the world.

I wonder what happened to that claim

Udemzy05:
You call javelin small?

Haba

man portable and lightweight so yeah it's small

If you read the capability of this ship on paper and how it's hyped like this... You would think it's the be all do all.

Small neptune missile, e fall yakata for sea bed.

Just like their overhyped tanks that can't withstand small javelin.

At this point, Russia is just North Korea with land mass. Convince me if I am wrong

kingthreat:
"Successfully invade"
Read my statement again.

Definition of invade:
- To move into
- To enter by force
- To attack, to infringe, to encroach on,
- To violate

Did Napoleon and Hitler not do all that?
How far was the Germans from Moscow, where was Stalingard??

kingthreat:
Russia has never been successfully invaded. You must think because they make no noise, they are fools.

what did Napoleon and Hitler do?

you do know there's a big difference between invade and occupy right

Appleyard:
Stop beating around the bush like a caged animal. What was the purpose of NATO? The wars they have engaged in, does it meet the criteria of the bloc's rousing charter? No. They just entered those war because they feel the need to, not that they were attacked directly. In other words, NATO have done more attack than defend. Stop making stupid excuses for them.

You're the one that don't even understand the alliance yet you're talking about them.

At least before you criticized someone, get to know the first.

Since the fall of communism in Europe, the purpose of the alliance changed. At the time, there was debate of whether to disband it or not.

NATO purpose right now is security of Europe and North America and fight against Terrorism.

Read their manifesto, it's right there.

Yet you people that haven't upgraded your brain since 19th century will always come upon with NATO was created to oppose Russia.

NATO as an alliance don't give a crap about Russia. It's Putin that want to keep hold of the Russian Government that needs an imaginary enemy to give its ancient view of life some legitimacy that will come up with such excuse and you guys swallow it hook line and sinker.

Check history, there have been more corporation between Russia and NATO states than disagreement yet somehow they are enemies.

How do you guys reason??

JosephXavier:
Europe is gradually turning into middle East all because if US trying to arm European countries against Russia and under the disguise of NATO

Russia are seriously fighting back but those countries don't know that they are being sacrificed as pawn

Their citizens are the ones being murdered and their territory being destroyed

They should continue

Comment without sense.

Europe was already armed without the US.
France, Spain, Britain, Russia, Ottoman, Rome, Greece etc.
Those were empires that evolve into countries with major clout militarily and economically.

The two world wars started from Europe. Without the US the world could have witnessed another world War by now.

Ohislee:
If US truly wants world peace, they should start by disbanding all military alliances like NATO.

Military alliance are like cult groups. An attack on one is an attack all and this is a threat to non members of such alliance.

As an individual, I don't know how you will feel if your next door neighbour, joins a deadly cult group that are your one time enemy. This means, they can start having their meetings next door. The slightest misunderstanding with your neighbour, becomes a misunderstanding with the entire cult group. I believe this is what Russian is trying to avoid.

Aside this, cult groups give rise to other cult group. Most people join this groups for protection. This can also be said for military alliances. It would give rise to rival military alliance.

NATO is a cult. Russian is within their right to defend itself from cultist.

Mention just one war that NATO fought with Russia and win any price you name

Ecash1:
Not necessarily, as much as it can be worth more than that $43b in 3 years, probability also equally exists that it may be worth less than 1/3rd of its present value especially with the competitions set to come on board, Elon has earlier threatened to start his own social media and he has the good will of the social media "Age" demographic index as his admirers and cheer leader as at today.

Twitter has carve a place for itself. No other social media platform can replace it. So many have tried but still the ingenuity of the "trends idea" cannot be replicated elsewhere.

Trump with all his clout started Truth, where is it now. it's not making waves.

Elon can start his social media, Tesla fans and personal admirers will flood there but it won't still make wave.

For one simple reason, Twitter is IT because of the divide on issues, the savagery.

