ransomnote: The transcript is an computerized interpretation of the spoken word. The translator in the video speaks with an accent so there are some phonetic errors.

 ~~~~TRANSCRIPT BEGINS~~~~~

Host Introducing Putin: Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, dear guests of the Valdai Club, we begin our
plenary session of the 22nd annual international discussion.
Club of Valde Forum and it's my privilege to invite President of Russia Vladimir Putin to go on this stage.
Mr. President, thanks a lot for finding time once again to visit our meeting.
The Valde Club has the great privilege
well for more than around 33 years we've been meeting with you discussing the
most relevant issues and I I I'll say that probably very few people can boast
of that and the 22nd meeting of the Valdike Club that has been held in the
past 3 days was titled polyentric world
manual. We are trying
to move from comprehending this new world to some practical matters to be
able to figure out how to live in this world. Now we cannot do that entirely but we might be sophisticated or
advanced but still users and you are a mechanical engineer probably uh of this
multipolar world. So we expect some guidelines, some guidance from you of
how we can apply our potential.

Putin: Well, I can hardly give some guidelines or give you a manual and there is no
point in that because everybody asks for instructions or seeks advice
to fail to follow that. This is a well known well well-known formula. I'll try to express my view
with respect to what has been happening globally and what the possible role of this countries and how we see the
prospects of development.

The international discussion club Vald day
has gathered for the 22nd time and these meetings not only have become a good
tradition and the discussions at the Valdai venue gives us a an impartial
opportunity to com to have an overview of the global situation to register and
comprehend and conceive these changes. Definitely the strong side of the Valdai club is the capability
of its participants to look beyond the trivial and the obvious.

Not following
the agenda imposed by the global information space
and uh internet you know has been contributing in various respects to that
and this is difficult difficult to assess trying to bring up our own issues
and present our own visions. um half opening the veil that conceals the day
of tomorrow. This is not so easy, but sometimes we succeed, including here at
this venue of Valdai. But we noted on many occasions that we're living at a
juncture with rapid and profound changes. I'd say dramatic changes. And
no one definitely can fully foresee the future.

That does not rid us of
obligation to be ready for everything, anything that can happen. As the recent
times and recent developments have shown, we should be ready for anything and the
definitely the everyone's responsibility is huge for the fate of of their role
and for this country and the stakes are extremely high. The annual report of the
Valdai Club has been dedicated this time to the multipolar polyentric world. This
topic has long been on the agenda, but now it merits our special attention. I I'm in agreement with the organizers.

The actual multipolarity defines the frame of reference that the states
operate in. I'd like to try to describe the the
distinctive traits of today. Uh first of all, it is a much more open or creative
space of foreign affairs conduct. There is nothing that has been predetermined in advance. Things may develop
differently and a lot depends on the accuracy and the balance of matter and the degree of restraint
and the the degree of wellthought over actions of all the stakeholders.

And in
this ample space it's very easy to lose your way and lose your bearings. And we
can as we can see that happens quite often. Secondly the this multipolar
space is very dynamic. Changes happen as I have said rapidly and abruptly
overnight and it's hard to prepare for them. It's
hard to predict them and one should respond instantly in real time. Third,
what is important, this space is much more democratic, paving the way for a
big number of political economic stakeholders to come into play. Probably
never in history we had that many countries in the global arena that seek
to influence the regional and global developments. and uh a bigger role than ever before is played by the cultural,
historical, civilization specifics of different countries. One should find uh
common ground and concurrence of interest. No one is ready to play by the rules set by someone
somewhere far away, you know, as a a a well-known song goes
behind the mists or behind or over the oceans. uh in hence the fifth
all decisions are possible based on the accords that would be uh okay for all
the interested or related stakeholders otherwise no viable solution would be
attained only and merely gaudy phrases and fruitless play of ambitions. Hence
to attain the results harmony and balance are needed. And finally, the opportunities and threats
of the multipolar world are inseparable from each other. Definitely uh the
weakening of dictate that was typical of the previous period and expansion of the freedom for all is a an obvious boon. At
the same time, in this context, it's much more difficult to strike this solid balance which is actually a blatant and
extreme risk per se. So such situation on the planet that I have tried to briefly portray is a brand new
phenomenon. The international affairs are going through a radical transformation. Paradoxically
multipolarity has become the direct effect of attempts to impose and maintain the global hegemony. the
response of the international system and the history itself on the to to the obtrusive
aspiration to fit all in a in a single hierarchy with the west at the top. A
failure of such uh an undertaking was only a matter of time and we were warned
about that always and by historical standards that happened quite rapidly.
35 years ago when it seemed that the confrontation was coming to a close and the cold war was coming to a close we
hoped that for an advent of the epoch of true cooperation.
It seemed that no ideological and other obstacles were there that would preclude
to resolve jointly um uniform problems and common problems for the humankind
sorting out and resolving conflicts and disputes building upon the mutual respect and taking into account
everybody's interest. Let me digress and give a historical historical excurses
here. Our country want in wishing to eliminate the grounds for blockbased
confrontation create the common space of security stated two times that we were
ready to join NATO. For the first time, it was back in 1954
in the Soviet Times. And for the second time during the
Junior visit by President Clinton, US President Clinton Moscow in the year 2000 when we spoke about that with him
and uh both times we were turned down, you know, straight away, I repeat, we
were ready for joint work and nonlinear steps in the global security and
stability sphere. But our western counterparts were not ready to rid themselves of the captivity of
geopolitical and historical stereotypes and this simplistic world view. And I
stated about that on many occasions in public when we spoke with President Clinton. He said, "Oh, you know, it's
very interesting. I think it's possible." But several hours later in the evening, he said, "I I I I sought um
the advice of my team. It's unfeasible." And when when will it be feasible? you
know it boiled down to nothing. So a real opportunity to shift to the positive vector is something that we had
but alas some different approach prevailed the western countries succumbed to to see and have this
absolute and will this absolute power. This was a serious strong temptation and
not to succumb one had to have some historical
vision and and good intellectual uh level of education and groundwork and
those who made the decisions did not have this high capacity. The the power
of the United States and the allies peaked at the end of the 20th century. But there can be no single force that
can run the world on its own prescribing what should be done to everybody, how
everyone should breathe. There were some attempts of that, but they all failed. At the same time, one should note that
many of the so-called many believe that the so-called liberal
world order was acceptable or even convenient. Well, yes, hierarchy would
limit the the capability of those who are not at the top of the pyramid of the food chain
if you permit me. But still at the same time they reside at the food but still
that would lift a big chunk of responsibility from them. Just the rules are as follows. Just accept the set of
conditions fit into the system and you receive your dues and be happy. Think of nothing.
