Dmitry Medvedev – Interview with TASS

Answers to questions from the TASS news agency.

1.What’s your take on the European reaction to the developments in Venezuela and the arguments citing Maduro’s alleged lack of legitimacy? Does it mean, in your opinion, that the US could well take similar action against Zelensky if he refuses to make a deal with Trump?

Europe’s reaction to what’s going on in Venezuela is a classic example of “double standards.” The cowardly and dependent Euro-degenerates are rushing to lick Washington’s boots, which is why they’re blabbering about the mythical “support of democracy” in Venezuela. They’re in a hurry to justify an egregious violation of international law.

Talks about Maduro’s illegitimacy are nonsensical. For some reason, those same European idiots never raised this issue before. From this perspective, however, the Kiev clown should be on the lookout. His mandate expired long ago, which is a recognized fact that hasn’t really been contested by anyone in Europe. There is no legitimate government or president in Ukraine, and his removal is something that could happen in the near future. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves, but anything could happen. Especially given the fact that the junkie buffoon and his ragtag gang are prime suspects for a drug investigation. After the Maduro “precedent,” the Yanks could use the same tactic against the Banderite bastards. It would be more justified anyway.

2. Could we expect a similar US operation against, say, Greenland? Should the Danish authorities be worried? Could they go after other European countries whose interests do not align with the American ones? Could you imagine, at least as one of your impossible predictions, a special operation like that against the leader of Germany, for example?

The kidnapping of an elected head of state is an obvious violation of international legal norms. Any “peaceful and democratic transfer of power” in Venezuela is out of the question right now, and the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and other obnoxious hags like her shouldn’t be engaging in gaslighting again. Aggression is aggression, period. What’s more, if it happened to a stronger country than Venezuela, such actions would lead to an unequivocal declaration of war. The events in Caracas have clearly demonstrated that no country which in some way has caused the displeasure of the US can feel safe. Denmark and its Greenland are definitely in the crosshairs…

At the same time, we must admit that Trump’s actions, while clearly illegal, have been somewhat consistent. The American president and his team have been steadfast in fighting for their country’s national interests, including political (claiming Latin America as the US backyard) and economic ones (demanding oil and other reserves). It didn’t begin with Trump. Old Uncle Sammy has always been keen to grab other people’s stuff. Just remember the cynical, vile biddy Albright, who had no qualms about bemoaning the injustice of Russia possessing such a wealth of natural reserves. Hence the desire to redistribute them. It was the same with rare earth minerals in Ukraine, which Trump seized upon immediately.

Maduro has said it time and again that the real objective of the current American administration is to pocket Venezuelan oil and other minerals, which Trump doesn’t even try to hide. What can I say? It’s a case of lex fortissimum, or the law of the strongest. Well, our comrades from good ol’ Yankeestan should know this: they no longer even have a formal pretext to blame our country for anything. Meanwhile, the capture of Nicolás Maduro and his spouse will add fuel to the flames of bitter hatred of the gringos felt across Latin America.
And one last thing: the capture, say, of neo-Nazi Merz could be a fabulous twist in the plot of this campy soap opera. Few things can surprise us anymore. It wouldn’t be entirely unrealistic either. Merz has done enough to be prosecuted even in Germany, so nobody would feel sorry for him. Given that the folks in Germany are suffering for nothing.

3. Many, including the president of Brazil, are talking about the crossing of “red lines,” but what does it mean? A condemnation by the UN? Is there any role in global affairs still left to play for the UN in these circumstances? Do you think the world needs new rules, and where could they come from?

To my great disappointment, the UN has been unable to do anything about such things, not just “in recent times” but ever since its inception. One could provide a long list of examples. The UN’s stern resolutions have never succeeded in forcing the parties to lay down their arms, forego international terrorism, or put an end to genocide. It has been said many times that the world needs real and effective mechanisms within international law that would at last guarantee peace, safety, and dignity to billions of people on Earth. The founding documents of the UN were the result of much suffering during the disastrous World Wars and were literally written in blood. However, they have mostly remained mere good intentions, which pave the road to Hell. Our goal right now is to prevent a global disaster in a situation where the guardrails don’t work. This is exactly what the countries of the global majority are doing now as they push back against the neocolonialist and imperialist whims of the so-called “collective West,” which provides some cause for optimism.

4. You have frequently mentioned the role of the armed forces and nuclear weapons in safeguarding the country. How would you evaluate Russia’s defenses? And what are the other countries, which do not have nuclear arsenals, supposed to do?

As they say, “A kind word and a revolver can do more than just a kind word.” This phrase has been ascribed to all sorts of people, from a gangster to a comedian, but it remains relevant anyway. Our nuclear potential and the likelihood of its use in accordance with our new nuclear doctrine are factors that temper some people’s excessive enthusiasm. Russia today is a major nuclear power capable of protecting itself and its allies. It could also act preemptively, if need be. All in all, nuclear weapons provide the best national security guarantee these days, which is more effective than diplomacy or money. Let’s be honest here, if a country doesn’t have them, it will double down on nuclear research or enter into military alliances with reliable allies. Which is exactly what Russia and Belarus did back in the day.