The Time for the Epoch of Indivisible Security Has Come

"I think that everyone is starting to understand...that it is necessary to go back to the conceptual framework proposed by the best minds in Europe dozens of years ago – the necessity to create a common economic and humanitarian space from the Atlantic to Vladivostok, as well as a space where security would be common and indivisible.

This idea was confirmed at the OSCE Summit in Astana in 2010, where participants coordinated an appeal for creating a community of equal, comprehensive and indivisible security based on cooperation.

These words were voiced and put into the document. They have to be implemented, and Russia is ready to do this"
Sergey Lavrov 7 December 2018

"The OSCE has failed because its founding principles – equal and indivisible security, ensuring that no participant strengthens their security at the expense of others – have been trampled on."
Sergey Lavrov 18 December 2024

Modern security from war, terrorism, cyberattacks, biological attacks, chemical attacks, economic sanction attacks, psychological propaganda campaign attacks, denial of access to resources of all kinds, food security - all are multi-faceted dimensions of security. The need to agree on fair and universal security arrangements as nations compete for diminishing mineral reserves is more important than ever. The same goes for the dimensions of food security. After all, the climate is changing, there are increasing droughts, fires, floods, new pests emerging. We must all work together to overcome these challenges. This is Russia's point. No one can be allowed to create security threats for others - and most particularly biological threats affecting human health, or plant or animal health.

The world is now both interdependent and truly globalised. The Covid-19 shutdowns demonstrated this in the most vivid fashion. Russia wishes to sustainably develop, ensure its security, and progressively improve the overall well-being of Russian people - and particularly families. This should be the task of all governments in the world, obviously. But as the west has tried to prevent peaceful cooperation and the existing international agreements don't work, a better way has to be found. Russia has found itself in the position of having to be the one to find that better way.

Russia signaled the need to find a better way in 2007, at the 2007 Munich Security Conference.(Edited outtake below)

""It is well known that international security comprises much more than issues relating to military and political stability.

It involves the stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty, economic security and developing a dialogue between civilisations.

This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that “security for one is security for all”...And, just like any war, the Cold War left us with live ammunition, figuratively speaking.

I am referring to ideological stereotypes, double standards and other typical aspects of Cold War bloc thinking.

The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either....However, what is a unipolar world? ...at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.

It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within...

I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world...Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centres of tension.

We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law.

And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?

In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate.

And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe.I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.

And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue. Especially since the international landscape is so varied and changes so quickly – changes in light of the dynamic development in a whole number of countries and regions...The combined GDP measured in purchasing power parity of countries such as India and China is already greater than that of the United States. And a similar calculation with the GDP of the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts this gap will only increase in the future.

There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centres of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity...

...I am convinced that the only mechanism that can make decisions about using military force as a last resort is the Charter of the United Nations... I would like to recall that in the 1980s the USSR and the United States signed an agreement on destroying a whole range of small - and medium-range missiles but these documents do not have a universal character.

Today many other countries have these missiles, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Pakistan and Israel. Many countries are working on these systems and plan to incorporate them as part of their weapons arsenals. And only the United States and Russia bear the responsibility to not create such weapons systems.

It is obvious that in these conditions we must think about ensuring our own security.

At the same time, it is impossible to sanction the appearance of new, destabilising high-tech weapons.

Needless to say it refers to measures to prevent a new area of confrontation, especially in outer space....The Adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was signed in 1999. It took into account a new geopolitical reality, namely the elimination of the Warsaw bloc. Seven years have passed and only four states have ratified this document, including the Russian Federation.

NATO countries openly declared that they will not ratify this treaty, including the provisions on flank restrictions (on deploying a certain number of armed forces in the flank zones), until Russia removed its military bases from Georgia and Moldova. Our army is leaving Georgia, even according to an accelerated schedule. We resolved the problems we had with our Georgian colleagues, as everybody knows. There are still 1,500 servicemen in Moldova that are carrying out peacekeeping operations and protecting warehouses with ammunition left over from Soviet times...Simultaneously the so-called flexible frontline American bases with up to five thousand men in each.

It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders, and we continue to strictly fulfil the treaty obligations and do not react to these actions at all.

I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe.

On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”.

Where are these guarantees?...

In the energy sector Russia intends to create uniform market principles and transparent conditions for all. It is obvious that energy prices must be determined by the market instead of being the subject of political speculation, economic pressure or blackmail...Economic security is the sector in which all must adhere to uniform principles....

 As you know, the process of Russia joining the WTO has reached its final stages. I would point out that during long, difficult talks we heard words about freedom of speech, free trade, and equal possibilities more than once but, for some reason, exclusively in reference to the Russian market.

And there is still one more important theme that directly affects global security. Today many talk about the struggle against poverty. What is actually happening in this sphere? On the one hand, financial resources are allocated for programmes to help the world’s poorest countries – and at times substantial financial resources. But to be honest — and many here also know this – linked with the development of that same donor country’s companies. And on the other hand, developed countries simultaneously keep their agricultural subsidies and limit some countries’ access to high-tech products.

And let’s say things as they are – one hand distributes charitable help and the other hand not only preserves economic backwardness but also reaps the profits thereof.

The increasing social tension in depressed regions inevitably results in the growth of radicalism, extremism, feeds terrorism and local conflicts. And if all this happens in, shall we say, a region such as the Middle East where there is increasingly the sense that the world at large is unfair, then there is the risk of global destabilisation.

It is obvious that the world’s leading countries should see this threat. And that they should therefore build a more democratic, fairer system of global economic relations, a system that would give everyone the chance and the possibility to develop...

According to the founding documents, in the humanitarian sphere the OSCE is designed to assist country members in observing international human rights norms at their request. This is an important task. We support this. But this does not mean interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, and especially not imposing a regime that determines how these states should live and develop.

It is obvious that such interference does not promote the development of democratic states at all. On the contrary, it makes them dependent and, as a consequence, politically and economically unstable...