others will think and make decisions instead of you no matter what they say,
no matter what they use as pretexts. That was the case and the experts in
this room know that some people were conceited enough to believe that they
can admonish everybody. Others played up to the strong ones being an obedient uh
bargaining cheap in item and trade avoiding problems and receiving their
small perks. And now in the in the old world in Europe, we have a lot of such
politicians left still. Those who uh were not in agreement, tried to uphold
their interests were considered kind of weirdos to put it mildly. And they was
they were told nothing will come out of that. And so you are nothing against our our
power. An empty spot. The most recalcitrant ones
were educated by the self-proclaimed grandees and without any scruples and resistance
was was useless. They said that did not result in anything good. Not a single global problem was resolved. At the same
time, still new and new problems keep piling up the global governance institutions created in the past
either don't operate and work properly or have lost their efficiency to a huge
extent. No matter what capability or potential a single country might have,
any power has its limits. And in Russia we know that there is a
proverb saying might makes right.
How there may be a a stronger might. There always can be a stronger might. You know this is the gist of of of the
global developments. There may always be a stronger might. Attempts to control everything around oneself would result
in overraining and overload and that would uh
impact the internal stability weaken the internal stability giving rise to
legitimate questions among the the nationals of those countries who tried to act as grandees. You know some time
ago I heard similar similar things from our American
colleagues who said that we acquired the world but we lost America. I just want
to ask a question. Was it worth it? And have you have they acquired anything at all? the leading western European
societies are now seeing repulsion of the pr of the excessive
ambitions of the political leadership. The barometer shows that that the sen the establishment doesn't want to seed
power and they have been engaged in direct deception of their nationals
u trying to use ps and that are legal borderline cases or are beyond the law.
you know, turning democratic election procedures into uh fast and manipulating
the will of their people is something that they cannot keep doing forever
and that has been happening in many countries. I will not be specific. In some countries, they trying to prohibit
or ban their political opponents who have been acquiring more legitimacy
and trust among the voters. We saw this movie in the Soviet times.
We had it in the USSR. Just recall the the song by Vikovski. The military
parade was prohibited. Everything will be prohibited shortly. The prohibitions won't won't work.
And the will of the p of a people is simple. Let the
uh let the leadership cater to the needs and the living standards of the people.
Not chasing chimeas. The United States where the bottom-up sentiment of the
people led to radical change of of the political vector is a vivid example and
these examples can can be contagious. The subordination of the majority to minority that is typical of
international relations during the western domination has been given with a cooperative approach a multilateral one
based on the respect for everyone's interest and the cause between the key stakeholders that is not no guarantee of
the harmony or absence of conflicts. The interests of countries will never coincide fully on all the history of
international affairs is about struggle to fulfill their interest. But you know a brand new global situation the the
tone set by the global community and the global majority.
Let us hope that all the stakeholders will take each other's interests into account while coming up with regional
and global solutions. No one can attain their goals on their own in isolation. The world
despite the aggravation of conflicts and the the crisis of previous model of globalization fragmentation of the
global economy is a holistic interrelated place.
We know that by our own experience, you know how um much efforts were applied by
our opponents to roughly speaking knock this country out of the global system to
drive us into political cultural information isolation into economic utarchy. the number in in terms of the
number of the of the reprisals that are shamefully dubbed as sanctions. Russia
has the record 30 or even more thousand
of different restrictions. Have they attained anything? I think that people around the room know
that these efforts failed altogether. Russia has demonstrated the highest degree of resilience and ability to
withstand intensive global pressure that would ruin an entire country. Not only
entire country but coalition of states and we take pride in that. We're proud of our our country of Russia and our our
people and our armed forces. But I want to mention something else. It turned out that the global system
where they want to squeeze us out of will not let Russia go because Russia has become a a weighty uh part of the
global equilibrium and balance not only because of its territory and the people and defense and technological industrial
capability and its minerals its reserves all those things I have just enumerated
matter a lot. These are very important factors but most importantly it is so
because the global equilibrium and balance cannot be established without us neither economic or strategical or
cultural logistical no type of balance. I believe that those who tried to destroy that well got to know some are
still obstinate in in in their desire to have their way inflicting as they say the strategic defeat on this country.
Well, okay. If they don't see the fact that this plan is doomed, if they're stubborn
enough, well, I hope that life will show them. And the most stubborn short witted
ones will understand. We heard numerous clammers about full blockade and threats
about blockade trying to make Russian people as they said, and they they had no scruples in saying
that they wanted to make the Russian people suffer. and they came up with figmental plans. I
think ain't it time to calm down and look around and uh understand the real
situation and try to build relationships in a different way. We also know the
polyentric world is very dynamic. It seems brittle and unsustainable because you cannot establish the state of things
forever defining the alignment of forces. There
are multiple stakeholders and processes and non-symmetrical forces, complex
ones. Everybody has their own strengths and competitive edges that create unique
combination and composition in each of the cases. The world of today is a
sophisticated multi-acceted system to comprehend it correctly. Simple laws
logic or cause and effect ties will not suffice.
