HOME ABOUT REPORTS CONTACT HELP WANTED
DISCLAIMER: At Earth Future Action, we absolutely condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This was an evil act. However, we are sharing this speech for educational purposes.
EDITOR NOTE: In the speech below, Russia's president took part in the final plenary session of the 19th meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. See original transcript here.
Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much.
Ladies and gentlemen, friends,
I had a chance to get a sense of what you discussed here during the last few
days. It was an interesting and substantive discussion. I hope you do not regret
coming to Russia and communicating with each other.
I am happy to see you all.
We have used the Valdai Club platform to discuss, more than once, the major and
serious shifts that have already taken place and are taking place around the
world, the risks posed by the degradation of global institutions, the erosion of
collective security principles and the substitution of “rules” for international
law. I was tempted to say “we are clear about who came up with these rules,”
but, perhaps, that would not be an accurate statement. We have no idea
whatsoever who made these rules up, what these rules are based on, or what is
contained inside these rules.
It looks like we are witnessing an attempt to enforce just one rule whereby
those in power – we were talking about power, and I am now talking about global
power – could live without following any rules at all and could get away with
anything. These are the rules that we hear them constantly, as people say,
harping on, that is, talking about them incessantly
The Valdai discussions are important because a variety of assessments and
forecasts can be heard here. Life always shows how accurate they were, since
life is the sternest and the most objective teacher. So, life shows how accurate
our previous years’ projections were.
Alas, events continue to follow a negative scenario, which we have discussed
more than once during our previous meetings. Moreover, they have morphed into a
major system-wide crisis that impacted, in addition to the military-political
sphere, the economic and humanitarian spheres as well.
The so-called West which is, of course, a theoretical construct since it is not
united and clearly is a highly complex conglomerate, but I will still say that
the West has taken a number of steps in recent years and especially in recent
months that are designed to escalate the situation. As a matter of fact, they
always seek to aggravate matters, which is nothing new, either. This includes
the stoking of war in Ukraine, the provocations around Taiwan, and the
destabilisation of the global food and energy markets. To be sure, the latter
was, of course, not done on purpose, there is no doubt about it. The
destabilisation of the energy market resulted from a number of systemic missteps
made by the Western authorities that I mentioned above. As we can see now, the
situation was further aggravated by the destruction of the pan-European gas
pipelines. This is something otherworldly altogether, but we are nevertheless
witnessing these sad developments.
Global power is exactly what the so-called West has at stake in its game. But
this game is certainly dangerous, bloody and, I would say, dirty. It denies the
sovereignty of countries and peoples, their identity and uniqueness, and
tramples upon other states’ interests. In any case, even if denial is the not
the word used, they are doing it in real life. No one, except those who create
these rules I have mentioned is entitled to retain their identity: everyone else
must comply with these rules.
In this regard, let me remind you of Russia's proposals to our Western partners
to build confidence and a collective security system. They were once again
tossed in December 2021.
However, sitting things out can hardly work in the modern world. He who sows the
wind will reap the whirlwind, as the saying goes. The crisis has indeed taken on
a global dimension and has impacted everyone. There can be no illusions about
this.
Humankind is at a fork in the road: either keep accumulating problems and
eventually get crushed under their weight, or work together to find solutions –
even imperfect ones, as long as they work – that can make our world a more
stable and safer place.
You know, I have always believed in the power of common sense. Therefore, I am
convinced that sooner or later both the new centres of the multipolar
international order and the West will have to start a dialogue on an equal
footing about a common future for us all, and the sooner the better, of course.
In this regard, I will highlight some of the most important aspects for all of
us.
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS
Current developments have overshadowed environmental issues. Strange as it may
seem, this is what I would like to speak about first today. Climate change no
longer tops the agenda. But that fundamental challenge has not gone away, it is
still with us, and it is growing.
The loss of biodiversity is one of the most dangerous consequences of disrupting
the environmental balance. This brings me to the key point all of us have
gathered here for. Is it not equally important to maintain cultural, social,
political and civilisational diversity?
WESTERN IMPERICALISM
At the same time, the smoothing out and erasure of all and any differences is
essentially what the modern West is all about. What stands behind this? First of
all, it is the decaying creative potential of the West and a desire to restrain
and block the free development of other civilisations.
