Putin's giant speech at Valdai (Part 2)

"They cannot believe when they are saying that Russia is about to attack NATO. It is simply impossible to believe that. And yet they are making their own people believe it."

Read Part 1 here, or continue with Part 2 below…

Ensuring international security under these circumstances is an extremely urgent issue with many variables. The growing number of players with different goals, political cultures, and distinctive traditions create a complex global environment that makes developing approaches to ensuring security a much more tangled and difficult task to tackle. At the same time, it opens up new opportunities for all of us.

“[Europe] wants to overcome division and shore up the shaky unity they once used to boast of, not by effectively addressing domestic issues, but by inflating the image of an enemy.”

Bloc-based ambitions pre-programmed to exacerbate confrontation have, without a doubt, become a meaningless anachronism. We see, for example, how diligently our European neighbours are trying to patch up and plaster over the cracks running through the building of Europe. Yet, they want to overcome division and shore up the shaky unity they once used to boast of, not by effectively addressing domestic issues, but by inflating the image of an enemy. It is an old trick, but the point is that people in those countries see and understand everything. That is why they take to the streets despite the external escalation and the ongoing search for an enemy, as I mentioned earlier.

They are recreating an image of an old enemy, the one they created centuries ago which is Russia. Most people in Europe find it hard to understand why they should be so afraid of Russia that in order to oppose it they must tighten their belts even more, abandon their own interests, just give them up, and pursue policies that are clearly detrimental to themselves. Yet, the ruling elites of united Europe continue to whip up hysteria. They claim that war with the Russians is almost at the doorstep. They repeat this nonsense, this mantra, over and over again.

Frankly, when I sometimes watch and listen to what they are saying, I think they cannot possibly believe this. They cannot believe when they are saying that Russia is about to attack NATO. It is simply impossible to believe that. And yet they are making their own people believe it. So, what kind of people are they? They are either entirely incompetent, if they genuinely believe it, because believing such nonsense is just inconceivable, or simply dishonest, because they do not believe it themselves but are trying to convince their citizens that this is true. What other options are there?

Frankly, I am tempted to say: calm down, sleep peacefully, and deal with your own problems. Look at what is happening in the streets of European cities, what is going on with the economy, the industry, European culture and identity, massive debts and the growing crisis of social security systems, uncontrolled migration, and rampant violence – including political violence – the radicalisation of leftist, ultra-liberal, racist, and other marginal groups.

Take note of how Europe is sliding to the periphery of global competition. We know perfectly well how groundless are the threats about Russia’s so-called aggressive plans with which Europe frightens itself. I have just mentioned this. But self-suggestion is a dangerous thing. And we simply cannot ignore what is happening; we have no right to do so, for the sake of our own security, to reiterate, for the sake of our defence and safety.

That is why we are closely monitoring the growing militarisation of Europe. Is it just rhetoric, or is it time for us to respond? We hear, and you are aware of this as well, that the Federal Republic of Germany is saying its army must once again become the strongest in Europe. Well, alright, we are listening carefully and following everything to see what exactly is meant by that.

I believe no one has any doubt that Russia’s response will not be long in coming. To put it mildly, the reply to these threats will be highly convincing. And it will indeed be a reply – we ourselves have never initiated military confrontation. It is senseless, unnecessary, and simply absurd; it distracts from real problems and challenges. Sooner or later, societies will inevitably hold their leaders and elites to account for ignoring their hopes, aspirations, and needs.

“Our history has demonstrated that weakness is unacceptable, as it creates temptation… Russia will never show weakness or indecision.

However, if anyone still feels tempted to challenge us militarily – as we say in Russia, freedom is for the free – let them try. Russia has proven time and again: when threats arise to our security, to the peace and tranquillity of our citizens, to our sovereignty and the very foundations of our statehood, we respond swiftly.

There is no need for provocation. There has not been a single instance where this ultimately ended well for the provocateur. And no exceptions should be expected in the future – there will be none.

Our history has demonstrated that weakness is unacceptable, as it creates temptation – the illusion that force can be used to settle any issue with us. Russia will never show weakness or indecision. Let this be remembered by those who resent the very fact of our existence, those who nurture dreams of inflicting upon us this so-called strategic defeat. By the way, many of those who actively spoke of this, as we say in Russia, “Some are no longer here, and others are far away.” Where are these figures now?

There are so many objective problems in the world – stemming from natural, technological, or social factors – that expending energy and resources on artificial, often fabricated contradictions is impermissible, wasteful, and simply foolish.

International security has now become such a multifaceted and indivisible phenomenon that no geopolitical value-based division can fracture it. Only meticulous, comprehensive work involving diverse partners and grounded in creative approaches can solve the complex equations of 21^st-century security. Within this framework, there are no more or less important or crucial elements – everything must be addressed holistically.

