President Putin’s Valdai Speech: Details & Analysis

The Russian President, Vladimir Putin delivered an insightful speech at the Valdai International Discussion Club on October 2^nd with numerous points made about Western and Russian joint development interests, while expressing the hope for reconciliation and cooperation. He touches on European contributions to global society, while pointing out the areas where contemporary attitudes are interfering with mutual progress – and the reasons for this. He also discusses NATO and BRICS, the role of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and provides contrasts in the values that Europe in particular appears intent on promoting, and those of Russia and its allies. It will be of academic and social development interest to anyone involved in the Russia-European space in particular.

For the sake of clarity and time we have omitted non-essential commentary but provide a link to the full text at the end of this article.

Vladimir Putin’s comments are prefixed as VP, with our analysis as RPA.

VP: “Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, friends,

We are destined to live in an era of fundamental, even revolutionary changes, and not only to comprehend but also to take a direct part in the most complex processes of the first quarter of the 21st century. The Valdai Club is already 20 years old, almost the same age as our century. These two decades have been filled with the most important, sometimes dramatic events of truly historical scale. We are witnessing the formation of a completely new world order, nothing like we had in the past, such as the Westphalian or Yalta systems.

New powers are rising. Nations are becoming more and more aware of their interests, their value, uniqueness, and identity, and are increasingly insistent on pursuing the goals of development and justice. At the same time, societies are confronted with a multitude of new challenges, from exciting technological changes to catastrophic natural disasters, from outrageous social division to massive migration waves and acute economic crises.

Experts talk about the threat of new regional conflicts and global epidemics and about complex and controversial ethical aspects of interaction between humans and artificial intelligence, about how traditions and progress reconcile with each other.

The dynamics are very intensive. In fact, the modern world is unpredictable. If you look back 20 years and evaluate the scale of changes and then project these changes onto the coming years, you can assume that the next twenty years will be no less, if not more, difficult. And how much more difficult they will be depends on a multitude of factors. We all come together at the Valdai Club to analyze all these factors and try to make some predictions, some forecasts. This is my contribution.

There eventually comes the moment of truth. The former world arrangement is irreversibly passing away, and a serious, irreconcilable struggle is unfolding for the development of a new world order. It is irreconcilable, because this is not a fight for power or geopolitical influence. It is a clash of the very principles that will underpin the relations of countries and peoples at the next historical stage. The outcome will determine whether we will be able, through joint efforts, to build a world that will allow all nations to develop and resolve emerging contradictions based on mutual respect for cultures and civilizations, without coercion and use of force. It will also highlight whether human society will be able to retain its ethical humanistic principles, and whether an individual will be able to remain human.

At first glance, it might appear that there is no alternative. Yet, regrettably, there is. It is the dive of humanity into the depths of aggressive anarchy, internal and external splits, the erosion of traditional values, the emergence of new forms of tyranny, the renunciation of the classical principles of democracy, along with fundamental rights and freedoms. Increasingly often, democracy is being interpreted, not as the rule of the majority, but of the minority. Traditional democracy and the rule of the people are being set against an abstract notion of freedom, for the sake of which, as some argue, democratic procedures, elections, majority opinion, freedom of speech, and an unbiased media can be disregarded or sacrificed.”

RPA: Putin gives a concise overview of the global struggles and interestingly highlights media manipulation. Much of this has been carried out covertly with Western consumers in particular mostly unaware that the content they are being provided with is not necessarily true. This ranges from academic outlets such as think tanks, to populist daily media, and into social networks. What used to be academically debatable have now become directive, ‘open media’ comments sections (to allow mass readership the opportunity to have their say) are now routinely censored for any non-conforming views, while social media accounts are blocked for promoting any alternative opinions. Readers who may doubt this can experiment: place a deliberately non-conformist view on a comments section and see what happens. Meanwhile from our own experience we can state that while most Western media is accessible within Russia, that is not the opposite case the other way around.

VP: “The peril lies in the imposition of totalitarian ideologies and making them the norm, as exemplified by the current state of Western liberalism. This modern Western liberalism, in my view, has degenerated into extreme intolerance and aggression towards any alternative or sovereign and independent thought. Today, it even seeks to justify neo-Nazism, terrorism, racism, and even the mass genocide of civilians.”

RPA: In referencing genocide, Putin is referring to the circumstances unfolding in Gaza. While the shocking Hamas attacks on Israeli citizens in 2023 killed about 1,200 Israeli’s, the response has been totally out of proportion. At present, over 66,000 Palestinians have been killed, with 60% of these being the elderly, women and children.

VP: “Moreover, there are international conflicts and confrontations fraught with the danger of mutual destruction. Weapons that can cause this do exist and are being constantly improved, taking new forms as the technologies advance. The number of nations possessing such weapons is growing, and no one can guarantee that these weapons will not be used, especially if threats incrementally multiply and legal and moral norms are ultimately shattered.

I have previously stated that we have reached red lines. The West’s calls to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, a nation with the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, reveal the reckless adventurism of certain Western politicians. Such blind faith in their own impunity and exceptionalism could lead to a global catastrophe. Meanwhile, the former hegemons, who have been accustomed to ruling the world since colonial times, are increasingly astonished that their commands are no longer heeded. Efforts to cling to their diminishing power through force result only in widespread instability and more tensions, leading to casualties and destruction. However, these efforts fail to achieve the desired outcome of maintaining absolute, unchallenged power. The march of history cannot be halted.

Instead of recognizing the futility of their ambitions and the objective nature of change, certain Western elites seem poised to go to any lengths to thwart the development of a new international system that aligns with the interests of the global majority. In the recent policies of the United States and its allies, for instance, the principle of “You shall not belong to anyone!” or “You’re either with us or against us” has become increasingly evident. Such a formula is very dangerous.”

