Speech by Vladimir Putin on the "Valdai"
Vladimir Putin is taking part in the final plenary session of the XI meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. The topic of the meeting is “World order: new rules or a game without rules?”.
This year 108 experts, historians and political scientists from 25 countries of the world, including 62 foreign participants, take part in the club.
It is expected that the plenary session will sum up the results of the three days of the club, during which an analysis of the erosion factors of the existing system of institutions and norms of international law was carried out.
Vladimir Putin: Dear Colleagues! Ladies and Gentlemen! Dear friends! I am glad to welcome you to the XI Conference of the Valdai Discussion Club.
It has already been said here that this year the club has new co-organizers. Among them are Russian non-governmental, expert structures, leading universities. In addition, the idea was expressed to add to the discussion of the actual Russian issues and issues of global politics and economics.
I expect that these organizational and substantive changes will strengthen the position of the club as one of the authoritative discussion and expert platforms. At the same time, I hope that the so-called spirit of Valdai will be able to be preserved, and this is freedom, openness, the opportunity to express very different and at the same time always frank opinions.
In this regard, I want to say that I will not disappoint you either, they will speak directly, frankly. Some things may seem overly harsh. But if you do not speak directly and do not speak honestly about what we really and truly think about, then in such a format it makes no sense to get together. Then you need to gather at some diplomatic receptions, where no one really says anything, and, recalling the words of a famous diplomat, you can only point out that the language is given to diplomats in order not to tell the truth.
Here we are going for other purposes. We are going to talk frankly. Directness and rigidity of assessments are needed today not at all to engage in mutual picking, but to try to figure out what is really happening in the world, why it is becoming less safe and less predictable, why risks are increasing everywhere.
The theme of today's meeting, the discussions that took place here, has already been called: "New rules of the game or a game without rules." In my opinion, this topic, this wording very accurately describes that historical the fork in which we are, the choice that all of us have to make.
The thesis that the modern world is changing rapidly, of course, is not new. And I know that you talked about this during the discussion. Indeed, it is difficult not to notice the radical transformations in global politics, economics, public life, in the sphere of industrial, information, social technologies.
Immediately I ask you to forgive me if I will repeat after some of the participants in the discussion. But this can not be avoided, you nevertheless spoke in detail, but I will express my point of view, in some ways it will coincide with the participants in the discussion, in some things it will diverge.
Let's not forget, analyzing the current state, the lessons of history. Firstly, a change in the world order (and phenomena of such a magnitude we are witnessing today), as a rule, was accompanied, if not by a global war, not by global clashes, then by a chain of intense conflicts of a local nature. And, secondly, world politics is, first of all, economic leadership, issues of war and peace, the humanitarian sphere, including human rights.
The world has accumulated a lot of contradictions. And we must frankly ask each other if we have a reliable safety net. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the existing system of global and regional security can protect us from shocks. This system is seriously weakened, fragmented and deformed. International and regional institutions of political, economic, cultural interaction are experiencing a difficult time.
Yes, many mechanisms to ensure the world order took shape a long time ago, including following the results of the Second World War - and above all following the results of the Second World War. The strength of this system was based not only on the balance of power, by the way, I also want to emphasize this, and not only on the right of the winners, but also on the fact that the “founding fathers” of this security system respected each other, did not try to overcome everything , and tried to negotiate.
The main thing is that this system developed and with all its flaws it helped, if not solved, then at least to keep within the framework of the existing world problems, to regulate the intensity of the natural competition of states.
I am convinced that this mechanism of checks and balances, which was difficult to form in previous decades, sometimes painfully lined up, could not be broken, in any case it was impossible to break anything without creating anything in return, otherwise there really would be no other tools other than brute force. It was necessary to conduct a reasonable reconstruction, to adapt the system of international relations to the new realities.
However, the United States, which declared itself victorious in the Cold War, self-confidently, I think, thought that there was simply no need for this. And instead of establishing a new balance of power, which is a necessary condition for order and stability, on the contrary, steps were taken that led to a sharp aggravation of the imbalance.
The cold war is over. But it did not end with the conclusion of a "peace", clear and transparent agreements on the observance of existing ones or on the creation of new rules and standards. It seemed that the so-called “winners” in the Cold War decided to “press the situation”, to reshape the whole world exclusively for themselves, for their own interests. And if the established system of international relations, international law, the system of checks and balances interfered with the achievement of this goal, then it was immediately declared worthless, outdated and subject to immediate demolition.
