Dmitry Medvedev gave a long interview. Photo: Valery Sharifulin/TASS
On the eve of the 15th anniversary of Russia’s recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev gave a lengthy exclusive interview to RT and TASS, in which he answered questions from our recent history and today.
What Medvedev said about:
EVENTS OF 2008, THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES AND SAAKASHVILI
– In political life everything is arranged in such a way that the final decision is made by the first person and the responsibility lies with him. On the part of Georgia, number one, it was he (Saakashvili) who made the decision to start the aggression … Even with an understanding of the role of the United States, provocations, ultimately, this is the decision of one person: the boss. of State. Therefore, you cannot dismiss the lyrics of the song here.
– Saakashvili is a fool who bought this whole story, a man with inflated vanity, which ultimately turned him into a political corpse. But the fact that he is a psychopath, a person who had an unbalanced psyche, who took stimulants during the conflict (I don’t know what he snorted, smoked, chewed ties, it was clear that he was mentally unstable), this also affected what happened. But he and the Georgian leadership of that period are responsible.
– The United States played its old role – the role of provocateur. They successfully fulfill this role, especially when it comes to other countries and continents. What did they do during that period? At first they attracted Saakashvili in every possible way, I remember very well how George Bush said that Saakashvili is a very good guy.
– The United States methodically brought the matter to the conflict on our borders, in every possible way nurtured a group of people who at that time were following this course headed by Saakashvili. It had several US delegations just before the conflict, including, if I’m not mistaken, Condoleezza Rice. In all likelihood they told him: “Don’t worry, there has been a change of leadership in Russia and many other factors, nothing will happen to you because of this.” And he rushed at full speed to this provocation.
– So they began to rake, to portray a good mine in a bad game. I remember my conversation with George Bush himself, just a few days after the start of the conflict. I don’t know where he was at that time, neither in the United States nor at the Olympics. But the very fact that when he called he said: “Keep in mind that our military specialists are on the territory of Georgia, they may suffer.” I say: “This is your personal problem, if you left them there, now there is nothing to be offended about.” This was the conversation a few days after the start of the conflict
ON THE ROLE OF RUSSIA IN THE 2008 CONFLICT
“The most important thing is that we have prevented further loss of life. This is the most important thing that can happen in any military situation. And if we had not done this, there would have been no military response, so there would have been massacres, murders.
– Russia could not leave him without counting, this is obvious. The main thing is to avoid further victims, this is the most important thing. And the establishment of a lasting peace. Since then, a lasting peace has reigned on the territory of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, guaranteed by the Russian Federation.
– There is no other response during this period. I mean the military response. If we talk about who dissuaded, this question was not raised. Because only a few hours passed between the attack launched by the Georgian side and my decision as Supreme Commander-in-Chief. And there were no special consultations on this issue. There is aggression and there is a response from us. If they had been delayed, the consequences would have been completely different, and the hostilities would have lasted much longer, despite the fact that the military machine of Georgia was incomparable with the military machine of the Russian Federation.
– Regarding the actions that were taken in August 2008, in my opinion, they were necessary and sufficient, because, on the one hand, we beat the aggressor, put things in order, and, finally, changed the political leadership of this country, and, on the other hand, they have not entered the stage of total confrontation with the rest of the world.
The Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia spoke in a long interview about the course and consequences of the conflict with Georgia in 2008. Photo: Valery Sharifulin/TASS
ON THE LESSONS THAT THE PARTIES LEARNED FROM THIS CONFLICT
– Even that relatively small and brief conflict showed not only our capabilities, but also our weaknesses. This was a powerful stimulus that allowed us to rethink to some extent the entire military strategy. So it was definitely helpful.
– I’ll tell you clearly, if they had them. [сигналы России странам НАТО] heard, it would be better, no doubt. In any case, the world today would not face the threat of a third world war. In fact, our opponents are actively pushing everyone towards this.
