China told why the US does not attack Russia

The United States does not even consider the possibility of an attack on Russia because of the full combat readiness of the Russian nuclear deterrence forces (SNF). This is reported to readers by the Chinese edition of Sohu (Sohu), which is one of the leading media in the Middle Kingdom, a search engine, and also the largest information brand in the local Internet space.

In the modern world, if a country has strategic nuclear forces, it is considered a hegemon, and therefore they (SNF - ed.) Are also called the "secret to peace

- says Sohu.

The material notes that after the collapse of the USSR, Russia continues to build up its nuclear potential. The strategic arsenal and mine-based ICBMs make up the core of the arsenal. In addition, Russia has an impressive arsenal of sea and air based facilities. This "forces Americans to keep the powder dry."

It is emphasized that the Armed Forces of Russia regularly conduct large-scale exercises. So they improve their skills, work out various tasks and check the reliability of their systems.

The Russian army can improve its strengths, namely strategic nuclear forces, and ensure the reliability of a retaliatory strike. Thus, in the coming decades, the United States will not even dare to glance towards Russia

- summarized in the publication.

Necessary to remindthat recently in Russia the next major training of forces and means of strategic deterrence in the framework of the command and staff exercises "Thunder-2019", which was conducted by the Supreme Commander-in-Chief Vladimir Putin, has ended.
  • Photos used:
The publication is looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in
  1. A.Lex Offline A.Lex
    A.Lex (Secret information) 25 October 2019 16: 56
    In general, amers have enough and enough fools at all times ...
  2. master3 Offline master3
    master3 (Vitali) 25 October 2019 17: 24
    Interestingly, who decided that the United States wants to attack Russia? Why do they need it? These are scarecrows for narrow-minded people who have a TV instead of a head.
    1. akarfoxhound Offline akarfoxhound
      akarfoxhound 26 October 2019 08: 42
      Do not want to remember the same Condoleezza Rise with her:

      The riches of Russia should not belong only to her.

      And what is most funny for your "thought" - it is not the first with this idea from there. For a "distant" person - they don't need us, that's right! laughing That's what we live on - everything is exactly the opposite.
      1. Arkharov Offline Arkharov
        Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) 26 October 2019 12: 57
        A link to this statement is possible, only better English? And then it is not clear, then Albright, then Condoleezza, then something and no trace can be found about this?
        A search on the English-language Internet does not allow you to find a single link to an attribution attributed to Albright. Other results can be found in Runet. Enter in Yandex the request “Albright of Siberia’s wealth” and get 96 thousand answers. Enter Madeleine Albright about Russia in Google’s Russian-language Google and get more than 219 thousand answers, a significant part of which is devoted to the discussion of the notorious quote.
        The phrase, however, appears in different forms. Albright is "quoted", for example, as follows:

        The greatest injustice is when Russia owns such lands as Siberia.

        Or so:

        What kind of world justice can we talk about when such a rich territory as Siberia belongs to one country?

        There are other variations. So, the site, which publishes analytical information on the state of the oil and gas industry in Russia, attributes the notorious phrase to another US secretary of state:

        In particular, Russia's "sworn friend" Condoleezza Rice said that "Siberia is too large and cannot belong to only one state.

        The fake quote came to the main Russian media, probably due to the Postscript program of the TV Center channel and its host Alexei Pushkov. On July 14, 2005, Pushkov noted:

        As Madeline Albright is credited with the words that "Siberia is too large a territory to belong to one state." Even if she didn’t say exactly that, she thought - probably, or someone out there thought of not stupid people in America.

        However, a little later the source was discovered. Major General Boris Ratnikov, who, according to the Rossiyskaya Gazeta in the Federal Security Service, "oversaw a special unit that worked on the secrets of the subconscious," gave an interview to the main state newspaper in Russia.
        The interview, published December 22, 2006, was published under the heading "Chekists scanned Madeleine Albright’s thoughts." In it, Ratnikov says:

        A couple of weeks before the start of the bombing of Yugoslavia by US aircraft, we conducted a session of connecting Secretary of State Albright to the subconscious. (...) In the thoughts of Madame Albright, we found a pathological hatred of the Slavs. She was also outraged by the fact that Russia possesses the largest mineral reserves in the world. In her opinion, in the future, not one country should dispose of Russian reserves, but all of humanity under the supervision of, of course, the United States.
        1. akarfoxhound Offline akarfoxhound
          akarfoxhound 26 October 2019 19: 07
          Here you have nothing to do, no, well, you really are not a busy person. I, for example, have extremely rare breaks to get into the phone to watch the news, and you have dug up "analytics". wink For links through a small phone, I'm not going to get you, sorry. And dushek - "friends" 26 calendars from our air borders drove, even in the 90s under EBN, probably to us all the time on RC-135, R-3 and B-52 with a set of ALCM on "revolvers" from a friendly location fly ? And the missile defense system with Tomahawks "against the recalcitrant Zusuls" in Pshekia and Magyaria 10 years ago was also stuck in us out of unearthly love? Well, yes, now I believe you, honestly, and I no longer need links. wink I just believe that's all.
          1. Arkharov Offline Arkharov
            Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) 26 October 2019 19: 23
            Really on the 31st, judging by some signs? Well, did we reciprocate in terms of friendliness and do not respond? And as for "analytics", you cannot believe everything that is written on the fence, sometimes it is useful to check it yourself, it’s too much propaganda lately has been breeding fakes.
            1. akarfoxhound Offline akarfoxhound
              akarfoxhound 26 October 2019 21: 18
              At 31m, on it native. repeat Colleague? For who else would define this by "secondary sex characteristics"!
              Or did my partial nickname pass? winked I already forgot how I call here (the phone screen leaves up, it is not visible).
              Do you want some fun? In 15, at the first "withdrawal" of the people from the "sandbox", a lot of our media correspondents gathered, from everywhere that you remember (ORT, NTV, RT, and tede), 40 people (imagine such a herd with microphones), "cruise" on the points from where the boards with people left. Well, the military roads brought me to this crowd "behind the scenes", outside the reports. And here such a military man shies away, suddenly temporarily not busy with anything, with wings on the LTO. And there was a question with a puff of cigarette: "Is it true all that we tell about the army?" Before answering, I almost choked on that cigarette. Here's a story ... fellow
              Tired of finger in phone, poking, chesslovo. Have a good weekend!
      2. master3 Offline master3
        master3 (Vitali) 30 October 2019 17: 46
        Listen to what Zhirinovsky, Kiselev with his radioactive ashes, Soloviev, Skabeeva, etc. say. Here, even evidence is not necessary to bring, just turn on the TV and the question will be - who wants to attack anyone?
    2. hourly Offline hourly
      hourly (Oleg Duvanayev) 26 October 2019 10: 05
      Well, of course, scarecrows. And the bases in Poland in Europe, and where possible around the perimeter, are, of course, resorts for NATO forces.