..
VIDEO ..
Senior Russian security official Dmitry Medvedev has warned that the world should be alarmed if the last remaining U.S.–Russia nuclear arms control treaty expires without a replacement. Speaking ahead of the New START treaty’s expiry, Medvedev said allowing the agreement to lapse could accelerate the symbolic “Doomsday Clock,” even if it does not immediately trigger nuclear war. The warning comes as U.S. President Donald Trump signals he is willing to let the treaty expire, arguing a better deal could follow. Medvedev also addressed rising global instability, Russia’s military production surge since the Ukraine war, tensions with European leaders, and the future of strategic technologies like artificial intelligence.
TRANSCRIPT
I'm not saying this immediately means
catastrophe and that a nuclear war will start, but it should still be a cause for concern for everyone. And these very clocks that are steadily ticking away in this case, it is quite apparent that they should start ticking faster again because it is perfectly evident to everyone that these potentials, the total number of warheads and the deployed delivery systems. These are just strategic methods intended to manage the situation, but they are not sufficient to solve the problem as a whole. But still, it's a way to carefully authenticate each other's underlying intentions, if you will. Not about Europe, but about Trump. After all, there are always rumors circulating in America. Even a simple question, but just uh why? It is a question, as they often say, with a subtext. Is Donald Trump a positive influence or a negative one for Russia? the president of the United States of and first and foremost he was elected by and we treat that choice with respect. Moreover, Trump won, let's be honest, in a tough and grueling battle. It takes immense willpower and great courage to stand up to the established system, but he remains a complex and often highly contradictory political figure. Let me remind you that uh at the start of his political career he had no government experience at all. This is quite an unprecedented story. Nevertheless, he managed to handle many internal processes although it is believed that the American deep state still does not accept him and I think that's actually beneficial. But I'll finish with the same point I He is a person who introduces completely new as for his methods of governance. Just pay attention. He is the first president of the United States to govern through truth social and through well ex maybe I don't know which one he In other words, practically every one of his posts is essentially a managerial signal. You could make jokes about something being ill-considered or emotional. Yes, that's probably true. He wanted to send a couple of boats somewhere, but we couldn't find them. But nevertheless, that's not what I'm What I'm talking about now is that essentially this is a symbol of management culture of the 21st century, the third decade when the head of the largest state, the largest economy, a nuclear power, nevertheless uses social networks for administrative directives. Trump is the embodiment of the American system, the president of the United States. He is an emotional person. But on the other hand, the very chaos that people often talk about, which his actions supposedly create, that that's not entirely true. It's obvious that behind this lies a quite deliberate and often rather competent strategy. As a former businessman, and there are no real former businessmen, just like there are no former members of certain other professions, right? So, as a former businessman, he always acts aggressively like, "I'll intimidate you, then naturally back off, and you'll agree to half my terms." And this is quite effective. This applies, by the way, to Britain, to other European countries, and many other nations. But many people firmly decided he was a dangerous Russian secret agent. His management style is original, but in some ways, it's effective. That's obvious. As for us, we're ready to work with any elected president. But as for the previous person who was here, it seems he himself did not really put in much effort or have the desire to do so. And he consistently avoided all kinds of contact. Trump, it's absolutely clear, wants to go down in history as a peacemaker. That's true. And he's making an effort. Sometimes he succeeds, sometimes he doesn't, but he really is trying to do it. And that's why contacts with the Americans have become much more productive. And I think that's beneficial for the cause. But let me finish with the same thing. thing I started with Trump is the very embodiment of the American system. It's clear that the fact of a military victory is very important and this can be seen by a whole range of indicators. You know this very well since you came from the LBS. You feel it But it's just as important to think about what will happen afterwards. After all, the goal of victory is to prevent new conflicts. That's absolutely obvious. The goals of the special military operation were initially stated by the president of our country, Vladimir Vladimir Putin. They have in fact remained practically unchanged since then. There are some nuances of course, but overall they are as they were. So that is the primary reason why I would like this to happen as soon as possible. Well X maybe I do not really know what he is using there. So essentially what we are looking at is naturally we did not live during the great patriotic war. I talked a lot with both my grandfathers. I know what happened and how it happened but still we didn't witness it. Now we see all of And despite