Did Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev say "World War"?

Mick West

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
20160219-175011-9yq42.jpg
Various news reports say that Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev suggested a "New World War" was possible in Syria. However the Russian government english translation of the interview simply says "a new war in the world", which suggests simply an additional war. The official Russian transcript says: "очередную войну на Земле." which might possibly be translated as "a new ground war", which makes sense in context, but is vastly different to "a new world war".

Typical western news story with quotes and paraphrasing:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKCN0VK22O
Asked about Saudi Arabia's offer last week to supply ground troops if a U.S.-led operation were mounted against Islamic State, he said:

"This is bad as a ground offensive usually turns the war into a permanent one. Just look at what happened in Afghanistan and many other countries."

"The Americans and our Arab partners must think well: do they want a permanent war?" It would be impossible to win such a war quickly, he said according to a German translation of his words, "especially in the Arab world, where everybody is fighting against everybody".

"All sides must be compelled to sit at the negotiating table instead of unleashing a new world war."
Content from External Source
Official Russian government english translation:
http://government.ru/en/news/21765/

Question: You said that Russia did not want to launch a ground operation. What is your estimate regarding the fact that some Arab countries are now ready for it and want it, and also want the United States to assume leadership?

Dmitry Medvedev: Our estimate is negative because all ground operations, as a rule, lead to permanent wars. Look at what is going on in Afghanistan and a number of other countries. I don’t even mention the ill-fated Libya.

A ground operation draws everyone taking part in it into a war. The Americans must consider – both the US president and our Arab partners – whether or not they want a permanent war. Are they hoping for a quick victory? This doesn’t happen in reality, particularly in the Arab world. They have everyone fighting everyone. They don’t have a situation where there is al-Assad and his loyal forces and some anti-government opposition. The reality is much more complex. This means that a war will last for years, if not decades. Why would anyone want that? We must make everyone sit down to the negotiating table, and we can do it by using, among other things, the harsh measures that are being implemented by Russia, the Americans, and even, with all reservations, the Turks, rather than start yet another war in the world. We know well what scenarios are followed in this context.
Content from External Source
With the Russian Version (presumably his actual words)
http://government.ru/news/21765/

Вопрос: Вы сказали, что Россия не хочет проводить наземную операцию. Как Вы оцениваете, что арабские страны сейчас к этому готовы и хотят этого, и хотят ещё, чтобы США взяли лидерство?

Д.Медведев: Плохо оцениваем, потому что всякие наземные операции, как правило, ведут к тому, что война становится перманентной. Посмотрите, что в Афганистане, что в целом ряде других стран. Уж несчастную Ливию даже не упоминаю.

Наземная операция – это интеграция всех, кто в ней участвует, в войну. Вот американцы должны взвесить – и президент Соединённых Штатов, и наши арабские партнёры: они хотят перманентной войны? Они что думают, что они её очень быстро выиграют? Так не бывает, особенно в арабском мире. Там все сражаются против всех. Там нет такой моносилы, когда есть Асад и верные ему войска и какая-то антиправительственная группировка. Всё гораздо сложнее. Значит, это на годы, а может, на десятилетия. Зачем это надо? Надо всех, в том числе за счёт жёстких мер, которые и Россия осуществляет, и американцы осуществляют, и даже, при всех оговорках, и турки пытаются осуществлять, заставить сесть за стол переговоров, а не начинать очередную войну на Земле. Мы прекрасно знаем, по каким сценариям всё это проходит.
Content from External Source
So what did he actually say? The interview is with the German newspaper Hanelsblatt, here:
http://www.handelsblatt.com/my/poli...edjew-warnt-vor-neuem-weltkrieg/12952660.html
Medwedjew warnt vor „neuem Weltkrieg“

Bodentruppen in Syrien? Der russische Premierminister Dmitri Medwedjew warnt im exklusiven Handelsblatt-Interview für diesen Fall sogar vor einem „neuen Weltkrieg“. Zudem greift er Merkel für ihre Flüchtlingspolitik an und fordert Europa auf, die Sanktionen zu beenden.