So, behave, excuse me, the nouveau riche, on whom tremendous wealth suddenly fell, in this case in the form of world domination, world leadership. And instead of correctly managing them with this wealth, including my own, of course, benefit, I think that a lot of firewood has been broken.
The period of discrepancies and omissions in world politics began. Under the pressure of legal nihilism, step by step, international law surrendered its positions. Objectivity and justice were sacrificed for political expediency. Legal norms were replaced by arbitrary interpretation and partial assessments. At the same time, total control over global media allowed, if desired, to give white as black and black as white.
With the dominance of one country and its allies, or, to put it another way, satellites, the search for “global solutions” often turned into a desire to impose own recipes as universal ones. The ambitions of this group have increased so much that the approaches developed on its margins were presented as the opinion of the entire world community. But it is not.
The concept of "national sovereignty" for most states has become a relative value. In essence, a formula was proposed: the stronger the loyalty to the only center of influence in the world, the higher the legitimacy of a particular ruling regime.
Then we will have a free discussion with you, I will answer questions with pleasure and let me use my right and ask you questions. But in the course of this discussion, try someone to refute the thesis that I have just formulated.
Measures of influence on recalcitrants are well known and repeatedly tested: forceful actions, economic and propaganda pressure, interference in internal affairs. Appeals to some kind of "supralegal legitimacy", when it is necessary to justify the unlawful settlement of certain conflicts, the elimination of undesirable regimes. Recently, evidence has emerged that outright blackmail is being used against a number of leaders. Not for nothing, the so-called "big brother" spends billions of dollars in surveillance around the world, including for his closest allies.
Let's ask ourselves how comfortable, safe and pleasant it is for all of us to live in such a world, how fair and rational it is. Maybe we have no good reason to worry, argue, ask uncomfortable questions? Maybe the exclusivity of the United States, the way they realize their leadership, it really is good for everyone, and their widespread intervention in all matters in the world brings peace, prosperity, progress, prosperity, democracy, and you just need to relax and have fun?
Let me say that it is not. This is absolutely not true.
One-sided dictation and the imposition of their own patterns bring the exact opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts, escalation. Instead of sovereign, stable states - a growing space of chaos. Instead of democracy - the support of a highly dubious public - from outspoken neo-Nazis to Islamist radicals.
Why support them? Because they are used at some stage as a tool to achieve their goals, then they are burned, and back. I’m never tired of being surprised at how our partners, over and over again, as we say in Russia, attack the same rake, that is, they make the same mistakes.
At one time they sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union, which were hardened in Afghanistan. Both Taliban and Al Qaeda grew out of them. The West, if not supported, then turned a blind eye, and I would say and support, in fact, informationally, politically, financially - the invasion of international terrorists into Russia. We have not forgotten this. And the countries of the Central Asian region. Only after the terrible terrorist attacks were committed on the territory of the United States itself, did an understanding of the general threat of terrorism come. Let me remind you, we were the first to support the people of the United States of America, reacted as friends and partners to this terrible tragedy of September 11.
During conversations with the leaders of the United States and Europe, I constantly talk about the need to jointly fight terrorism as a global challenge. And it is impossible to put up with this challenge, and it is impossible to stop it, to use double standards. They agreed with us, but a little time passed and everything returned to normal. Intervention followed in Iraq and Libya, and this country, by the way, was put on the brink of collapse. Actually, why was it delivered? She is now on the verge of collapse, has become a proving ground for terrorists. Only the will and wisdom of the current leadership of Egypt helped to avoid chaos and rampant extremists in this key Arab country. In Syria, as in the old days, the United States and its allies directly began to finance and supply weapons militants, condone the replenishment of their ranks by mercenaries from different countries. Let me ask you, where did the militants get money, weapons, military experts? Where does all this come from? How did it happen that this ISIS, the so-called, notorious, turned into a powerful, in fact, army group?
As for financial support, today it is not only income from drugs, the production of which, by the way, during the stay of international forces in Afghanistan, has increased not by some percentage, but several times, and you all know about it, but financial support comes from the sale of oil, its production is deployed in territories under the control of terrorists. They sell it at bargain prices, get it, transport it. After all, someone buys it, this oil, resells, makes money on it, without thinking that it finances the terrorists, who sooner or later may come to their territory, will come to sow death in their countries.
