Picture courtesy of Yekaterina Shtukina/POOL/TASS

 

Dmitry Medvedev, once Russia's youthful president, now plays a fiery role as the Kremlin’s chief provocateur. Recently, he charged that President Donald Trump’s administration was edging the US and Russia towards conflict, underscoring Moscow’s nuclear strength after Trump hinted at fresh sanctions on Russia. Despite lacking executive powers as deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, Medvedev’s outspoken remarks still capture attention.

 

This week, on Telegram, Medvedev painted a dramatic picture, urging Trump to envision a “Walking Dead” scenario and clearly hinting at Russia’s nuclear capabilities. In response, Trump swiftly ordered the repositioning of two nuclear submarines. The clash follows Trump’s new ultimatum, pushing for an end to the Ukrainian conflict with threats of sanctions—a move unlikely to sway the Kremlin.

 

Medvedev, who became president at 42, was initially seen as a modernising force, contrasting with Vladimir Putin's KGB background. He embraced technology and aimed to reform Russia’s economy and tackle corruption. However, his presidency acted mainly as a placeholder for Putin, allowing him to sidestep constitutional limits temporarily.

 

After stepping down in 2012, Medvedev’s transformation became evident. Transitioning from a liberal-leaning technocrat to a fierce nationalist, he’s now notorious for incendiary social media posts. His rhetoric shifted markedly; in 2009 he advocated strong ties with the West, while recently he warned of the dire consequences, including World War III, following Trump’s warnings to Russia.

 

Trying to retain influence within the United Russia party, Medvedev distanced himself from his previous liberal image. He faced accusations of building a “corruption empire” during his time as prime minister, though these claims, presented by opposition leader Alexei Navalny, were dismissed by his team as baseless, reported CNN.

 

In 2020, Medvedev’s abrupt resignation as prime minister coincided with Putin's constitutional changes cementing his power. Now, from the Security Council, Medvedev launches frequent attacks against Western leaders and Ukraine, amassing a significant following on social media platforms like Telegram and X.

 

Medvedev's fiery language extends to the Ukrainian conflict, often employing provocative imagery and rhetoric. He’s accused of employing Nazi-era symbolism, targeting Western leaders and Ukrainian officials with imagery designed to inflame tensions. Analysts suggest his statements are a key part of a broader Kremlin strategy to provoke and unsettle Western powers.

 

Observers, however, advise against taking his words at face value. The Institute for the Study of War notes his role in amplifying Kremlin narratives intended to stoke fear and uncertainty. Anatol Lieven from the Quincy Institute dismisses the current nuclear sabre-rattling as mere theatrics, asserting that the risk of actual nuclear conflict remains low.

 

Reflecting on Medvedev’s journey from president to provocateur, it’s clear he has embraced his current role with zeal, embodying the Kremlin's hardline stance in global affairs. His journey reveals a complex character now at the forefront of Russia’s confrontational messaging strategy.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from CNN 2025-08-04

 

Stop drunken <deleted>posting, Ukraine tells top Russian official

Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ‘should drink less vodka before going on Telegram,’ Ukrainian FM says.

https://www.politico.eu/article/stop-drunk-post-social-media-ukraine-russia-dmitry-medvedev-dmytro-kuleba/

<Sht> 

He would be an excellent successor , if something happened to Putin.

More radical.

 

Putin seems too weak.

What happened to the responce when ukraine drones destroyed these bombers?

 

Medvedev would kick more a$$, not letting this happen or with a very heavy price :

 

Ukraine Drone Attack Sparks Sochi Fire - World News - Thailand News, Travel & Forum - ASEAN NOW

Russia in Flames as Ukraine Blitzes Oil Refineries - World News - Thailand News, Travel & Forum - ASEAN NOW

 

Ahh, it's the tough-talkin' baby faced momma's boy gobshiite. If anyone were in more dire need of a good slap. Got one of those annoying, doe-eyed punchable faces. Putin can almost pull off the tough guy thing, but I bet this beaut has never had a proper scrap in his life.

No one takes Medvedev seriously. He's the biggest clown in Russia, and that says a lot.

2 hours ago, thaibreaker said:

No one takes Medvedev seriously. He's the biggest clown in Russia, and that says a lot.

Don’t underestimate this piece of slime. I see him as one of the most dangerous people in the world, promoting his nonsensical ideology. 
The world would be a much safer and better place without him. 

10 hours ago, Zack61 said:

Don’t underestimate this piece of slime. I see him as one of the most dangerous people in the world, promoting his nonsensical ideology. 
The world would be a much safer and better place without him. 

Couldn't disagree more. He is all words, always has been, with his stupid threats. He has become an embarrassment for Russia, and you might get your wish, with Medvedev falling out of a window in the near future.