MoskauAngesichts der Syrien-Krise warnt Medwedjew eindringlich: „Die Amerikaner und unsere arabischen Partner müssen es sich gut überlegen: Wollen sie einen permanenten Krieg?“, sagte der russische Regierungschef dem Handelsblatt. Ein solcher Krieg sei nicht schnell zu gewinnen. „So etwas ist unmöglich, besonders in der arabischen Welt. Dort kämpfen alle gegen alle“, erklärte Medwedjew, der die russische Delegation auf der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz an diesem Wochenende anführt.
Content from External Source
"neuen Weltkrieg" is German for "New World War". Presumably though Medvedev was speaking in Russian through a translator into German, and the Russian transcript is the original.

That official Russian transcript says: "очередную войну на Земле." Which google translates as "another war in the world" (the same as the Official Russian Translation). войну (war) на (in) Земле ([the] world). Facebook translated it as "another war on earth". However the Russian for "world war", seems to be: "мировой войны", with "мировая" having the meanings "world, global, or worldwide". Whereas Земле translates as "earth, land, or ground".

That suggests a better translation might have been "a new ground war", which is vastly different to "a new world war".

The actual Russian for "ground war" is "наземную войну" (similar to войну на земную),and the Russian for "war on the ground" is "войну наземную" This seems to support that he was saying "ground war", not "world war".
 
Last edited:
Added some notes on the Russian transcript, possibly a mistranslation. Any native Russian speakers?
 
I speak some Russian. All Mick tells is correct. Just there is a very small detail that can make a big difference. It is the capital letter "З" on "Земля". Земля [zemlya] with lower caps means "ground", "earth", or "country" but if upper caps is used, it can mean "Earth", "Globe", "World". So if he told it, then it is indeed clear he meant "ground war". If he wrote it with the upper case, then it could be "war on Earth", but in Russian it would be as unusual term as in English. Most likely the transcript was simply not done correctly already in Russian.

EDIT: In Russian there can be also confusion between "world" and "peace", because "мир" [mir] is used for both of them. So it is luck Medvedev spoke just about war, and not about peace, the confusion might have been even worse.
 
Last edited:
txt29 said:
So if he told it, then it is indeed clear he meant "ground war". If he wrote it with the upper case, then it could be "war on Earth", but in Russian it would be as unusual term as in English. Most likely the transcript was simply not done correctly already in Russian.
Click to expand...

Thank you. So given that the interview was face to face with a translator:

and given the unusual phrasing (which even in text is not used for "World War"), then it seems almost certain that his meaning was "ground war", a "war on the ground".
 
So, sorry, I think it was a false alert from me finally. After reading the article, I see they speak exclusively about the risk of the next ground war.
 
Yes, it seems like they simply use the same phrasing (reading in translation). Not really talking about an actual World War.
 
There seems to be some discussion of this in Russian here:
http://www.ukrrudprom.com/digest/Osnovnie_tezisi_intervyu_Medvedeva_nemetskoy_Handelsblatt.html
Медведев негативно относится к намерениям арабских стран начать наземную операцию в Сирии: “это интеграция всех, кто в ней участвует, в войну”. “Вот американцы должны взвесить — и президент Соединенных Штатов, и наши арабские партнеры: они хотят перманентной войны?” Он подчеркнул, что в этом конфликте все будут сражаться против всех, и “нужно заставить сесть за стол переговоров, а не начинать очередную войну на Земле” (цитата по стенограмме на сайте правительства; в тексте Handelsblatt используется получившая распространение в немецкой прессе фраза einen neuen Weltkrieg — “новую мировую войну” — Дождь).

Google Translate

Medvedev negative about the intentions of the Arab countries to begin a ground operation in Syria "is the integration of all those who participate in it, in the war." "That the Americans have to weigh - and the United States President, and our Arab partners they want permanent war?" He stressed that in this conflict will all fight against all, and the "need to get to the negotiating table, rather than starting another war in the Earth "(to quote the transcript on the government's website, in the Handelsblatt text uses have proliferated in the German press phrase einen neuen Weltkrieg -" a new world war " - Clear ).

Content from External Source
Which suggests the Russian writer has recognized the mistranslation.
 
Well, it is really strange, and perhaps even on purpose directly so from Medvedev. He speaks about the risks of a ground war and that it can take decades if they start ground operations, just like in Afghanistan, but then he indeed uses the above mentioned sentence, and they write it everywhere in the newspapers with the capital letter, and it is written in such way that it can be understood as global war. Anyway, it is unimportant - he does not tell it in the sense of a threat, but rather he expresses the concern.
 
