Russia's top security chief sends stern warning: Moscow willing to use real force against foreign adversaries, not just sanctions

krzepice1976

DEFCON Staff
Staff member
Just two weeks after Russian President Vladimir Putin revealed the country would “knock out the teeth” of any aggressors, the Security Council secretary has warned that unfriendly actions against Moscow may be met with force.
Speaking to newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta in an interview published on Monday, Nikolay Patrushev revealed that the country’s revised national security strategy means Moscow is now willing to use actual force and not just economic sanctions.
“The new version of the National Security Strategy emphasizes Russia's desire to increase predictability, confidence, and security in the international sphere,” Patrushev explained.
“At the same time, it notes the legitimacy of symmetric and asymmetric measures to suppress and prevent unfriendly actions that threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia.”

 

TheChrome

Power Poster
Just two weeks after Russian President Vladimir Putin revealed the country would “knock out the teeth” of any aggressors, the Security Council secretary has warned that unfriendly actions against Moscow may be met with force.
Speaking to newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta in an interview published on Monday, Nikolay Patrushev revealed that the country’s revised national security strategy means Moscow is now willing to use actual force and not just economic sanctions.
“The new version of the National Security Strategy emphasizes Russia's desire to increase predictability, confidence, and security in the international sphere,” Patrushev explained.
“At the same time, it notes the legitimacy of symmetric and asymmetric measures to suppress and prevent unfriendly actions that threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia.”

Russia is like the small kid trying to bully the big kid. If she keeps it up, she will get punched in the mouth much to her demise.
 
Last edited:

RiffRaff

Deputy Director
Staff member
Russia is like the small kid trying to bully the big kid. If she keeps it up, she will get punched in the mouth much to her demise.
Not really. It is a serious mistake to underestimate Russia's military capabilities and/or overestimate ours. There are only two countries on the planet that have the capability to actually destroy the entire planet, and they are both bullies, not only to the smaller kids on the playground but with each other.
 

TheChrome

Power Poster
Not really. It is a serious mistake to underestimate Russia's military capabilities and/or overestimate ours. There are only two countries on the planet that have the capability to actually destroy the entire planet, and they are both bullies, not only to the smaller kids on the playground but with each other.
As for nuclear, that is a true statement. That is Russia's only card. No one should underestimate any power, for Great Britain was considered a small power in the 16th century until it defeated the Spanish Armada and hence became the largest world power in the history of humankind. Russia beyond nuclear, is not as much of a power. It's airforce alone is at least 10 times smaller than the combined forces of NATO and the US. It has lots of rickety tanks that explode when you hit them with a BB Gun though. Also it's economy is smaller than Texas.
 
Last edited:

Saguenay

Member
Not just nuclear or Russia is one step ahead. At the level of Russian hackers, they are world champions. The next war will be very different from the others. Russia can bring a country to its knees with a monster cyberattack.
This technology was developed by the population in the 90s or it was the far west in Russia. I believe this area is the achile heel of the United States.
Goal: to create chaos, before the declaration of war.
 

TheChrome

Power Poster
Not just nuclear or Russia is one step ahead. At the level of Russian hackers, they are world champions. The next war will be very different from the others. Russia can bring a country to its knees with a monster cyberattack.
This technology was developed by the population in the 90s or it was the far west in Russia. I believe this area is the achile heel of the United States.
Goal: to create chaos, before the declaration of war.
Russia is no longer fighting the world. It is fighting God. Russia will fall by God's hand, not by another power.

FYI though, who created the chaos that overthrew the Ukrainian Pro-Russian government lead by Yanukovych? Was it not the United States? Don't think that Russia is somehow "sneakier" than the US and it's allies.
 
Last edited:

TheChrome

Power Poster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_W._Armstrong

This gentleman tells in the Anglos-Saxon according to the prophecy:
USA, Canada, UK, Australia, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark will be annihilated by God.
I think about it, in the USA, you have a lot of prophets of all stripes, which one tells the truth?
The man that tells the truth, is usually the one who does not bear his name. That is because credit belongs to God. An example of this is the angel recorded at Judges 13:18 “Why are you asking about my name, seeing that it is a wonderful one?”
 

ralfy

Member
Not really. It is a serious mistake to underestimate Russia's military capabilities and/or overestimate ours. There are only two countries on the planet that have the capability to actually destroy the entire planet, and they are both bullies, not only to the smaller kids on the playground but with each other.
There are actually multiple bullies, with the U.S. being the most prominent: its military is the largest, and it has had no qualms using over 800 military bases and installations plus covert and foreign policies to coerce, invade, and influence weaker countries across almost seven decades, not to mention finance both sides plus trade in arms eagerly, making it the No. 1 arms dealer of the world.

It's part of a grand chessboard strategy which, coupled with the drive to counter a domino effect, was employed throughout, and recently by Obama with his pivot to Asia. It's also part of encouraging perpetual conflict, which keeps other countries weak and dependent on the U.S. dollar.

