5 ms·

Dmitry Medvedev says editors of the Times are 'legitimate military targets'

23 points by aguaviva 2y ago

Terr_ 2y ago
"Former Russian President threatens that Russia may engage in state-sponsored international terrorism, mass-murdering civilians in other countries." _______ > Medvedev, who cast himself as a liberal reformer promising modernisation and democratisation upon becoming president in 2008, has reinvented himself as one of Russia’s most vocal pro-war figures. Some context for younger readers: At that time the Russian constitution limited Putin to two consecutive 4-year terms as President (2000-2008) and Medvedev was put forward as the moderate-looking maybe-successor. However Putin just used him to keep the seat warm for a term while he kept ruling from a Prime Minister position. This was also a period when some held out hope that Putin might decide to gradually retire, allowing Russia to become less autocratic and erratic.
- mongol 2y ago
  It is a damn shame. Was Russia predetermined to become an autocratic terror state after the fall of USSR, or did Jeltsin just have a bad day when he appointed Putin?
  - throwaway74354 2y ago
    It wasn't predetermined, but there was a chain of events that helped. 1) 1993 constitution crisis. Role of the president had gained more power compared to the State Duma (lower legislative house). 2) Privatization in Russia was a mess. On one hand, it created the oligarch class, which led to the obvious money → political power transition. On the other, huge slice of society had suffered economically, which explains the mid 2000s social contract of "People get less democracy in exchange for economical stability". 3) KGB archives hadn't been opened when there was an opportunity to do so. It was a huge mistake. 4) Re-election of Yeltsin in 1996 was against the natural way of events. Lots of resources were used in agitation, including, but not limited to professional political consultants from the USA. Putin's cronies were learning from the best ones. 5) As of 1999, Putin's appointment was a collective decision between two oligarch clans. It was a pure feudalistic/mafia-like process, without a hint of democratic principles. By the time of the next president elections, ruling oligarch clan controlled most of the media. That's a very oversimplified view. First Chechen war is not mentioned. Role of the Second Chechen war in Putin's presidency is important, yet not crucial.
    - lern_too_spel 2y ago
      You're leaving out Putin's role and emphasizing minor details. For example, Putin always hated the US, and the fact that Yeltsin's campaign hired American pollsters had nothing to do with that, nor do Russians in general care who Yeltsin hired as consultants. Former FSB agent Litvinenko accused the FSB of being behind the apartment building bombings before Putin had him assassinated. These bombings were equivalent to 9/11 in the Russian consciousness at that time, and FSB agents were even found to have planted the defused bomb that immediately preceded the Second Chechen War, but after they were arrested, FSB director Patrushev claimed that incident (that was used to justify a war) was an anti-terror drill and had them released the next day. There were no more apartment bombings after that, and the Chechens claimed to have nothing to do with those bombings, which is exactly the opposite of what any other terrorist group would do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Russian_apartment_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Russian_apartment_bombing... https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/38614 https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/38614
      - throwaway74354 2y ago
        >You're leaving out Putin's role Putin was a figurehead of the oligarch clan from Saint-Petersburg, who happened to have KGB connections as well. Russia had moved from the Western-like democratic path already. They could've chosen another person with the same results. >Putin always hated the US It doesn't matter. Professional criminals don't operate out of hate. >the fact that Yeltsin's campaign hired American pollsters had nothing to do with that, nor do Russians in general care who Yeltsin hired as consultants He was re-elected with very low initial public support. Had Zyuganov become president in 1996, there could be an opportunity to build the democratic tradition of transition of power. OTOH, communists could've messed up in some other way, of course. I also omitted the financial crisis of 1998, but that's another explanation of why general public wasn't so principled regarding democratic values as opposed to promise of stability, 7-10 years later. Re: apartment bombings. Correct, that's the casus beli for the Second Chechen war and directly related to Putin's election platform.
        lern_too_spel 2y ago
  - fngjdflmdflg 2y ago
