Putin to Western elites: Play-time is over

[Charles Brown]

http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2014/10/putin-to-western-elites-play-time-is.html#more

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Putin to Western elites: Play-time is over

[日本語訳]

Most people in the English-speaking parts of the world missed Putin's
speech at the Valdai conference in Sochi a few days ago, and, chances
are, those of you who have heard of the speech didn't get a chance to
read it, and missed its importance. (For your convenience, I am
pasting in the full transcript of his speech below.) Western media did
their best to ignore it or to twist its meaning. Regardless of what
you think or don't think of Putin (like the sun and the moon, he does
not exist for you to cultivate an opinion) this is probably the most
important political speech since Churchill's “Iron Curtain” speech of
March 5, 1946.

In this speech, Putin abruptly changed the rules of the game.
Previously, the game of international politics was played as follows:
politicians made public pronouncements, for the sake of maintaining a
pleasant fiction of national sovereignty, but they were strictly for
show and had nothing to do with the substance of international
politics; in the meantime, they engaged in secret back-room
negotiations, in which the actual deals were hammered out. Previously,
Putin tried to play this game, expecting only that Russia be treated
as an equal. But these hopes have been dashed, and at this conference
he declared the game to be over, explicitly violating Western taboo by
speaking directly to the people over the heads of elite clans and
political leaders.

The Russian blogger chipstone summarized the most salient points from
Putin speech as follows:

1. Russia will no longer play games and engage in back-room
negotiations over trifles. But Russia is prepared for serious
conversations and agreements, if these are conducive to collective
security, are based on fairness and take into account the interests of
each side.

2. All systems of global collective security now lie in ruins. There
are no longer any international security guarantees at all. And the
entity that destroyed them has a name: The United States of America.

3. The builders of the New World Order have failed, having built a
sand castle. Whether or not a new world order of any sort is to be
built is not just Russia's decision, but it is a decision that will
not be made without Russia.

4. Russia favors a conservative approach to introducing innovations
into the social order, but is not opposed to investigating and
discussing such innovations, to see if introducing any of them might
be justified.

5. Russia has no intention of going fishing in the murky waters
created by America's ever-expanding “empire of chaos,” and has no
interest in building a new empire of her own (this is unnecessary;
Russia's challenges lie in developing her already vast territory).
Neither is Russia willing to act as a savior of the world, as she had
in the past.

6. Russia will not attempt to reformat the world in her own image, but
neither will she allow anyone to reformat her in their image. Russia
will not close herself off from the world, but anyone who tries to
close her off from the world will be sure to reap a whirlwind.

7. Russia does not wish for the chaos to spread, does not want war,
and has no intention of starting one. However, today Russia sees the
outbreak of global war as almost inevitable, is prepared for it, and
is continuing to prepare for it. Russia does not war—nor does she fear
it.

8. Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those
who are still attempting to construct their New World Order—until
their efforts start to impinge on Russia's key interests. Russia would
prefer to stand by and watch them give themselves as many lumps as
their poor heads can take. But those who manage to drag Russia into
this process, through disregard for her interests, will be taught the
true meaning of pain.

9. In her external, and, even more so, internal politics, Russia's
power will rely not on the elites and their back-room dealing, but on
the will of the people.

To these nine points I would like to add a tenth:

10. There is still a chance to construct a new world order that will
avoid a world war. This new world order must of necessity include the
United States—but can only do so on the same terms as everyone else:
subject to international law and international agreements; refraining
from all unilateral action; in full respect of the sovereignty of
other nations.

To sum it all up: play-time is over. Children, put away your toys. Now
is the time for the adults to make decisions. Russia is ready for
this; is the world?

Text of Vladimir Putin’s speech and a question and answer session at
the final plenary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion
Club’s XI session in Sochi on 24 October 2014.

It was mentioned already that the club has new co-organizers this
year. They include Russian non-governmental organizations, expert
groups and leading universities. The idea was also raised of
broadening the discussions to include not just issues related to
Russia itself but also global politics and the economy.

An organization and content will bolster the club’s influence as a
leading discussion and expert forum. At the same time, I hope the
‘Valdai spirit’ will remain – this free and open atmosphere and chance
to express all manner of very different and frank opinions.

Let me say in this respect that I will also not let you down and will
speak directly and frankly. Some of what I say might seem a bit too
harsh, but if we do not speak directly and honestly about what we
really think, then there is little point in even meeting in this way.
It would be better in that case just to keep to diplomatic
get-togethers, where no one says anything of real sense and, recalling
the words of one famous diplomat, you realize that diplomats have
tongues so as not to speak the truth.

