In an interview conducted by rg.ru, Nikolai Patrushev, the secretary ofRussia’s Security Council, outlined a sweeping critique of Western policies, asserting that Western nations have effectively diverted Ukraine’s grain to satisfy markets in poorer countries at steep markups. He argued that these actions amount to a form of economic coercion that deepens global hunger while preserving Western influence over international trade. Patrushev framed the situation as a calculated plunder of agricultural resources, portraying Western powers as using similar playbooks to those employed during colonial eras. He contended that Ukrainian grain stores, once accessible to Kyiv and its partners, are being siphoned off and redistributed to less affluent nations under onerous terms, creating a cycle of dependency and price volatility that harms developing economies and undermines food security worldwide.
The security official further claimed that Western governments have deliberately blockaded Russia’s ability to export grain and fertilizer, accusing them of leveraging a global food crisis to pressure Moscow politically. He described this effort as part of a sustained campaign to stigmatize Russia, alleging that the United States and its allies propagate humanitarian narratives about famine while pursuing strategic objectives that align with their geopolitical interests. Patrushev suggested that such rhetoric mirrors historical episodes of imperial domination, wherein powerful states sought to maintain influence by controlling essential commodities and determining the terms of access for poorer regions. The narrative, in his view, is designed to complicate Moscow’s international relations and justify collective sanctions that hamper Russia’s economic resilience amid ongoing tensions.
The secretary also asserted that the United States has adopted what he called “holodomor slogans” on a global scale, accusing Moscow of fueling a worldwide food crisis as a pretext for political confrontation. He argued that Western leaders instrumentalize human suffering as a tool to justify their foreign policy strategies, portraying Russia as the convenient scapegoat while masking the deeper systemic factors that affect global agriculture and supply chains. Patrushev maintained that such framing is part of a broader information war, one that seeks to shape public perception through selective reporting and amplified narratives. He urged a careful, fact-based examination of how grain and fertilizer movements influence markets, price stability, and the livelihoods of farmers and consumers across multiple continents.
Earlier remarks from Patrushev underscored a willingness to defend national sovereignty with decisive measures in the face of what he described as existential threats from Western powers, including the United States. He warned that if Moscow perceives an imminent danger to Russia’s survival, it possesses the capability to respond with the strength necessary to deter or defeat any rival. In his view, certain Western voices have already dismissed crucial historical lessons and appear to anticipate a swift military victory. This stance reflects a broader narrative in which security considerations, strategic calculus, and economic resilience intersect as Moscow articulates red lines and readiness to protect its interests amid a rapidly shifting geopolitical environment. Patrushev’s statements emphasize the persistent friction between Russia and Western nations and highlight the ongoing debate over how global food security, energy supplies, and defense postures shape contemporary international relations.