Complexity philosophy is what is needed. Something similar to the quantum mechanics that is much more
sophisticated than the classical physics. At the same time, thanks to this complexity, the the
overall negotiability has tend to go up. The linear lateral
solutions are impossible. or nonlinear multilateral ways require considerable
professional impartial and creative sometimes non-standard diplomacy.
I'm convinced that we will witness a certain renaissance of the high
diplomatic art and the essence is about uh the way to pursue dialogue coming to
terms with the neighbors and single-minded stakeholders and which is more difficult come to terms with your
opponents. In this spirit of the diplomacy of the 21st century, the new
institutions have been developing the expanding bricks group and the major
regional entities like Shanghai cooperation organization in Eurasia and
more compact but no less important regional groupings. There are numerous
appearing around the globe. You know about them quite well. All these new structures are are different but they
are united by the same trait. very important one. They don't function on the hierarchical principle subordination
to someone who is considered to be the main one. They are not against anyone
there for their own interests. The this world of today needs uh accords not in
position of someone's will. Hedgeimonyy any type of it will not cope with the scale of the uh agenda.
Providing for international security in these terms is a very very relevant and compreh and and comprehensive matter.
The growing number of stakeholders with different goals and polyentric cultures their own identical original traditions.
The global complexity makes it much more difficult and complicated to come up
with uh with this uh new approaches towards global security. But it gives us
new opportunities. The block style ways that are doomed to give rise to
confrontation have become anacronic pointless. We see that our European neighbors are now trying to patch up the
cracks and plaster the cracks of the uh edifice of Europe. They want to overcome
this cleft to strengthen the shaken unity that they were so proud of and
flaunted uh with not because of resolving not with the with the help of resolving their own domestic problems
but you know stoking up the enemy image but people in those countries are wise
enough to you know take to the streets and despite the stoke up situation at
the outer border they try to recreate the wellknown
uh enemy that they invented hundreds of years ago, Russia. And many people in
Europe do not know what's so horrible about Russia. Why should they tighten
their belts countering Russia, forgetting about their own interests, sacrificing them and uh acting acting in
their own detriment. But you know, the ruling elites of the United Europe try to stoking up stoke up hysteria. They
say that the the war with Russian with the Russians is in the offing and they keep repeating that gibberish over and
over again. You know, I I look and hear what has been said. I I I I'm
bewildered. Can they can they be serious? Can they believe in what
they're saying that Russia is trying to attack them? This is impossible to believe. And they try to convince their
own people of that and they may be non-competent
either non-competent if they believe in that because it's impossible to believe in in this nonsense or they may be
decent enough because they are do not believe in that themselves but try to convince their own people. Just calm
down and sleep quiet and uh try to get to
grips with your problems. Look at what has been happening at the European streets. What has been happening with
European uh economy and industry, huge crisis in their culture and identity,
huge debt burden and growing uh
social welfare system, migration that has been out of control, growth of
violence, radicalization of leftist, ultra liberal racist marginal groupings.
Look at Europe. being relegated to the periphery of the global competition. And we all know that the threats, aggressive
threats about towards Russia that Europe has been trying to intimidate itself
with are far-fetched and the auto suggestion is a dangerous things and we cannot unfortunately
uh fail to pay heed to that and we must take that into consideration because of the need to sustain our our
defense and security and we're looking at the militarization of Europe. that has been gathering pace. Are these plain
words or simple words or lip service or or or is it serious because they say
that the German army should be the most powerful in in Europe? Okay, we have been listening to that attentively and
uh eyeing that closely trying to figure what they actually mean. I I believe
that no one has any doubts that that uh the response of Russia will not be long
in incoming. The response to such threats will be put to put it mildly
quite convincing. This is about the response. We never initiated any military standoff. It's pointless,
uncalled for and absurd. It would drive us away from resolving real problems and challenges. And the societies sooner or
later will bring their leaderships to to account for ruining and ignoring their
needs and aspirations and uh and hopes. But if someone has desire to rival with
us in in in the military sphere, okay, go for it. Uh endeavor. Russia proved on
many occasions when threats to our peace and security come up come to the four
and threats to our sovereignty and our statethood we are swift in responding. No, you should not provoke us. Never
ever did it end badly for the provocators and
uh uh no exceptions will happen in future. There will be none. Our history
proved that weakness in unacceptable because it it gives rise to temptation
to a delusion that and anything may be resolved uh with us and they may have
their way from the position of of of force and indecisiveness and weakness.
Russia will never demonstrate that. It is something that we will never demonstrate. Those who cherish the dream
of inflicting a strategic defeat of us, let them know that. And those speaking actively about that
well some of them are far away others you know have passed away
you know the there are no objective reasons related there are very many reasons related to the man-made
um or social nature so it's no use spending forces and energy on artificial
contrived contradictions this is wasteful and silly international Security is so multifaceted and
indivisible that no delimitation of values can split it. Only meticulous
allround work with the involvement of different partners building upon creative approaches can help resolve
this uh very complex
security equation in the 21st century and there are no more or less important
elements. It is all resolved in concert as a whole. Our country has been upholding
for the indivisible indivisibility of security principle. I said on many occasions that security of some
countries cannot be at the expense of others. In this case there will be no security for anyone.
