Medvedev: theses on the international situation

A friend sent me this and I’ve machine translated.  The comment that the five collective short abstracts came with, is interesting:  “DM has become the philosopher-ideologue of the Kremlin”.

Saturday abstracts. Five relevant comments on the international situation

1. Any country puts at the forefront of the most important priorities-the protection of its citizens and state independence. Moreover, this protection is possible not only on one’s own territory, but also on others, if there are grounds for it. The reasons are quite obvious-terror and murder of citizens of this country. In other words, every country has the right to use military force to protect its citizens who are being destroyed in foreign territories. This right includes the ability to act preemptively, in order to prevent further murder, genocide and other crimes against its citizens. This includes conducting full-fledged military operations to protect their state and people. This follows from the key provisions of the UN Charter and international practice in such cases. Many countries have used this right. All of this is fully applicable to the Russian Federation.

2. No one questions the results of the Second World War. But we must keep in mind that history is inexorably moving forward. After 1945, many things happened that radically changed both the balance of power in the world and the lines of state borders. That is why any “results” are acceptable to us exactly as long as they do not contradict the fundamental interests of Russia as the successor state, and in many respects the historical and moral heir of the Russian Empire and the USSR.

So far, there have been no direct attacks on our citizens. As long as the neighboring countries that were previously part of the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union do not join hostile military blocs, whose strategic nuclear forces are aimed at our main cities around the clock, and do not begin to threaten our territorial integrity.

3. Peaceful coexistence of different States is possible and necessary. Question: at what cost is it achieved? If at the cost of endless concessions of their historical territories and the rejection of their citizens, such “peaceful coexistence” is not worth a penny. If there is a choice between this “coexistence” and protecting the fundamental national interests, as well as the lives of its citizens, it is necessary to choose the latter. This is the real protection of these national interests, just in a different, more rigid form, suitable for such a moment. Anyone who questions their country’s right to such actions cannot be considered a bona fide citizen.

4. There is only one universal instrument for settling international disputes in the world. This is the United Nations and the fundamental documents adopted by it. The tool is versatile, but not perfect at all. It is important that the UN maintains the basic principle of international relations: the equality of all States and the duty to listen to the position of each country, not just the elected ones. This is the imperative of an organization’s activity, its jus cogens.

The status of permanent members of the UN’s founding Security Council should not be subject to review, including their veto power. The number of permanent members of the UN Security Council can be expanded, but their powers should be inviolable. Otherwise, the UN will face a systemic crisis and, as a result, the organization will repeat the fate of the late League of Nations.

Humanity can live without the UN. This has been true for most of the story. However, the system of international law will inevitably degrade, and the world will return to narrow regional and bilateral agreements on security issues.

5. The shoddy Western idea of “rule-based order” must be firmly rejected as untenable and extremely harmful to humanity. It is not approved by anyone, is completely vague in content, and is promoted in opposition to existing international rules and institutions, including the UN. The idea itself is dictated by the obsessive desire of the Anglo-Saxons to bring the ideological base under their attempts to dominate the world to the point of mental deviations

The choice of the rest of the world is not to submit to this idea, but to go their own way.