SEGLIZ:
I dislike ego at which he's threatening tweeter to sell, mean his greed drove him in, with hiding motive.

pulling his cash out changes nothing about tweeter, it got this far without him and will continue to grow without him, he seem a dirty business to me. killing others to get to the top and remain on top, he should try this mess with Google or Microsoft's.

the oga patapata of them all is APPL. Majority of rich people in America with influence has a stake in Apple.

Appleyard:
Nonesense again. Dutch forces acting outside the territory of Netherland doesn't fall under the protection of article 5 of NATO if they come under attack by an enemy in a crisis they're engaged in. You keep manufacturing baseless excuses. Did the Serbian attack on Dutch forces triggers the article 5? No. Why? Because it falls short of the provisions of the article and NATO charter.

NATO got involved out of pure emotions.

The only scenario where article 5 has been triggered was when the 9/11 attack happened in the US, and even that too was faulty because it wasn't the Taliban that did it, but so-called Al Qaida.

Tueehhh... at this point you're beyond help.
Go back I read what I said from beginning and provide where I mentioned anything about Article 5.
Did NATO said the fought the Serbian because of Article 5?
you just manufacture baseless nonsense and attribute it to me.

I ask you a simple question you refuse to answer instead you blab over nothing. An attack on Dutch forces on a peacekeeping mission, is it not considered an attack on Netherland?
The UN declared those regions a safe space and yet the Serbians attacked it which is why NATO was dragged into it.

Why is it that when Assad formally requested Russia help in the Civil War, Russia delegations had to meet the US delegations that were already in Syria fighting ISIS to ensure that both side don't attack each other even by mistake?

You can attack forces that are not at war with you. If you don't know something that is that simple then why do you even comment on military threads.
you need enlightenment, seriously

kilisi:
It seems you are still not getting it bro. They did not break any rule!

Let that sink in please. We all can't do things the same way.

and yet you avoided my question.

kilisi:
Defending is a tactic bro.

There is no rule that says you shouldn't defend.

I don't understand why people criticize defensive coaches as if it is against any rule of football. The goal is to win and no other coach has won more trophies for Atletico than Simeone. Do I like his personality? Absolute no. But it's a free world. we all can't do things the same way, otherwise the world becomes boring.

if all the teams start to play like ATM in the first leg you go gree watch football?

that first leg from ATM wasn't football no matter how you want to paint it, that's Haram.

Teams that set up that way should be made to forfeit the match and the opposing team given 3 pts and 3 goals

Excuzeme:
Good question! Why are they not all rushing to join NATO, up until this war started? Why now? Why was Finland or Sweden not afraid of Russia before the Ukraine invasion and why was there no Invasion of this countries, before then, despite not being NATO members?
Can we say their "neutrality" is a better guarantor of their Safety, than being NATO members?
Even tiny Ireland, who is neutral now (after being invaded by The British and Belfast (Northern Ireland) annexed from them, just as Russia annexed Crimea, has not been attacked in recent times, despite not being a NATO member.

Why is it that it is those countries surrounding Russia, that are being belligerent towards Russia and scrambling to join NATO?
These are questions l am pondering about, as l try to figure-out what is going on,

I can predict that in not too distant future, a few Countries, including Russia and China, will form another Military Alliance like NATO (we had the "Warsaw Pact" before, during the Cold War era), that will give enough Muscle to any of its members, to fight a NATO Member Country and NATO will just sit-down and watch.
Mediation will be their only Option.

NATO does not want to go into War (it was set-up as a "Deterrence" ab initio ) but it seems its current bad leadership and under the prompting of America and sensing a sort of "weakness" in Russia, whether real or just contrived, NATO is willing to openly challenge Russia to War!

That War wont be good for Russia, wont be good for the whole of Europe nor for America. No WINNERS, in such War.
But l also think there are "sensible and intelligent people" who are not suicidal, on all sides. These people will one day, press the RESET Button.
One High ranking Official in Finland is already warning her country to "take a pause and think this through properly".