You know saying this principle
coming into play is something that will fail to do the euphoria of those who had
lust for power who believe themselves to be the winners of the cold war. Well, K
brought about the desire to impose unilateral ways and approaches and uh
and and their thoughts about the the current situation and that gave rise to many uh many conflicts like the
Ukrainian ones and became the root causes of many conflicts in the late 20th to the early 21st century. Now no
now no one is safe as a as a result of that. We should come back to the origins
and correct the mistakes made. But indivisibility of security today
unlike in late 90 80s and early 90s is a much more complex phenomenon. It's not
only about the military and political balance and the consideration of each other's interests. Our security, the
security of humankind depends on our capability to respond to challenges
that stem from man-made and natural disasters.
uh technological development, new rapid social, demographic, information
developments, all those things are interrelated happening
uh on their own in an unpredictable way having their own intrinsic logic and laws and some laws and sometimes um not
in coordination with the will and expectations of people. the humanity risks to be left behind in this
situation as a side observer not being capable of ruling the situation or managing the situation. This is a
systemic challenge for all of us and definitely this is an opportunity for all of us to work together. There are no
off-the-shelf answers. But I believe that to resolve global challenges, we need first to approach them without this
ideological predetermination with d without dactic tone in this spirit. I'll
explain how it is done to you. Secondly, it is important to understand
that this common indivisible affair that requires joint work of all the countries and nations, each culture and
civilization should make their own contribution. Because allow me to reiterate on our own nobody knows the
right answer. It can be fostered only in the process of joint constructive surge
by uniting and not dividing our efforts and national experiences of different states. Allow me to repeat myself.
Conflicts and clashes of interest have existed and continue to exist and they will exist. The issue is how we solve
the multipolar world as I've already mentioned is the return to classic diplomacy
where the key to resolution is through mutual understanding, mutual respect and not coercion. Classic diplomacy was able
to take into account the viewpoints of different entities of international life. this complexity of contra concerts
of multiple powers. But in due time it was replaced through western diplomacy of monologue of
endless lessons and demands and instead of resolving conflicts they started
pushing forward their own narrow interests considering any other interests unworthy
of attention. Should we be surprised that instead of resolving conflicts, they've provoked further escalation of
these conflicts and their passing to the bloody armed face turning into humanitarian catastrophe. By acting like
this, we cannot solve a single problem. And over 30 years, there have been
endless examples of that. One of them is the Palestinian Israeli conflict that
through the script of Western unilateral diplomacy fully overlooking history, tradition, identity, the culture of
people living there, they can't solve just as they can stabilize the situation
in the Middle East, which in turn continues to degrade.
And we're taking a closer look at the initiatives of President Trump.
But I believe there could be a light at the end of the tunnel. Horrible example is the Ukrainian tragedy. It's pain for
both Ukrainians and Russians, for all of us.
The reasons for the Ukrainian conflict are well known to anyone who has gone
far enough to look at the back history of its current most critical stage. And I will not repeat myself. I'm sure that
everyone here is well aware and understands my position on the issue. I have voiced it many many times. But we
also know something else. Those who encouraged, goed and armed Ukraine,
stirring it up against Russia for decades fostered rampant nationalism and
neo-Nazism simply couldn't care less not only for Russian interests but for Ukrainian
interests either for true interests of the people of that country. They have no remorse for that people.
It's nothing but expandable material. For globalist expansionists on the west
as well as their surfs in Ke, the results of reckless fliperism
speak for themselves. Let's ask ourselves another question.
Could it be different? And allow me to go back to what
President Trump said. He said that had he been in power that could have been avoided. And I agree with that
statement. It's true. It could have been avoided
had the work been built differently with the US administration back in the day.
If Ukraine hadn't been turned into destructive weapon and someone else's arms,
had they not used the northern Atlantic block approaching our borders,
had Ukraine preserved its independence, its true sovereignty.
And another question, how should we have resolved bilateral Russian Ukrainian issues that were
obviously consequence of disintegration of a master country and complex geopolitical transformations?
I believe that even the disintegration of the USSR had to do with the position of the
Russian leadership back in the day to get rid of any ideological confrontation hoping that now that we've dealt with
communism now we will build a true flourishing world. No, but it seems that there are
other factors at play. Geopolitical and factors of different kind and
ideological clashes had nothing to do with it.
How should they be resolved in the polyentric world? And how would the situation in Ukraine
be resolved? It's different polls would test out the
situation of the Ukrainian conflict for themselves. These potential pressure points rifts
that exist in their own regions and then the collective response would be much more responsible and reasonable. At the
basis of resolving would be the understanding that all the participants of this complex situation have their own
interests. They're grounded in objective subjective circumstances. They must not be
overlooked. Efforts of all countries in their quest for security and development are legitimate. Of course, this applies
for Ukraine, for Russia, and for all our neighbors. It's the states of the region who should
have the final say in creating the regional system. It's
these countries who have the best chance at agreeing on a universally acceptable
model of cooperation because it affects them directly. It is of their vital interests.
For other countries, this situation in Ukraine is a
bargaining chip in a different much larger game, their own game. And
generally that game has nothing to do with specific issues of countries
or in this case for that country or those countries involved in the conflict.
It's just a pretext to solve their own goals
as well as to profit from war. That's why they showed up on our doorstep with NATO infrastructure
for years. They said idly by gazing at the tantas tragedy genocide at the extermination of Russian people at our
ancestral historical lands that started in 2014
after the bloody coup d'eta in Ukraine.
In contrast to this behavior that was demonstrated by Europe and until recently the US is the conduct of the
global majority states. They refuse to take sides. They aspire to truly contribute to the
creation of a just world. And we're grateful to all the states who in recent years have taken genuine effort to try
and find a way out of this situation. These are our partners, the founders of bricks, China, India, Brazil, South
Africa, the Bellarus, North Korea. These are our friends in
the Arab Islamic world. First and foremost, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, Turkey, Iran,
Serbia, Hungary, Slovakia, Europe, and many African and Latin American
countries.
Unfortunately, so far, we haven't been able to stop the hostilities, but the responsibility for that lies not on the
majority for this inability, but on the minority. first and foremost Europe
who continue to escalate the conflict
and I believe there is no other goal over there. At the same time I believe that goodwill shall prevail and we have
no doubt about this. I believe that the situation is changing
gradually in Ukraine. No matter how brainwashed people may
get, there are still some shifts for ideology and in other parts of the world as well.
