“We fought Sweden for 21 years. How long are you prepared to fight?” — declared Vladimir Medinsky in May 2025 in Istanbul, as part of the Russian delegation to negotiations.

This statement is a typical example of how history is used not for analysis, but as a tool of political autosuggestion. It is worth recalling several key facts, without which the comparison to the Great Northern War (1700–1721) loses all substance.

📜 Who Started the Great Northern War — and Why?

The Great Northern War, launched by Peter I in alliance with Denmark and Saxony against Sweden, was not a Russian initiative. It was part of a larger geopolitical design, supported — and in many ways initiated — by Great Britain, which sought to curb Swedish influence in the Baltic region.

Britain had a direct interest in establishing a year-round trade port to extract resources from Eastern Europe. The site of the future Saint Petersburg was ideally suited to that end. It was Britain that pushed for the dismantling of Swedish dominance in the Baltic — using Moscow as a proxy.

⚓ The Dutch Fleet and British Interests

The “Russian” fleet so proudly remembered today was in fact built by Dutch shipwrights, using Dutch designs and funds. The tricolor flag that is now Russia’s state symbol is a variation of the Dutch merchant ensign.
Symbolically as well as practically, the Great Northern War was a project of integrating Muscovy into the European commercial system, not a war of national self-assertion.

❄️ A Frozen Empire Seeking a Warm Port

Lacking access to the sea, Moscow’s sole strategic goal in the war was to seize a piece of coastline suitable for building a port that would not freeze in winter. This was not about defending national sovereignty — it was about inserting itself into Western trade corridors. Saint Petersburg was, from its inception, a pipe for raw material exports, not a window for enlightenment.

🕰️ What Is Medinsky Actually Saying?

When Vladimir Medinsky invokes the Great Northern War today, he does not mention the inconvenient fact that Russia fought it on someone else’s dime — and in someone else’s interest.

Hence the real question becomes:
👉 In whose interest is Russia fighting today?
👉 Who finances this prolonged war — and in exchange for what future concessions?

📌 Conclusion

Medinsky is not a historian in the critical sense — he is a mythmaker in state service, selectively using the past to support a mobilization narrative. In this, he follows not the tradition of inquiry, but of imperial epic.

If we are to draw historical analogies, we must admit: in Peter’s time, Moscow was merely a tool of foreign commerce and strategy — and very likely remains so today. Then it was British capital. Today, the creditors are different — but the dependency remains.

🖋 P.S. History is not a toolbox for slogans, but a mirror of causes and consequences. And mirrors, when handled carelessly, tend to break.