Medvedev at the St. Petersburg International Legal Forum & Ryabkov's Interview by Izvestia

It’s become a tradition for Dmitri Medvedev as deputy chair of the Russian Security Council to speak at the plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Legal Forum, not just because of his position but also because he was trained as a legal scholar. Unfortunately, I have no official transcript to work from, and only have the reports from RT and TASS both of which highlight different point he raised. We’'ll begin with the RT report, “Asset theft and arrests could be grounds for war – Medvedev:

The sanctions and targeting of property practiced by the US and its allies could be considered acts of aggression and grounds for declaring war, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said.

Medvedev, who currently serves as deputy chair of the Russian Security Council, spoke at the St. Petersburg International Legal Forum (SPILF) on Thursday. A legal scholar by training, he addressed the current clash between international law and the ‘rules-based world order’ championed by the West.

“The seizure and forfeiture of state assets could be qualified, under certain circumstances, as an act of aggression, and could even be considered casus belli,” Medvedev told the SPILF plenary session, using the Latin term for an event that justifies war.

“No country is safe from confiscation of its assets, under the ‘order’ that is based on US domination,” Medvedev noted, pointing out that Afghanistan, Venezuela and Iran all had their funds seized before the West turned its eye on Russia.

The US and the EU illegally froze an estimated $300 billion in Russian sovereign assets in 2022, accusing Moscow of “invading” Ukraine. While the EU has so far resisted demands from Kiev and Washington to confiscate the frozen assets outright, it has agreed to seize the interest and proceeds from them and hand the money over to Ukraine. 

According to Medvedev, this is an outright violation of both international and their domestic law, under which state assets enjoy sovereign immunity. The same principle applies to public officials, yet the West has sought to charge Russian President Vladimir Putin – and more recently, former Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu and Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov – with war crimes.

Medvedev reminded the SPILF that attempts to assert ICC’s jurisdiction over Russian officials – as Moscow is not subject to the court – could also be considered a “declaration of war” and grounds for invoking the right of self-defense. 

The former Russian president (2008-2012) also pointed that the kind of economic embargoes practiced by the US and its allies also represent a form of warfare and require resistance within the framework of international law.

“Unilateral sanctions must end. They are an instrument of political coercion against those opposed to the ‘rules-based world order’, contrary to both the spirit and letter of the UN Charter,” Medvedev said. 

Countries subjected to sanctions should join together in consultations on “collective defense” against the countries that imposed the restrictions against them, Medvedev said. Russia will demand not just the lifting of all sanctions as the precondition for any negotiations on ending the Ukraine crisis, but intends to demand compensation for all the damages, he added. [My Emphasis bolded italics]

And now the TASS report, “Disrespect for immunity of countries could be step toward war:”

Failure to recognize that countries and their officials have immunity can sometimes be a step toward war, Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev said.

"As for immunity, this topic has already come up here, and I have already talked about it. In short, failure to recognize the immunity of a country, including immunity of property, immunity of officials, is a most decisive step toward the beginning of war, and in some situations even a world war," he said.

He was commenting on arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court against former Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu and Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Valery Gerasimov.

Medvedev said the warrants run counter to international law.

"Russia, like most countries of the world, including, incidentally, the United States of America and the largest countries - China, India - is not a party to this theatrical institution called the ICC," he said. "Attempts to apply to us the norms of an international treaty, to which we are not a party, are obviously senseless. They are part of foreign policy, and an absolutely aggressive one. But the consequences, as I have already said, can be very bad for the entire humanity. Those who generate these decisions should think about this."

ICC judges issued arrest warrants for Shoigu and Gerasimov on June 25 in connection with the situation in Ukraine.

Last year, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian Children's Rights Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova on charges of alleged unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children.

The ICC was established by the Rome Statute of 1998. There are currently 123 countries participating in the treaty. The court is based in The Hague, but it has branches in countries where it is conducting investigations.

Russia signed the Rome Statute, which it helped develop, on September 13, 2000, but did not ratify it. On November 16, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed an executive order that said the country would not become a party to the ICC. According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, "the ICC has failed to live up to expectations and has not become a truly independent body of international justice."

As usual, there’s likely more than what was singled out for publication. The ICC is also unneeded as the International Court of Justice already exists and all UN members are subject to its decisions because of their UN membership. The ICJ is too democratic for the Outlaw US Empire’s designs, which is why it used the period of Russian weakness to railroad the ICC into existence. But almost as soon as it was born, its sire wanted to kill it as the Bush/Cheney regime said it would attack the court if it dared try any of its outlaws for the crimes they committed.

