Putin's Valdai Club Appearance Part One

The Valdai International Discussion Club’s existence closely matches Vladimir Putin’s years as Russian President and Prime Minister as this week marks its XXI Annual Meeting that now lasts four days, with the Plenary Session capping the event. Earlier, FM Lavrov appeared on the 6th and provided a recap to the media of his participation before embarking for Kazakhstan and extended talks there. The length of Putin’s appearance and extent of the discussion mandates it be broken into three parts, which has been the norm. As usual, the event’s topic is germane to the current global situation, “Lasting peace – on what basis? Universal security and equal opportunities for development in the twenty-first century.” Putin uses the significance of today’s date in its historical context to frame the opening of his address in a way I see as quite appropriate. Part One consists of Putin’s Address, while Parts Two & Three will consist of the interactive discussion between the panel members. All parts will be rather long.

F.Lukyanov: Dear ladies and gentlemen, Dear guests, dear friends, participants of the Valdai Club meeting!

We are starting the plenary session of the XXI annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. We've had four exciting and discussion-filled days, and now we can, so to speak, try to sum up some of the results.

I invite the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, to the stage.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, dear ladies and gentlemen, dear friends!

I am very happy to welcome you all to our traditional meeting. I would like to immediately thank you for participating in the sharp and informative discussions of the Valdai Club. We are meeting on November 7, which is a significant date for our country and, one might say, for the whole world. The Russian Revolution of 1917, as well as the Dutch, English, and Great French Revolutions in their time, became to a certain extent milestones in the development of mankind, and largely determined the course of history, the nature of politics, diplomacy, economics, and social structure.

You and I also had the opportunity to live in an era of radical, in fact, revolutionary changes, not only to comprehend, but also to be direct participants in the most complex processes of the first quarter of the XXI century. The Valdai club, almost the same age as our century, is already 20 years old. In such cases, it is often said, among other things, that time flies imperceptibly, quickly, but in this case you can not say so. These two decades were not just filled with major, sometimes dramatic events of a truly historic scale – a completely new world order is being formed before our eyes, unlike what we know from the past, for example, the Westphalian or Yalta system.

New powers are rising. Peoples are becoming more and more aware of their interests, their self-worth, identity and opportunities, and are increasingly insisting on achieving the goals of development and justice. At the same time, societies face a large number of new challenges: from exciting technological changes to catastrophic natural disasters, from blatant social stratification to massive migration waves and acute economic crises.

Experts talk about the threats of new regional conflicts, global epidemics, complex and ambiguous ethical aspects of human-artificial intelligence interaction, and how traditions and progress are combined with each other.

We predicted some of these problems when we met earlier, and even discussed them in detail when we met at Valdai and in the Valdai Club, while we intuitively anticipated some of them, hoping for the best, but not excluding the worst-case scenario.

Something, on the contrary, came as a complete surprise to everyone. Indeed, the dynamics are very strong. The modern world is unpredictable, that's for sure. If you look back 20 years and estimate the scale of changes, and then project these changes into the coming years, you can assume that the next twenty years will be no less, if not more difficult. And how much-of course, depends on many, a large number of factors. So in order to analyze them, to try to predict something, I understand that you are going to the Valdai Club.

This is, in a sense, the moment of truth. The old structure of the world is irrevocably disappearing, one might say, it is already gone, and a serious, irreconcilable struggle is unfolding for the formation of a new one. Irreconcilable first of all for the reason that this is not even a struggle for power or for geopolitical influence. This is a clash of the very principles on which relations between countries and peoples will be built at the next historical stage. Its outcome will determine whether we can all work together to build a world that will allow everyone to develop, resolve emerging contradictions on the basis of mutual respect for cultures and civilizations, without coercion or the use of force. Finally, whether human society can remain a society with its ethical humanistic principles, and whether man can remain a man.

It would seem that there is no alternative to this. At first sight. But, unfortunately, there is. This is the sinking of humanity into the abyss of aggressive anarchy, internal and external splits, the loss of traditional values, new formats of tyranny, the actual rejection of the classical principles of democracy, basic rights and freedoms. More and more often, democracy is interpreted as the power of a minority rather than a majority, and even traditional democracy and people's power are contrasted with some abstract freedom, for the sake of which democratic procedures, elections, majority opinion, freedom of speech and non-biased media, as some believe, can be ignored and sacrificed.

The threat is the imposition and normalization of totalitarian ideologies, which we see in the example of Western liberalism, today's Western liberalism, which has degenerated, I believe, into extreme intolerance and aggression towards any alternative, towards any sovereign and independent thought, and today justifies neo-Nazism, terrorism, racism and even mass genocide of the civilian population.

