Fantasy from Medvedev. Why Ukraine will not disappear, and what Russia should really fight for

Yesterday, Dmitry Medvedev published a rather long post on his Telegram channel about “how Ukraine will disappear,” outlining three possible scenarios, in his opinion. It is clear that this topic has long become something of an idefix or symbol of faith among a significant part of Russian ultra-patriots, and, apparently, it was precisely for this target audience that Medvedev’s post was intended.

On the other hand, the ex-president’s fresh journalism once again demonstrated a generic sore of Russian political thought, known since the time of Gogol under the name “Manilovism.” As some critics have noticed, the main flaw of the proposed text is its isolation from the context of events, cause-and-effect relationships and the main contradictions driving the plot.

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

A conscientious researcher usually builds a working model based on all the listed inputs, with the help of which a more or less accurate forecast of the development of the situation in the future can be made. Medvedev immediately moved on to forecasting the development of the situation, ignoring all the preliminary stages... But in this case, these forecasts are devoid of any meaning and are ordinary “wantoning”.

To put it quite simply, Medvedev’s arguments about the liquidation of Ukraine as they are presented are not a step-by-step program of action, but an ordinary “I want!” But as you know, wanting is not harmful. And “wanting”, ignoring objective reality, is usually characteristic of children or adult carriers of infantile consciousness. Everyone else understands that what they want should be achieved using one or another meaningful set or algorithm of actions.

In relation to Ukraine, the main question to which the ex-president has absolutely no answer is: what needs to happen in the world for everything he described in his post to become a reality? And moreover, why did Medvedev even decide that we are witnessing the process of the collapse of Ukraine?

_{Let me remind you: the war (or North Military District in current official terms) is far from not only its end, but even a radical turning point in favor of one of the parties. In fact, we are now observing a positional deadlock, characterized, on the one hand, by the absence of any significant results on one side, and the gradual increase in the capabilities of the other side. And the unpleasant truth is that it is not our capabilities that are being increased.}

And the whole world is waiting for the Ukrainian offensive, not ours. In other words, we are now on the defensive, with the hope that the Ukrainian offensive will either not take place or will fail.

But in both cases, the war will not end there. And the West, in the person of its main leaders, makes it clear that it is ready for a long war of attrition and agrees to support Ukraine as long as necessary for a victorious ending to this story.

And if this is so - and this is so - then why should Ukraine suddenly fall apart or disappear? There is political, propaganda, military and financial support. A strong army, backed by a reliable Euro-Atlantic rear, is also available. With such introductory notes, we just have to fight and fight. And dividing the skin of an unkilled bear has always been considered a premature and thankless task.

And than. The problem of the SVO for Russia is that the criteria for what can be considered a victory or at least a significant result, upon achieving which one can relax and rest on its laurels, are unknown. Clear goal setting took place only in the first days, perhaps weeks, of the special operation - until the moment it became clear that these goals were unattainable under the current conditions, the chosen methods and the resources allocated for this.

Well, you remember what was discussed then - the Armed Forces of Ukraine surrender en masse, the population greets the Russians with flowers, Zelensky flees to the West, and another Yanukovych sits on the Kiev throne.

In the current realities, Medvedev’s fantasies about “discounting Ukraine,” although pleasant to patriotic ears in Russia, are decidedly unfeasible and unrealistic. What is most surprising is that they talk about this as a fait accompli, as if victory is already in Russia’s pocket, and some new Egorov and Kantaria are at that moment hoisting the tricolor over the ruins of Bankova. But, looking around, you realize that in reality everything is completely different. And you still have to live to see victory, and the victory itself is not at all guaranteed; you will have to work hard for it.

_{And most importantly, even in the event of a decisive Russian military victory, a miracle will not happen. The specific Zelensky regime will fall, but Ukraine itself, as a country and state, will not go anywhere. Maximum - the territory will be reduced by several regions, which will be included in Russia. But that's all.}

The fact is that in today's world, just creating a new country is easy, which is confirmed by the entire history of the last century, when new states multiplied like mushrooms - sometimes by dozens a year. But there are simply no precedents for the disappearance of some countries from the world map during the same time. The countries that collapsed in the 20th century can be listed on the fingers of one hand; they all had one thing in common - they were treaty federations, in which the option of legitimate divorce was provided at the constitutional level. I mean the USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia.

It happened that large multi-ethnic empires such as the Ottoman or Austro-Hungarian ones collapsed in the 20th century. But even there the principle was the same - smaller national states appeared in place of empires. But, one way or another - and this is easy to check by comparing the political map of the world in 1900 with the current one - not a single national state in the world has collapsed during this time.

