It was mentioned already that the
club has new co-organizers this year.
They include Russian
non-governmental organizations, expert groups and leading
universities. The idea was also raised of broadening the
discussions to include not just issues related to Russia itself
but also global politics and the economy.
An organization and content will bolster the club's influence as
a leading discussion and expert forum. At the same time, I hope
the 'Valdai spirit' will remain - this free and open atmosphere
and chance to express all manner of very different and frank
opinions.
Let me say in this respect that I will also not let you down and
will speak directly and frankly.
Some of what I say might seem a
bit too harsh, but if we do not speak directly and honestly
about what we really think, then there is little point in even
meeting in this way. It would be better in that case just to
keep to diplomatic get-togethers, where no one says anything of
real sense and, recalling the words of one famous diplomat, you
realize that diplomats have tongues so as not to speak the
truth.
We get together for other reasons. We get together so as to talk
frankly with each other.
We need to be direct and blunt today
not so as to trade barbs, but so as to attempt to get to the
bottom of what is actually happening in the world, try to
understand why the world is becoming less safe and more
unpredictable, and why the risks are increasing everywhere
around us.
Today's discussion took place under the theme: New Rules or a
Game without Rules.
I think that this formula accurately
describes the historic turning point we have reached today and
the choice we all face.
There is nothing new of course in the
idea that the world is changing very fast. I know this is
something you have spoken about at the discussions today. It is
certainly hard not to notice the dramatic transformations in
global politics and the economy, public life, and in industry,
information and social technologies.
Let me ask you right now to forgive me if I end up repeating
what some of the discussion's participants have already said.
It's practically impossible to avoid. You have already held
detailed discussions, but I will set out my point of view. It
will coincide with other participants' views on some points and
differ on others.
As we analyze today's situation, let us not forget history's
lessons. First of all, changes in the world order - and what we
are seeing today are events on this scale - have usually been
accompanied by if not global war and conflict, then by chains of
intensive local-level conflicts. Second, global politics is
above all about economic leadership, issues of war and peace,
and the humanitarian dimension, including human rights.
The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank
in asking each other if we have a reliable safety net in place.
Sadly, there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current
system of global and regional security is able to protect us
from upheavals. This system has become seriously weakened,
fragmented and deformed. The international and regional
political, economic, and cultural cooperation organizations are
also going through difficult times.
Yes, many of the mechanisms we have for ensuring the world order
were created quite a long time ago now, including and above all
in the period immediately following World War II.
Let me stress
that the solidity of the system created back then rested not
only on the balance of power and the rights of the victor
countries, but on the fact that this system's 'founding fathers'
had respect for each other, did not try to put the squeeze on
others, but attempted to reach agreements.
The main thing is that this system needs to develop, and despite
its various shortcomings, needs to at least be capable of
keeping the world's current problems within certain limits and
regulating the intensity of the natural competition between
countries.
It is my conviction that we could not take this mechanism of
checks and balances that we built over the last decades,
sometimes with such effort and difficulty, and simply tear it
apart without building anything in its place. Otherwise we would
be left with no instruments other than brute force.
What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction
and adapt it the new realities in the system of international
relations.
But
the United States, having declared itself
the winner of the
Cold War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new
balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability,
they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep
imbalance.
The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a
peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting
existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created
the impression that the so-called 'victors' in the Cold War had
decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their
own needs and interests.
If the existing system of international
relations, international law and the checks and balances in
place got in the way of these aims, this system was declared
worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition.
Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave
when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in
the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of
managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of
course, I think they have committed many follies.
We have entered a period of differing interpretations and
deliberate silences in world politics. International law has
been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal
nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the
altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and
biased assessments have replaced legal norms.
At the same time,
total control of the global mass media has made it possible when
desired to portray white as black and black as white.
In a situation where you had domination by one country and its
allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global
solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own
universal recipes. This group's ambitions grew so big that they
started presenting the policies they put together in their
corridors of power as the view of the entire international
community. But this is not the case.
The very notion of 'national sovereignty' became a relative
value for most countries. In essence, what was being proposed
was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world's
sole power centre, the greater this or that ruling regime's
legitimacy.