....I very often – hear appeals by our partners, including our European partners, to the effect that Russia should play an increasingly active role in world affairs.

In connection with this I would allow myself to make one small remark. It is hardly necessary to incite us to do so.

Russia is a country with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has practically always used the privilege to carry out an independent foreign policy.

We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, we are well aware of how the world has changed and we have a realistic sense of our own opportunities and potential. And of course we would like to interact with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all....

What are we indebted to in the past decades if there was a stand-off between two superpowers and two systems, but nevertheless a big war did not take place? We are indebted to the balance of powers between these two superpowers. There was an equilibrium and a fear of mutual destruction. And in those days one party was afraid to make an extra step without consulting the other. And this was certainly a fragile peace and a frightening one. But as we see today, it was reliable enough. Today, it seems that the peace is not so reliable...

...the United States is actively developing and already strengthening an anti-missile defence system. Today this system is ineffective but we do not know exactly whether it will one day be effective. But in theory it is being created for that purpose. So hypothetically we recognise that when this moment arrives, the possible threat from our nuclear forces will be completely neutralised. Russia’s present nuclear capabilities, that is.

The balance of powers will be absolutely destroyed and one of the parties will benefit from the feeling of complete security. This means that its hands will be free not only in local but eventually also in global conflicts.

We are discussing this with you now. I would not want anyone to suspect any aggressive intentions on our part.

But the system of international relations is just like mathematics. There are no personal dimensions.

And of course we should react to this.... I will allow myself to remind both myself and my colleagues that according to the UN Charter peace-keeping operations require the sanction of both the UN and the UN Security Council. This is in the case of peace-keeping operations. But in the UN Charter there is also an article about self-defence. And no sanctions [editor - permissions]  are required in this case...

...As to fears and so on, are you aware that today Russians have fewer fears than citizens in many other countries? Because in the last few years we made cardinal changes to improve the economic well-being of our citizens. We still have a great many problems. And we still have a great many unresolved problems. Including problems linked with poverty. And I can tell you that fears basically come from this source."
Vladimir Putin, Munich, 2007

As the Russian President pointed out, indivisible security requires all countries to join a universal nuclear arms control treat, not just the major powers of this dying epoch. North Korea has missiles that can now reach the USA mainland, thanks to Russia (this is a form of Russian coercion to catalyse dialogue. They did the same in Ukraine when they made a lightning strike into Kiev city - talks were agreed 4 days later. But the west cancelled them. Coercion, even as an almost last resort, doesn't always work.) Clearly, increasingly more sophisticated missiles will arrive in the hands of many different countries around the world. Some will have the destructive power of low yield tactical nuclear weapons. Effective instruments of arms control must be found, with accent on the word 'effective'. But progress cannot be hostage to what the USA wants, which, so far, is unreasoning one sided advantage for itself. It won't work. Therefore the USA must be sidelined, and arms controls developed bilaterally or multilaterally, in a flexible but effective series of interconnected (perhaps) instruments.

Indivisible security also encompasses economic security. Clearly, instruments will have to be developed to punish those who impose illegal sanctions. Russia has made a start.

There is no doubt Russia wants peace for itself, as a first priority. But peace for the world is also in Russia's interest, just as it is for everybody. But good manners and a desire for peace does not equate to weakness. Russia won't be tricked yet again by the West's lies.

"We know various options that are being discussed, we know the ”lures“ they are going to show us in order to convince us that the time has come.

Once again, we want to resolve all disputes...by peaceful means. And we are ready for that, we want that.

But this should be a serious negotiation with provision of security for the opposing side, and in this case we are primarily interested in the security of the Russian Federation.

That is what we will proceed from."
Vladimir Putin 13 March 2024

2007 was the Birth of the New Epoch Added 8 November 2024

The new epoch was born at Munich, in 2007. Mr. Putin told the west - in the most diplomatic language - that there could no longer be western dominance and diktat, whether the west liked it or not. Simply due to the objective fact that the world had changed due to the rise of the 'global majority'. The pace of change would increase. Discontent with the dominance of the west would inevitably increase in the countries of the global majority. "International security comprises much more than issues relating to military and political stability. It involves the stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty, economic security and developing a dialogue between civilisations." The stability of the global economy involved access to development capital, fostering of a middle class, fair distribution of economic benefits, and country control of country resources, treating other countries cultures with respect.

He pointed to the demand for security from wars, demand for food security, fair access to mineral resources, elimination of terrorism in all its manifestations, an end to the west interfering in other countries politics. He emphasised the need for cooperative communal action to deal with climate change and its consequences.

He outlined the fundamental principle - "... indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that “security for one is security for all”.

In response, the west attempted to humiliate, coerce, and destroy Russia.

Yet Russia did not, has not, and will not give up. Russia is working patiently with other powerful nations through the very flexible BRICS group to steadily build the dream of a fair, cooperative, respectful world whose communally owned mechanisms help create stability and resilience for all.

2024 marks the beginning of the shift to Indivisible Security

The new Epoch finally started to gain traction and momentum in 2024. An edited part of Mr. Putin's epoch-catalysing 2024 direction to the Russian Federation Ministry of Foreign Affairs is  reproduced below (the full directive is here):

"...it was Washington that undermined strategic stability by unilaterally withdrawing from the treaties on anti-missile defence, on the elimination of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles and on open skies, and, together with its NATO satellites, dismantling the decades-old system of confidence-building measures and arms control in Europe...

...Calls for a strategic defeat of Russia, which possesses the largest arsenals of nuclear weapons, demonstrate the extreme recklessness of Western politicians...

...It is evident that the entire system of Euro-Atlantic security is crumbling before our eyes. At present, it is practically non-existent and must be rebuilt.

To achieve this, we must collaborate with interested countries...to develop our own strategies for ensuring security in Eurasia and then present them for broader international deliberation.

