Or maybe Trump keeps infecting news cycle with abrupt and incohherent "BREAKINGs" while under a this carefully stirred foam keep moving his figures under radar http://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/opinion-editorial/hal-turner-commentary/2254-fbi-and-doj-attempted-a-decapitation-of-our-lawfully-elected-government

> Canada Air mechanic newly transferred from Europe had liters in his head rather than gallons you mean Gimli Glider But that story was very different actually. 1a. No one transferred nowhere. 1b. CA got new shiny Boeing 767, which had a lot of teething problems 1c. In particular this Boeing could only operate one fuel meter if another, backup one, was shunned. 1d. Mechanic during casual tests enabled both meters for short while, without formally reporting it. Then he got distracted. Both meters stayed enabled without notice. 2a. Canada was switching from Imperial system (gallons, pouinds) to SI (litres, grams). 2b. Canada Air decided to do it starting with new Boeing 767, while running their traditional crafts on traditional gallons. So when calculating between fuel weight and volume crews had to switch between systems, dependign upon which plane they pilot/service. 2c. This Boeing had a problem with manuals, it listed SI constants in fuel calculation chapters for all the formulas. Except one thing, the figure for fuel density was forgotten and was just copied from pre-SI handbooks. It claimed kg/liter but it in reality was pound/gallon 2d. Since crew were swinging back and forth between SI-crafts and IS-crafts. that figure was familiar to them and no one raised an eyebrow. 2e. All other measurement and calculaitons were proprely done in SI system, except weight-volume conversions. 3. In the emergency day MANY people failed at once. 3a. Origin airport crew, who fueled much too less gas. 3b. Intermediate airport crew, who did the same when refuelling 3c. Pilots crew, who dealing with unfamiliar european SI figures did not grasped the fuel figures were too small 3d. Hardware. The Boeing 767 fuel meters stopped working when both were turned on, and they were.

you have to remember though, China bought off technologies that remained in Ukraine: Antonov and Motor-Sich. While Antonov can hardly add anything of break-through value to China, reliability of helicopter/jet engines is what China is currently bad at, and the said Motor-Sich was the primary engine supplier of RuAF before 2013. So in this particular area of military jet engines I expect China to catch-up (at least mostly catch up) in next 3 years at max.

> that China’s continuing military weakness is an obstacle to a China-Russia alliance ....and Russian economic weakness. It renders Sino-Russian alliance totally impossible, or does it? December 2014: www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40548.htm Few years before it: enigmachronicle.com/2013/06/beijing-2008-a-painting-by-liu-yi

> sanctions have forced Russia to the side of China. like tens years ago, but still no one noticed. > Mongolia was the most important buffer for Siberia LOL. Allmighty Mongolia contained Chinese invasion just like Ukraine contains Russian one today. May you open a map and see China and Russia do share borderline west and east form Mongolia? Mongolia is no buffer in no military sense.

Imagine GazProm sets their oil drill towers in Golans, after authorized by Damascus. And Russian Army also builds a base in Golans. There is no war, there is no any aggression, Russians just move in and start building, at the permission of the legitimate government. What's then?

> Russtikh President which produces the S400 says that they might sell the system to the USA.... Not Putin himself, a factory representative. (Sergey Chemezov of RosTech export company) washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/02/10/qa-sanctioned-putin-ally-holds-out-hope-that-trump-will-boost-russia-ties/

> devising replacement batteries do MANPADs have them ? I recall Soviet MANPADS did not. instead they had liquid nitrogen flask. you stick it in, and it does two things, for about 2 minutes, cooling down heading radar grid and - via a small turbine - generating power for the radar and aiming automation. if you are not fast enough to lock in and shoot, you have to initiate and attach another flask, etc. cause without chilling the radar the missile could not accurately lock in anyway, be computer powered or not, so there would be just no reason for a separate long-term battery.

> I hope Russia improves it Search and Rescue operations We all would prefer the man survived. We all prefer better services to worse services. Still it all is easier said than done. PL says Rescue missions should be in the wings until pilots came home. This would probably mean that rescue crafts would get worn out pretty fast, and they would run out of fuel fast. Let's see American air carriers, when jets are taking off or landing back - the rescue team is flying around the ship. But when the jets took off and flew away form the deck to the mission, are SAR kind of following them to close distance and minimize arrival time? Fillipov's wingman was circling around giving covering fire while he could. Frankly, Syria is not that vast. That would give enough time for other teams to man their machines and take them off. If it was possible. 25.11.2015 another Russian jet was taken down. SAR helicopter was dispatched to get him, was waited for by the enemy, was ambushed and downed too. Or more mundane examples, sometimes urban people call emergency medic car just to rob them of drugs, or even call police patrols to ambush and rob them of guns. To close it, from what was told yet, it seems RuAF had enough time to dispatch more support or extraction team, until the wingman flew home. Hence it seems RuAF had no capability to do it, either had no ready to fly crafts (doubtful) or were sure any landing SAR mission there would be ambushed and murdered by the overwhelming locally enemy.