RPA: Putin is correct in that in contemporary politics, all middle ground has been erased. There is no room for considered opinions. This is adequately illustrated in Western social behaviour, where any alternative viewpoint is immediately challenged, often in ridiculous terms such as being described as a ‘bot’, a ‘communist’, or a ‘Kremlin stooge’ and so on, which would be amusing if such comments were not so unintelligent and their authors so unwilling to engage in any meaningful dialogue.

VP: “Chaos, a systemic crisis, is already escalating in the very nations that attempt to implement such strategies. The pursuit of exclusivity, liberal and globalist messianism, and ideological, military, and political monopoly is steadily depleting those countries that pursue these paths, pushing the world towards decline and starkly contradicting the genuine interests of the people in the United States and European countries.”

RPA: Putin here specifically addressing Europe here, whose economies have been badly damaged with social prosperity replaced by militarization.

VP: “I am confident that sooner or later the West will come to this realization. Historically, its great achievements have always been rooted in a pragmatic, clear-eyed approach based on a tough, sometimes cynical but rational evaluation of circumstances and their own capabilities.

In this context, I wish to emphasize once more: unlike our counterparts, Russia does not view Western civilization as an adversary, nor does it pose the question of “us or them.” I reiterate: “You’re either with us or against us” is not part of our vocabulary. We have no desire to teach anyone or impose our worldview upon anyone. Our stance is open, and it is as follows.

The West has indeed amassed significant human, intellectual, cultural, and material resources, which enable it to thrive as one of the key elements of the global system. However, it is alongside other rapidly advancing nations and groups. Hegemony in the new international order is not a consideration. When, for instance, Washington and other Western capitals understand and acknowledge this incontrovertible fact, the process of building a world system that addresses future challenges will finally enter the phase of genuine creation. God willing, this should happen as soon as possible. This is in the shared interest, especially for the West itself.”

RPA: Putin here is not ‘threatening’ the West (as was reported in some Western media, here, here, and here as examples). He has acknowledged Western contributions to global development; merely stated that this should not be continued at the expense of other developing nations. Putin is calling for a fairer global system here that cooperates and coordinates rather than promotes one side above the interests of others. That is plain old-fashioned socialism.

VP: “So far, Russia, and other nations interested in creating a just and stable world have been using too much energy to resist the destructive activities of our opponents, who are instead clinging to their monopoly. This is obvious, and everyone in the west, the east, the south, and everywhere else is aware of this. The West is trying to preserve their power and monopoly.

These efforts could be directed with much better results towards addressing the common problems that concern everyone, from demographics and social inequality in climate change, food security, medicine, and new technology. This is where we should focus our energy, and this is what all of us should be doing.”

RPA: Putin is essentially calling for globally combined efforts to tackle global problems instead of trying to divide the global community and create divisions. It succinctly sets out the Russian president’s assessment of the world in a nutshell and the macro-challenges that must be realistically faced and understood globally while approaching pragmatic solutions.

VP: “I will take the liberty of making a number of philosophical digressions today. After all, this is a discussion club, and I hope these digressions will be in the spirit of the discussions we have been holding here.

As I said, the world is changing radically and irreversibly. Unlike previous versions of the world order, the new world is characterized by a combination or parallel existence of two seemingly incompatible elements: a rapidly growing conflict potential and the fragmentation of the political, economic, and legal spheres, on the one hand, and the continued close interconnection of the global space as a whole, on the other hand. This may sound paradoxical. We have grown used to these trends following and replacing one another. For centuries, the times of conflicts and division were followed by more favorable periods of interaction. This is the dynamic of historical development.

It turns out that this principle no longer applies. Let us reflect on this. Violent, conceptual, and highly emotional conflicts greatly complicate but do not stop global development. New links of interaction emerge in place of those destroyed by political decisions or even military methods. These new links may be much more complicated and sometimes convoluted, yet they help maintain economic and social ties.

We can speak from experience here. Recently, the collective West made an unprecedented attempt to banish Russia from global affairs and from the international economic and political systems. The number of sanctions and punitive measures applied against our country has no analogues in history. Our opponents assumed that they would inflict a crushing defeat, dealing a knockout blow to Russia from which it would never recover, thereby ceasing to be one of the permanent fixtures in the international community.

There is no need to remind you of what really happened. It just brought into perspective the reality in which we live, in which Russia exists. The truth is that the world needs Russia, and no decisions made by any individuals in Washington or Brussels, and who believe others should take their orders and follow only their opinions can change this.”

RPA: Russiahas been placed under 26,655 sanctions, has been disconnected from the global financial system, had its Western exports significantly reduced, and another US$335 billion in overseas financial assets frozen. Russia has also been subjected to a military expenditure of US$380 billion spent by the West on Ukraine to fight it. While there have been problems, on the whole Russia has absorbed this and maintained a GDP growth rate currently higher than many European economies.

VP: “The same applies to other decisions. Even a trained swimmer will not go very far upstream, regardless of the tricks or even doping they might use. The current of global politics, the mainstream, is running from the crumbling hegemonic world towards growing diversity, while the West is trying to swim against the tide. It is simply that clear.

Let’s return to the dialectics of history, the alternation of periods of conflict and cooperation. Has the world really changed so much that this theory no longer applies? Let’s try to look at what is happening today from a slightly different angle: what is the essence of the conflict, and who is involved in it today?

