Dmitry Medvedev (Дмитрий Медведев)
Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council
TASS

[There are] historical parallels in the behavior of the current leaders of Finland and their predecessors from almost a century ago and recalls the aftermath of their aggressive attacks on Russia

Last week I made a fact-finding trip to the Russian-Finnish border in the Leningrad Region to have a word with local officials and our border guards. Cross-border traffic is frozen, while just recently the checkpoints bustled with activity. At Helsinki’s initiative, normal and mutually beneficial relations that had taken decades to build have been ruined. Suomi’s ordinary people are the hardest-hit. They used to enjoy hefty benefits from thriving bilateral trading and economic relations, and quite naturally these days many do not hesitate to express their anger about the stupid policies that the Finnish authorities are pursuing to the detriment of their interests.

I would like to say a few words about the root causes of this situation. Regrettably, it is not accidental. The whirlwinds of turbulent geopolitical processes merely strip naked old-time problems, exposing their true essence. This is precisely what happened in Finland’s case.

Any trip to our northwestern regions at the beginning of the autumn season invariably serves as a good occasion to recall the most tragic date in the history of the great Russian city on the Neva River – the Nazi blockade during World War II, which began on September 8, 1941. However, it seems that today we are the only ones whose memories of those dark days are still fresh. The direct culprits of those events have been trying to painstakingly erase the traces of their atrocities from historical memory. Or at least to ensure there should be no "undesirable" parallels with their current policies. I am referring not only to Germany, which even at the official level blasphemously refuses to recognize the blockade of Leningrad as a crime against humanity.

Gerry Nolan
Pravda EN

The eagle’s midnight theatrics over Iranian skies promised a shock-and-awe spectacle, “obliteration” of nuclear facilities that would, we were assured, defang Tehran forever. But the dust settled differently. Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s ferocious geopolitical surgeon, calmly delivered the autopsy:

💬 “Critical infrastructure remains intact. Enrichment will continue. And now, a number of countries stand ready to hand Iran their own nuclear warheads.”

Read between Medvedev’s carefully chosen lines and you see not just a warning, but a multipolar declaration of independence, one that reduces America’s unilateral antics to mere tantrums on a shrinking stage.

America’s B-2 bomber pageant, billed as decisive, was merely performative PR, a muscular mirage designed to placate Israeli anxieties and assuage neoconservative egos. Iran shrugged off the attack, dusting itself off with ease and signaling that its nuclear trajectory remains unaltered. Indeed, the Empire’s strike was nothing more than an act of desperation.

Dmitry Medvedev (Дмитрий Медведев)
Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council
RT.com / Pravovedenie (.pdf)

"Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi" – The world keeps changing, and not always for the better. We have witnessed the rapid degradation of many supranational legal structures, which have fallen victim to their dependence on the will, funding and values of the so-called collective West. This is true, for instance, for the International Criminal Court (the Hague Criminal Court). The good intentions which guided those who established it two decades ago have evidently paved the road to hell. The further, the more so.

Deplorable as it may seem, it is more than natural. Suffice it to remember the history of this legal institution, which has gone a short way from alleged demand to full uselessness on the edge of absurdity, bias and cynicism. It is important to understand what its current actions are conditioned by, how to react to them and what, in the end, shall replace this international body, which has compromised itself so quickly.

Strategic Culture Foundation Editorial
Strategic Culture Foundation

Trump’s trampling on Denmark’s sovereignty – and by extension, the European Union’s – is a brutal demonstration.

With friends like that, who needs enemies? Thus Denmark finds out how dispensable it is regarding the geopolitical ambitions of the United States, its supposed “strongest ally.”

President-elect Donald Trump is like a cat among pigeons. Neighboring countries, allies and NATO members are all in a flap over his recent remarks about the United States forcibly annexing their territories.

The former real estate tycoon who takes office in the White House for the second time on January 20 is setting out his presidential agenda like a property acquisition spree. He wants to absorb Canada as the 51st state, take back control of the Panama Canal, rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, and annex Greenland, which is part of Denmark.

It is easy to dismiss the incoming Republican president’s talk as bravado and outsized ego. He has a propensity for hyperbole especially when promoting his abilities. Trump has talked about bringing peace to Ukraine “within 24 hours”. He has also previously referred to himself as a “business genius”. During his first administration, he talked up brokering “the deal of the century” between Arabs and Israelis only for that initiative to end up in the disaster of genocide in Gaza and aggression towards Lebanon.