I have to concur. It all was about Trotskizm vs Stalinizm, if we stick to buzzwords. Either USSR was an explosive, to detonate the world into All-World Revolution here and now, while other states did not recovered yet from World War 1 - the Trotsky/Communist International line. Or USSR was a long-term base to be nurtured and enhanced until further opportunity comes some faraway day - the Stalin/Counter-revolutionary line. > The stakes here are immense since American statehood is under attack Correct. However statehood of Russia was already destroyed in February 1917 by pro-European liberals, and in mid-1920s it was about people inhabiting ex-Russia, whether the very population is something to be kept or spent. It was not much less than what is now at stakes in DC.

Could you elaborate for a semi-speaker what means "British intelligence officials, .... were witting of Steele's activities" Frankly I read it as "writing off" before grasping that "wiTTing" could hardly be mistyped "wriTing"

> ... that the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was a popular uprising .... against .... the Tsars > ... American Schiff's grandson, John, ... given about $20 million for the triumph of Communism in Russia." Assuming in this context Communism and Bolshevism mean the same. So far so good. > On March 23, 1917 a mass meeting was held at Carnegie Hall to celebrate the abdication of Nicolas II, which meant the overthrow of Tsarist rule in Russia Sorry, WUT ? > On March 23, 1917 a mass meeting was held at Carnegie Hall to celebrate the abdication of Nicolas II, which meant the overthrow of Tsarist rule in Russia Again ??? > On March 23, 1917 ... overthrow of Tsarist rule in Russia March. Oh, yeah, Bolsheviks did it. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_hymn_of_free_Russia_sheet_music_(1917).pdf Yep, this American liberal movement was of Bolsheviks, sure. ....except that in March 1917 Bolsheviks were no one fools, tiny fringe marginal. It was only in October 1917 that incompetence of the liberals allowed two marginal "doers not thinker" parties - Bolsheviks and Social-Revolutionaries together - made the THIRD revolution. However it had nothing to do with Tzar and monarchy, which were long sieged and finally finished by the second, Liberal revolution half year before it.

Flavius: Steele's credibility and reliability are peripheral .... whether Steele's alleged Russian sources were credible and reliable. You know... I have an intel that Trump eats Christian newborns every morning. My sources? The best they can ever be, Trump himself. Surely he would deny it if confronted, it is not the public info. See, you don't have to trust me, but because my source on it is the best that can be imagined you have to trust my intel. Thanks for understanding and cooperation.

9 years ago, in the night to 08-08-08, Saakashvili's Georgia tried to invade Osetia and destroy international peacekeeprs at the borders. One can read how a certain USA-living pro-Georgian propagandist was "changing shoes while in jump" those days at http://gunter-spb.livejournal.com/2515993.html Reading Russian is needed though. Or use www.translate.ru service - but it would loose half the streets-speak and allusions.

> CYBERCOM should be prepared to fight in the data centers and in the networks ...against FBI, CIA and other Clintons' anti-American agents.

> One wonders if the US does or does not have a plan to deal with that situation without resorting to WWIII. Which USA ? Clinton's one or Trump's one? Clinton's plan would include attacking Russian Army, getting harmed by returned fire, throwing a tantrum of Russian aggression and impeaching Trump. Whether US soldiers in Syria would survive it or not she would care exactly as much as she cared for US guardians of embassy in Benghazi.

Budget may mean a lot. Would France send troops to Africa time and again, or no more? Would France boost NATO tax, as Trump demands, or not? Would France co-create non-NATO EU Army or not? Those all are budget issues among other.