all the differences between what happened then and what is happening now, the main thing remains We are defending our country. We are protecting our loved ones, our closest people, our families, our children, our It was like that back then and it's the same now. And in this I see absolute continuity between these events. even the persistent allegations that he is acting as a secret Russian agent. As for the militia, I agree with you. You know, there have been many conflicts in the history of our country. The question is whether these military actions are truly and this as a rule is always connected to defending the interests of one's country and one's loved ones. And the militia arises precisely at such We had other conflicts as well. I won't name them now. They're all well known, especially during the Soviet Union period. Yes, we were fulfilling our international duty. We helped our friends and partners, but that was still But this is something entirely different. This is the defense of one's just like the heroism of the people who are now fighting for us. Do other countries in Europe surprise you with their behavior of their own? You know, Lena, I am completely but Europe really surprised me because Europe through its own actions is undermining the foundations of its own existence. It's The nations of Europe may not like the current Russian political and governmental system or Russia's leaders. That is certainly their right. But when in order to achieve some personal or essentially specific and narrow-minded political objectives, they destroy the very foundation of their own long-term economic prosperity and well-being just to punish Russia. That is astonishing. Right now in Turk, Finland, don't you feel an urge to capture some footage? Well, we know what happened both with energy and with the supply of a whole range of other raw materials and goods, agricultural products with Europe. Prices are rising, inflation is growing. There are a lot of problems and all just to spite Russia and on the other hand to show some kind of They haven't achieved anything. The situation is only getting worse. So in theory they should come to their senses as some countries actually did. Uh those who initially thought that harming themselves not Russia but themselves made no sense. But no this course continues. In general I have the feeling that the authorities in Europe a gang of lunatics has taken over and they're now leading the In America, there is the accusation that he is some kind of foreign agent, but now it's some kind of gang of madmen or people who are absolutely inadequate and incompetent, including those responsible for international affairs as well as the leadership of the European Union or those who are harming their own countries, the very countries that put That is practically every one of his prime minister Victor Orban recently stated that a significant majority of 75% of the population within the European Union is strongly opposed to this policy. This is a comprehensive sociological survey absolutely open statistically representative and reliable against for example the rapid admission of Ukraine into the EU. for the EU leadership, this means nothing. They just push their own agenda. An agenda that consists of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia because of the conflict that has arisen and of course satisfying their own I think that sooner or later all of this will end very sadly. I've been observing the development of Ukrainian statehood for quite a long time now. Frankly speaking, it's a rather sad story. No matter what period it was back when we still visited each other, whenever I went there, there were always massive, so to speak, corruption Everything was bought and sold. Well, in general, I won't even retell all of that now. It's pointless. But now there's yet another, so to speak, stage of all this. What's happening with Timosenko and her It's clear that the current leader of this political regime is trying to Apparently, at some point, she started getting in the way too. They're using corruption related issues for this purpose. All sorts of different ones. To a large extent, of course, these processes are controlled by states that control the situation internally. As is widely and well known, a number of governing bodies in Ukraine were established not without the direct involvement of the United States of America and various European structures. CIA representatives have been actively present and operational for a very long time within various administrative and in fact they are the ones pulling the strings there. As for the conditions, they are of a public nature. They were first articulated by the president of the Russian Federation when he spoke at the foreign ministry board Naturally, these conditions were relayed to the American colleagues during the meeting in Anchorage and they remain People often say, well, 95% or 90% has been agreed upon. But there can be no arithmetic calculation here. I will just highlight three points. If we talk about the territorial issue, it does indeed exist and it is truly the most difficult one for obvious reasons. The KEF regime perceives all of these developments very painfully and so does the head of this regime on a deeply legitimate powers have expired. And how things will unfold if such a document is signed for him is unknown. or rather most likely he understands this perfectly well. Back in 2021, I wrote an If something like this happens, the Nazis will come and simply hang him. And if he doesn't do it, if he can't show a genuine willingness to negotiate, he will lose the favor of the American