I dont think America will go to War with Russia, because it landed a Missile in Estonia or Latvia or Poland.
It is these "tiny" Countries that are poking Russia in the face right now, just like Ukraine, trying to draw America into a full-scale War.
So far, America has refused, Germany has refused, France has Refused (UK under Boris is just a Noise maler trying to use the Ukraine war to cover up for his failure in Hom Politics).

If Russia invades Sweden or FInland, when it is "on the verge" of joining NATO, America will just look the other way and apply more SANCTIONS!
There is an Article of NATO that says you cant join the Alliance, when you are cirrently at War with another country.
That clause was put there, to ensure that countries like Ukraine wont draw them into any foolish battle of its own.

That is why l see Russia taking "Pre-Emptive Steps" (lik eit has just taken), if Sweden and FInland go ahead with their threat.

You haven't answered the simple question you quoted to answer. just saying vague sentences to sound intelligent.

Neutrality didn't stop Ukraine from being invaded. "Tiny countries" as you put it can stand up to Russia knowing Russia won't dare trample on their sovereignty because of NATO membership.

Finland and Sweden chose to be neutral. Finland and Sweden are now choosing to join an alliance they believe will protect their interest.
IT IS THEIR CHOICE!. How that makes Russia feel is up to Russia. It doesn't concern neither Finland nor Sweden.

The world has changed, be good to your neighbors if you plan on having enemies abroad.

engrfaruq:
What's UN again? You mean that US controlled body? I'll take that nuclear treaty serious when all nuclear powers dispose their nuclear weapons.

and that's why all your take have been wrong since the beginning. Thinking you matter in the grand scheme of things.
Whether you take the treaty serious or not, it is what it is.
Any country that tries to create nukes will face the same hurdle as Iran, failure to stop will lead to sanctions.

Your opinion doesn't change anything there

engrfaruq:
I guess we're now talking about freedom, so in that case, I want you to discuss Iran vs US relationship vis-a-vis freedom to own nuclear weapons

read NPT and the UN role in it then you'll understand better.

That the US is the only one making an effort to keep the world safe and yet get vilify is beyond me

DerrickzB:
You are the first reasonable person I have had a discussion with on this Russo-Ukraine crisis!! You learned and articulated.

The thing is, we pray that Russia doesn’t invade Finland, because there is every possibility they could nuke Finland and the rest of the EU country!!

I know it's a bad take but I hope He does.

When people fail to learn from history, they are bound to repeat the mistake of the past.

With or without the help of the "West", Russia in his current format is close to a revolution just like the Soviet Union and other fascism regime in the past.

This I attribute to the increase in the number of opposition voices. Those opposition will start bonding together to form a force that can't be stop.

Opening a second war threatre with Finland might be the push necessarily to hasten that.

OR

I might be wrong and the Russians enjoy being dictated to on how to live and express themselves

Appleyard:
Your argument is just plain lame.

Russia was the nation that initiated the Soviet Union. The Union was born out of the Russian revolution of 1917. It's headquarter, and sheer power was concentrated in Moscow. So it's only natural that Russia assumes it's geopolitical and international roles after the collapse of the Union. Your argument that US only supported Russia because it's economy stable at the expenses of other formal USSR member states is nonesense. The reality is that Russia was always the head and heart of the Union.

Maybe you should read about the Russian Empire then you'd understand better. The Russian Empire which is the Russia you're referring to not the Russia of today, span across the initial 5 autonomous Republic of Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia and Belarus.
Stalin that was the mind behind the final version of what was the USSR was from Georgia. His successor was from Ukraine.

So no, Russia Federation a.k.a Russia of today did not initiate the Soviet Union. they were only a part of it as was other member states.

Appleyard:
That's not the excuse. If you should cite that as an excuse, then we can safely say that Russia did not start this attack on Ukraine, but simply reacted to Ukraine constant shelling of the Donbass region for 8 years, thus entered to defend the Donbass region.