There is also an openly mercantile interest, of course. By imposing their
values, consumption habits and standardisation on others, our opponents – I will
be careful with words – are trying to expand markets for their products. The
goal on this track is, ultimately, very primitive. It is notable that the West
proclaims the universal value of its culture and worldview. Even if they do not
say so openly, which they actually often do, they behave as if this is so, that
it is a fact of life, and the policy they pursue is designed to show that these
values must be unconditionally accepted by all other members of the
international community.
I would like to quote from Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s famous Harvard Commencement
Address delivered in 1978. He said that typical of the West is “a continuous
blindness of superiority”– and it continues to this day – which “upholds the
belief that vast regions everywhere on our planet should develop and mature to
the level of present-day Western systems.” He said this in 1978. Nothing has
changed.
Over the nearly 50 years since then, the blindness about which Solzhenitsyn
spoke and which is openly racist and neocolonial, has acquired especially
distorted forms, in particular, after the emergence of the so-called unipolar
world. What am I referring to? Belief in one’s infallibility is very dangerous;
it is only one step away from the desire of the infallible to destroy those they
do not like, or as they say, to cancel them. Just think about the meaning of
this word.
TODAY'S WESTERN IMPERIALISM WORSE THAN THE COLD WAR
Even at the very peak of the Cold War, the peak of the confrontation of the two
systems, ideologies and military rivalry, it did not occur to anyone to deny the
very existence of the culture, art, and science of other peoples, their
opponents. It did not even occur to anyone. Yes, certain restrictions were
imposed on contacts in education, science, culture, and, unfortunately, sports.
But nonetheless, both the Soviet and American leaders understood that it was
necessary to treat the humanitarian area tactfully, studying and respecting your
rival, and sometimes even borrowing from them in order to retain a foundation
for sound, productive relations at least for the future.
And what is happening now? At one time, the Nazis reached the point of burning
books, and now the Western “guardians of liberalism and progress” have reached
the point of banning Dostoyevsky and Tchaikovsky. The so-called “cancel culture”
and in reality – as we said many times – the real cancellation of culture is
eradicating everything that is alive and creative and stifles free thought in
all areas, be it economics, politics or culture.
Today, liberal ideology itself has changed beyond recognition. If initially,
classic liberalism was understood to mean the freedom of every person to do and
say as they pleased, in the 20th century the liberals started saying that the
so-called open society had enemies and that the freedom of these enemies could
and should be restricted if not cancelled. It has reached the absurd point where
any alternative opinion is declared subversive propaganda and a threat to
democracy.
Whatever comes from Russia is all branded as “Kremlin intrigues.” But look at
yourselves. Are we really so all-powerful? Any criticism of our opponents – any
– is perceived as “Kremlin intrigues,” “the hand of the Kremlin.” This is
insane. What have you sunk to? Use your brain, at least, say something more
interesting, lay out your viewpoint conceptually. You cannot blame everything on
the Kremlin’s scheming.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky prophetically foretold all this back in the 19th century. One
of the characters of his novel Demons, the nihilist Shigalev, described the
bright future he imagined in the following way: “Emerging from boundless
freedom, I conclude with boundless despotism.” This is what our Western
opponents have come to. Another character of the novel, Pyotr Verkhovensky
echoes him, talking about the need for universal treason, reporting and spying,
and claiming that society does not need talents or greater abilities: “Cicero’s
tongue is cut out, Copernicus has his eyes gouged out and Shakespeare is
stoned.” This is what our Western opponents are arriving at. What is this if not
Western cancel culture?
These were great thinkers and, frankly, I am grateful to my aides for finding
these quotes.
What can one say to this? History will certainly put everything in its place and
will know whom to cancel, and it will definitely not be the greatest works of
universally recognised geniuses of world culture, but those who have for some
reason decided that they have the right to use world culture as they see fit.
Their self-regard really knows no bounds. No one will even remember their names
in a few years. But Dostoevsky will live on, as will Tchaikovsky, Pushkin, no
matter how much they would have liked the opposite.
Standardisation, financial and technological monopoly, the erasure of all
differences is what underlies the Western model of globalisation, which is
neocolonial in nature. Their goal was clear – to establish the unconditional
dominance of the West in the global economy and politics. To do that, the West
put at its service the entire planet’s natural and financial resources, as well
as all intellectual, human and economic capabilities, while alleging it was a
natural feature of the so-called new global interdependence.
Here I would like to recall another Russian philosopher, Alexander Zinoviev,
whose birth centenary we will celebrate on October 29. More than 20 years ago,
he said that Western civilisation needed the entire planet as a medium of
existence and all the resources of humanity to survive at the level it had
reached. That is what they want, that is exactly how it is.