We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to
answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask
you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I
just set out during the upcoming discussion.
The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are
well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They
include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling
in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of 'supra-legal'
legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in
this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes.
Of late,
we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been
used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing
that 'big brother' is spending billions of dollars on keeping
the whole world, including its own closest allies, under
surveillance.
Let's ask ourselves,
-
How comfortable are we with this, how safe
are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and
rational has it become?
-
Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry,
argue and ask awkward questions?
-
Maybe the United States'
exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their
leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling
in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity,
progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax
and enjoy it all?
Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.
A unilateral diktat and imposing one's own models produces the
opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their
escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the
growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is
support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists
to Islamic radicals.
Why do they support such people? They do this because they
decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving
their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil.
I never
cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep
stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to
say, make the same mistake over and over.
They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the
Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in
Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I
would say, gave information, political and financial support to
international terrorists' invasion of Russia (we have not
forgotten this) and the Central Asian region's countries.
Only
after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil
itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of
terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to
support the American people back then, the first to react as
friends and partners to the terrible
tragedy of September 11.
During my conversations with American and European leaders, I
always spoke of the need to fight terrorism together, as a
challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and
accept this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using
double standards. Our partners expressed agreement, but a little
time passed and we ended up back where we started.
First there
was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got
pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into
this situation?
Today it is a country in danger of breaking
apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.
Only the current Egyptian leadership's determination and wisdom
saved this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run
rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its
allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing
them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various
countries.
Let me ask,
-
Where do these rebels get their money,
arms and military specialists?
-
Where does all this come from?
-
How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful
group, essentially a real armed force?
As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just
from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few
percentage points but many-fold, since the international
coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware
of this.
The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who
sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it.
But
someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it,
not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing
terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and
sow destruction in their own countries.
Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein
was toppled, the state's institutions, including the army, were
left in ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful.
You are
driving people out into the street, and what will they do there?
Don't forget (rightfully or not) that they were in the
leadership of a large regional power, and what are you now
turning them into?
What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and
former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets
and today have joined the rebels' ranks.
Perhaps this is what
explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so
effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and
has some very professional people.
Russia warned repeatedly
about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in
sovereign states' affairs, and flirting with extremists and
radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central
Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the
lists of terrorist organizations.
But did we see any results? We
appealed in vain.
We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends
are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies,
throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves
have created, and pay an ever-greater price.
Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly
demonstrated that having only one power centre does not make
global processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of
unstable construction has shown its inability to fight the real
threats such as regional conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking,
religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism.
At the same
time, it has opened the road wide for inflated national pride,
manipulating public opinion and letting the strong bully and
suppress the weak.
Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying
dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world
turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden
even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line
were made here just before and I fully agree with this.
This is
why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a
semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for
perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes
the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the
USSR's old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a
country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the
world's biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.
Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new
dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something
but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an
enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the
right to this leadership, or diktat if you wish.
The situation
was presented this way during the Cold War. We all understand
this and know this.
The United States always told its allies:
"We have a common enemy, a
terrible foe, the centre of evil, and we are defending you,
our allies, from this foe, and so we have the right to order
you around, force you to sacrifice your political and
economic interests and pay your share of the costs for this
collective defense, but we will be the ones in charge of it
all of course."
In short, we see today attempts in a new
and changing world to reproduce the familiar models of global
management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US']
exceptional position and reap political and economic dividends.
But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and
are in contradiction with the world's diversity.
Steps of this
kind inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and
have the opposite effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what
happens when politics rashly starts meddling in the economy and
the logic of rational decisions gives way to the logic of
confrontation that only hurt one's own economic positions and
interests, including national business interests.
Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring
countries closer together and help to smooth out current
problems in relations between states.
But today, the global
business community faces unprecedented pressure from Western
governments. What business, economic expediency and pragmatism
can we speak of when we hear slogans such as "the homeland is in
danger", "the free world is under threat", and "democracy is in
jeopardy"? And so everyone needs to mobilize.
That is what a
real mobilization policy looks like.
Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world
trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of
private property. They are dealing a blow to
liberal model of
globalization based on markets, freedom and competition, which,
let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely
the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the
leaders of globalization.
We have to ask ourselves, why was this
necessary? After all, the United States' prosperity rests in
large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of
dollars and US securities.
This trust is clearly being
undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of
globalization are visible now in many countries. The
well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated
sanctions have only strengthened the trend towards seeking to
bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries' or
their regional groups' desire to find ways of protecting
themselves from the risks of outside pressure.
We already see
that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less
dependent on the dollar and are setting up alternative financial
and payments systems and reserve currencies.
I think that our
American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are
sitting on. You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is
what is happening now. I have always thought and still think
today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that
will harm everyone, but I am sure that we will come back to this
subject later.
We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the
pressure. But let me stress that Russia is not going to get all
worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone's door.
Russia
is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign
economic environment that has taken shape, develop domestic
production and technology and act more decisively to carry out
transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on
past occasions, will only consolidate our society, keep us alert
and make us concentrate on our main development goals.
Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt
us through these sanctions, block our development and push us
into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into
backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the
world is a very different place today.
We have no intention of
shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of
closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are
always open to dialogue, including on normalizing our economic
and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic
approach and position of business communities in the leading
countries.
Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back
on Europe - such words were probably spoken already here too
during the discussions - and is looking for new business
partners, above all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely
not the case.
Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific region
began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but
is a policy that we have been following for a good many years
now.
Like many other countries, including Western countries, we
saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in
the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can
afford to overlook these developments.
Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so
to, all the more so as a large part of our country is
geographically in Asia. Why should we not make use of our
competitive advantages in this area? It would be extremely
shortsighted not to do so.
Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out
joint integration projects also creates big incentives for our
domestic development. Today's demographic, economic and cultural
trends all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will
objectively decrease. This is something that European and
American experts have been talking and writing about too.
Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the
developments we are seeing in the global economy, namely,
intensive competition for specific niches and frequent change of
leaders in specific areas. This is entirely possible.
There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education,
science, healthcare and culture are playing a greater role in
global competition. This also has a big impact on international
relations, including because this 'soft power' resource will
depend to a great extent on real achievements in developing
human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks.
At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world
(I would also like to draw attention to this, colleagues) in and
of itself does not improve stability; in fact, it is more likely
to be the opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is
turning into a fairly difficult puzzle, an equation with many
unknowns.
So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the
rules - even if they may be strict and inconvenient - but rather
live without any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely
possible; we cannot rule it out, given the tensions in the
global situation.
Many predictions can already be made, taking
into account current trends, and unfortunately, they are not
optimistic. If we do not create a clear system of mutual
commitments and agreements, if we do not build the mechanisms
for managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of
global anarchy will inevitably grow.
Today, we already see a sharp increase in the likelihood of a
whole set of violent conflicts with either direct or indirect
participation by the world's major powers. And the risk factors
include not just traditional multinational conflicts, but also
the internal instability in separate states, especially when we
talk about nations located at the intersections of major states'
geopolitical interests, or on the border of cultural,
historical, and economic civilizational continents.
Ukraine, which I'm sure was discussed at length and which we
will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of
conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think
it will certainly not be the last.
From here emanates the next
real threat of destroying the current system of arms control
agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the
United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and
continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global
missile defense system.
Colleagues, friends, I want to point out that we did not start
this.
Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of
the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and
the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from
engaging in direct conflict.
In absence of legal and political
instruments, arms are once again becoming the focal point of the
global agenda; they are used wherever and however, without any
UN Security Council sanctions. And if the Security Council
refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately
declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument.
Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their
sovereignty but to obtain their own bombs. This is extremely
dangerous. We insist on continuing talks; we are not only in
favor of talks, but insist on continuing talks to reduce nuclear
arsenals.
The less nuclear weapons we have in the world, the
better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete
discussions on nuclear disarmament - but only serious
discussions without any double standards.
What do I mean? Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are
already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their
capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear
weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that
are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems
will have a clear military advantage.
Strategic parity will be
disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use
of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become
tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify.