Last edited:
I think it was really the purpose to fog the sentence in the way that it is not clear what exactly he meant. Anyway it is clear he did not tell "World War" directly, he told "not to start the next war on Earth". We should simply accept he told it ambiguously on purpose to avoid using the term "World War", but probably meant a global war anyway. In this specific sentence, it was not the simple "ground war", that he spoke about just before that.
 
Last edited:
This has been covered before, but not mentioning the possible "ground war" meaning.
http://www.rferl.org/content/world-war-medvedev-translation-tempest-handelsblatt/27549372.html

The “world war” quote even made its way into the daily State Department press briefing in Washington the same day, in a question posed to spokesman Mark Toner. He said the specter of a “broader conflict” was “concerning” but accused Russia of exacerbating the Syria conflict with its support for Assad.

But the accuracy of the Handelsblatt translation was called into question on social media after Medvedev’s office released a Russian-language transcript of the interview that quoted him uttering a notably softer phrasing.

Medvedev, who spoke Russian during the interview, was quoted as saying that world powers must force all sides to sit down at the negotiating table and “not start yet another war on Earth.” (In Russian: “не начинать очередную войну на Земле.”)
Content from External Source
Also from RT, who presumably have Russian speakers
https://www.rt.com/news/332273-reuters-misquotes-medvedev-war/

The report referred to a German translation of his words, which is incorrect and implies that Russia is warning that a full-scale war between leading world powers may be ignited from the Syrian conflict.

The quote comes from the portion of the interview in which Medvedev argued against starting a foreign ground intervention against Syria, saying it would only prolong the armed conflict for years or decades to come.

Medvedev’s actual words, according to the Russian transcript on PM’s website were:

“What is necessary is to use strong measures, including those taken by Russia, by the Americans and even under certain provisions those that the Turks are trying to take, to sit at the negotiating table, instead of unleashing yet another war on Earth. We know all too well the scenarios leading to that.”
Content from External Source
"War on Earth" is a bit different from the official Russian translation of "war in the world". Remember the capitalization makes the same difference in English as Russian here. "Earth" is "The world", but "earth" is "ground". So "war on earth" could be taken either way verbally.
 
Last edited:
As I wrote, on my mind the expression was ambiguous on purpose, and quite wittingly. That's nothing new with Russians, or actually with any politicians.
 
As a native Russian speaker, I am quite certain that he did not mean "World War". Because, if he did, he invariably would refer to it as "Мировая война". And he would not call it "Очередная" meaning 'next', 'yet another', but "Новая" (new) or "Третья" (third) World War.

Also, I do not think that "Война на Земле" actually means "ground war", but this may be a close translation of Russian political terminology, in which "Война" (war) is defined not by a mere presence of troops on the ground, but by a large scale of fighting and extent of involvement of fighting sides. Otherwise it could be 'downgraded' to 'armed conflict' or 'military intervention' etc.
 
I think Trailspotter is spot on. Medvedev clearly doesn't make any reference to any world war. I can't see any significant ambiguity either but leave the finer nuances to T. and other native Russian speakers to judge. A strange, unfortunate and rather gross translation error.
 
Trailspotter said:
Give me an example of such a discussion (in the corresponding thread).
Click to expand...
It is partially off-topic here, and should be perhaps moved to the original thread, but since you asked for it, here you go - just a few links from the top of Google results (there are many more of them):
Медведев рассказал, когда начнется третья мировая
Roman Burko on Twitter: "#Медведев недоспал или обкурился ...
Медведев: Действия США и арабских государств в Сирии могут привести к Третьей мировой
Новотека: Новости - Медведев призвал не провоцировать ...

Of course, they all may be wrong, and Medvedev in fact did not intend to make any ambiguous statement at all (though I doubt it), but as you can see, not all Russians share your opinion that there was no ambiguity. Better told, some of them seem to think there was indeed no ambiguity, but unlike you, they are persuaded he did mean World War, not a ground war. So I cannot help myself, and have to keep my stand on the ambiguity of Medvedev's statement. And I bet it would be similar with the expression "через несколько минут".
 
txt29 said:
It is partially off-topic here, and should be perhaps moved to the original thread, but since you asked for it, here you go - just a few links from the top of Google results (there are many more of them):
Медведев рассказал, когда начнется третья мировая
Roman Burko on Twitter: "#Медведев недоспал или обкурился ...
Медведев: Действия США и арабских государств в Сирии могут привести к Третьей мировой
Новотека: Новости - Медведев призвал не провоцировать ...

