Valdai Discussion Club meeting
Vladimir Putin took
part in the plenary session of the 21st annual
meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.
November 7, 2024
23:50
Sochi
The theme
of the meeting is Lasting Peace on What Basis? Common Security
and Equal Opportunities for Development in the 21st Century.
* * *
Research Director of the Foundation
for Development and Support of the Valdai International
Discussion Club Fyodor Lukyanov: Ladies and gentlemen, guests, friends,
participants of the Valdai Discussion Club meeting!
We are starting
the plenary session of the 21st annual meeting
of the Valdai International Discussion Club. We have spent four
wonderful days full of discussions and now we can try to sum up
some of the results.
I would like
to invite President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin
to the stage.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Thank you. Thank
you very much.
Good afternoon, ladies
and gentlemen, friends,
I am delighted
to welcome all of you to our traditional meeting. First
of all, I would like to thank you for taking part
in acute and substantive discussions of the Valdai Club. We
are meeting on November 7, which is a significant date both
for Russia and the entire world. The Russian Revolution
of 1917, like the Dutch, English and great French Revolutions
in their time, all became, to a certain extent, milestones
in the development path of humanity and largely determined
the course of history, the nature of politics, diplomacy,
economies, and social structure.
We are also 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. By the way, in cases like this they often
say that time flies by quickly, but not in this case. These two
decades were more than 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, global epidemics, about complex
and controversial ethical aspects of interaction between humans
and artificial intelligence, about how traditions and progress
reconcile with each other.
You
and I predicted some of these problems when we met earlier
and even discussed them in detail at the Valdai Club
meetings. We instinctively anticipated some of them, hoping
for the best but not excluding the worst scenario.
Something,
on the contrary, became a complete surprise for everyone.
Indeed, the dynamics is 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 the multitude of factors. As I understand,
you are coming together at the Valdai Club exactly to analyse
all these factors and try to make some predictions, some forecasts.
There comes,
in a way, the moment of truth. The former world
arrangement is irreversibly passing away, actually it has already passed away,
and a serious, irreconcilable struggle is unfolding
for the development of a new world order. It is
irreconcilable, above all, because this is not even a fight for power
or geopolitical influence. It is a clash of the very
principles that will underlie the relations of countries
and peoples at the next historical stage. Its 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 civilisations, without coercion and use of force.
And finally, whether the 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, and the actual
renunciation of the classical principles of democracy, along
with fundamental rights and freedoms. Increasingly often, democracy is
being interpreted not as the rule of majority but
of 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.
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.
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. For the march of history cannot be
halted.
Instead
of recognising 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. I mean to say, such a formula is very dangerous. After
all, as the saying of our and many other countries goes,
”What goes around comes around.“
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.
I am confident
that sooner or later the West will come to this realisation.
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 emphasise once more: unlike our counterparts, Russia does
not view Western civilisation 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 precisely ”one of“ 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.
So far, we –
meaning all those interested in creating a just and stable
world – have been using too much energy to resist
the destructive activities of our opponents, who are clinging
to their monopoly. This is obvious, and everyone
in the west, the east, the south and everywhere else
is aware of this. They are trying to preserve their power
and monopoly, which is obvious.
These efforts could be
directed with much better results towards addressing the common problems
that concern everyone, from demography and social inequality
to 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.
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 characterised
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 favourable periods of interaction. This is
the dynamics 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 – the so-called
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.
I think there is
no need to remind you of what really happened. The very fact that
this Valdai conference, which marks a major anniversary this year, has
attracted such a high-profile audience speaks for itself,
I believe. Valdai is just one example. 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 who believe others
should take their orders can change this.
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. This is obvious;
as people say, there is no prize for guessing. 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 was faced with the task
of avoiding the revival of this evil and a recurrence
of world wars. Despite all the zigzags and local skirmishes,
the general vector was defined at that time. It was 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.
Our country, then
called 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 emphasise 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.
Yes, our 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 wellbeing.
In reality, this reflects a salient feature of our nation’s
mentality, its traditions, values, and spiritual and moral
coordinates.
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, in one way or another. The other party
to the ideological confrontation perceived those historical
developments as its triumph and victory, viewing them as our
country’s surrender to the West and as an opportunity
and the victor’s right to establish complete dominance, rather
than as a chance to rebuild the world based on new
and equitable concepts and principles.
I mentioned this
some time ago, and I will now touch on it briefly, without
mentioning any names. 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 broad 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.
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.
To tell
the truth, after the collapse of the Soviet Union
as a Soviet socialist alternative, many thought that
the monopoly 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 – we must admit that the victorious
nations created the Yalta system 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.
What conflict are we
witnessing today? I am confident that 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 ready 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 jeopardised. This is not the case at all, as I have
just pointed out. 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, as those gathered here understand: 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.
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, as I have previously stated, the West attempted
to impose its, in my view, 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.
Of course,
standing at the epicentre of the tectonic shifts brought
about by 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.
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 endeavour to construct artificial barriers is not only flawed
because it impedes normal and advantageous to everyone 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.
