Putin to Western elites: Play-time is over
OCTOBER
29, 2014
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 want 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.