 

The grown-ups in Russia (if there are any?) know exactly what happens if they start anything nuclear. Russia would be turned into dust, and wiped out of the map.

Riiiiiiight. The sanctions won't do sh.t. Gasbag O'Donald said, he'd end it with one phone call! 😂😂😂

 

How the Americans could fall for that idiot a second time is beyond me....

On 8/5/2025 at 1:33 AM, thaibreaker said:

The grown-ups in Russia (if there are any?) know exactly what happens if they start anything nuclear. Russia would be turned into dust, and wiped out of the map.

 Shows a misunderstanding of the balance of power in nuclear weapons and delivery capabilities.

 

Dastardly chap !

 

He has stolen a page out of the U.S. State Department's Foreign Policy Book !

18 minutes ago, ericbj said:

 Shows a misunderstanding of the balance of power in nuclear weapons and delivery capabilities.

Nuclear weapons have only worked as a threat to those who don't have them. Threatening other nuclear powers, has never worked, and never will. 

On 8/4/2025 at 6:39 AM, webfact said:

His journey reveals a complex character now at the forefront of Russia’s confrontational messaging strategy.

 

The Donald is at the forefront of the United States' confrontational messaging strategy.

22 minutes ago, thaibreaker said:

Nuclear weapons have only worked as a threat to those who don't have them. Threatening other nuclear powers, has never worked, and never will. 

Thank you for pointing out the stupidity of U.S. nuclear threats directed at the Russian Federation, as result of a social media post by someone with no effective power to do anything except blabber.

Particularly stupid in view of Russia's long-established "Dead Hand" retaliation policy.

 

Sabre-rattling can potentially lead to unintended war, especially where civilian populations have been worked up into a state of accepting or even welcoming it.
The pan-European Great War of 1914-18, thought by many to be impossible, nonetheless occurred.

36 minutes ago, thaibreaker said:

Nuclear weapons have only worked as a threat to those who don't have them. Threatening other nuclear powers, has never worked, and never will. 

Complete drivel. The whole premise of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is between nuclear powers.

I remember when the-then moderate Medvedev was featured in the hi-fi press for his ultra high end vinyl system and huge record collection. Presented Deep Purple with some kind of medal when he was PM iirc, having been a huge fan of them and other Western rock bands when growing up in Soviet era.

 

DP handed those medals back some time back, not good optics being associated with this fruitcake 😄 

26 minutes ago, ericbj said:

Thank you for pointing out the stupidity of U.S. nuclear threats directed at the Russian Federation, as result of a social media post by someone with no effective power to do anything except blabber.

Particularly stupid in view of Russia's long-established "Dead Hand" retaliation policy.

 

Sabre-rattling can potentially lead to unintended war, especially where civilian populations have been worked up into a state of accepting or even welcoming it.
The pan-European Great War of 1914-18, thought by many to be impossible, nonetheless occurred.

Yes, but my view was the neverending RUSSIAN nuclear threats towards Europe and NATO. That will never work, you can't threat other nuclear nations and capabilities with the use of nuclear weapons. That will never work.

10 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Complete drivel.

Lol. Read my post above.

44 minutes ago, thaibreaker said:

Nuclear weapons have only worked as a threat to those who don't have them. Threatening other nuclear powers, has never worked, and never will. 

Think if you look at world events like Cuban missile crisis you'll find that that's complete tripe. It's a power play. Each side knows they have the capability to obliterate each other, even if one gets a first strike in. And even if that happens, the radiation cloud and nuclear winter will get them anyway. Unfortunately pandoras box was opened and MAD and non-proliferation is the best way to deal with it. 

 

Nuclear submarines are supposed to unload if they've received no orders for a pre-determined period (though I believe UK sub commanders are allowed to make their own choice).

14 minutes ago, thaibreaker said:

Lol. Read my post above.

 

1 hour ago, thaibreaker said:

Nuclear weapons have only worked as a threat to those who don't have them. Threatening other nuclear powers, has never worked, and never will. 

What don't you understand about Mutually Assured Desrtuction. One side shoots off nukes and the other side retaliates by shooting off nukes hence mutual destruction. What is essential to this is BOTH sides have nukes. I always assumed Mutally Assured Destruction was a well known doctrine of deterence. The threat is still there but so is mutual anhialation.

6 minutes ago, MarkyM3 said:

Think if you look at world events like Cuban missile crisis you'll find that that's complete tripe. It's a power play. Each side knows they have the capability to obliterate each other, even if one gets a first strike in. And even if that happens, the radiation cloud and nuclear winter will get them anyway. Unfortunately pandoras box was opened and MAD and non-proliferation is the best way to deal with it. 

 

Nuclear submarines are supposed to unload if they've received no orders for a pre-determined period (though I believe UK sub commanders are allowed to make their own choice).