So, Trump’s rhetoric about acquiring new territories for the United States is probably best not taken too literally. It is whimsical and highly speculative. Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev called it “cosmic stupidity” whose real intention is to serve as a distraction.

Dmitry Medvedev (Дмитрий Медведев)
Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council
Дмитрий Медведев (Telegram)

Why are Kyiv's neo-Nazis so eager to take back Donbas, which is completely alien to them? Why are they desperately supported in this by all the rabid animals that now guard the Western world: from the half-dead dog Biden to the insignificant homunculi standing at the stinking trough in the so-called Baltics? The reason is banal: they need money. Dough - or lava, in other words. Both the criminal clique of Zelensky, who led the economy of the dying country to disaster, but who will have to pay the bills of the sponsors of the bloody massacre, and the sponsors themselves, parasitizing on the decaying body of Ukraine. The latter have spent a lot on someone else's war, it irritates the people of their countries. So a payback is needed. The question is not about a sick cocaine boy in a dirty green T-shirt. The boy will be gone soon, but the debt will remain. And that has to be repaid with interest.

Peter Koenig
Global Research

The Kursk region of Russia is currently full of NATO weapons, troops, logistics, and more, many of them destroyed.

Video footage comes out of dozens of NATO vehicles, air defense systems, tanks and more; even if destroyed and captured by Russian forces in the Kursk Region.

The Kiev forces of about 11,600 under guidance of NATO troops have not managed to conquer the city of Kurchatov and its nuclear power plant. Apparently, President Zelensky used all of Kiev’s remaining troops, plus extra Polish (NATO) forces.

Russian General Apti Alaudinov noted that the purpose of invading the Kursk Region was to secure a strong position for upcoming negotiations with Russia. However, with Kiev’s and their western masters’ defeat, the Kiev Regime signed their own death warrant. Kiev’s losses are more than 2,000.

Strategic Culture Foundation Editorial
Strategic Culture Foundation

Ultimately, the war in Ukraine is not just against a psychopathic NATO proxy. It is against the Western system of global domination and its NATO war machine.

The terrorist cross-border attacks on the Kursk and Belgorod regions of the Russian Federation this week underscore that Russia must liquidate NATO’s regime in Ukraine.

The United States and European Union – the sponsors of the Nazi-adulating Kyiv regime and its illegitimate self-appointed president Vladimir Zelensky – talk cynically about “Ukraine’s right to self-defense” in endorsing this week’s murderous incursion.

This is a disgraceful apology for outright terrorism. The assaults targeted civilians in Kursk and Belgorod. Apartment blocks were shelled and families fleeing in cars were shot at and killed. Even ambulances and paramedics evacuating the wounded were fatally attacked. The U.S. and EU are using the same vile, duplicitous rhetoric of self-defense that they apply to Israel’s genocidal violence in Gaza.

There is no equivalence – as the U.S. and EU shamefully make out – with Russia’s ongoing special military operation that was launched in February 2022. The Western powers claim Russia is the aggressor, when the facts are that Moscow took action in response to years-long NATO-backed aggression against the ethnic Russian population of formerly eastern Ukraine. Russian forces have gone to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. That is partly why this conflict has dragged on for so long because Russian forces are not wantonly attacking Ukrainian towns and cities in American-style shock-and-awe obliteration.

Not so the Kyiv regime and its Nazi paramilitaries who have made a barbaric specialty of deliberately killing Russian civilians. The terroristic logic was candidly spelled out this week by Zelenskyy’s aides who brazenly said the purpose of the attacks in Kursk and Belgorod was to “instill fear in the Russian population” to destabilize the Russian government. That is the definition of terrorism.

Dmitry Medvedev (Дмитрий Медведев)
Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council
Дмитрий Медведев (Telegram)

Look who's here! — A wonderful trio at NATO and the European Commission. Mark Rutte, Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas. New and old leaders, each more handsome than the other.