We get together for other reasons. We get together so as to talk
frankly with each other. We need to be direct and blunt today not so
as to trade barbs, but so as to attempt to get to the bottom of what
is actually happening in the world, try to understand why the world is
becoming less safe and more unpredictable, and why the risks are
increasing everywhere around us.

Today’s discussion took place under the theme: New Rules or a Game
without Rules. I think that this formula accurately describes the
historic turning point we have reached today and the choice we all
face. There is nothing new of course in the idea that the world is
changing very fast. I know this is something you have spoken about at
the discussions today. It is certainly hard not to notice the dramatic
transformations in global politics and the economy, public life, and
in industry, information and social technologies.

Let me ask you right now to forgive me if I end up repeating what some
of the discussion’s participants have already said. It’s practically
impossible to avoid. You have already held detailed discussions, but I
will set out my point of view. It will coincide with other
participants’ views on some points and differ on others.

As we analyze today’s situation, let us not forget history’s lessons.
First of all, changes in the world order – and what we are seeing
today are events on this scale – have usually been accompanied by if
not global war and conflict, then by chains of intensive local-level
conflicts. Second, global politics is above all about economic
leadership, issues of war and peace, and the humanitarian dimension,
including human rights.

The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in
asking each other if we have a reliable safety net in place. Sadly,
there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current system of
global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals.
This system has become seriously weakened, fragmented and deformed.
The international and regional political, economic, and cultural
cooperation organizations are also going through difficult times.

Yes, many of the mechanisms we have for ensuring the world order were
created quite a long time ago now, including and above all in the
period immediately following World War II. Let me stress that the
solidity of the system created back then rested not only on the
balance of power and the rights of the victor countries, but on the
fact that this system’s ‘founding fathers’ had respect for each other,
did not try to put the squeeze on others, but attempted to reach
agreements.

The main thing is that this system needs to develop, and despite its
various shortcomings, needs to at least be capable of keeping the
world’s current problems within certain limits and regulating the
intensity of the natural competition between countries.

It is my conviction that we could not take this mechanism of checks
and balances that we built over the last decades, sometimes with such
effort and difficulty, and simply tear it apart without building
anything in its place. Otherwise we would be left with no instruments
other than brute force.

What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and
adapt it the new realities in the system of international relations.

But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold
War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new balance of
power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they took steps
that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.

The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace
treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing
rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression
that the so-called ‘victors’ in the Cold War had decided to pressure
events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If
the existing system of international relations, international law and
the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this
system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate
demolition.

Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when
they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape
of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth
wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have
committed many follies.

We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate
silences in world politics. International law has been forced to
retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity
and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal
norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has
made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as
white.

In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies,
or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned
into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group’s
ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they
put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire
international community. But this is not the case.

The very notion of ‘national sovereignty’ became a relative value for
most countries. In essence, what was being proposed was the formula:
the greater the loyalty towards the world’s sole power centre, the
greater this or that ruling regime’s legitimacy.

We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to
answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask you
questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I just set
out during the upcoming discussion.

The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known
and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force,
economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and
appeals to a kind of ‘supra-legal’ legitimacy when they need to
justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling
inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that
outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders.
It is not for nothing that ‘big brother’ is spending billions of
dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies,
under surveillance.

Let’s ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are
we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it
become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward
questions? Maybe the United States’ exceptional position and the way
they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us
all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing
peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe
just relax and enjoy it all?

Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.

A unilateral diktat and imposing one’s own models produces the
opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their
escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing
spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very
dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.

Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to
use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but
then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the
way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say
here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.

They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet
Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and
later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not
supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave
information, political and financial support to international
terrorists’ invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the
Central Asian region’s countries. Only after horrific terrorist
attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up
to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the
first country to support the American people back then, the first to
react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11.

During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always
spoke of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a
global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat,
cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our
partners expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up
back where we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq,
then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was
Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of
breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.

Only the current Egyptian leadership’s determination and wisdom saved
this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run rampant. In
Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started
directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their
ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do
these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where
does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become
such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?


As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from
drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage
points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have
been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are
getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory
controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce
it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes
a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus
financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil
and sow destruction in their own countries.

Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was
toppled, the state’s institutions, including the army, were left in
ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful. You are driving
people out into the street, and what will they do there? Don’t forget
(rightfully or not) that they were in the leadership of a large
regional power, and what are you now turning them into?