I can't see any nation today stupid enough to start a nuclear holocaust. They know the result of that. It will be retaliated straight away.

 

We have come further today than we were in '62. Too many nations have nuclear weapons today, and all are very aware of the consequences.

 

Nuclear weapons are keeping nations in check today. It's not a weapon for attack, it's not meant to be used. They are an insurance for a nuclear country to go easy with. It's a "here, but no longer" kind of situation.

1 minute ago, dinsdale said:

 

What don't you understand about Mutually Assured Desrtuction. One side shoots off nukes and the other side retaliates by shooting off nukes hence mutual destruction. What is essential to this is BOTH sides have nukes. I always assumed Mutally Assured Destruction was a well known doctrine of deterence.

Seriously? That's what I'm saying, for crying out loud! It only work as a threat to countries who don't have them. Threatening a country with nuclear weapons, does not work, exactly because of that mutual destruction.

 

Do you understand my post now?

4 minutes ago, thaibreaker said:

Seriously? That's what I'm saying, for crying out loud! It only work as a threat to countries who don't have them. Threatening a country with nuclear weapons, does not work, exactly because of that mutual destruction.

 

Do you understand my post now?

Politely - you don't understand the concept of MAD. Mutual is the key word - both sides must have the equal capability to destroy each other and hence won't do it for that reason. If only one person has the ability, it isn't MAD. 

1 minute ago, thaibreaker said:

Seriously? That's what I'm saying, for crying out loud! It only work as a threat to countries who don't have them. Threatening a country with nuclear weapons, does not work, exactly because of that mutual destruction.

 

Do you understand my post now?

The thing is all countries have allies. Why do you think Putin won't launch tactical nukes against Ukraine. Any offensive use of nukes on any country will see nuclear retaliation from either Russia or the US. MAD is a global deterence. Pakistan and India is a different matter although there the MAD exists between those two nations. This is alo a reason why Iran must not be allowed to produce a nuclear weapon. Rogue states must not be allowed to have them.

I'm pretty sure Putin and Medvedev play "good cop / bad cop."  CNN <laughs>

6 minutes ago, MarkyM3 said:

Politely - you don't understand the concept of MAD. Mutual is the key word - both sides must have the equal capability to destroy each other and hence won't do it for that reason. If only one person has the ability, it isn't MAD. 

Politely, you are not reading my post! I am completely aware, and that's why I say threatening other nuclear powers WON'T work. Both parties are fully aware of the mutual destruction.

 

I thought everyone could read on this forum, but obviously not.

1 minute ago, thaibreaker said:

Politely, you are not ready post! I am completely aware, and that's why I say threatening other nuclear powers WON'T work. Both parties are fully aware of the mutual destruction.

 

I thought everyone could read on this forum, but obviously not.

"You are not ready post" - what does that mean?

 

I'm out, you don't listen. Read up on what Mutually Assured Destruction is. 

1 minute ago, MarkyM3 said:

"You are not ready post" - what does that mean?

 

I'm out, you don't listen. Read up on what Mutually Assured Destruction is. 

Are you dumb? Try to wait for my edit, everyone can have misspellings.

 

I sure know the concept!

But you obviously can't read.

6 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

The thing is all countries have allies. Why do you think Putin won't launch tactical nukes against Ukraine. Any offensive use of nukes on any country will see nuclear retaliation from either Russia or the US. MAD is a global deterence. Pakistan and India is a different matter although there the MAD exists between those two nations. This is alo a reason why Iran must not be allowed to produce a nuclear weapon. Rogue states must not be allowed to have them.

That is common sense, and not contradicting anything I wrote.

12 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

The thing is all countries have allies. Why do you think Putin won't launch tactical nukes against Ukraine. Any offensive use of nukes on any country will see nuclear retaliation from either Russia or the US. MAD is a global deterence. Pakistan and India is a different matter although there the MAD exists between those two nations. This is alo a reason why Iran must not be allowed to produce a nuclear weapon. Rogue states must not be allowed to have them.

If non-nuclear countries have allies with nuclear weapons, of course it won't work threatening them there either. 

 

If Russia threatens Norway with use of nuclear weapons, it won't work because Norway is a member of NATO. It's the same as if they actually had them themselves.

25 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

This is alo a reason why Iran must not be allowed to produce a nuclear weapon. Rogue states must not be allowed to have them.

One last comment on this. It's bad enough that Israel have them, because they now feel they can do whatever they want in the region. And that's just what they are doing.

 

I actually do not think if Iran was making them, that that would have been such a bad thing. In my opinion it might create some stability in the region. Based exactly on the MAD idea. Iran won't use them, unless used upon. And that won't happen.

 

Just my opinion.