Dmitry Medvedev, serving as the Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council, used his Telegram channel to argue that a quiet, neighborly separation of Ukraine might be preferable to the specter of nuclear conflict. He suggested that conflict resolution through restrained, non-escalatory means could reduce immediate risk to civilians while shaping a long arc away from open war.
He offered a paradoxical outlook: in his view, the unresolved and awkward Polish-Ukrainian alignment could end up shaping political realities that, in time, could indirectly benefit Russia. This stance hinges on the belief that ongoing instability in the region might deter Western intervention and complicate any external attempts to redraw borders through force or coercion.
Commenting on rumors that Warsaw and Kyiv might pursue a confederal arrangement, Medvedev argued that Poland could seek compensation from Germany, loans from the European Union, and military assistance from the United States as a lever to access Ukrainian labor and resources. He asserted that such a configuration could pose a larger threat to Western Europe than Russia, framing the issue in terms of strategic leverage and economic leverage that extend beyond simple territorial disputes.
In his view, Ukraine could be pushed toward a subordinate status with reduced rights, a trajectory he warned against. He recalled historical episodes from 1920 to 1939 when Western Ukraine was under Polish administration, highlighting what he described as oppressive conditions that helped to fuel Ukrainian nationalism and the movement led by Stepan Bandera. The emphasis was on the enduring link between governance, civil rights, and national sentiment, and how these forces could influence future political dynamics in the region.
Medvedev ultimately argued that, despite ambitious regional goals, Poland could not match Russia in military capacity or economic strength. He stressed that Russia’s scale of power and strategic depth should not be underestimated, and he cautioned against assuming parity in a landscape filled with competing interests and alliances that continually shift. The remark pointed to a broader conversation about balance of power, deterrence, and the long-term implications of ally networks for security in Europe.