Lichtweltverlag Blogspot: PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN IS OUTSPOKEN, JJK

Putin's Remarks at the 11th Meeting of the

Valdai International Discussion Club

Honored Reader,

This is easily the most significant speech of an active politician
of international standing and world importance of this time.

All our Western Heads of State and also the lower-ranking
politicians would well benefit to possess a grain of the courage,
the wisdom and the honesty of Putin and to apostatize from the
global claim to power of Washington, because whoever collaborates
with the criminals in the White House will also go under with them.

May the fruits of this speech be recognizable soon,

In Love

Jahn J Kassl

Vladimir Putin took part in the final plenary meeting of the Valdai
International Discussion Club’s XI session. The meeting’s theme
is The World Order: New Rules or a Game without Rules.

This year, 108 experts, historians and political analysts from
25 countries, including 62 foreign participants, took part in the
club’s work.

The plenary meeting summed up the club’s work over the
previous three days, which concentrated on analysing the
factors eroding the current system of institutions and norms
of international law.
Excerpts from transcript of the final plenary meeting of
the Valdai International Discussion Club’s XI session

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN:

Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, friends,

it is a pleasure to welcome you to the XI meeting
of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

It was mentioned already that the club has new co-organisers
this year. They include Russian non-governmental organisations,
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.

I hope that these changes in organisation 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 realise 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.

New Rules or a Game without Rules
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.

"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. The international and regional political,
economic, and cultural cooperation organisations are also going
through difficult times."

As we analyse 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 organisations 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 to 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 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."

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. And during the upcoming discussion let someone
try to disprove the argument that I just set out.
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.

"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."

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 organisations. 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 defence, 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 hurts one’s
own economic positions and interests, including national business
interests.

"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."

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 mobilise. That is what a real mobilisation 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 globalisation
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 globalisation. 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 globalisation 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 normalising 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.

"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."

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 defence 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.

"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 globalisation based on markets, freedom and competition,
which is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the
Western countries."

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
favour 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
‘colour 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 programme, 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?

"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."

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
harmonising 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.

"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."

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
harmonising positions.

This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and
growth of certain regions on the planet, which process objectively
requires institutionalisation of such new poles, creating powerful
regional organisations and developing rules for their interaction.
Cooperation between these centres 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 centres 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 civilised 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 – civilised
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 – then it wouldn’t turn out that way.
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 civilised way of solving problems? Apparently, those who constantly throw together new ‘colour 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 Organisation
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?

"We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone
and choosing some kind of closed development road. We are
always open to dialogue, including on normalising our economic
and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic
approach and position of business communities in the leading
countries."

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 Organisation,
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 neighbours,
are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive
place in the world – I want to emphasise 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.
________________________________________________

All extern hyperlinks inactive because the light world publishing
Originally published on: http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/23137