Where do new recruits come from? In the same Iraq, as a result of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, state institutions, including the army, were destroyed. We then said: be careful, cautious. Where are you drove these people? Outside. What will they do? Do not forget (it was fair or unfair), but they were in the leadership of a fairly large regional country. What do you turn them into?
What happened? Tens of thousands of soldiers and officers, former activists of the Ba'ath Party, thrown into the street, today joined the militants. Perhaps, here lies, by the way, the viability of ISIS? They are real, very effective from a military point of view, real professional people. Russia has repeatedly warned about the dangers of unilateral military actions, interfering in the affairs of sovereign states, flirting with extremists and radicals, insisting on including groups fighting against the central Syrian government, primarily ISIL, in the lists of terrorist organizations. So what, the result is what? Useless.
Sometimes it seems that our colleagues and friends are constantly struggling with the results of their own policies, throwing their power to eliminate the risks that they themselves create, pay for this ever-increasing and increasing price.
Dear Colleagues. The moment of unipolarity convincingly demonstrated that increasing the dominance of a single center of power does not lead to an increase in controllability by global processes. On the contrary, such an unstable construction has proved its inability to effectively deal with such genuine threats as regional conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the same time, it opened up a broad road for the manifestation of national vanity, the manipulation of public opinion, and the brutal suppression of the will of the weak by the will of the strong. At its core, the unipolar world is an apology, an apologetics of dictatorship over people and over countries. By the way, the unipolar world turned out to be uncomfortable, overwhelming and difficult to control for the so-called self-appointed leader himself, and now only this was also said out loud, I completely agree with that. Hence, today's attempts at a new historical stage to recreate some semblance of a quasi-bipolar world, a quasi-bipolar system, as a convenient model of reproduction, in this case, American leadership. It does not matter who in American propaganda takes the place of the center of evil - the place of the USSR as the main opponent: it is Iran - as a country striving for nuclear technologies, China - as the first economy of the world or Russia - as a nuclear superpower.
Now we again see attempts to crush the world, draw dividing lines, put together coalitions on the principle of not for but against anyone, re-form the image of the enemy, as it was during the Cold War, and get the right to such leadership, but, if want the right to dictate. After all, how the situation was interpreted in the era of the Cold War, we all understand and know. The States' allies always said: "We have a common enemy, it is terrible, it is the center of evil, we, our allies, protect you from it, and, therefore, we have the right to command you, make you sacrifice your political and economic interests, bear expenses on collective defense, but we will, of course, lead this defense. " In short, today there is an obvious desire in the new, changed world to implement the usual schemes of global governance, and everything is designed to ensure its exclusivity and receive political and economic dividends.
However, such attempts are not only more and more at odds with reality, they are in conflict with the diversity of the world. Such steps will inevitably generate opposition, a response, and also bring exactly the opposite effect. We see what happens when a policy is recklessly mixed with the economy, the logic of expediency gives way to the logic of opposition, even if it damages its own economic positions and interests, including the interests of national businesses.
Joint economic projects, mutual investments objectively bring countries closer together, help to absorb current problems in interstate relations. However, today the global business community is under unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, what economic expediency, pragmatism can be, when the slogan “Fatherland is in danger”, “free world in danger”, “democracy in danger”? Need to mobilize. This is the mobilization policy.
Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade and WTO rules, the principles of the inviolability of private property, shattering the liberal model of globalization based on market, freedom and competition. The model, the main beneficiaries of which, I note, is precisely the countries of the West. Now they risk losing trust as leaders of globalization. The question is: why do you need to do this? After all, the well-being of the United States to a great extent depends on the confidence of investors, foreign holders of the dollar and US securities. Trust is clearly undermined, signs of frustration in the fruits of globalization are now present in many countries.
The notorious Cypriot precedent and politically motivated sanctions only strengthened the trend towards economic and financial sovereignty, the desire of states or their regional associations to insure themselves from the risks of external pressure one way or another. So, already now an increasing number of states are attempting to get away from dollar dependence, to create alternative financial, settlement systems, reserve currencies. In my opinion, our American friends simply undermine, cut the branch on which they themselves sit. You can’t mix politics and economics, but that’s what’s happening. I believed and I believe that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that harms everyone, but I’m sure we’ll talk more about that.