Our country has consistently championed – and continues to champion – the principle of indivisible security. I have said it many times: the security of some cannot be ensured at the expense of others. Otherwise, there is no security at all – for anyone. Establishing this principle has proven unsuccessful. The euphoria and unchecked thirst for power among those who saw themselves as victors after the Cold War – as I have repeatedly stated – led to attempts to impose unilateral, subjective notions of security upon everyone.

This, in fact, became the true root cause of not only the Ukrainian conflict but also many other acute crises of the late 20^th century and the first decade of the 21^st century. As a result – just as we warned – no one today feels truly secure. It is time to return to fundamentals and correct past mistakes.

However, indivisible security today, compared to the late 1980s and early 1990s, is an even more complex phenomenon. It is no longer solely about military and political balance and mutual interest considerations.

The safety of humanity depends on its ability to respond to challenges posed by natural disasters, man-made catastrophes, technological development, and rapid social, demographic, and informational processes.

All this is interconnected and changes occur largely by themselves, frequently, I have already said it, unpredictably, following their own internal logic and rules, and sometimes, I will dare say, even beyond the people’s will and expectations.

Humanity risks becoming superfluous in such a situation, just an observer over the processes that it will never be able to control. What is this if not a system-wide challenge for all of us and an opportunity for all of us to work together constructively?

There are no ready answers here, but I think that solution to global challenges requires, first, an approach free from an ideological bias and didactic pathos, in the manner of “Now I will tell you what to do.” Second, it is important to understand that this is a truly common, indivisible matter requiring joint efforts of all counties and nations.

Each culture and civilisation should make its contribution because, I repeat, no one knows the right answer separately. It may only be generated through a joint constructive search, through combining – not separating – efforts and national experience of various countries.

Let me repeat once again: conflicts and collisions of interests have been and, of course, will remain forever – the question is how to resolve them. A polycentric world, as I have already said today, is a return to the classical diplomacy, when settlement needs attention, mutual respect but not coercion.

Classical diplomacy was capable of taking into account the positions of different international actors, the complexity of the “concert” made up of the voices of different powers. Still, at a certain stage it was replaced by the Western-kind diplomacy of monologues, endless preaching and orders. Instead of resolving conflicts, certain parties began to push through their own selfish interests, considering the interests of everyone else unworthy of attention.

No wonder that instead of settlement, conflicts were only further exacerbated up to the point of their transition to a bloody armed phase leading to a humanitarian disaster. Acting like this means a failure to resolve any conflict. Examples over the past 30 years are countless.

“The Palestinian-Israeli conflict cannot be settled following lopsided Western diplomacy grossly ignoring the history… and culture of the people living there.”

One of them is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which cannot be settled following the recipes of the lopsided Western diplomacy grossly ignoring the history, traditions, identity and culture of the peoples living there. Neither it helps to stabilise the situation in the Middle East in general that is, on the contrary, rapidly degrading. Now we are getting acquainted in greater detail with President Trump’s initiatives. It seems to me that some light at the end of the tunnel may still appear in this case.

The Ukraine tragedy is a horrifying example as well. It is a pain for Ukrainians and Russians, for all of us. The reasons for the Ukraine conflict are known to anyone who has taken the trouble to look into the background of its current, most acute phase. I will not go over them again. I am sure everyone in this audience is well aware of them and of my stance on this issue, which I have articulated many times.

Something else is also known well. Those who encouraged, incited, and armed Ukraine, who goaded it into antagonising Russia, who for decades nurtured rampant nationalism and neo-Nazism in that country, frankly – pardon me the bluntness – did not give a hoot about Russia’s or, for that matter, Ukraine’s interests. They do not feel anything for the Ukrainian people. For them – globalists and expansionists in the West and their minions in Kiev – they are expendable material. The results of such reckless adventurism are in plain sight, and there is nothing to discuss.

Another question arises: could it have turned out differently? We also know, and I return to what President Trump once said. He said that if he had been in office back then, this could have been avoided. I agree with that. Indeed, it could have been avoided if our work with the Biden administration had been organised differently; if Ukraine had not been turned into a destructive weapon in someone else’s hands; if NATO had not been used for this purpose as it advanced to our borders; and if Ukraine had ultimately preserved its independence, its genuine sovereignty.

There is one more question. How should bilateral Russian-Ukrainian issues, which were the natural outcome of the breakup of a vast country and of complex geopolitical transformations, have been resolved? By the way, I believe that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was linked to the position of Russia’s then leadership, which sought to rid itself of ideological confrontation in hopes that now, with communism gone, we will be brothers. Nothing of the sort followed. Other factors in the form of geopolitical interests came into play. It turned out that ideological differences were not the real issue.

So, how should such problems be resolved in a polycentric world? How would the situation in Ukraine have been addressed? I think that if there had been multipolarity, different poles would have tried the Ukraine conflict on for size, so to speak. They would measure it against their own potential hotbeds of tension and fractures in their own regions. In that case, a collective solution would have been far more responsible and balanced.