Finally, there are international conflicts and clashes that are fraught with mutual destruction. After all, weapons that can do this exist and are constantly being improved, taking on new forms as technology develops. And the club of owners of such weapons is expanding, and no one guarantees that in the event of an avalanche-like increase in threats and the final destruction of legal and moral norms, it will not be used.

I have already said that we have come to a dangerous point. Western calls to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, the country with the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, demonstrate the extreme adventurism of Western politicians. Well, some of them, anyway. Such blind faith in one's own impunity and exclusivity can turn into a global tragedy. At the same time, the former hegemons, accustomed to ruling the world since colonial times, are increasingly surprised to find that they are no longer obeyed. Attempts to hold on to elusive power by force only lead to general instability and increased tension, to casualties and destruction. But the result that those who want to preserve their absolute, undivided power strive for, such attempts still do not provide. Because the course of history cannot be stopped.

Instead of realizing the futility of their aspirations and the objective nature of the changes, some Western elites seem ready to do anything to prevent the emergence of a new international system that meets the interests of the world majority. In the policy of the United States, for example, and its allies in recent years, the principle of "do not get to anyone", "if not with us, then against us" has become increasingly noticeable. Well, listen, this formula is very dangerous. Because we, and in many countries of the world, have such a saying: as it will come back, so it will respond.

Chaos and a systemic crisis are already growing in the countries that are trying to pursue such a policy, and their claims to exclusivity, to liberal-globalist messianism, to ideological and military-political monopoly are increasingly exhausting those countries that are trying to pursue such a policy, pushing the world to degradation, and come into clear contradiction with the real ones. the interests of the peoples of the United States of America and European countries themselves.

I am sure that sooner or later the West will understand this. After all, its past great achievements have always been based on a pragmatic, sober approach based on a very tough, sometimes cynical, but rational assessment of what is happening and its own capabilities.

And in this regard, I want to emphasize once again: unlike our opponents, Russia does not perceive Western civilization as an enemy and does not raise the question "we or they". I will repeat once again: "he who is not with us is against us" – we never say that. We don't want to teach anyone anything, impose our worldview on anyone. Our position is open, and it is as follows.

The West has accumulated really huge human, intellectual, cultural, and material resources, thanks to which it can successfully develop, remaining one of the most important elements of the world system. But it is "one of", along with other actively developing countries and groups of countries. There can be no talk of hegemony in the new international environment. And when, for example, Washington and other Western capitals understand and recognize this irrefutable, immutable fact, the process of building a world system that meets the challenges of the future will finally enter the phase of true creation. God grant that this will happen as soon as possible. This is in the common interest, including, above all, of the West itself.

In the meantime, we, all those who are interested in creating a just and lasting peace, have to spend too much effort to overcome the destructive actions of our opponents, who cling to their own monopoly. Well, it's obvious that this is happening, everyone sees it in the very West, in the East, in the South--they see it everywhere. They are trying to preserve power and monopoly, obvious things.

These efforts could be directed with much greater benefit and impact on solving truly common problems that affect everyone: from demographics and social inequality to climate change, food security, medicine, and new technologies. That's what we need to think about and what everyone really needs to work on, what to do.

I will allow myself a few philosophical digressions today – we are a discussion club. So, I hope that this will be in line with the discussions that have been going on here so far.

I have already said that the world is changing dramatically and irreversibly. It differs from the previous versions of the world system structure by the combination and parallel existence of two seemingly mutually exclusive phenomena: the rapidly growing conflict, fragmentation of the political, economic, and legal field-on the one hand, and the continuing close interconnectedness of the entire world space – on the other. This can be perceived as a kind of paradox. After all, we are used to the fact that the described trends usually just go one after another, replace each other. Century after century, eras of conflict and broken ties alternate with more favorable periods of interaction. This is the dynamic of historical development.

It turns out that this doesn't work today. Well, let's try to speculate a little on this topic. Acute, principled, emotionally charged conflicts, of course, significantly complicate world development, but they do not interrupt it. Instead of the chains of interaction destroyed by political decisions and even military means, others are emerging. Yes, much more complex, sometimes confusing, but preserving economic and social ties.

We have seen this through the experience of recent years. More recently, the collective West, the so-called collective West, has made an unprecedented attempt to separate Russia from the world system, both economically and politically. The volume of sanctions and punitive measures applied to our country has no analogues in history. Our opponents assumed that they would deliver a crushing, knockout blow to Russia, from which it simply would not recover, would cease to be one of the key elements of international usage.

