In an interview with TASS, Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev, both a politician and a lawyer, outlined the key lessons Russia has drawn from that historic event and explained its continued relevance in the context of the current situation around Ukraine.​ – The anniversary of the Potsdam Conference provides an opportunity to reflect on the past as a mirror of the present. In doing so, we must use the "correct lenses", without being naive or considering the events of July 1945 in isolation from the centuries-long attitude of European, or, more broadly, Western elites toward our country. Revising or breaching the decisions from the Potsdam Conference was just a continuation of Western policies regarding Russia from before the war or even earlier. Since the time of Peter the Great, when Russia established itself as a European power, we have witnessed a consistent trend of hostility, distrust and attempts to weaken our country in Western actions. As part of various coalitions, they have sought to turn Russia into Europe’s stepdaughter who was allowed to enter the pan-European house for re-education. They have also sought to impose a subordinate role on our country in European and, later, global affairs. But in vain. For Western elites, an independent and strong Russia has always been a historical anomaly and a very effective rebuff to the idea of their "civilizational superiority". Fear and reluctance to engage in dialogue with other nations gives rise to villainy and aggression. This is why Western elites have been making repeated attempts to isolate Russia and avenge their past failures. So, in 1945, the Potsdam Conference was not a prelude to lasting peace but a bridge to Cold War. And today’s developments - a proxy war, or actually a full-out war involving the launch of Western-made missiles and satellite reconnaissance, sanctions packages, and loud statements on militarization in Europe – are yet another attempt to destroy the `historical anomaly’ that the West hates so much, to destroy our country. So, the Potsdam Conference taught us that relations with the West should not be based on illusions. The West’s treacherous nature and its warped sense of superiority are still evident. And we should therefore act accordingly, responding in full or even delivering pre-emptive strikes if need be. We have learned the lessons of the Potsdam Conference. And today, as in 1945, our country is fighting not only to protect its borders, but also the idea of a just world order. – The three 'D's – demilitarization, denazification and democratization – were developed to address Nazi Germany as an aggressor state that destroyed the world order. Of course, there are significant differences between the Reich of 1945 and present-day Ukraine, in terms of scale, global posture and even, formally, government ideology. However, one clear similarity does exist. Firstly, there is the identity crisis and the blatantly Nazi symbols. There is a cult of collaborationist and Nazi ideologists, as well as swastikas and Totenkopf prints on military uniforms and armored combat vehicles, not to mention other references to the Third Reich. Today’s ideology is based on hatred of the neighbor and calls to continue ‘fighting to the end’. All of this is supported by the government and is rippling through society. The militarization of society adds to this, with armed groups acquiring not only military, but also political functions, some of which, in effect, are poorly controlled by the state. Secondly, there is a tenure of power and increasingly obvious signs of dictatorship. Electoral procedures have been canceled under the pretext of war, opposition activists have been persecuted or jailed, and freedom of speech has been annihilated. Thirdly, the economy has been in decline. Like the Third Reich in its final months, present-day Ukraine is clearly experiencing an economic and management crisis that has been solely addressed through external funding and mobilization rhetoric. All this makes the idea of using the three 'D's still relevant. Demilitarization is not a punishment, but an opportunity for Ukraine to stop being used as a pawn in someone else's bloody geopolitical games, which often target Ukraine itself. For this reason, too, the country's non-aligned status is an essential part of its demilitarization. Furthermore, eliminating insane defense expenditures would provide additional funds for rebuilding its shattered economy. Denazification or debanderization is not an act of revenge, but rather long-term work with public conscience and historical memory. The peoples of our countries and many other former Soviet republics share a common historical destiny. This shared heritage creates huge potential for not only peaceful neighborly relations, but also cooperation and joint development. And democratization involves more than just elections. It involves restoring legal institutions, a free press, competition, and the separation of powers. Had these mechanisms been fully operational in Ukraine, its history since 2014 would have taken a far more favorable path. To the three 'D's, I would add a fourth: deparasitization, or disinsection. Residents of the territories currently controlled by the so-called Ukraine must learn to live independently and take responsibility for their actions. Otherwise, a parasitic Ukraine has no chance of preserving its statehood. – I have addressed this topic on numerous occasions in my speeches and articles. Before the war, the Western powers nurtured and supported Hitler’s Nazi regime, and after the fascists were defeated in World War II, they made every effort to ensure that the ideology survived. Rather than implementing genuine denazification measures in the territories under their control, our Western "allies" settled for superficial and perfunctory actions. Most Nazi criminals tried with the participation of Western judicial authorities got off with little more than a slap on the wrist, receiving exceedingly lenient sentences or being granted amnesty just a few years after the war. Neither they, nor their descendants or close associates, were barred from entering positions of power. The consequences of this astonishing "tolerance" toward Nazi criminals, combined with rabid and hysterical Russophobia, are being felt to this day. This is especially true in countries that served as Hitler’s lackeys or expendable resources: the Baltic states, Poland, and Ukraine, which has embraced a Banderite identity. Many high-ranking figures in Germany still take pride in their fascist forebears, emulating them in both rhetoric and policy. A striking example is the recent statement by German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius about the country’s readiness to "kill Russian soldiers" on the "eastern flank" and to always deal with Russia "from a position of strength." And the remarks of Chancellor Friedrich Merz, himself a direct descendant of Nazis, are no less appalling. All of this echoes the hypocrisy of those self-proclaimed "anti-fascists" who like to say their grandfather "heroically died in a concentration camp after falling from a guard tower." Let me remind you that our president stated unequivocally: Russia does not intend to go to war with NATO or ‘attack Europe.’ Such claims by Western politicians are utter nonsense. I would also like to add that this kind of drivel is deliberately injected into the information space to destabilize an already difficult situation. It is yet another front in the West’s open war against us. Without question, all such facts must be brought to light, not swept under the rug. The saying ‘history will be the judge’ only holds true when all the facts and circumstances necessary for such judgment are known. After all, the principal judge for the Nazis in Hitler’s Germany, as we know, was the soldier of the Red Army.