This is the task set in the Address to the Federal Assembly: to outline a vision for equal and indivisible security, mutually beneficial and equitable cooperation, and development on the Eurasian continent in the foreseeable future.

What needs to be done to achieve this and on what principles?

First, it is important to establish dialogue with all potential participants in this future security system. I would like to ask you to address the necessary issues with countries that are open to constructive interaction with Russia.

During my recent visit to China, President Xi Jinping and I discussed this issue. It was noted that the Russian proposal is not contradictory, but rather complements and aligns with the basic principles of the Chinese global security initiative.

Second, it is crucial to recognise that the future security architecture should be open to all Eurasian countries that wish to participate in its creation. ”For all“ includes European and NATO countries as well. We share the same continent, and we must live and work together regardless of the circumstances. Geography cannot be changed.

Yes, Russia's relations with the EU and many European countries have deteriorated, and it is important to emphasise that we are not to blame for that. The anti-Russia propaganda campaign, involving senior European politicians, is accompanied by speculation that Russia intends to attack Europe. I have addressed this issue before, and there is no need to repeat it again here. We all understand that these claims are baseless and serve only to justify an arms race...

The threat to Europe does not come from Russia. The main threat to Europeans is their critical and increasing dependence on the United States in military, political, technological, ideological, and informational aspects. Europe is being marginalised in global economic development, plunged into the chaos of challenges such as migration, and losing international agency and cultural identity...

...The United States is investing in military technologies, particularly advanced future technologies such as space exploration, modern drones and strike systems based on new physical principles. The United States is funding areas that will shape the nature of future armed conflicts, as well as the military and political power of nations and their standing in the world. These countries are expected to invest in areas of interest to the United States. However, this does not expand European potential...

If Europe wants to continue being an independent centre of global development and a cultural and civilisational pole on our planet, it should definitely maintain good and friendly relations with Russia. Most importantly, we are ready for this...

...I vividly recall participating in a conversation in 1991 where German Chancellor Helmut Kohl emphasised the importance of partnership between Europe and Russia. I hope that new generations of European politicians will eventually restore this legacy.

Speaking of the United States, the never-ending attempts...to maintain their imperial status and dominance...are only further exhausting the country... and clearly contrary to the genuine interests of the American people. If it were not for this dead-end policy...international relations would have long been stabilised.

Third, it is necessary to significantly intensify the dialogue process between multilateral organisations already operating in Eurasia to promote the idea of a Eurasian security system, above all such organisations as the Union State, the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

We consider it possible that other influential Eurasian associations from Southeast Asia to the Middle East will join these processes in the future.

Fourth, we believe that the time has come to start a broad discussion of a new system of bilateral and multilateral guarantees of collective security in Eurasia.

At the same time, it is necessary, in the long term, to gradually phase out the military presence of external powers in the Eurasian region.

Of course, we are aware that in the current situation this point may seem unrealistic, but that will change. However, if we build a reliable security system in the future, there will simply be no need for such a presence of out-of-region military contingents. To be honest, there no need today either – just occupation and that’s all.

In the final analysis we believe that countries and regional structures in Eurasia should themselves identify specific areas of cooperation in joint security. Guided by this, they must also build a system of working institutions, mechanisms, and agreements that would really serve to achieve common stability and development goals.

In this sense, we support our Belarusian friends’ initiative to develop a programme document – a charter of multipolarity and diversity in the 21^st century. It can formulate not only the framework principles of Eurasian architecture based on the essential norms of international law, but also, a strategic vision of the nature of multipolarity in a broader sense and multilateralism as a new system of international relations which would replace the Western-centric world.

I consider it important and would like to ask you to thoroughly work out on this document with our partners and with all interested states.

I will add that when discussing such complicated and comprehensive issues, we need as broad representation as possible and a consideration of different approaches and positions.

Fifth, an crucial part of the Eurasian security and development system should definitely be the issues of the economy, social well-being, integration, and mutually beneficial cooperation, as well as addressing such common problems as overcoming poverty, inequality, the climate, the environment, and developing mechanisms to respond to the threats of pandemics and crises in the global economy. All that is important.

The West not only undermined the world’s military-political stability by its actions. It has compromised and weakened the key market institutions by its sanctions and trade wars.

Using the IMF and the World Bank and twisting the climate agenda, it has been restraining the development of the Global South. ...it applies prohibitive barriers and all kinds of protectionism...the United States has abandoned the World Trade Organisation as an international trade regulator. Everything is blocked. Meanwhile, the pressure is exerted not only on competitors, but on their own satellites....European economies which are teetering on the brink of recession.

Western countries have frozen some of Russia's assets and currency reserves. Now they are trying to invent some legal justification for their irreversible appropriation... By stealing Russian assets, they will take one more step towards destroying the system that they created themselves and that for many decades ensured their prosperity, allowed them to consume more than they earn, and attracted money from all over the world through debts and liabilities.

Now it is becoming clear to all countries, companies and sovereign wealth funds that their assets and reserves are far from safe, both legally and economically. And anyone could be the next in line for expropriation by the United States and the West, those foreign sovereign wealth funds could also be the one.

There is already a growing distrust of the financial system based on Western reserve currencies. There has appeared a certain outflow of funds from securities and bonds of Western countries, as well as from some European banks, which were until fairly recently considered to be absolutely reliable to put capital in. Now gold is also being taken out -  gold from those banks. And this is the right thing to do.

I believe that we need to seriously intensify the formation of effective and safe bilateral and multilateral foreign economic mechanisms as alternatives to those controlled by the West. This includes the expansion of settlements in national currencies, the creation of independent payment systems and the building of value chains that bypass the channels blocked or compromised by the West.

Naturally, it is necessary to continue efforts to develop international transport corridors in Eurasia, the continent with Russia as its natural geographical core.

Through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I instruct you to assist as much as possible in developing international agreements in all these areas. They are extremely important for strengthening economic cooperation between our country and our partners. This should also give a new impetus to building a large Eurasian partnership, which, in essence, may become a socioeconomic basis for a new indivisible security system in Europe...

