Read the full transcript of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s keynote speech at a meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club in the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi on November 7, 2024.
Listen to the audio version here:
TRANSCRIPT: [As Translated]
RUSSIAN PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN: All of you at our traditional meeting, I would like to thank you right away for taking part in the heated and meaningful discussions of the Valdai Club. We are meeting on the 7th of November, this is the date of great significance both for our country, one can say for the whole world. The Russian Revolution of 1917, just like the Russian Revolution of 1917, has largely defined the course of history, as well as the nature of politics, diplomacy, economics, and the social life. We were also destined to live in the times of drastic, essentially revolutionary changes, and not only to make sense, but also to take part directly in the most complex processes of the first quarter of the 21st century.
The Valdai Club is almost the same age as our century, and it celebrated already 20 years. Quite often, people say that the time flew by and no one noticed, but that’s not the case here. These two decades were not just full of crucial and quite often dramatic events of truly historical scale. Before our eyes, a completely novel world order is taking shape, and it’s unlike everything that we know from the past, for example, Westphalian system or Yalta system.
New powers are emerging. The nations understand more clearly their interests, their self-worth, uniqueness, and identity. They’re ever more insistent in achieving their goals of development and justice. At the same time, societies are coming across a greater number of new challenges, from breathtaking technological breakthroughs to devastating natural catastrophes.
From outrageous social inequity to massive waves of migration and most acute economic crises.
Some things became a complete surprise for everyone because the current world is so unpredictable and dynamically changing. If we take a look back 20 years ago and look at the scale of changes and project the scale in the future, we can assume that the next 20 years will be more, no less, but rather more complex. But how much more will depend naturally on a number of factors. And in order to analyze them and try to forecast something, I believe that’s the reason why you gather here at the Valdai Club.
A Moment of Truth
To a certain extent, the moment of truth is coming. The previous world order irreversibly becoming a thing of the past, one could say has become a thing of the past. And the shaping of the new world order has become the scene of uncompromising fight. Uncompromising, first and foremost, for the reason that it’s not even the battle for power or geopolitical influence.
It’s a clash of the very principles that would be the foundation for the relation of the countries at the next historical stage. And its outcome will define whether all of us jointly can build a world that would allow everyone to develop and to solve the outstanding contradictions based on mutual respect of cultures and civilization without coercion and use of force. In the end, can the human society stay, remain a society with its ethical and humanistic principles? Will a human remain a human?
It seems that there is no alternative to it. But just at the first glance, unfortunately, there is an alternative to this. That is the descent of humankind into the abyss of aggressive anarchy, internal and external schisms, loss of traditional values, new forms of tyranny. Essential abandonment of classic principles of democracy, basic rights and freedoms.
More and more often, democracy is interpreted as the power, as a rule, not of majority, but of minority. They even contrast the traditional democracy and rule of people with a certain abstract freedom. And for that sake, democratic procedures, elections, majority and freedom of speech and media objectivity can be sacrificed. The threat is the imposal and becoming of ideologies totalitarian in their essence and norm.
And that’s what we see in the Western liberalism. It has degenerated into, I believe, extreme intolerance and aggression towards any alternative, towards any sovereign and independent thought. And today, it justifies neo-Nazism, terrorism, racism and even mass genocide of civilian population. In the end, that’s international conflicts and clashes that might bring about mutual destruction because the weapons capable of doing that already exist.
And it’s constantly being improved. It acquires new forms as the technologies develop. And the club of the countries that possess such weapons is becoming wider. No one can guarantee that in case of avalanche-like increase in threats and final deterioration of legal and moral norms, it would not be used.
I have already said that we’ve come to a dangerous line. And calls of the West to deliver strategic defeat to Russia, a country with the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, shows extreme adventurism of the Western politicians. At least some of them. Such blind faith in their own impunity and exceptionalism might turn to a global tragedy.
At the same time, the previous hegemons used to, ruling the world back from colonial times, learn more and more often to their surprise that no one is listening to them. The attempts to maintain the power slipping away through force only leads to overall instability and great attentions to casualties and destruction. But the result that they’re trying to achieve, to maintain their absolute power, such attempts do not ensure success because the course of history cannot be stopped. Instead of becoming aware of futility of their strive, the objective nature of changes, some of the Western elites seem prepared to do everything not to allow for emergence of new international system in line with interests of the world majority.
The policy of the US and their allies in the past years is more and more prominent through the principle, if I can’t have it, no one will. If you’re not with us, you’re against us. Well, this formula is very dangerous because here and in many countries of the world, there is such a saying that you reap what you sow. The chaos and systemic crisis is already in full swing in those countries that are trying to conduct such a policy.
The claims to being exceptional, to being liberal and globalist messiahs, to ideological and military and political monopoly are depleting those countries more and more that are trying to conduct this policy and pushing the world towards deterioration. It comes in direct contradiction with the true interests of the nations of the US and European countries. I’m sure sooner or later the West will understand that because the foundation of its former great achievements was always the pragmatic and sober approach based on very harsh and at times cynical but rational evaluation of what’s happening in their own capacities.
Here, I’d like to highlight once again, unlike our opponents, Russia does not perceive the Western civilization as an enemy. It does not raise the question, us or them, who’s not with us is against us. We never say that. We don’t want to pontificate to anyone. We don’t want to impose our worldview on anyone.
Our position is an open one and it’s the following. The West has accumulated, indeed, tremendous human, intellectual, cultural and material resources thanks to which it can successfully develop, remaining one of the crucial elements of the world system. But it is precisely one of, together with other actively developing states and groups of countries, the notion of hegemony in the new international sphere is off the table. And when Washington and other Western capitals become aware of that and recognize this cold hard fact, then the process of building of the global system in line with the challenges of the future will finally enter the phase of true constructive building.
I hope to God that it will happen as soon as possible. It is in common interest. Also in the interest, first and foremost, in the interest of the West. As of now, everyone who is interested in creation of a just and viable world have to spend too much effort on overcoming the destructive actions of the West.
Clinging to their own monopoly. It’s apparent that it’s happening and everyone can see that. In the West, in the East, in the South and everywhere. They’re trying to keep their power and monopoly. These are apparent things. These efforts could have been directed with much greater use and result to solving common problems that indeed concern everyone. Demographic problems, social inequality, climate change, food security, health care, new technologies. That’s what we could think about it.
What we all truly need to work on. Today I will allow myself several philosophical asides. Since this is a discussion club, then I hope that we’ll follow in the vein of the discussions that were happening here before. I have already said that the world is changing drastically and irreversibly.
It is unlike the previous version of world order. Due to the combination of parallel coexistence of two seemingly mutually exclusive phenomena. A fast-growing conflict potential and fragmentation of political, economic and legal fields on the one hand. And the maintaining close interconnectedness of the whole world space on the other hand.
It can be perceived as counterintuitive because we’re used to the fact that such trends usually follow one another. And substitute one another. Century after century, the times of conflict and breaking off ties are replaced by more beneficial periods of cooperation. That is the dynamic of the development of history.
Changing Nature of Cooperation
It seems that it doesn’t work today. But let’s start to maybe have a bit of a discussion about it. Most acute and principled, emotionally charged conflicts naturally significantly complicate the global development but do not put an end to it. Instead of change of cooperation, destroyed by political means and even military means, appear another.
More complex, sometimes less linear, but they maintain economic and social ties. We have seen that in the previous years. Quite recently, the so-called collective West made an unprecedented attempt to banish Russia from the global system of economic and political system. The number of sanctions and punitive measures against our country is unprecedented in history.
Our opponents assumed that they would deliver to Russia a devastating blow and knockout. Something that it would not bounce back from. It would stop being one of key elements of international system. I think there is no need to remind you of what happened in reality.
The very fact that the anniversary edition of Valdai Club has gathered such a representative audience speaks for itself. Well, it’s not a matter about Valdai. It’s about the reality that we’re living in right now and the conditions which Russia lives in. The world needs Russia and no decision by Washington and Brussels, alleged masters, cannot change it.
The same applies to their other decisions. Even a well-trained swimmer cannot swim across the strong currents, regardless of tricks and doping that it uses. As for the global policy and the current, it is taking its country to these tribes of the West. From the outgoing hegemonic world to the upcoming diversity.
This is an apparent thing. As we say, well, it doesn’t take a smart man to say it. Let’s go back to the dialectics of history and change of era of conflict and cooperation. Is indeed the world such that this theory does not work in practice?
Let’s take a look at what’s happening today at a different angle. What is the essence of the conflict and who’s taking part in it? Since the mid-past century went through a joint effort and a tremendous price, it was possible to overcome Nazis in the most nefarious and aggressive ideology that was the fruit of most acute contradictions of the first half of the 20th century. The humanity was faced with a task to avoid the repetition of such phenomenon and the world wars.
Despite all zigzags and local skirmishes, the overall direction was defined back then. That is the radical rejection of all forms of racism, dismantling of the classical colonial system, and expansion to the number of fully fledged members of international politics. The demand for openness and democratization of the international system, it was apparent. The fast development of different countries and regions, emergence of new technological and socio-economic approaches, aimed at expansion of capacity for development and improved life standards.
Naturally, just like any historic process, that led to emergence of a clash of interests, but overall strive towards harmonization of development of all aspects of this phenomenon was readily apparent. Our country, back in the day it was the Soviet Union, made a tremendous contribution to the strengthening of this trend. The USSR was helping the states liberated from colonial and neocolonial dependence, be that Africa, Southeast Asia, Middle East, or Latin America.
And I’d like to remind you separately that it was the Soviet Union that in the mid 80s of the past century advocated for the end of ideological confrontation and overcoming the heritage of the Cold War, the end of the Cold War per se, and later overcoming its heritage and those barriers that stood in the way of the unity of the world and its comprehensive development.
Yes, we have a complex attitude to that period, considering what it has come to, I mean the policy of the then political leadership of the country. We still have to manage some of the tragic consequences of those times, but the very sentiment, I’d like to highlight the sentiment, though possibly too idealistic, coming from our leadership and our nation, at times naive, as we can see today, without doubt was dictated by the genuine desire for peace and comprehension and benefit. That is historically typical for the nature of our nation and its traditions and systems of spiritual and moral values. Why did such commitments lead to an opposite result?
That’s the question. Well, we know the answer. We’ve answered it many times before, this way or another, because the other side of ideological standoff perceived what was happening in history not as a chance to rebuild the world, with a new, just basis and principles, but as their own triumph, as a surrender of our country to the West. And that means they perceived it as an opportunity to use the right of the victor and to establish their complete domination.
I spoke about it at times, I will just give you an aside without giving the names, but at the end of the 90s, one of the political figures of the US said back at the time, now we’ll treat Russia not as a defeated opponent, but as a blunt instrument in our hands. That was their idea, their notion. They didn’t have the width of vision or overall manners, they didn’t understand what was happening, they didn’t understand Russia. The way the West falsely, and to their own benefit, interpreted what it believed to be the outcome of the Cold War, the way it started to re-tailor the world for itself, brazen and unchecked geopolitical greed.
These are the true reasons for conflicts of power in historical eras, starting with the tragedy of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, today of the Ukraine and the Middle East. Some of the Western leaders believed that the monopoly that emerged, their monopoly, the moment of unipolarity in ideological, economic, political and even to a certain extent military and strategic sense, is the actual point of destination, the end of it. Stop for a moment, it is beautiful. As they conceitedly said back then, it was the end of history.
It is unnecessary to explain in this audience how myopic and false this notion was. The history did not come to an end. On the contrary, it entered a new phase. It’s not about the fact that some nefarious enemies, competitors, saboteurs stood in the way of the West in establishing their system of global power.
Let’s speak frankly. After the USSR disappeared and the model of Soviet socialist alternative disappeared as well, many in the world first believed that the monopoly system is here to stay almost forever. And they just need to adjust to it. But it started to crumble on its own under the weight of ambition and avarice of the Western elite.
And when they saw that even within that system that they have tailored to their own needs after the Second World War, naturally, we have to admit it, the victors created the Yalta system for their own needs. And after the Cold War, the illogic victors in the Cold War started to tailor the world for themselves, adjusting the Yalta system. That’s the issue. The system that they created by their own hand is now successfully being used by others.
There are now new leaders within that system. Naturally, they started to correct and tweak the system that they have created for their own good. And they started to violate the very rules that they spoke about yesterday. They started to change the rules set by themselves.
So what kind of conflict do we see today? I’m convinced that it’s not the conflict of everyone against everyone caused by the violation of certain rules that we have been quite often told about from the West. Not at all. We see the conflict between the overwhelming population of the planet that wants to live and develop in an interconnected world of tremendous number of people that wants to live and develop in an interconnected world of tremendous number of opportunities and the global minority concerned by one thing, as I have already said, maintaining their domination.
And to that end, it’s prepared to destroy the achievements that became the result of long-term development towards a comprehensive global system. But nothing will come of it, as we can see. Nothing doing. At the same time, the West itself is hypocritically trying to convince all of us that what’s at stake is everything that humanity achieved after the Second World War.
Nothing of the sort. I’ve just said it. Both Russia and an overwhelming majority of the countries are indeed trying to strengthen the spirit of international progress and strive towards sustainable peace that was the core of development since the mid-past century. At stake is a very different thing.
The monopoly of the West emerged after the dismantling of the Soviet Union that was acquired for the first time during the 20th century. Yet again, I’d like to highlight and everyone present here understand that any monopoly, as we know from history, comes to an end sooner or later. There could be no illusions here. A monopoly is a bad thing, even for the monopolists themselves.
The policy of the elites, of the collective West, of the powerful but rather limited club, as for the number of participants, is not looking forward, not aimed towards constructive building, but it’s looking backwards, trying to maintain advantage. Any sports fan, not even talking about professionals in sports, in hockey, in all types of martial arts, they know that trying to simply maintain the advantage is always a losing game. Going back to the dialectics of history, we can say that parallel existence of conflict potential and a stride towards harmony is naturally unsustainable. The contradiction of the era, sooner or later, will come to a head through a synthesis and a transition to a new quality.
Building a New Global Architecture
When we enter this new phase of development, a building of new global architecture, it’s important for all of us not to repeat the mistakes of the end of the past century. As I’ve said before, back then, West tried to impose on everyone. Their, I think, deeply amoral model of exiting the Cold War brought with new conflicts. The emerging multipolar world, there should be non-countries and nations that feel that they’ve lost.
No one should feel discriminated against and humiliated. Only with that, we can ensure truly long-term conditions for comprehensive, just and safe development. The stride towards cooperation and interaction is now, without doubt, gaining the upper hand, overcoming most acute situations. We can boldly say that it is indeed the international mainstream and the course of events.
Naturally, being at ground zero of tectonic shifts caused by sea changes in the global system, it’s hard to forecast the future. But as we know, the general direction of change, from hegemony to a complex world of multilateral cooperation, we can try to draw certain outlines of the future. Speaking at the Valdai Forum last year, I have spoken about six principles that we believe should be the foundation for relations at the new historical stage. The events and the time that has passed since then, I believe, only confirm that the proposed notions were both justified and well-founded.
I will try to build on them. Number one, openness towards cooperation is a crucial value for an overwhelming majority of countries and nations. Attempts to build artificial barriers are vicious, not only through the fact that they stand in the way of normal and beneficial economic development for everyone, this connection of ties is especially dangerous during natural disasters and social and political shocks, which is unfortunately the way of life. The situations are unacceptable, like the situation that happened after the catastrophic earthquake in Asia Minor.
For purely political reasons, aid was blocked towards the nation of Syria. Some of its regions were tremendously affected, by the natural phenomenon. And such examples, when egotistical and myopic interests stand in the way of overall prosperity, are not unique. The very free environment that I spoke about last year is key not only to economic prosperity, but also to satisfying acute humanitarian needs.
And amid new challenges, and among them are the consequences of rapid growth of technologies, which pulls their international efforts together. It’s telling that today, openness is currently mostly being opposed by those who just recently, yesterday as it were, used to call themselves its greatest champions. Today, the very same forces and people are trying to instrumentalize restrictions to exert pressure on those who think differently. But this is not going to work due to the very same reason.
The global majority favors openness without any politicization. Second, we’ve always spoken about world diversity as a cynic one arm to ensure its stability. It might seem like a paradox for the more mixed the world is, the more complicated it is to build a single framework. And of course, universal norms should be of help.