At the same time, the phenomenon of the global majority is a new development in the international life. Allow me to say
a few words about that as well. What is its purpose that the overwhelming majority of states is aimed at
implementing their own civilized interests? the mo the main of which is its balanced
progressive development. And it seems that it should be natural. That's how it's always been. But in
earlier eras, the understanding of these interests was distorted with morbid ambitions, with selfishness, with the
influence of expansionist ideologies. And now the majority of states and nations, that very same global majority,
understand their authentic interests. And most importantly, they feel strong
and confident enough in order to uphold these interests despite the external pressure.
And I should add, by promoting and defending their interests, they're ready to work together with their partners.
That is to say, to translate international relations, diplomacy, integration into the source of growth,
progress, and development. The relations within the global majority is a prototype of political practices
necessary and effective in a polyentric world. This is pragmatism and realism
rejection of block philosophy, absence of rigid dictated commitments, models
where there are senior junior partners. And finally, it's the ability to align interests that don't always coincide,
but at the same times they usually don't contradict one another. So the absence of antagonism is the main principle.
We see a new wave of de facto decolonization that is gaining momentum
where former colonies aside from statehood also gain
political, economical, cultural and ideological sovereignty. And in this context another important date is very
important to note here. We celebrated 80 years since the creation of the United Nations Organization. It's not just the
most representative universally political structure of the world. It symbolizes the spirit of cooperation
alliance brothers in arms that helped in first half of former century to unite
our efforts to defeat the greatest evil in history. The merciless machine of extermination and enslavement. And of
course the decisive role in this joint victory belongs to the US. Just take a look at the number of victims of the
anti-Hitler coalition and everything will become clear. The UN of course is the legacy of
victory in the second world war. To this day it is the most successful experience of creating the international
organizations through which we can resolve the most urgent world
problems. And we often hear that the UN system is paralyzed that it's in crisis. It's become the common position. Some
even go as far as to say that it has become obsolate and it should be radically reformed.
Yes, of course there are a lot of issues in the work of the UN
but we do not have a better alternative than the UN. We have to admit that the problem is not with the UN because its
potential it's virtually endless. The issue is how we ourselves, these united
and although more often than not now disunited nations, use these opportunities.
Of course, UN is facing certain challenges. Just any just like any other organization, it needs to adapt to
changing realities. But in the process of its restructuring configuration, it is especially
important not to lose sight or twist the main idea of the organization. Not just
the one that was embedded when creating the whole UN system, but also the new found idea that has arisen in the
process of its complicated development. We should recall that since 1945, the number of UN member states has
practically quadrupled. The organization that has come up at the initiative of
several largest countries during the decades of its existence has not just expanded. It has absorbed many different
cultures and political traditions. It has gained diversity has truly become multipolar
way before the world has taken that path. The potential laid in the UN system is only beginning to unfold and
I'm sure that in the new era we're entering it will only pick up the pace. In other words, now the countries of the
global majority form the convincing majority even within
the UN which mean its structure and its governing bodies
need to be brought up into the line accordingly
so that it fully aligns with the basic principles of democracy. We will not
deny there is no unonymity as to how to organize the world with which principles it should be based on in the upcoming
years and decades. We have entered a long stage of searching in many ways
stumbling in the dark once we have a new sustainable system. Its framework remains unknown. But we
should be prepared that for a considerable time, social, political, and econ economical processes will be
hard to predict and sometimes quite nerve-wracking.
In order to keep those clear guidelines and not lose our way, we need a strong
support. First and foremost, these are values cultivated in national cultures over the
centuries. Culture, history, ethical and religious norms, the influence of
geography and environment are key elements from which civilizations are
born. special entities that have been created over centuries
that determine national identity, value orientations, traditions, all that
serves as a guideline, allowing us to find our way and allowing
us to weather the storms of rough waters of international life. Tradition is a very distinctive unique thing. Everyone
has their own and respect for traditions is first and foremost a condition for prosperous development of international
relations as well as resolution of arising issues. The world has withstood
the efforts of unification of forcing of so-called universal model that went against the cultural and ethical
traditions of many nations. Back in the day, the Soviet Union indulged in it trying to impose it. It's
political system. We are aware of it and I don't think anyone
will try to argue that then the US took over
but the Europe has come up big as well but in both cases nothing was achieved
peruncter extrinsic artificial something imposed doesn't last long and those who
have respect for their traditions usually doesn't encroach on others
today against the backdrop of international instability. It is especially important to lay your own
groundwork of development that isn't dependent on the international whirlwinds. And we see how many
countries and nations turn to these foundations. And it's not only happening in the global majority states, but in
western societies as well. If everyone operates
and follows these principles, taking care of themselves without wasting effort on unnecessary ambitions. Turns
out that getting along with others becomes much easier. I'd like to give you an example of cooperation between
Russia and the US. Of course, our countries have a lot of differences and our views on many world issues differ.
And for large powers, it's natural. It's normal.
Most importantly, it's how we overcome these differences. And the current White House
administration, speak directly,
firmly using pointlank statements without being hypocritical.
It is especially important to understand what
the person wants instead of trying to drown in the series of ambiguities in
these missy hints. And we understand that President Donald Trump and his team are operating on the
interests of their countries as they see them. This is a rational approach. But
at the same time, we need to admit that we have the right to operate based on our own national interests.
One of which is the restoration of full format relations with the US. And no matter the differences,
if we treat each other with respect, then
then even the most firm persistent bargaining will still pursue the goal of
finding something mutually beneficial and then we can find solutions to any issues.
Multipolar world and polyentric world is a reality that is here to stay. How fast and how
effective it will be depends on every single one of us. And this order and
this model in the modern world is only possible as a result of universal efforts. The work where everyone
participates. Allow me to reiterate. Times where the narrow group of the most powerful nations decided for the whole
world on how to leave is irretrievably gone.
And those who feel nostalgia for colonial times when the times when
people were divided in two those who are equal or those who are
more equal than others should remember that this is a famous quote from Orwell's dystopia.
