The following is the transcript
of Vladimir Putin’s speech to the Vaidal International Discussion Club, October
24, 2014:
* * *
Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, friends, it is a pleasure
to welcome you to the XI meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.
It was mentioned already that the club has new co-organisers
this year. They include Russian non-governmental organisations, 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.
I hope that these changes in organisation 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 realise 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 analyse 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 organisations 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 organisations. 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 defence, 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 mobilise. That is what a real mobilisation
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 globalisation 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 globalisation. 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
globalisation 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 normalising 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 defence 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 favour 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 ‘colour 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
programme, 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
harmonising 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 harmonising positions.
This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and
growth of certain regions on the planet, which process objectively requires
institutionalisation of such new poles, creating powerful regional
organisations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation between
these centres 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
centres 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 civilised 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 – civilised 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 civilised way of solving problems? Apparently, those who
constantly throw together new ‘colour 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 Organisation 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 Organisation, 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
neighbours, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive
place in the world – I want to emphasise 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.
<…>
VLADIMIR PUTIN (commenting on statements by former Prime
Minister of France Dominique de Villepin and former Federal Chancellor of
Austria Wolfgang Schuessel): I would like to begin by saying that overall I
agree with what both Wolfgang and Dominique have said. I fully support
everything they said. However, there are a few things I would like to clarify.
I believe Dominique referred to the Ukrainian crisis as the
reason for the deterioration in international relations. Naturally, this crisis
is a cause, but this is not the principal cause. The crisis in Ukraine is
itself a result of a misbalance in international relations.
I have already said in my address why this is happening, and
my colleagues have already mentioned it. I can add to this, if necessary.
However, primarily this is the outcome of the misbalance in international
relations.
As for the issues mentioned by Wolfgang, we will get back to
them: we will talk about the elections, if necessary, and about the supply of
energy resources to Ukraine and Europe.
However, I would like to respond to the phrase “Wolfgang is
an optimist, while life is harder for pessimists.” I already mentioned the old
joke we have about a pessimist and an optimist, but I cannot help telling it
again. We have this very old joke about a pessimist and an optimist: a
pessimist drinks his cognac and says, “It smells of bedbugs,” while an optimist
catches a bedbug, crushes it, then sniffs it and says, “A slight whiff of
cognac.”
I would rather be the pessimist who drinks cognac than the
optimist who sniffs bedbugs. (Laughter)
Though it does seem that optimists have a better time, our
common goal is to live a decent life (without overindulging in alcohol). For
this purpose, we need to avoid crises, together handle all challenges and
threats and build such relations on the global arena that would help us reach
these goals.
Later I will be ready to respond to some of the other things
mentioned here. Thank you.
BRITISH JOURNALIST SEUMAS MILNE (retranslated from Russian):
I would like to ask a two-in-one question.
First, Mr President, do you believe that the actions of
Russia in Ukraine and Crimea over the past months were a reaction to rules
being broken and are an example of state management without rules? And the
other question is: does Russia see these global violations of rules as a signal
for changing its position? It has been said here lately that Russia cannot lead
in the existing global situation; however, it is demonstrating the qualities of
a leader. How would you respond to this?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would like to ask you to reword the second
part of your question, please. What exactly is your second question?
SEUMAS MILNE (retranslated from Russian): It has been said
here that Russia cannot strive for leading positions in the world considering
the outcomes of the Soviet Union’s collapse, however it can influence who the
leader will be. Is it possible that Russia would alter its position, change its
focus, as you mentioned, regarding the Middle East and the issues connected
with Iran’s nuclear programme?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Russia has never altered its position. We
are a country with a traditional focus on cooperation and search for joint
solutions. This is first.
Second. We do not have any claims to world leadership. The
idea that Russia is seeking some sort of exclusivity is false; I said so in my
address. We are not demanding a place under the sun; we are simply proceeding
from the premise that all participants in international relations should
respect each other’s interests. We are ready to respect the interests of our
partners, but we expect the same respect for our interests.