Could they help that? Yes, it is a difficult task. But first, it shouldn’t come to a point when a model of a single country or a relatively small part of humanity is taken as something universal and imposed on all the rest. Secondly, no conventional or the quite democratically developed code cannot be perceived and prescribed as a directive and irrefutable truth once and for all.
The international community is a living organism whose worth and uniqueness consist in its civilizational diversity, whereas the international law is an outcome of agreements among people’s relevant countries because legal consciousness is an indispensable and unique part of each culture and each civilization. The crisis of the international law due to different reasons in the past used to be left in the political sidelines are currently in the ascendant. And it means that their unique perceptions and views and notions of right and justice and law are playing an increasingly significant role in the world. It might seem like there is a lack of coordination and dissonance, but this is just the formative stage and I’m confident that the world can only be built on peace being woven together in harmony.
If you will, we are moving to a polyphonic world rather than a polycentric world. A world in which all the voices have to be heard and what’s most important, listened to. And those who have grown accustomed to playing solo and who want to continue doing that will have to get used to living in a new world playing to a new score. I spoke about the international law in the UN Charter which was written after the Second World War but the world is changing.
New poles of growth are emerging. Powerful economies are growing. Getting to the foreground. And of course, international law has to change but it has to be very cautiously done.
Third, we’ve spoken on multiple occasions that a new world can only develop successfully based on the principle of representation. Maximum representation. And the last two decades have clearly demonstrated the consequences of usurpation or attempts at appropriating the right to speak and act on behalf of others. Those who are conventionally dubbed the great powers have grown accustomed to thinking that they have the right to determine the interests of others.
Basically, growing used to dictating the national interests of other nations based on their own. This is an undermining of the principles of democracy and fairness, and what’s worse, it prevents us from genuinely addressing urgent challenges. The incipient world is not going to be simple erring primarily due to diversity and the more fully fled and the number of fully fled participants, the more difficult it’s going to be to find the best option everyone is happy with. But once it’s been found, it’s going to make the world more sustainable and durable and it’ll help us get rid of petty tyranny and knee-jerk political zig-zagging.
And it’ll also render political processes more thoughtful and rational based on the principle of reasonable sufficiency. And this principle is even applied in Brussels because the veto right was devised precisely to make sure that the decisions that the political stakeholders are not happy about do not pass. Is it good or is it bad? Probably not very good, but it creates certain barriers when decisions are to be made.
But it’s also very good because it prevents decisions from being passed if someone is not happy with them. So we have to come up with a negotiating table and hammer out an agreement. But since the world is becoming multipolar, we have to come up with instruments that’ll help us expand the use of similar mechanisms in each particular case. A solution has to be not just collective.
It also has to involve the participants and the stakeholders that are capable of making a substantive and significant contribution to settling the problem. This involves primarily those who are interested in the outcome because their future security and hence prosperity depends on that. There are many numerous examples of cases when complex, though solvable, disagreements between neighboring nations and peoples degenerated into intransigent, chronic conflicts due to the scheming and brazen interference of external forces who basically do not care much about what’s going to happen to the parties to the conflict, how much blood is going to be drained. They are simply guided by their own selfish interests without assuming any responsibility.
I also believe that regional organizations are going to play a very important role because however difficult the relations between neighboring countries, they are always brought together by a common interest in stability and security. Compromises are vital to achieve the best conditions and a key principle is universal security for everyone without exception because the security of ones cannot be assured at the expense of the security of others. I’m not saying anything new. It’s all in the OSCE documents and it has to be observed.
The block-based approach has been bequeathed to us from the colonial times and the Cold War and it runs counter against the new international system which is flexible and open. The only one block remains that is brought together by obedience and rigid ideological dogmas and that is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and it continues its expansion to the east of Europe all while trying to project its approaches to other spaces across the world which is a violation of its founding documents and this is a blatant anachronism.
On many occasions we’ve spoken about the destructive disintegration of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty Organization when seemingly the alliance had lost its formal raison d’etre which had been declared before. I believe the U.S. understood that this tool was becoming or was losing its attractiveness as it were but they still needed it and they still need that to govern and to manage its zone of influence so they need conflict. You know, before all the acute crisis of today many European leaders were telling me why are they using you to threat us? You know, I’m basically quoting them and I think the U.S. understood that full well. They felt that. They saw NATO as a second-rate organization but trust me, I know what I’m saying.
But the experts over there understood the need for NATO. How do you keep it attractive? You have to scare them good. You have to sow discord between Europe and Russia, especially between Russia and Germany and France and hence Ukraine and the hostilities in the east in Donbass.
They basically force us to take actions in response so they got what they wanted and the same is happening in Asia on the Korean Peninsula, I suppose. In practice, we see that the world minority is trying to preserve and reinforce its military block there by trying to preserve this noticeable understanding that the strict diktat of the big brother in no ways does nothing to facilitate addressing the tasks at hand. And it also is in stark contrast to the aspirations of other countries of the world because cooperating when it’s beneficial, building partnership with anyone who is interested, that is the evident priority of most countries. And the political and ideological blocks are another type of hurdles built in the way of the natural development of the nascent international system.
I would also like to point out that the very notion of a zero-sum game where only one party stands to win whereas everyone else stands to lose has been borne out of the Western political thought and under the Western dominance under no circumstances is that the case. Quite the contrary, the Eastern philosophy, many of you who have gathered here know that and probably know that firsthand even better than I do, is based on another approach. And this approach is searching for harmony of interest when everyone wants to achieve what’s most important to them but not to the detriment of the other party.
I win, but you stand to win as well and Russians, we as well in Russia, historically when that was possible assumed that it’s not the most important thing, you know, trying to push through your opinion by any means possible. Rather, they were trying to convince and get them interested in a fair partnership and equal cooperation whereas our history and the history of our diplomacy have demonstrated on many occasions that the worth of honor, nobility, and generosity suffice to remember Russia’s role in rearranging the European order after the Napoleonic Wars.
And many views it’s seen as trying to keep monarchies in power but I’m not talking about the specifics, I’m talking about the general trends and the prototype of a new free, non-block, block-free type of cooperation between nations and peoples that is precisely the association built within BRICS. And this is amply demonstrated by the fact that even within NATO there are those who show interest in working closely with BRICS, and I do not rule out that in the future other countries will also think about cooperating more closely with BRICS. Our country held chairmanship in BRICS and as you’re aware we’ve just recently held the summit in Kazan, I won’t hide it, coming up with a coordinated approach.
Among the countries whose interests diverge on many points is a tall order. Diplomats and other statespeople had to spare no effort and show a lot of tact, demonstrate the capacity to listen to one another, to obtain the requisite results. It took a lot but this is how we forge the unique spirit of cooperation which is based on mutual understanding rather than coercion and we are confident that BRICS sets a very good example for everyone as a beacon of constructive cooperation in a new international landscape.
I would also like to add that within BRICS there are meetings of entrepreneurs, scholars, intellectuals of our countries. This is a platform for a profound philosophical fundamental perception and analysis of the current processes of the world’s developing with due regard for the characteristics of each and every civilization with their culture, history, identity and tradition. The spirit of respect and due regard for the interests of one another, this is precisely the basis of the future system of Eurasian security which is beginning to take shape across our vast continent with a multilateral approach.
This is also a multi-faceted process because right now security is a comprehensive notion that encompasses not just the military and political aspect. It’s impossible to achieve without ensuring social and economic development of any nations and also stability against any external challenges both natural and man-made in the real world and in cyberspace.
With fairness for everyone because inequality is the true scourge of the modern world. Within nations inequality breeds social tensions as well as political instability whereas in the international arena it is a source of the development gap between the golden billion and the rest of humanity which is fraught with greater political disagreements and also most importantly with worsening migration issues. Almost all developed nations of the planet are facing increasingly less controllable influx of those who want to improve their material circumstances obtain a high social status, gain better prospects and sometimes simply to survive. And this migration wave sometimes leads to a surge in xenophobia, intolerance to foreigners and richer societies which sets off the spiral of social and political troubles and increase a greater level of aggression.
What some countries are lagging behind in terms of social and economic development is a comprehensive phenomenon and there is no magic wand to conjure this disease away. We need to work in a systemic fashion and long term. We need to create conditions which will remove artificial politically motivated barriers in the way of development. We have to remove attempts at instrumentalizing economy at weaponizing it because whoever is the target gets hit and the heaviest blow is against the most vulnerable, the people and countries that need support.
We are confident that such issues as food security, energy security, access to healthcare and education and finally orderly and free movement of people have to be secured against being held hostage to conflicts and controversies because these are basic human rights. We highlight indefatigably that any sustainable international order can only be based upon the principle of sovereign equality. It’s true that each nation has different potential. It’s evident and their capacities are vastly different.
That often gives rise to the notion that full equality is impossible, it’s a utopia, it’s illusory but the characteristic of the modern world which is so integrated and well connected is that countries that are not the most powerful or the biggest ones sometimes can punch far above their weight at least due to the fact that they are capable of being more rational and targeted in the use of their human intellectual, natural and environmental potential. They are agile and flexible in addressing complex tasks. They set the bar high in quality of life, in ethics, governance efficiency and building the opportunity for self-fulfillment of each and every person in building a very favorable psychological atmosphere in society which is favorable to the development of science, entrepreneurship, arts, creativity, tapping the talents of young people. These translate into the factors of global influence.
To paraphrase the laws of physics, maybe the force is not that great but its efficiency is far better. But the most destructive thing today is arrogance and high handedness as well as the need to constantly and ceaselessly pontificate. Russia has never been the one to do that and we see that our approach is productive. Our historic experience shows indisputably that inequality be that within society, within the state or in the international arena will inevitably lead to nefarious consequences.
And I would like to add something that I haven’t spoken about over the many centuries of the western centric world. We’ve seen the emergence of certain clichés and stereotypes sort of in the hierarchy. Allegedly there is the developed world, progressive humanity, a certain universal civilization that everyone is supposed to aspire to whereas there are also backward and civilized peoples basically barbarians and their only mission is to listen unquestioningly to what they are being told and to act at the behest of those who allegedly stand higher than they do on this civilizational ladder. Obviously this is a cover for a brazen colonial approach aimed at exploiting the world majority.
But the thing is this is a basically racist ideology that has taken root in the consciousness of many people. And this is also a very serious mental hurdle in the way of universal harmonious development. The world today abhors haughtiness but it doesn’t tolerate deafness towards the uniqueness of others. In order to build normal relations you’ve got to listen to your interlocutor, you have to understand their logic and cultural background rather than trying to predict on them what you think about them, their own notions.
Otherwise your communication is going to be a dialogue of the deaf labeling and also exchange of stereotypes. You know we know about unique cultures of different nations. On the surface everything looks decent, you know music, the folklore. They’ve been elevated but essentially the economic and security policy remains the same.
Neo-colonial in a sense just look at how it works because the western economies are blocking everything trying to pursue their own interests. I refer to the WTO example. They’re trying to preserve their dominance for decades and centuries. We have to remember that everyone is equal in that everyone is entitled to their vision.
No better or no worse than other visions. It’s just theirs. And this is the basis for mutual understanding of our interests as well as respect, empathy, an ability to commiserate, to listen to the arguments and points of views of others and not just to listen but also to build your policies based on that. Because listening to others does not imply simply agreeing with everything and accepting everything.
This is about recognizing the right of your interlocutor to have their own worldview. This is basically the first step in the quest for a harmony in your worldviews because we have to learn to see diversity and differences as something precious and a source of opportunities rather than conflicts. And this is also about the dialectics of history. We understand, you and I, that the era of drastic transformations will lead to inevitable clashes of interests and shocks.
Everyone is going to get to readjust to one another and probably this interconnections of the world rather than assuage differences will exacerbate them, making them more jumbled and the quest for a solution more difficult. Because over the many centuries of its history, humanity has grown accustomed to viewing the use of force as the last resort for resolving differences. Whoever is more powerful is right. Yes, sometimes this principle does work and it does happen and a lot of countries are forced to fend for their interests with open arms, using all means at their disposal.
But the world of today is becoming increasingly complex and sometimes using force to address one problem will breed another problem, and other problems which are going to be even more grave. And we understand that. Our country has never been the one to initiate the use of force. We only are forced to do that when it becomes clear that our opponent is acting aggressively and is not willing to listen to any type of argument.
And whenever necessary, we will take any measure we need to and have to do to protect Russia and our citizens and we will always achieve our goals. The world is absolutely non-linear and inherently heterogeneous. We’ve always understood that. I was not going to take the trip down memory lane, but I remember very well back in 1999 when I stood at the helm of the government and then I went on to become the head of state.
You know, there was something we were facing back then. I think the Russian citizens and the experts who are present here remember that very well as well. We remember the forces behind the terrorists in the Northern Caucasus. We know where from and in what size they were getting money and weapons, moral, political, and ideological support.
You know, sometimes it’s laughable, but also very sad to remember those developments because, you know, Al-Qaeda is bad, but when it’s fighting against you, then it’s all right. And all of that breeds conflict. Back then, we fixed a goal for ourselves to use all the time we have to spend no effort to preserve our country. And it serves the interests of all the peoples of Russia, despite the dire economic straits after the 1998 crisis and the armed forces falling into disrepair.
We’ve managed to rise together and repel the attack of the terrorists and went on to rout them. Why did I choose to remind you of that? Because right now there are those who once again come up with the notion that the world without Russia is going to be better off and wanted to destroy what was left after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. And right now there are those who think that the world is going to be more obedient, is going to be easier to control without Russia.
But on multiple occasions, Russia stopped those who sought world domination, whoever that was. And we’re going to do that. And the world is not going to be better. And those who do not understand that they have to realize that it’s only going to be more difficult.
And our opponents are still coming up with new instruments to get rid of us. Right now they’re trying to instrumentalize Ukraine and Ukrainians as such a tool. They are cynically training Ukrainians against Russians, basically turning Ukrainians into cannons and all of that is accompanied by conversations about a European choice. What kind of choice is that?
We don’t need that, for sure. We will protect ourselves and our citizens, let no one blabber out any illusion to that end. But of course, this is not the end of Russia’s world role, dramatic as it may sound. But Russia’s very existence is a guarantee that the world is going to preserve its diverse colors, stability and complexity.
This is also a safeguard of successful development. And this is not me who is saying that because our friends from across the world are telling me that. I’m simply repeating them. I would like to reiterate that we’re not trying to impose anything on anyone.
We’re not going to do that. We don’t need that. We are guided by our values, interests and notions of what is right that have deep roots in our identity, history and culture. And we’re certainly always open to a constructive dialogue with everyone because whoever has respect for their own culture and tradition will certainly have the same type of respect for other cultures and traditions.
Whereas those who are trying to make others behave in an improper manner will inevitably trample their own roots, their civilization and culture. And to a certain extent, this is what we’re witnessing today. Today, Russia is fighting for its freedom, for its sovereignty and rights. Without exaggeration, I’m saying that because during the previous decades, on the surface, everything looked so decent because the G7 was turned into G8, thank you, we were invited.
But you know what was truly happening? Because I saw that firsthand. Say, you come to the G8 and it becomes clear from the outset that before the G8, the G7 had a separate meeting and they had some separate conversations and they had discussed Russia and then they invited Russia to talk with them. You look at all of this with a smile.
That is how I looked at it. But in practice, you know, it is a great picture, a great image, the hugs and, you know, patting on the shoulder. But in practice, they are continuing to move forward on the offensive. You know, the most flagrant example is the expansion of NATO to the east.
They had promised they were not going to do that, but it was happening and the same was happening in the Caucasus and also it was happening with regard to the ABM system. So on any key issue, they didn’t care one bit about our opinion. We saw this creeping intervention, which without any exaggeration was aimed at demeaning our country and at destroying our country from within and from outside. You see what they did to Ukraine.
They intervened basically with their bases in 20 ways. The Bucharest decision was made to open the doors to Georgia and Ukraine. Where did that come from? Have there been any difficulties in the world affairs?
Yes, we did have some disputes with Ukraine with regard to the gas prices, but we did manage to arrive at a solution. Why did they need to create conditions for a conflict? Because it was crystal clear what the consequences were going to be, but they didn’t stop at that. They were trying to project their influence across our historic territories.
They were supporting the regime which had clear pro-fascist tendencies. So it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that and to repeat that. We are not simply fighting for our own freedom and our sovereignty and our rights. We are also fighting for universal rights and freedoms.