    I don't have any data to support this but my thought is Russia was always going to turn into something like an oligarchy but that there would be a leader like Putin I think was not inevitable. I think there could have been an elite class that controlled Russia's natural resources and a mostly weak central government. But this idea is based on other countries and I admit to not knowing nearly enough about Russian history to say this with any degree of authority. Alternatively, if outside forces had set up Russia's new government instead of Russia doing it itself, similar to what the US did with Japan, then I think there would be a larger chance for a more standard Western government. (To be clear, I'm not saying the US necessarily should have done that, or that doing that is a good thing, just that it would have changed the outcome.)
- aguaviva 2y ago
  It's the sound of a regime shitting its pants, basically. Some pertinent recent context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Kirillov_(general)#Assassination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Kirillov_(general)#Assass...
ChumpGPT 2y ago
The man is a raging alcoholic who threatens the West with Nuclear destruction at least twice a day. He is especially fond of threatening all things UK. Perhaps they seized too much Oligarch money and property. A well-known fact amongst all Russians is that he is an imbecile and only kept around as a placeholder.
- throwaway74354 2y ago
  My pet theory is that Medvedev inherited Vladimir Zhirinovsky's speechwriters. Even if it's not the case, he's filling that niche of a warmongering clown. A lightning rod role, compared to whom Putin looks like a restrained strategist.
aaron695 2y ago
[dead]
xnyan 2y ago
Russia killing a Times journalist would almost guarantee an escalation of western support for the war, not something they would consider outside of exigent circumstances (desperation).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
jnaina 2y ago
It’s noteworthy that Medvedev managed to achieve a brief moment of clarity from his usual intoxicated state to make that statement. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13174145/Has-Putin-ally-Medvedev-DRUNK-time-calls-Armageddon-Russian-former-presidents-social-media-rants-coincide-date-wine-shipments-Italy.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13174145/Has-Putin-...
etc-hosts 2y ago
Medvedev's role in Russian politics is to be the guy who says the most extreme ridiculous thing, so everyone can use him to point to someone who is by far much crazier and extreme than they are. He's never had much actual influence in the Russian government.
throw_dec_18 2y ago
The context is that Ukraine assassinated Russian lieutenant general Kirillov, who is a high ranking commander in the a section of the Russian military in charge of mitigating losses from chemical, biological and nuclear attacks. The even larger context is that Russia and Ukraine have been in a back and forth trying to obtain information victories over another by winning decisions from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Ukraine recently scored a victory in which OPCW agreed that Russia has likely used riot control agents in Ukraine. Russia's Kirillov led a number of initiatives accusing Ukraine of use of chemical weapons. Anyway, Russia doesn't consider the assassination of this person to be a legitimate military target, as they are not a combatant or directing combatant troops. Ukraine accuses Kirillov of participating in use of riot control agents and has justified the assassination on these grounds. The Times called the attack a legitimate military target. Medvedev is engaging in a form of Slavic rhetorical satire, essentially saying, "well The Times if you want to throw out the typical conventions for what a legitimate target is, let's take it all the way down that slippery slope."
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > Anyway, Russia doesn't consider the assassination of this person to be a legitimate military target Which really should be the end of the entire "debate" right there, since it they're blatantly lying about their own beliefs. The Russian state under Putin very well-documented history of assassination attempts (and successes) against civilians, even within neutral countries. Two quick examples being the killing of Putin-critic Litvenko (radioactive mess in Britain) and a recently a foiled attempt to kill the CEO of a German firm that was selling arms to Ukraine.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Medvedev is engaging in a form of Slavic rhetorical satire It could perhaps be construed as (a very juvenile form of) satire -- were it not for the fact that his regime has already conducted assassinations of non-military targets on European soil, of exactly the type he is "satirically" threatening.