Of course, they all may be wrong, and Medvedev in fact did not intend to make any ambiguous statement at all (though I doubt it), but as you can see, not all Russians share your opinion that there was no ambiguity. Better told, some of them seem to think there was indeed no ambiguity, but unlike you, they are persuaded he did mean World War, not a ground war. So I cannot help myself, and have to keep my stand on the ambiguity of Medvedev's statement. And I bet it would be similar with the expression "через несколько минут".
Click to expand...

I've browsed these links. The last one is to an integrator site that contains relevant headlines from various Russian language sites. Interestingly, practically all sites with the words Third World War ("третья мировая война") in the headline are Ukrainian (.ua) ones. They do not even quote the Medvedev's exact words: “нужно заставить сесть за стол переговоров, а не начинать очередную войну на Земле” but simply translate back a Western headline. There are two Russian (.ru) sites with the words "World War" in the headline, one (the third link above) is a repost from an Israeli site, the other enclosed these words in the quotation marks. All other Russian sites avoid using these words all together, with many of them quoting the Medvedev's interview as in the official transcript. The first link also appears in the same integrator site and is to the network that serves both Russian and Ukrainian users, whereas the second link is to the twitter of some Ukrainian guy with apparent antipathy to Kremlin and Russia.

All this is to say that those "Russians", who in your opinion were "persuaded he did mean World War", did not bother to check and tell their readers what Medvedev did actually say, but instead spread the bunk to runet. Regrettably, spreading propaganda and disinformation is common to both Russian and Ukrainian sides of the ongoing informational war.
 
Last edited:
You may be right, may be not. The problem is the original formulation indeed was ambiguous. And the official transcript only confirms it. Although from the verbal comment of Medvedev we cannot tell whether he meant "ground" or "the Earth", the official transcript clearly writes "война на Земле" - Zemlya with uppercase Z. In the moment the uppercase Z is used, it is no more "ground", it is "the Earth". Medvedev might have meant the ground, but either he wanted to be ambiguous, or he has chosen a very unfortunate formulation and authorized a faulty official transcript. He could easily use many terms that would not cause any controversy (for example "наземная война"), but he did not. Whether it was intentional or accidental, we'll never know, but I would not be surprised at all if he wanted to spread a bit of "shock and awe". And I do not mean it negatively - US politicians do it too (and not only them).
 
Last edited:
Trailspotter, I see you marked my post with "Diasagree". That's fine, but could you explain with what exactly you disagree? Do you want to tell that I am wrong when I tell that the uppercase Z in the official transcript changes the meaning from 'ground' to 'the Earth'? That would be new to me, and I would appreciate if you could show me that the grammatical rule changed since I learned it.
 
txt29 said:
Trailspotter, I see you marked my post with "Diasagree". That's fine, but could you explain with what exactly you disagree? Do you want to tell that I am wrong when I tell that the uppercase Z in the official transcript changes the meaning from 'ground' to 'the Earth'? That would be new to me, and I would appreciate if you could show me that the grammatical rule changed since I learned it.
Click to expand...
See my previous post. I disagree with your notion of ambiguity of Medvedev's statement. He did not mean "new World War". And, as I explained previously (#14), he probably did not mean a ground war either, despite being asked about the possibility of "[military] operations on the ground" in Syria. He replied that such operations as a rule would lead to a permanent war [in the Middle East]. Then he added that a better solution, which both Russia and America were forcing on the warring parties, was "…to sit at the negotiating table, instead of unleashing yet another war on Earth [that is, our planet]", which is the closest English translation of his actual words.
 
Trailspotter said:
I disagree with your notion of ambiguity of Medvedev's statement. He did not mean "new World War". And, as I explained previously (#14), he probably did not mean a ground war either, despite being asked about the possibility of "[military] operations on the ground" in Syria.
Click to expand...
I am sorry but you are ambiguous too. You tell you disagree with my claim about the ambiguity of the expression "война на Земле", but in the same time you confirm he told neither World War, nor ground war. That's exactly what I tell too, and I do not understand why you tell you disagree when in fact you confirm you agree.