I don't think I need to remind you what really happened. The very fact that jubilee Valdai has gathered such a large audience speaks for itself, I think. But the point, of course, is not in Valdai. The point is the reality in which we live, in which Russia exists. The world needs Russia, and no decisions of either Washington or Brussels ' alleged superiors over others can change this.

The same applies to other solutions. Even a trained swimmer does not swim against a powerful current, no matter what tricks and even doping he uses. And the current of world politics, the mainstream, is directed in the other direction, in contrast to the aspirations of the West – from a descending hegemonic world to an ascending diversity. This is an obvious thing, as we people say, you don't need to go to your grandmother. This is obvious.

Let's return to the dialectic of history, the changing eras of conflict and cooperation. Has the world really become such that this theory, this practice, no longer works? Let's try to look at what is happening today from a slightly different angle: what exactly is the conflict and who is involved in this conflict today?

Since the middle of the last century, when modern efforts and at the cost of huge losses managed to defeat Nazism–-the most vicious, aggressive ideology that became the product of the most acute contradictions of the first half of the twentieth century–-humanity has been faced with the task of avoiding the revival of such a phenomenon and the repetition of world wars. Despite all the zigzags and local skirmishes, the general vector was then determined. This is the radical rejection of all forms of racism, the destruction of the classical colonial system and the expansion of the number of full participants in international politics–-the demand for openness and democracy of the international system was obvious–-the rapid development of different countries and regions, the emergence of new technological and socio-economic approaches aimed at expanding development opportunities and improving well-being. Of course, like any historical process, this gave rise to a clash of interests. But, I repeat, the general desire for harmonization and development in all aspects of this concept was evident.

Our country, then the Soviet Union, made a great contribution to strengthening these trends. The U.S.S.R. helped states that were freed from colonial or neocolonial dependence, whether in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, or Latin America. And let me remind you separately that it was the Soviet Union in the mid-80s of the last century that called for an end to ideological confrontation, for overcoming the legacy of the cold war, in fact, for ending the cold war itself, and then for overcoming its legacy, those barriers that hindered the unity of the world and its comprehensive development.

Yes, we have a difficult relationship with that period, given what the course of the then political leadership of the country eventually turned out to be. We still have to deal with some tragic consequences. But the very impulse, I want to emphasize this, the very impulse, even if it is unjustifiably idealistic on the part of our leaders and our people, sometimes even a naive approach, as we see it today, was undoubtedly dictated by sincere wishes for peace and the common good, which is actually historically inherent in the character of our people, its traditions, and the system of values, spiritual and moral coordinates.

But why did such aspirations lead to the opposite results? Here's the question. We know the answer, and I've already mentioned it several times. Because the other side of the ideological confrontation perceived the current historical events not as a chance to rebuild the world on new just principles and values, but as its own triumph, victory, as the capitulation of our country to the West, and therefore as an opportunity to establish its own complete dominance by the right of the winner.

I've already mentioned this once, but now I'm just passing it off, so I won't mention any names. In the mid-90s, even in the late 90s, one of the then US politicians said: now we will treat Russia not as a defeated enemy, but as a blunt instrument in our hands. That's what they were guided by. There was no breadth of vision, no general culture, no political culture. Lack of understanding of what is happening, and ignorance of Russia. The way the West misinterpreted what it saw as the outcome of the Cold War, how it began to reshape the world for itself, its shameless and unprecedented geopolitical greed–-these are the true origins of the conflicts of our historical era, starting with the tragedies of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and today Ukraine and the Middle East.

It seemed to some Western elites that the new monopoly, their monopoly, the moment of unipolarity in the ideological, economic, political and even partly military-strategic sense is the destination station. That's it, we're here. "Stop, just a moment! You're beautiful! " How presumptuously it was then announced, almost the end of the story.

In this audience, there is no need to explain how shortsighted and misguided this judgment turned out to be. The story didn't end, on the contrary, it just entered a new phase. And the point is not that some malicious enemies, competitors, or subversive elements prevented the West from establishing its system of world power.

Let's be honest, after the disappearance of the USSR--the model of the Soviet socialist alternative—many people in the world initially thought that the new monopoly system had come for a long time, almost forever, and that you just need to adapt to it. But it has staggered on its own, under the weight of the ambition and greed of these Western elites. And when they saw that even within the framework of the system that they created for themselves (after the Second World War), of course it must be admitted, the winners created the Yalta system for themselves. And then, after the Cold War, the alleged winners in the Cold War began to create for themselves, correcting this Yalta system (that's the problem)—that they created for themselves with their own hands— completely different people are beginning to succeed and lead. (Here's what they saw: they created the system, and suddenly other leaders appear within this system.) Of course, they immediately began to correct this system, which they already created for themselves, and began to violate it with the same rules that were discussed yesterday, change the rules that they themselves set up.