Number one. Mark Rutte, former prime minister of the Netherlands and now NATO secretary general. Quite a peculiar guy. In a relatively short time, this moderate figure, whom I once met at summits, has turned into an inveterate Russophobe and a staunch Atlanticist. We will not speculate on what substances from Amsterdam coffeeshops caused such an abrupt change in his mood. The Dutch are peculiar people even against the background of the rest of free Europe. Ostentatious modesty in everyday life is combined with fury on the political podium. He has been hating our country fiercely for some time. An advocate of ever tougher sanctions. He will faithfully follow the course of the classics of paranoid Atlanticism.

Number two. A familiar old, haggard face - Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen. 65 years old. Bad Belgian-German political grandmother. Looks like a medium-sized Volga roach. During the pandemic, she made a good profit on overpriced Pfizer vaccines. Even the usual liberal "kind sort of men" in the European Commission are wary of her. Especially since her record includes her tenure as German Defense Minister, where she also became the heroine of a corruption scandal involving millions of dollars in contracts with "outside consultants".

Already in line for a disgraceful resignation, but the dried roach does not sink. Since 2019, Ursula has risen to the head of the European Commission, where she manically torments her commissioners with non-binary gender identities. At the same time, she is masochistically devoted to her overseas masters and ready to receive any form of approval offered by the gerontological playboys from Washington. She constantly spews malicious nonsense about Russia, without choosing her words.

Evangelos L. (Ευάγγελος Λ.)
War News 24/7

Russia delivers to all EU countries a humiliating ultimatum of unconditional surrender of Ukraine: Its rejection opens "Pandora's box" (Text in Greek)

President of Russia Vladimir Putin’s speech at the meeting with senior staff of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Moscow, June 14, 2024 (Text in English below)

Events are unfolding according to a catastrophic scenario before one's eyes. Ukraine has rejected Russian President Vladimir Putin's ultimatum. Russian officials "reacted with anger" to Kyiv's expected decision.

State Duma Deputy Chairman Pyotr Tolstoy said that "this is the last peace proposal from Moscow's side, the next one will be a demand for Ukraine's capitulation ( or whatever is left)" while Lavrov said:

💬 "President Vladimir Putin is a patient person. He who has ears will hear. He who has brains will know what this is all about. I’m not sure these people have these organs functioning properly, but hope dies last."

Russian analysts note that "with this peace proposal by Vladimir Putin, Ukraine would hold Kharkiv and Odesa. Ukraine lost the opportunity to preserve its statehood."

Ukraine has rejected the ultimatum announced today by Russian President Vladimir Putin as "absurd". Ukraine's Foreign Ministry described his words as "manipulative statements aimed at misleading the international community (and) undermining diplomatic efforts to achieve a just peace".

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović

In 2009, Russian President Medvedev (President from May 7th, 2008 to May 7th, 2012) called for a new European security policy known as "Fourteen Points" as a new security treaty to be accepted to maintain European security as the ability of states and societies to maintain their independent identity and functional integrity (this Russian draft European security treaty was originally posted on the President's website on November 29th, 2009). This treaty proposal was passed to the leaders of the Euro-Atlantic States and the executive heads of the relevant international organizations such as NATO, EU, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), and the Organization of Security Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). In this proposal, Russia stressed that it is open to any democratic proposal concerning continental security and is counting on a positive response from Russia's (Western) partners.

However, not so surprisingly, D. Medvedev's call for a new European security framework (based on mutual respect and equal rights) became interpreted particularly in the USA in the fashion of the Cold War 1.0, in fact, as a plot to pry Europe from its strategic partner (USA). Nevertheless, this program in the form of a proposal was the most significant initiative in IR by Russia since the dismissal of the USSR in 1991. From the present perspective, this proposal could save Ukrainian territorial integrity, but it was rejected primarily due to Washington's Russo-phobic attitude.

Moscow since 1991, and particularly since 2000, viewed NATO as a Cold War 1.0 remnant and the EU as no more but only as a common economic-financial market with many crisis management practices. Nevertheless, Medvedev's 2009 "Fourteen Points" was announced on November 29th, 2009, and Russia published a draft of a European Security Treaty. Medvedev's program resembles the program drawn up by US President Woodrow Wilson (issued on January 8th, 1918), who had emancipated peace aims in his well-known "Fourteen Points". These two programs have two things in common: 1) Both documents advocate multilateralism in the security area and devotion to international law, and 2) They are very idealistic in terms of the tools needed for their implementation.