Since the middle of the last century, when Nazism – the most malicious and aggressive ideology, the product of fierce controversies in the first half of the 20th century – was defeated through timely action and at the cost of tremendous losses. Humanity has since been faced with the task of avoiding the revival of this evil and the recurrence of world wars. Despite all the zigzags and local skirmishes, the general perspective was defined at that time. This meant a total rejection of all forms of racism, the dismantling of the classical colonial system, and the inclusion of a greater number of full-fledged participants in international politics. There was an obvious demand for openness and democracy in the international system, along with rapid growth in different countries and regions and the emergence of new technological and socio-economic approaches aimed at expanding development opportunities and achieving prosperity. Like any other historical process, this gave rise to a clash of interests. Yet again, the general desire for harmony and development in all aspects of this concept was obvious.

Russia, then part of the Soviet Union, made a major contribution to consolidating these trends. The Soviet Union assisted states that had renounced colonial or neo-colonial dependence, whether in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, or Latin America. I would like to emphasize that in the mid-1980s, it was the Soviet Union that called for an end to ideological confrontation, the overcoming of the Cold War legacy, an end to the Cold War and its legacy, and the elimination of barriers that hampered global unity and comprehensive world development.

It is true that the Soviet attitude towards that period is complicated, in light of the consequences of the national political leadership’s policies. We have to confront certain tragic consequences, and we are still battling with them. I would like to highlight the unjustifiably idealistic urges of our leaders and our nation, as well as their sometimes naïve approaches, as we can see today. Undoubtedly, this was motivated by sincere aspirations for peace and universal well-being. In reality, this reflects a salient feature of our nation’s mentality: its traditions, values, and spiritual and moral coordinates.”

RPA: Putin here acknowledging that Soviet Russia made mistakes, with oblique references to Stalin and Gorbachev, yet saying at the same time that Russia itself has maintained its traditional values.

VP: But why did these aspirations lead to diametrically opposite results? This is an important question. We know the answer, and I have mentioned it repeatedly. The West perceived those historical developments as its triumph and victory, viewing them as Russia’s surrender to the West and as an opportunity and their right to establish complete dominance, rather than as a chance to rebuild the world based on new and equitable concepts and principles.

In the mid-1990s and even in the late 1990s, a US politician remarked that, from that point on, they would treat Russia not as a defeated adversary but as a blunt tool in their own hands. That was the principle they were guided by. They lacked a broader outlook and overall cultural and political awareness; they failed to comprehend the situation and understand Russia. By distorting the results of the Cold War to suit their interests and reshaping the world according to their ideas, the West displayed flagrant and unprecedented geopolitical greed. These are the real origins of the conflicts in our historical era, beginning with the tragedies in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and now Ukraine and the Middle East.

Some Western elites thought that their monopoly and the moment of unipolarity in the ideological, economic, political, and partially even military-strategic sense were the destination point. Here we are. Stop and enjoy the moment! This is the end of history, as they arrogantly announced.”

RPA: Putin is referring to the economic collapse of the Soviet Union, a period he lived through, and which ushered in both economic and intellectual poverty for many Russians. From being a superpower, the country became close to destitute. Western attitudes at the time, of victory, and in delighting at the fall of the USSR were both offensive to Russians while also helping promote a ‘superior arrogance’ over Russians in the West. That mentality is pervasive throughout Western politics today and has coloured attitudes towards contemporary Russia that are not accurate when regarding modern Russia. This includes everything from beliefs that most Russians have to use outside toilets, to the national diet consisting mainly of potatoes, and of Russia remaining poor with low incomes. In fact, the average income for Russians on a purchasing power parity basis is now about US$36,500 on a national basis and in cities such as St.Petersburg and Moscow about US$67,200. In business and professional circles, these can be far higher.

VP: “I do not need to tell this audience how short-sighted and inaccurate that assumption was. History has not ended. On the contrary, it has entered a new phase. And the reason is not that some malicious opponents, rivals, or subversive elements prevented the West from establishing its system of global power.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union as an alternative, many thought that the Western, monopolistic system had come to stay, almost for all eternity, and they needed to adjust to it. But that system started wobbling on its own, under the weight of the ambitions and greed of those Western elites. When they saw that other nations became prosperous and assumed leadership in the system they had created to suit their needs, (Ed: Yalta, Bretton Woods and so on) systems to suit their own needs after WWII, and later, after the Cold War, those who thought they had won the Cold War started adjusting it to suit their own needs—so, when they saw that other leaders appeared within the framework of the system they created to suit their own needs, they immediately tried to adjust it, violating in the process the very same rules they upheld the day before and changing the rules they themselves had established.”

RPA: Putin is referring in part here to the globally agreed institutions and the manipulation of or ignoring of dispute resolution processes that should be held at the United Nations or at organs of this, such as the World Trade Organisation, World Bank, and World Health Organisation and so on, all of which have been bypassed when dealing with international disputes involving everything from war to pandemics and financial issues.

VP: “What conflict are we witnessing today? It is not a conflict of everyone against everyone caused by a digression from the rules the West keeps telling us about. Not at all. It is a conflict between the overwhelming majority of the global population, which wants to live and develop in an interconnected world with a great deal of opportunities, and the global minority, whose only concern, as I have said, is the preservation of its domination. To achieve this goal, they are prepared to destroy the achievements that are the result of a long period of movement towards a common global system. As we see, they are not succeeding, and will not succeed.

At the same time, the West is hypocritically attempting to persuade us that the achievements humanity has strived for since the Second World War are jeopardized. This is not the case at all. Both Russia and the vast majority of nations are committed to bolstering the spirit of international advancement and the aspirations for lasting peace that have been central to development since the mid-20th century.