What kind of conflict are we seeing today? I am convinced that this is not a conflict between everyone and anyone, caused by a deviation from certain rules that we are often told about in the West, not at all. We see a conflict between the overwhelming majority of the world's population, which wants to live and develop in an interconnected world of vast opportunities, and the world's minority, which is concerned only with one thing, as I have already said – maintaining its dominance. And for this purpose, it is ready to destroy the achievements that have become the result of a long development in the direction of a universal world system. But from this, as we can see, nothing happens and nothing will happen.

At the same time, the West itself is hypocritically trying to convince us all that what humanity sought after World War II is under threat. Nothing like that, I just mentioned it. Both Russia and the vast majority of countries are striving to strengthen the spirit of international progress and the desire for lasting peace, which has been at the core of development since the middle of the last century.

But the threat is actually quite different. It is precisely this monopoly of the West that emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which it acquired for some time at the end of the twentieth century, that is under threat. But I want to say it again, and everyone in this room understands that any monopoly, as we know from history, sooner or later ends. There can be no illusions here. And a monopoly is always a harmful thing, even for the monopolists themselves.

The policy of the collective Western elites is influential, but—in terms of the number of participants in a very limited club--it is aimed not forward, not at creation, but back, at retention. Any sports fan, not to mention professionals, in football, in hockey, in any kind of martial arts knows that playing on hold almost always leads to defeat.

Returning to the dialectic of history, we can say that the parallel existence of conflict and the desire for harmony is, of course, unstable. The contradictions of the epoch must sooner or later be resolved by a synthesis, a transition to a different quality. And as we enter this new phase of development–-the building of a new world architecture--it is important for all of us not to repeat the mistakes of the end of the last century, when, as I have already said, the West tried to impose on everyone its deeply flawed, in my opinion, fraught with new conflicts, model of getting out of the cold war.

In the emerging multipolar world, there should be no losing countries and peoples, and no one should feel aggrieved or humiliated. Only then can we ensure truly long-term conditions for universal, just and secure development. The desire for cooperation and interaction is already gaining the upper hand, overcoming the most acute situations. We can safely say that this is the international mainstream—the mainstream of events. Of course, being at the epicenter of tectonic shifts caused by deep changes in the world system, it is difficult to predict the future. And since we know the general direction of change—from hegemony to a complex world of multilateral cooperation—we can try to outline at least some of the future contours.

Speaking at the Valdai Forum last year, I allowed myself to outline six principles that, in our opinion, should form the basis of relations at a new historical stage of development. In my opinion, the events and time that have taken place have only confirmed the validity of the proposals put forward. I'll try to develop them.

First. Openness to interaction is the most important value for the vast majority of countries and peoples. Attempts to erect artificial barriers are flawed not only because they hinder normal and beneficial economic development. Breaking ties is especially dangerous in the context of natural disasters, socio-political upheavals, without which, alas, international practice is not complete.

Situations like the one that occurred last year after the catastrophic earthquake in Asia Minor are unacceptable, for example. Assistance to the people of Syria was blocked solely for political reasons, and some areas were severely affected by the disaster. And such examples, when selfish, opportunistic interests hinder the realization of the common good, are not isolated at all.

The barrier-free environment I spoke about last year is the key not only to economic prosperity, but also to meeting urgent humanitarian needs. And in the face of new challenges, including the consequences of the rapid development of technology, it is vital for humanity to combine intellectual efforts. It is significant that the main opponents of openness today are those who recently, yesterday, as they say, most of all raised it on the shield.

Today, the same forces and people are trying to use restrictions as a tool to put pressure on dissidents. Nothing will come of it for the same reason: a huge global majority is in favor of openness without politicization.

Second. We have always talked about the diversity of the world as a prerequisite for its sustainability. It may seem like a paradox, because the more colorful, the more difficult it is to build a single picture. And of course, universal norms should help here. Can they do it? No doubt, this is difficult, not easy to do. But, first of all, there should not be a situation where the model of one country or a relatively small part of humanity is taken as something universal and imposed on everyone else. And, secondly, no conventional code, even a fully democratically developed one, can be taken [and] attributed once and for all as a directive, as an indisputable truth to others.

The international community is a living organism, the value and uniqueness of which lies in its civilizational diversity. International law is a product of agreements reached not even by countries, but by peoples, because legal consciousness is an integral and original part of every culture and civilization. The crisis of international law that is now being discussed is, in a sense, a crisis of growth.