We did not change our attitude to the situation in the
Middle East, to the Iranian nuclear programme, to the North Korean conflict, to
fighting terrorism and crime in general, as well as drug trafficking. We never
changed any of our priorities even under the pressure of unfriendly actions on
the part of our western partners, who are lead, very obviously in this case, by
the United States. We did not even change the terms of the sanctions.
However, here too everything has its limits. I proceed from
the idea that it might be possible that external circumstances can force us to
alter some of our positions, but so far there have not been any extreme
situations of this kind and we have no intention of changing anything. That is
the first point.
The second point has to do with our actions in Crimea. I
have spoken about this on numerous occasions, but if necessary, I can repeat
it. This is Part 2 of Article 1 of the United Nations’ Charter – the right of
nations to self-determination. It has all been written down, and not simply as
the right to self-determination, but as the goal of the united nations. Read
the article carefully.
I do not understand why people living in Crimea do not have
this right, just like the people living in, say, Kosovo. This was also
mentioned here. Why is it that in one case white is white, while in another the
same is called black? We will never agree with this nonsense. That is one
thing.
The other very important thing is something nobody mentions,
so I would like to draw attention to it. What happened in Crimea? First, there
was this anti-state overthrow in Kiev. Whatever anyone may say, I find this
obvious – there was an armed seizure of power.
In many parts of the world, people welcomed this, not
realising what this could lead to, while in some regions people were frightened
that power was seized by extremists, by nationalists and right-wingers
including neo-Nazis. People feared for their future and for their families and
reacted accordingly. In Crimea, people held a referendum.
I would like to draw your attention to this. It was not by
chance that we in Russia stated that there was a referendum. The decision to
hold the referendum was made by the legitimate authority of Crimea – its
Parliament, elected a few years ago under Ukrainian law prior to all these
grave events. This legitimate body of authority declared a referendum, and then
based on its results, they adopted a declaration of independence, just as
Kosovo did, and turned to the Russian Federation with a request to accept
Crimea into the Russian state.
You know, whatever anyone may say and no matter how hard
they try to dig something up, this would be very difficult, considering the
language of the United Nations court ruling, which clearly states (as applied
to the Kosovo precedent) that the decision on self-determination does not
require the approval of the supreme authority of a country.
In this connection I always recall what the sages of the
past said. You may remember the wonderful saying: Whatever Jupiter is allowed,
the Ox is not.
We cannot agree with such an approach. The ox may not be
allowed something, but the bear will not even bother to ask permission. Here we
consider it the master of the taiga, and I know for sure that it does not
intend to move to any other climatic zones – it will not be comfortable there.
However, it will not let anyone have its taiga either. I believe this is clear.
What are the problems of the present-day world order? Let us
be frank about it, we are all experts here. We talk and talk, we are like
diplomats. What happened in the world? There used to be a bipolar system. The
Soviet Union collapsed, the power called the Soviet Union ceased to exist.
All the rules governing international relations after World
War II were designed for a bipolar world. True, the Soviet Union was referred
to as ‘the Upper Volta with missiles’. Maybe so, and there were loads of
missiles. Besides, we had such brilliant politicians like Nikita Khrushchev,
who hammered the desk with his shoe at the UN. And the whole world, primarily
the United States, and NATO thought: this Nikita is best left alone, he might
just go and fire a missile, they have lots of them, we should better show some
respect for them.
Now that the Soviet Union is gone, what is the situation and
what are the temptations? There is no need to take into account Russia’s views,
it is very dependent, it has gone through transformation during the collapse of
the Soviet Union, and we can do whatever we like, disregarding all rules and
regulations.
This is exactly what is happening. Dominique here mentioned
Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia before that. Was this really all
handled within the framework of international law? Do not tell us those
fairy-tales.
This means that some can ignore everything, while we cannot
protect the interests of the Russian-speaking and Russian population of Crimea.