The settlement would have relied on the understanding that all participants in this challenging situation have their own interests grounded in objective and subjective circumstances which simply cannot be ignored. The desire of all countries to ensure security and progress is legitimate. Without a doubt, this applies to Ukraine, Russia, and all our neighbours. The countries of the region should have the leading voice in shaping a regional system. They have the greatest chance of agreeing on a model of interaction that is acceptable to everyone, because the matter concerns them directly. It represents their vital interest.

For other countries, the situation in Ukraine is merely a playing card in a different, much larger, game, a game of their own, which usually has little to do with the actual problems of the countries involved, including this particular one. It is merely an excuse and a means to achieve their own geopolitical goals, to expand their area of control, and to make some money off the war. That is why they brought NATO infrastructure right up to our doorstep, and have for years been looking with a straight face at the tragedy of Donbass, and at what was essentially a genocide and extermination of the Russian people on our own historic land, a process that began in 2014 on the heels of a bloody coup in Ukraine.

In contrast to such conduct demonstrated by Europe and, until recently, by the United States under the previous administration, stand the actions of countries belonging to the global majority. They refuse to take sides and genuinely strive to help establish a just peace. We are grateful to all states that have sincerely exerted efforts in recent years to find a way out of the situation. These include our partners – the BRICS founders: China, India, Brazil and South Africa. This includes Belarus and, incidentally, North Korea. These are our friends in the Arab and Islamic world – above all, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, Turkiye and Iran. In Europe, these include Serbia, Hungary and Slovakia. And there are many such countries across Africa and Latin America.

Regrettably, hostilities have not yet ceased. However, the responsibility for this lies not with the majority for failing to stop them, but with the minority, primarily Europe, which continually escalates the conflict – and in my view, no other objective is even discernible there today. Nevertheless, I believe goodwill will prevail, and in this regard, there is not the slightest doubt: I believe changes are occurring in Ukraine as well, albeit gradually – we see this. However much people’s minds may have been manipulated, shifts are nevertheless taking place in public consciousness, and indeed across the overwhelming majority of nations worldwide.

In fact, the phenomenon of the global majority is a new development in international affairs. I would like to say a few words on this matter as well. What is its essence? The overwhelming majority of states worldwide are oriented towards pursuing their own civilisational interests, chief among which is their balanced, progressive development. This would seem natural – it has always been so. But in previous eras, the understanding of these very interests was often distorted by unhealthy ambitions, selfishness, and the influence of expansionist ideology.

Today, most countries and peoples – precisely this global majority – recognise their true interests. Crucially, they now feel the strength and confidence to defend these interests against external pressures – and I will add that in advancing and upholding their own interests, they are prepared to work alongside partners, thereby transforming international relations, diplomacy, and integration into sources of their own growth, progress, and development. Relations within the global majority represent a prototype of the political practices essential and effective in a polycentric world.

This is pragmatism and realism – a rejection of bloc philosophy, an absence of rigid, externally imposed obligations or models featuring senior and junior partners. Finally, it is the ability to reconcile interests that seldom fully align yet rarely fundamentally contradict one another. The absence of antagonism becomes the guiding principle.

A new wave of decolonisation is rising now, as former colonies are acquiring, in addition to statehood, also political, economic, cultural and world outlook sovereignty.

One more date is important in this respect. We have recently celebrated the 80th anniversary of the United Nations Organisation. It is not just a universal and the most representative political organisation in the world but also a symbol of the spirit of cooperation, alliance and even combat fraternity, which helped us join forces in the first half of the past century in the struggle against the worst evil in history – a merciless machine of extermination and enslavement.

The decisive role in our common victory over Nazism, which we are proud of, was played by the Soviet Union, of course. A glance at the number of casualties for each member of the anti-Hitler coalition clearly proves this.

The UN is the legacy of victory in the Second World War, and, so far, the most successful experience of creating an international organisation aimed at solving current global problems.

It is often said now that the UN system has been paralysed and is going through a crisis. This has become a cliché. Some even claim that it has outlived itself and should be radically reformed, at the very least. Yes, there are many, very many shortcomings in the UN’s operations. Yet there is nothing better than the UN so far, and we must admit this.

Actually, the problem is not with the UN, which has vast potential. The problem lies in how we, the united nations that have been disunited, are using this potential.

There is no doubt that the UN has to deal with challenges. Like any other organisation, it should adapt to the changing realities. However, it is extremely important to preserve the fundamental essence of the UN during its reform and upgrade, not just the essence that was embedded in it at its inception but also the essence it has acquired in the complicated process of its development.

