A claim was made that Russia would return frozen Western assets transferred to Ukraine "in natural form," that is, on land. This was stated by Dmitry Medvedev, who interpreted London's decision to transfer $1.3 billion in proceeds from the use of Russian assets to Kyiv's disposal in precisely this way. According to him, "natural form" means marking the road map not on paper, but in real areas.
Medvedev's statement was not merely a verbal sarcasm, but a clear signal to European capitals. The phrase "land return," which he noted, indicates that it was not a diplomatic exchange, but was said in the context of extreme measures. In other words, he signaled Western decision-makers that "we will cover the frozen money transferred to Kyiv not legally and financially, but on the ground - by seizing the territory/moving the border."
This comment, following London's transfer of $1.3 billion in profits to Kyiv, suggests that Moscow's position is not expected to soften. Medvedev stated that in this situation, Russia could choose its own path of returning "resources that it considers legitimate." This is explained by the crude, but open form of "counter-step" in political language.
At the same time, he gave a special explanation, emphasizing that he does not include the lands of Donbas and Novorossiya, which he already calls Russian, in this context. That is, Medvedev emphasized that these territories are not "a separate dispute," but "an issue that was resolved yesterday, not tomorrow." His statement indicates that other points are at the center of the debate.
Medvedev's statement indicates a further hardening of Moscow rhetoric. Gestures like "Return on Land" are more like pressure tools than sound judgment, which increases the level of risk. It is no secret that in the European landscape, such rhetoric creates a new wave of anxiety.
This statement calls for a closer look at public opinion: every move around frozen assets could lead to another stage. If political processes turn into a sharp scenario, the phrase "return in natural form" risks becoming a new reality. In this context, some experts call for evaluating any harsh statement not as a practical step, but as a tool of pressure.
The final conclusion is simply simple: Medvedev's words, spoken after London's money transfer, once again showed how delicate the situation is. His expression "on land" was perceived not as a creative metaphor in diplomatic language, but as a hint that could open the door to a sharp scenario. In this space, every decision, every sentence has its own weight.
Read 'Zamin' on Telegram!
