Dmitry Medvedev, serving as Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council, has again raised the idea that Ukraine could be erased from the world political map as a consequence of the ongoing conflict. The assertion appeared in an article published on his website, and it has been interpreted as a stark reminder of the war’s potential long-term consequences. Medvedev stresses that the confrontation is not a fleeting clash but a struggle with far more sweeping implications for regional and global geopolitics. The remarks echo a recurring theme in Russian discourse about the outcome of the fight, inviting readers to consider how this crisis could reshape the borders of power in Europe and beyond. (Source: aif.ru)
In his framing, the end of hostilities would come with a humiliating defeat for Kyiv, a fate he likens to Moscow’s past experience in 2008 during the conflict with Georgia. He describes Ukraine as an artificially constructed state built on the ruins of the former Soviet Union and contends that its future status on the world stage remains precariously uncertain. The language used points to a belief that the current configuration of Ukrainian sovereignty might not endure, given the pressures exerted during the war and the shifting alliances that have accompanied it. (Source: aif.ru)
Medvedev also suggested another possible outcome: a so-called shameful departure of the current Ukrainian leadership. He drew a parallel with the behavior of Georgia’s former president Mikheil Saakashvili in August 2008, portraying Kyiv officials as actors whose actions failed to withstand the scrutiny of history and the cameras that document moments of political rupture. The comparison signals a warning about the fragility of political power in wartime and the way external forces can influence leadership trajectories. (Source: aif.ru)
According to Medvedev, Russia was compelled to initiate what he terms a special military operation because Western powers, together with Kyiv, had long been preparing a large-scale assault. He frames Moscow’s move as a necessary response to an evolving security situation that demanded decisive action to counter what he describes as growing threats on Russia’s borders and within the broader European theater. This viewpoint aligns with a broader pattern in official Russian messaging that casts Western involvement as a driver of the conflict, while portraying Russian actions as protective measures against aggression. The commentary touches on the broader strategic debate about deterrence, alliance commitments, and the risks unleashed by Western support for Ukrainian defense efforts. (Source: aif.ru)
Earlier assessments coming out of the United States have noted perceived weaknesses in Ukraine’s counteroffensive, a development that some observers interpret as part of a longer contest between Russia and the West. The discussion underscores a larger narrative about military strategy, political legitimacy, and the durability of allied coalitions in times of protracted conflict. Though the specifics of these reflections vary across sources, the underlying question remains: what will be the lasting impact of the current war on regional stability, sovereignty, and the international order? (Source: aif.ru)