We understand how and under whose pressure these decisions were made. At the same time, Russia will not - I want to draw your attention to this - will not get up in a pose, will not be offended by anyone, ask anyone for anything. Russia is a self-sufficient country. We will work in the external economic conditions that have developed, develop our production and technologies, act more decisively in carrying out transformations, and external pressure, as it was more than once, only consolidates our society, does not allow us to relax, I would say, makes us concentrate on main directions of development.
Sanctions, of course, are preventing us, with these sanctions they are trying to harm us, block our development, push us towards self-isolation in politics, economics, culture, that is, pushing backwardness. But the world, I want to emphasize this, I have already said this and will repeat it, the world has changed dramatically. We do not intend to close off of it and choose some path of closed development, the path of autarky, we are always ready for dialogue, including on the normalization of economic relations, and political ones as well. We count here on a pragmatic approach and the position of business circles of leading countries of the world.
Today, there are allegations that Russia allegedly turns its back on Europe, probably, during the discussions it sounded, looking for other business partners, primarily in Asia. I want to say that this is absolutely not true. Our active policy in the Asia-Pacific region did not begin today or in connection with sanctions, but more than a few years ago. They proceeded in the same way as many other countries, including Western countries, proceeded from the fact that the east occupies an increasingly significant place in the world both in the economy and in politics. This simply can not be ignored.
Once again I want to stress that everyone is doing this, and we will do it, especially since we have a significant part of the territory located in Asia. Why don't we take advantage of this kind of advantage? It would be just short-sighted.
Building up economic ties with these states, joint integration projects is a serious incentive for our internal development. Today’s demographic, economic, and cultural trends suggest that dependence on one superpower will, of course, objectively decline, and this, in fact, is also mentioned by European, American experts, they are talking and writing about it.
It is possible that in world politics we are waiting for the same phenomena as in the global economy, and this is a strong intense competition in certain specific niches, a frequent change of leaders in specific areas. This is all possible.
There is no doubt that in global competition the role of humanitarian factors will grow: education, science, health care, culture. This, in turn, will significantly affect international relations, including because the resource of so-called soft power will depend more on real achievements in the formation of human capital, rather than on the sophistication of propaganda techniques.
At the same time, the formation of the so-called polycentric world would also like to draw attention to this, dear colleagues, does not in itself strengthen stability, rather, rather the opposite. The task of achieving global equilibrium turns into a rather complicated puzzle, into an equation with many unknowns.
What awaits us if we choose to live not by the rules, albeit strict and inconvenient, but without rules? Namely, such a scenario is quite real, it cannot be ruled out, given the intensity of the situation in the world. A number of forecasts, observing current trends, can already be made and, unfortunately, they are not optimistic. If we do not create a coherent system of mutual obligations and agreements, do not build crisis resolution mechanisms, signs of global anarchy will inevitably increase.
Already today, the likelihood of a whole series of acute conflicts has sharply increased, if not with direct, then with the indirect participation of major powers. At the same time, not only traditional interstate contradictions become a risk factor, but also the internal instability of individual states, especially when it comes to countries located at the junction of the geopolitical interests of large states, or at the border of cultural, historical, economic civilizational continents.
Ukraine, which probably also talked a lot and will talk again, is one of the examples of such conflicts that have an impact on the global balance of power, and I think it is far from the last. Hence the next real prospect of the destruction of the current system of treaties on arms limitation and control. And this process was certainly initiated by the United States of America, when in 2002, they unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty, and then started, and are now actively creating their own global missile defense system.
Dear colleagues, friends!
I draw your attention, not we started it. We are again slipping into those times when it is not the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, but the fear, the balance of mutual destruction that keeps countries from a direct collision. In the absence of legal and political instruments, the weapon returns to the center of the global agenda, it is used anywhere and in any way, without any sanctions by the UN Security Council. And if the Security Council refuses to stamp such decisions, then it is immediately declared outdated and ineffective tool.
Many states see no other guarantee of sovereignty, except to acquire their own bomb. This is extremely dangerous. We insist on continuing negotiations, we are not just for negotiations, we insist on continuing negotiations on reducing nuclear arsenals. The fewer nuclear weapons in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious substantive conversation on nuclear disarmament, but precisely to serious, as they say, without double standards.