We are fighting for the chance for every country to develop on the basis of sovereign equality, and this is the mission of our country, and everyone needs to understand there’s no use trying to exert pressure on us, but as for coming to an agreement with due regard for the mutual, legitimate interest of one another, this is something we’ve always been ready for, and this is what we’ve been asking all participants of the international community to do. If that happens, then the future participants of the Valdai Club, which are still schoolchildren, students, PhD candidates, young scholars and novice experts, in 20 years or so, on the eve of the centenary of the UN, will probably talk about something more optimistic and life-reassuring than the subjects we have to broach today. Thank you very much for your attention.
MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Mr. President, for such an extensive and voluminous depiction of the world and of Russian views on it. Naturally, we are very happy to say that last time you presented your main principles here as well, and today you’ve built on them. I think it’s becoming some kind of a doctrine. Valdai does not lay claim to being called the name of the doctrine, but we’re happy that it’s been born here.
Mr. President, many topics that you’ve touched upon were discussed here at the 21st session. I wanted to share with you, we would like, all of us, would like to share with you some of the conclusions that were reached, not all of the sessions because there were many of them, but some of them that we believe most crucial. These are topics that you’ve mentioned as well. I would like to give the floor first to our longtime participant, colleague, and a person well known to you, Ruslan Yunusov, who took part in the session about the artificial intelligence, forgive me, the most fashionable thing.
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good evening, Mr. President. Indeed, we have discussed what you’ve touched upon in today’s speech, the topic of artificial intelligence. We had a separate session. It was called Artificial Intelligence, a revolution or a fad. But before I will highlight our conclusions, I’d like to say that two Nobel Prizes were given for the developments in the artificial intelligence sphere, physics and chemistry, simultaneously. It was unprecedented.
I would like to highlight that there was a revolution going on in artificial intelligence. Most likely, it’s a yes because Nobel Committee quite often follows a fashion in their decisions. But moving on to the topics of our discussion here at the Valdai Club, I’d like to highlight several aspects that we have discussed. We’ve kicked it off with an issue that troubles many.
Will the artificial intelligence substitute a human or not, especially in a sphere of science and art? What do we see in science today? Is indeed artificial intelligence part of the process? Yes, many achievements have been reached due to artificial intelligence.
Still, we see that there is no substitution of human in the scientific process. More likely, the progress is speeding up, but the well-qualified young people are much more needed than before, so we don’t see a risk there. We also discussed economics through the prism of artificial intelligence. During the COVID times in 2020, we believe that the exit out of the global recessions will be done mainly through such drivers as artificial intelligence.
Did the forecast come to life? Yes, indeed, AI is being introduced in many sectors of economy. But if we take a look at the figures, we will see that those very optimistic expectations did not come true. It was more of a more conservative scenario.
Moreover, the expectations continue today, and we see there are certain investment bubbles, and that might portend future negative trends. Although the technology of artificial intelligence itself seems that it will develop further and will become a basis for economy, we will also discuss security. Today, we have to say that terrorist organizations are using the AI during recruitment of new members or in a wider propaganda sense. Fake news videos are today a standard tool for such groups.
On the other hand, AI is used as well to counter extremism and terrorism. The AI might find such extremist elements in society. And those who have doubts, for example, may be also convinced by AI, so they don’t radicalize themselves. When we were looking at the balance, are there more pluses than minuses, it seems that there are more positive things in terms of security and AI, and we hope that this balance will be leaning towards the positive.
Naturally, here at the Valdai, we cannot help but discuss the political aspects of AI. We saw some research where the researchers used the main generative models of AI, and they used it for testing for political views, and it seems that AI is not neutral politically. It’s not politically neutral. It has tremendous bias towards left liberalism.
It has largely to do with the views of their creators. And in the past few years, we see that the learning of AI is being done through synthetic data rather than real-life data, and that also makes the views of such models more radical. In the coming next years, we’ll receive the first university alumni that have used AI during their studies before were looking at different theses, and as soon as we’re looking at primary sources, they analyze them and presented it. Now we can use the AI for it.
It is clear that the quality of learning is decreasing, but much more nefarious is this indirect impact of AI which shapes their worldview and incepts them with ideology which is not being shaped in Russia and from over the ocean and abroad. As a conclusion, we see that we need to strengthen control and regulation of the AI. At the same time, if we follow the prohibitive measures, I don’t think that will give the necessary result. We’d rather need to support the domestic technologies of AI.
Good thing that we have tremendous achievements in there and we need to motivate this progress further. I think that will be the basis for technological sovereignty in this sphere. We’d like to highlight that Russia is one of three countries in the world which have the full stack of IT technologies. Indeed, that is the basis for sovereignty.
And as a wrap up for my presentation, I can say that our foreign guests noted that some countries already have limitations in place or even full bans on the use of AI. For us, for Russia, it’s more of an opportunity. We can prove ourselves as a technological leader and export such technologies of the artificial intelligence to our partner countries. Thank you so much.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: If you allow, I’ll give my two cents in return. First and foremost, indeed, the AI is one of the crucial tools for development. One of our priorities, first and foremost in economy, but in other spheres as well, in the use of big data. Indeed, that is the development of the artificial intelligence.
Considering that we have great deficit of labor force, 2.4% is our unemployment rate, that means it’s basically a deficit of labor. And we see that such issues in the economic sphere can be done through the development of breakthrough technologies. For example, the use of artificial intelligence, one of the main line, mainstream dimensions here.
Are there more positive things or negative things? What about nuclear energy? Is it more beneficial or not? The use of peace in agriculture, in health care, in transportation, it plays a tremendous role. And it would only increase, I’m sure of it, especially considering the climate change and the issues presented by it. Still, we have nuclear weapons. On the other hand, it creates great risks for humanity. The same applies to the artificial intelligence. It’s a matter of regulation and the way that people use it.
As for regulation, yes, many countries have the regulation. And some even have bans in place. I think it’s impossible to ban it. It will still find its way through, especially in the conditions of competition and ever increasing one. I’m not talking about armed confrontation, but indeed there is greater competition in economy. Amid competition, it’s unavoidable that the artificial intelligence would be developed. And here we could be one of the leaders.
I mean, certain advantages that we have in place. As for sovereignty, a crucial element, yes, these platforms are usually trained abroad. And they shape the world view. Indeed, it is so. And we have to be aware of it. And we need to develop our own sovereign artificial intelligence. We need to make use of everything that’s out there. But we need to develop our own competitions. We have Sberbank and Yandex that are working actively on it. And they’re quite successful. Naturally, we’ll do all of it, without doubt, especially when the AI reproduces itself. It’s very interesting and very promising.
There are certain threats as well. We need to see them, to be fully aware of them, and to build our work accordingly. But as I have said, this is one of the most crucial directions of our joint work. When I say our work, I mean both the specialist in this sphere and the state and the whole society. There are a lot of moral questions here. We need to pay attention to it.
You’ve also mentioned radical views that are being shaped by the AI. Yes, we need to counter that timely with our own view and point of view to all processes that are taking place in our society and the world. That’s what we’ll do together. Thank you so much for pointing it out. Thank you so much. We’ll continue to analyze what’s happening.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes, you must. Indeed, the AI in Russia should be taught by Russian data to reflect our culture. Absolutely so. And we have such an opportunity.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Absolutely. It’s apparent. I am sure that we will succeed and it will bear fruit for us. It will be great support in our development. It will be a great advantage. Thank you.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mr. President, what about sovereign artificial intelligence? When we have it, will we be able to present us with a Russian idea for the 21st century?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: It can only help us solve the issues that we are faced with. It’s very important the way we formulate them. Since it operates with big data, well, we have every opportunity, both intellectual and technological. We have a great number of free energy. There is a lot of space for us to work here, and I think that such matters as you have just raised, philosophical matters, fundamental matters, we need to engage all tools. And it’s up to us whether to believe it or not when we receive the result of the quest that we have received with the use of artificial intelligence as well. Thank you.
MODERATOR: An adjacent topic that we’ve discussed, where artificial intelligence comes together with information, there’s a lot happening there, both advantages and disadvantages everywhere. Our Indian colleague, Arvind Gupta, took part in that session. Thank you. Thank you.
ARVIND GUPTA: My name is Arvind Gupta, Mr. President, and I come from India. I work on the intersection of technology and society and building a digital public infrastructure for population-scale problems.
Thank you, Mr. President. You’ve already addressed some of the issues that my colleague Ruslan here talked about on AI, but I thank you for listening to our summary and our expert panels discussed the issue of something which is adjacent to AI, and I will in the end mention that, of information manipulation, surveillance using technology and data, and the lack of transparency in all technology systems today. Mr. President, the group discussed that the Internet was designed about 40, 45 years ago to be a global public good.
Unfortunately, now, like many other things, it’s become very unipolar. It’s controlled by a few big tech firms with their own ideological leanings, and some of these platforms or big tech firms are not allowed to operate in countries like India, Russia, Indonesia, and many others for their roles in manipulation and surveillance.
The second issue we discussed, Mr. President, was the algorithms that, again, that we discussed previously in the AI session also really define how we think. The AI is actually becoming a new buzzword today, but the algorithms have been around for a long time, and they really define how we think, how we consume, how we elect our governments. And, you know, as all of us have agreed, they have a leaning towards an ideology and definitely are not neutral. So the algorithms themselves are biased.
The other thing the group discussed was the whole weaponization of information and data, and that, coupled with the biased technology platforms, are giving certain nation-states massive power, and it’s influencing national security, democracy, and the public order in general.
So, Mr. President, you are aware that this has been the form of Western technology platforms, but India presented an alternate model during its G20 presidency to these Western technology platforms. It’s a platform which takes society into account. It’s a bottom-up platform built around identity, a universal identity system, a universal payment system. It’s actually used by more than a billion people in India, and more than 20 other countries use it.
This is to present that how India has created a different vision for technology from the Western vision that exists today. Mr. President, I must commend Russia for succeeding, making the Mir platform very successful in Russia in a very, very strong time, and that also shows the power of technological sovereignty that was just mentioned, that it can be done if the desire is there.
Mr. President, the issue that you just discussed, I progressed biasness of technology and technology platforms and the non-neutral nature with what is coming head-on to us, the artificial intelligence era. Given that we let a few big companies control the Internet, how do we ensure that our culture, our society, our national interests are going to be protected in this whole era of artificial intelligence? What kind of guardrails do we need to build from the start to have fair and responsible AI?
How do we ensure that like-minded states work together for non-weaponization of AI, for non-weaponization of artificial intelligence? And lastly, Mr. President, we would like to hear from you, how do we build trust in the information that we see in news and technology at large? And that was one of the most defining things that the group debated, and look forward to hearing from you. Thank you very much.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: This is a very important subject, and it’s related to the previous issue, AI, its development and use, and there are several aspects to this matter. To start with, the use of the Internet should certainly be founded upon sovereign algorithms. This is something we have to aspire to.
Secondly, on the part of the government, it is very difficult. It’s possible, but it’s going to be counterproductive if we try to prohibit everything, you know, if the government chooses this path. In Russia, the professional community has arrived at an understanding on the rules for doing the business in the Internet, and this professional community has assumed several independently developed self-restrictions, trying to prevent any destructive influence upon society, especially on young audiences. And I think this kind of self-regulation is one of the views.
It’s one of the ways to ensure the interests of the majority, but of course the Internet has to comply with domestic legislation of the country it’s been operated in. It’s evident. That said, we are witnessing manipulation of information. Unfortunately, this does happen, but I would like to reiterate. If the Internet complies with domestic legislation, and it should be the case, then this will allow us to minimize potential negative consequences.
I do understand the technological difficulties and restrictions. It’s going to be a tall order, but if we choose this path of engaging with the professional community that sees where the threats might be coming from for society, then it’s going to be a way for the professional community to address those threats on its own. But of course the government should be willing to lend a helping hand. For such countries as Russia and India, this is a task that can be addressed. We have very good top-notch specialists and experts. We’ve got very good schools of mathematics. We’ve got people who have proven to be leaders in this field.
Well, even if their companies are not yet leaders, they themselves as experts have raised to prominence in the field. So we’ve got everything we need, especially in such countries as India and Russia. Now, as for the MIR payment system that you have mentioned, to an extent it’s been a success. It’s working. It’s functioning. It could function even better, and it could be expanded if there had been no artificial barriers put in the way. But even though these barriers are being built, MIR payment system is developing, and we’re going to replicate this success. The issue of the Internet, you know, it has become a permanent fixture of our discussions.
You said that the Internet was created as a public good to serve the benefit of humanity. Well, of course it was built for other purposes in the very beginning, but at a certain point in time its goals changed. And we’ve got to make sure that our activities in the Internet, just as any other type of human activity, should be in compliance with moral and legal requirements. Of course, technologically it’s not always easily achievable, but it can be done.
Society has to protect itself against destructive influence. But at the same time, we’ve got to ensure free exchange of information, and we also have to make sure that it benefits the development of countries and the international community at large. And we in Russia are going to pursue this path. I know India follows suit, and we’re going to work together on this subject.
And thank you for paying so much attention to this issue. But, of course, it’s impossible to overlook this matter or not to work on that. So I wish you every success.
MODERATOR: Mr. President, do you use the Internet yourself?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Well, you know, I’m a very novice user. I can press some buttons to look something up, so you do happen to do that.
MODERATOR: Our systems?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, your systems. Very good. Thank you. That is a consolation.
MODERATOR: We have spoken in detail about the environment, the state of world affairs in terms of climate and so on and so forth. I would like to give the floor to a good friend of ours, Mr. Rasedan Makaraj from South Africa. He’s going to speak on the subject.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you, Mr. President, also for updating us that the dialectic of history continues itself. Environmental problems, as you mentioned as well, cannot be solved separately from redressing global inequality problems. The World Meteorological Organization, the international weather body, recently noted that human-caused climate change has resulted in widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, and biosphere.
The year 2023 was the warmest on record by a large margin, with widespread extreme weather. This trend continued into the first half of 2024 and continues. According to the WMO, the science is clear. We are far off track from achieving vital climate goals. The impacts of climate change and hazardous weather are reversing developmental gains and threatening the well-being of people and planet. Greenhouse gases and global temperature are at a record level, and the emissions gap between aspiration and reality remains high.
The colonial and imperial phases of globalization largely established the current world systems, and they essentially premised, as mentioned by you in various parts of your update, upon unequal exchanges between the global north, global south, or as we frame it, the global minority and the global majority. Some colleagues, Hickel and associates working at London School, calculated that the global north extracts raw materials, land, energy, and labor worth approximately 10.8 trillion U.S. dollars in 2015. Just that number could have ended extreme poverty 70 times over.
Between 1990 until 2015, that 25-year period, the cumulative drain from the global south was approximately 242 trillion U.S. dollars. It’s abundantly clear. Unequal exchange is a significant driver of global inequality, uneven development, and ecological breakdown. Whilst his heroic struggles for national liberation challenged aspects of colonial and imperial subjugation, the institutional apparatus established after the Second World War or the Great Patriotic War have served to maintain the hegemony of the global north and specifically the advantages of the G7.
The global COVID-19 pandemic exposed the structural flaws in our international system while reminding us, as you’ve mentioned as well, that no one is safe unless we are all safe. Our collective scientific and technological competences, however, generated rapid solutions that helped us save lives. Notwithstanding, we are again witnessing attempts to weaponize intellectual property systems through restrictions on how knowledge is shared and against the transfer of technologies.
These must be collectively resisted and condemned. All countries should seek wider and deeper cooperation and collaboration to accelerate the co-construction of knowledge, to enable just transitions from the unsustainability of the extractive exploitation without receiving the benefits of this value addition. Efforts at reforming international institutions that continue to facilitate the process of unequal exchange, however, generates more and more frustration and despair. Even as acknowledged recently at your successful 16th BRICS Summit in Kazan, this was from the Secretary General of the UN, the current international financial architecture is outdated, ineffective and unfair.
This was echoed even recently from just to the west of us in a global policy forum in Germany, which determined that these institutions have failed in their mission to prevent and mitigate crisis and to mobilize sufficient financing for internationally agreed development goals. Our common security can only be enhanced by actively reducing these inequalities in world systems and actively promoting knowledge sharing, ensuring equitable opportunities for the development of all.
Now I want to round this by saying our very survival is at risk should we fail to match our rhetoric with our actual practices and the resources to support all countries facing increased environmental degradation, climate change and ecological precarity. Enduring peace could be a collateral benefit of such progressive transformations. Thank you very much.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Certainly, the subjects that you have broached in the course of your discussions with your colleagues here at the Valdai Club are one of the main avenues for research for the whole humanity. I’m not going into detail right now, nor am I going to discuss what is happening and the reasons for that. Well, yes, we understand that there is a global warming.