What is truly at stake is something quite different. What is at stake is the West’s monopoly, which emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union and was held temporarily at the end of the 20th century. But let me reiterate, any monopoly, as history teaches us, eventually comes to an end. There can be no illusions about this. Monopoly is invariably detrimental, even to the monopolists themselves.

The policies of the elites within the collective West may be influential, but given the limited membership of this exclusive club, they are neither forward-looking nor creative; rather, they focus on maintaining the status quo. Any sports enthusiast, not to mention professionals in football, hockey, or martial arts, knows that a holding strategy almost invariably leads to defeat.”

RPA: While Putin did not raise any new points, he set out yet again the thoughts he has been repeating consistently for decades as part of the Russia/West conundrum. They are far from revolutionary, instead appearing as basic common sense.

VP: “Turning to the dialectics of history, we can assert that the coexistence of conflict and the pursuit of harmony is inherently unstable. The contradictions of our era must eventually be resolved through synthesis, transitioning to a new quality. As we embark on this new phase of development, building a new global architecture, it is crucial for us all to avoid repeating the mistakes of the late 20th century when the West attempted to impose a deeply flawed model of Cold War withdrawal, which was fraught with the potential for new conflicts.

In the emerging multipolar world, there should be no nations or peoples left as losers or feeling aggrieved and humiliated. Only then can we secure truly sustainable conditions for universal, equitable, and secure development. The desire for cooperation and interaction is undoubtedly prevailing, overcoming even the most acute situations. This represents the international mainstream – the backbone course of events.

Standing at the epicenter of the tectonic shifts brought about by these profound changes in the global system, it is challenging to predict the future. However, understanding the general trajectory—from hegemony to a complex world of multilateral cooperation allows us to attempt to sketch at least some of the pending contours.”

RPA: The basis of BRICS and BRICS+, and other associations such as the SCO, EAEU, MERCOSUR, AfCFTA, and GCC, and similar have their roots in this perspective.

VP: “During my address at last year’s Valdai Forum, I ventured to delineate six principles which, in our estimation, ought to underpin relations as we embark upon a new phase of historical progression. I am persuaded that the events which have unfolded and the passage of time have only corroborated the fairness and validity of the proposals we advanced. Let me expound upon these principles.

Firstly, openness to interaction stands as the paramount value cherished by the overwhelming majority of nations and peoples. The endeavor to construct artificial barriers is not only flawed because it impedes normal and advantageous economic progression, but also because it is particularly perilous amidst natural disasters and socio-political turmoil, which, unfortunately, are all too common in international affairs.

To illustrate, consider the scenario that unfolded last year following the devastating earthquake in Asia Minor. For purely political reasons, aid to the Syrian people was obstructed, resulting in certain regions bearing the brunt of the calamity. Such instances of self-serving, opportunistic interests thwarting the pursuit of the common good are not isolated.

RPA: Putin is referring here to the 2023 earthquake which affected northern Turkiye and Syria, which was one of the strongest earthquakes ever recorded in the Levant. 53,537 people died, and 107,213 were injured. About 15.73 million people were temporarily displaced, with 2 million permanently evacuated. 4 million buildings damaged were damaged and 895,000 residences destroyed. More than 20% of Turkiye’s annual agriculture production was affected. Western assistance was mostly withheld due to the political situation at that time, leaving ordinary civilians in the region exposed to acute food shortages and freezing weather conditions. Turkiye, Iran and Russia provided the majority of aid and relief.

VP: “A barrier-free environment is therefore indispensable not merely for economic prosperity but also for addressing acute humanitarian exigencies. As we confront new challenges, including the ramifications of rapid technological advancements, it is imperative for humanity to consolidate intellectual efforts. It is telling that those who now stand as the principal adversaries of openness are the very individuals who, until recently, extolled these same virtues.

Presently, these same forces and individuals wield restrictions as a tool of pressure against dissenters. This tactic will prove futile, for the same reason that the vast global majority wants openness, devoid of politicization.”

RPA: There are numerous other examples of dubious Western behaviour based on political will overriding humanitarian concerns. Following the United States withdrawal from Afghanistan, the US government sequestered the US$7 billion capital assets of the Afghan Central Bank held for safety in New York, and in breach of all fiduciary laws and agreed responsibilities, distributed half of this money to American individuals who had been affected by the 9-11 attacks. The United States has also refused to provide aid to the country.

More recently, the European Union has also refused aid to Palestinians, with some countries refusing medical treatmentto injured Palestinians.

VP: “Secondly, Russia has consistently underscored the diversity of the world as a prerequisite for its sustainability. It may appear paradoxical, as greater diversity complicates the construction of a unified narrative. Naturally, universal norms are presumed to aid in this regard. Can they fulfill this role? It stands to reason that this is a formidable and complicated task. Firstly, we must avoid a scenario where the model of one country or a relatively minute segment of humanity is presumed universal and imposed upon others. Secondly, it is untenable to adopt any conventional, albeit democratically developed code and dictate it as an infallible truth to others in perpetuity.

The international community is a living entity, with its civilizational diversity making it unique and presenting an inherent value. International law is a product of agreements not even between countries, but between nations, because legal consciousness is an integral part of every unique culture and every civilization.”

RPA: Putin raises an important point here that is somewhat unique to both the Soviet era and the contemporary Russian Federation and in which it has greater social assimilation expertise than the West, which struggles with the same issue. This is the commonality between races, religions and cultures. The Soviet Union encompassed a massive diversity of people, and by and large, kept the peace following World War Two. That has not been the case afterwards, with conflicts springing up between Georgia and Abkhazia, Armenia and Azerbaijan and of course Ukraine and Russia. This implies that Russian security and society at that time directly assisted with social intercourse.

