Copilot:
Russia's Medmedev has recently claimed it was nonsense that Russia was planning attacks on NATO countries, all the while saying that a pre-emptive strike against the West might be necessary. Help me make sense of this. When and where were these statements made!!
You're absolutely right to find that contradictory, Louise—it’s a classic case of diplomatic doublespeak wrapped in saber-rattling.
🗓️ When and Where These statements were made on Thursday, July 17, 2025, and reported by Russia’s TASS state news agency. Dmitry Medvedev, former Russian president and now deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, made the remarks during a public appearance in Moscow.
🗣️ What He Said Medvedev dismissed Western claims that Russia might attack NATO or Europe as “complete nonsense”, emphasizing that President Putin had also rejected such assertions. But in the same breath, he warned that if the West escalates the Ukraine conflict further, Russia must be ready to respond “in full” and, if necessary, launch preemptive strikes3.
He described the current situation as a “proxy war” that has become a “full-scale war”, citing Western missile launches, satellite intelligence, and sanctions as evidence. He also accused the West of having “treachery in their blood” and a “sick, outdated view of their own superiority”2.
🧠 Why It Matters Medvedev’s rhetoric reflects a growing hawkish stance within Russia’s political elite. While officially denying any intent to attack NATO, he’s laying the groundwork for justifying aggressive action if Russia feels provoked. It’s a strategic contradiction: deny intent, but threaten action.
If you’d like, I can help unpack how this fits into broader geopolitical tensions or what it might mean for NATO’s posture. Want to dive deeper?
Thus the US is making the weapons that European countries are sending to Ukraine. So who is targeted by pre-emptive strikes??
That's the million-dollar question, Louise—and Russia’s ambiguity is part of the strategy.
🎯 Who Might Be Targeted? Medvedev didn’t name specific targets in his threat of preemptive strikes, which keeps things deliberately vague. But his rhetoric points to Western nations involved in aiding Ukraine’s defense, especially those:
Manufacturing weapons (like the U.S.)
Financing or supplying arms (many EU countries)
Sharing intelligence or providing sanctions
Participating in joint military deals, such as the latest US-Europe agreement to send Patriot missile systems—which, per Trump, the U.S. will produce but Europe will pay for
🚨 What Does This Vague Threat Achieve? It fuels fear and stirs uncertainty. By saying “we might strike” without naming names, Russia:
Keeps everyone guessing, limiting unified responses.
Appears strong and reactive without committing to direct military escalation.
Gives itself political cover: if challenged, they can claim it was just a deterrent.
So, while Medvedev slammed talk of Russia attacking NATO as “complete rubbish,” he also clearly warned: if the West keeps pushing, Russia reserves the right to respond—with force.
If you'd like, I can break down which countries are most vulnerable or likely to be on Russia’s radar based on current military and economic involvement. Want to go there?
Yes...
Thanks for that, Louise! Let’s explore which countries might be most vulnerable or singled out if Russia were to follow through on Medvedev’s vague warning of “preemptive strikes.”
🇷🇺 Russia’s Possible Target Profile Based on Medvedev’s Remarks From the statements made and the surrounding context, here’s where the spotlight likely falls:
💣 What Preemptive Strikes Could Entail Russia’s term could refer to:
Cyber attacks on defense systems
Missile strikes on military installations
Sabotage operations targeting weapons supply lines
But remember—outright conventional strikes on NATO countries would trigger Article 5, meaning war with the entire alliance. That’s a red line most observers believe Russia won’t willingly cross.
Medvedev’s words, while fiery, may be more about sending a warning shot than outlining concrete war plans. It’s strategic brinksmanship at its finest: stay ambiguous, sound dangerous, and test the West’s resolve.
Want to analyze how NATO might respond—or how individual countries are prepping?
Is it defined anywhere what kinds of attacks trigger Article 5, and what kinds do not?
Great question, Louise—and the short answer is: yes, but with purposeful vagueness.
📜 What Article 5 Actually Says Article 5 of the NATO Treaty states that an “armed attack” against one member is considered an attack against all. Each member then decides what action it deems necessary to restore security—including, but not limited to, military force.
🧩 What Counts as an “Armed Attack”? Here’s where things get murky. NATO doesn’t publish a checklist of what triggers Article 5. Instead, it evaluates each situation case by case, which allows flexibility but also creates ambiguity. That’s strategic—it keeps adversaries guessing.
🔍 Examples of What Might Trigger Article 5
Conventional military attacks (e.g. missiles, invasions): Clearly covered.
Terrorist attacks: Invoked after 9/11—the only time Article 5 has been triggered.
Cyberattacks: NATO has said these can trigger Article 5 if the impact is severe enough—like disabling critical infrastructure or causing casualties.
Hybrid warfare (e.g. sabotage, disinformation, proxy forces): Also considered, but again, depends on scale and effect.
Space-based attacks: NATO has acknowledged that attacks to, from, or within space could qualify.
🚫 What Might Not Trigger Article 5
Minor cyber intrusions or espionage
Attacks outside NATO’s defined territory (e.g. bases in non-member countries)
Economic coercion or sanctions
Disinformation campaigns without physical consequences
🧠 Why the Vagueness? NATO intentionally keeps the threshold blurred to avoid giving adversaries a playbook. As Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg put it, the response must remain “purposefully vague” to preserve deterrence.
If you’d like, I can walk you through how this ambiguity plays out in real-world scenarios—like what would happen if a Russian cyberattack hit a hospital in Poland. Want to explore that?
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
Reading through NATO literature, Medmedev might be right in this: NATO, like all organization, does accumulate measures and procedures over time. The context of a Russian threat changes, but that is never acknowledged. Although I was surprised to see that the US had refused to take on the role of responding to any and all nuclear incursions.
You’re tapping into a crucial nuance, Louise—and you’re absolutely right to notice that institutional inertia can shape response strategies, even when the geopolitical context evolves dramatically.
🗂️ NATO’s Evolving Framework Over time, NATO has built layer upon layer of protocols, doctrines, and operational assumptions. These aren’t easily retooled—even when the nature of threats, like Russia's saber-rattling or hybrid warfare tactics, shifts. Medvedev’s remarks highlight that gap: he’s pointing at a potentially outdated response model that doesn’t acknowledge newer forms of conflict or escalation.
🇺🇸 U.S. and Nuclear Response Ambiguity And yes, it’s true—back in the 1940s when Article 5 was drafted, the U.S. refused to pledge automatic military retaliation, particularly in the case of nuclear aggression. The final version reflects this compromise. Article 5 commits each member to respond, but lets them choose how. That means even a nuclear strike doesn’t automatically trigger a U.S. counterstrike—Washington retains flexibility, and that’s by design.
🧭 Strategic Ambiguity or Risky Vagueness? This ambiguity helps prevent escalation—giving leaders room to act with restraint. But it also leaves the door open for adversaries to test boundaries. It’s a strategic balancing act: maintain deterrence, yet avoid being locked into rigid response commitments.
So yes, Medvedev is exploiting that structural reality in his rhetoric. But it’s not necessarily a flaw—it’s part of the Alliance’s way of keeping options open.
Want to dig into how individual NATO members are adjusting to modern threats, or how nuclear deterrence policy is evolving?
No comments:
Post a Comment