The rise of peoples and cultures that previously remained on the political periphery for one reason or another means that their own, original ideas about law and justice play an increasingly significant role. They are different. This may give the impression of discord and cacophony of some kind, but this is only the first stage of formation. And I am convinced that the new device is possible only on the principles of polyphony, harmonious sound of all musical themes. If you like, we are moving towards a world order that is not so much polycentric as polyphonic, in which all voices are heard and, most importantly, should be heard. Those who are used to and want to exclusively solo will have to get used to the new world score.

I have already said what international law is after the end of the Second World War. International law is based on the UN Charter, which was written by the winning countries. But the world is changing, of course, new centers of power are emerging, powerful economies are growing, and they are coming out on top. Of course, the legal regulation should also change. Of course, this must be done carefully, but it is unavoidable. Law reflects life, not the other way around.

The third. We have repeatedly said that the new world can develop successfully only on the principles of maximum representativeness. The experience of the last couple of decades has clearly demonstrated the consequences of usurpation, someone's desire to appropriate the right to speak and act on behalf of others. Those who are commonly called great powers are accustomed and assume to believe that they have the right to determine what is the interest of others–-here is an interesting movie!—actually dictate to others their national interests based on their own. Not only does this violate the principles of democracy and justice, but the worst part is that it essentially does not allow us to really solve pressing problems.

The coming world will not be simple precisely because of its diversity. The more full-fledged participants in the process, the more difficult it is, of course, to find the best option that suits everyone. But when it is found, there is hope that the solution will be sustainable and long-term. It also allows us to get rid of tyranny and impulsive shying away and, on the contrary, make political processes meaningful and rational, guided by the principle of reasonable sufficiency. By and large, this principle is also laid down in the UN Charter and the Security Council. What is the right of veto? What was the right of veto designed for? To avoid making decisions that do not suit players in the international arena. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? It's probably bad for someone that one of the parties puts up a barrier when making decisions. But it is good in the sense that decisions that do not suit someone do not pass. What does this mean? What does this rule mean? Go to the meeting room and negotiate – that's the point.

But as the world becomes multipolar, it is necessary to find such tools that would allow expanding the use and mechanisms of this kind. In each case, the solution should not be just a collective one, but should include those participants who are able to make a meaningful and significant contribution to solving problems. First of all, these are those participants who are directly interested in finding a positive way out of the situation, because their future security, and therefore prosperity, actually depends on this.

There are countless examples of how complex but actually resolvable contradictions of neighboring countries and peoples turned into irreconcilable chronic conflicts due to intrigues and gross interference of external forces, which in principle do not care what happens to the participants of these conflicts, how much blood is shed, how many victims they will suffer. They are simply guided–-those who interfere from the outside–-by their own purely selfish interests, while not taking any responsibility.

I also believe that regional organizations will play a special role in the future, because neighboring countries, no matter how difficult their relations may be, are always united by a common interest in stability and security. Trade-offs are simply vital for them to achieve optimal conditions for their own development.

Further. A key safety principle for everyone without exception. The security of some cannot be ensured at the expense of the security of others. I'm not saying anything new here. This is all spelled out in the OSCE documents. It is only necessary that it is executed.

The bloc approach, a legacy of the Cold War colonial era, contradicts the nature of the new international system, which is open and flexible. Today, there is only one bloc left in the world that is bound together by the so–called "commitment", rigid ideological dogmas and cliches—the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which, without stopping its expansion to the east of Europe, is now trying to extend its approaches to other areas of the world, violating its own charter documents. This is just a blatant anachronism.

We have repeatedly spoken about the destructive role that NATO continued to play, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, when, it would seem, the alliance lost its formal, previously declared reason and meaning for its existence. It seems to me that the United States understood that this tool was becoming unattractive and unnecessary, and they needed and need it today in order to lead in their zone of influence. Therefore, conflicts are also needed.

You know, even before all the acute conflicts today, many European leaders told me that they scare us with you, we are not afraid, we do not see any threats. It's direct speech, you know? I think that the United States also understood this very well, felt it, and already treated NATO as a secondary organization. Believe me, I know what I'm saying. But still, the experts there understood what NATO needed. And how to preserve its value and attractiveness? Need to scare as to be, you need Russia and Europe to break with each other, especially Russia and Germany, France conflict. So they brought it to the coup in Ukraine and to the fighting in the south-east, in the Donbass. They simply forced us to respond, and in this sense, they achieved what they wanted. The same thing is happening in Asia, on the Korean Peninsula, I think.