We’re not going to discuss whether that is happening due to anthropogenic activities, or maybe there are other influences coming from space. Maybe there are some cycles in the history of Earth, but the evidence for climate change is there. Climate change is happening, and it would be wrong not to do anything. We in Russia know full well that this is happening, because in Russia the warming is happening at a faster pace than anywhere across the world.
Over the last 15 years, we have registered a 0.5 degree increase across Russia and in the Arctic. It’s been 0.7 degrees, and 60 percent of our territory has permafrost. It has practical implications for us, because we have cities and towns and settlements in the permafrost, and there are productive capacities deployed over there. This warming is going to have serious implications for us, so we’re well aware of what is happening.
Incidentally, we’ve got one of the greenest energy mixes across the world. Forty percent of our energy comes from natural gas. We also have nuclear capacities, hydropower, which in total accounts for 85 percent of the energy mix, and these are low emissions sources of energy. This is one of the greenest energy mixes across the world.
Another 20 percent of all the forests are in Russia, so we have a very big absorbing capacity as well, and we are keeping that in mind. We have plans to that end. We’ve publicly announced these plans. We have said what our targets are in terms of emissions reductions, and those who are most vociferous in that field regrettably are doing quite the obverse. To cite an example, the coal-based generation in Europe has grown. Just recently, everyone in Europe was saying that coal should be phased out, but quite the contrary. Rather than shutting that down, they have got back to coal generation, paradoxical as it may seem. It’s a fact.
Maybe it’s been done under some made-up political notions, but that happened. Now, you have spoken about artificial barriers in the way of development, because the development of developing nations is tied to the environmental agenda. It’s true that there are these green barriers that several countries are building. I mean developed countries are building these green barriers for the developing markets.
This is yet another tool they have come up with to constrain the development of new countries. Very well. If you are so concerned about climate change and you are sincere in that concern, then you have to provide those countries who are willing to embark on the same path with sources of funding. Provide them with the technology they require to transition quite profitably to these technologies without suffering losses.
Otherwise, they would be lagging behind the progress bandwagon. Otherwise, they are absolutely apt in saying that if you demand that we should transition to clean technologies right now, well, you are the ones who have polluted the atmosphere, and right now you demand that we should make a leap straight to its clean generation. But how are we supposed to do that? Or should we waste our last dime to spend on technology we are supposed to buy from you and we have to pay you for?
This is yet another instrument of neocolonialism. Give people a chance to live and develop if you are sincere. And if you think that everyone has to think about climate change, then you have to provide the countries that need that with sources of funding and technology rather than trying to prevent this transfer of technologies. I think this is what you were alluding in when you spoke, and I agree with you.
I concur with you fully, and the same goes for the financial system. I have spoken about that according to our experts whom I trust implicitly. Even though the dollar is a world currency over the last decade, the U.S. has basically made out a thinner $12 trillion simply by issuing currency, distributing that currency, which later ends up in the American banks, and then they have coupon profits on that. So this is just money that has come out of thin air, and everyone has to remember that. And if you can print money and get revenue, extra revenue, well, this can be used as a source of funding for environmental agenda. Just share some of that money that has come out from nowhere to others.
If you spoke about that or you meant that, then this is also something I can agree with completely. This is what we should be doing. This is the comment I wanted to make. There’s a lot I could add, but this is the crux of the matter, as it were.
Thank you.
MODERATOR: Mr. President, what about President Aliyev? Has he invited you to the climate conference next week?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, he has invited me. It’s COP in Baku. Well, I’ve recently been to Baku, and President Aliyev and I agreed that Russia would be represented at a high level at this event. Well, it’s going to be attended by the chairman of the Russian government, Mr. Mishustin.
MODERATOR: Well, that’s incredible. Well, let’s move to another subject that is of great concern to all of us, because we are international relations scholars. You’ve spoken about Eurasian security, and we spent a lot of time discussing that. And the Valdai report, to a large extent, is dedicated to that. And we’ve got a very good session, and I would like to give the floor to our friend from Norway, Glenn Diesen. He’s going to share the summary with you.
GLENN DIESEN: My name is Glenn Diesen. I’m a professor of political economy from Norway. And, yes, our panel was on Eurasian security. I would just like to outline three main points. The first was that the source of conflict today appears to be a conflict between unipolarity and multipolarity.
Now, to a large extent, this represents a new phenomenon in international affairs. As in the 19th century, we had the United States as the dominant maritime power in conflict with the Russian Empire as the dominant land power. In the 20th century, we had the United States as the dominant maritime power against the Soviet Union. And in the present time, it’s somewhat different, as we have the United States, again, as the dominant maritime power.
But on the Eurasian continent, we’re now seeing the emergence of multipolarity, which also presents a lot of new opportunities, because even the largest economy, China, doesn’t really have the capability or it doesn’t even display the intention of attempting to dominate this continent. Instead, we see initiatives being put in place for a multipolar Eurasia. So this puts us, therefore, in a conflict between a unipolar system attempted to be restored by the United States versus a multipolar system. And the global majority seems to obviously prefer the multipolarity, which is why I think BRICS has been such a great attraction to many countries.
However, in our discussions, we also discovered a consensus that there was some concerns or at least a desire for Eurasia to be an anti-hegemonic movement as opposed to being anti-Western, and that the objective should be to harmonize interest and end this era of bloc politics as opposed to Eurasia merely becoming a bloc. And again, the attraction of BRICS countries towards this Eurasian format largely rested on this idea that we could overcome the bloc politics rather than succumbing to it.
The second point we had was that the appeal of Eurasia is also, to a large extent, the multivector of foreign policy. This is the ability to diversify economic connectivity with all the major poles of power, and this is seen as a necessity or a requirement to have more political independence, to have more autonomy in foreign policy, and not merely be a spectator in international affairs.
And yet again, this is why most countries do not want to choose between competing blocs but instead find a way of harmonizing. And again, the global majority wants Eurasian multipolarity as this is a requirement for genuine multilateralism and not the false one which has often been promoted under Washington.
The third and final point was that the multipolar Eurasia has certain systemic incentives for harmonizing interest because the great powers in Eurasia, they have somewhat different formats for Eurasian integration. They have different interests. We can see this also with Russia and China, but we also see that none can really pursue their objectives or formats for integration without cooperation with these other centers of power. So this creates incentives to harmonize interest, and it seems that this is also what has made BRICS successful. As I remember a decade ago, many people expected Central Asia to be a clash point between China and Russia. Instead, we see it becoming an area of cooperation instead.
So this gives optimism to other parts of Eurasia as well. And this is drastically different from the alliance system, which is usually used to advance unipolarity. In your own speech, you referred to the imperial impulse of dividing countries. So under the alliance system, there’s always an interest in having division between China and India, between the Arabs and the Iranians, between Europe and Russia, simply because this helps to divide the region into dependent allies and weakened adversaries.
So yes, so in the spirit of harmonizing interest, I also had a question premised on the inability we’ve had in Europe to establish a mutually acceptable post-Cold War settlement after the Cold War. I think this has been a source of many of our tensions. We never established a system based on indivisible security. Instead, we returned to bloc politics and abandoned some of the hopes we initially had in the early 90s by instead going with NATO expansion.
So my question was if Eurasian multipolarity can offer a different format for cooperation between Russia and Europe as well. I ask this because I had a few years ago a book with the title Europe as the Western Peninsula of Greater Eurasia, and I was wondering on your opinions if you see any possibility for such a path forward. Thank you.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Please forgive me. Sorry. Sorry. Could you please repeat what you were saying in the end? Could you formulate the question yet again, please?
GLENN DIESEN: Sorry. Well, my question was premised on the idea that across Eurasia we’ve seen many countries being able to overcome their differences, their political differences through economic connectivity. We see this, for example, the deals the Chinese were promoting between the Arabs and the Iranians. And I was wondering if some format for Greater Eurasia in which Europe would be a part of this Greater Eurasia, if there’s some ability to use this BRICS or some other institutions to also foster better relations with Russia and Europe so we can overcome this bloc politics in Europe which we never were able to overcome after the Cold War.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, after the Cold War ended, there was a chance to overcome this bloc thinking and the bloc politics. I can repeat it. After the Cold War came to an end, there was a chance to overcome the bloc mentality and the bloc politics. However, as I mentioned in my statement, I’m quite sure that the U.S. simply didn’t need that. It seems that they were possibly scared that they would lose control over Europe. They wanted to maintain it and they’re still doing so.
Moreover, they strengthened their grip over it. But I wanted to say that at some point, it will lead to the weakening of that principle of complete subjugation. You know, what I’m saying right now is not anything bad. I don’t want to blame someone or anything, God forbid.
But we see that many European countries, most of European countries that are NATO members, to the detriment of their interests, are conducting actions that benefit the U.S. politics and the U.S. economy. Well, look, the U.S., in certain states of the U.S., the energy costs three or five times less than in the European Union. So the decision is being made deliberately in the tax system, decreasing the revenue tax. For example, they create the conditions for the transition of whole sectors of economy, of whole industries towards the U.S. And some of them do move.
First, that applied to those who were dealing with primary energy sources, that is, fertilized productions as well as glass production and some other industries. They simply rolled back their activity because it was not profitable anymore. They’re moving over the ocean. Now they’re doing the secondary industries. More or less, it has to do with metallurgy and the car industry and so on. The governments can blame all they want the ineffective management of the companies, of specific companies, but it has to do with the government policy, first and foremost.
And in those conditions, the management of the companies had to do something to defend, to protect jobs and their companies. But it’s not always possible, though. Therefore, the conflict that unfortunately we’re seeing today, that we’re unfortunately taking part in, that allowed the U.S., A, to achieve the strengthening of their leadership, to politically have almost a colonial dependence of the countries. Honestly, even I didn’t expect that. The same is happening to Japan. It’s surprising.
What did we do to Japan? Nothing. Not a single step, not a single word. But they introduced sanctions, I guess. How come? Where did that come from? Hence the question. What do we do with that? Well, we didn’t do anything. Are there colleagues from Japan? Possibly there would be some questions from them. And it’s even worse with Europe.
I have already said it. But I will not refrain from the pleasure of thinking back to my conversation in 1993 with Ex-Chancellor Kohl. I had the chance to be present at the conversation with a former mayor of St. Petersburg. Back in the day, I still had some German in me, and I acted as an interpreter between them. He let go of the interpreter and said, go and take a rest. I stayed, and I interpreted for them. For me, as who was a former member of external intelligence of the Soviet Union, it was so surprising to hear what he was saying, to be honest.
I was listening to them, I was interpreting. And to put it mildly, I was extremely surprised. Because I still had clichés of the Cold War mentality in my head. I was a member of intelligence of KGB, of USSR. And all of a sudden, Chancellor Kohl started saying that the future of Europe, if it wants to preserve itself as an independent center of European civilization, the future is only with Russia. We need to bring together our efforts. I was simply agape. He continued in the same vein, and he spoke about his vision, about the development of the situation on the American continent, the way the U.S. will continue to build its policy. Well, I will not give it verbatim, but he didn’t say anything bad about the U.S.
But he simply gave his expert opinion, not just as Chancellor, but more like an expert. And in essence, I think 85 or 90 percent of what he spoke about is happening. I can see it, and everyone can see it as well. And naturally, we should try to build a security system on the Eurasian continent. It’s tremendous in size. And naturally, Europe can and I believe should be a part and parcel of that system. I jotted it down. PRC does not have a chance and doesn’t want to play a dominating role.
You spoke about Central Asia as well, and I will mention it too. I think there are certainly our friends from China here. The Chinese philosophy does not have that. They do not strive for domination. That’s the trick. That’s the attraction of the theory, of that proposal that has been worded by President Xi. One belt, one road. One belt, one common road. This is not a Chinese road. This is a common road, everyone’s road, at least bilaterally. That’s the way it sounds, and that’s the way we behave. In the interests of each other.
What’s happening in Central Asia? Everyone expected some kind of a clash or collision between Russia and China and Central Asia. Well, look. The thing is that these countries are very young in their statehood. They have economies that require significant development. Demographic processes are afoot there. For example, take Uzbekistan. Every year, they add another million of population. Can you imagine that? 27 or 28 million. That’s already the population, and they have an extra million born each year. India has plus 10, as my friend, Prime Minister Modi, spoke. But India has 1.5 billion people living there. And Uzbekistan has about 37, no, 38. Now they shouldn’t have to have 40 million. That’s a lot of millions.
They have plenty of issues. And if the People’s Republic of China comes over there and helps out those economies, and that means that as a result of economic cooperation, the domestic political process is stabilized as well. The statehood is stabilized. Russia only has an interest in that. We want to have a stable situation there, stable development. It’s in our interest as well. Therefore, the competition is absent there. We only have cooperation.
It doesn’t stand in the way of development of our traditional development of ties with Russia. Development of ties with that region of the world. And the countries of Central Asia, that for hundreds of years have been part of the Russian Empire and of the Soviet Union, not only remember well, but they cherish our special contacts and special ties. And it benefits everyone.
If we create a security system in the Eurasian continent, and incidentally, I see and I hear that certain European countries are starting to talk about the single security system from Lisbon to Vladivostok yet again. Now they are going back to what de Gaulle spoke about. He talked about euros, but we need to talk about Vladivostok at the end point. They have these ideas again.
If our counterparts will go back to that, and most importantly, as you said, what I have mentioned and what’s written down in the OSCE documentation, that the security of one country does not come at the expense of the security of the other country. It’s crucial. If we can truly do that, you have mentioned the level of trust that needs to be increased. And I think that the most important issue on the Eurasian continent between Russia and the European countries is the deficit of trust.
You can blame Russia for many things, and possibly we make mistakes as well, but when we’re being told that they signed the Minsk agreements only to give time to Ukraine to rearm, and they never intended to solve this conflict peacefully, how can we trust them? Look, guys, what kind of trust can we talk about? You’ve publicly said that you’ve fooled us, that you’ve lied to us and you’ve deceived us. What kind of trust are we talking about?
But we need to go back to that system of mutual trust with time. I don’t know, we can discuss it till early hours of the morning, but it’s the first step to create a single Eurasian security system. Is it possible to know? Chancellor Kohl, whom I spoke about at the beginning, said that it’s not just necessary, but it’s an imperative, and I share his point of view.
MODERATOR: Mr. President, why do you think that Chancellor Kohl was more genuine than Chancellor Merkel, whom you mentioned later during the Minsk process?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Well, you know, there were the three of us sitting down in Bonn. That was back in Bonn. The government of Germany was in Bonn, and we simply talked to each other. Madam Merkel, Chancellor Merkel, she spoke under certain social pressure and during a crisis. These are different kinds of situations. Mr. Kohl had contemplated, and he just simply presented his vision, not only without press, and Chancellor Merkel spoke for the press with the media presence. He even got rid of his interpreter, see? Therefore, I believe that he was absolutely genuine.
MODERATOR: One more question, if you would allow, following up on Glenn’s question that you mentioned that the population is growing in neighboring countries, and he also spoke about migration ways. Now it’s a hot topic everywhere, in Russia as well. Do you see that as part of Eurasian security? Do you discuss with your counterparts about Eurasia?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, we discuss that quite often. I have already said it. Right now we have a historically low level of unemployment, 2.4 percent. Basically, no unemployment. We have deficit of labor. And for the development of our economy, we need labor. Moreover, the lack of the necessary number of workforce is one of the main hurdles towards our economic growth. Right now, in construction, we have about 500,000 or 600,000 people. That’s the deficit right now.
In industry, we need about 250,000 people. That would not even be enough. It would be absorbed right away. But as a first stage, we need to create the conditions where people come here to work, that they are prepared to do that, that they would know Russian language and know our traditions. That’s what we mentioned multiple times. They should know our laws, and not only know, but to be prepared morally to observe all of it. Then there will be no irritation and intolerance from our citizens. And first and foremost, we need to think about the interests of the citizens of the Russian Federation.
It is an apparent thing, and I hope that the regions of Russia and the leadership of the regions would hear me now, just like the law enforcement. As for the people who travel here, they also should have the humane conditions, modern conditions to use all kinds of conveniences in education and health care. There are distortions here in the process. I wouldn’t go into detail, but we need to work on it. With my colleagues and friends and heads of republics of the former Soviet Union, constantly discuss it. They are prepared to prepare people, train people who are coming over to work here. What’s necessary for that? That’s also a question for us.