What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and
former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and
today have joined the rebels’ ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why
the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military
terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional
people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral
military actions, intervening in sovereign states’ affairs, and
flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the
groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic
State, included on the lists of terrorist organizations. But did we
see any results? We appealed in vain.

We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are
constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all
their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created,
and pay an ever-greater price.

Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly
demonstrated that having only one power centre does not make global
processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of unstable
construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as
regional conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism,
chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the same time, it has opened the road
wide for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion and
letting the strong bully and suppress the weak.

Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying
dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out
too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the
self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just
before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at
this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar
world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It
does not matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American
propaganda, the USSR’s old place as the main adversary. It could be
Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as
the world’s biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.

Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new
dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something but
directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy as was
the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this
leadership, or diktat if you wish. The situation was presented this
way during the Cold War. We all understand this and know this. The
United States always told its allies: “We have a common enemy, a
terrible foe, the centre of evil, and we are defending you, our
allies, from this foe, and so we have the right to order you around,
force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay
your share of the costs for this collective defense, but we will be
the ones in charge of it all of course.” In short, we see today
attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar models
of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US’]
exceptional position and reap political and economic dividends.

But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in
contradiction with the world’s diversity. Steps of this kind
inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and have the
opposite effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when
politics rashly starts meddling in the economy and the logic of
rational decisions gives way to the logic of confrontation that only
hurt one’s own economic positions and interests, including national
business interests.

Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring
countries closer together and help to smooth out current problems in
relations between states. But today, the global business community
faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business,
economic expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear
slogans such as “the homeland is in danger”, “the free world is under
threat”, and “democracy is in jeopardy”? And so everyone needs to
mobilize. That is what a real mobilization policy looks like.

Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the
WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They
are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalization based on markets,
freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has
primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk
losing trust as the leaders of globalization. We have to ask
ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States’
prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign
holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being
undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalization
are visible now in many countries. 

The well-known Cyprus precedent
and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened the
trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty
and countries’ or their regional groups’ desire to find ways of
protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure. We already
see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less
dependent on the dollar and are setting up alternative financial and
payments systems and reserve currencies. I think that our American
friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on. You
cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening
now. I have always thought and still think today that politically
motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone, but I am
sure that we will come back to this subject later.

We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the
pressure. But let me stress that Russia is not going to get all worked
up, get offended or come begging at anyone’s door. Russia is a
self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic
environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and
technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation.
Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will
only consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on
our main development goals.

Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us
through these sanctions, block our development and push us into
political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness
in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very
different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off
from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying
to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on
normalizing our economic and political relations. We are counting here
on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the
leading countries.

Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on
Europe – such words were probably spoken already here too during the
discussions – and is looking for new business partners, above all in
Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active
policy in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in
response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been following for
a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western
countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the
world, in the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we
can afford to overlook these developments.

Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to,
all the more so as a large part of our country is geographically in
Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive advantages in this
area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.

Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint
integration projects also creates big incentives for our domestic
development. Today’s demographic, economic and cultural trends all
suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively
decrease. This is something that European and American experts have
been talking and writing about too.

Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments
we are seeing in the global economy, namely, intensive competition for
specific niches and frequent change of leaders in specific areas. This
is entirely possible.

There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education,
science, healthcare and culture are playing a greater role in global
competition. This also has a big impact on international relations,
including because this ‘soft power’ resource will depend to a great
extent on real achievements in developing human capital rather than on
sophisticated propaganda tricks.

At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world (I
would also like to draw attention to this, colleagues) in and of
itself does not improve stability; in fact, it is more likely to be
the opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into
a fairly difficult puzzle, an equation with many unknowns.
So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules –
even if they may be strict and inconvenient – but rather live without
any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely possible; we cannot
rule it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many
predictions can already be made, taking into account current trends,
and unfortunately, they are not optimistic. If we do not create a
clear system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build
the mechanisms for managing and resolving crisis situations, the
symptoms of global anarchy will inevitably grow.

Today, we already see a sharp increase in the likelihood of a whole
set of violent conflicts with either direct or indirect participation
by the world’s major powers. And the risk factors include not just
traditional multinational conflicts, but also the internal instability
in separate states, especially when we talk about nations located at
the intersections of major states’ geopolitical interests, or on the
border of cultural, historical, and economic civilizational
continents.