The points Medvedev raises are extremely important since they are all potential reasons to wage war in defense of the national interest. IMO, Medvedev’s words are all aimed at the Outlaw US Empire for as its name suggests it’s the #1 global lawbreaker and has had that distinction since 1945. Clearly, when the Ukraine conflict ends the underlying conflict between Russia and the Outlaw US Empire will continue. IMO, that’s a fact that people must come to grips with, and that conflict will also be aimed at the Global Majority that sides with Russia and China’s efforts to end US Imperialism, not just contain it which is the process that’s now underway. And that brings us to Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s interview with Izvestia that took place today: “Opponents should know that they are step-by-step approaching the point of no return” states the header:

Question: In the spring, you said that the BRICS countries were exploring the possibility of settlements in stablecoins – cryptocurrency tokens whose exchange rate is pegged to an asset, such as the dollar, euro or ounce of gold. The option of creating a platform that will dock the systems of digital currencies of central banks is also being considered, and the possibility of combining national systems for the transfer of financial messages is being discussed. Which of these options is now being worked out more deeply by all the BRICS countries?

Answer: I think that we are working in all these three areas quite energetically and evenly. We are not at an impasse on any of them. After all, the BRICS countries are an association of like-minded people who understand why this is necessary and proceed from a common assessment of what is required to improve the reliability and efficiency of international financial systems. Professionals in the field say that reaching an agreement on only one of these three segments will not be enough. We need to take a comprehensive approach to the task. Now there is already a significant array of ideas, they fit into each other. This is done by experts and professionals from the ministries of finance and central banks of all countries.

Of course, political momentum is also important here: as the BRICS chairmanship, we are conveying it in accordance with the agreements reached by the leaders last year in Johannesburg. And halfway to the end of the Russian year in BRICS, I have sufficient confidence that we will approach the October summit in Kazan – and this will be the 16th BRICS summit – with significant results. Maybe there will be no decisions that will radically transform everything. Probably, this is not necessary. After all, this is such a sensitive area where evolutionary progress is optimal. But there will be results, and I am glad that all the countries that are members of the association, including those that joined it on January 1, share our understanding and our vision that this should be done.

Question: In your opinion, which of these three options can really work and how will Russia benefit from this?

Answer: Let's wait for an agreement. I think that all these three areas will be weak without the implementation of the schemes that are embedded in the idea of stablecoins, the digitalization of settlements and the ability to carry out transactions in such a way that we move away from accounts where transactions in the currencies of the Western world (dollars and euros) take place. But I would like to draw your attention to the fact that within the BRICS countries – and this is especially noticeable in Russian trade statistics and financial indicators – the share of settlements in national currencies and the share of schemes that are protected from the hostile influence of Western regulators is steadily growing. In some aspects, it already exceeds 80-90%, which is very important. One does not interfere with the other. We will establish mechanisms that are applicable to the entire BRICS and continue to work bilaterally with all partners (BRICS and non-BRICS) to expand such practices.

Question: Should we expect BRICS to expand in the near future?

Answer: In fact, BRICS doubled in size less than six months ago. I am not afraid to say that this is a record for all international associations, not to mention international organizations that have charters, certain regulations, and so on. Even more informal associations of states (and BRICS is exactly like that) had no precedents of this kind in the past. Therefore, I would be wary of talking about the constant, non-stop expansion of the BRICS. If we follow this path, we may lose a significant part of the practical effectiveness that has been achieved. And the task is to build it up further, move towards new practical projects and solve the problems that exist in the way. We do not hide this either. These are, for example, certain aspects of the New Development Bank's activities that require clarification and correction. We are working on this and will continue to do so.

But we recognize that today more than 30 states have already expressed interest in further rapprochement with the BRICS, and in the end, many of them are raising the question of formal accession to the association. We cannot but react to this. It is no coincidence that the leaders set a task at the Johannesburg summit last year: to develop a category of partner states before the summit in Kazan and draw up an approximate list of them. To draw it up means to agree on it among all BRICS members, and not just the chairman writes something, and then it becomes the sought-after list. No, this requires a certain negotiation, consultation and diplomatic efforts, which we are also doing. By the way, at the recent meeting of foreign ministers, which was successfully held in the wonderful city of Nizhny Novgorod on June 10–11, much attention was paid to this topic.

I would like to say that, in our opinion, partner states as a category should not be limited in their rights to interact with other BRICS members or, despite the importance of summits, be invited only to high-level events. They need to work at all levels of the BRICS architecture and its model of interaction. Here, too, we will have to continue our discussions within the association. The presidency is very busy with this. Despite the approaching summer vacation period in many countries, we do not weaken our efforts and are aware that there is not much time left before the summit in Kazan. And here we need to do our best to offer an attractive model to the countries interested in BRICS.

As for expansion, leaders will decide at the right time how and how much to expand and who to invite. All this is at the level of presidents or prime ministers in those countries where it is applicable. We will also prepare the ground for such decisions, but they are not in the foreground. The focus is on the category of partner states. This is what we are doing in the context of the growing interest of the international community in the activities of the BRICS.

