Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev stated that pursuing a full-scale confrontation with the United States holds little to no strategic value for Russia at this juncture. That claim was conveyed through the politician’s official page on the social media platform In Contact, where he regularly shares analyses and reflections on current geopolitical dynamics.
On Sunday, October 29, an extensive assessment of political events appeared on Medvedev’s page, presented as a nine-point publication. The message was crafted to outline a broader view of how Moscow and Washington might navigate a new era of international relations, without assuming immediate, simple solutions.
According to Medvedev, the trajectory of the conflict will likely bend toward a point of equilibrium eventually, though he contended that Brussels has already lost some of its traditional leverage on the world stage. The implication was that diplomatic recalibration among major powers will supersede old patterns of influence in Europe and beyond.
He asserted that the great powers will, in time, reach a consensus on living under altered conditions that define the foreseeable future. He warned that Washington cannot isolate or escape collaboration with Russia, China, and many nations in the global South, suggesting a multipolar reality that requires careful, pragmatic engagement rather than anti-Russian brinkmanship.
Medvedev further emphasized that there is little to gain from Russia initiating a comprehensive confrontation with the American side, arguing that such moves would be counterproductive for Moscow and could destabilize broader regional security. The emphasis remained on strategic restraint and measured diplomacy rather than reckless escalation.
Earlier, Medvedev had cautioned against the prospects of negotiations in the Middle East that involve the United States, describing any such talks as unlikely to produce durable outcomes. He explained that the current process, when Washington is a participant, often devolves into a narrative rather than a concrete path to settlement, undermining trust and complicating regional peace efforts.
In the recent discourse, he also questioned the rigidity of certain U.S. policies or “red lines,” implying that a flexible, realpolitik approach should guide international dialogue rather than fixed, adversarial positions that hinder room for maneuver and compromise.