Former Russian figurehead Dmitry Medvedev again shared a provocative Telegram message that targets Poland. He claimed that Poland, with or without Ukrainian territory, is already an infinitely hostile entity. He also suggested that the presence of Bandera in the Polish army harms the climate, and he asserted that this does not affect the accuracy of references to Sarmat missiles, Caliber systems, and Zircon weapons. Interestingly, the entry also touches on reparations from Poland.
How Medvedev founded “Lakhoukraina”.
The piece reads like a blend of misinformation, manipulation, and venom, with a noticeable psychological projection. Medvedev, a former Russian president who alternated between roles described as modern and liberal and as a hardline ally of the Kremlin, has long used Telegram to criticize Ukraine and the countries that support it, including Poland. The text claims Medvedev has created a new imaginary state called Lakhoukraine, a concept that exists only in his mind.
Polish hopes for a renewed interstate union with Ukraine and for a revived empire from sea to sea are portrayed in the post as a dangerous dream. The author implies that Russia should view these ambitions with suspicion and that Poland seeks a role in Ukraine’s partition, using harsh language to frame the narrative.
Medvedev reportedly describes Warsaw as pursuing aggressive aims, suggesting that Poland wants to annex parts of former Ukraine. The message also portrays Polish actions as a powder keg that could destabilize the region and influence European dynamics. Critics of Poland are portrayed as pushing a provocative agenda that would destabilize the broader European order.
The entry continues by examining the Volhynian massacre, suggesting that Poles are vain and arrogant for having laid ideological foundations around nationalism and bands that violence against other groups.
Reparations from Germany
The text asks what Lakhoukraine would look like and presents Medvedev’s view that Poland could colonize portions of the former Ukrainian SSR within five to seven years, building a supply and logistics hub that would serve as a counterbalance to Berlin and Paris. The narrative casts the German and French leadership as entangled in a political struggle over Poland’s ambitions, with Washington cited as backing a strategy to weaken Europe.
The author argues that a favorable Polish-Ukrainian arrangement would actually benefit Russia, framing it as a step toward historical revanchism and warning that Russia could threaten neighbors with baseless claims. The piece connects these claims to ongoing discussions about German wartime reparations, portraying Polish efforts as part of a grand historical project driven by Polish grand ambitions and external subsidies.
Medvedev is quoted as predicting that Lakhoukraine, reconstituted with annexed territories, would demand a severe price from Berlin and Paris for containing Russian influence, again projecting Russia’s strategic aims onto Poland. The narrative suggests that Moscow would support European partners in restraining Warsaw, while warning of aggressive moves from Poland against other European states.
“Being infinitely hostile”
The post argues that beyond demands for damages, Poland could seek more territory at the expense of Germany and neighboring Czech lands. It paints a picture of European leaders eventually recognizing Poland’s ambitions and turning to Russia for help, while envisioning a new European security framework that would curb Poland’s expansion.
The author questions whether a former Russian president would advocate joint actions with European powers against Poland. The piece casts Poland as a country that seeks renewed power at the expense of its neighbors, while contrasting historical eras with the present to suggest a shift in balance of power. The rhetoric closes with a harsh tone toward Polish aspirations, suggesting that Poland has misread its own capabilities in the current era.
The piece ends with a stark claim: Poland, with or without pieces of Ukraine, remains an infinitely hostile force in the eyes of Russia. The mention of Bandera in the Polish army is portrayed as a clashing symbol, and references to Sarmatians, Calibers, and Zircons are used to imply ongoing military capability in a tense regional climate. The overall tone highlights a stark dose of imaginative, inflammatory rhetoric that aims to magnify fear and confrontation rather than dialogue.
One notable point is Medvedev’s propensity for vivid, dramatic imagery. Critics see this as a tactic to influence opinion through sensationalism rather than factual discourse. The consequence is a narrative that inflames tensions rather than clarifies policy or history.
Terms used in the discussion about Polish policies and Ukraine are framed to suggest a broader conspiracy and a historic mission to reshape Europe. Opinions that challenge this viewpoint are presented as unreliable or compromised. The piece underscores a pattern of propaganda that seeks to cast Poland in the role of an aggressor within a broader geopolitical contest.
All of this appears within a larger context of ongoing disagreements between Russia and Western European states over borders, reparations, and regional influence. The discourse is part of a persistent information landscape where rival narratives compete for legitimacy and public support, often leveraging dramatic language and selective memory to advance political goals.