WESTERN HYPOCRISY
Moreover, the West initially secured itself a huge head start in that system
because it had developed the principles and mechanisms – the same as today’s
rules they keep talking about, which remain an incomprehensible black hole
because no one really knows what they are. But as soon as non-western countries
began to derive some benefits from globalisation, above all, the large nations
in Asia, the West immediately changed or fully abolished many of those rules.
And the so-called sacred principles of free trade, economic openness, equal
competition, even property rights were suddenly forgotten, completely. They
change the rules on the go, on the spot wherever they see an opportunity for
themselves.
Here is another example of the substitution of concepts and meanings. For many
years, Western ideologists and politicians have been telling the world there was
no alternative to democracy. Admittedly, they meant the Western-style, the
so-called liberal model of democracy. They arrogantly rejected all other
variants and forms of government by the people and, I want to emphasise this,
did so contemptuously and disdainfully. This manner has been taking shape since
colonial times, as if everyone were second-rate, while they were exceptional. It
has been going on for centuries and continues to this day.
So currently, an overwhelming majority of the international community is
demanding democracy in international affairs and rejecting all forms of
authoritarian dictate by individual countries or groups of countries. What is
this if not the direct application of democratic principles to international
relations?
What stance has the “civilised” West adopted? If you are democrats, you are
supposed to welcome the natural desire for freedom expressed by billions of
people, but no. The West is calling it undermining the liberal rules-based
order. It is resorting to economic and trade wars, sanctions, boycotts and
colour revolutions, and preparing and carrying out all sorts of coups.
US CRIMES IN UKRAINE AND IRAQ
One of them led to tragic consequences in Ukraine in 2014. They supported it and
even specified the amount of money they had spent on this coup. They have the
cheek to act as they please and have no scruples about anything they do. They
killed Soleimani, an Iranian general. You can think whatever you want about
Soleimani, but he was a foreign state official. They killed him in a third
country and assumed responsibility. What is that supposed to mean, for crying
out loud? What kind of world are we living in?
As is customary, Washington continues to refer to the current international
order as liberal American-style, but in fact, this notorious “order” is
multiplying chaos every day and, I might even add, is becoming increasingly
intolerant even towards the Western countries and their attempts to act
independently. Everything is nipped in the bud, and they do not even hesitate to
impose sanctions on their allies, who lower their heads in acquiescence.
For example, the Hungarian MPs’ July proposals to codify the commitment to
European Christian values and culture in the Treaty on European Union were taken
not even as an affront, but as an outright and hostile act of sabotage. What is
that? What does it mean? Indeed, some people may like it, some not.
TOLERANCE IN RELIGION
Over a thousand years, Russia has developed a unique culture of interaction
between all world religions. There is no need to cancel anything, be it
Christian values, Islamic values or Jewish values. We have other world religions
as well. All you need to do is respect each other. In a number of our regions –
I just know this firsthand – people celebrate Christian, Islamic, Buddhist and
Jewish holidays together, and they enjoy doing so as they congratulate each
other and are happy for each other.
But not here. Why not? At least, they could discuss it. Amazing.
Without exaggeration, this is not even a systemic, but a doctrinal crisis of the
neoliberal American-style model of international order. They have no ideas for
progress and positive development. They simply have nothing to offer the world,
except perpetuating their dominance.
I am convinced that real democracy in a multipolar world is primarily about the
ability of any nation – I emphasise – any society or any civilisation to follow
its own path and organise its own socio-political system. If the United States
or the EU countries enjoy this right, then the countries of Asia, the Islamic
states, the monarchies of the Persian Gulf, and countries on other continents
certainly have this right as well. Of course, our country, Russia, also has this
right, and no one will ever be able to tell our people what kind of society we
should be building and what principles should underlie it.
WEAKNESS OF WESTERN IDEAS
A direct threat to the political, economic and ideological monopoly of the West
lies in the fact that the world can come up with alternative social models that
are more effective; I want to emphasise this, more effective today, brighter and
more appealing than the ones that currently exist. These models will definitely
come about. This is inevitable. By the way, US political scientists and analysts
also write about this. Truthfully, their government is not listening to what
they say, although it cannot avoid seeing these concepts in political science
magazines and mentioned in discussions.
Development should rely on a dialogue between civilisations and spiritual and
moral values. Indeed, understanding what humans and their nature are all about
varies across civilisations, but this difference is often superficial, and
everyone recognises the ultimate dignity and spiritual essence of people. A
common foundation on which we can and must build our future is critically
important.