Question: In addition to the permanent members of BRICS, do you know who will take part in the summit of heads of state to be held in Russia this year?

Answer: Historically, a fairly wide range of like-minded states and allies, as well as simply influential countries that coordinate or head regional and international organisations, have been invited to the summit. By the way, I would like to ask you to pay attention to the composition of the foreign ministers invited to the meeting in Nizhny Novgorod, which says a lot. The geographical and semantic range and the political charge that was put into such a circle are indicative. The summit is an event one step higher, now the invitation process is underway, and it is premature to talk about a specific circle. This is an issue that is being worked out in all details and in all aspects. You'll find out the details soon.

Question: On June 23, the Kiev regime attacked Sevastopol with five US ATACMS missiles. As a result of the attack, four people were killed and more than 150 were injured. You have repeatedly admitted a decrease in the level of diplomatic relations between the Russian Federation and the United States, and as one of the prerequisites for this, you called the confiscation of Russian frozen assets by the Americans. Can attacks against civilians using Western weapons be the reason for lowering the level of diplomatic relations with the United States and its European partners, in particular, the United Kingdom and France?

Answer: On June 24, when the Russian Foreign Ministry made a presentation to the US ambassador, we said that these actions, which in fact constitute complicity in a terrorist act committed by the Kiev regime, would not remain unanswered and without consequences. But the nature of the response is not always subject to disclosure.

As for lowering the level of diplomatic relations, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we have never initiated such a step, despite all the twists and turns of the most acute phase in our relations with the so-called "collective West." We believe that embassies and the work of ambassadors are a very difficult function, especially in the current conditions, and it should not be neglected – channels of communication should remain, including at a high level. We have had cases when ambassadors were recalled for consultations, and this is also a generally accepted practice. We do not rule out any options in the future. It will all depend on whom, how our opponents will behave.

Now the European Union has announced that there will be a withdrawal of income from illegally frozen Russian assets, and these funds will be transferred to some funds, from where they will further, as stated by the EU, help finance military assistance to the Kyiv regime. The cynicism of all this is off the charts, to the point where one wonders if there is even a limit to the moral decline of the group that is now setting the tone in Brussels and other EU capitals.

Is it possible now to make a decision that includes lowering the level of diplomatic relations? I can say that this is a subject of consideration, and all this is being studied. Decisions of this kind are made at the highest level. As long as there are none, it is counterproductive to speculate on this topic. But opponents should know that they are step by step bringing themselves closer to the point of no return. In what sense is the point of no return? Let them think and decide for themselves, but this foreign policy permissiveness and intoxication with their own impunity will eventually lead to the fact that the reaction on our part will be much more painful than this thief seems to be today.

Question: Western politicians are constantly talking about the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine. Recently, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban announced the preparation of a military mission. Does Moscow regard this as an act of NATO aggression against Russia, because, in fact, this is the expansion of the alliance at the expense of Ukraine?

Answer: As for an act of aggression, we adhere to the definition contained in the UN General Assembly resolution adopted at the 29th session on December 14, 1974. If you read the text of this resolution and study it, you will find the third article, which describes what an act of aggression is. And further, in the next article, it is written that the above list is not exhaustive, and the UN Security Council can qualify other circumstances as constituting an act of aggression.

Westerners are provoking us. Every day they find informational reasons to test our strength again and again. They can come up with any labels to label their purely anti-Russian activities in Ukraine and in many other areas. We reserve the right to appropriate qualifications with all our clear knowledge of the subject and understanding of what was originally laid down in this very important and multifaceted term.

Westerners do not bother themselves with this kind of trouble. They always limit themselves to the memorized phrase that everything coming out of Moscow is disinformation or propaganda. It is clear that there is not only no minimal shade of readiness to listen to what we bring to them. But there is not even an absolute initial desire to correlate their own actions with what was generally accepted in the civilized international community before all these figures came to leadership positions, in particular, in the group that calls itself the European Union. Our determination to secure our interests by all means available to us is only growing because of their defiant and arrogant behaviour. The harder you try to squeeze the spring, the stronger the recoil will be - this is an obvious fact.

Question: The Kiev regime regularly carries out strikes on Russian territory. In other words, Russia is subjected to regular shelling by a foreign state. Does Moscow admit the possibility of its military allies in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) participating in the Ukrainian conflict if the Armed Forces of Ukraine intensify attacks on the territory of Russia, especially deep into our state?

Answer: The CSTO is an established format. All issues related to military security are considered there. I am not ready to discuss the scenario and options, because in the current situation, any specific scenario and plot that is being considered in public in Moscow is becoming food in the information space in an attempt to hammer even more into the heads of gullible listeners in Western countries and other regions (where they have not yet come to an unequivocal conclusion about the harmfulness of this information flow) about Moscow's "aggressive" or other "destructive" aspirations. This is one side. And on the other hand, you simply cannot give food to the enemies so that they develop plans in advance on how to counter this. Very simple logic, and I will not go into the details of this kind of plots.

