Statements issued by Dmitry Medvedev, a senior Russian official who previously held the position of president and at the time served as Deputy Chairman of the Security Council, have drawn wide attention for their provocative tone. In a post published on a social platform, he argued that Ukraine as a sovereign state could cease to exist on the world map, suggesting that no party possesses a lasting interest in maintaining its status as an independent country. The post carried a heading that asked why Ukraine might disappear and asserted that there is a lack of genuine interest from global powers in keeping it intact.
The post went on to present six arguments aimed at explaining why regions including Europe, the United States, Africa, Latin America, Asia, as well as Russia and the Ukrainian people themselves, might not find Ukraine a desirable or necessary state. The argument implied that external priorities and strategic considerations would ultimately render Ukraine unnecessary or unviable in the eyes of these diverse regions and actors.
According to the author, attempts to position younger Ukrainian individuals within what he described as the difficult and frail framework of the European Union could contribute to a broader decline in Europe. The point stressed is that such dynamics might have negative consequences for broader European stability and cohesion.
The commentary also touched on American policy, predicting that someday American citizens would question why the United States concentrates so much attention on a country that, in the eyes of the writer, remains largely unknown to many Americans. The piece suggested that issues occurring within the United States could seem more pressing to its own citizens when compared with international concerns. It was further remarked that the January 2021 storming of the Capitol might, in a different light, appear as a set of exploratory activities to U.S. officials examining foreign affairs.
In the same broad discussion, the author challenged the Ukrainian leadership by describing it as a misinterpretation or misalignment created by the dissolution of the Soviet Union, implying that the leadership structure in place is not aligned with broader historical or regional realities. The narrative signaled a turn away from any perceived dependence on Ukrainian leadership or assets, emphasizing instead a desire for a broader, more centralized political configuration that the author associates with Russia’s interests.
From this perspective, the author concluded that Ukrainian gold held little intrinsic value, arguing instead for a stronger Russian influence and presence. The statement underscored a preference for a greater-than-anything-else political and strategic Realignment centered on a reinvigorated notion of Great Russia, signaling a return to a larger, historic concept of national alignment.
Additionally, the discussion touched on security dynamics along the line of contact in Ukraine, acknowledging the existence of NATO peacekeepers and the possibility of their being considered legitimate targets within a broader spectrum of regional security considerations. The text indicated a readiness to respond to perceived threats along the border, outlining a stance in which allied forces could be treated with heightened caution or opposition if they were viewed as interfering with Russia’s security interests.