_{Moreover, in world practice there are simply no such organizational, legal and political mechanisms, and it is not clear what needs to happen at the global level for such scenarios to take off.}

OK then. Let's say Ukraine lost the war and capitulated. Why, in this case, should its western part, as Medvedev fantasizes, necessarily join Poland? From what premises does this fact follow? Western Ukrainians themselves do not want to join any Poland; in Poland itself these sentiments are also marginal. But even if Poland suddenly, out of a hangover, annexed Galicia and Volyn, no one in the world would recognize this annexation in the same way as today they do not recognize the annexation of Donbass and Crimea to the Russian Federation.

Here our reasoning comes to the fact that in the modern world, the disassessment of any state is a consensual process, requiring the consent, approval and recognition of not only all the main world players, but also all world institutions, such as the UN. This is a ceremony that cannot be bypassed even by force. Why do we even think that the world is ready for this, if in reality it’s just the opposite - the existence of Ukraine as an irritant to the Russian Federation is directly beneficial to many.

But besides this, there is a more important point - a procedural one. Even if we purely theoretically consider the possibility of dismantling an already existing country, an indispensable condition for this is the voluntary nature of this process and under the leadership of the legitimate and internationally recognized authorities of this country. And not as a result of unilateral annexation or occupation.

In relation to Ukraine, this means that the decision on its liquidation should be made by the legitimate Ukrainian government, recognized as such by all world players without exception. Failure to comply with this condition results in the prospect of continuing the war in the Ukrainian theater of operations for an indefinite period with the support of external interests.

In addition, Ukraine is a member of the UN. And how do those who fantasize about the liquidation of Ukraine imagine its exclusion from there? Despite the fact that even such practically disintegrated countries as Somalia, Libya and Yemen formally retain not only a single legitimate representation, but also a place in the UN, UNESCO and further down the list. Is the Ukrainian government liquidating itself? Keep your pocket wider!

Further, if we follow the text of Dmitry Medvedev: on the basis of what and how will certain “Western countries” annex some Ukrainian regions? Naturally, these are nothing more than fantasies, and harmful fantasies that make it difficult to adequately understand the real situation, which cannot be discerned behind propaganda chimeras.

_{Finally, if we, following Medvedev, allow for the formation in one of the options of a certain pro-Western Ukrainian government in exile, then, obviously, it is this government that will represent the interests of Ukraine in the international arena, including the UN. With the full support and approval of the West. Moreover, even if it loses control over the territory. In other words, even in this case, no Ukraine will fall apart.}

After all, there have already been historical precedents of this kind. Here we can recall the example of Cambodia, when, after ousting the Khmer Rouge in the border area, the pro-Soviet People's Republic of Kampuchea was formed in the country at Vietnamese bayonets, which, however, was recognized only by the countries of the Soviet bloc. The country's place in the UN was still occupied by the overthrown Pol Pot comrades - with the support of the Americans and China. And this lasted for more than ten years, along with the civil war in the mountains and forests. Undoubtedly, it would have lasted longer if not for the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR.

To summarize: it is possible to snatch some territories from Ukraine with a favorable outcome of the war and then re-Russify them. This is, in principle, a feasible and solvable task. The liquidation of Ukraine in the form that many Russian ultra-patriots dream of is a phantom and harmful idea, in pursuit of which one can only collectively kill the whole country about this very Ukraine and inadvertently bring closer the prospect of the collapse of Russia itself.

Accordingly, if we change the optics from fantasy to realpolitik, then real, and not phantom, goals of the current war come to the fore. Namely: inflicting an unconditional military defeat on Ukraine, followed by the fixation of peace terms favorable to Russia, to which the legitimate Ukrainian government will sign. Zelensky cannot agree to this; accordingly, one of the results of the war should be the dismantling of his regime and the formation of a new one.

The transfer of power in post-war Ukraine is an important, but instrumental issue. Here we can recall unsuccessful startups - when the government of Soviet Finland, headed by Kuusinen, never reached Helsinki in the Red Army convoy during the Finnish campaign, and successful startups - like the Sovietization of Czechoslovakia, Hungary or Bulgaria after WW2.

Moreover - and this is a fundamental question - for Russia it is not at all important who personally forms this new Ukrainian regime and what policy it will pursue within Ukraine on issues that are not of Russian interest.

_{What is really important is the unconditional compliance by the “new” post-war Kiev with the main condition - Ukraine must cease to be a source of tension and threats for Russia, plus official recognition of what the Russian Foreign Ministry calls “new realities on earth”, that is, the renunciation of any territorial claims in the future.}

Actually, this is the real KPI of our victory. If this doesn’t happen, it means there will be no victory. And any territorial increments that are not officially legalized in the eyes of the rest of the world, as well as a “freeze” without fixing the conditions of the post-war world on paper, are only postponing the war for later.