What do you mean? Today, many types of high-precision weapons are already closer in their capabilities to weapons of mass destruction, and in the event of failure, complete abandonment of nuclear potential or a critical reduction in its volume, countries with leadership in the creation and production of high-precision systems will gain a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be broken, and this is fraught with destabilization. There is a temptation to use the so-called first global disarming strike. In short, the risks do not decrease, but increase.
The next obvious threat is the further growth of conflicts on ethnic, religious, social grounds. Such conflicts are dangerous not only by themselves, they form around themselves zones of anarchy, lawlessness and chaos, where both terrorists and ordinary criminals feel comfortably, piracy, human trafficking, and the drug business flourish.
By the way, our colleagues at one time tried to somehow manage these processes, use regional conflicts, construct “color revolutions” in their own interests, but the genie broke out of the bottle. It seems that the authors of the theory of controlled chaos themselves do not understand what to do with it. In their ranks confusion and vacillation.
We are closely watching the discussions both in the ruling elites and in the expert community. Just look at the headlines of the Western press over the past year. The same people are called the fighters for democracy, and then the Islamists, first they write about revolutions, then about pogroms and coups. The result is obvious - the further growth of global chaos.
Dear Colleagues! In such a situation in the world, it is time to start agreeing on things of principle. This is extremely important and necessary, it is much better than to disperse in different corners, especially since we all face common problems, are, as they say, in the same boat. And the logical way is the cooperation of countries, societies and the search for collective responses to the multiplying challenges, joint risk management. True, for some reason, some of our partners recall this only when it is in their interests.
Practical experience proves that joint responses to challenges, firstly, not always a panacea, of course, need to recognize this, and, secondly, in most cases they are difficult to achieve, it is too difficult to overcome the differences of national interests, the subjectivity of approaches, especially when it comes to It is about countries with different cultural and historical traditions. And yet, we have examples when, guided by common goals, acting on the basis of uniform criteria, we jointly achieve real success.
Let me remind both about solving the problem of the Syrian chemical weapons and about the substantive dialogue on the Iranian nuclear program, and our work on the North Korean track also has some positive results. Why not use all this experience in the future, both in solving local and global problems?
What could be the legal, political, economic basis of the new world order, which would ensure stability and security, at the same time encourage healthy competition, and prevent the formation of new monopolies that would block development? It is unlikely that anyone can now give absolutely comprehensive, ready-made recipes. It will require long-term work with the participation of a wide range of states, world business, civil society, such expert sites as ours.
However, it is obvious that success, a real result is possible only if the key participants in international life can agree on agreeing on basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, will set an example of positive, responsible leadership. It is necessary to clearly define where the limits of unilateral actions and where there is a need for multilateral mechanisms, within the framework of improving international law, resolve the dilemma between the actions of the international community to ensure security and human rights and the principle of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of states.
Just such collisions are increasingly leading to arbitrary foreign intervention in complex internal processes, over and over again provoking dangerous contradictions of the world's leading players. The question of the content of sovereignty is perhaps the most important for preserving and strengthening world stability.
It is clear that the discussion about the criteria for the use of force from outside is extremely complex, it is almost impossible to separate it from the interests of certain countries. However, the absence of understandable agreements, clear conditions under which intervention is necessary and legal is much more dangerous.
I should add that international relations should be based on international law, which should also be based on moral principles, such as justice, equality, and truth. Perhaps the most important thing is respect for the partner and his interests. An obvious formula, but simply following it can radically change the situation in the world.
I am convinced that with the will, we can restore the effectiveness of the system of international and regional institutions. It’s not even necessary to build something completely, from scratch, it’s not a “greenfield”, especially since the institutions created after World War II are quite universal and can be filled with more modern content that is adequate to the current situation.
This also applies to improving the work of the United Nations, whose central role is irreplaceable, and the OSCE, which over the years 40 has established itself as a sought-after mechanism in ensuring security and cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic area. I must say that even now, in resolving the crisis in the South-East of Ukraine, the OSCE plays a very positive role.