Ukraine, which I’m sure was discussed at length and which we will
discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts
that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly
not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying
the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous
process was launched by the United States of America when it
unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002,
and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation
of its global missile defense system.

Colleagues, friends, I want to point out that we did not start this.
Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance
of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of
mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct
conflict. In absence of legal and political instruments, arms are once
again becoming the focal point of the global agenda; they are used
wherever and however, without any UN Security Council sanctions. And
if the Security Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is
immediately declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument.

Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their sovereignty
but to obtain their own bombs. This is extremely dangerous. We insist
on continuing talks; we are not only in favor of talks, but insist on
continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons
we have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most
serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament – but only
serious discussions without any double standards.

What do I mean? Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are
already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their
capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons
or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in
creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear
military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is
likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global
pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not
decrease, but intensify.

The next obvious threat is the further escalation of ethnic,
religious, and social conflicts. Such conflicts are dangerous not only
as such, but also because they create zones of anarchy, lawlessness,
and chaos around them, places that are comfortable for terrorists and
criminals, where piracy, human trafficking, and drug trafficking
flourish.

Incidentally, at the time, our colleagues tried to somehow manage
these processes, use regional conflicts and design ‘color revolutions’
to suit their interests, but the genie escaped the bottle. It looks
like the controlled chaos theory fathers themselves do not know what
to do with it; there is disarray in their ranks.

We closely follow the discussions by both the ruling elite and the
expert community. It is enough to look at the headlines of the Western
press over the last year. The same people are called fighters for
democracy, and then Islamists; first they write about revolutions and
then call them riots and upheavals. The result is obvious: the further
expansion of global chaos.

Colleagues, given the global situation, it is time to start agreeing
on fundamental things. This is incredibly important and necessary;
this is much better than going back to our own corners. The more we
all face common problems, the more we find ourselves in the same boat,
so to speak. And the logical way out is in cooperation between
nations, societies, in finding collective answers to increasing
challenges, and in joint risk management. Granted, some of our
partners, for some reason, remember this only when it suits their
interests.

Practical experience shows that joint answers to challenges are not
always a panacea; and we need to understand this. Moreover, in most
cases, they are hard to reach; it is not easy to overcome the
differences in national interests, the subjectivity of different
approaches, particularly when it comes to nations with different
cultural and historical traditions. But nevertheless, we have examples
when, having common goals and acting based on the same criteria,
together we achieved real success.

Let me remind you about solving the problem of chemical weapons in
Syria, and the substantive dialogue on the Iranian nuclear program, as
well as our work on North Korean issues, which also has some positive
results. Why can’t we use this experience in the future to solve local
and global challenges?
What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new world
order that would allow for stability and security, while encouraging
healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new monopolies that
hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide
absolutely exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need
extensive work with participation by a wide range of governments,
global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.

However, it is obvious that success and real results are only possible
if key participants in international affairs can agree on harmonizing
basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and set the example of
positive and responsible leadership. We must clearly identify where
unilateral actions end and we need to apply multilateral mechanisms,
and as part of improving the effectiveness of international law, we
must resolve the dilemma between the actions by international
community to ensure security and human rights and the principle of
national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of
any state.

Those very collisions increasingly lead to arbitrary external
interference in complex internal processes, and time and again, they
provoke dangerous conflicts between leading global players. The issue
of maintaining sovereignty becomes almost paramount in maintaining and
strengthening global stability.

Clearly, discussing the criteria for the use of external force is
extremely difficult; it is practically impossible to separate it from
the interests of particular nations. However, it is far more dangerous
when there are no agreements that are clear to everyone, when no clear
conditions are set for necessary and legal interference.

I will add that international relations must be based on international
law, which itself should rest on moral principles such as justice,
equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect for one’s
partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply
following it could radically change the global situation.

I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness
of the international and regional institutions system. We do not even
need to build anything anew, from the scratch; this is not a
“greenfield,” especially since the institutions created after World
War II are quite universal and can be given modern substance, adequate
to manage the current situation.

This is true of improving the work of the UN, whose central role is
irreplaceable, as well as the OSCE, which, over the course of 40
years, has proven to be a necessary mechanism for ensuring security
and cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic region. I must say that even now,
in trying to resolve the crisis in southeast Ukraine, the OSCE is
playing a very positive role.