We in Russia were never known for such racist
approach to other countries, nations, cultures. It has never been our course
and it will never be our course. We advocate for polyhony diversity symphony of values. One color
world would be a dull place. Russia's path is tumultuous and it's
full of unexpected turns. The formation of Russia's statethood is a constant overcoming of closely historical
challenges. That is not to say that other states were brought up in h house
conditions, but at the same time, Russia's experiences quite unique justice. The country that's been brought
up in it and we're not trying to pretend that we're exceptional or supreme. That
is just a statement of the fact and of our identity. We have
survived a lot of shocks given enough food for thought both negative and
positive and we're living in a quite ambiguous international situation that is
nonlinear and in any bicitus Russia has proven one
thing. It has existed. It continues to exist and will exist. Things are changing. Our role is changing but it
remains a power that is necessary in order to preserve harmony and balance.
This is a timetested history tested fact
and it's unconditional. But in today's multi-olar world this
harmony and the balance that I've talked about can only be
achieved through joint work
and I would like to assure you that Russia is prepared for such work. Thank you so much for your attention.
Thank you,
Mr. President. Many thanks. all this I have tired you I I apologize now we have
just started it's merely the the beginning but you have set the very high
bar for this conversation that will cling to many of the topics that you have just mentioned actually indeed a
this polyentric uh multipolar world order
is kind of still fledgling And description is at the inceptional
stage. It is very complex and sophisticated. And as in an old parable, we may touch a
part of our body of of a body and believe this is the entire elephant, but merely a part of a of the elephant's
body. Well, you know, I I've cited practical examples. You know, these are
no idle words, not lip service. You know, sometimes we have
we're faced with different issues to be resolved. in different parts of the globe and in
in in the past times there were two blocks the Soviet block and the western
block but you know currently you know things have changed and now uh I may be
uh facing a dilemma whether I should act in this or that way but if I act in this way this will impact those uh
stakeholders if I act in in another way this is impact someone else so And you
know well in several occasions we opted for an emission.
We know sometimes it is uh wiser to exercise restraint than to to act and
these are u the the realities of today and this is something happening in in
practice. Well at school have you been playing
chess? No, I well no I was a chess player anyway. Good.
Then let me continue with respect to what you have said
regard the practice not just the theoretical analysis has changed but the practical actions cannot be the same as
they used to be and certainly the preceding decades. Many relied on the institutions,
different international organizations, structures and structures within the states that were adopted and adapted to
solve certain problems. And many experts and we discussed that to at the Valdai
discussion club in the previous day say that the institutions for certain reasons become weaker or even lose their
efficiency and the leaders the heads of states now have to assume much more
responsibility than before. In that respect, I have a question to you. Are
you feeling being an Alexander the first at Congress in Vienna
who was personally negotiating the new world order being alone?
No, I'd not feel like this. Alexander the first was an emperor and I am an a a
president elected by popular vote for a certain term. This is uh the biggest difference number one.
And secondly, Alexander the first used might to unite Europe, defeating the
enemy that had invaded our territory. We we recall the Vienna Congress and all
other things and what was done by him from with respect to where the world was
heading. This is a contentious thing whether monarchies were to to be restored anywhere across
the board or one should have tried to turn the wheel of history in a different direction looking at the nent trends and
heading this new progressive movement. But you know this is a uh digression
from your question. Appropore as regards contemporary instit
institutions of nowadays they have degraded when some some countries of the
collective west tried to use the and capitalize on the
situation that came into play after the second world war. in the end of the cold war,
proclaiming themselves the winners in the cold war and you know and uh in many
countries uh started exercising resistance
and bing and uh the west after the Soviet Union
ceased to exist um western structures injected very many
very many manpower in in in the in in the in governing bodies of the exs
Soviet republics and they acted those new staff members
acted in a very crude manner and and and
blunt manner and OC why was the OC created and
established to resolve complex issues in Europe and it boiled
down finally to becoming a venue and a platform to
discuss human rights in the postsviet space. Well, listen
there are there are many problems in this respect but you know uh in Western Europe too
they have problems and this department of state in of the United States paid
heed to the fact that in in they they started having human rights issues in in
the United Kingdom. well long let them live happily. But you
know those problems existed before and um and you know the those professional
organizations started handling Russia and the postsviet space
but this was not the original mandate of theirs. So and it became pointless
the the original mandate in the previous uh frame of reference
with with the existence of the Soviet block and the western block was
different and these institutions degraded because they stopped doing what
they had been created for. But you know
no other option than looking for consensus based solutions and tradeoffs
exist. And uh you know we
we came to understand gradually that some institutions
were to be established to resolve different matters. Not the
way our western colleagues and counter parties tried to resolve them but you
know building upon consensus. This is how Shanghai cooperation
organization was established. Well, originally it was about sorting
out the borderline disputes between the former Central Asian Republic Soviets
and China. And it and it proved efficient, very efficient. And we started expanding its mandate
and it lifted off and gradually this is how bricks came into existence.
I I received the Indian prime minister and the Chinese president and I I
suggested we should have a RIC format uh tripartite format and we agreed to get
together on a regular basis and uh
and engage our foreign ministers and it and we kicked the ball rolling and uh
despite some of the minor problems that they had between themselves, some of the
issues. Anyway, the this platform, this organization proved efficient and no one
wants to bulge out or press ahead with their interests
and everybody got to understand that that balance should be struck and Brazil
and South Africa volunteered to join and bricks was
established. So these are natural partners united by one in the same
concept of how to find solutions to
different uh problems in a mutually acceptable way and you know I mentioned
regional entities in my intervention and their authority and cloud have been
growing. This is the guarantee that this new complex multi-olar world
has all the chances to be s become sustainable. In your presentation,
you used a very nice metaphor about u
might makes right. Might makes right. Might makes right or you know not take a
knife to a gunfire. And once there are no other means there is just
power that you have to use and in geopolitics it came a four
it has been discussed and we did that and a whole session was dedicated to that topic what the new war is about the
modern war for sure it has changed what is your take as the commander-in-chief
as a major politician what is different what has occurred to
the Well, this is a very specialist question.