Contemporary Russia is not dissimilar. The Russian Federation includes regions that are Orthodox Christian, Buddhist, Islamic and Jewish with all upholding their traditional values yet existing in peace.

VP: “The crisis of international law, which is the subject of broad public discussion today, is, in a sense, a crisis of growth.

The rise of nations and cultures that have previously remained on the periphery of global politics for one reason or another means that their own distinct ideas of law and justice are playing an increasingly important role. They are diverse. This may give the impression of discord and perhaps cacophony, but this is only the initial phase. It is my deep conviction that the only new international system possible is one embracing polyphony, where many tones and many musical themes are sounded together to form harmony. We are moving towards a world system that is going to be polyphonic rather than polycentric, one in which all voices are heard and, most importantly, absolutely must be heard. Those who are used to soloing and want to keep it that way will have to get used to the new “scores” now.

Meanwhile, what is mentioned as post-WWII international law is based on the current United Nations Charter, which was written by the victorious countries. But the world is changing—with new centers of power emerging and powerful economies growing and coming to the forefront. That predictably calls for a change in the legal regulation as well. Of course, this must be done carefully, but it is inevitable. Law reflects life, not vice versa.”

RPA: There are proposed reforms to the UN Charter, which have been recently formulated by the Chinese President, Xi Jinping. Called the “Global Governance Initiative” our overview of this document can be accessed here.

VP: “Thirdly, we believe that a new world can develop successfully only through the broadest inclusion. The experience of the last couple of decades has clearly demonstrated what usurpation leads to when someone awards solely to themselves the right to speak and act on behalf of others.

Those countries – commonly referred to as the “Great Powers” have come to believe that they are entitled to dictate to others what their interests are – but in fact, to define others’ national interests based on their own. Not only does this violate the principles of democracy and justice, but worst of all, it hinders actual solutions to the problems at hand.

In its very diversity, the emerging world is bound to be anything but simple. The more participants that are involved in this process, the more challenging it becomes to identify an optimal solution that satisfies all parties. Yet, once such a solution is achieved, there is hope that it will be both sustainable and enduring. This, in turn, allows us to dispense with arrogance and impulsive flip-flop policies, and to instead foster political processes that are both meaningful and rational, guided by the principle of reasonable adequacy. By and large, this principle is spelled out in the UN Charter and within the Security Council.

What is the right of veto? What purpose does it serve? It exists to prevent the adoption of decisions that do not suit players on the international stage. Is this beneficial or detrimental? It may be perceived as detrimental by some, as it allows one party to obstruct decision-making. However, it is beneficial in that it prevents the passage of decisions that are unacceptable to certain parties. What does this imply? What does this stipulation signify? It urges us to enter the negotiating chamber and reach consensus. That is its essence.”

RPA: Here, Putin is referring to the UN Security Council (It consists of 15 members: five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms. The Council has the authority to issue binding resolutions, enact international sanctions, and authorize military action). Interestingly, he doesn’t see the veto mechanism as necessarily obstructive although Russia has criticized vetoes in the past. Russia is looking to expand its permanent membership to include India, Brazil, and the African Union.

VP: “As the world transitions to a multipolar reality, we must develop mechanisms to broaden the application of such principles. In each instance, decisions must not only be collective but must also involve those participants capable of making a meaningful and significant contribution to resolving the issues at hand. These are primarily the actors with a vested interest in finding a positive resolution, as their future security—and, consequently, their prosperity—depends on it.

There are countless examples where complex yet solvable contradictions between neighboring countries and peoples have escalated into intractable, endemic conflicts due to the maneuverings and blatant interference of external forces, who are, in essence, indifferent to the fate of the conflict participants, regardless of the bloodshed or casualties inflicted. Those who intervene externally do so purely out of self-interest, without bearing any responsibility.

I believe that regional organizations will assume a significant role in the future, as neighboring nations, irrespective of the complexity of their relations, are invariably united by a shared interest in stability and security. For them, compromises are indispensable to achieving optimal conditions for their own development.”

RPA: Putin is saying here that Russia is prepared to work with all members of the global community.

VP: “Next, the key principle of security for all without exception is that the security of one nation cannot be ensured at the expense of others’ security. I am not saying anything new. It has been set out in OSCE documents. We only need to implement them.

The bloc policy and the legacy of the Cold War colonial era run contrary to the essence of the new international system, which is open and flexible. There is only one bloc in the world that is held together by the so-called obligations and strict ideological dogmas and cliches. It is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which continues expansion to Eastern Europe and is now trying to spread its approaches to other parts of the world, contrary to its own statutory documents. It is an open anachronism.

We talked on many occasions about the destructive role NATO continued to play, especially after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty Organization, when it seemed that the alliance had lost its formally declared reason and the meaning of its existence. I believe that the United States recognized that this instrument was becoming unattractive and redundant, but it needed the bloc and still needs it to exercise command in the zone of its influence. That is why they need conflicts. (ed: to justify NATO’s continued existence).

Even before the modern-day acute conflicts began, many European leaders told me, “Why are they trying to scare us with you? We are not frightened, and we do not see any threats.” This is an exact quote. I believe that the United States was aware of or sensed this as well and regarded NATO as an organization of secondary importance. I know what I am speaking about. However, experts there knew that they needed NATO. How could they maintain its value and attraction? They needed to scare everyone and to divide Russia and Europe, especially Russia and Germany and France, by means of conflicts. This is why they pushed the situation towards a state coup in Ukraine and hostilities in its southeastern regions, in Donbass. They simply forced us to respond, and in this sense, they have attained their goal. As I see it, the same is taking place in Asia (ed: The China-Taiwan issue in particular) and on the Korean Peninsula.