Medveded used the ambiguous term "война на Земле", which can be translated as "war on the ground" (if lowercase Z used in the word zemlya when written), but it can be also translated as "war on the Earth/Globe/World" when uppercase Z used in written form. It is possible that the official transcription used the uppercase form incorrectly, but it only confirms the ambiguity of Medvedev's expression. If it were not ambiguous, the transcriptor would never think about using the uppercase form. And I would expect that the persons who wrote, corrected, and authorized the official transcription master the Russian grammar well enough to be aware of the important difference between земля and Земля.

So no, I do not claim Medvedev meant "World War" as well as I do not tell he meant "ground war". I claim he used an expression that is uncertain/neutral/ambiguous - it can be understood both ways or neither of them. This is exactly what I mean be the ambiguity, and you just confirmed you consider his expression indifferent/uncertain/ambiguous too.

The mistake of the transcriptor and of the translator was that they did not respect the ambiguity of the expression - by pronouncing the world земля Medvedev did not assign it any specific meaning - neither земля (ground, land, soil, earth, territory, floor, deck,...) nor Земля (the Earth, the World, the Globe,...). The official transcriptor and the translator correctly ought to keep the exact ambiguity in their text too. It was not their role to pick up one of the meanings (edit: unless it was consulted with Medvedev self).
 
Last edited:
txt29 said:
Medveded used the ambiguous term "война на Земле", which can be translated as "war on the ground" (if lowercase Z used in the word zemlya when written), but it can be also translated as "war on the Earth/Globe/World" when uppercase Z used in written form. It is possible that the official transcription used the uppercase form incorrectly, but it only confirms the ambiguity of Medvedev's expression. If it were not ambiguous, the transcriptor would never think about using the uppercase form. And I would expect that the persons who wrote, corrected, and authorized the official transcription master the Russian grammar well enough to be aware of the important difference between земля and Земля.
Click to expand...
There is no ambiguity in Russian transcript. The upper case "З" was used correctly, he did mean the war on our planet, not on the ground. Your perceived ambiguity is "acquired in translation". If Medvedev had meant "ground war", he probably would say "наземная война", in the same way as he referred to the "operations on the ground" ("наземные операции"). In this context, "война на земле" simply does not sound right in Russian (AFAIR, there was no such a term in the time of my military training some forty years ago). Neither actually does "наземная война", because "война" (war) is a big deal in Russian, which involves all military might: Army, Air Force, Navy etc. It usually is not subdivided into separate "wars" on the ground, in the air, at sea etc. Instead, it is divided into various "operations". Thus the logic of Medvedev's answer was simple and clear: if the ground operations proposed by some countries were integrated together with the ongoing air attacks, it would be a new war in the whole region.
 
Trailspotter said:
The upper case "З" was used correctly, he did mean the war on our planet, not on the ground. ... In this context, "война на земле" simply does not sound right in Russian (AFAIR, there was no such a term in the time of my military training some forty years ago). Neither actually does "наземная война", because "война" (war) is a big deal in Russian, which involves all military might: Army, Air Force, Navy etc.
Click to expand...
OK, so it looks like we can finally settle down on the proper translation - "a big deal war on our planet", or perhaps "a major conflict on our planet". Although Medvedev did not explicitly tell "a World war", the meaning used by the translator lets the message through anyway - Medvedev spoke about the risk of sparking a major conflict.

So again, the translator could/should use a more ambiguous/uncertain term than the "World War", but basically a major conflict was meant anyway. A "World War" is too specific, a "major conflict on the Planet" is perhaps less - it can mean anything from a big war between Russians + Assad (and possibly their allies) against the opposition (and possibly couple of Arabic allies) over a bigger war involving other parties (i.e. Turkey, EU, USA, Israel...), up to a global war. That's the ambiguity lost in the translation. Thanks for confirming it.
 