This will not happen.
I would like everyone to understand this. We need to get rid
of this temptation and attempts to arrange the world to one’s liking, and to
create a balanced system of interests and relations that has long been
prescribed in the world, we only have to show some respect.
As I have already said, we understand that the world has
changed, and we are ready to take heed of it and adjust this system
accordingly, but we will never allow anyone to completely ignore our interests.
Does Russia aim for any leading role? We don’t need to be a
superpower; this would only be an extra load for us. I have already mentioned
the taiga: it is immense, illimitable, and just to develop our territories we
need plenty of time, energy and resources.
We have no need of getting involved in things, of ordering
others around, but we want others to stay out of our affairs as well and to
stop pretending they rule the world. That is all. If there is an area where
Russia could be a leader – it is in asserting the norms of international law.
QUESTION: The peaceful process between the Palestinians and
Israelis has completely collapsed. The United States never let the quartet work
properly. At the same time, the growth of illegal Israeli settlements on the
occupied territories renders impossible the creation of a Palestinian state. We
have recently witnessed a very severe attack on the Gaza Strip. What is
Russia’s attitude to this tense situation in the Middle East? And what do you
think of the developments in Syria?
One remark for Mr Villepin as well. You spoke of
humiliation. What can be more humiliating than the occupation that Palestine
has been experiencing all these years?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Regarding Palestine and the Israeli
conflict. It is easy for me to speak about this because, first, I have to say
and I believe everyone can see that our relations with Israel have transformed
seriously in the past decade. I am referring to the fact that a large number of
people from the former Soviet Union live in Israel and we cannot remain
indifferent to their fate. At the same time, we have traditional relations with
the Arab world, specifically with Palestine. Moreover, the Soviet Union, and
Russia is its legal successor, has recognised Palestinian statehood. We are not
changing anything here.
Finally, regarding the settlements. We share the views of
the main participants in international relations. We consider this a mistake. I
have already said this to our Israeli partners. I believe this is an obstacle
to normal relations and I strongly expect that the practice itself will be
stopped and the entire process of a peaceful settlement will return to its
legal course based on agreement.
We proceed from the fact that that Middle East conflict is
one of the primary causes of destabilisation not only in the region, but also
in the world at large. Humiliation of any people living in the area, or
anywhere else in the world is clearly a source of destabilisation and should be
done away with. Naturally, this should be done using such means and measures
that would be acceptable for all the participants in the process and for all
those living in the area.
This is a very complicated process, but Russia is ready to
use every means it has for this settlement, including its good relations with
the parties to this conflict.
DIRECTOR, KIEV CENTER FOR POLITICAL AND CONFLICT STUDIES
MIKHAIL POGREBINSKY: Mr President, I have come from Ukraine. For the first time
in 70 years, it is going through very hard times. My question has to do with
the possibility of a settlement. In this connection, I would like to go back in
history. You mentioned that there was a moment when a trilateral format was
under consideration: Russia-Ukraine-Europe. Back then, Europe did not agree to
it, after which a series of tragic events took place, including the loss of
Crimea, the death of thousands of people and so forth.
Recently, Europe together with Ukraine and Russia agreed
that this format is possible after all; moreover, a corresponding resolution
was passed. At that moment, there was hope that Russia together with Europe and
Ukraine would manage to reach agreement and could become the restorer of peace
in Ukraine. What happened next? What happened between Moscow and Brussels,
Moscow and Berlin – because now the situation seems completely insane? It is
unclear what this might lead to. What do you think happened to Europe?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, what happened can be described as
nothing happened. Agreements were reached, but neither side complied with them
in full. However, full compliance by both sides might be impossible.