Our proposals aim to establish a system where all nations can feel secure.

With such a framework, we could approach today’s numerous conflicts in a different way, and more constructively.

The issues of insecurity and mutual distrust are not limited to the Eurasian continent; rising tensions are evident worldwide.

The interconnection and interdependence of our world are constantly apparent..."
Vladimir Putin 14 June 2024

"The current of global politics, the mainstream, is running from the crumbling hegemonic world towards growing diversity, while the West is trying to swim against the tide. This is obvious; as people say, there is no prize for guessing. It is simply that clear."
Vladimir Putin 7 November 2024  

Security for greater Eurasia - from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific Ocean, from the Arctic shoreline to the Southern periphery connection to Africa, all South Asia to the South East Asian Island States can be assured through a network of interlaced, stable, and reliable security cooperation agreements. Not imposed by any one side, but with terms and conditions mutually agreed by each state.

Mutual defense arrangements, not aimed at anyone else and not at the expense of any other country is none of the US - or other western countries - business. They must learn their new place at the table as simply another one among many. They certainly have no 'right' to interfere.

When it comes to the greater body of the massive Eurasian super-continent, success can only come through logic, exploring the reasonable limits of possibilities, constant strategic planning, imagination, and flexibility when confronted with obstacles. One major obstacle is the malignant policies of the United States political class in the wider sense that noted geopolitical commentator Ray McGovern defined it (the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex, or 'MICIMATT').

The United States is not geographically contiguous with Eurasia. In some matters it cannot be ignored. Otherwise, it can.

USA is an island continent, with it's own enormous resources of all kinds (albeit it is unwilling to pay the costs of depleting its own mineral first - it would rather deplete someone elses). Notice that the Russian President only refers to NATO in the context of the European component of NATO that shares the same geographic boundary. It is best to leave trouble makers out. Moreover, it is best to gradually phase them out.

The Russian President has long considered that a unified military defense structure shared across cooperating countries will supply adequate defense for all while at the same time minimising the waste of money on military materiel and armed forces.

Ultimately, and he has previously mentioned this, it will be possible, in principle, to entirely eliminate nuclear weapons. Even the United States will eventually acquire unstoppable hypersonic weapons. After all, if the command and control centers - including the Presidential Commanding Officer - of any aggressor countries anywhere can be reliably eliminated, it creates a very powerful incentive for politicians to not create conflicts, direct or by proxy.

If that is the case, what is the point of nuclear weapons? There is none.

Nuclear non proliferation principles of increased and indivisible security 

"Russia, for its part, has consistently maintained that it is necessary to rely on the approaches that have no alternative and that have been enshrined in the provisions of the NPT and the consensus documents of the NPT review process.

Their key clauses stipulate that nuclear disarmament should be considered as an integral part of the process of general and complete disarmament and that steps leading to nuclear disarmament should promote international peace and stability and be based on the principle of increased and undiminished security for all.

What we have here at hand is highly sensitive national security aspects that should not be addressed without due regard for strategic situation ...Russia has to retain nuclear deterrence as an integral component of its efforts to address specific external threats, which continue to increase, affecting our country's vital interests.

As a consequence, while the provisions of Russia's doctrines evolve, the factor of nuclear deterrence keeps playing an important role.

...in pursuit of overwhelming military superiority and with full support of its allies, the United States continues to undermine the remains of the international security architecture, which it has already destroyed to a large extent. Washington has opted for bloc politics and keeps forming more and more military coalitions, implementing a variety of actions and technical military programmes that undermine strategic stability.

Particular emphasis should be put on the destabilizing practice of the NATO's so-called "nuclear sharing" involving forward-based U.S. nuclear weapons deployed in Europe, that is, thousands miles away from the U.S., and capable of promptly hitting critical targets in the territory of Russia and its allies.

Given the general increase in threats posed by the West and active modernization of the mentioned nuclear capabilities, this practice increases strategic risks and prompts one to take compensating counter-measures. This factor ...has long been a major obstacle to further steps in the field of nuclear disarmament.

We reiterate that the United States' nuclear weapons must be completely withdrawn to their national territory and the relevant infrastructure in Europe must be dismantled.

Washington's steps to replicate such schemes in other parts of the world where the United States already practices its so-called "extended nuclear deterrence," also have extremely negative implications for regional and global security.

In particular, the United States' and Republic of Korea's joint "nuclear planning" activities accompanied by calls to involve Japan in the process, create considerable tension in the Asia-Pacific and spur arms race. These tensions are fuelled by Washington's active steps to deploy its strategic platforms in the region, including nuclear delivery vehicles, and plans to transfer systems that could carry nuclear weapons, to their allies.

In particular, the United States intends to transfer to Australia submarines designed, among other things, to carry nuclear cruise missiles that are under development....

One should also mention Washington's long-term policy of shaking and re-formatting the arms control architecture to suit its selfish purposes. The system of relevant mutually reinforcing agreements has already been largely destroyed by the United States, who, on the one hand, has cynically dismantled all the international instruments that restrained it, and, on the other hand, took destructive steps that rendered the implementation of a number of treaties counter-productive for other parties.

All this highlights the hypocrisy of the United States' attempts to impose on its opponents unfair arms control and strategic risk reduction schemes that do not correspond to the realities and benefit no one but Washington.

Until Washington and the U.S.-led NATO, who renounce the principle of equality and show no readiness to respect our security interests, abandon their profoundly hostile anti-Russian policy, strategic dialogue with the West remains pointless to Russia. "
Deputy Head of the Delegation of the Russian Federation at the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 11th Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 25 July 2024

Nuclear free zones in Eurasia are certainly possible, at least for intermediate range missiles. In turn, this requires watertight agreements, and rigorous inspection processes.