We see that the global minority is preserving and strengthening its military bloc in order to maintain its power. However, even the bloc countries themselves see and understand that this Big Brotherish, dictatorial approach does not help achieve the goals they are facing. Moreover, these aspirations run contrary to the interests of the rest of the world. Cooperating with countries that can benefit you and developing partner ties with those who are interested in this is a clear priority for the majority of countries worldwide.”

RPA: The rhetoric comparing from NATO as opposed to the BRICS is illustrative: one is talking up conflict and militarization, the other, trade and development. Yet even here, Western narratives paint the BRICS as a threat.

VP: “It is obvious that military-political and ideological blocs are yet another form of obstacle created to hinder the natural development of a multipolar international system. I would like to point out that the notion of a zero-sum game, where only one side wins and all the others lose in the end, is a Western political creation. During the period of Western domination, this approach was imposed on everyone as a universal approach, but it is far from being universal and is not always effective.

Eastern philosophy, as many here are deeply familiar with, takes a fundamentally different approach. It seeks harmony of interests, aiming for everyone to achieve their essential goals without compromising the interests of others, the principle of “I win, and you win too.” All the ethnicities of Russia, throughout history, whenever possible, have similarly emphasized that the priority is not to impose one’s views at any cost, but rather to persuade and to foster genuine partnership and equal cooperation.

Our history, including the history of our national diplomacy, has repeatedly demonstrated the values of honor, nobility, peacemaking, and leniency. One needs only to recall Russia’s role in shaping the order in Europe after the Napoleonic Wars.

The emerging community within the BRICS framework serves as a prototype for new, free, and non-block relationships between states and peoples. Even

some NATO members, (ed: especially Turkiye) are interested in closer cooperation with BRICS. It is likely that other countries may also consider deeper collaboration with BRICS in the future.

Last year, our country held the chairmanship of the BRICS group, culminating in a summit in Kazan. Building a unified approach among many countries, each with distinct interests, is a challenging task. Diplomats and government officials had to invest considerable effort, employ tact, and actively practice listening to one another to reach the desired outcome. This required significant dedication, but it fostered a unique spirit of cooperation grounded not in coercion but in mutual understanding.

We are confident that BRICS serves as a strong example of genuinely constructive cooperation in today’s evolving international landscape. Additionally, BRICS platforms—where entrepreneurs, scientists, and intellectuals from our countries meet—can become spaces for deep philosophical and foundational insights into the current global development processes. This approach embraces the unique characteristics of each civilization, including its culture, history, and traditional identities.”

RPA: The BRICS now contains ten full members: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, Indonesia and the UAE, and a further ten partner countries: Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.

VP: “The future Eurasian security system, (ed: a reference to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, not the BRICS) now beginning to take shape across our vast continent, is founded on a spirit of respect and mutual consideration of interests. This approach is not only genuinely multilateral but also multifaceted. Today, security is a complex notion that encompasses more than just military and political dimensions; it cannot be achieved without socio-economic development and the resilience of states against a range of challenges, from natural to man-made. This concept of security spans both the physical and digital realms, including cyberspace and beyond.

My fifth point is about justice for all. Inequality is the true scourge of the modern world. Countries face social tension and political instability within their borders due to inequality, while on the international stage the development gap that separates the so-called Golden Billion from the rest of humankind may not only result in more political differences and confrontation but also, and even more importantly, exacerbate migration-related issues.

There is hardly a developed country on this planet that has not faced an increasingly uncontrolled and unmanageable inflow of people seeking to improve their well-being, social status and to have a future. Many of these people are simply trying to survive.

In wealthier societies, these uncontrolled migration flows, in turn, feed xenophobia and intolerance towards migrants, creating a spiraling sense of social and political unease and raising the level of aggression.

There are many reasons to explain why many countries and societies have been falling behind in terms of their social and economic development. Of course, there is no magical cure for this problem. It requires a long-term, system-wide effort, beginning with the creation of the necessary conditions to remove artificial, politically motivated development barriers.

Attempts to weaponize the economy, regardless of the target, are detrimental to everyone, with the most vulnerable—people and countries in need of support—being the first to suffer.

We are confident that such issues as food security, energy security, access to healthcare and education, and finally, the orderly and free movement of people must not be impacted by whatever conflicts or disputes. These are fundamental human rights.

My sixth point – which I keep emphasizing – is that sovereign equality is an imperative for any lasting international framework. Of course, countries differ in terms of their potential. This is an obvious fact. The same applies to the capabilities and opportunities they have. In this context, we often hear that achieving total equality would be impossible, amounting to wishful thinking, a utopia.

However, what makes today’s world special is its interconnected and holistic nature. In fact, sometimes countries that may not be as powerful or large as others play an even greater role compared to great powers by being more rational and results-driven in using their human and intellectual capital, natural resources, and environment-related capabilities; by being more flexible and smart when tackling challenging matters; and by setting higher living and ethical standards, as well as in administration and management, while also empowering all their people to fulfill their potential and creating a favorable psychological environment. This approach can bring about scientific breakthroughs, promote entrepreneurial activity, art and creativity, and empower young people. Taken together, all of this counts in terms of global influence and appeal. Let me paraphrase a law of physics: you can outperform others without getting ahead of them.

The most harmful and destructive attitude that we see in the modern world is supreme arrogance, which translates into a desire to condescendingly lecture others, endlessly and obsessively. Russia has never done this. This is not who or what we are.”

