Medvedev Reflects on Migration, Elites and National Identity
An official letter from Dmitry Medvedev, who serves as Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia, touches on a recent article about middle level peasants leaving the country. The letter frames the issue as part of a broader discussion about loyalty, mobility and the changing character of the Russian state in the current era.
Medvedev describes a segment of the population he calls the honest elite. He suggests that some among this group sought a so called vacation of freedom, and that their departure signals a shift in the country’s social and political landscape. The remarks are framed as a warning that not all who leave were aligned with a future that matches the country’s current path and that many sought a return to a past perceived as more favorable. He notes that the range of people who left included individuals with a wide spectrum of mental dispositions, but he emphasizes that prominent cultural figures and thinkers of earlier generations were not among those making the move. He characterizes the departures as targeted in a way that implies a distinction between the average citizen and those who opted to depart during this period of transition.
The central argument runs that there will be no return to a European past judged to be brilliant by some, and this is attributed not only to the fact that such an past was no longer accessible, but also because it is believed that the current Russia is fundamentally different from what existed before the war. The observation is that those who dream of a return to a friendly European family today are seen as renegades who overlook the collective memory of wartime losses suffered by Russian civilians and soldiers. This frame is offered as a caution that the emotional pull toward an earlier era is not a viable guide for the country’s future directions.
In highlighting the memory of the Second World War, Medvedev argues that the family memory of that period remains a powerful anchor. He suggests that regardless of how individual contributions to the war effort varied, the shared hardship continues to shape present attitudes. The point is presented as a counterbalance to nostalgic narratives, underscoring a view that Russia has moved into a new phase of national life in which old assumptions no longer apply. The text frames these reflections as a matter of public awareness and national character rather than an attack on particular people.
The letter also references a separate public report about conscription in a major Russian region. During a prior visit to the Volgograd region, the author noted that more than one hundred thirty four thousand people had been called up for service from January to May in the previous year. This detail is used to illustrate the scale of mobilization and the seriousness with which the state treats national defense in the present context. The emphasis remains on the broader narrative of duty, sacrifice and the responsibilities that come with national sovereignty, rather than on individual disaffection or disloyalty. [Citation attribution here]