The USA is an obstacle to nuclear disarmament. The USA is adding nuclear glide bombs all around Russia's borders. It is scheming to install cruise missiles (eventually hypersonic) in countries bordering Russia and China that are nothing but ciphers for the US malign plans. It is adding a notional possibility to shoot down all Russian nuclear missiles launched in response to a US nuclear (or proxy) nuclear first strike attack. (Ultimately Russia and China will have to amend their nuclear doctrine to allow for a strike on the country that provided the nuclear device to any proxy country that launches a first strike nuclear attack on Russia or China. An amended doctrine should, in my opinion, also include the US or Europeans providing the material, components, instructions, advice to make a nuclear weapons, whether 'washed' through many proxy hands or not - and without limit of time.)

Russia and China will make their own arrangements to create exactly the same 'hair-trigger' risk to the continental United States that the United States creates to Russia and China. Unlike the United States, Russia and China will not rely on cipher countries to deliver the nuclear attack. Russia and China already have the means - and they are becoming more numerous - to deliver nuclear strikes almost anywhere in the USA from sea and air with missiles immune to any current or likely future US anti-missile defence system.

"...as the United States advances its plans to deploy its ground-launched intermediate and shorter-range missiles in different parts of the world, Russia's unilateral moratorium on the deployment of similar systems is hanging by a thread. There are some other countries that will have to respond to Washington's steps in this area. As a result, the chain of actions and reactions initiated by the United States will inevitably cause a new and extremely dangerous surge in negative dynamics.

In view of the above, Russia continues to insist that the disarmament issues, including the matters of nuclear disarmament, should be discussed exclusively within the general context of comprehensive strengthening of international security and stability."
Deputy Head of the Delegation of the Russian Federation at the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 11th Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 25 July 2024

"We regularly discuss the issue of ground-based middle- and shorter-range missiles with our Chinese colleagues. We coordinate our approaches to this agenda. So, we can with good reason confirm that Moscow and Beijing’s assessments in this area are practically identical. This is corroborated by joint Russian-Chinese top-level statements.

The aim of the US deployments is obvious. Washington deploys forward-based missile weapons of different types as part of its comprehensive efforts to project strength on Russia and China within the framework of its statements regarding the “dual containment” strategy aimed at the two countries. It is also clear that simultaneously the Americans are bringing pressure to bear on some other states they dislike. 

The consequences of the US actions are no less clear, either. They tend to undermine global and regional stability, lead to a general rise in tensions, and encourage an arms race.

As is clear, Russia and China will have to respond to the emergence of new and substantial missile threats by far from political means alone.

No one should doubt that Russia – like, we are sure, China – will not allow their national security and defence capability to be compromised due to these destructive US actions.

In this context, let me remind you about the Russian-Chinese understanding made public by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov: Moscow and Beijing will respond to the US “dual containment” with “dual counteraction.”

Our double counteraction is exclusively a measure of defence. Our relations are not proactively directed against other countries but are designed to align our potential in the face of aggression or attack policies. It is crucial to understand the essence of relations and their practical implementation."
Maria Zakharova, Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman, 11 September 2024

Indivisible security requires a complex web of checks and balances, inspections, compromises and so forth. It is impossible to reliably achieve this with the US at the moment. The Russian President seems to think the west will eventually abandon its delusion of superiority, its arrogant and hypocritical moral lecturing, its blackmail, threats, coercion and posturing. Personally I doubt it. But it doesn't matter. The force of change brushes them aside anyway.

"The West has indeed amassed significant human, intellectual, cultural, and material resources which enable it to thrive as one of the key elements of the global system. However, it is precisely ”one of“ alongside other rapidly advancing nations and groups.

Hegemony in the new international order is not a consideration.

When, for instance, Washington and other Western capitals understand and acknowledge this incontrovertible fact, the process of building a world system that addresses future challenges will finally enter the phase of genuine creation. God willing, this should happen as soon as possible. This is in the shared interest, especially for the West itself."
Vladimir Putin 7 November 2024

Mr. Putin acknowledges that a Eurasian system (in the 'big' sense including Middle East and Africa) is not a "world system'. Why does he even want a 'world system'? Because the threat posed by what he calls "future challenges". Climate change, biological weapons, and nuclear proliferation are the most important. Hypersonic missiles, nuclear torpedos, and unconstrained nuclear weapons will spread among more and more nations as time goes by.

"...there are international conflicts and confrontations fraught with the danger of mutual destruction. Weapons that can cause this do exist and are being constantly improved, taking new forms as the technologies advance.

The number of nations possessing such weapons is growing, and no one can guarantee that these weapons will not be used, especially if threats incrementally multiply and legal and moral norms are ultimately shattered."
Vladimir Putin 7 November 2024

The nuclear weapons of Russia and US are under bilateral control. The nuclear weapons of China, France, the UK, Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea are not. If US attacks on Iran using its Israeli proxy continue Iran will undoubtedly build a nuclear weapon for the specific purpose of deterring USA. Israel has abandoned all moral norms and may use nuclear weapons for no reason or any reason at all. All this must be brought under control. And that can only happen with the active cooperation of the USA.

Until then, sooner or later bilateral and multilateral arrangements based on the principles of increased security that is not at the expense of anyone else will  become current in Eurasia and the global south. Where does that leave a typical US cipher-country? A hollow shell? A zombie, without sovereignty? What is its fate?

Standing alone, dust in its pocket, gun at its head.

Does the average European citizen want this?

The politicians they elect do.

They appear not to understand they have entered the epochal change to indivisible security. They must either change, or get out of the way.

Collective security at any scale is hard enough to achieve as it is. Childish wreckers and destroyers have no place here. Peace needs mature politicians of intelligence, goodwill, integrity - and power. If the Europeans won't move with the times, so be it. Self interested sovereign countries of the global majority will make their own web of agreements, bilaterally, multilaterally, or both.

Its mix and match time.

A system of bilateral and multilateral Eurasian security

"The pursuit of exclusivity, liberal and globalist messianism and ideological, military, and political monopoly is steadily depleting those countries that pursue these paths, pushing the world towards decline and starkly contradicting the genuine interests of the people in the United States and European countries.