For instance, Ukrainian army units were supposed to leave
certain locations where they were stationed prior to the Minsk agreements,
while the militia army was supposed to leave certain settlements they were
holding prior to these agreements. However, neither is the Ukrainian army
withdrawing from the locations they should leave, nor is the militia army
withdrawing from the settlements they have to move out of, referring, and I
will be frank now – to the fact that their families remain there (I mean the
militia) and they fear for their safety. Their families, their wives and
children live there. This is a serious humanitarian factor.
We are ready to make every effort to ensure the
implementation of the Minsk agreements. I would like to take advantage of your
question to stress Russia’s position: we are in favour of complete compliance
with the Minsk agreements by both sides.
What is the problem? In my view, the key problem is that we
do not see the desire on the part of our partners in Kiev, primarily the
authorities, to resolve the issue of relations with the country’s southeast
peacefully, through negotiations. We keep seeing the same thing in various
forms: suppression by force. It all began with Maidan, when they decided to suppress
Yanukovych by force. They succeeded and raised this wave of nationalism and
then it all transformed into some nationalistic battalions.
When people in southeast Ukraine did not like it, they tried
to elect their own bodies of government and management and they were arrested
and taken to prison in Kiev at night. Then, when people saw this happening and
took to arms, instead of stopping and finally resorting to peaceful dialogue,
they sent troops there, with tanks and aircraft.
Incidentally, the global community keeps silent, as if it
does not see any of this, as if there is no such thing as ‘disproportionate use
of force’. They suddenly forgot all about it. I remember all the frenzy around
when we had a complicated situation in the Caucasus. I would hear one and the
same thing every day. No more such words today, no more ‘disproportionate use
of force’. And that’s while cluster bombs and even tactical weapons are being
used.
You see, under the circumstances, it is very difficult for
us in Russia to arrange work with people in southeast Ukraine in a way that
would induce them to fully comply with all the agreements. They keep saying
that the authorities in Kiev do not fully comply with the agreements either.
However, there is no other way. I would like to stress that
we are for the full implementation of the agreements by both parties, and the
most important thing I want to say – and I want everyone to hear that – if, God
forbid, anyone is again tempted to use force for the final settlement of the
situation in southeast Ukraine, this will bring the situation to a complete
deadlock.
In my view, there is still a chance to reach agreement. Yes,
Wolfgang spoke about this, I understood him. He spoke of the upcoming elections
in Ukraine and in the southeast of the country. We know it and we are
constantly discussing it. Just this morning I had another discussion with the
Chancellor of Germany about it. The Minsk agreements do stipulate that
elections in the southeast should be held in coordination with Ukrainian
legislation, not under Ukrainian law, but in coordination with it.
This was done on purpose, because nobody in the southeast
wants to hold elections in line with Ukrainian law. Why? How can this be done,
when there is shooting every day, people get killed on both sides and they have
to hold elections under Ukrainian law? The war should finally stop and the
troops should be withdrawn. You see? Once this is achieved, we can start
considering any kind of rapprochement or cooperation. Until this happens, it is
hard to talk about anything else.
They spoke of the date of the elections in the southeast,
but few know that there has been an agreement that elections in southeast
Ukraine should be held by November 3. Later, the date was amended in the
corresponding law, without consulting anyone, without consulting with the
southeast. The elections were set for December 7, but nobody talked to them.
Therefore, the people in the southeast say, “See, they cheated us again, and it
will always be this way.”
You can argue over this any way you like. The most important
thing is to immediately stop the war and move the troops away. If Ukraine wants
to keep its territorial integrity, and this is something we want as well, they
need to understand that there is no sense in holding on to some village or
other - this is pointless. The idea is to stop the bloodshed and to start
normal dialogue, to build relations based on this dialogue and restore at least
some communication, primarily in the economy, and gradually other things will
follow. I believe this is what should be achieved first and then we can move
on.
PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR
GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC POLICY AT CARLETON UNIVERSITY (OTTAWA) PIOTR DUTKIEWICZ:
Mr President, if I may I would like to go back to the issue of Crimea, because
it is of key importance for both the East and the West. I would like to ask you
to give us your picture of the events that lead to it, specifically why you
made this decision. Was it possible to do things differently? How did you do
it? There are important details – how Russia did it inside Crimea. Finally, how
do you see the consequences of this decision for Russia, for Ukraine, for
Europe and for the normative world order? I am asking this because I believe millions
of people would like to hear your personal reconstruction of those events and
of the way you made the decision.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I do not know how many times I spoke about
this, but I will do it again.
On February 21, Viktor Yanukovych signed the well-known
documents with the opposition. Foreign ministers of three European countries
signed their names under this agreement as guarantors of its implementation.
In the evening of February 21, President Obama called me and
we discussed these issues and how we would assist in the implementation of
these agreements. Russia undertook certain obligations. I heard that my
American colleague was also ready to undertake some obligations. This was the
evening of the 21st. On the same day, President Yanukovych called me to say he
signed the agreement, the situation had stabilized and he was going to a
conference in Kharkov. I will not conceal the fact that I expressed my concern:
how was it possible to leave the capital in this situation. He replied that he
found it possible because there was the document signed with the opposition and
guaranteed by foreign ministers of European countries.
I will tell you more, I told him I was not sure everything
would be fine, but it was for him to decide. He was the president, he knew the
situation, and he knew better what to do. “In any case, I do not think you
should withdraw the law enforcement forces from Kiev,” I told him. He said he
understood. Then he left and gave orders to withdraw all the law enforcement
troops from Kiev. Nice move, of course.
We all know what happened in Kiev. On the following day,
despite all our telephone conversations, despite the signatures of the foreign
ministers, as soon as Yanukovych left Kiev his administration was taken over by
force along with the government building. On the same day, they shot at the
cortege of Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, wounding one of his security guards.
Yanukovych called me and said he would like us to meet to
talk it over. I agreed. Eventually we agreed to meet in Rostov because it was
closer and he did not want to go too far. I was ready to fly to Rostov.
However, it turned out he could not go even there. They were beginning to use
force against him already, holding him at gunpoint. They were not quite sure
where to go.
I will not conceal it; we helped him move to Crimea, where
he stayed for a few days. That was when Crimea was still part of Ukraine.
However, the situation in Kiev was developing very rapidly and violently, we
know what happened, though the broad public may not know – people were killed,
they were burned alive there. They came into the office of the Party of
Regions, seized the technical workers and killed them, burned them alive in the
basement. Under those circumstances, there was no way he could return to Kiev.
Everybody forgot about the agreements with the opposition signed by foreign
ministers and about our telephone conversations. Yes, I will tell you frankly
that he asked us to help him get Russia, which we did. That was all.
Seeing these developments, people in Crimea almost
immediately took to arms and asked us for help in arranging the events they
intended to hold. I will be frank; we used our Armed Forces to block Ukrainian
units stationed in Crimea, but not to force anyone to take part in the
elections. This is impossible, you are all grown people, and you understand it.
How could we do it? Lead people to polling stations at gunpoint?
People went to vote as if it were a celebration, everybody knows
this, and they all voted, even the Crimean Tatars. There were fewer Crimean
Tatars, but the overall vote was high. While the turnout in Crimea in general
was about 96 or 94 percent, a smaller number of Crimean Tatars showed up.
However 97 percent of them voted ‘yes’. Why? Because those who did not want it
did not come to the polling stations, and those who did voted ‘yes’.
I already spoke of the legal side of the matter. The Crimean
Parliament met and voted in favour of the referendum. Here again, how could
anyone say that several dozen people were dragged to parliament to vote? This
never happened and it was impossible: if anyone did not want to vote they would
get on a train or plane, or their car and be gone.
They all came and voted for the referendum, and then the
people came and voted in favour of joining Russia, that is all. How will this
influence international relations? We can see what is happening; however if we
refrain from using so-called double standards and accept that all people have equal
rights, it would have no influence at all. We have to admit the right of those
people to self-determination.
* * *