We need to build schools and so on. That’s what we’re doing right now. We have to send Russian teachers because there’s a lack of them, and I’m glad to have them, and they would have even more. So the ball is in our court to a great extent. They are willing to do that and want that, and we’re going to do that together. But as far as future is concerned, and I do hope it’s going to be in the near future, we have to make sure that the Russian labor market takes up mostly people with a high level of education, professionals who are competent.
And some of the people who are coming to Russia, well, we need to make sure that they stay at home, but we can build production capacities over there that will be part of the supply chain. So we could give orders to them. They could produce some components and spare parts. We could have the final assembly capacities, and then both in Russia and Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, every other country, they would have jobs over there, and this would be a cooperative process. To a large extent, we have to reestablish and rebuild the cooperative chains of supply, which used to exist back during the Soviet times, but on a new technological foundation, on a new logistical basis. And then the general system is going to be more sustainable and it will improve the economic growth rates for all participants of this process. Nor is there going to be such a high level of tensions right now.
You know, we’ve just spoken about AI and other opportunities. You know, technological opportunities, technology has to be propelled to a new level, and our production capacities have to be built on a new level, and we need to raise our efficiency as well. And I suppose this is doable. Very much so. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Mr. President, yesterday there was a huge demand. Everyone held their breath because the U.S. elected a new president. So this is the sixth U.S. president you see during your presidency. He is also the fourth, but it happens. So do you have any recollections about any of the American presidents, some more pleasant than others, maybe it was more interesting to work with some of them?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Well, you know, all of them are very interesting people. It would be hard to imagine a person who finds him or herself at the helm of one of the biggest countries in the world and who is an ignoble or an uninteresting person. No, it’s impossible. The thing is the internal political culture within the U.S. is such that this internal political strife becomes increasingly acute. They resort to all kinds of tactics. Opponents resort to different methods. The political opponents of the acting head of state, and, you know, sometimes they resort to instruments that are far from decent or appropriate, are the indicative of this political culture.
Well, just remember how many attacks there were against President Bush. He was accused of being a non-intelligent and illiterate, basically not a knowledgeable person. So I think in terms of attitude towards Russia, in terms of policy with regard to Russia, many of them, or at least many of them, as I said, everything that has been done was basically viewed as a creeping intervention. But in terms of personality, I can assure you President Bush, who used to be governor of Texas, and this is a very difficult state to run, and he was very successful in his job.
And I can tell you he is just as good as any expert who sits in this room right now. However, he has been portrayed as a person with a low IQ or any other type of accusation mounted against him by political opponents. You know, I talked to him. I stayed at his house in Texas. I met his parents at their home, and they came to see me. And I can tell you I spoke to his father, also former U.S. president. Well, of course, he was no longer president, but he said quite sincerely to me, you know, we made a huge mistake when we started to boycott the Olympic Games in Moscow, and Russia followed suit, you know, because Russia boycotted the U.S. Olympics. He said it was a huge mistake.
It was just nonsense. But, you know, that said, still that continues because under external pressure, the International Olympic Committee has basically turned into a circus. They’ve commercialized the Olympic movement, destroying the Olympic movement with their own hands. But, you know, I’m talking about the people I had to work with. All of them were a prominent personality, and they ended up of the political Olympus not by coincidence.
MODERATOR: And what about the future president?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Well, you can have any attitude towards him, you know, because during his first iteration as president, he was dubbed as mostly a businessman that is not very well-versed in politics. He can make a lot of mistakes. But from the outset, I can tell you that his behavior when there was an attempt on his life, you know, I was impressed. He’s a courageous person. And it’s not just about the hand he raised and his call to fight for their common values and ideas. Of course, there was a rush of adrenaline, but a person shows their true color in these emergencies.
And this is precisely one of those cases. And I think he acquitted himself admirably in a valiant fashion as a man. As far as politics is concerned, I don’t know, during his first presidency, I don’t know whether he’s going to hear that. But I think I’m going to say that regardless. I think he was harassed by everyone on all sides, bullied. He was afraid of making a step to the left or to the right, saying the wrong thing. I don’t know what’s going to happen right now during his new presidency, because this is going to be his last presidency. Whatever he does, it’s up to him to decide.
But what he’s been saying publicly up until now, you know, I would be loath to comment on what was said during the electoral campaign, because, you know, that was a deliberate thing to fight for votes. But regardless, what he said about his desire to rebuild relations with Russia, to facilitate an end to the Ukrainian crisis, I think this deserves attention at the very least. And I would like to take this opportunity to offer my congratulations on his election as president of the United States. As I said before, we are going to work with any head of state that is going to garner the trust of the American people.
And this is what’s going to happen in trust, in practice. If he does what he has been promising, you know, before the inauguration, if he makes a phone call, if he says Vladimir, let’s meet, you know, I wouldn’t be – I don’t think it would be beneath me to call him myself. I’m simply not doing that because, you know, at a certain point, the European, Western leaders were calling almost every week, and then they stopped all of a sudden, and you see we’re still healthy, very well, we’re developing. Anyone among them wants to rebuild contacts, as I said, we have nothing against that.
We’re always open. We will rebuild these contacts and have a sincere discussion. But so far, there are many people who want to engage in a discussion. They are here in this room.
MODERATOR: So you’re willing to talk to Trump?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, we are.
MODERATOR: Well, Trump is not here yet, so let’s have a discussion with those who is present in this room. Let’s start with Professor Fan Xiaoli, please. Over to you, Professor.
FAN XIAOLI: Professor Fan Xiaoli, I’m from China. Mr. President, I’m very glad to see you once again. From the outset, I would like to express my gratitude on behalf of my Chinese colleagues for the excellent organization and for the hospitality extended to us during the Kazan Summit.
I would also like to say a huge thank you for your personal support shown to the Valdai Club. I would also like to thank you for this lively discussion. I remember that eight years ago at this forum, I had the honor to ask you about what you think about the relation between Russia, the U.S., and China. And you gave me a very apt, very accurate answer. You said that this relation should be built on mutual respect and it should be mutually beneficial. It’s been eight years now. The world is changing drastically.
You know, there is rivalry. There are sanctions. There is bitter strife. But at the same time, Russia and China are building a strategic partnership. They’re cooperating. And the cooperation within BRICS is also developing successfully. So my question is the same. What’s your assessment of the current and future dynamics in terms of strategic partnership between Russia and China? And secondly, is it going to be possible to normalize relations between Russia and the U.S. and also with China in this new environment? Thank you.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: As for relations between Russia and the People’s Republic of China, these relations are at an unprecedentedly high level. These relations are built upon mutual trust. This is something we are lacking in our relations with certain countries, primarily with the Western countries. And I’ve spoken about the reasons for that already. I’m aware that if the representatives of those countries that I’m criticizing were here, they would give me a list of their grievances with Russia. But – well, we’re not going to have a discussion right now on this subject, but I would like to say that the level of trust between Russia and China is at the highest level in modern history.
This, as well as our personal friendly relations with President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China, serve as the sure foundation for the development of intergovernmental ties. I’m not going to go into detail, but our bilateral trade is 240 billion U.S. dollars, probably not the biggest, but still ranks among the first biggest four trade partners of China. This is a very good result already, and this is a very important factor. And we are hugely complementary. We started with energy, nuclear energy, and as our technological capacities are growing, we have an exchange of these technologies. And this significance is only growing.
That is expanding our cooperation. It’s becoming increasingly wide. The spectrum is also expanding, and we are paying increasingly great attention to high technology in different spheres. China has made a huge headway and achieved a lot in different spheres. I spoke publicly on the subject. According to our experts, the economic development model China has chosen is something it arrived at in a natural fashion based on the requirements of life, and it’s more efficient than many other economic models, because this model combines planned economy and market economy. And thanks to this model, Chinese experts are successful, and the political leadership manages not to build barriers in the way of what the economic specialists are doing. And they’re doing a very good job together.
China’s economy is performing more efficiently than other economies. It’s true that we are seeing a certain adjustment in terms of economic growth, regressively. The U.S. is pursuing a policy of double constraint. It’s trying to constrain both Russia and China. That’s the point of fighting a two-front war. Basically, I do not understand that, but they believe that the economic ascendant of China is a threat to their economic dominance.
But personally, I think if they want to be efficient, they should choose other methods to achieve these goals. Rather, they should show their advantages in a competitive rivalry. This should be fair competition, and this would create better opportunities in the U.S. Instead, they are introducing bans and prohibitions, which in the end comes back to deal a blow to their own economy. Say the ban on Chinese goods or the use of Chinese technologies in the American market, this will only result in inflation and in higher prices. That’s going to be the end result of that as far as our cooperation is concerned. There are certain industries and spheres where they’re trying to constrain China.
But in that case, we could be complementary, the economies of our two countries. As I said, we started in energy, and our energy cooperation is developing rapidly, and oil, gas, and nuclear technologies. We’re quite active in building new units for NPPs. We also organize supplies of oil and gas, and this creates a sure proof, a foolproof system for ensuring China’s energy security.
We have a contiguous border. Nothing can throw a screw in that, neither storms, no means of communication, nothing can undermine our cooperation because we’ve got a common border and the supplies will continue just as they have been going. There is a guarantee of that. I believe that if the U.S. chose a different path, a different attitude towards China and Russia, so if they chose a policy of trilateral cooperation instead of a double-standard constraint, then everyone would stand to win. And another question about the trilateral cooperation, I spoke about that, and I ended on that.
MODERATOR: Following me – sorry, I got distracted. I think there is General Salik from Pakistan. He raised his hand. He wanted to ask a question.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you very much, Mr. President. My question is about the stability between the global powers. The New START treaty is expiring on February 2026, and there appear to be no chances of its renewal or extension, and no other treaty is being negotiated. So how do you see, at the end of this agreement, maintaining the stability of relations between the global powers?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, we never refuse to continue the dialogue on strategic stability. However, it’s an open secret, and everyone knows – not only this audience, but around the world – is well known that the United States – and sorry, they’re satellites, there is no other way to put it – regarding the leadership of those countries who, to the detriment of their interests, follow the path towards Russia proposed from over the ocean. The U.S. state the goal for themselves to deliver a strategic defeat to Russia. A strategic defeat. What is a strategic defeat? What is to achieve a strategic defeat of a specific country?
If not annihilate this country, then, I don’t know, to bring the role of the country – to reduce it to a naught, why would we need the nuclear weapons then? At the same time, they want to have a dialogue on strategic stability with us. How come? Well, how does it work? It seems that they’re normal and grown-up people. We are prepared to have this dialogue. But in the current conditions, there are many issues. And your colleague from China just asked us about the triangle of Russia, China, and the U.S. I deliberately didn’t want to go into detail and exacerbate it, and I didn’t talk about the international security regarding that question. Cooperation between Russia and China is one of the most important factors of international stability in general, but it has to do with strategic stability in nuclear weapons as well.
In the past, we were always being whispered to, talk to your friends from China, they should join the conversation about decrease of their nuclear arsenals, and our Chinese friends responded, guys, look, we have less delivery vehicles, we have less nuclear warheads, you should cut it down to our level, or we can go up to your level. Otherwise, there should be no discussion about the cutdowns, right? That’s very reasonable. And the rest of it is just nonsense.
At the same time, the nuclear arsenals of other NATO countries, besides the U.S., the United Kingdom, and France, they have increased in their nuclear arsenals, they’re not only increasing in numbers, but also changing in quality. Quite recently, I was being told that NATO is not a military and political alliance, this is primarily a political alliance, and the military is on the back burner, not quite so.
Indeed, the U.S., deliberately, maybe not, but I think deliberately, have brought back the military component of NATO, and have declared that they’re going to deliver a strategic defeat to Russia. Naturally, we should consider the nuclear arsenals of the UK and France as well. As of today, this is a complex issue.
It’s more complex than it used to be 20 or 30 years ago. However, we are aware of our responsibility as a country, which has the capacity in terms of delivery vehicles and warheads, and the quality of modern weapons, and it’s being improved domestically. Right now, we’re coming to a point that would put on combat duty our novel developments that I spoke about five years ago. We’re finalizing the tests, and we understand that, and we’re prepared for the dialogue.
But the other side needs to be honest about this dialogue, considering all aspects of our relations. It cannot be that they want to defeat us strategically, but to their citizens, they’re telling, this is business as usual, don’t worry about anything. It doesn’t work like that. Strategic defeat for us, and they should not worry?
No. Let’s open our cards and have a calm and businesslike conversation without double, triple, quadruple standards. Let’s just talk about it. And we have proposed that multiple times.
MODERATOR: Mr. President, you’ve mentioned the demonstration of the newest developments. Are there some newer ones?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, there are. Something comes up all the time. Yesterday, I was talking to one of the heads of the largest firms, and he reported his ideas in this year. But it’s premature to talk about it. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Professor Nogueira from Brazil, first row, please.
PAULO NOGUEIRA BATISTA: I’m Paulo Nogueira Batista from Brazil. I’d like to ask you, Mr. President, if you could expand a little bit on two topics you touched upon in your presentation and comments, BRICS and U.S. dollar. What role do you see for the BRICS in constructing alternatives to the unreliable and dysfunctional dollar system? Russia proposed in this 2024 chairmanship of the BRICS a detailed, interesting proposal for a new system of cross-border payments based on national currencies. How do you see this discussion going forward? Are you confident that we can move forward on this basis?
And second point, more difficult one, don’t you agree that payments in national currencies have a limit, and that we ultimately must move step by step, gradually and carefully, towards new means of payment, a new reserve currency? President Lula, by the way, made this point in his statement to the Kazan summit, and I would like to hear your views on that. Thank you.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, my position is based on the proposals from our experts. I trust them completely, naturally, they’re experts at the international level. And beforehand, I had a discussion of our proposal, and when a certain idea is generated, my role is that, within the country, the expert community and the government and the central bank engage with these ideas, so these ideas are shaped in a certain way, when everyone understands what they’re talking about, we should propose these ideas to our partners. That was one of my proposals to President Lula. He got interested.
He received our experts in Brazil, at a very high level. He called to these meetings representatives from central bank, finance ministry, and I think all of the economic part of the government. Our colleagues and friends in Brazil were interested, and I will say a few words about what I’m talking about. We did the same for other countries of BRICS association. I spoke to almost all of the heads personally, and everyone got a liking to that idea. But what I’m talking about, what’s the novelty there? We are proposing to create a new investment platform using electronic assets and developing on them. So we would like to create a platform of electronic payments, could be used for investments in emerging markets, and that is primarily the markets of South Asia, Africa, and partially Latin America.
I’d like to repeat once again, why do we think that? Because there are tremendous demographic processes underway, population growth, they have accumulation of capital, don’t have the necessary level of organization at this point, and it will increase. And if that happens, they would have new centers of economic growth, and people will strive, and that means the governments will follow their needs of increase in the standards of life and prosperity, and we think that these regions of the world will show the highest growth rate. Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, in our opinion, would also have, will show growth. But much more tremendous growth, a surging growth will be shown by the regions of the world that I’ve mentioned.
They will need investments, technologies, and staff, talent, using new investment capacities. The new platform, we think, would ensure that, and such electronic instruments, such tools can be made almost independent of inflation, because if there is an overabundance, we can withdraw them from circulation, on the other hand, we can do the opposite. We can print more, and we can regulate that through central banks and oversight by them, and through the new development bank. The leadership of the NDB also like that.
There are different points of view there, different approaches, but in general, some had more interest in that, some had less interest in that, still we could agree to create a working group at the expert level, at the government level. We’re going to do that. We are in no hurry. This is not a response towards the events of today, no. This is not even a response that’s trying to counteract the limitations in the sphere of finances. I’ll speak about that more. But this is just an idea how we could organize our work for the most promising growth markets of the future. This applies not only to BRICS countries, but also to those countries which are not BRICS members today.
This is just for us an opportunity to invest, to enter those markets. For them, it’s a chance to use our capacity. Otherwise, it would be impossible. If we look at only – if we look only at promising projects that promise us revenue, we can launch this project and it will work, I think.
As for today’s conditions, the use of national currencies still bears its fruit. For Russia, for example, we have about two-thirds of our trade is being serviced in national currencies. For BRICS countries, the same figure is 88 percent payments in national currencies. Right now, we are discussing the use of electronic tools of exchanging financial information between the central banks of our countries. This is the so-called financial BRICS bridge system that we have discussed at the expert level with all of our partners.