Here is something I would like to emphasise. Traditional values are not a rigid
set of postulates that everyone must adhere to, of course not. The difference
from the so-called neo-liberal values is that they are unique in each particular
instance, because they stem from the traditions of a particular society, its
culture and historical background. This is why traditional values cannot be
imposed on anyone. They must simply be respected and everything that every
nation has been choosing for itself over centuries must he handled with care.
This is how we understand traditional values, and the majority of humanity share
and accept our approach. This is understandable, because the traditional
societies of the East, Latin America, Africa, and Eurasia form the basis of
world civilisation.
Respect for the ways and customs of peoples and civilisations is in everyone’s
interest. In fact, this is also in the interest of the “West,” which is quickly
becoming a minority in the international arena as it loses its dominance. Of
course, the Western minority’s right to its own cultural identity – I want to
emphasise this – must be ensured and respected, but, importantly, on an equal
footing with the rights of every other nation.
If the Western elites believe they can have their people and their societies
embrace what I believe are strange and trendy ideas like dozens of genders or
gay pride parades, so be it. Let them do as they please. But they certainly have
no right to tell others to follow in their steps.
We see the complicated demographic, political and social processes taking place
in Western countries. This is, of course, their own business. Russia does not
interfere in such matters and has no intention of doing so. Unlike the West, we
mind our own business. But we are hoping that pragmatism will triumph and
Russia’s dialogue with the genuine, traditional West, as well as with other
coequal development centres, will become a major contribution to the
construction of a multipolar world order.
I will add that multipolarity is a real and, actually, the only chance for
Europe to restore its political and economic identity. To tell the truth – and
this idea is expressed explicitly in Europe today – Europe’s legal capacity is
very limited. I tried to put it mildly not to offend anyone.
The world is diverse by nature and Western attempts to squeeze everyone into the
same pattern are clearly doomed. Nothing will come out of them.
The conceited aspiration to achieve global supremacy and, essentially, to
dictate or preserve leadership by dictate is really reducing the international
prestige of the leaders of the Western world, including the United States, and
increasing mistrust in their ability to negotiate in general. They say one thing
today and another tomorrow; they sign documents and renounce them, they do what
they want. There is no stability in anything. How documents are signed, what was
discussed, what can we hope for – all this is completely unclear.
Previously, only a few countries dared argue with America and it looked almost
sensational, whereas now it has become routine for all manner of states to
reject Washington’s unfounded demands despite its continued attempts to exert
pressure on everyone. This is a mistaken policy that leads nowhere. But let
them, this is also their choice.
I am convinced that the nations of the world will not shut their eyes to a
policy of coercion that has discredited itself. Every time the West will have to
pay a higher price for its attempts to preserve its hegemony. If I were a
Western elite, I would seriously ponder this prospect. As I said, some political
scientists and politicians in the United States are already thinking about it.
In the current conditions of intense conflict, I will be direct about certain
things. As an independent and distinctive civilization, Russia has never
considered and does not consider itself an enemy of the West. Americophobia,
Anglophobia, Francophobia, and Germanophobia are the same forms of racism as
Russophobia or anti-Semitism, and, incidentally, xenophobia in all its guises.
It is simply necessary to understand clearly that, as I have already said
before, two Wests – at least two and maybe more but two at least – the West of
traditional, primarily Christian values, freedom, patriotism, great culture and
now Islamic values as well – a substantial part of the population in many
Western countries follows Islam. This West is close to us in something. We share
with it common, even ancient roots. But there is also a different West –
aggressive, cosmopolitan, and neocolonial. It is acting as a tool of neoliberal
elites. Naturally, Russia will never reconcile itself to the dictates of this
West.
In 2000, after I was elected President, I will always remember what I faced: I
will remember the price we paid for destroying the den of terrorism in the North
Caucasus, which the West almost openly supported at the time. We are all adults
here; most of you present in this hall understand what I am talking about. We
know that this is exactly what happened in practice: financial, political and
information support. We have all lived through it.
What is more, not only did the West actively support terrorists on Russian
territory, but in many ways it nurtured this threat. We know this. Nevertheless,
after the situation had stabilised, when the main terrorist gangs had been
defeated, including thanks to the bravery of the Chechen people, we decided not
to turn back, not to play the offended, but to move forward, to build relations
even with those who actually acted against us, to establish and develop
relations with all who wanted them, based on mutual benefit and respect for one
another.