I am confident that sooner or later the West will come to this realisation. Historically, its great achievements have always been rooted in a pragmatic, clear-eyed approach based on a tough, sometimes cynical but rational evaluation of circumstances and their own capabilities.

In this context, I wish to emphasise once more: unlike our counterparts, Russia does not view Western civilisation as an adversary, nor does it pose the question of ”us or them.“ I reiterate: ”You're either with us or against us“ is not part of our vocabulary.

We have no desire to teach anyone or impose our worldview upon anyone. Our stance is open..."
Vladimir Putin 7 November 2024

"...the US and its allies...sought to build a security model in the European region that would presuppose their dominance and would ignore the repeatedly proclaimed principle of the indivisibility of security.

...events...have clearly demonstrated that such a “Euro-Atlantic” concept has proven its inconsistency and actually come to collapse. This could not but affect the OSCE and, in particular, the politico-military dimension of its activities. Russia, on the other hand, sought to defend those principles that were laid down in Helsinki (for example, the sovereign equality of participating States), and then enshrined, in particular, in Astana (the indivisibility of security).

Now is the moment of truth. Either our opponents will reconsider their approaches and return from fanning confrontation to the path of cooperation (although, let’s face it, we no longer believe in such sanity on their part). Or the existing institutions will be completely marginalized, and we will be faced with the question whether it is expedient to continue participation in them, investing effort and resources.

...in the context of accelerating world order reorganization, it is equally in the interests of Russia and the majority of independent States of our continent that a system of bilateral and multilateral guarantees of collective security in Eurasia develops....

The time has come to begin a broad discussion on such a system.

It will be open to all interested Eurasian States and not directed against anyone’s interests;

it will embody the principle of “regional problems – regional solutions” in relation to the mainland.
This would serve as a safety net against geopolitical upheavals arising from the crisis of globalization, built according to Western patterns.

Within the framework of the new architecture, military-political guarantees would be designed to
protect its participants from external threats,
a conflict-free space would be created, open to
cooperation in the interests of all States located here, and
the destabilizing influence of extra-regional players would be minimized or eliminated.

At the same time, in the future it is necessary to work towards a gradual reduction in the military presence of external powers in the Eurasian region.

Of course, a literal return to the Russian security proposals that we put forward 25, 15 or even two years ago is impossible – too much has happened, circumstances have changed.

However, the basic principles and, most importantly, the very subject of the dialogue remain unchanged.

It is up to each of the European and Asian States represented in this room to decide whether to take part in the creation of such a system or remain on the sidelines of this process."
Anton Mazur Deputy Director of the Department for non-proliferation and arms control, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Russia 18 July 2024

I have restructured Mr.Mazur's remarks to highlight the arrangements being suggested mitigate or solve a number of current  problems. They can be summarised as protection, peace, cooperation, legitimate sovereign interests, and stability. The ultimate vision is 'onshoring' of military power potential to Eurasia.

"Answering a question about NATO’s long-standing claim of being a defensive alliance that protects the territories of its member countries, Jens Stoltenberg said that while NATO remains a defensive alliance, the threats it faces are now global, necessitating its presence in the Indo-Pacific region.

The aggressive and unfair nature of this stance is evident to all.

Alongside the PRC and our other partners within the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, ASEAN, and the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, we advocate for a Eurasian security model. This model will be based on equality, indivisibility of security, and mutual consideration of interests across the board. Achieving this model will take considerable time and effort."
Sergey Lavrov 18 July 2024

These arrangements will certainly take a long time. But the 2008 framework had a lot of flexibility. Countries could join and leave relatively easily. Similar provisions will be an important feature of a new framework. I advise those interested to go to my 2022 article and examine and think about the principles, provisions, and structure of the Russian 2008 proposal for indivisible security.

Create indivisibly secure global trade mechanics
Global financial institutions have been undermined. No countries sovereign wealth fund is safe. No one will trust western financial mechanisms in future. US treasuries will be quit. Sovereign gold holdings in western depositories will be repatriated. Naturally, countries will be attracted to direct bilateral trade. Electronic payment systems for imports and exports are already under way, making it impossible for the west to interfere. Re-establishment of the security of international financial transactions is once again reliably ensured. Well, outside the western countries, at least. Whether or not there is some form of 'closed loop' gold-backed trading currency outside the west is far from a settled question. But it cannot be absolutely excluded. One thing is certain: trade relations in the new epoch will no longer be interfered with by third party hands.

Along with the 2023 Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation, (my annotated and opinionated version is here), this is the direction leading into a new epoch of flexible and adaptable agreements and institutions that don't have the systemic and irreparable flaws of the current western institutions and agreements. The 'program document' the President mentioned is the start of painstaking and no doubt slow work to formalise an outline of the structures of the new epoch. This is an historic moment, ultimately affecting everybodies lives, but the people of the west are oblivious to it.

Once the instruments of the new epoch take further concrete form, countries will be able chose to 'pick and mix' bilateral and multilateral arrangements available from both the old dying epoch and the new. The old epoch arrangements deliberately and arrogantly reject and exclude the new; the new epoch instruments embrace the best of the old, and in contrast to the old western-biased arrangements, offer new, flexible and adjustable arrangements, without compulsion or exclusion.

Opportunity cost of an insecure world Added 9 November 2024

"So far, we – meaning all those interested in creating a just and stable world – have been using too much energy to resist the destructive activities of our opponents, who are clinging to their monopoly. This is obvious, and everyone in the west, the east, the south and everywhere else is aware of this. They are trying to preserve their power and monopoly, which is obvious.