The second system is also part of BRICS ecosystem. We were talking about payments, settlements at stock exchanges, at security markets. I think that today this is the best option. That’s what we should work on in the nearest future. I’ve heard a lot that the experts and the journalists are talking about creating a single currency. I think it’s premature. We don’t have such a goal among us because in order to talk about a certain single currency, then we need to achieve greater integration of economies.
That’s number one. And number two, we need to increase the quality of economies to a certain level. So these would be very compatible in terms of volume and quality, compatible economies. Otherwise, it would be unrealistic and possibly even detrimental.
We shouldn’t make haste here. And I want to wrap up with what I usually start with when I respond to questions like that. We never wanted to abandon dollar, and that’s not our commitment. The political and financial authorities of the U.S. or of Europe are doing it themselves. When they declined to put through European settlements, euro is still an inflection state, and they limited its capacity by their own hand. It’s nonsense.
As for Europe, the issue lies in the fact that decisions in economy are done by politicians who quite often, unfortunately for those countries, are not experts in economics and finance. And that is only to the disadvantage of those countries. We are not abandoning dollar in Russia. We – they simply refuse us to allow to use dollar as a settlement tool.
Well, even so, I think if we are denied that, it’s so foolish of the U.S. authorities because the dollar is the pillar of U.S. power, and they’re undoing it by their own hand. I thought that whatever happens, dollar is like a sacred cow. It should not be touched. In discontinuation, the udder is dirty, they got rid of the horns.
Well, they are to blame on their own. The payments in dollars are decreasing, not too much as of yet, but as means of savings. It’s going down step by step, very gradually. It’s shrinking, but it’s a trend. It’s their own doing. But we’re not fighting against it. Our proposals are not aimed against dollar. This is simply us rising to the challenge of modern times, a response towards the development of economy.
We’re thinking about the future tools. And what’s relevant today is what I’ve said before, creation of a system, using already the groundwork of the systems in each country, exchanging of financial information, and those tools that I’ve mentioned, we’ll develop them.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Alexander Akovic from Serbia.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Dear Mr. President, I am Alexander Akovic, historian from Belgrade, Serbia. It is my honor to see you, listen to you, and talk to you again. My question for this night for you is, according to your opinion, what are the state and individual mechanisms that Russians, Serbs, and other people around the globe must use to defend our traditional values and protect ourselves and our identities from the invasive and imposing Western ideology that we saw this year at the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Paris? Thank you.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Well, as for what we saw at the opening ceremony, honestly, I didn’t watch it. Someone told me afterwards, and I did give it a watch. I don’t know what they were going to do, what they wanted, why the organizers chose that, why it was greenlit by the International Olympic Committee.
It was an insult to millions of Christians, of believers. There is a need to insult anyone. I do not quite see that, why there is a need to insult the sentiments of Christians. Those who organized that say they didn’t want to insult anyone, the same happens with regard to the Islamic community when the Quran is being burned or when there are some illustrations or caricatures with the prophet and when such things are being published under the aegis and pretext of protecting freedom of speech.
I am just repeating what I have spoken about on multiple occasions, because the freedom of one person or society and where the freedom of other persons starts, because you can insult someone and religious feelings of other people and say this is my freedom, but this would lead you as far as to, I don’t know, murder someone, and if you want to murder, is it going to be encroaching on your freedom? Well, of course, that is nonsense. People do not feel the line, the border, as they say. They have a vision and they do not know where the boundaries lie.
Yes, if you have a vision, it’s all right, but if you know that this vision of yours might insult other persons, you should refrain from going public. The rule is as simple as that. They believe it possible to act in such a fashion. Incidentally, the same goes for the opportunity for men to compete in women’s sports. It simply destroys women’s opportunities. Well, I am sorry for broaching this subject. Maybe there are some sports which are not for women. I am sorry, I do not want to insult anyone, but women should compete with women.
Well, yes, there is box and maybe that is a male sport, but if you declare that you are a woman and then you go and you break a nose of a woman, it simply destroys women’s sports because women will have no chance of competing. Men should compete with men, and if you are a man and you declare yourself a woman, you should compete with similar people. It’s like those who get a medical certificate say that they have an illness and they take a medicine and they have an unfair advantage. Well, you can organize, again, a competition among people who use the same method.
This is only natural and this is not going to insult anyone. No one is going to be offended by that, I think. Now, as far as protecting our values is concerned, I think we should use any means at our disposal to protect these values.
MODERATOR: Mr. WANG Wen, please.
WANG WEN: Thank you. I am Wang Wen from Chongyang Institute of the University of China. I am so glad to see you again. My question is about Russia’s China policy in the coming four years as well as the future international system changes. Because we know Trump is back. Just imagine if one day President Trump calls you and asks that, like that, let’s join forces to compete China. What would you respond? And will you accept President Trump’s suggestion, so-called uniting with Russia and resisting China?
And my second question is about the future international system. Of course, you often mention that international system is ongoing fundamental change. So, in your eyes, what will the international order and free work in the future look like? And in your eyes, in the future international order and the system, what role should Russia, China, United States act or plan in the future? And how do you consider to coordinate the triangle relationship among Russia, China and the United States? Thank you.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Well, I’ll give it a try and I’ll try to be as succinct as possible. First, China and Russia are cooperating and being friends, not against anyone. Our relationship with China is not aimed at any third party, the U.S. included. Our relation with the People’s Republic of China seek to develop and create a favorable environment for ensuring the security of both our nations and peoples. And the same applies to our relation with the United States of America.
It would be very difficult for me to even imagine a situation when the president-elect makes such an offer as you mentioned. I think he understands that it is completely divorced from the realities in which we are living. Russia is not going to ally with anyone against anyone. And it seems even increasingly unrealistic to me with regard to China because with China we’ve reached an unprecedented level of trust, mutual confidence and friendship. I think such countries as Russia and China that have such a big border and such a long history of coexistence in one space despite the differences in our cultures, which, however, do espouse similar and common values.
I think that in itself is a great achievement and we have to use it right now and we have to reinforce it and pass it down to forthcoming generations as far as the possibility for establishing our relations with the U.S. is concerned. We’re open to these possibilities to a large extent. The ball is in the U.S.’s court because we were not the ones to start relations with them. We did not introduce any restrictions or sanctions against the U.S. nor are we facilitating any armed conflicts in the territories in their proximity. We’ve never sought anything like that, and I would like to say that we’ve never done anything like that in practice.
We do not quite see why the U.S. seems it has the right to do that, and we are hopeful that at the end they will come to realize that they’d better refrain from doing that because that’s what they should be doing if we do not want any global conflicts. But the president-elect of the U.S., President Trump, spoke along similar lines, so we’ll live and see how it plays out in reality, keeping in mind, of course, that such an institution as the presidency of the U.S. is bound by certain obligations, by certain responsibilities.
The president of the U.S. has died, to a certain extent, to those people who helped him arrive in power. In the past, Jacques Chirac said, what kind of democracy can we talk about in the U.S.? Because without a billion, if you don’t have a billion U.S. dollars in the pocket, you shouldn’t even entertain the thought of participating in the elections, let alone participate in practice. And those people who provide those billions, they participate in building the future team, and if they delegate someone, they have a lever for exerting influence upon those people who will be part of that team.
So it’s important to see whether the president-elect manages to build good relations with this so-called deep state and also build contacts and relations with the voters. If he keeps his promises, his authority is growing, and he can use that authority to become an independent political figure, even in his relations with those influence groups that helped him arrive in power. It’s a very complex process. What’s going to happen in the U.S. is something we cannot tell for sure, but I’m hopeful that our relations with the United States of America will be reestablished at a certain point in time, and we are open to that.
Thank you.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Someone from here. Yes. You mentioned Japan, I think. Mr. Nibiru is here.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you. Taisho Kibera, Sasaki Peace Foundation. I would like to ask you a similar question, but it’s about Japan. The strategic landscape in East Asia is becoming increasingly tense. This is due to the strategic rivalry between the United States on the one hand and China on the other. And in this rivalry, Russia is clearly on the side of China. The frequency of joint military exercises between Russia and China has increased significantly in this region.
On the other hand, Asia is a region with a great value, and Russia’s strategic interest in this region should not be completely bound by its relations with China. How is Russia trying to combine these interests? So on the one hand, there is the confrontation between China and the U.S. in East Asia. At the same time, how is Russia going about trying to preserve the latitude for pursuing strategic stability goals in this region?
And another question, what’s your assessment of the future of Russian-Japanese relations within this strategic context? Say, what’s going to – what is going to look like in the next five years?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Indeed, the situation in East Asia is not becoming any less unstable or less tense, but it’s not due to China. Yes, China is our friend and closest partner, but let me say that objectively, it’s not China that is building blocks over there in East Asia. I do not want to act as China’s advocate. I understand there are many internal issues because there are always issues between neighbors. I’m not sharing any secret with you.
There are certain difficulties on the Chinese-Indian border. But well-versed, thoughtful people who care about the future of their nations are on a quest for compromises, and they arrive at them. This is what Prime Minister of India and China’s president are doing. They are engaged in a dialogue, and they continued that dialogue during the BRICS summit in Kazan. And I’m hopeful this is going to have a positive impact upon future Chinese-Indian relations.
Regarding the situation in East Asia as a whole, it’s not China that is building blocks over there. It’s the U.S. that is doing that, one block, then another. Right now, NATO is formally making its way into East Asia. Nothing good is happening. Nothing good happens if exclusive political or military blocks are being built that act to the tune of one single country that acts as a leader.
Other countries, as a rule, are following in the wake, serving the interests of one single country that initiates the establishment of these blocks. And those countries that agree with every demand, the U.S. should think on that. And if issues do arise, and they always do among neighbors, it’s inevitable, one should work at original level, trying to escape external influence and show courage, patience, and willingness to search for compromise. And if such an attitude prevails, then compromises will be within reach, and they will be found. So leveling accusations at China, trying to accuse it of some aggressive intentions when the U.S. is building aggressive blocks, I think, is not the right way to go.
Now you said that Russia is on China’s side and not on the side of those who build such blocks. How can it be otherwise? Because we have to keep in mind everything that I’ve just said. We do not think that China is pursuing an offensive policy. A lot of things revolve around Taiwan, because in words, many accept that Taiwan is part of China. But in practice, they’re trying to provoke, and they organize provocations. Why would they need that? Isn’t it because they’re trying to do the same as they did with Ukraine? They want to provoke a crisis in Asia, and then they will say that the U.S. has to be closer, because otherwise they’re not going to survive. Maybe this is the same logic that applies to Asia.
So indeed, we do support China, because we believe that China is pursuing a very well-balanced policy, moreover, because China is our ally. We have a very large volume of bilateral trade. We have cooperation in security matters.
You said that we hold military exercises together, and it’s true. But isn’t the U.S. doing the same, say, with Japan? Well, it does it on a permanent basis, and it also holds exercises with other countries, and they do so all the time.
You know, at the late 1990s, we stopped using our strategic aviation forces. It stopped performing long-range flights to neutral zones, whereas the U.S. kept doing that. So we looked at that, and in the end, we decided to resume the long-range flights of our strategic aviation. And it’s the same logic that applies here. The U.S. kept organizing military exercises, and we decided to do the same together with China. But the thing is, these exercises are not a threat to anyone. These exercises are meant to ensure our security. And we believe this is the right tool that helps stabilize the situation not just in Asia but across the globe in general. The countries of the region have nothing to fear from these exercises.
I would like to reiterate once again that our cooperation with China in general and in the military-political field is aimed at reinforcing our security. It’s not aimed against third countries.
Now, as for our bilateral ties with Japan, I can say it again. What I told to your colleagues, we’re not the ones to sour relations with Japan. We did nothing wrong against Japan. We were held in negotiations. We were trying to arrive at a solution to a very complex matter of the peace treaty. And there was talk about a very difficult compromise based on the 1956 declaration. Now, the Soviet Union even ratified this declaration. It was the Japanese side that renounced that declaration, but it was at the request of Japan that we got back to the declaration.
We agreed to that. We resumed our talks. We were thinking what we could do based on that declaration of 1956. And then all of a sudden, Japan slapped sanctions on that. And Japan even put us on a list of threats. We’re in the third or fourth spot. In what way are we a threat to Japan? What did we do wrong?
Because you got an order from Washington. Maybe you should have told Washington, okay, guys, we’ll think about that, but, you know, without giving offense to your partner and to your ally, why did Japan have to simply blindly follow that order coming from Washington? I do not understand that. Thankfully, there are some smart people in Japan who continue working with us, especially in energy with our companies, and they see us as reliable partners.
Despite the sanctions introduced by Japan, we’re not doing anything to reciprocate. Japanese companies that used to work in Russia can keep on working if they want to. And we are also getting some messages and signals from American companies saying that they want to get back. Let them. But, of course, new conditions, new terms will apply. Some losses will have to be incurred. We are willing to build and rebuild ties with Japan because for the next 10 and 50 years, Japan is our natural neighbor. Yes, there were some tragic pages in our history, and there are also some pages we can be proud of.
We love Japan and Russia and Japanese culture, Japanese cuisine are well-beloved in Russia. We were not the ones to destroy anything. So just draw your own conclusions, and we’re not going to fool around trying to blame you. We are willing. Do come back. That’s it. I don’t have anything to add to that.
MODERATOR: Mr. President, what about our strategic cooperation with the DPRK? Is it also aimed at strengthening our security just like with China?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Well, as for DPRK, we have an agreement that we’ve signed with other countries as well. It was signed with the Soviet Union as well. Well, it came to an end naturally. In essence, we went back to it. There was nothing new there. Whatever anyone says, everything, practically everything that was written down in the agreement between DPRK and the Soviet Union, it was copied and pasted with some adjustments, and it was reproduced in the new treaty.
Naturally, it is aimed at ensuring security in the region and our mutual security as well. Will we hold exercise with them? Maybe we can do that as well. Why not? We have Article 4 that reflects mutual aid in case of aggression from another state. It’s all there, and I would like to repeat once again, there is basically nothing new compared to the treaty that simply ran its course back in the Soviet Union times.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Arvind Gupta, please.
Audience Question on India-Russia Relations
ARVIND GUPTA: Thank you, Mr. President, for a brilliant presentation and this interaction. My question is about India-Russia relations. You have met Prime Minister Modi several times in the last few months. Prime Minister Modi at one point of time mentioned to you that this should not be an era of wars. How do you see that statement? How do you interpret that statement? What is the meaning of that statement for you?
That’s one. Secondly, if you could also tell us in this concept of Eurasian security, what role do you see for India? And thirdly, in this changed geopolitical environment, and you also mentioned about the importance of civilization, civilization values, Russia being a civilization state, India being a civilization state, what are the areas in which – new areas in which India and Russia are working together? Thank you very much.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: India is our natural partner and ally for decades. It has been so for decades, and I think everyone knows fully well what kind of role was played by the Soviet Union and Russia in India acquiring its independence the way we supported the Indian nation for decades. Throughout that time, we’ve built a unique in its quality and level of trust relations with the Indian nation, and I can say directly in this case, and the way we feel and the way we understand coming from our Indian friends, there was an overall national consensus about the development of relations with Russia, with our country. And using this basis, we’re developing our relations with India in all dimensions.
That applies to the economy. It’s showing good growth rate in different dimensions as well. For example, in energy, we are prepared besides oil supply, and the supply has increased manifold to the Indian market. But we can talk about possible LNG supply.
We’re working in nuclear energy very actively. We are building nuclear power plants in India. We have tremendous respect for the idea of Prime Minister Modi. Make an India. He’s called to “make an India,” and we are prepared to invest in that. Take energy, for example. One of the largest foreign investments of $20 billion is the Russian investment. We are prepared to increase it in the same vein.
Naturally, now we need to think about new technologies, and we are prepared to do that. At the last meeting, His Excellency Prime Minister noted that Indian producers of agri-produce need, tremendously need, greater increase in fertilizers. We have done that, and we are prepared to increase our supply. I mean the needs of Indian agricultural sector.
There are other needs as well. India is a great country, the largest in terms of population, 1.5 billion people, additional growth of 10 million per year. It is growing very quickly. It is leading in economic growth among major economies, 7.4% GDP growth per year, I think.