Still, it is very important. Most importantly, in the first place,
nonmilitary ways of resolving military issues have always existed. But now with the with
the advent of state-of-the-art technologies, they acquire new meanings
like information attacks, cyber attacks,
trying to impact impact political consciousness and sentiment of a
potential faux nation and attempts to
see the degradation of of this public sentiment. you know, and now we're seeing the revival, a renaissance of a
Russian tradition girls, you know, start wearing Russian
uh folk garments when they get together.
You know, this is something that makes me happy. I rejoice over that
despite any attacks to putrify make may make make
our society putriy they never never succeed. Our youths
have their own inbuilt inherent protection against such attempts to to
impact the public sentiment. And this is a testimony of the maturity
and and strength of of our society.
Same refers to attempts to damage our economy and finance which is also very
dangerous. But what if we speak about military components?
Many novel things appear because of the advent of new technology.
And everybody has heard, but you know these are unmanned aerial systems
uh in the water in the air and on the ground
unmanned vessels, autonomous
uh vehicles and aircraft.
These are of dual use. All of these are of dual use. And this is one of the
peculiarities of today. Many many things applied at battlefield are of dual use.
Many of the items. Let's take the unmanned vehicles. They
may be applied in medicine and while delivering food
and carrying different cargos and at battlefield too.
But that gives rise to the need to develop this
reconnaissance and jamming systems
and you know tactics combat tactics at the battlefield have been changing.
So the the tanks are used in a different manner now
for the sake of breakthroughs but to to to to provide support to the infantry
from hiding places and stations. But but you know the the pace of the
change is what matters. No many things change over one week or over one month.
We may apply something but you know all of a sudden like long range high precision
weapons become less efficient. Why so? because
the the adversary has been applying the uh
electronic jamming systems and we need
to find an antidote in several weeks and that happens incessantly at the
battlefield and in in R&D centers. This is the pace of state ofthe-art
change and the rapid change we're seeing today.
of the current warfare. Everything has been changing apart from
one thing. The bravery, the courage and heroism of the Russian soldier remain unchanged.
And we take pride in that enormous pride. When saying Russian soldier, the Russian soldier, I'm I'm referring to
all sorts of ethnicities and and different creeds and different
ethnicities stand up to that saying that I'm I am a Russian soldier. They say and this is
true. And Peter the Great said, "Who is
a Russian?" If you know, okay, but I'll tell you if you unless you don't know
a Russian is someone who loves Russia and who serves his country.
Thank you so much. Well, regarding Kakushnik or the women's headear, I understand and I will dress
like that next time. Mr. Putin, you spoke about the speed of
change, the pace of change and really this is very tremendous. Um and there are things changing so rapidly in civil
sphere and in the military sphere. But probably in the upcoming decades
that would be like that. Three and a half years ago when the special military operation was started
some criticism was voiced regarding the Russian army regarding the Russian state
that we are lagging behind in some aspects and uh some failures that occurred were
due to that period of time have we catched up
and secondly once we speaking of the Russian soldiers at the moment what is the situation on the front line what is
your Most importantly, it's not that we lag behind, but you know, we ain't seen some
of the uh novel things. Not not that we wanted to do something, but we failed to
do that on time. Some things are brand new for us. And uh
this is uh my first point. My second point is that we've been waging war.
We've been manufacturing the military hardware.
But you know on the other side very many very many countries all NATO countries have been
waging war against us. All of them put together and there are instructors
unfortunately who actually participate in the in in the
hostilities. They they established a center, a
special center in Europe that has been providing the support
to the Ukrainian army, uh feeding information and intelligence
data from satellites to them, training them, supplying arms and the instructors
participate not only in the training but also in the decision making and the implementation in the implementation of
those these decisions. Definitely this is a formidable
challenge for us but the the Russian army Russian state and our defense
industry has uh adapted themselves quickly to this new challenge and we
have been rising up to this challenge. It's not an overstatement or bragging to say that currently this
army is the most combat effective
With respect to the degree of training and technical capabilities
and the the knowledge to apply those capabilities and supplying new
new prototypes of items to the front line and the tactics also were quite knowledgeable we excel. This is the qu
the answer. Our interlocators and your interlocator across the ocean have renamed the
defense department into the department of war. Probably the same thing, but there are nuances. Do you think the
names matter? Well, I don't think probably not. Or
probably as you name the ship, so it sails. So probably there is some point to it.
But you know this sounds quite well a bit aggressive.
The department of war ours is the ministry of defense. So this has been
our tenant. We don't have any aggressive intentions against third countries.
Our defense ministry aims at providing for the security of
the Russian state and the people of Russia. and he says that Russia is a paper
tiger, paper tiger. Well, I've said that Russia
has been uh waging a war not against Ukraine but all NATO countries put
together. So if we speak well you've asked me what
has been happening on the front line battlefield line. I'll come back to the Tiger um thing, but you know, all all
along the the battlefield line, our our troops have been advancing
the northern group in Hatkov. In the Hutkov region, there's
a location of Volchanska and in the Sumu region, there's also a location called
Yunakovka. It has been transferred to our control and we have uh taken half of Volchanska.