The barrier-free
environment I alluded to last year is indispensable not merely
for economic prosperity but also for addressing acute humanitarian
exigencies. Moreover, 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
its virtues with great fervour.
Presently, these same
forces and individuals endeavour to wield restrictions
as a tool of pressure against dissenters. This tactic will prove
futile, for the same reason that the vast global majority
champions openness devoid of politicisation.
Secondly, we have
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 fulfil 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 civilisational 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 civilisation. 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. If you like, 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.
Have I mentioned
post-WWII international law? This international law is based
on the UN Charter, which was written by the victorious
countries. But the world is changing – with new centres 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.
Thirdly, we have said
more than once that the 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
arrogates to themselves the right to speak and act
on behalf of others.
Those countries that
are commonly referred to as great powers have come to believe
that they are entitled to dictate to others what their interests
are – 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 an actual solution
to the problems at hand.
In its very
diversity, the emerging world is bound to be anything but simple.
The more fully-fledged participants 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, instead fostering 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.
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 neighbouring
countries and peoples have escalated into intractable, endemic conflicts
due to the manoeuvrings 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.
Moreover,
I believe that regional organisations will assume a significant role
in the future, as neighbouring 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.
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 Organisation,
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 Organisation, when it seemed that
the alliance had lost its formally declared reason
and the meaning of its existence. I believe that
the United States recognised 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.
You know, 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, do you see? I believe
that the United States was aware of or sensed this as well,
and regarded NATO as an organisation of secondary
importance. Trust me, 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 and on the Korean
Peninsula now.
Actually, 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 the Big Brother’s harsh dictate
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.
It is obvious that
military-political and ideological blocs are yet another form
of obstacles created to hinder a 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 not always effective.
Eastern philosophy,
as many here are deeply familiar with – perhaps even more so than
I am – 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 emphasised 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 honour, nobility, peacemaking, and leniency. One
needs only to recall Russia’s role in shaping the order
in Europe after the Napoleonic wars. I am aware that some people
there interpret this, to a certain extent, as an effort
to preserve monarchy, and so on. But that is not the point now.
Rather, I am referring to the broader approach taken
in addressing these challenges.
The emerging
community within the BRICS framework serves as a prototype
for new, free, and non-block relationships between states
and peoples. This also highlights that even some NATO members, as you
know, are interested in closer cooperation with BRICS. It is likely that
other countries may also consider deeper collaboration with BRICS in the future.
This year, our country
held the chairmanship of the group, culminating
in a recent summit in Kazan. I cannot deny that 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
civilisation, including its culture, history, and traditional identities.
The future
Eurasian security system, 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
which 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, exacerbates 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 wellbeing, social status and to have
a future. Some of them are simply trying to survive.
In wealthier
societies, these uncontrolled migration flows, in turn, feed xenophobia
and intolerance towards migrants, creating a spiralling 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 ill. 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 weaponise 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 is
that we keep emphasising 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, intellectual capital, natural resources and environment-related
capabilities, by being more flexible and smart when tackling
challenging matters, by setting higher living and ethical standards,
as well as in administration and management, while also
empowering all their people to fulfil their potential and creating
a favourable 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. 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.
I would like
to add something that I may not have mentioned often before. Over
several centuries, the Western-centric world has embraced certain clichés
and stereotypes concerning the global hierarchy. There is supposedly
a developed world, progressive society and some universal
civilisation that everyone should strive to join – while
at the other end, there are backward, uncivilised nations,
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
civilisational 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.
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 neo-colonial.
Look at how
the World Trade Organisation 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 recognising the other party’s right to their own
worldview. In fact, this is the first necessary step towards
harmonising different mindsets. Difference and diversity must be viewed
as wealth and opportunities, not as reasons for conflict.
This, too, reflects the dialectics of history.
We all understand here
that an era or 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 scoff,
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 you are 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 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.
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 a bit 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. These are not
my words. This is something our friends from all regions
of the world often tell me. I am not exaggerating.
To reiterate, we are not imposing anything on anyone and will
never do. 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. And, of course, 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 trample their own roots, civilisation
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 favourable 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 first-hand. You arrive
at a G8 meeting, and it becomes immediately clear that prior
to the G8 meeting, the G7 had got together and discussed
things among themselves, including with regard to Russia, and then
invited Russia to come. You look at it and smile. I always
have. 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.
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
defence system – take anything, any key issue – they simply did not give
a hoot about our opinion. In the end, all of that taken
together started looking like a creeping intervention which, without
exaggeration, sought to either degrade us or, even better for them,
to destroy our country, either from within or from outside.
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, pardon me for my plain language, why on earth 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 anyway. What was the problem? Why do it
and create grounds for a conflict? It was clear from day one
what it would lead to ultimately. 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.
Therefore, we can
safely say and reiterate that we are fighting not only for our
freedom, not only our rights, or our sovereignty, but we are 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 UN, future
guests of a Valdai Club meeting, 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.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, thank you
for this broad and multi-dimensional description
of the world and Russia’s views on it. It is especially
pleasant for us that it was at this platform that you presented your
basic principles last year and you elaborated on them today.