Question: In May, the first stage of exercises on the use of non-strategic nuclear weapons began in the Southern Military District. On June 20, President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that Russia is thinking about how to change our nuclear doctrine. And this is due to the fact that the potential enemy is developing new elements related to lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, in particular, ultra-low yield explosive devices. It is clear that possible changes in nuclear doctrine and exercises serve as a signal to Western countries in response to their unfriendly actions against the Russian Federation. But does Moscow allow the real use of tactical nuclear weapons during the NWO?

Answer: The topic is being raised, and you are absolutely right, referring, in particular, to these comments by our Supreme Commander-in-Chief. There were others, which, I hope, are taken seriously by opponents, and not just at the level of some behind-the-scenes discussions without practical conclusions. The regulations for the use of nuclear weapons (let's call them that) are spelled out quite clearly. We also know what our doctrinal documents are: they are the military doctrine and the Fundamentals of State Policy in the Field of Nuclear Deterrence.

During the panel discussion at the Primakov Readings, a very correct idea was voiced: these documents were drawn up in a different era and in different conditions. They require adaptation to the dramatically changed security situation. Relevant work (and the President has also spoken about this more than once) is underway. I do not anticipate its results, but I urge our opponents to think about what the President says. They are playing with fire in the literal sense of the word, and they must eventually cultivate the ability not to indulge in extremely dangerous illusions, but to try to take a sober look at the world and understand that we have unshakable national interests, defending which we are ready to go to the end.

Question: At the end of April of this year, the US State Department admitted that Russia adheres to quantitative restrictions under the provisions of the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (START). The Americans referred to their intelligence data. Can Russia say the same about the United States?

Answer: I can't say that they adhere to it. Moreover, they did not adhere to them long before the current breakdown in relations between Moscow and Washington, and before we suspended the New START Treaty due to radically changed circumstances. We complained to Washington that it used manipulative practices and deceitful methods to remove a significant number of its strategic carriers from the treaty's account. And this remains as a set of questions that have not received answers from the American side. That is, I could not say that the United States impeccably followed the treaty even then, and even more so now.

But by and large, the question now is what will happen in this area after the expiration of the New START Treaty (February 26, 2026). So far, I do not see any prerequisites for us, together with the United States, to return to a real discussion of the prospects for strategic nuclear arms control. In order for this to happen, we must record real positive shifts in the current US policy towards Russia, which is saturated with Russophobia and has become anti-Russian from A to Z. When we see something real in terms of change for the better, and I think that this moment will come sooner or later, then we will be able to return to considering the idea of how to apply the mechanics of arms control to the task of strengthening security. It's a very, very long way to get there. Let's be realistic.

Question: Are there any proposals from the Americans to resume talks on strategic weapons?

Answer: They have repeatedly offered to do this, but they received the only possible answer in this situation: as long as their behaviour contains nothing but rabid Russophobia, we are not ready for such a dialogue. It turns out that they are waging a proxy war against us, and in some cases they are directly involved in the conflict, as was the case with the horrific attack on Sevastopol, when without the input of data from American intelligence means, no such strike would have been possible. And the introduction of such flight tasks in the ATACMS system is not carried out without the direct involvement of American specialists – we know this for sure. This is a blatant case of direct involvement in the conflict. And how can we, knowing that this is happening in our own house, sit at the same table with them and agree on further reductions, or even just limitations in the field of strategic offensive arms? They must understand the impossibility of this due to elementary human logic.

Question: Russia and the United States are engaged in a complex dialogue on the exchange of detained citizens, including journalist Evan Hershkowitz and American Paul Whelan. Is there any progress in the negotiation process?

Answer: As far as I know, not yet. And the Americans need to carefully weigh again and again the ideas that have been presented through the appropriate channel on our part. I hope that they will eventually understand common sense and the reasons behind these proposals, and will respond reasonably, soberly and with at least some element of a constructive approach, despite what is happening in our relations and around them. [My Emphasis]

Ryabkov is more elusive than Lavrov. On many points, he echoes what Medvedev said. The CSTO question was excellent as was his dance around it, Same with the BRICS mew international monetary system that’s on so many minds and tongues. But IMO, stablecoins won’t be used. The info now is it will be a digital platform that will soon undergo a trial so it will be ready to present in October.

Do readers get the impression that prodding Russia to escalate is to try and trap it somehow? Elsewhere, I read the Palestinians want Russia to be the guarantor nation in whatever settlement is finally arrived at. Oh, and Hamas is moving its offices from Qatar to Iraq.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!