I think it is a matter of time. The other half will be retaken soon and a
security buffer zone is being established uh in a firm and resolute manner as
planned. The western group of of our troops has virtually uh fully
well twothirds of of Kupansk have been taken which is
a location where we have seized the center and the hostilities have moved to the south. Another major location called
Kirk has been transferred to our control and the southern group of our troops has
entered the city of Constantin. This is one of the
uh defense bastions like Constantinoskansk and Kamatsk which are the the
fortifications that had been created for more than 10 years with the help of the western
professionals and military professionals. But we have approached and entered those including also sever
major location to and hostilities are ongoing there. The
central group of our army has been quite active and efficient
in operations and they have entered the location of Krashnar the south of it I
will not delve into detail also because I just don't want to inform
our foe strange as it might seem because because
this might it might seem strange my words but actually they don't know what what has been happening
They have very little coordination. So I I would not wish to supply
information to them. But you know our soldiers work there. Okay. With respect
to the eastern group, it has been advancing rapidly uh at a good pace in the north of
Zaparoia region and nepro region and
the Nepa region regional group also is quite effective
and confident. So3%
of Lugansk region is is what is still controlled by the adversary. So we will
retake that and 19 something%
is still controlled by of Donat's region is still controlled by the adversary. 24
to 25% is the remaining territory under under the control of the
Zaporosian Heron regions and
I mean control of of the Ukrainians and we hold the strategic initiative
in a confident way in all these uh locations but actually we've been
advancing steadily and resolutely
are are we a paper tiger Uh then what is NATO in this case? What is NATO like
if we're a paper tiger? Okay.
The main thing for us is to maintain our confidence and we are confident. Thank
you. Thank you so much. You know there are such toys that you make out of paper
and make a tiger. How do you think that the next time you meet President Trump, you can give him such a toy?
We have our own relationship and we know what to give one another and we we treat
these things with with calm and ease. I I don't know whether it was irony or
what the context was, you know. Well, he uttered that and
talking to his interlocutor like the paper tiger. Okay, then what followed?
Go and get to grips with this paper tiger. You might have said, you know, but things on the ground are different.
Actually, the the problem is well, they they receive the Ukrainian army receives
a lot of supplies of arms, as many systems as as they need. But you
know in September they have lost 40 4400 44,700
and part around half of that is retrievable and uh the forced
mobilization brought in only 18.5,000 new recruits
and 14.5,000 have returned after treatment in
hospitals. If you add the immobilized ones and the
returnees and someone all those who they lost, it's minus 11,000 per month.
So they cannot replenish their reserves on the front line, but
they see they see their army dwindling.
If we take January to August, this span
15,000 people have deserted and they have recruited 160,000 more. But 150,000
of defectors is a lot. And you know
given the current uh casualties that means that they they have only one
alternative reducing the the mobilization age threshold age but this
will not yield good results. According to our and by by western
specialists, this will hardly give or yield positive results because
they don't have time to train their newly recruited soldiers cuz our troops
keep advancing day after day. So they cannot entrench themselves or or
train their military personnel and you know their casualties exceed the inflow.
So they better the the the key of uh leadership
would better think of how to come to terms and we propose that on many occasions.
We have enough personnel for everything. We have a lot of these. We also have casualties but you know they are much
lower than the ones of the Ukrainian forces. And you know our recruits are
volunteers. They volunteer. they come to the to the draft stations
on their own will we don't have any any forced mobilization any any compulsory
mobilization unlike the K regime this is not what I have invented this is objective
uh real data and the westerners also prove that January to August saw
150,000 of defectors in Ukraine because they snatch people in the street and and
afterwards They flee the battlefield and we call on them to
surrender. But you know they they are destroyed by by the by punitive
squads or or UAVs kill them
controlled by mercenaries who do not care for Ukrainians.
So the their army is very very very bare bones. The elites don't
don't participate in the hostilities. They just send
their people to be slaughtered. This is why that many defectors.
You see, we also have these and it usually happens in armed conflicts,
but it never compares to what they have similar to their kinds. It's just
singular cases. That's where the problem comes from. Maybe they can lower the
conscription age to 21 or 18. This will not solve the problem. This is what has
to be understood. And I hope that this understanding will come to the leaders of the K regime
and they will find it in them to sit at the negotiation table.
Thank you dear friends. Please ask your questions. Ivan Franchuk from the front.
Mr. President, thank you for your very interesting introductory remarks and you
already set this really high standard for this discussion as you um disc as
you spoke with Federal Lukanov. Let me clarify those cardinal changes that were
going on in recent years. Were you surprised by anything? Were you
surprised by the rapid desire of the Europe some of the Europeans to start this confrontation with us? Some of them
are not no longer ashamed to be participating in Hitler's coalition. Some of those things you could not even
imagine. Were you surprised uh in terms of how it
was even possible? And you mentioned how in the world of today you have to be
ready for anything. Anything can happen. But quite recently, it seemed like the situation
was more predictable. Was there anything that surprised you?
First of all, you see, as a whole, overall, no. There was nothing much surprising
because I could imagine how it could look. But you see, I was quite taken aback
by the readiness and this desire
to fully review that used to be positive in the past. You see,
first of all, they've taken these very tentative steps
and started to compare the Stalin regime with the fascist regime in Germany,
Hitler's regime. They started putting them on the same shelf.
So they've tried to bring up to surface the impact of Molotov and ribbon drop.
They've spoken about the Munich deal of 38 as if they've started
to forget about it as if it never happened. Prime Minister didn't come to London
shaking the agreement with Hitler when descending the plane saying I bring peace. But even back in
the day the UK had people who said that now war is inevitable. That was
Churchill. So Chamberlain said I bring peace and Churchill responded with war
is inevitable. So that was the estimation back then. They talked about the Molotov pact. They
said that Soviet Union was coercing with Hitler, but you were the ones who
coerced with him the day before and they're still acting as if it never happened.
Perhaps they can try and spread propaganda, try to brainwash people how
these things don't align. But when it comes to it, we know what
really happened. So that was the first part. But as we go on, the more the marrier.
Not only have they tried to compare Stalin and Hitler,
they've also tried to fully forget the results of the Numbberg process
which is quite concerning because these are participants of a joint fight
and this Nurburg process was a joint effort and it happened in order to avoid
repetition of anything like that in the future. They started eradicating monuments,
monuments to Soviet soldiers who fought Nazism. I understand that there were some
ideological factors