The next obvious threat is the further escalation of ethnic,
religious, and social conflicts. Such conflicts are dangerous
not only as such, but also because they create zones of anarchy,
lawlessness, and chaos around them, places that are comfortable
for terrorists and criminals, where piracy, human trafficking,
and drug trafficking flourish.
Incidentally, at the time, our colleagues tried to somehow
manage these processes, use regional conflicts and design 'color
revolutions' to suit their interests, but the genie escaped the
bottle. It looks like the controlled chaos theory fathers
themselves do not know what to do with it; there is disarray in
their ranks.
We closely follow the discussions by both the ruling elite and
the expert community. It is enough to look at the headlines of
the Western press over the last year.
The same people are called
fighters for democracy, and then Islamists; first they write
about revolutions and then call them riots and upheavals. The
result is obvious: the further expansion of global chaos.
Colleagues, given the global situation, it is time to start
agreeing on fundamental things. This is incredibly important and
necessary; this is much better than going back to our own
corners.
The more we all face common problems, the more we find
ourselves in the same boat, so to speak. And the logical way out
is in cooperation between nations, societies, in finding
collective answers to increasing challenges, and in joint risk
management. Granted, some of our partners, for some reason,
remember this only when it suits their interests.
Practical experience shows that joint answers to challenges are
not always a panacea; and we need to understand this. Moreover,
in most cases, they are hard to reach; it is not easy to
overcome the differences in national interests, the subjectivity
of different approaches, particularly when it comes to nations
with different cultural and historical traditions.
But
nevertheless, we have examples when, having common goals and
acting based on the same criteria, together we achieved real
success.
Let me remind you about solving the problem of chemical weapons
in Syria, and the substantive dialogue on the Iranian nuclear
program, as well as our work on North Korean issues, which also
has some positive results.
-
Why can't we use this experience in
the future to solve local and global challenges?
-
What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new
world order that would allow for stability and security, while
encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of
new monopolies that hinder development?
It is unlikely that
someone could provide absolutely exhaustive, ready-made
solutions right now.
We will need extensive work with
participation by a wide range of governments, global businesses,
civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.
However, it is obvious that success and real results are only
possible if key participants in international affairs can agree
on harmonizing basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint,
and set the example of positive and responsible leadership.
We
must clearly identify where unilateral actions end and we need
to apply multilateral mechanisms, and as part of improving the
effectiveness of international law, we must resolve the dilemma
between the actions by international community to ensure
security and human rights and the principle of national
sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any
state.
Those very collisions increasingly lead to arbitrary external
interference in complex internal processes, and time and again,
they provoke dangerous conflicts between leading global players.
The issue of maintaining sovereignty becomes almost paramount in
maintaining and strengthening global stability.
Clearly, discussing the criteria for the use of external force
is extremely difficult; it is practically impossible to separate
it from the interests of particular nations. However, it is far
more dangerous when there are no agreements that are clear to
everyone, when no clear conditions are set for necessary and
legal interference.
I will add that international relations must be based on
international law, which itself should rest on moral principles
such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is
respect for one's partners and their interests. This is an
obvious formula, but simply following it could radically change
the global situation.
I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the
effectiveness of the international and regional institutions
system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the
scratch; this is not a "greenfield," especially since the
institutions created after World War II are quite universal and
can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current
situation.
This is true of improving the work of the UN, whose central role
is irreplaceable, as well as the OSCE, which, over the course of
40 years, has proven to be a necessary mechanism for ensuring
security and cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic region.
I must say
that even now, in trying to resolve the crisis in southeast
Ukraine, the OSCE is playing a very positive role.
In light of the fundamental changes in the international
environment, the increase in uncontrollability and various
threats, we need a new global consensus of responsible forces.
It's not about some local deals or a division of spheres of
influence in the spirit of classic diplomacy, or somebody's
complete global domination. I think that we need a new version
of interdependence.
We should not be afraid of it. On the
contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonizing positions.
This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth
of certain regions on the planet, which process objectively
requires institutionalization of such new poles, creating
powerful regional organizations and developing rules for their
interaction. Cooperation between these centers would seriously
add to the stability of global security, policy and economy.