In fact, we see that the world minority, while maintaining and strengthening its military bloc, hopes to retain power in this way. However, even within this bloc itself, it is already possible to understand and see that the cruel dictate of the "big brother" does not contribute in any way to solving the tasks facing everyone. Such aspirations are all the more clearly opposed to the interests of the rest of the world. To cooperate with those with whom it is profitable, to establish partnership with all those who are interested in it–-this is an obvious priority for most countries of the world.

It is obvious that military-political and ideological blocs are another type of obstacle to the natural development of such an international system. At the same time, I note that the very concept of a "zero–sum game", when only one wins and all the others lose, is a product of Western political thought. During the period of Western dominance, this approach was imposed on everyone as universal, but it is far from universal and does not always work.

For example, Eastern philosophy–-and many people here in this Hall know this firsthand, as well as I do, and perhaps even better--is based on a completely different approach. This is a search for harmony of interests, so that everyone can achieve what is most important for themselves, but not at the expense of the interests of others. "I win, but you win, too." And the Russian people are always in Russia, all the peoples of Russia always, whenever possible, proceeded from the fact that the main thing is not to push their opinion by any ways and means, but to try to convince, interest in an honest partnership and equal interaction.

Our history, including the history of national diplomacy, has repeatedly shown what honor, nobility, peacemaking, and leniency mean. It is enough to recall the role of Russia in the organization of Europe after the era of the Napoleonic Wars. I know that there, to a certain extent, this is seen as a return, as an attempt to keep the monarchy there, and so on. That's not the point right now. I am talking in general about the approach to how these issues were resolved.

The prototype of a new, free and non–aligned nature of relations between states and peoples is the community that is being formed now within the BRICS framework. This is also clearly illustrated by the fact that even among NATO members there are those who, as you know, are interested in working closely with the BRICS. I do not rule out that in the future other countries will also think about working together more closely with the BRICS.

Our country chaired the association this year, and just recently, as you know, a summit was held in Kazan. I will not hide the fact that developing a coordinated approach of many countries, whose interests do not always coincide in everything, is not an easy task. Diplomats and other statesmen had to make every effort, tact, and show their ability to hear and listen to each other in order to achieve the desired result. It took a lot of effort. But this is how a unique spirit of cooperation is born, it is based not on coercion, but on mutual understanding.

And we are confident that BRICS provides a good example of truly constructive cooperation in the new international environment. I would like to add that the BRICS platforms, meetings of entrepreneurs, scientists, and intellectuals of our countries can become a space for a deep philosophical and fundamental understanding of the modern processes of world development, taking into account the peculiarities of each civilization with its culture, history, and identity of traditions.

The spirit of respect and consideration of interests is the foundation of the future Eurasian security system, which is beginning to take shape on our vast continent. This is not only a truly multi-pronged approach, but also a multi-faceted one. After all, security today is a complex concept that includes not only military and political aspects. Security is impossible without guarantees of socio-economic development and ensuring the sustainability of States in the face of any challenges–-from natural to man–made—whether it is the material or digital world, cyberspace, and so on.

Fifth. Justice for all. Inequality is a real scourge of the modern world. Within countries, inequality creates social tensions and political instability. On the world stage, the gap in the level of development between the "golden billion" and the rest of humanity is fraught not only with increasing political contradictions, but above all with deepening migration problems.

Almost all the developed countries of the world are facing an increasingly uncontrolled influx of those who hope to improve their financial situation, raise their social status, gain prospects, and sometimes just survive.

In turn, this migration element provokes an increase in xenophobia and intolerance towards newcomers in richer societies, which triggers a spiral of socio-political disadvantage and increases the level of aggression.

The lagging behind of many countries and societies in terms of socio-economic development is a complex phenomenon. Of course, there is no magic remedy for this disease. We need long-term systematic work. In any case, it is necessary to create conditions under which artificial, politically motivated obstacles to development will be removed.

Attempts to use the economy as a weapon, no matter who it is directed against, hit everyone, especially the most vulnerable-–people and countries in need of support.

We are convinced that such issues as food security, energy security, access to health and education services, and finally the possibility of legal and unhindered movement of people should be put out of the brackets of any conflicts and contradictions. These are basic human rights.

Sixth. We never tire of emphasizing that any stable international order can be based only on the principles of sovereign equality. Yes, all countries have different potential, this is obvious, and their capabilities are far from the same. In this regard, we often hear that full equality is impossible, utopian and illusory. But the peculiarity of the modern world, which is closely connected and integrated, lies precisely in the fact that states that are not the most powerful, large, and often play an even greater role than giants, if only because they are able to use their human, intellectual, natural, and environmental potential more efficiently and purposefully. to solve complex issues, they set high standards in the quality of life, in ethics, in management efficiency, in creating opportunities for everyone's self-realization, in creating conditions, a favorable psychological atmosphere in society for the rise of science, entrepreneurship, art, creativity, and the disclosure of youth talent. All these factors are now becoming factors of global influence. To paraphrase the laws of physics: by losing in the sense of, you can win in performance.