Against the backdrop of fundamental changes in the international environment, growing uncontrollability and a wide variety of threats, we need a new global consensus of responsible forces. We cannot talk about any local deals, or about the division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classical diplomacy, or about someone's complete domination. I think a new edition of interdependence is required. It does not need to be afraid. On the contrary, it is a good tool for coordinating positions. This is all the more relevant given the strengthening and growth of individual regions of the planet, which forms an objective request for the institutionalization of such poles, for the creation of powerful regional organizations and the development of rules for their interaction. The cooperation of these centers would seriously add to the sustainability of world security, politics and economics. But in order to establish such a dialogue, it is necessary to proceed from the fact that all regional centers, the integration projects around them would have the same rights to development, so that they complement each other and that no one artificially binds them together or oppose them. As a result of such a destructive line, relations between states would be destroyed, and the states themselves would be subjected to severe trials, even to the point of their complete destruction.
I would like to remind you of the events of the past year. Then we told our partners, both American and European partners that hasty, backstage decisions, for example, by the association of Ukraine and the EU are fraught with serious risks, we didn’t even say anything about politics, we only talked about the economy, serious risks in the economy, Such open-ended steps affect the interests of many third countries, including Russia, as Ukraine’s main trade partner, which requires a broad discussion of issues. By the way, let me remind you in this connection that negotiations on Russia's accession, for example, to the WTO have been going on for 19 years. It was very hard work, and a certain consensus was reached.
Why talk about it? Because when implementing the project of association with Ukraine, our partners with their goods and services come to us as if through the back gate, and we did not agree on this, no one asked us about it. We had discussions on all topics related to the association of Ukraine with the EU, aggressively, but I want to emphasize this, in a completely civilized way, presenting obvious arguments and arguments, pointed to possible problems. Nobody wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to talk, we were simply told: this is none of your business, that's all, this is the whole discussion. Instead of a complicated, but, I will emphasize, civilized dialogue, the matter was brought to a coup d'état, plunged the country into chaos, into a collapse of the economy, the social sphere, into a civil war with huge victims.
What for? When I ask my colleagues why, there is no answer at all, no one answers. Like this. All shrug, it happened. It was not necessary to encourage such actions - it would not work, because, as I have already said, the former President of Ukraine, Yanukovych, signed everything, agreed with everything. Why did you have to do this? What is the meaning? Is this a civilized way to solve questions? Apparently, those who endlessly blurt out more and more new color revolutions consider themselves to be brilliant artists and cannot stop at all.
I am convinced that the work of integration associations, the interaction of regional structures should be based on a transparent, understandable basis, a good example of such openness is the process of forming the Eurasian Economic Union. The states participating in this project informed their partners in advance about the plans, the parameters of our association, the principles of its work, which are fully consistent with the rules of the World Trade Organization. I would add that we would also welcome the start of a substantive dialogue along the lines of the Eurasian and European Union. By the way, we, too, have so far been almost always denied this, it is also not clear why, what is so terrible here? And, of course, with this kind of joint work we would consider that we need to conduct business, and I have spoken and heard about this many times and the agreement of many of our Western partners, European in any case, about the need to form a common space of economic, humanitarian cooperation extending from Atlantic to the Pacific.
Dear Colleagues! Russia has made its choice, our priorities are the further improvement of the institutions of democracy and an open economy, accelerated domestic development, taking into account all the positive modern trends in the world and the consolidation of society based on traditional values and patriotism. We have an integration, positive, peaceful agenda, we are actively working with our colleagues in the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS, and other partners. This agenda is aimed at the development of relations between states, and not at separation. We are not going to put together any blocks, to be involved in the exchange of blows. There are no grounds or assertions that Russia is trying to restore some kind of its empire, it is encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbors. Russia does not require any special, exceptional place in the world, I want to emphasize this. Respecting the interests of others, we simply want our interests to be taken into account and our position respected.
We are well aware that the world has entered an era of change and deep transformations, when we all need a special degree of caution, the ability to avoid rash steps. During the years after the Cold War, world politics participants somewhat lost these qualities. Now we need to remember them. Otherwise, hopes for a peaceful, stable development will turn out to be a dangerous illusion, and today's upheavals will lead to the collapse of the world order.
Yes, of course, I have already said this, building a more sustainable system of world order is a difficult task. This is a long and difficult work. We were able to work out the rules of interaction after the Second World War, we were able to agree on the 70-s in Helsinki. Our common responsibility is to solve this fundamental task at the new stage of development.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Information