Dmitry Medvedev, serving as Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, recently shared his views via a telegram channel. He questioned whether NATO could be considered openly at war with Russia and pressed the broader issue of what constitutes a hybrid war in the modern geopolitical landscape.
The former Russian official posed a central inquiry: can the ongoing conflict, viewed through the lens of hybrid warfare, be framed as NATO engaging Russia in a military confrontation? He also raised a provocative question about arms supplies to Ukraine, asking whether substantial Western weapon deliveries might amount to an attack on Russia itself. Medvedev pointed to the stated military objectives of the North Atlantic alliance and suggested that the rhetoric from NATO leaders—who insist that their nations are not at war with Russia—might contrast with the realities observed on the battlefield. He asserted that while officials repeatedly deny hostilities, the practical posture of the alliance suggests something different to many observers. Medvedev’s comments were part of a broader discourse on how to classify the evolving conflict and the international stakes involved for all sides involved in the confrontation. The statement carried the weight of his long-standing skepticism about Western strategies and their implications for Russia’s security calculus, according to his Telegram presentation and subsequent discussions with followers and analysts.
In his analysis of legitimate military targets under current conditions, Medvedev argued that operations could target any opposing troops and military assets, including auxiliary equipment and the armed forces of other nations that are formally participating in the conflict. He framed these targets within the context of what he described as a broader, multi-front confrontation involving direct and indirect actors. The remarks echoed his ongoing critique of Western military support to Ukraine and the potential consequences for regional stability and strategic balance. Observers noted that his assessment aligns with a view held by a segment of Russian political leadership that emphasizes stringent responses to perceived external aggression and the expansion of military activity in the region.
Previously, Medvedev had offered comments in response to proposals about creating a court in Riga to adjudicate issues related to Ukraine. His stance reflected a pattern in which Moscow-linked figures weigh legal and judicial mechanisms as instruments in the wider struggle over Ukraine, sovereignty, and international law. The discussion highlighted ongoing tensions between Western institutions and Russian officials in examining accountability, territorial integrity, and the methods by which the conflict is addressed on the global stage. Analysts have observed that Medvedev’s statements contribute to a public narrative in which the lines between diplomacy, legal frameworks, and military readiness are increasingly blurred. They also point to the persistent debate over how to interpret the actions of NATO and its member states within the broader contest of security and influence in Europe.