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

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/75521

From the President's speech:

"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.

The coming world will not be simple precisely because of its diversity. The more full-fledged participants in the process, the more difficult, of course, to find the optimal option that suits everyone. But when it is found, there is hope that the solution will be sustainable and long-term. And it also allows you to get rid of tyranny and impulsive shuffling and, on the contrary, make political processes meaningful and rational, guided by the principle of reasonable sufficiency. By and large, this principle is laid down in the UN Charter, and this principle is in the Security Council. Veto power is what? What was the veto for? So that there are no decisions that do not suit the players in the international arena. Is it good or bad? It's bad, probably, for someone that one of the parties puts a barrier when making decisions. But it's good in the sense that solutions that do not suit someone do not pass. What does that say? This norm says what? Go to the meeting room and negotiate - that's the point.

However, as the world becomes multipolar, it is necessary to find tools that would expand the use and mechanisms of this kind. In each case, the decision should not just be collective, but include the composition of the participants who are able to make a meaningful and significant contribution to resolving problems. These are, first of all, those participants who are directly interested in finding a positive way out of the situation, because their future security, and therefore prosperity, actually depends on it.

There are no examples of how complex, but in fact resolved contradictions of neighboring countries and peoples turned into irreconcilable chronic conflicts due to intrigue and gross interference of external forces, which, in principle, do not care what happens next to the participants in these conflicts, how much blood will be shed, how many victims they will suffer. They are simply guided - those who interfere from the outside - by their purely selfish interests, while not taking any responsibility.

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

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

The bloc approach, the legacy of the colonial era of the Cold War, contradicts the nature of the new international system, open and flexible. There is only one bloc left in the world today, soldered by the so-called "obligation," rigid ideological dogmas and clichés - the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which, without stopping its expansion to the east of Europe, is now trying to extend its approaches to other parts of the world, violating its own statutory documents. It's just an outright anachronism.

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

You know, even before all the acute conflicts of today, many European leaders told me: that they scare us with you, we are not afraid, we do not see any threats. It's direct speech, you know? I think that in the States they perfectly understood this, felt it, they themselves already treated NATO as a secondary organization. Trust me, I know what I'm saying. But still, experts there understood that NATO was needed. And how to preserve its value, attractiveness? It is necessary to scare properly, it is necessary to break Russia and Europe among themselves, especially Russia and Germany, France conflicts. So they brought it to a coup in Ukraine and to hostilities in the southeast, in the Donbass. They just forced us to retaliate, in this sense they achieved what they wanted. The same thing happens in Asia, on the Korean Peninsula, it seems to me.

In fact, we see that the world minority, preserving and strengthening its military bloc, hopes in this way to maintain power. However, even within this block itself, one can already understand that the cruel dictate of the "elder brother" does not contribute to the solution of the tasks facing everyone. Moreover, such aspirations are clearly opposite to the interests of the rest of the world. To cooperate with those with whom it is beneficial, to establish partnerships with everyone who is interested in this - this is an obvious priority of most countries on the planet.

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

For example, Eastern philosophy, and many here in this room know this firsthand, no worse, and maybe even better than me, is built on a completely different approach. This is a search for harmony of interests so that everyone can achieve the most important for themselves, but not to the detriment of the interests of others. "I win, but you win, too." And Russian people are always in Russia, all the peoples of Russia, whenever possible, proceeded from the fact that the main thing is not to push their opinion by any means, but to try to convince, interest in honest partnership and equal interaction.

Our history, including the history of domestic diplomacy, has repeatedly shown what honor, nobility, peacemaking, and condescension mean. Suffice it to recall the role of Russia in the structure of Europe after the era of the Napoleonic Wars. I know that there, to a certain extent, this is seen as a return, as an attempt to keep the monarchy there, and so on. This is not the point now. I am talking in general about the approach to how these issues were resolved.

The prototype of a new, free and non-bloc nature of relations between states and peoples is a community that is now being formed within the framework of the BRICS. This, among other things, clearly illustrates the fact that even among NATO members there are those, as you know, who show interest in working closely with the BRICS. I do not exclude that in the future other states will think about joint, closer work with BRICS.

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

And we are confident that BRICS gives everyone a good example of truly constructive cooperation in the new international situation. I will add that the BRICS sites, meetings of entrepreneurs, scientists, intellectuals of our countries can become a space for a deep philosophical, fundamental understanding of modern processes of world development, taking into account the characteristics of each civilization with its culture, history, and identity of traditions.

The spirit of respect and consideration of interests - this is also the basis of the future system of Eurasian security, which is beginning to take shape on our vast mainland. And this is not only a truly multilateral approach, but also a multifaceted one. After all, security today is a complex concept, which includes not only military-political aspects. Security is impossible without guarantees of socio-economic development and ensuring the stability of states in the face of any challenges - from natural to man-made - whether we are talking about the material or digital world, cyberspace, and so on.

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

Almost all developed countries of the planet are faced with an increasingly controlled influx of those who hope in this way to improve their financial situation, increase social status, gain prospects, and sometimes just survive.

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

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

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

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

Sixth. We never tire of emphasizing that any stable international order can only be based on the principles of sovereign equality. Yes, all countries have different potential, this is obvious, and their capabilities are far from the same. In this regard, one often hears that complete equality is impossible, utopian and illusory. But the peculiarity of the modern world, closely related and integral, is precisely that states are not the most powerful, large, often play an even greater role, than giants, if only because they are able to use their human more rationally and purposefully, intellectual, natural and environmental potential, flexible and reasonable approach to solving complex issues, set high standards in quality of life, in ethics, in management efficiency, in creating opportunities for self-realization of everyone, in the formation of conditions, a favorable psychological atmosphere in society for the take-off of science, entrepreneurship, art, creativity, and the disclosure of youth talent. All this is now becoming factors of global influence. To paraphrase the physical laws: losing in the sense, you can win in performance".