23 points by aguaviva 2y ago

"Former Russian President threatens that Russia may engage in state-sponsored international terrorism, mass-murdering civilians in other countries." _______ > Medvedev, who cast himself as a liberal reformer promising modernisation and democratisation upon becoming president in 2008, has reinvented himself as one of Russia’s most vocal pro-war figures. Some context for younger readers: At that time the Russian constitution limited Putin to two consecutive 4-year terms as President (2000-2008) and Medvedev was put forward as the moderate-looking maybe-successor. However Putin just used him to keep the seat warm for a term while he kept ruling from a Prime Minister position. This was also a period when some held out hope that Putin might decide to gradually retire, allowing Russia to become less autocratic and erratic.

mongol 2y ago
It is a damn shame. Was Russia predetermined to become an autocratic terror state after the fall of USSR, or did Jeltsin just have a bad day when he appointed Putin?
- throwaway74354 2y ago
  It wasn't predetermined, but there was a chain of events that helped. 1) 1993 constitution crisis. Role of the president had gained more power compared to the State Duma (lower legislative house). 2) Privatization in Russia was a mess. On one hand, it created the oligarch class, which led to the obvious money → political power transition. On the other, huge slice of society had suffered economically, which explains the mid 2000s social contract of "People get less democracy in exchange for economical stability". 3) KGB archives hadn't been opened when there was an opportunity to do so. It was a huge mistake. 4) Re-election of Yeltsin in 1996 was against the natural way of events. Lots of resources were used in agitation, including, but not limited to professional political consultants from the USA. Putin's cronies were learning from the best ones. 5) As of 1999, Putin's appointment was a collective decision between two oligarch clans. It was a pure feudalistic/mafia-like process, without a hint of democratic principles. By the time of the next president elections, ruling oligarch clan controlled most of the media. That's a very oversimplified view. First Chechen war is not mentioned. Role of the Second Chechen war in Putin's presidency is important, yet not crucial.
  - lern_too_spel 2y ago
    You're leaving out Putin's role and emphasizing minor details. For example, Putin always hated the US, and the fact that Yeltsin's campaign hired American pollsters had nothing to do with that, nor do Russians in general care who Yeltsin hired as consultants. Former FSB agent Litvinenko accused the FSB of being behind the apartment building bombings before Putin had him assassinated. These bombings were equivalent to 9/11 in the Russian consciousness at that time, and FSB agents were even found to have planted the defused bomb that immediately preceded the Second Chechen War, but after they were arrested, FSB director Patrushev claimed that incident (that was used to justify a war) was an anti-terror drill and had them released the next day. There were no more apartment bombings after that, and the Chechens claimed to have nothing to do with those bombings, which is exactly the opposite of what any other terrorist group would do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Russian_apartment_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Russian_apartment_bombing... https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/38614 https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/38614
    - throwaway74354 2y ago
      >You're leaving out Putin's role Putin was a figurehead of the oligarch clan from Saint-Petersburg, who happened to have KGB connections as well. Russia had moved from the Western-like democratic path already. They could've chosen another person with the same results. >Putin always hated the US It doesn't matter. Professional criminals don't operate out of hate. >the fact that Yeltsin's campaign hired American pollsters had nothing to do with that, nor do Russians in general care who Yeltsin hired as consultants He was re-elected with very low initial public support. Had Zyuganov become president in 1996, there could be an opportunity to build the democratic tradition of transition of power. OTOH, communists could've messed up in some other way, of course. I also omitted the financial crisis of 1998, but that's another explanation of why general public wasn't so principled regarding democratic values as opposed to promise of stability, 7-10 years later. Re: apartment bombings. Correct, that's the casus beli for the Second Chechen war and directly related to Putin's election platform.
      - lern_too_spel 2y ago
- fngjdflmdflg 2y ago
  I don't have any data to support this but my thought is Russia was always going to turn into something like an oligarchy but that there would be a leader like Putin I think was not inevitable. I think there could have been an elite class that controlled Russia's natural resources and a mostly weak central government. But this idea is based on other countries and I admit to not knowing nearly enough about Russian history to say this with any degree of authority. Alternatively, if outside forces had set up Russia's new government instead of Russia doing it itself, similar to what the US did with Japan, then I think there would be a larger chance for a more standard Western government. (To be clear, I'm not saying the US necessarily should have done that, or that doing that is a good thing, just that it would have changed the outcome.)
aguaviva 2y ago
It's the sound of a regime shitting its pants, basically. Some pertinent recent context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Kirillov_(general)#Assassination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Kirillov_(general)#Assass...

ChumpGPT 2y ago

The man is a raging alcoholic who threatens the West with Nuclear destruction at least twice a day. He is especially fond of threatening all things UK. Perhaps they seized too much Oligarch money and property. A well-known fact amongst all Russians is that he is an imbecile and only kept around as a placeholder.

throwaway74354 2y ago
My pet theory is that Medvedev inherited Vladimir Zhirinovsky's speechwriters. Even if it's not the case, he's filling that niche of a warmongering clown. A lightning rod role, compared to whom Putin looks like a restrained strategist.

aaron695 2y ago

[dead]

xnyan 2y ago

Russia killing a Times journalist would almost guarantee an escalation of western support for the war, not something they would consider outside of exigent circumstances (desperation).

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

jnaina 2y ago

It’s noteworthy that Medvedev managed to achieve a brief moment of clarity from his usual intoxicated state to make that statement. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13174145/Has-Putin-ally-Medvedev-DRUNK-time-calls-Armageddon-Russian-former-presidents-social-media-rants-coincide-date-wine-shipments-Italy.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13174145/Has-Putin-...

etc-hosts 2y ago

Medvedev's role in Russian politics is to be the guy who says the most extreme ridiculous thing, so everyone can use him to point to someone who is by far much crazier and extreme than they are. He's never had much actual influence in the Russian government.

throw_dec_18 2y ago

The context is that Ukraine assassinated Russian lieutenant general Kirillov, who is a high ranking commander in the a section of the Russian military in charge of mitigating losses from chemical, biological and nuclear attacks. The even larger context is that Russia and Ukraine have been in a back and forth trying to obtain information victories over another by winning decisions from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Ukraine recently scored a victory in which OPCW agreed that Russia has likely used riot control agents in Ukraine. Russia's Kirillov led a number of initiatives accusing Ukraine of use of chemical weapons. Anyway, Russia doesn't consider the assassination of this person to be a legitimate military target, as they are not a combatant or directing combatant troops. Ukraine accuses Kirillov of participating in use of riot control agents and has justified the assassination on these grounds. The Times called the attack a legitimate military target. Medvedev is engaging in a form of Slavic rhetorical satire, essentially saying, "well The Times if you want to throw out the typical conventions for what a legitimate target is, let's take it all the way down that slippery slope."

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Terr_ 2y ago
> Anyway, Russia doesn't consider the assassination of this person to be a legitimate military target Which really should be the end of the entire "debate" right there, since it they're blatantly lying about their own beliefs. The Russian state under Putin very well-documented history of assassination attempts (and successes) against civilians, even within neutral countries. Two quick examples being the killing of Putin-critic Litvenko (radioactive mess in Britain) and a recently a foiled attempt to kill the CEO of a German firm that was selling arms to Ukraine.
aguaviva 2y ago
Medvedev is engaging in a form of Slavic rhetorical satire It could perhaps be construed as (a very juvenile form of) satire -- were it not for the fact that his regime has already conducted assassinations of non-military targets on European soil, of exactly the type he is "satirically" threatening.