> We did destroy Syrian infrastructure extensively but the justification was always, if I remember correctly, that that was a by-product of legitimate military action 1) i was tellign about terrorists aka freedom fighters aka democratic rebels aka anti-Asad Syrians. Surely, there could be some SAS officers there sometimes, but all in all that was guerilla - some small arms and mixing with citizens and pretending to be those until sudden attack and immediately after. NATO Air Force bombing you seems to talk about, that is already Phase 2, totally another case, it was when Phase 1 worked through and Syrian state collapsed enough so ISIS could claim landmasses and declare itself new state. Then NATO invaders came - claiming Syria de facto ceased to exist - but that was later and different story. That situation was result and purpose of phase 1, where state nominally is exist and is sovereign over all the territory, just "peaceful activists" - all locals of course - blast and kill here and there. 2) Let's put it into perspective 2a) 2014 and prior - EU loots Syrian Oil through Turkey. Photos of huge auto-cicterns caravans are everywhere. NATO refuses to destroy those caravans, because poor drivers would find no other work, and trucks are their personal property and all that "not a thread of colateral damage" unicorns-speak. 2b) end of 2015 and first half of 2016 - Russian bandits jump in and start destroying those caravans. Free world tries to reason and stop them, to no avail. Wicked Russian cynicaly say collateral damage to trucks and drives is justified by denying ISIS their international trade. 2c) second half of 2016 - as caravans mostly cease to exist, and oil looting into EU is almost stopped, NATO awakes and starts bombing... the last remaining caravans? No, oil refineries. Quoting need to deny ISIS their profits and export capabilities. Technically 2c could be "a by-product of legitimate military action", but... not after 2a and 2b. However, my comments was about terrorists aka local peaceful activists guerilla, not about explicit NATO invasion. Those are different issues. > but the inevitable consequence of letting thugs or terrorists loose on a population The terorrists are armed, trained and paid. ISIS used resources of western best PR companies, starting with their banner and to their video commercials. And that means, their sponsors told them how to act and what to do to get their payrolls. So, there was some kind of overall strategy. Of course, no one told them "at this specific date at this specific time three of you should take 2kg of this specific explosive and come to this specific address". That would make no sense. But terroists most probably had pricelist, what and how they can destroy to get this or that reward. And formign such a pricelist was forming the strategy, disconnected and decentralized one, which traditional counter-intelligence is helpless against. > 2011_England_riots "Only paranoids survive". 1) Why do you think it was not managed? Remember how Soros crashed Pound ? Market actors reaction to Soros actions was, as you say, spontaneous. But it was not random, it was - en masse - predictable. And being "in the know" Soros pued the strings and controlled the market crash. He did not issued orders to most of actors, but calculating in advance how panicked traders would react he indirectly controlled them and the whole process. So it could be some non-state global actor just showed to UK national government what havoc he can made. And the government showed how it can or can not supress it. And after showing off, like cats show off before and instead of real fight often, they negotiated something. Sure, there is no way to check it and no practical value in it, but still. Also, remember recent blast made by Libyan "freedom fighter" that was protected and shielded by UK secret services no matter how much polcie tried to detooth him in advance. Was his very act spontaneous? Quite probably. But was the situation, were a man capable of such acts be given green light and virtual immunity, the situation that was constructed through mabny years, was it spontanous too? Remember "The Strategy Of Indirect Approach" by Liddell Hart > the average English man or woman hadn't the faintest idea how to handle themselves in such circumstances. Yep, and that is what hardline bandits and terrorists are go after. Shock. Stupor. "This just can not be. I'll pinch myself and awake.". > we should all of us be allowed to do the same. you are allowed to know your neighbors, you are allowed to pick and own a big wooden stick. It is just people were conditioned to be too "civilized" in bad sense of it. > Our problem, as ever, is not so much those who live alongside us. It's those who live on top of us. Maybe we see, by Trump and Putin, how national/local elites are trying counter-offensive against globalists. Anyway, when elites are in quarrel they may turn to grunts for allies. Afterall, that is wha trevolutions always were, wannabe elites called masses to get rid of ex-elites.

> ...by Trump today in his Times' interview, i.e. the move to investigate FINANCIAL transactions conducted in many cases before he ran for President It would be international, not USA-domestic though See here: http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=86411 Imagine Kremlin would say something like that: US Government stole Russian dyplomatic real estate, because US finances are in so desperate state that even as shameful and little profit as those houses is crucial. And then would follow, that all Bill Clinton tenure time purchases of Russian property by American power players is from this day considered fraudulent and are summarilly rolled back, until new owners would prove legal cleanless of those deals. Clintons attack Trump, Clintons attack Russia. Well, that very collusion would become a self-fulfilling prophecy in the end.

Thanks, LG (alignment joke skipped)

Mayb it would be interesting to moderators of this blog, that mobile (for phones and tablets verison of thsi blog does not allow to log in with Google account

you speak Putin is Trump's adversary, but if you believe in Borg, than the men are allies and tomahawk story hints at it

> Melania was seated next to Putin. Did she learn Russian in school? Likely. even if she did it was so far ago. i'd rather think about German wiki: When she began working as a model, she changed the Slovene form of her last name Knavs to the German Knauss

btw, what "r+6" stands for ? is here some glossary ?

One my old comment follows. Also there later were interesting news, Qatar promised to bail Kushner's real estate business out for half a billion, then they stepped away. Trump could be punishing Qatar, forcing them into much higher losses than they were initially demanded to pay to Kushner. So, this "kill two birds with one stone" could be very compelling to him. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ June 7, 2017 at https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2017/06/07/donald-trumps-middle-east-foreign-policy-is-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen/ Trump is trickster. Lacking representation in MSM, he makes media to discuss topics he want by baiting them. 1) Trump makes Saudi pay fortunes to American military-industrial-congressional complex. Binding them together. 2) Trump also inspires Saudi to slash Qatar. 3) StateDept and USArmy immediately back Qatar. Outside US: does not matter Inside US: behemoths of MIC-C are now making standoff against behemoths of StateDept and Pentagon In best for Trump development, Saudi and Qatar would really exchange some sensible blows, and mirroring those tails wagging would be underdogs of USA hidden state. Making MIC-C and SD+P bruise one another Trump might regain some freedom of decision making and try to balance on top of their fight, avoiding Clinton’s impeachment. The rest of the world? Trump could not care less.