But
in order to establish such a dialogue, we need to proceed from
the assumption that all regional centers and integration
projects forming around them need to have equal rights to
development, so that they can complement each other and nobody
can force them into conflict or opposition artificially.
Such
destructive actions would break down ties between states, and
the states themselves would be subjected to extreme hardship, or
perhaps even total destruction.
I would like to remind you of the last year's events. We have
told our American and European partners that hasty backstage
decisions, for example, on Ukraine's association with the EU,
are fraught with serious risks to the economy. We didn't even
say anything about politics; we spoke only about the economy,
saying that such steps, made without any prior arrangements,
touch on the interests of many other nations, including Russia
as Ukraine's main trade partner, and that a wide discussion of
the issues is necessary.
Incidentally, in this regard, I will
remind you that, for example, the talks on Russia's accession to
the WTO lasted 19 years. This was very difficult work, and a
certain consensus was reached.
Why am I bringing this up?
Because in implementing Ukraine's
association project, our partners would come to us with their
goods and services through the back gate, so to speak, and we
did not agree to this, nobody asked us about this.
We had
discussions on all topics related to Ukraine's association with
the EU, persistent discussions, but I want to stress that this
was done in an entirely civilized manner, indicating possible
problems, showing the obvious reasoning and arguments. Nobody
wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to talk.
They simply
told us: this is none of your business, point, end of
discussion. Instead of a comprehensive but - I stress - civilized dialogue, it all came down to a government overthrow;
they plunged the country into chaos, into economic and social
collapse, into a civil war with enormous casualties.
Why? When I ask my colleagues why, they no longer have an
answer; nobody says anything. That's it.
Everyone's at a loss,
saying it just turned out that way. Those actions should not
have been encouraged - it wouldn't have worked. After all (I
already spoke about this), former Ukrainian President Yanukovych
signed everything, agreed with everything.
Why do it? What was
the point? What is this, a civilized way of solving problems?
Apparently, those who constantly throw together new 'color
revolutions' consider themselves 'brilliant artists' and simply
cannot stop.
I am certain that the work of integrated associations, the
cooperation of regional structures, should be built on a
transparent, clear basis; the Eurasian Economic Union's
formation process is a good example of such transparency. The
states that are parties to this project informed their partners
of their plans in advance, specifying the parameters of our
association, the principles of its work, which fully correspond
with the World Trade Organization rules.
I will add that we would also have welcomed the start of a
concrete dialogue between the Eurasian and European Union.
Incidentally, they have almost completely refused us this as
well, and it is also unclear why - what is so scary about it?
And, of course, with such joint work, we would think that we
need to engage in dialogue (I spoke about this many times and
heard agreement from many of our western partners, at least in
Europe) on the need to create a common space for economic and
humanitarian cooperation stretching all the way from the
Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.
Colleagues, Russia made its choice.
Our priorities are further
improving our democratic and open economy institutions,
accelerated internal development, taking into account all the
positive modern trends in the world, and consolidating society
based on traditional values and patriotism.
We have an integration-oriented, positive, peaceful agenda; we
are working actively with our colleagues in the
Eurasian
Economic Union, the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization,
BRICS and
other partners.
This agenda is aimed at developing ties between
governments, not dissociating. We are not planning to cobble
together any blocs or get involved in an exchange of blows.
The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to
establish some sort of empire, encroaching on the sovereignty of
its neighbors, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of
special, exclusive place in the world - I want to emphasize
this.
While respecting the interests of others, we simply want
for our own interests to be taken into account and for our
position to be respected.
We are well aware that the world has entered an era of changes
and global transformations, when we all need a particular degree
of caution, the ability to avoid thoughtless steps. In the years
after the Cold War, participants in global politics lost these
qualities somewhat. Now, we need to remember them.
Otherwise,
hopes for a peaceful, stable development will be a dangerous
illusion, while today's turmoil will simply serve as a prelude
to the collapse of world order.
Yes, of course, I have already said that building a more stable
world order is a difficult task. We are talking about long and
hard work. We were able to develop rules for interaction after
World War II, and we were able to reach an
agreement in Helsinki
in the 1970s.
Our common duty is to resolve this fundamental
challenge at this new stage of development.
Thank you very much for your attention.