Trailspotter said:
In this context, "война на земле" simply does not sound right in Russian (AFAIR, there was no such a term in the time of my military training some forty years ago)
Click to expand...
To verify this claim, I have checked the use of the expression "война на земле" (lowercase Z on zemlya) on Russian websites and in Russian literature. I won't mention the quite frequent use of the term on Russian websites, because you could justly argue that their Russian grammar is simply not on the level it should be, and some of them may have been created due to a sloppy reverse translation of the English term "ground war". But the term "война на земле" (lowercase!) is used in original Russian literature and journals too. Some examples below:
There are many more. Most of them refer to a "war on the ground", or if you want "ground war" or "ground operations". It looks like not all Russians share your opinion that «"война на земле" simply does not sound right in Russian».
 
txt29 said:
To verify this claim, I have checked the use of the expression "война на земле" (lowercase Z on zemlya) on Russian websites and in Russian literature.
…
It looks like not all Russians share your opinion that «"война на земле" simply does not sound right in Russian».
Click to expand...
I said "in this context", that is, in the context of the Medvedev's interview. "Война на земле" is not a Russian military or political term, that could be equivalent to English "ground war".
However, in literature, the expression "война на земле" may well refer to the ground battles fought during a war. Similarly, the Navy battles may be called as "война на море" and those involving aircraft and antiaircraft defence as "война в небе" etc. But these would be different actions of one and the same war, not different separate wars, just like in your example above:
"Это была война на земле, в небе и на море, война политиков, шпионов,... "
 
Trailspotter said:
I said "in this context", that is, in the context of the Medvedev's interview. "Война на земле" is not a Russian military or political term, that could be equivalent to English "ground war".
Click to expand...
"Война на земле" is as little a Russian military or political term as is the term "война на Земле". That's why it is highly ambiguous, and that's exactly why it sparked the controversy. "Война на Земле" (war on the Planet) is already ambiguous alone, because it is not clear whether a local, regional, or a global war is meant (though a global/total war comes to the mind first, of course), but adding the meaning of "война на земле" (war on the ground) widens the ambiguity even more.

The ambiguity can be usually excluded by the context, but it was not the case in the speech of Medvedev. If he wanted to exclude the ambiguity, he would either use a proper unambiguous military/political term (as you correctly tell), or would use a context specifying closer what exactly he meant. He did neither of that. This brings me back to the same conclusion - the ambiguity was either intentional with the purpose of bringing up a controversy, or it was accidental.

EDIT: and anyway, your claim that "Война на земле" is not a Russian military or political term, that could be equivalent to English "ground war" is clear nonsense - several of the examples from Russian literature I posted above, come from military literature. For example already the first one describing ground operations in Poland during the WWII, using the term "Война на земле" directly in the title. To me it looks like that you, as a Russian, are biased and unable or unwilling to be objective in this case.
 
Last edited:
txt29 said:
and anyway, your claim that "Война на земле" is not a Russian military or political term, that could be equivalent to English "ground war" is clear nonsense - several of the examples from Russian literature I posted above, come from military literature. For example already the first one describing ground operations in Poland during the WWII, using the term "Война на земле" directly in the title. To me it looks like that you, as a Russian, are biased and unable or unwilling to be objective in this case.
Click to expand...
I am taking this as an offence. So far, I was trying to explain some nuances of Russian language, but your objective in this discussion appears to discredit my arguments, not to clarify them.

Yes, "Война на земле" directly in the title of a book about WWII tells the potential reader that this book is especially about the ground operations of the Second World War, whereas the naval and other operations of this war will be presented elsewhere. It is a headline for the content that could be more explicitly described as "боевые действия второй мировой войны, которые велись на земле". However, this expression (with lowercase "з") does not combine well with the adjective "очередная" (next), that was used by Medvedev. It goes well in the expressions "очередная война" (the next [big] war), "очередная стадия войны" (the next stage of [ongoing] war), but the qualification "очередная война на земле" (the next ground war) makes little sense in Russian.

Anyway, welcome to my ignore list.
 
No offence was intended. Nobody is objective and unbiased all the time, especially when it concerns personal affinities.

I see no evidence for accepting your argumentation, but do not mind at all following your wish and excluding the meaning "next ground war". That's finally what both the official transcript and the translation did too. So yes, the correct translation, as we already agreed, should have been "the next war on the Planet". Although pretty close to the used translation "next World War", it would keep the same ambiguity of the sentence. Because we do not know what kind of war Medvedev exactly meant. In the context of "the Planet", the term World War certainly pops up first, but it is true that this translation, unlike the original expression, does not let any doubts about what kind of conflict is discussed. If Medvedev simply told "a next war", "next major regional war", or "next global/total war", (or even "a next ground war") instead of referring to the Earth, it would have been clearer what he meant.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
RF humaid convoy to Donbass unloaded weapons and ammo 30th Nov 2014
Replies
0
Views
3K
DucneT4ep
D

Latest posts

Back
Top