RPA: The very nature of Putin’s speech and its contents confirms this view. The West’s approach to this is currently in direct opposition, with examples here, here and here.

VP: “We can see that our approach is productive. Historical experience irrefutably shows that inequality—in society, in government, or in the international arena—always has harmful consequences.

Over several centuries, the Western-centric world has embraced certain clichés and stereotypes concerning the global hierarchy. There is supposedly a developed world, a progressive society, and a universal civilization that everyone should strive to join—while at the other end, there are backward, uncivilized nations and barbarians. Their job is to listen unquestioningly to what they are told from the outside and to act on the instructions issued by those who are allegedly superior to them in this civilizational hierarchy.

It is clear that this concept works for a crude colonial approach, for the exploitation of the global majority. The problem is that this essentially racist ideology has taken root in the minds of many, creating a serious mental obstacle to general harmonious growth.

The modern world tolerates neither arrogance nor wanton disregard for others being different. To build normal relationships, above all, one needs to listen to the other party and try to understand their logic and cultural background, rather than expecting them to think and act the way you think they should based on your beliefs about them. Otherwise, communication turns into an exchange of clichés and flinging labels, and politics devolves into a conversation of the deaf.”

RPA: As is so often the case on most public forums and comments sections in Western media today. Even EU Prime Ministers now resort to public mud-slinging. Interestingly, the same formats in similar Russia, and Asian media are generally far more engaging and constructive. Recent comments by the Singaporean Prime Minister as concerns European attitudes are also of note in this context.

VP: “The truth is that we see how they engage with other cultures that are different. On the surface, they show genuine interest in local music and folklore, seeming to praise and enjoy them, but beneath this facade, their economic and security policies remain neocolonial.

Look at how the World Trade Organization operates—it does not solve anything because all Western countries, the main economies, are blocking everything. They always act in their own interests, constantly replicating the same models they used decades and centuries ago—to continue to control everyone and everything.

It should be remembered that everyone is equal, meaning that everyone is entitled to have their own vision, which is no better or worse than others – it is just different, and everyone needs to sincerely respect that. Acknowledging this can pave the way for mutual understanding of interests, mutual respect, and empathy, that is, the ability to show compassion, to relate to others’ problems, and the ability to consider differing opinions or arguments. This requires not only listening but also altering behaviour and policies accordingly.

Listening and considering does not mean accepting or agreeing, not at all. This simply means recognizing the other party’s right to their own worldview. In fact, this is the first necessary step towards harmonizing different mindsets. Difference and diversity must be viewed as wealth and opportunities, not as reasons for conflict. This, too, reflects the dialectics of history.”

RPA: Putin upholding the belief that “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I defend your right to say it” – being a cornerstone of democracy.

VP: “We all understand here that an era of radical change and transformation invariably brings upheavals and shocks, which is quite unfortunate. Interests clash as if various actors have to adjust to one another once again. The world’s interconnected nature does not always help mitigate these differences. Of course, this is quite true. On the contrary, it can make things worse, sometimes even injecting more confusion into their relations and making it much harder to find a way out.

Over the many centuries of its history, humanity has grown accustomed to viewing the use of force as the last resort for resolving differences: “Might makes right.” Yes, sometimes this principle does work. Indeed, sometimes countries have no other choice than to stand for their interests with arms in hand and using all available means.

That said, we live in an interconnected and complex world, and it is becoming increasingly complex. While the use of force may help address a specific issue, it may, of course, bring about other and sometimes even greater challenges. And we understand this. Our country has never been the one to initiate the use of force: we are forced to do that only when it becomes clear that our opponent is acting aggressively and is not willing to listen to any type of argument. And whenever necessary, we will take any measure we need to protect Russia and all its citizens, and we will always achieve our goals.

We live in an intrinsically diverse, non-linear world. This is something we have always understood, and this is what we know today. It is not my intention today to revel in the past, but I can remember quite well the situation we had back in 1999, when I became Prime Minister and then went on to become President. I remember the challenges we faced at the time. I think that Russian people, just like the experts who have gathered in this room, all remember the forces which backed terrorists in North Caucasus, who supplied them weapons, sponsored them, and offered moral, political, ideological, and informational support, and the extent of these practices.

I can only state, with both ridicule and sadness, at what we were hearing at the time: “We are dealing with al-Qaeda, which is evil, but as long as Russia is the target, it is fine.” What kind of attitude is that? All this brings nothing but conflict. At the time we had a goal to invest everything we had and spend all the time at our disposal and all our capabilities to keep the country together. Of course, this served everyone’s interests in Russia. Despite the dire economic situation in the wake of the 1998 economic crisis and despite the devastated state of our military, we came together as a nation to fend off this terrorist threat and went on to defeat it. Make no mistake about that.”

RPA: Putin recalling that Western powers recruited Al-Qaeda Islamic insurgents to fight a bloody war against Russia in Chechnya and Dagestan and funded them.

VP: “Why have I brought this to your attention? In fact, once again some have come to believe that the world would be better off without Russia. At that time, they tried to finish Russia off after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Today, it seems that someone is once again nurturing this dream. They think that this would make the world more obedient and pliant. However, Russia stopped those aspiring to global dominance in their tracks many times over, no matter who it was. This is how it will be in the future, too. In fact, the world would hardly get any better. This message must finally get across to those trying to go down this road. It would do nothing but make things even more complicated than they are today.

Our opponents are coming up with new ways and devising new tools in their attempts to get rid of us. Today, they have been using Ukraine and its people as a tool by cynically pitching them against Russians and turning them into cannon fodder, all while perorating about a European choice. What kind of choice is that? Let me assure you that this is not our choice. We will defend ourselves and our people—I want this to be absolutely clear to everyone.