And India is one of those countries whose growth will be greater than even well-developing countries of today. Therefore, our vision of what and how and in what spheres and at what speed of development in our relations, it is all proceeding from the reality of today. And the reality is that our cooperation is increasing manifold. Maybe our trade is not as high as with China, but it’s almost $60 billion, $58 billion and something.
And it’s increasing every year. This year, over the past nine months of this year, we see the same trend. As for solving most acute crises, we are very thankful and we have great respect for the ideas of His Excellency Prime Minister Modi. He expresses his concerns about conflicts in Ukraine as well.
And he proposes his ideas how to settle the conflicts. Naturally, we keep abreast of these proposals and naturally, we are not only thankful to His Excellency for his attention to these issues and for his proposals as well, for the fact what he is doing in this regard. In general, I think that our relations with India, we’re developing at high rate and we have every reason to believe that using the groundwork that we have laid before will show even greater rate of development than today. Incidentally, and it is traditionally known that we have good relations in security and military and technical cooperation.
Look at how much Russian equipment is in Indian Army. We have high level of trust in this sphere. We’re not simply selling to India. We’re not simply selling our armaments, but we’re developing weapon systems together. BrahMos system is very well known. We have made it that could be used in three spheres, in sea, in air, and on land. Everyone knows that fully well. There are no questions there.
And it causes no irritation, but it testifies to the high level of trust and cooperation. We’ll continue in the same vein and I hope that will be in the near future and in the far future as well.
MODERATOR: Can I ask questions now? Are we close to midnight? Yes. And we’re still here. Okay. You can go ahead and choose.
Audience Question on Economic Systems
MODERATOR: At the very back of this sector, I see a hand, but I don’t see who’s raising it. A lady there closest to you? No, no, no. Over there. Raise your hand, please. Over there. Thank you.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Konstantopoulos Dimitris, Mr. President. From Greece, a country I’m sure you will agree with me, has no other option than to remain a friend and a brother of Russia. For reasons which we cannot escape, they are inside our deepest cultural and historical identity. My question is the following one.
Forty years ago, both the European welfare gains in capitalism and the Soviet hyper-centralized system have collapsed. During the four decades that passed, we have seen the multiplication of economic crisis, of wars, of ecological problems, and of many other problems. I’m wondering if it has not come the time to orient ourselves towards a kind of plant economy in national, regional, and international level. I don’t mean the sclerosis of the past, so to say, little bit military socialism.
I mean a system, as the one you described, of a combination of market and plan. A system like the one you tried to apply in your country just some years after the October Revolution with a new economic policy. Even to introduce some elements of socialism, as you referred also to your revolution in the beginning of your intervention. Thank you.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, the more acute the crisis, the more plans, the more planned economy is. The more, the greater the need for the government to intervene in the solving of the crisis. But the greater accumulated resources and goods, the more often we hear the proposals to move on to exclusively market principles. Here come the liberals and democrats, come over and start to spend everything accumulated by the conservators, conservatives.
And then with time, there is always a crisis of overproduction or a crisis that have to do with that. And the cycle repeats endless number of times, and it all comes back to the beginning. This is a sovereign choice of each state on how to build their economic policy. China has found these opportunities, and do you know why it succeeded?
It is also for a reason, and not the least because China is a sovereign state. And many of these economies, due to many various reasons, due to their obligations within economic alliances, military and political alliances, voluntarily have abandoned a part of their sovereignty. And they are incapable of making decisions in economy and in ensuring their security. I am not appealing to anyone or calling anyone to anything, but I am simply responding to your question.
Yes, possibly, at a certain point in time, the presence of drama or national currency would be reasonable. Because you can adjust through inflation at least certain social processes and get rid of social tension and not to shift all of the burdens of economic development on the shoulders of the population. But back in the day, Greece made a different decision. It redistributed itself to be regulated through a common currency and economic decisions in Brussels.
This is not our matter. This is a sovereign choice of the Greek state. What to do in these conditions is hard for me to say, but as some of my friends and colleagues from the EU told me, I still have some, that Brussels makes more decisions that are obligatory, that it was used to be done by the Supreme Council of the USSR during the Soviet times. There are advantages and disadvantages, but it is not our matter.
I tried to answer your question. I don’t know whether I succeeded. I don’t know whether it’s enough for you or not. That’s what I think.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Yes, please go ahead over here. Yes, you will have the mic to you.
Audience Question on Russia-Africa Relations
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you very much, Mr. President, especially since I’m the first woman to take part in today’s discussion. I wanted to say that quite recently, starting with 2023, the African agenda became the Valdai agenda. It’s very important because what’s being discussed in Valdai is important not only for intellectuals and experts, but for all of our country. It is very symbolic that one day after we finish our work, we’ll kick off the first ministerial conference of Russia and Africa in Sochi as well.
At the BRICS press conference, you said that Africa, together with Southeast Asia, is one of the global growth centers, and it is clear that there is a great fight for the sympathies of the African population. They have great attitude towards Russia, though in the 90s it is believed that Russia left Africa. When you cross the border, you’re being asked, where do you come from? And you say, “I’m from Russia.” And they say, “Russia, Putin.” That is indeed so, almost all around Africa. And I think it has to do with the fact that Russia, unlike the West that used to plunder those nations for their own benefit, ensured political and economic sovereignty of the African states and stood at the origins of African economic space and humanitarian space as well. But in terms of competition, China, India, and all players, and even Turkey and countries of the Persian Gulf and Iran, Russia needs to find its niche where it would be best for Africans.
We, as experts, also have our proposals, what we need to pay attention to. But you have held dozens of negotiations with African leaders and multiple with many leaders. During those negotiations, was there one promising dimension that everyone would be talking about, that every African leader mentioned? Thank you.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, African continent is tremendous in size, and the level of economic development and security situation is very different. I can agree with you that we have no contradiction basically with any African country. And the level of trust and liking towards each other is very high, primarily due to the fact that in the history of our relations with the African continent, there was never even a shadow of trouble. We never exploited the African nations.
We never did anything inhumane on the African continent. On the contrary, we have supported, we have always supported Africa and Africans in their fight for independence and sovereignty to create some certain basic conditions for development of the economy. Now, these days, we need to have a new approach. I think that if there is anything in common, then they all care about conducive security environment, because these neo-colonial tools that were preserved in the economy, I mean the Western countries, and in security sphere as well, and together, that gave a certain advantage and a possibility to use these neo-colonial tools.
People got tired of that, especially since there was no great revenue from that. I can only repeat myself that during our meetings at summits, and bilaterally as well, the Africans never ask or beg for anything. They never extend a demanding hand. They’re developing very fast, and they know that they have resources and capacities.
They’re asking for only one thing, to build a natural and mutually beneficial cooperation. That’s what we want as well. We cannot do that at the government level as it was being done in the Soviet Union. What we’re trying to do is to create conditions for the work of our leading companies, especially since the investment potential of our companies is very high. It is indeed very high. We can possibly invest hundreds, hundreds of millions of dollars. This is not an exaggeration. For example, in Egypt, we’re building a nuclear power plant, and we’re investing almost $20 billion.
Just some figures for you. And in other countries and in other spheres, we’re also prepared to do the same. It is very hard to work in the sphere of economy if there are no conditions to ensure security. Well, let’s take the Sahel region.
Still, this is a zone which has been ravaged by terrorist or semi-terrorist groups and gangs. Some countries are suffering from political instability, so almost everyone turns to us asking us to give them a helping hand in this field. And, of course, we act within the framework of the international law. We’re trying to help them.
We’re not trying to expel anyone from there. Some Europeans are taking offense as they say that we’re trying to expel them. Well, they’ve got nothing to do with us, and we’ve got nothing to do with that. They are simply fed up with them. They want them gone. And this vacuum appears, and we’re trying to come in, trying to act as cautiously and as efficiently as possible.
They want them gone and this vacuum appears and we are trying to come in, trying to act as cautiously and as efficiently as possible to address the task at hand. Indeed a lot needs to be done first and foremost in economy and we are trying to work this path. Now as far as this ministerial meeting is concerned, the one that is starting the day after tomorrow, it’s meant to create a conducive environment for that. We’re also helping to train personnel both in military and in civil at our universities because future professionals for the military for these countries are being prepared.
The same goes for law enforcement agencies. We’re going to pursue every path and every avenue in culture because there’s a great deal of interest in Russia and the interest of African nations and I think this interest is reciprocal. We’re going to do everything in our power doing that work in a systemic fashion.
MODERATOR: Let’s move over there. Yes, please give the mic to whomever you take liking to. Yes, please. Great.
Audience Question on Multipolar World Order
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Raising the question to you, Mr. President, I’m from Beijing Club for International Dialogue. If we make this assumption, if we go back to two years ago, probably February 2022, what would you say to Chinese leader about the Taiwan issue at that time? And if we go look forward to a quarter, another quarter from now, 25 years, say 2049, what in your mind a multipolar world will be look like? And isn’t a major force of this pushing to the multipolar world be – isn’t it should be a unified country? Thank you.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Well, let me start with the last question you have asked. I want a well-balanced world. And in this nascent multipolar system, I would like the interests of all international stakeholders to be taken into account as best as possible. And there needs to be a mechanism established to search for compromise. I’m hopeful that we will have been able to build such a system. At least this is something we have to aspire to. As for who wants that, if there are some forces that seek to achieve that, of course there are forces like that.
I refer first and foremost to the big participants. We’ve just spoken about that, and this is the subject that we broached at the Kazan Summit. I’m sorry. I think that’s quite a big deal already because it’s your country, it’s the People’s Republic of China, it’s India, it’s South Africa, Brazil, our biggest country of Latin America. It’s also Russia, which your humble servant here represents. And the Russian people as a whole, I assure you, wants that. We want peace in the world. We want an environment which is conducive to everyone’s prosperity across the international community.
So, there’s no way for me to forecast what the world is going to look like, but this is something we need to aspire to.
MODERATOR: Yes, please. Please stand up. Yes, over to you.
Audience Question on Use of Military Force
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mr. President, thank you for your in-depth analysis, for your responses to the questions we’ve posed. You said that sometimes it’s difficult to talk about means and military means. My question is about that.
My question is precisely about that. Russia has traditionally criticized the use of military force for resolving difficult international situations, but in 2022, Russia resorted to using force. You make a convincing argument why this was necessary, and your explanation is very convincing as to why Russia was in the right to use force back then.
But if you cite some right and you use it, it’s impossible to deny others the right to do the same. So my question is about the Middle East. Who do you think has the right in this region to use military force? And whose military actions are illegal and illegitimate amid the current conditions against the backdrop of the current crisis that is currently unfolding there?
And another question, kind of a follow-up, but more of a technicality. What are the borders within which Russia recognizes Israel? Because when someone appeals to self-defense, citing this right, the question of borders begs itself. This is not a difficult question, even though the situation is very complex.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I’ll try to formulate my response to your question in two parts. Russia believes it important for all the decisions of the UN General Assembly, UN Security Council on Israel and Palestine have to be respected and implemented. This is not a short-term policy. This position has traditionally been ours since the Soviet times, and Russia sticks to this stance.
So if all the decisions of the UN General Assembly and UN Security Council are observed on the establishment of two independent states, then this will precisely be the foundation for resolving the crisis. That grave, however acute it might seem, and it is, as of now, that’s it.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mr. President, I can’t help asking you about the borders. And what about the Ukrainian borders? What are the borders within which we recognize Ukraine?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, we’ve always recognized Ukraine’s borders based on our agreements after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Ukraine’s Declaration on Independence, which was supported by Russia, states that Ukraine is a neutral state.
And based on that, we recognize Ukraine’s borders. But subsequently, as is known, the Ukrainian leadership amended the basic law of the country, declaring its intention to accede to NATO. And this is not what we had agreed upon. That’s the first thing.
Secondly, we have never supported any kind of coup d’etat, wherever they take place, nor do we support the coup d’etat that transpired in Ukraine. We understand and support people who disagreed with that coup d’etat. And we recognize their right to defend their interests. On multiple occasions, I have had a discussion with the UN Secretary General, and it’s an open secret.
I do not think he’ll take an issue with me. We support those who say that we have violated the norms and principles of the international law as well as the UN Security – UN Charter, that we were the ones to initiate the hostilities in Ukraine. I said that in the past, but I’ll take this opportunity to reiterate the rationale behind our actions once again. Let’s look here.
In compliance with Article 1 of the UN Charter, every nation has the right to self-determination, as far as I remember. Then those who live in the Crimea and in the southeast of Ukraine who disagreed with the coup d’etat because it was an illegal, anti-constitutional act, they have the right to self-determination. Is that the case? Yes, it is.
The ICJ made a ruling with regard to Kosovo, analyzing the situation around Kosovo, saying and stipulating that if a territory declares an independence, then it has – it is under no obligation to ask for the authorization from the central authorities of the country which this territory is to be part of when independence has been declared. Is that the case? Yes, it is, because that is the ruling passed by the International Court of Justice of the United Nations. So these territories, including Novorossia and Donbass, had the right to make a decision on their sovereignty.
This is absolutely in line with international law and the UN Charter. If that is the case, then we have the right to enter into an intergovernmental treaty with these entities. Is that the case? If that’s so, yes, it is. Did we do that? Yes, we did. These treaties included articles on mutual aid. We ratified these treaties and then these newly established states asked us for assistance under the treaties we had entered into and we had ratified.
We were under obligation to help them. We tried to put an end to the hostilities that the Kiev authorities had unleashed back in 2014. They did not start any kind of aggression or intervention. What we’re trying to do is put an end to this aggression.
The UNSG listened to all of that. He was nodding in silence and he said, yes, all right, but still you are the ones – you are the ones who are attacked and I’m not joking. This is almost exactly what he said, but there is no rational answer to that. There is a chain of logical reasoning.
Where is the error? What is wrong that I said? When did we violate the international law on the UN Charter? There’s no error or violation. And if that is the case, then Ukraine’s border should be in line with the sovereign decisions made by the people who live in those territories that we call our historical territories. So it depends on the dynamics of the current events.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mr. President, if we get back to the first link in your chain of reasoning, do we understand that if there is neutrality, then we could talk about borders?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: If there is no neutrality, then it’s difficult to imagine any kind of good neighborly relations between Russia and Ukraine. Why is that? Because that would mean that Ukraine would be constantly used as a tool in someone else’s hands to the detriment of Russia’s interests. So basically, the basic conditions for normalizing relations would not be there, and the situation could take an unpredictable turn.
We would very much like to avoid that. Quite the contrary. What we want is building an environment for durable settlement. We want Ukraine to be a truly independent sovereign state rather than being a tool in the hands of some third nations used by them to further their own interests.
Let’s have a look at what’s currently happening on the line of contact. We’re in the Kursk region. They entered Kursk region, and they’re suffering terrible losses. These losses are more within the third – three months than they suffered over the 2023 as a – more than 30,000. They lost fewer tanks, around 200. Last year, they lost 240. So they simply have fewer tanks, they use them less frequently, and that’s why the losses are somewhat fewer. But why are they suffering such losses?
Because they have an order from the ocean to cling on at any price to this land before the election to demonstrate that all the efforts of the Democratic Party administration with regard to Ukraine had not been in vain. So you have to cling on at any price to these territories, and this is the price they have to pay. And I think this is a terrible tragedy for the Ukrainian people as well as for the Ukrainian armed forces. And these orders are not dictated by the military logic.
Rather, these decisions are dictated by political motives. Right now, there are certain parts of the front line, say, Kukansk direction. I don’t know whether the military spoke about that. There are two pockets of Ukrainian armed forces that have been encircled.
In one pocket, they have been encircled and they are blocked against a part of the reservoir by around 5,000 people, and another around the same. They have been encircled. They are trying to build pontoon bridges, but they have been eliminated. As far as the other part of the front line is concerned, where the center group of armed forces is acting, there are two pockets in encirclement, and soon there’s going to be a third one.
The military, the Ukrainian military, see all of that, but the decisions are made at a political level, which is not in the interest of the Ukrainian nation or the Ukrainian people. If we continue like that endlessly, then it won’t lead to favorable conditions for the reestablishment of peace, calm, and good neighborliness and cooperation on a durable basis, even though this is precisely what we should be striving to achieve. That is what Russia needs to achieve, and that is why we’re open to peace talks, not on the basis of some made-up notions based on wishful thinking. We have to act based on the realities that we see, and also on the basis of agreements that have been achieved in Istanbul, of course on the basis but taken into account the realities of today.
