Posted on 04/14/2022 7:11:02 AM PDT by hardspunned
MOSCOW, April 14. /TASS/. Russia will beef up security along its Western borders if Sweden and Finland join NATO and there would be no more talk of a nuclear-free Baltic, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia Dmitry Medvedev wrote on his Telegram channel on Thursday.
"Very soon, that is precisely, by this summer, the world will become even ‘safer’," he noted. "If Sweden and Finland join NATO, the length of the alliance's land border with Russia will more than double. Naturally, it will be necessary to strengthen these borders," he maintained.
Medvedev explained that it would be necessary to beef up the group of ground troops and the air defense system and deploy substantial naval forces in the Gulf of Finland. "If this is the case, there can no longer be talk about the Baltic’s non-nuclear status - the balance must be restored," he stated.
(Excerpt) Read more at tass.com ...
The guy says:”....beef up.....”
Just curious...sanctions have crashed a fair portion of Russian economy. Just vodka production, oil, natural gas and minerals driving the economy. With significant losses on the battlefields....where’s this money going to come from to make up for this ‘beef up’ action?
A fair chunk of any money they do make....has to go to the Oligarch community as well.
Even though the UK is leading, the US is still the arsenal of democracy.
Putin invaded, thus we are here.
That Moscow, heavy cruiser look like a fine wine, chilled.
“....the US is still the arsenal of democracy.”
____________________________________________________
Thanks, I needed a good chuckle this morning.
Good point. This is a lot like how Reagan bankrupted the USSR. Force Russia the spend ever more on its defenses, and it will collapse.
Bishop you have been demoted and defrockekd and will hereto be called Malachi.
Who is the number one seller of weapons in the world?
Or, maybe that's the plan be used against us. Force a heavily indebted west to pay more for everything, and it will collapse.
It seems we are much closer to bankruptcy than Russia is. who will go belly up first?
Around ten days ago....business interview with around 20-odd Russians ‘affected’ that I watched. So this one guy was logistics background for Ikea. All the employees were laid off. As he noted...a fair number had mortgages. Russian unemployment money? That marginally covers food cost...which jumped 10 to 20 percent in past month or two. No one has the cash reserves to last more than a few months.
Unless they print more Rubles and just hand it out to laid off folks....Russian banks will be put in a tough position of foreclosing on houses, with zero market and zero loan opportunity.
You think any of Putin’s people are discussing this with him? Heck no...it’d just get more stupid reactions. In about 90 days as banks are forced to act...this will rise as a major society problem.
Bishop you have been demoted and defrockekd and will hereto be called Malachi.
________________________________________
Actually, if this had happened more in the Catholic Chruch, I’d probably still be a practicing Catholic.
Sounds like a lot of bluster from a country that has just shown the world their military is a paper tiger. I’m sure the Scandinavians are shaking in their ski boots.
“Good point. This is a lot like how Reagan bankrupted the USSR. Force Russia the spend ever more on its defenses, and it will collapse.”
Oh, sure! It’s worked out really well so far. We’ve got the highest inflation in 30 or 40 years, 30 trillion in debt and moving to 40 trillion, and have defended everybody’s borders but our own.
Yes, by all means, keep promoting the lunacy!
“It seems we are much closer to bankruptcy than Russia is.”
Countries don’t go bankrupt because they hold a lot of debt. They go bankrupt because they can’t get any more debt. And our credit rating is probably going to be quite a bit better than Russia’s six months from now.
Yea, always talking in a vacuum as if the powers that be aren’t in thr midst of crushing the country they should be serving. I see what they are. Free people as long as we give them all they want.
Maybe you should consider not running a country on debt? I’m not supportive of this debt based economy. The country is basically run off of debt swaps in perpetuity. Insurance when you don’t actually have the money to cover the claims. The whole system is a scam and the people on forums like this and Twitter are fools who carry the bags in the end. All the while defending the brilliance of their masters. The more I’ve learned about how the system functions the more I’ve changed my thinking of all these debates.
They don’t care about normal people. Neither in Russia or in the west. Putin keeps talking about how high prices will go. Does he not know his enemies? They don’t care. They know it will greatly diminish our standard of living, they don’t care as long as some Russians are hurt along the way. It’ll be fun to watch the square whatever they do with the fact that if they don’t pursue climate friendly policies the Earth will cease to exists in a few years.
“Maybe you should consider not running a country on debt? I’m not supportive of this debt based economy.”
Running in permanent debt is foolish, but every country incurs debt; it’s inevitable.
Think of it, instead of like a government, as a business. A business that is competing with all the other countries in the world. If your business is completely unwilling to incur debt, then you will miss opportunities that other businesses who will take on debt can capitalize on. So ruling out debt completely is also foolish in the long run.
I need a more detailed example of the debt for opportunity you speak of. In the real world a mortgage is some such debt but if this type of debt were reconsidered overall as a society would the citizens be worst off? I’ve accepted for a long time, as you, that you need to accept debt to grow but I am beginning to question even this premise. Also, how do you avoid running on permanent debt if you accept its need?
“I need a more detailed example of the debt for opportunity you speak of.”
Well, sure, that’s simple. Reagan’s buildup of our military in the 80s was based on debt and resulted in our debt spiking over $1 trillion for the first time. The Russians could not keep up with us in that arms race, and trying to tanked their economy because they could not easily obtain loans like capitalist countries. If we hadn’t incurred that debt, Russia would likely have been able to keep up in the arms race and we’d still be dealing with the worldwide threat of the USSR instead a weak and isolated Russia.
Or you could look at the Revolutionary war, when we needed to quickly build up our forces to stand a chance against the British, we were forced to beg the Europeans for loans. Had we decided that going into debt was unacceptable, then we would have simply lost the war and been stuck as a British subject.
“Also, how do you avoid running on permanent debt if you accept its need?”
You pay off the debt in good times when your tax income is high and there is no immediate need for taking on more debt to respond to some crisis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.