I believe that it
starts looking like a doctrine. We do not expect you to name it after
the Valdai Club, but it is nice that it is being born here.
Mr President, we
discussed many of the issues you have addressed here at our 21st meeting.
I would like – all of us would like to tell you about some
of our ideas, which were not voiced at all our sessions,
of course, because there were many of them, but the ones we
discussed at the most important of them. You have mentioned one
of them.
I would like
to ask your permission to start with Ruslan Yunusov,
a long-running member and colleague whom you know very well. He
attended our session on artificial intelligence, a stand-out issue.
Ruslan Yunusov: Good evening, Mr President.
It is true that we
discussed one of the issues you have mentioned today –
artificial intelligence. We had a separate session at our meeting,
called Artificial Intelligence – A Revolution or a Fashion
Trend?
Before telling you
about the results of that session, I would like to mention
a unique event this year, namely the two Nobel Prizes awarded
for achievements in the field of AI. They were awarded
in both physics and chemistry, which has never happened before. Does
this mean that we are witnessing an AI revolution? I would rather say
“yes” than “no,” although the Nobel Committee’s decisions are often
influenced by fashion trends.
Regarding
the theme of our discussion, I would like to emphasise some
of the aspects were discussed.
We began with
an issue of concern to many. Will artificial intelligence
replace human beings or not, especially in the fields that
require a creative approach, like science and arts? What is
the situation in science today? AI already has a role
in the scientific process indeed. Many achievements have been made
with AI’s assistance. At the same time, we also see that humans have
not been removed from the scientific process but rather than
the process itself has been accelerated and that the demand
for skilled young scientists has increased. So, we do not see any risk
here. We also discussed some aspects of an AI economy. During
the Covid pandemic, around 2020, we thought that recovery from
the global economic recession would be ensured above all
by a driver such as artificial intelligence.
We discussed whether
the forecasts came true or not. It is true that AI is making its way
into the economy, in various economic sectors. But if we look
at the figures, we will see that our optimistic expectations have not
materialised. The result so far is more conservative than we expected.
Moreover, these expectations have not abated, and we see
the development of investment bubbles, which is fraught with negative
economic effects in the future. At the same time,
artificial intelligence as a technology will most likely continue
to develop and will form the basis of the economy.
We have also engaged
in discussions concerning security matters. Today, it is impossible
to overlook the fact that terrorist and extremist organisations
are extensively utilising artificial intelligence technologies
for recruiting new members and in their broader propaganda
efforts. Fake news and videos have become standard tools within their
arsenals.
Conversely, artificial
intelligence is also being used in anti-terrorist
and counter-extremist operations. It aids in identifying these very
extremist elements within society. Moreover, it serves to influence those
harbouring doubts, steering them away from such dangerous paths, thereby
preventing them from succumbing to extremism. This, too, proves effective.
We deliberated
on the balance between the positive and negative aspects
of artificial intelligence in this realm. It appears that
the positive aspects hold sway, and we are hopeful that this balance
will continue to tip in favour of the positive.
Naturally,
at the Valdai forum, we cannot overlook the political dimension
of artificial intelligence. Studies have been conducted where researchers
evaluated the basic generative models of artificial intelligence
for political inclinations. It emerged that artificial intelligence is not
neutral; its political leanings are markedly skewed towards left liberalism,
closely mirroring the views of its creators.
Furthermore,
in recent years, artificial intelligence training has increasingly relied
on synthetic data rather than real-life material, which has contributed
to the radicalisation of these models’ perspectives.
In the coming
years, we will witness the first university graduates who have integrated
artificial intelligence into their academic endeavours. Previously, students
engaged deeply with primary sources when crafting term papers and essays.
Now, with a mere prompt to artificial intelligence, the result
is produced. This shift is poised to diminish educational quality. More
perilously, however, is the subtle influence artificial intelligence
exerts, shaping the worldviews of the youth and instilling
ideologies. These ideologies are often forged not within our country but
abroad, or even further afield, across the ocean.
Summing up, we
recognise the imperative to bolster control over the regulation
of artificial intelligence. However, relying solely on prohibitive
measures will not yield the desired outcomes. Instead, we must support and advance
our domestic artificial intelligence technologies.
It is encouraging that
we have established a robust foundation, and significant progress is
evident. We must continue to build upon this, as it will likely form
the cornerstone of technological sovereignty in this domain.
It is worth noting
that Russia stands among the trio of nations globally with
a comprehensive IT technology stack, which indeed underpins our
sovereignty.
To conclude
my brief remarks, our foreign guests have observed that certain countries
have already imposed restrictions, if not outright bans, on the use
of artificial intelligence technologies. For us, for Russia,
this presents an opportunity. We have the potential to assert
ourselves as a technological leader by exporting artificial
intelligence technologies to our partner countries.
Thank you very much.
To be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment