One may not like Russia or even feel hostile towards its current policies and leadership.

But that should not hinder one to recognize and acknowledge how Russia is seeing itself and it defines its own role in the wider world.

The former Russian president Dimitry Medvedev is currently the deputy chairman of the Security Council of Russia recently spoke about multiple definitions of borders.

Medvedev has lately become a bit of the bad guy who spits the harsh truth with the good guy being Russia's President Vladimir Putin who is using less vitriolic language. But if one removes the rhetoric chaff the concepts espoused by both in various speeches are quite similar and should be seen as the basis of Russia's policies.

The Russian magazine Expert reproduced an edited version (in Russian) of Medvedev's speech (machine translation):

Dmitry Medvedev: "Russia, like any great power, has strategic borders far beyond geographical ones"

The speech presents a Russian view on the border concept along six theses.

Below are some excerpts which I believe deserve a further discussion:

First. We don't need someone else's land. We will never give up on our own. So it was and so it will be. This is the principle that governs our state border policy.
…

The authors of various geopolitical theories of various countries (from China to Europe and America) proceed from one obvious thesis. Any state as a sovereign subject of international relations has two types of borders — geographical and strategic.

The former are stable and officially recognized in accordance with international law demarcation and delimitation lines that fix the geographical limits of the State. This is one of the main elements of its political and territorial framework.
…
[The later] borders are not limited to the physical size of countries, their airspace and territorial waters. They are not directly related to State sovereignty. The strategic boundaries of a state directly depend on how far its political power extends. The more powerful a state is, the further its strategic frontiers are located outside its state borders. And all the more extensive is the strategic space that such a country exerts economic, political, socio-cultural influence on. This is the zone of the so-called national interests of the state. Although strategic borders and national interests are not the same concepts.

In return, the powerful powers that set the tone in world relations offered their wards military and political protection. Weak states or, even worse, those that reached the end of their glory and power became puppet or vassal states for their patrons, or, as they later began to say, "friendly" nations (the same thing, but less offensive).

The strategic borders of states, or spheres of influence, do not create a reason for physical extension. They come at several levels:

Second. The presence of strategic borders outside their own territory today does not mean that strong and responsible countries intend to go to war with their neighbors and redraw the political map. This is the difference between our time and previous centuries, when borders were subject to constant fluctuations and could be challenged at any time.
…
In general, Russia, like any great Power, has strategic borders far beyond geographical ones. And they are based not on military force or financial injections, but on a much more solid, almost unshakable basis.

The third. There are several levels of Russian strategic borders.

The first level is limited to the natural landscape (the Carpathians, the Iranian Highlands, the Caucasus Mountains, the Pamirs). And civilizational frontiers-it is clear that a number of our neighbors, for historical reasons, are illogical to include in the Russian ecumene.
…
The key point is that we have no territorial disputes with the countries included in this belt. In the years that have passed since the collapse of the USSR, we have maintained profitable trade cooperation and comfortable interpersonal communication.
…
If we talk about our second-level strategic borders, they cover the space that is commonly called Greater Eurasia. That is why Russian President Vladimir Putin put forward the initiative to create a Large Eurasian Partnership. This is the key integration path on our continent. Its essence is to unite the potentials of all states and regional organizations of Eurasia as widely as possible.
…
And about the highest level of our strategic borders. Russia's global interests in the world are quite understandable and natural. They have not changed in recent decades. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, our country is a great world power. And it will continue to show healthy, appropriate care for those who need help. This is evident in the traditionally strong relations with African countries and Latin America.

Russia sees Ukraine as being inside of Russia's innermost strategic border:

Fourth. In the case of the so — called "Ukraine" (or rather, with Little Russia), all our opponents need to firmly and forever understand the simple truth. Territories on both banks of the Dnieper River are an integral part of Russia's strategic historical borders. Therefore, all attempts to forcibly change them, to cut them off "alive" — are doomed.

Our enemies constantly insist that the main goal of Russia is to "seize" Ukrainian lands, some "untold treasures of Independence": wheat, steel, gas, coal. But in fact, it turns out that there is nothing so special in Bandera's "Ukraine" in terms of the economy that Russia — unlike the West — would not have itself and in much more serious volumes.

In "Ukraine", the main wealth for us is of a completely different kind. The great value that we will not give up to anyone and for nothing is people. Close to us and relatives. …

Fifth. There is one contrasting difference between the approaches of Russia and the "collective West" (mainly the United States). America and its satellites are trying to extend their strategic borders to almost all regions of the world. Under the pretext of "spreading democracy", wars are being fomented all over the planet. The goal is quite transparent-money making.
…
Knowing full well where our strategic borders extend, the West spat on the century-old foundations and organized a geopolitical intervention first in Georgia, and then to Ukraine. We observe similar attempts in Moldova and in the countries of Central Asia. Fortunately, the authorities of the Central Asian states show restraint and wisdom. In their desire for prosperity for their peoples, they focus on their neighbors in Greater Eurasia, rather than on an obese and dependent Europe.

The conflict comes to a conclusion:

Sixth. For the West, the conflict over Ukraine has now turned into a confrontation between two civilizations. Our, all-Russian or Russian (the core of which is the territory of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine), and western.

Directly, our opponents are afraid to go against us. Although recently Western madmen from politics and the military have been increasing their pressure (just recall the conversation of Bundeswehr officers — and how much of this has not been published), however, Washington-Brussels puppet masters prefer to play the war using their puppets.
…
On the margins of propaganda battles, our enemies deliberately resort to shameless substitution of concepts. The West's seizure of "Ukraine" is called "liberation from the Russian dictatorship." And planting and supporting a bastard neo-Nazi regime created by a comedy series actor is "supporting democracy and freedom." Conversely, our efforts to preserve the common Russian space are described as Russian "intervention" and "occupation."

All normal people have long understood that this is a lie. Healthy political forces in the world are also gradually becoming aware of the true state of affairs.

For any reasonable person who is not infected with Russophobia and is not fooled by Anglo-Saxon propaganda, the conclusions are obvious.

1. There is a harsh reality that Western countries will inevitably have to accept. […] Time is playing against the so-called "golden billion" today.
2. The strategic borders of states that do not depend on the Anglo-Saxons will become wider and stronger. […]
3. We strive to make the space defined by our strategic borders a zone of mutual understanding and constructive cooperation. […]
4. The current neo-Nazi "Ukraine" is a battering ram against Russia, which is used to aggressively push through Western ideological principles in the all-Russian historical space. Another attempt to realize the centuries-old dreams of the West to throw our country into the borders of the Moscow Principality. The goal is obviously unattainable. […]
5. We will certainly bring the special military operation to its logical conclusion. Until the final victory. Before the neo-Nazi capitulation. Sad senile people from Washington and Brussels are afraid: if, they say, the Russians gain the upper hand, then after Ukraine they will go further — to Europe and even overseas. You won't know what's more in these delusions: the habit of shameless lies or senile dementia. But in reality, everything is simple: we do not need the territories of Poland, the Baltic States or other European countries. But the people who live there, who are one with us, are not allowed to be harassed by anyone.
6. Russia's inevitable victory will also create a new architecture of Eurasian and international security. It should be reflected in new interstate documents that will "concretize" these realities. This includes observing international rules of decency with all countries, paying close attention to their history and existing strategic borders. The Western world must finally learn a simple lesson and learn to respect our national interests.

But will the Western world learn the lesson?

Or what can/will it do to avoid learning it?