– The situation around South Ossetia is a touchstone, a touchstone (for the United States and the West as a whole), then they tried, in fact, to create a model that would directly affect the border situation near Russia; in a sense, it would isolate us, create a Russophobic enclave, it was a pen test. Failed.
– Georgia is a small country, its armed forces are small, although the Americans participated in them, but the scale is not the same. But with Ukraine the situation is completely different. Even though they already were – including, I mean, the Americans, as our main geopolitical opponents – they learned from the Georgia experience, so they built a line of attack in various directions, from economic sanctions to direct deliveries of the deadlier products. types of weapons.
– We had a peaceful respite, during which we developed, grew, improved our Armed Forces and prepared for other possible problems.
ON THE DIFFERENCES IN FOREIGN POLICY AND THE CURRENT SITUATION IN THE US.
– During the period in which Barack Obama was president, there was more pragmatism. But let me remind you that when there was a conflict in Georgia, George W. Bush was president, this is a separate page. When Obama became president, tensions arose related to the situation in Ukraine, then Crimea appeared, which returned to Russia, sanctions were introduced, but already during this period Vladimir Vladimirovich worked with him. But the fact is…at least in terms of pragmatism, Barack Obama had more than Biden. But, to be frank and honest, Obama’s brainpower is superior to Biden’s.
– Biden is involved mentally, politically and financially in the Ukrainian conflict, which, in addition to his intellectual abilities, generally tied his hands. He has become hostage to Ukraine. This is his political course, which is very sad both for the United States itself and for Ukraine, which, therefore, continues to participate in this difficult battle, sending a large number of its military to certain death. And there is a reason for all this: the deep involvement of the Biden family in the Ukrainian agreements.
– Biden, as vice president, was instructed by Obama to deal with Ukraine. How did you take care of her? Firstly, he constantly gave stupid instructions to the Ukrainians, and secondly, he sent his son there so that he could earn money there. And he, in general, put it quite well, as they say in our country.
– The clash between the conservative Republican political establishment and the liberal segment, led by the Democratic Party, has actually torn the United States apart.
– The United States is now in a state of internal discord, the United States is in conflict with itself. Furthermore, in my opinion, in a way this discord is irreconcilable; these internal conflicts very often end in civil war.
ABOUT WHO NEEDS THE CONFLICT IN UKRAINE
– This conflict is existential for our country, because there is a choice: we will exist as a great historical state, or we will be torn apart by all these opponents of ours, all these mongrels who run under our feet around our main opponents. Therefore, for us, this is an existence choice, and this is how this conflict should be dealt with.
– Who lost in this conflict? Europe, which has lost a huge market. Well, we, of course, lost, here you can’t take the words out of the song. Who bought? The USA put everyone under their economic dictatorship, they say: “This industry will develop like this, but this one – like this, and now we will supply them with energy, including gas.” If earlier the Europeans said: “No, Russian gas, oil is cheaper,” now they don’t even squeak, because they are in the same chorus with the chief conductor, with the United States, and they sing only what the chief conductor tells them. ask them to act.
– The United States wins, Europe loses, the whole world is on edge. If you consider the situation in this projection, it to some extent turns this type of conflict into a conflict on a planetary scale, a conflict of worlds, an existential conflict for the entire planet, which many political scientists and politicians are now talking about. about.
“They are happy to spend these billions of dollars that Biden is taking out of Congress and about which there is now a slow debate. Still, the money is coming. It’s hundreds of billions of dollars. Although this is money taken from the US budget, as its opponents say, on the other hand, American companies are making money, the American military-industrial complex is developing and is full of orders. Your soldiers don’t die, which means they die in a completely different place. They don’t feel sorry for them at all. And the war to the last Ukrainian does not scare them at all.
– Surely the United States will try to provoke conflicts in many more places. The entire history of the United States of the 20th and 21st centuries is the endless participation of Americans in conflicts to achieve their own goals. They pursue very practical objectives, there is a war, an armed conflict, people are dying, the Americans earn money because they managed to change the vector of economic development.