We thought it was in everyone’s interest. Russia, thank God, had survived all
the difficulties of that time, stood firm, grew stronger, was able to cope with
internal and external terrorism, its economy was preserved, it began to develop,
and its defence capability began to improve. We tried to build up relations with
the leading countries of the West and with NATO. The message was the same: let
us stop being enemies, let us live together as friends, let us engage in
dialogue, let us build trust, and, hence, peace. We were absolutely sincere, I
want to emphasise that. We clearly understood the complexity of this
rapprochement, but we agreed to it.
What did we get in response? In short, we got a ”no“ in all the main areas of
possible cooperation. We received an ever-increasing pressure on us and hotbeds
of tension near our borders. And what, may I ask, is the purpose of this
pressure? What is it? Is it just to practice? Of course not. The goal was to
make Russia more vulnerable. The purpose is to turn Russia into a tool to
achieve their own geopolitical goals.
As a matter of fact, this is a universal rule: they try to turn everyone into a
tool, in order to use these tools for their own purposes. And those who do not
yield to this pressure, who do not want to be such a tool are sanctioned: all
sorts of economic restrictions are carried out against them and in relation of
them, coups are prepared or where possible carried out and so on. And in the
end, if nothing at all can be done, the aim is the same: to destroy them, to
wipe them off the political map. But it has not and will never be possible to
draft and implement such a scenario with respect to Russia.
What else can I add? Russia is not challenging the Western elites. Russia is
simply upholding its right to exist and to develop freely. Importantly, we will
not become a new hegemon ourselves. Russia is not suggesting replacing a
unipolar world with a bipolar, tripolar or other dominating order, or replacing
Western domination with domination from the East, North or South. This would
inevitably lead to another impasse.
At this point, I would like to cite the words of the great Russian philosopher
Nikolai Danilevsky. He believed that progress did not consist of everyone going
in the same direction, as some of our opponents seem to want. This would only
result in progress coming to a halt, Danilevsky said. Progress lies in “walking
the field that represents humanity’s historical activity, walking in all
directions,” he said, adding that no civilisation can take pride in being the
height of development.
I am convinced that dictatorship can only be countered through free development
of countries and peoples; the degradation of the individual can be set off by
the love of a person as a creator; primitive simplification and prohibition can
be replaced with the flourishing complexity of culture and tradition.
The significance of today’s historical moment lies in the opportunities for
everyone’s democratic and distinct development path, which is opening up before
all civilisations, states and integration associations. We believe above all
that the new world order must be based on law and right, and must be free,
distinctive and fair.
The world economy and trade also need to become fairer and more open. Russia
considers the creation of new international financial platforms inevitable; this
includes international transactions. These platforms should be above national
jurisdictions. They should be secure, depoliticized and automated and should not
depend on any single control centre. Is it possible to do this or not? Of course
it is possible. This will require a lot of effort. Many countries will have to
pool their efforts, but it is possible.
This rules out the possibility of abuse in a new global financial
infrastructure. It would make it possible to conduct effective, beneficial and
secure international transactions without the dollar or any of the so-called
reserve currencies. This is all the more important, now that the dollar is being
used as a weapon; the United States, and the West in general, have discredited
the institution of international financial reserves. First, they devalued it
with inflation in the dollar and euro zones and then they took our
gold-and-currency reserves.
The transition to transactions in national currencies will quickly gain
momentum. This is inevitable. Of course, it depends on the status of the issuers
of these currencies and the state of their economies, but they will be growing
stronger, and these transactions are bound to gradually prevail over the others.
Such is the logic of a sovereign economic and financial policy in a multipolar
world.
Furthermore, new global development centres are already using unmatched
technology and research in various fields and can successfully compete with
Western transnational companies in many areas.
Clearly, we have a common and very pragmatic interest in free and open
scientific and technological exchange. United, we stand to win more than if we
act separately. The majority should benefit from these exchanges, not individual
super-rich corporations.
WESTERN TRADE POLICIES
How are things going today? If the West is selling medicines or crop seeds to
other countries, it tells them to kill their national pharmaceutical industries
and selection. In fact, it all comes down to this: its machine tool and
equipment supplies destroy the local engineering industry. I realised this back
when I served as Prime Minister. Once you open your market to a certain product
group, the local manufacturer instantly goes belly up and it is almost
impossible for him to raise his head. That’s how they build relationships.
That’s how they take over markets and resources, and countries lose their
technological and scientific potential. This is not progress; it is enslavement
and reducing economies to primitive levels.