The point here is: NATO is a military alliance, which, by its own article, is committee to the defence of it's members, not nonmembers.

The war on Bosnian does not concern it nor was it mandated by the UN to act as the UN military arm in the crisis. So your excuse holds no water.

Same holds true for Afghanistan, Libya and co.

Dude, I just said you should read and understand and clearly that's a hard thing for you to do.
Did you not see the part where Dutch forces that were on peacekeeping mission was attacked and overwhelmed by the Serbian? or you don't understand the concept of interest.

is an attack on Dutch forces not considered an attack on the Netherlands itself when it's not at war with the attacker?

Clearly you just like to argue for arguing sake before you neither want to understand anything just only reply.

Shalom

Appleyard:
Nonesense. Which NATO member state was attacked in those wars?

This is an extract about the Bosnian war:

"By the summer of 1995, three towns in eastern Bosnia—Srebrenica, Zepa and Gorazde—remained under control of the Bosnian government. The U.N. had declared these enclaves “safe havens” in 1993, to be disarmed and protected by international peacekeeping forces.

On July 11, 1995, however, Bosnian Serb forces advanced on Srebrenica, overwhelming a battalion of Dutch peacekeeping forces stationed there. Serbian forces subsequently separated the Bosniak civilians at Srebrenica, putting the women and girls on buses and sending them to Bosnian-held territory.

Some of the women were raped or sexually assaulted, while the men and boys who remained behind were killed immediately or bussed to mass killing sites. Estimates of Bosniaks killed by Serb forces at Srebrenica range from around 7,000 to more than 8,000.

After Bosnian Serb forces captured Zepa that same month and exploded a bomb in a crowded Sarajevo market, the international community began to respond more forcefully to the ongoing conflict and its ever-growing civilian death toll.

In August 1995, after the Serbs refused to comply with a U.N. ultimatum, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) joined efforts with Bosnian and Croatian forces for three weeks of bombing Bosnian Serb positions and a ground offensive.

With Serbia’s economy crippled by U.N. trade sanctions and its military forces under assault in Bosnia after three years of warfare, Milosevic agreed to enter negotiations that October. The U.S.-sponsored peace talks in Dayton, Ohio, in November 1995 (which included Izetbegovic, Milosevic and Croatian President Franjo Tudjman) resulted in the creation of a federalized Bosnia divided between a Croat-Bosniak federation and a Serb republic."



Pay attention to the bold sentences then maybe just maybe you'd understand when and why NATO entered the war. Like I said, they have never been the first to attack

Appleyard:
The US sees Russia as the successor to the Soviet Union. you no better than the US?

Guy dey try read and understand before you reply. I've already said something about that.

I believe I was the first one here to mentioned US help in making Russia appear big as it believe it is.

UNSC is made up of 5 permanent member state. Their membership is non-negotiable and doesn't end. One of those seats belonged to the USSR, with that association being defunct, that seat would have been vacant or the member states of the USSR would have fought each other to get the seat causing instability in Europe and central Asia.

The US chose to back Russia for the seat because out of all former Union states, Russia was the richest and easiest to economic stability.
Similar scenario played out when the PRC won the Chinese war against the ROC government and took over mainland China. China seat on UNSC was occupied by Taiwan until the US chose to side with China and Taiwan was dropped as permanent member.

There is and never was a successor to the USSR. The US acknowledged Russia to bring stability to the region.

Why did NATO counter Putin when he brought up that "agreement argument" with the fact that NATO never had such agreement with Russia if Russia is as you claim "successor".

Read, it will do you good

Appleyard:
Russia today is the sole reference to the USSR because it's the head, soul and spirit of that body.

Nobody and I repeat nobody except you guys that don't know neda references Russia as USSR.
Show me even one official article that does that.

When talking about the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union is mentioned not Russia.

The Soviet Union was a superpower, Russia for all its gimmicks and misinformation is just a wannabe