The most harmful, destructive thing that manifests itself in today's world is arrogance, an attitude of condescension towards someone, a desire to teach endlessly and obsessively. Russia has never done this, it is unusual for it. And we see that our approach is productive. Historical experience irrefutably shows that inequality, whether in society, in the state, or in the international arena, necessarily leads to bad consequences.

I want to add something that I may not have mentioned often before. Over several centuries, the Western-centric world has developed certain cliches, stereotypes, and a kind of hierarchy. There is a developed world, a progressive humanity, and a kind of universal civilization that everyone should strive for, but there are backward, uncivilized peoples, barbarians. Their job is to listen unquestioningly to what is said to them from the outside, and to act on the instructions of those who supposedly stand above these peoples in the civilizational hierarchy.

It is clear that this is a cover for a crude colonial approach, for the exploitation of the world majority. But the trouble is that this essentially racist ideology has taken root in the minds of so many. And this is also a serious mental obstacle to the overall harmonious development.

The modern world does not tolerate not only arrogance, but also deafness to the peculiarities and originality of others. To build a normal relationship, first of all, you need to listen to the interlocutor, understand his logic, cultural basis, and not attribute to him what you think about him yourself. Otherwise, communication becomes an exchange of cliches, labeling, and politics--in the conversation of the deaf.

You see, of course, we can see that they show interest in some distinctive cultures of various peoples. Outwardly, everything is beautiful–-both music and folklore seem to rise. But in fact, the policy in the sphere of economy and security remains the same–-neocolonial.

See how the World Trade Organization works. It doesn't solve anything, because all Western countries and major economies block everything. It's just in your best interests to keep repeating the same things that happened decades and centuries ago, to keep everyone in line, that's all.

We must not forget that everyone is equal in the sense that everyone has the right to their own vision, which is not better or worse than others, it is just their own, and you need to really respect it. It is on this basis that mutual understanding of interests, respect, and empathy are formulated, that is, the ability to empathize, feel the problems of others, and the ability to perceive someone else's point of view and arguments. And not only to perceive, but also to act in accordance with it, to build your own policy in accordance with it. To perceive does not mean to accept and agree on everything. This, of course, is true. This, first of all, means recognizing the right of the interlocutor to his own worldview. In fact, this is the first necessary step to begin to find harmony between these worldviews. Difference and diversity must be learned to be perceived as riches and opportunities, and not as a reason for conflict. This is also the dialectic of history.

We all understand that the era of cardinal transformations is a time of inevitable upheavals, unfortunately, a clash of interests, a kind of new lapping together. At the same time, the connectedness of the world does not necessarily mitigate contradictions. Of course, this is also true. And it can, on the contrary, sometimes burden, make the relationship even more confusing, and the search for a way out – much more difficult.

For a century of its history, humanity has become accustomed to the fact that the ultimate way to resolve contradictions is to find out relations by force. Yes, this also happens. Whoever is stronger is right. And this principle also works. Yes, this often happens, and countries have to defend their interests by armed means and defend them by all available means.

But the modern world is complicated and complex, and it is becoming more and more complex. While solving one problem, the use of force creates, of course, others, often even more difficult. And we also understand this. Our country has never initiated the use of force. We have to do this only when it becomes clear that the opponent is behaving aggressively, does not perceive any, absolutely no arguments. And when it is necessary, we will, of course, take all measures to protect Russia and each of its citizens, and we will always achieve our goals.

The world is not at all linear and internally heterogeneous. We have always understood this and understand it. I don't want to dwell on my memories today, but I remember very well how in 1999, when I headed the Government, and then became the head of state, what we faced then. I think that Russian citizens and specialists who are in this hall also remember very well what forces were behind the terrorists in the North Caucasus, where and in what volumes they received weapons, money, moral, political, ideological and informational support.

It's even funny to remember, and sad, and funny, as they said: "It's Al-Qaeda; Al-Qaeda is bad, but when it's fighting against you, it's okay." What is it? All this leads to a conflict. At that time, we set ourselves the goal of using all our time, as much as we could, to save the country. Of course, this was in the interests of all the peoples of Russia. Despite the most difficult economic situation after the crisis of 1998 and the devastation in the army, I must say it directly, we all together, it was the whole country that repelled the attack of terrorists, and then defeated them.