And this should not be a truce or a ceasefire that is going to last half an hour or six months until their stockpiles of munitions have been replenished. No, we have to achieve a settlement that is going to be within the interests of our two nations, which are brotherly nations, however muddled that might seem amid the current rhetoric in the Ukrainian-Russian relations. This is our stance. It’s clear, it’s well understood, and this is the path we’re going to pursue.
MODERATOR: Mr. President, it’s 11 hours, 18 minutes, so it’s time to wrap up. Maybe just some quick questions and then we’ll wrap up. Yes, please. Okay. Algeria, please.
Audience Question on Palestine and Zionism
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mr. President, in regards of this horrifying genocide happening in Palestine, would Russia endorse and help the international community reintroduce the bill regarding the criminalization of the Zionism that was retrieved in the 80s from the UN?
And second thing, Mr. President, you mentioned in the Olympic Games the case of the female boxers. I think we all know here that it’s about the Algerian one and that it’s a lady. Her father says it’s a lady. Our society is a very conservative one and this would never happen. Anyways, thank you.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, if she’s a woman, God give her health and new sports achievements. Then I didn’t speak about her, but I was saying that the situation is impossible.
Well, someone declares himself a woman and then competes against women, though – please forgive me – though external sex signs tell us a different story. But some sports theorists are saying that indeed it has nothing to do with – well, if a person declares himself to be a woman, then it’s just so simple. They can go ahead. It may come to anything, then.
That’s number one. Number two, about Zionism, I understand and I’ve spoken about it multiple times. I was saying that every action should be commensurate to the threat and to what’s happening on the other side. Then we naturally condemn all kinds of – all manifestations of terrorism, and the attack on Israel was such a manifestation on the 7th of October. That’s when it happened.
But the response should be commensurate. What we need to strive for right now is to bring to a minimum, to a zero, the suffering of the Palestinian people. The hostilities must be ceased immediately. Everything should be done so that Israel and Palestine – Hamas, in this case – agree upon that. You can pick a fight. You can condemn. You can lay blame.
Anything is possible. But right now, the most important thing is to discontinue hostilities. Israel is conducting hostilities there, and it seems that they’ve run out of space to fight, but they continue. The military units of Hamas are still fighting. How long can that last? On the south of Lebanon, 63,000 – that’s the group we believe is standing there. They’ve entered the southern part of Lebanon, but the main group is still standing on the border. We shouldn’t bring it to a tragedy there. We need to find paths toward finding a mutually acceptable solution. The question is, could they be? Are they possible? Is it doable?
I think it is. I think it is doable, however strange it may seem. We even have our own ideas about that, and we even try to talk to all the stakeholders and participants of the conflict. We’re trying to probe what could be possible and admissible for everyone. In essence, we could see the light at the end of the tunnel, a glimmer of it. That’s what we all should think about right now. I believe it is possible, however naive it may sound, but it is possible. We’re constantly in touch with all of the participants, if not every day, then every week.
Let’s try to walk down this path. I’m very afraid to jinx it and to disrupt one of the efforts that we’re making. We’re not alone in it. With some of our partners, so to speak, we’re also in touch on this matter.
There is an overall strive, I think, and I’m being sincere, and it seems that we’re moving in the right direction there. I have a feeling that today almost everyone, all stakeholders of this complex process, everyone, at least at the very least, they do not want the further development towards confrontation. On the contrary, they’re thinking about finding some agreements. Let’s think about that, okay?
And we’re working on it. It’s kind of strange. We have a conflict with Ukraine, but since we receive appeals from many participants of the conflict with ideas, with proposals, naturally, we are in contact with everyone. We also try to make our input and to be very precise and careful about that.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: You used to have very good personal relations with President Zelensky. Are they still intact?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I try not to ruin anything, only to improve everything. But the current conditions are very peculiar, needless to say they have an impact on everything, including on our relations. I used to have good relations with Macron as well. I used to talk to Schultz as well, but at some time they thought that it’s unnecessary. But well, I have good normal relations with Trump as well. I don’t know whether he wants to talk or not.
I was in good relations with Biden. We’ve met with him in Switzerland when he spoke on the phone, you know, we joked and laughed.
MODERATOR: Okay, Saudi Arabia, please.
Audience Question on Global Power Dynamics
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I’m happy to see you, Mr. President. It is mutual. Your speech in this audience brings along the memories of your Munich conference speech in 2007. Indeed, the world order stopped being unipolar. We now have three great powers, the US, Russia and China. It seems that these countries will compete against each other. A hot war between them is unlikely, because each of them have weapons of mass destruction. However, trade wars have already been started by the West, and that might evolve into financial wars.
My question, Mr. President, is Russia prepared for such evolution of events, especially if these wars are long-term? Or what do you think the world order has another scenario of development? Thank you.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Well, first thing, you need to include India as one of great powers as well. 1.5 billion people, our population, the highest growth rate among major economies. Ancient culture and so on, and the future, good future for growth. There are other fast-developing countries that naturally will be among those states that have great influence on the current policy, on global development, and on the future of humankind as well.
Look what’s happening with Indonesia, 300 million. And look at some African countries. Saudi Arabia is also playing a very big role in global energy. This single point is quite enough. One movement, one word of the Crown Prince is enough to have an impact on global energy markets, tremendous influence. Now, as for those countries that you have mentioned, you spoke about rivalry between them. You know, healthy competition is always good. It never was detrimental to anyone.
I’m not giving an ironic comment here. It brings to life the internal forces of each country. It helps propel its development. Monopoly is bad. But over the pond, they say that there is just one good case of monopoly, when the monopoly is good, its own monopoly. But it’s a joke, because that’s also bad. It undermines the core, the internal energy of growth for those who have the control over the monopoly. So there is nothing bad here.
The thing is that this natural competition should not evolve into an aggression of one country against another. Most importantly, the agreements elaborated and agreed upon by all stakeholders agreed. The rules that they have agreed upon, not that someone invented. These rules must be observed, so that the limitations and sanctions that we are calling illegitimate, that are not used and applied as a tool for competitive competition.
Why am I calling them illegitimate? Because they run counter to international norms. For example, WTO. That’s why they are illegitimate. That is an apparent thing. They have been politicized and later used for competitive advantage. Introduction of sanctions against Russia or against China quite often bounce back on those who use them. The U.S. and China have a tremendous volume of economic cooperation. Well, sanctions were applied against China. What’s next?
Possibly they shot themselves in the foot. Look at Europe. They are limiting some Chinese goods. They introduced certain blocks. Europeans have recognized themselves. They were two sources. Cheap energy from Russia and cheap goods of consumer market from China. So, what will happen next?
If they cut off one thing, they voluntarily turned off our energy resources, relatively cheap. And now we see that it’s balancing on recession. If they now abandon relatively cheap Chinese goods, they would have inflation. The same would happen in the U.S. They have quite enough issues on their plate. They have a triple deficit, $34 billion of debt, external trade deficit, and so on. They have budget deficit.
I think it stands at about 6%. We, with all limitations they try to introduce, our deficit stands at less than 2%, and they have 6%. They undermine their own development and their institutions for development. Therefore, healthy competition, yes, it’s only natural and possible.
Using illegal tools for competitive advantage is bad, and it will be to the detriment of those who use it. And I hope that this awareness will sink in at a healthy political level, and we’ll have possibility to agree on everything. And the way to do it is what I’ve mentioned in my speech. Let’s wrap it up because it will be running too late.
MODERATOR: Okay, let’s wrap it up. But I’m a philologist by my education. Okay, I’m quite a German studies person. No, I’m not a German study, but I’m a lawyer. You really troubled me by saying that you’re forgetting the German language.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Well, I’m not using it. You have to use it as a musical instrument every day. Well, I’m losing vocabulary.
MODERATOR: Can I give the floor to Mr. Koeppler? He’s the main representative of the German language here. Roger Koeppler from Switzerland, please. Please, but this is Swiss German.
Audience Question on Putin’s Communication with the West
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mr. President, that was a very impressive, outstanding evening. I’ve never seen a leader of your stature communicating on this level so long, so late in the evening. Congratulations. It’s fantastic. However, I want to challenge your term collective west. Probably I’m considered to be part of the collective west.
I don’t consider myself to be part of any collective, and I don’t see a collective west. What I see is a group of politicians with increasing problems. We see governments hanging in the ropes. We see a leadership crisis.
I had a summit meeting organized in Vienna with former Chancellor Schroeder and Prime Minister Orban. Chancellor Schroeder was the last guardian of strategic autonomy of Europe, as you well know. And it was interesting because I could see there was a huge interest in these kind of events. And I see there are rather seismic changes about in Europe.
The landscape is changing. And this is where I allow a slight criticism of you. With great power comes great responsibility. And I think you’re neglecting the communication to the wider public in Western Europe, in old Europe, in the German-speaking part of Europe, because you as a person, as a president, as a politician with your country, you’re an extremely important topic in politics.
And if you would communicate, if you would encourage these people, this could have an effect without interfering in elections, but it would have an effect in helping to bring about changes that many people want in Europe. And my question is, do you share this view? And would you be willing to give interviews to independent journalists without naming some president? Thank you very much for your question.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know this journalist. You know, you mentioned Chancellor Schroeder. I have very good personal relations with him. We used to have them and we have them now. He’s an amazing person. And amazing for the current political class. It’s not ironic. It’s not an exaggeration.
Why is he amazing? Because he has his own opinion and he words it freely. When the relations with Russia started to deteriorate, he was not afraid of expressing his position and presenting them publicly. Well, look, they started to accuse him of all cardinal sins. I started not to interfere there, not to comment. But what was he doing? What did we do together? We built the Nord Stream to supply gas to Europe.
What was bad about it? Now Germany does not have Russian gas. The heavy consequences of that, not only due to that factor, but also due to that is what we don’t see anything that could be a substitute for that gas. When I speak to my experts, well, it’s not what I’m saying.
I’m just repeating the words of the experts. I don’t want to offend anyone. It won’t sound good, but I’ve asked my colleagues and experts and said, what’s Europe missing right now? And the response is they have a deficit of brain. It’s not because they’re stupid. It’s because the decisions in economics here are made by politicians who have nothing to do with economy. The decisions are politicized, badly calculated, that have no real ground for it. The same applies to the green agenda.
Yes, it’s a noble cause, naturally. Are we concerned by that? Yes. Are we afraid? Yes. But should everyone be scared into pushing through the solutions that cannot be implemented? That’s not fair for the voters. Yes, green agenda is great. Yes, there should be new tools and technologies, indeed. But can you survive such an economy as Germany? Can it survive purely on green energy? No, it will be shrinking.
Or you have to go back to the coal power generation as it happens in many European countries, including Germany. So they have scared people. They have scared the public opinion. They got rid of nuclear power generation. Later they got rid of coal power generation. They don’t need gas. No, they still need gas. So they started to supply it through different channels.
So Chancellor Schroeder was doing what was needed and not to serve Russia’s interests. He did not create any conditions for us to make profit. What he was doing was doing to serve the interests of the German people. He was fighting to ensure the best terms possible for the supply of gas, for the building of infrastructure, and judging by what is happening in the German economy after these opportunities have been lost. He was very good at his job. We can see. So it’s no longer there. And right now see what they have lost.
He was doing what was needed to be done. He did take decisions that were widely unpopular in terms of internal politics. He put his political career at risk, and he did that deliberately when unpopular decisions had to be taken to curb the social spending. But economically, that was a sound plan.
He knew that would have negative political consequences for his career, and yet he did it anyway. He is a person who took decisions not in his own interests but to serve the interests of Germany. And he did the same in foreign policies. Let’s remember the developments in Iraq. He was against the American intervention in Iraq, and he spoke about that publicly, just as Jacques Chirac, much to the displeasure of those who thought differently and those who gave the orders from across the ocean. In the end, he got chased out. He was a person with integrity and also a consistent person. People like that are not numerous.
They do exist in Europe, but very few, just a handful. One hand will be enough to count them on your fingers. But I think that said, these processes will still continue to happen in Europe because people can see what is happening in real life. They can see a growing gap between the ruling elite that are forced to be guided by some external interests due to different reasons.
I’ll be very cautious in formulating that, and the rest. I know the number of domestically oriented political forces is going to grow. You said that I’m avoiding communicating with the wider public. Well, I do not think it is proper for me to address directly the citizens of those countries whose leadership basically anathemizes us, unwilling to listen to any arguments we have to offer.
Yes, we can work, and we’ve got the media, but they are being hounded despite the proclaimed freedom of speech. Our media are prevented from doing their work both in Europe and the U.S. Enormous difficulties are being created to hamper their work.
Ask them, and they will tell you. We have just one thing we can count upon, and that is Russia today, because we do not have as ramified a system as the Anglo-Saxon world can boast of. But they’re even afraid of Russia today. But I’m open, as circumstances allow.
I met with Tucker Carlson from time to time. I’ve got contacts with journalists, Western journalists included, so go ahead. Talking directly, you know, it often leads to an unhealthy reaction. There’s this stream of consciousness, as it were. You remember the new president-elect. He was accused of ties with Russia. There were hearings in Congress. There was an inquiry, and they found nothing because there was nothing to find.
They could corroborate or prove nothing because there was nothing to prove. And, you know, so much energy was spent on that. It could have been spent better elsewhere. And I do not want to create problems for anyone, honestly.
So, third and fourth, I can tell you that all internal political processes have to stay inside respective countries. And these nationally-oriented political forces will continue to grow, not because I say anything, to those like-minded people we’ve got both in Europe and the U.S. No, this is going to happen because these are the natural laws of internal development. And this is the surest foundation for forthcoming changes, which are sure to happen.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Concluding Remarks
MODERATOR: Last, well, let’s wrap up, yes. Western commentators often put forth one thought. Yes, they have some thoughts, and that is already a good thing. So it’s a thought from those who are more positively minded. They say, okay, it’s impossible to agree on anything with Putin, but Putin is going to leave at a certain point in time, and then they will have to come to an agreement with Russia and reintegrate it because Russia is going to get back on the previous path.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Well, I can tell you that Russia is following a path of its own, and I hope that it will continue along the path of pursuing its national interests. Of course, Russia has to be reintegrated. This is something we’ve never refused to do.
But I would hate for Russia to get back to the path it had been pursuing before 2022, which was, as I said in my speech, a path which was basically accompanied by a creeping and surreptitious intervention against Russia, intervention that was aimed at subjugating Russia to serving someone else’s interests. Russia cannot exist in such a subservient state serving someone else’s interests. I can say that our rank-and-file citizens, first and foremost, have come to realize that once they understood what our geopolitical opponents were trying to do to us. You know, the logic of the current developments demonstrates one thing to us.
People have come to realize what was happening, what they were trying to do to us, even though on the surface it was looking great, they were patting us, patronizingly on the shoulder. And I think that explains this incredible consolidation of Russian society. It’s because people have come to realize what our national interests are, what our interests are about, reinforcing our sovereignty and independence, you know, during our presidential electoral campaign. I didn’t have time to follow everything, but I did turn on a TV set and there was a foreign journalist, I think, I do not remember where from, this journalist approached a man in Belgrade region, just a man in the street.
You can ask, you can search for that in the archives. And he asked the question, where are you going? To the pole? But it’s dangerous because, you know, there are UAVs, drones that can fly to the pole and you can get injured. Why are you going to the pole? Are you not afraid? And the response, the reply was very simple. He’s in his 30s or 40s, he said, “I’m Russian.”
And then he turned away and he went back to his business. I think any Russian citizen could say that, regardless of where they hail from, from the Volga region, you know, because we’ve got more than 190 different peoples from the north of Russia, from the northern Caucasus. You know, all of these developments, all of these events have brought our society to an unprecedented level of consolidation as well as to an unprecedented level of understanding what our sovereignty is and how much is at stake because sovereignty is a sine qua non for Russia’s development. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you. Thanks a lot. To you and to our moderator, I offer my thanks to you.
Related Posts
- Transcript: ‘Quite a Shock’ Trump and Mamdani ‘Bro Up’ in Oval Office – Piers Morgan Uncensored
- Transcript: Kamala on Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Rebellion – Bulwark Podcast
- Transcript: Hungary’s Viktor Orbán on Putin vs. Trump – MD MEETS Podcast #5
- John Mearsheimer: Bleak Future of Europe – Defeated & Broken (Transcript)
- Transcript: ‘Ukraine Is A Corrupt MESS’ Trump Finalizes Russia Peace Deal – Piers Morgan Uncensored