It is worth recalling in this connection that the number of UN member states has increased almost fourfold since 1945. Over the past decades, the organisation that was established at the initiative of several major countries has not just expanded but also absorbed many different cultures and political traditions, acquiring diversity and becoming a truly multipolar structure long before the world became multipolar. The potential of the UN system has only started unfolding, and I am confident that this process will be completed very quickly in the nascent new era.

In other words, the Global Majority countries now constitute an overwhelming majority at the UN, and its structure and governing bodies should therefore be adjusted to this fact, which will also be much more in keeping with the basic principles of democracy.

I will not deny it: today there is no consensus on how the world should be organised, on what principles it should rest in the years and decades ahead. We have entered a long period of searching, often moving by trial and error. When a new, stable system will finally take shape – and what its framework will look like – remains unknown. We must be ready for the fact that, for a considerable time, social, political and economic development will be unpredictable, sometimes even turbulent.

To stay on course and not lose our bearings, everyone needs a firm foundation. In our view, this foundation is, above all, the values that have matured over centuries within national cultures. Culture and history, ethical and religious norms, geography and space – these are the key elements that shape civilisations and enduring communities. They define national identity, values, and traditions, providing the compass that helps us withstand the storms of international life.

Traditions are always unique; each nation has its own. Respect for traditions is the first and most important condition for stable international relations and for resolving emerging challenges.

The world has already lived through attempts at unification, at imposing so-called universal models that clashed with the cultural and ethical traditions of most peoples. The Soviet Union once made this mistake by imposing its political system – we know this, and, frankly, I do not think anyone would argue. Later the United States took up that baton, and Europe, too, tried. In both cases, it failed. What is superficial, artificial, imposed from outside cannot last. And those who respect their own traditions, as a rule, do not encroach on those of others.

Today, against the backdrop of international instability, special importance is attached to each nation’s own foundations of development: those that do not depend on external turbulence. We see countries and peoples turning to these roots. And this is happening not only in the Global Majority, but also within Western societies. When everyone focuses on their own development without chasing unnecessary ambitions, it becomes much easier to find common ground with others.

As an example, we can look to the recent experience of interaction between Russia and the United States. As you know, our countries have many disagreements; our views on many of the world’s problems differ. But this is nothing out of the ordinary for major powers; in fact, it is absolutely natural. What matters is how we resolve these disagreements, and whether we can settle them peacefully.

The current White House administration is very straightforward about its interests, stating what it wants directly – even bluntly at times, as I am sure you will agree – but without unnecessary hypocrisy. It is always preferable to be clear about what the other party wants and what they are trying to achieve. It is better than trying to guess the real meaning behind a long string of equivocations, ambiguous language and vague hints.

We can see that the current US administration is guided primarily by its own national interests – as it understands them. And I believe this is a rational approach.

But then, if you will excuse me, Russia is also entitled to be guided by its own national interests. One of which, by the way, is the restoration of full-fledged relations with the United States. Regardless of our disagreements, if two parties treat each other with respect, then their negotiations – even the most challenging, stubborn bargaining – will still be aimed at finding common ground. And that means mutually acceptable solutions can ultimately be achieved.

Multipolarity and polycentrism are not just concepts; they are a reality that is here to stay. How soon and how effectively we can build a sustainable world system within this framework now depends on each of us. This new international order, this new model, can only be built through universal efforts, a collective endeavour in which everyone participates. Let me be clear: the era when a select group of the strongest powers could decide for the rest of the world is gone, and it is gone forever.

This is a point best remembered by those who feel nostalgia for the colonial era, when it was common to divide peoples into those who were equal and those who were, to use Orwell’s famous phrase, “more equal than others.” We are all familiar with that quote.

Russia has never entertained this racist theory, never shared this attitude towards other peoples and cultures, and we never will.

We stand for diversity, for polyphony – for a true symphony of human values. The world, as I am certain you will agree, is a dull and colourless place when it is monotonous. Russia has had a very turbulent and difficult past. Our very statehood was forged through the continual overcoming of colossal historical challenges.

I do not mean to suggest that other states developed in hothouse conditions – of course not. Yet, Russia’s experience is unique in many ways, as is the country it has created. Let me be clear: this is not a claim to exceptionalism or superiority; it is simply a statement of fact. Russia is a distinctive country.

We have gone through numerous tumultuous upheavals, each of which has given the world food for thought on a diverse range of issues, both negative and positive. But it is precisely this historical baggage that has left us better prepared for the complex, non-linear and ambiguous global situation in which we all now find ourselves.

Through all its trials, Russia has proved one thing: it was, is, and always will be. We understand that its role in the world is changing, but it invariably remains a force without which true harmony and balance are difficult – and often impossible – to achieve. This is a proven fact, confirmed by history and time. It is an unconditional fact.

In today’s multipolar world, that very harmony and balance can only be achieved through a joint, common effort. And I want to assure you today that Russia is ready for this work.

Thank you very much. Thank you.