leadership. And the Europeans will view his actions with suspicion and look at him a scance as well. That's why he's caught between a rock and a hard place. But that's his problem and I don't want to talk about it. But I won't be telling you the details because according to our agreement with our American partners, we do not highlight this process in any way. The teams are working. The leaders are holding meetings both in the United States and in the Russian Federation under the guidance of the presidents. But the details are not made public. Well, you understand why yourself because it would undermine achieving results. This is a very sensitive area. I'm not saying this immediately means catastrophe and that a nuclear war will start, but it should still be a cause for concern for everyone. And these very clocks that are steadily ticking away in this case, it is quite apparent that they should start ticking faster again because it is perfectly evident to everyone that these potentials, the total number of warheads and the deployed delivery systems. These are just strategic methods intended to manage the situation, but they are not sufficient to solve the problem as a whole. But still, it's a way to carefully authenticate each other's underlying intentions, if you will. Despite all the drawbacks, it is still an essential component of mutual trust. When such a formal treaty exists, it means there is a level of mutual trust. When it doesn't, it means that trust has been exhausted. And in fact, the situation we're finding ourselves in now is clear evidence of a crisis in international relations. This is absolutely obvious. This essentially signifies that Russia is operating in strict compliance with its established nuclear doctrine and our head of state has consistently reaffirmed this position on numerous occasions. Currently, this doctrine is in effect as in this nuclear doctrine. So in the so-called fundamentals of nuclear deterrence, there is article 19 which explicitly lists all the circumstances under which nuclear weapons may be used to counter more Given that Russia has not used nuclear weapons, it means that such threats to our country have not arisen. so the wording has changed and it's clear that the current version of the fundamentals of nuclear deterrence takes into account to a greater extent the consequences of the ongoing conflict and the emergence of new types of weapons. You know, nuclear weapons can now be used not only as a retaliatory measure to a nuclear strike, but also in response to the massive use of drones, missiles, and other means of delivering weapons. To put it in another way, the criteria for its use have become significantly more expensive. But this does not mean that in every such case, Russia or the Supreme Commander-in-Chief will automatically make the definitive decision to use it. Obviously, nuclear weapons are nuclear weapons. This is an exceptionally powerful weapon and it poses a catastrophic threat to the future survival of all of humanity. But simultaneously, as has been said repeatedly and consistently, if it comes down to the ultimate fate of the entire country, then there should be absolutely no uncertainty in anyone's mind. It seems to me that this is truly a significant and pivotal historical date. Well, you know, our proposal still stands and even the formal agreement has not yet expired. So, if the American side wants to extend it, that can be done. But when we look back at the final outcome, we find ourselves in a situation, I started thinking about this too. My whole life, well, ever since the year 1972 has taken place under the broad umbrella of the strategic arms limitation treaty, regardless of the specific name it was given at the time. At first it was called Salt Y and it was formally signed and ratified on our Soviet side by Leonid Brev and on the United States of America's side by Then Sulttera 2 came into the picture still during the existence of the Soviet Union. Then came the first strategic arms reduction treaty known as Start One, which was a major bilateral agreement. Following that significant milestone, there was an interim treaty established to further address the complex issues of international security anti-bballistic missile defense and maintaining certain levels of capabilities which was already concluded and then the 2010 treaty. So for almost 60 years we have never had a situation where strategic nuclear capabilities were not limited by But now such a situation is possible for us. The very regime that currently exists there is first of all already illegal because the head of that regime has lost his authority and secondly it is absolutely hostile towards our and until it is dismantled in the broadest sense of the word there will be no peace. This needs to be understood but this does not mean that the state itself should cease to exist. Naturally, it will remain in some form. In what form, I repeat, I do not know. I don't want to discuss the fate of this individual since we are all already so sick and tired of him. I'm even judging by what my colleagues are writing there. But I can say only one thing. You know, as one well-known Kiev resident once remarked, Anushka has already spilled and he won't get away with it. It depends on how the elections go. They could go in different ways. Let me remind you that we recognize the results of the elections in which both Porrohenko and the current clown were elected as legitimate even though they didn't allow Donbas to vote. Nevertheless, based on the overall circumstances, they were recognized. At that time, we didn't have an armed conflict. So, we need to look at the