Why did I remember that? Because once again, some people had the idea that the world would be better off without Russia. Then they tried to finish with Russia, to complete the collapse of everything that remained after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and now, it seems, someone also dreams of this. They think that the world will be more obedient, will be better managed. But Russia has repeatedly stopped those who were striving for world domination, no matter who did it. This will continue to be the case. And the world won't get any better. Those who try to do this must eventually understand this. It will only get harder.

Our opponents are finding new ways and tools to get rid of us. Now Ukraine is being used as such a tool, the Ukrainians, who are simply cynically trained against the Russians, turning them, in fact, into "cannon fodder". And all this to the accompaniment of a conversation about the "European choice". What a choice! We definitely don't need this. We will protect ourselves, our people, and let no one have any illusions about this.

But the role of Russia, of course, is not limited to protecting and preserving itself. This may sound a little pathetic, but the very existence of Russia is a guarantee that the world will retain its multi – color, diversity, and complexity, and this is the key to successful development. And now I can tell you that these are not my words, our friends from all regions of the world often tell me this very much. I'm not exaggerating anything. I repeat, we do not impose anything on anyone, and we will never do so. We don't need it ourselves, and no one needs it. We are guided by our values, interests, and beliefs about what should be done, which are rooted in our identity, history, and culture. And of course, we are always ready for a constructive dialogue with everyone.

Those who respect their own culture and traditions have no right not to treat others with the same respect. And those who try to force others to behave in an inappropriate way invariably trample on their own roots, their own civilization and culture, which is partly what we are seeing.

Today, Russia is fighting for its freedom, its rights, and its sovereignty. I say this without exaggeration, because over the previous decades, everything seemed to be outwardly favorable and decent. From the "seven" made "eight". [G7-G8] Thank you for inviting us.

Do you know what happened? I've seen it before: when you come to the same G8 meeting, it immediately becomes clear that before the G8 meeting, the G8 team has already gathered and discussed something among themselves, including with regard to Russia, and then they invite Russia. You look at it with a smile, as you always have. And a nice hug, and a pat on the shoulder. But in practice, they do the opposite. And they keep coming and coming and coming. This is most clearly seen in the context of NATO's eastward expansion. They promised they wouldn't, but they keep doing it. Both in the Caucasus and this missile defense system-everything, on any key issue, they simply did not care about our opinion. In the end, it all began to look like a "creeping" intervention, which, without any exaggeration, would be aimed at some kind of belittlement, or better yet, at destroying the country – either from within or from outside.

We finally got to Ukraine, and we got there with both bases and NATO. 2008: Bucharest decided to open the doors for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO. From what, excuse the simplicity of the expression, from what fright? Were there any difficulties in world affairs? Yes, we argued with Ukraine about gas prices, but we still decided. What is the problem? Why was it necessary to do this – just create a condition for the conflict? It was clear what this would lead to. No, all the same – and further, and further, and further-the development of our historical territories has gone, support for the regime with a clear neo-Nazi bias.

Therefore, we can safely say and repeat: we are not only fighting for our freedom, not only for our rights, not only for our sovereignty, but we are defending universal rights and freedoms, the opportunities for the existence and development of the absolute majority of states. To a certain extent, we see this as the mission of our country. It should be clear to everyone: it is useless to put pressure on us, but we are always ready to negotiate with full consideration of mutual legitimate interests. We have called on all participants in international communication to do this. And then there is no doubt that the future guests of the Valdai Club meeting, perhaps still schoolchildren, students, postgraduates or young scientists, aspiring experts, will discuss much more optimistic and life-affirming topics in the next 20 years, on the eve of the 100th anniversary of the United Nations, than those that we have to discuss today.

Thank you so much for your attention. [My Emphasis]

Enough major points made to fill the front pages of newspapers globally. And that’s just from the Address; there’s much more to come. There is a video of the entire session that’s just under 3 hours long that’s linked in the introductory paragraph. I’ll get the other parts of this event translated and published as soon as possible. Putin’s Address will probably need to be read twice to properly digest, and more to properly discuss it. I do have a lot to say about this that might become an essay in itself. I assume many readers now know a lot more about Mr. Putin and Russia than they did when they opened this item. I doubt, however, that Mr. Trump will be able to find common ground with Mr. Putin as the former lacks the intellect as do almost all Western politicos. In closing, I highly suggest today’s discussion between Professors Wolff and Hudson on Nima’s Dialog Works where they discuss the election outcome and the potential fate of the declining Outlaw US Empire.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!