Technological development should not increase global inequality, but rather
reduce it. This is how Russia has traditionally implemented its foreign
technology policy. For example, when we build nuclear power plants in other
countries, we create competence centres and train local personnel. We create an
industry. We don’t just build a plant, we create an entire industry. In fact, we
give other countries a chance to break new ground in their scientific and
technological development, reduce inequality, and bring their energy sector to
new levels of efficiency and environmental friendliness.
Let me emphasise again that sovereignty and a unique path of development in no
way mean isolation or autarky. On the contrary, they are about energetic and
mutually beneficial cooperation based on the principles of fairness and
equality.
If liberal globalisation is about depersonalising and imposing the Western model
on the entire world, integration is, in contrast, about tapping the potential of
each civilisation for everyone to benefit. If globalism is dictate – which is
what it comes down to eventually, – integration is a team effort to develop
common strategies that everyone can benefit from.
In this regard, Russia believes it is important to make wider use of mechanisms
for creating large spaces that rely on interaction between neighbouring
countries, whose economies and social systems, as well as resource bases and
infrastructure, complement each other. In fact, these large spaces form the
economic basis of a multipolar world order. Their dialogue gives rise to genuine
unity in humanity, which is much more complex, unique and multidimensional than
the simplistic ideas professed by some Western masterminds.
Unity among humankind cannot be created by issuing commands such as “do as I do”
or “be like us.” It is created with consideration for everyone’s opinion and
with a careful approach to the identity of every society and every nation. This
is the principle that can underlie long-term cooperation in a multipolar world.
In this regard, it may be worth revising the structure of the United Nations,
including its Security Council, to better reflect the world’s diversity. After
all, much more will depend on Asia, Africa, and Latin America in tomorrow’s
world than is commonly believed today, and this increase in their influence is
undoubtedly a positive development.
Let me recall that the Western civilisation is not the only one even in our
common Eurasian space. Moreover, the majority of the population is concentrated
in the east of Eurasia, where the centres of the oldest human civilisations
emerged.
The value and importance of Eurasia lies in the fact that it represents a
self-sufficient complex possessing huge resources of all kinds and tremendous
opportunities. The more we work on increasing the connectivity of Eurasia and
creating new ways and forms of cooperation, the more impressive achievements we
make.
The successful performance of the Eurasian Economic Union, the fast growth of
the authority and prestige of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the
large-scale One Belt, One Road initiatives, plans for multilateral cooperation
in building the North-South transport corridor and many other projects, are the
beginning of a new era, new stage in the development of Eurasia. I am confident
of this. Integration projects there do not contradict but supplement each other
– of course, if they are carried out by neighbouring countries in their own
interests rather than introduced by outside forces with the aim of splitting the
Eurasian space and turning it into a zone of bloc confrontation.
Europe, the Western extremity of the Greater Eurasia could also become its
natural part. But many of its leaders are hampered by the conviction that the
Europeans are superior to others, that it is beneath them to take part as equals
in undertakings with others. This arrogance prevents them from seeing that they
have themselves become a foreign periphery and actually turned into vassals,
often without the right to vote.
Colleagues,
The collapse of the Soviet Union upset the equilibrium of the geopolitical
forces. The West felt as a winner and declared a unipolar world arrangement, in
which only its will, culture and interests had the right to exist.
Now this historical period of boundless Western domination in world affairs is
coming to an end. The unipolar world is being relegated into the past. We are at
a historical crossroads. We are in for probably the most dangerous,
unpredictable and at the same time most important decade since the end of World
War II. The West is unable to rule humanity single-handedly and the majority of
nations no longer want to put up with this. This is the main contradiction of
the new era. To cite a classic, this is a revolutionary situation to some extent
– the elites cannot and the people do not want to live like that any longer.
This state of affairs is fraught with global conflicts or a whole chain of
conflicts, which poses a threat to humanity, including the West itself. Today’s
main historical task is to resolve this contradiction in a way that is
constructive and positive.
The change of eras is a painful albeit natural and inevitable process. A future
world arrangement is taking shape before our eyes. In this world arrangement, we
must listen to everyone, consider every opinion, every nation, society, culture
and every system of world outlooks, ideas and religious concepts, without
imposing a single truth on anyone. Only on this foundation, understanding our
responsibility for the destinies of nations and our planet, shall we create a
symphony of human civilisation.
At this point, I would like to finish my remarks with expressing gratitude for
the patience that you displayed while listening to them.
Thank you very much.