These efforts could be directed with much better results towards addressing the common problems that concern everyone, from demography and social inequality to climate change, food security, medicine and new technology. This is where we should focus our energy, and this is what all of us should be doing."
Vladimir Putin 7 November 2024

The west has created vast waste of lives, resources and time. It has created conflicts all around the globe in pursuit of profit for its elites. The west has directly and indirectly caused the death of millions and the injury of many millions more. The west's irresponsible coercive aggression has pushed the world to the edge of nuclear conflagration. A fate only avoided by the patience and maturity of the Russian politicians. The world owes the Russian President and his Councillors a debt of gratitude for life itself.

The worst waste is time. Climate change is upon us. There has to be deep cooperation by all countries to slow it down, and in the long term stop it from becoming worse than it is.

There is no alternative to indivisible security
What is the alternative to indivisible security for all? What if the west takes conflict and provocation to the very brink, whether with Russia, China, or Belarus? Look at it through Russia's eyes.

The primary issue for Russia is not Ukraine, important though that is, it is that the USA is ringing Russia with potentially nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, probably so-called 'low yield' tactical nuclear weapons. These missiles will eventually be hypersonic and therefore very difficult for Russia to shoot down. In fact, given the length of Russia border, it will be impossible to shoot them all down. Together, these threaten the end of the Russian State. If the US/NATO refuses to remove these nuclear weapons from its border, what options does it have?

"Clearly, a new equal and indivisible security framework must be created in Eurasia in the foreseeable future. We are ready for a substantive discussion on this subject with all countries and associations that may be interested in it..."
Vladimir Putin 29 February 2024


"I would like to stress that it is impossible to reach a peaceful solution to the Ukraine crisis and to overall European security without Russia’s participation, without an honest and responsible dialogue with us."
Vladimir Putin June 14 2024

"13 June 2024
Here are the new American sanctions. There will be new European ones soon. Do we need to respond to them? It seems not, their number is already measured in tens of thousands. We have learned to live and develop with them.

On the other hand, it is necessary. Not only for the authorities, the state, but for all our people in general. For everyone who loves our Motherland - Russia. After all, they - the USA and their fucking allies - declared war on us without rules!

How to react? I already talked about this once, but it’s worth repeating.
Every day we must try to inflict maximum harm on those countries that have imposed these restrictions on our country and all our citizens.
Harm in everything in which harm can be done.
Harm to their economies, their institutions and their rulers.
Harm to the well-being of their citizens. Their confidence in the future.

To do this, we must continue to look for the critical vulnerabilities of their economies and hit them in all areas.

Cause damage in all places, paralyzing the work of their companies and government agencies.

Find problems in their most important technologies and strike them mercilessly. Literally destroy their energy, industry, transport, banking and social services. Instill fear of the imminent collapse of all critical infrastructure.

Are they afraid of handing over our weapons to the enemies of the Western world? We must transfer to them all possible types of weapons, except nuclear (for now)!
Are they afraid of anarchy and an explosion of crime in major cities? We must help disorganize their municipal government!
Are they afraid of war in space? This means they will receive it too.
Let everything stop for them, everything will deteriorate, everything will go to hell!
Are they afraid of social explosions? Let's arrange them!
We need to throw all the most ominous night terrors into their media sphere, use all their terrible phantom pains. No need to spare their psyche anymore! Let them shiver in their cozy homes, let them shiver under the blankets.
Are they yelling about our use of fake news? Let's turn their life into a complete crazy nightmare in which they will not be able to distinguish wild fiction from the realities of the day, infernal evil from the routine of life.

And no rules regarding the enemy! Let them get everything in full for harming Russia, and as painfully as possible! Everyone can contribute!

Remember:
Quid pro quo! [i.e. Return the favor]
Tit for tat!
A fracture for a fracture, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; as he did <...>, so should be done to him
(Leviticus 24:20)."
Dmitry Medvedev 13 June 2024 (Telegram channel, machine translation, minor edits for sense)

On the US mainland.

Such an response from Russian submarines will be with unstoppable Zircon missiles traveling at mach 9. They will reach command and control centers in about 4 minutes from launch. Russia's small 'tactical' nuclear weapons (if that is what they use) are 70 kilotons (70 thousand tonnes of TNT equivalent). For comparison, the nuclear bomb the American government dropped on Hiroshima bomb was about 15 kilotons (15 thousand tonnes of TNT equivalent). The nuclear bomb the American government dropped on Nagasaki was 25 kilotons (25 thousand tonnes of TNT equivalent). If you are wondering about the destructive power of these lower yield explosions, a brief description of the effects is here.

Indivisible Security is not just an option - it is an imperative.

How long will it take to develop open and consensus mechanisms of indivisible security? Added 10 November 2024

""I got a phone call from John Bolton – it was first time I had contact with him – and he said he had instructions to tell me that I have to resign from the organization, and I asked him why," Bustani told RT. "He said that [my] management style was not agreeable to Washington."

He resolutely refused to resign, only to see Bolton again at OPCW headquarters in The Hague several weeks after the phone conversation. "He came to my office and said: 'You have to resign and I give you 24 hours, this is what we want. You have to leave, you have to resign from your organization, director-general.'"

Bustani said he "owed nothing" to the US, pointing out that he was appointed by all OPCW member states. Striking a more sinister tone, Bolton said: "OK, so there will be retaliation. Prepare to accept the consequences. We know where your kids are."

According to Bustani, two of his children were in New York at the time, and his daughter was in London. He told Bolton: "My family is aware of what's going on, so [they're] prepared to face consequences." The reply shocked Bolton, who then left the office.

On April 21, 2002, a special meeting was finally held in The Hague, and Bustani's removal was carried out by a vote of 48–7, with 43 abstentions. The diplomat said those who abstained were from developing countries, and that his own government in Brazil "left me behind."
RT interview with Jose Bustani, first director-general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) 7 April 2018

The process of creating multilateral and bilateral security mechanisms across defense, terrorism, climate emergencies, space weapons, biological weapons will proceed at varying paces. Many security issues are already well advanced, or at least discussed, in the various United Nations fora and agencies.