In light of the fundamental changes in the international environment,
the increase in uncontrollability and various threats, we need a new
global consensus of responsible forces. It’s not about some local
deals or a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic
diplomacy, or somebody’s complete global domination. I think that we
need a new version of interdependence. We should not be afraid of it.
On the contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonizing positions.

This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth of
certain regions on the planet, which process objectively requires
institutionalization of such new poles, creating powerful regional
organizations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation
between these centers would seriously add to the stability of global
security, policy and economy. But in order to establish such a
dialogue, we need to proceed from the assumption that all regional
centers and integration projects forming around them need to have
equal rights to development, so that they can complement each other
and nobody can force them into conflict or opposition artificially.
Such destructive actions would break down ties between states, and the
states themselves would be subjected to extreme hardship, or perhaps
even total destruction.

I would like to remind you of the last year’s events. We have told our
American and European partners that hasty backstage decisions, for
example, on Ukraine’s association with the EU, are fraught with
serious risks to the economy. We didn’t even say anything about
politics; we spoke only about the economy, saying that such steps,
made without any prior arrangements, touch on the interests of many
other nations, including Russia as Ukraine’s main trade partner, and
that a wide discussion of the issues is necessary. Incidentally, in
this regard, I will remind you that, for example, the talks on
Russia’s accession to the WTO lasted 19 years. This was very difficult
work, and a certain consensus was reached.

Why am I bringing this up? Because in implementing Ukraine’s
association project, our partners would come to us with their goods
and services through the back gate, so to speak, and we did not agree
to this, nobody asked us about this. We had discussions on all topics
related to Ukraine’s association with the EU, persistent discussions,
but I want to stress that this was done in an entirely civilized
manner, indicating possible problems, showing the obvious reasoning
and arguments. Nobody wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to
talk. They simply told us: this is none of your business, point, end
of discussion. Instead of a comprehensive but – I stress – civilized
dialogue, it all came down to a government overthrow; they plunged the
country into chaos, into economic and social collapse, into a civil
war with enormous casualties.

Why? When I ask my colleagues why, they no longer have an answer;
nobody says anything. That’s it. Everyone’s at a loss, saying it just
turned out that way. Those actions should not have been encouraged –
it wouldn’t have worked. After all (I already spoke about this),
former Ukrainian President Yanukovych signed everything, agreed with
everything. Why do it? What was the point? What is this, a civilized
way of solving problems? Apparently, those who constantly throw
together new ‘color revolutions’ consider themselves ‘brilliant
artists’ and simply cannot stop.

I am certain that the work of integrated associations, the cooperation
of regional structures, should be built on a transparent, clear basis;
the Eurasian Economic Union’s formation process is a good example of
such transparency. The states that are parties to this project
informed their partners of their plans in advance, specifying the
parameters of our association, the principles of its work, which fully
correspond with the World Trade Organization rules.

I will add that we would also have welcomed the start of a concrete
dialogue between the Eurasian and European Union. Incidentally, they
have almost completely refused us this as well, and it is also unclear
why – what is so scary about it?

And, of course, with such joint work, we would think that we need to
engage in dialogue (I spoke about this many times and heard agreement
from many of our western partners, at least in Europe) on the need to
create a common space for economic and humanitarian cooperation
stretching all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.

Colleagues, Russia made its choice. Our priorities are further
improving our democratic and open economy institutions, accelerated
internal development, taking into account all the positive modern
trends in the world, and consolidating society based on traditional
values and patriotism.

We have an integration-oriented, positive, peaceful agenda; we are
working actively with our colleagues in the Eurasian Economic Union,
the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS and other partners. This
agenda is aimed at developing ties between governments, not
dissociating. We are not planning to cobble together any blocs or get
involved in an exchange of blows.

The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to establish some
sort of empire, encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbors, are
groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place
in the world – I want to emphasize this. While respecting the
interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken
into account and for our position to be respected.

We are well aware that the world has entered an era of changes and
global transformations, when we all need a particular degree of
caution, the ability to avoid thoughtless steps. In the years after
the Cold War, participants in global politics lost these qualities
somewhat. Now, we need to remember them. Otherwise, hopes for a
peaceful, stable development will be a dangerous illusion, while
today’s turmoil will simply serve as a prelude to the collapse of
world order.

Yes, of course, I have already said that building a more stable world
order is a difficult task. We are talking about long and hard work. We
were able to develop rules for interaction after World War II, and we
were able to reach an agreement in Helsinki in the 1970s. Our common
duty is to resolve this fundamental challenge at this new stage of
development.

Thank you very much for your attention.