Interestingly enough, an outsider (Trump) became President for the first time and tried to reverse that through trade deals with China and peace deals with countries like North Korea, and all in the name of doing businesses (which even led to some hilarity from his detractors, as Trump pointed out in one speech that North Korea has lots of pretty good real estate for resorts). But the swamp that he feared was too powerful and eventually took over, which is why the neo-con/neo-lib crowd, which has been in place since Reagan's term, is back with Biden.

The last part is important because that's what's involved in encouraging conflict: there's always an evil empire or an axis of evil out there. Somewhere.
 

ralfy

Member
Russia is no longer fighting the world. It is fighting God. Russia will fall by God's hand, not by another power.

FYI though, who created the chaos that overthrew the Ukrainian Pro-Russian government lead by Yanukovych? Was it not the United States? Don't think that Russia is somehow "sneakier" than the US and it's allies.

Outside any religious views, one can also see this as a menage a trois between three countries, as stated in this interesting commentary by two Vietnamese analysts:


That is, China and US are tied to each other economically, and will remain so because their economies and those of others are essentially globalized: dependent on extensive supply chains spanning tens of thousands of miles and dozens of countries. And although Russia is tied closer with China with what appears to have now reached a quarter of a trillion dollars in bilateral trade deals, will smartly play one against the other, similar to what other countries (like Vietnam) did across many decades, and what U.S. allies in the Philippines are doing now:


In which case, expect more saber rattling from military powers leading to some sort of conflict, similar to what has been going on for around seventy years.

And if it ever gets worse, expect warmongers to act like Turgidson from Dr. Strangelove, estatic over all that wonderful firepower finally used, but only for a short time.
 

DarkNoon

Well-known member
There are actually multiple bullies, with the U.S. being the most prominent: its military is the largest, and it has had no qualms using over 800 military bases and installations plus covert and foreign policies to coerce, invade, and influence weaker countries across almost seven decades, not to mention finance both sides plus trade in arms eagerly, making it the No. 1 arms dealer of the world.
Somebody and Russia sound jealous. There will NEVER be a perfect system but,.. U.S system works the best... hahaha

They need to face it our system works and theirs does not. That is why the Soviet Union fell and America and its economy/military encompasses the whole globe. Hehe
 
Last edited:

ralfy

Member
Somebody and Russia sound jealous. There will NEVER be a perfect system but,.. U.S system works the best... hahaha

They need to face it our system works and theirs does not. That is why the Soviet Union fell and America and its economy/military encompasses the whole globe. Hehe
This has nothing to do with jealousy or "a perfect system" but the point that the "U.S. system" only works for the U.S. because it involves the U.S. dollar. Here's what I mean:

The U.S. dollar has been used as a reserve currency since 1945, and for pricing oil since 1974. That means it's needed by other countries for trade because if their own currencies fail then they won't be able to buy necessities from each other.

The U.S. intended that because when currencies fail, then economic instability takes place, and that in turn may lead to another world war. The catch is that this also leads to a Triffin dilemma:

The owners of the currency that's used as a reserve worldwide becomes immensely powerful because what it buys from other countries becomes cheaper. The catch is that it sells becomes too expensive.

That's why the U.S. has been experiencing chronic trade deficits since, and why it can only earn by creating more dollars. And that's what it had been doing since the early 1980s, leading to increased spending and debt:


What's the problem, then? After the late 1980s, Russia continued its previous system through state-sponsored capitalism, which is based on what Prussians did in the late nineteenth-century, and employed by Japan after WW2, followed by South Korea, Taiwan, and many other countries, including Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, China, two decades ago Thailand, and now the Philippines. They all did this because they didn't have the equivalent of the U.S. dollar, or money used as a reserve currency, which meant that they had to do the opposite of what the U.S. was doing: earn through exports and save.

The result is they are now growing economically at an incredible rate:




and will soon take over the global economy. That's why for the past two decades they've been increasingly engaged in combinations of bilateral and multilateral trade, but want to avoid large-scale conflict because that will get in the way of doing business or side with the U.S. or another military power.

The value of al those dollars used for the U.S. economy and on military spending is dependent on how much it is needed by the global economy, and as these countries (at least 45 of them) become economically stronger, then they have less need for the dollar and prefer baskets of currencies, e.g., special drawing rights, etc.

That's why since the early 1980s the U.S. has been using its military aggressively together with foreign policies to coerce or influence many of those countries to remain dependent on the U.S. But the very system that the U.S. employed to make them stable is what is causing them to become stronger and move away from the U.S.
 

MichaelH

Member
The other advantage Russia may have is a greater willingness to take a punch. They are the undisputed historical champions in this respect. Who knows whether that is really still true, but if it is, it is a significant advantage. And it is magnified in the sorts of fringe conflicts that are much more likely than all out bolt from the blue nuclear war. It is a soft factor that doesn't line up neatly into a correlation of forces, but I think it's very real and I'd bet a lot more on us quitting a moderately intense conflict than them, even assuming their losses are significantly higher in raw terms. This is particularly true the closer you get to Russia itself, which is why I am particularly pessimistic about what Ukraine's future looks like.
 
Top