Russia’s role is certainly not limited to protecting and preserving itself. It may sound rather grand, but Russia’s very existence guarantees that the world will retain its wide colour gamut, diversity, and complexity, which is the key to successful development.”

RPA: Another reference to Russia’s unique multicultural make up.

VP: “To reiterate, we are not imposing anything on anyone and will not do so. We do not need that, and no one else needs it, either. We are guided by our own values, interests, and ideas of what is right and what is not, which are rooted in our identity, history, and culture. We are always ready for a constructive dialogue with everyone.

Those who respect their culture and traditions have no right not to treat others with the same respect. Conversely, those who are trying to force others into inappropriate behaviour invariably tramples their own roots, civilization, and culture into mud, some of what we are witnessing.

Russia is fighting for its freedom, rights, and sovereignty. I am not exaggerating, because over the previous decades everything, on the face of it, looked favorable and nice when they turned the G7 into the G8 and, thankfully, invited us to be members.

Do you know what was going on there? I witnessed it firsthand. You arrive at a G8 meeting, and it becomes immediately clear that prior to the G8 meeting, the G7 had gotten together and discussed things among themselves, including with regard to Russia, and then invited Russia to come. They give you a warm hug and a pat on the back. But in practice they do something opposite. And they never stop to make their way forward.”

RPA: Putin is saying that Russia was invited to be part of the G8 mainly so the G7 could analyze what Moscow’s attitudes and policies were rather than any attempt to cooperate. The US President Donald Trump has recently suggested that Russia rejoin the G8 to which the response from the Russian Foreign Minister, has been, in light of the emergence of the BRICS, that Moscow now regards the G7 as an ‘outdated format’.

VP: “This can be seen particularly clearly in the context of NATO’s eastward expansion. They promised they would never expand, but they keep doing it. In the Caucasus, and with regard to the missile defense system take anything, any key issue—they simply did not care about Russia’s opinion. In the end, all of that taken together started looking like a creeping intervention, which either seeks to either degrade us or, even better for them, to destroy our country, either from within or from outside.”

RPA: The brief 2008 war with Georgia was another case in point. That began after Georgia committed acts of genocide against the Abkhazian minority population in what was then north-west Georgia, including the shooting of civilians and the burning down of the Abkhazian national library and museum. The Russian military became involved, crossed into Georgia and travelled all the way to Tbilisi, where they destroyed a couple of buildings, then retreated, while annexing the Abkhazia region to become part of the Russian Federation. The border with Georgia remains closed along this region. What was both a political miscalculation by Georgia and funded by the West, became known as a ‘Russian invasion’ whereas it was in reality nothing of the sort.

VP: “Eventually, they got to Ukraine and moved into it with their bases and NATO. In 2008, they decided at a meeting in Bucharest to open the doors to NATO for Ukraine and Georgia. Why would they do that? Were they confronted with any difficulties in international affairs? Indeed, we did not see eye-to-eye with Ukraine on gas prices, but we addressed these issues effectively. What was the problem? Why do it and create grounds for a conflict? It was clear from day one what it would ultimately lead too. Still, they kept pressing ahead with it. Next thing you know, they started expanding into our historical territories and supporting a regime that clearly tilted toward neo-Nazism.”

RPA: Ukraine’s historical position as regards Nazism is problematic. Approximately 250,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians fought for Nazi Germany in various military formations and security units, including the SS Galicia Division and the Ukrainian National Army. This collaboration occurred because many non-Russian citizens of the Soviet Union initially viewed the Germans as less of an evil than the Soviet Union, with these forces participating in atrocities and the Holocaust. In stark contrast, the majority of Ukrainians – around 7 million – fought against the Nazis as part of the Soviet Red Army.

Since 2014 however, Ukraine has been honouring World War Two era Ukrainian soldiers who fought for Nazi Germany against Russia, and has rehabilitated many past figures of individuals who in Russia are regarded as war criminals.

Ukraine’s Azov Regiment (officially the 12th Special Forces Brigade) is a Ukrainian National Guard unit formed as a volunteer militia in 2014 which openly uses Nazi symbolism in recognition of Nazi Germany fighting the Red Army during WWII.

In Ukrainian social life, Kiev has recently banned the Russian Orthodox Church, criminalized the speaking of the Russian language, and forbidden Russian music, literature and arts in pogroms reminiscent of how pro-Nazi Ukrainians once treated the Jews.

VP: “Therefore, we can safely say and reiterate that we are fighting not only for our freedom, not only for our rights, or for our sovereignty, but also for upholding universal rights and freedoms and the continued existence and development of the absolute majority of the countries around the world. To a certain extent, we see this as our country’s mission as well.

Everyone should be clear that putting pressure on us is useless, but we are always prepared to sit down and talk based on consideration of our mutual legitimate interests in their entirety. This is something that we urge all international dialogue members to do. In that case, there may be little doubt that 20 years from now, in the run-up to the 100th anniversary of the United Nations, people who at this point may be schoolchildren, students, postgraduates, or young researchers, or aspiring experts, will be discussing much more optimistic and life-affirming topics than the ones that we are compelled to discuss today.

Thank you very much for your attention.”

The full text can be found here.

Comments

Putin’s comments are clear enough without the need for further analysis. All we can suggest is that they are rather more coherent and rational than rhetoric emanating from most European Union and American politicians at present. A classic example being the immediate response from the European Council On Foreign Relations, which claimed that Putin had named Europe “Enemy Number One“. Clearly, the differences between the European and Russian intellects and understandings remain soberingly stark.