The biggest challenge is to create disincentives to those who default on their agreement. There must be mechanisms to allow states to withdraw (when the domestic political climate changes, for example). The mechanisms must therefore be clearly in all parties interest. There is no set timeline, and the measure of success is a positive balance of the global population remaining in the various components of security guarantees.

Experience with organisations such as the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the International Monetary Fund and others shows that any oprganisation has to have a charter that represents all members equally and that prevents the western (or any other) bloc from being able to 'stack the rules' to subvert the original purpose and principle of the organisation.

The project to build a better world is wonderfully optimistic. President Putin argues that it is both realistic, and given the rhythms of history, inevitable.

Personally, I suspect that the spread of good governance and good mechanisms of governance are the requirement. History is simply commentary on this issue. 'Good' means in the personal and communal well-being of local peoples. Propagated around the world. It is possible. It is not inevitable, in my opinion.

2021 Foreign Ministry Statement
"...statements are made that the issue of Ukraine’s hypothetical NATO membership concerns exclusively Kiev and the Alliance, and that nobody should interfere in this process. Let us recall, however, that NATO countries, apart from the Washington Treaty, have obligations regarding the indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic and the entire OSCE space. This principle was initially proclaimed in the Helsinki Final Act and was later reaffirmed in the Charter of Paris for a New Europe of 1990, which states: “Security is indivisible and the security of every participating State is inseparably linked to that of all the others”, whereas in 1999, The Charter for European Security was adopted at the OSCE Istanbul summit, which stressed that the participating States “will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.” 

All these documents were signed by the leaders of the OSCE member-states, including all NATO countries. However, in violation of the principle of indivisible security – as well as in violation of the promises given to the Soviet leaders – NATO has been persistently moving eastwards all these years while neglecting Moscow’s concerns. Furthermore, each new member added to NATO’s frenzied anti-Russia charge.

We have been saying for a long time that such developments are inadmissible. Over the past decades we have offered a number of times to render the principle of comprehensive and indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic a legally binding status since the West is obviously inclined to disregard its political obligations. However, we were invariably refused. 

In this connection, as President Vladimir Putin stressed, we insist that serious long-term legal guarantees are provided, which would exclude NATO’s further advancement to the east and deployment of weapons on Russia’s western borders which are a threat to Russia. This must be done within a specific timeframe and on the basis of the principle of comprehensive and indivisible security. 

To ensure the vital interests of European security, it is necessary to officially disavow the decision taken at the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest that Ukraine and Georgia «will become members of NATO» as contrary to the commitment undertaken by all the OSCE participating States not to strengthen their security «at the expense of the security of other States.» 

We insist on the adoption of a legally binding agreement regarding the US and other NATO member countries’ non-deployment of strike weapons systems which threaten the territory of the Russian Federation on the territories of adjacent countries, both members and non-members of NATO. 

We also insist on receiving a concrete response from NATO to our previous proposals on decreasing tension in Europe, including the following points:

- withdrawal of regions for operative military exercises to an agreed distance from Russia-NATO contact line;

- coordination of the closest approach point of combat ships and aircraft to prevent dangerous military activities, primarily in the Baltic and Black Sea regions;

- renewal of regular dialogue between the defence ministries in the Russia-US and Russia-NATO formats.

We call on Washington to join Russia’s unilateral moratorium on the deployment of surface short- and intermediate-range missiles in Europe, to agree on and introduce measures for the verification of reciprocal obligations.

Russia will shortly present draft international legal documents in the indicated areas to launch talks in respective formats.

In particular, we will submit a comprehensive proposal on legal security guarantees as part of preparations for the next round of the Russia-US dialogue on strategic stability. We will advocate holding an in-depth discussion of the military aspects of ensuring security via defence ministries with the engagement of the foreign ministries of Russia and NATO countries.

We believe that the OSCE, which includes all countries of the Euro-Atlantic region, should not to stay on the sidelines of discussions on addressing the issues of Europe’s security.

We urge our partners to carefully examine Russia’s proposals and start serious talks on agreements that will provide a fair and sustainable balance of interests in our common space."
Foreign Ministry statement on dialogue with the United States and other Western countries regarding security guarantees 10 December 2021

"I was asked to talk about multipolarity....The term “multipolarity” has an established presence in international diplomatic vocabulary courtesy of Russia. It was first used by one of my great predecessors, Yevgeny Primakov, in the mid-1990s, when he headed our Ministry. Back then, this term was met with skepticism, because just a few years had passed since the end of the Soviet Union and the socialist camp. The West announced it was the “end of history” meaning that Western liberal ideology would dominate our planet from then on.

NATO’s eastward expansion was one of the tools that the West used to consolidate this goal in practice contrary to the verbal promises that it gave to us. At Yevgeny Primakov’s initiative, the Founding Act was concluded in our relations with NATO in 1997, which clearly stated that we are not adversaries and none of us will strengthen our own security at the expense of the security of others.

Equal and indivisible security was proclaimed as the goal and the underlying principle of our work.

The same principle of indivisible security was enshrined in a broader context for all countries in the Euro-Atlantic region at the OSCE summits. A specific formula was set out there: security must be equal and indivisible, each country has the right to choose alliances, but at the same time, no country has the right to strengthen its security at the expense of the security of others.

At the same time, it was stated that not a single organisation in the Euro-Atlantic space should be entitled to claim dominance in security matters throughout the vast geopolitical field.

Clearly, there’s no point in highlighting the fact that our US-led NATO colleagues...have grossly violated the obligation not to strengthen their security at the expense of others and the obligation to prevent any one organisation (in this case NATO) from claiming the mantle of leadership and dictating its will to everyone else.

The practical outcome of this Western policy was unrestrained NATO expansion to the East.

We have been warning all these long years that this will not end well and that threats are being created to our security, despite the numerous promises and commitments made by the West.

We proposed making legally binding a commitment not to strengthen one’s security at the expense of others that we wrote down as a political commitment within the OSCE back in 2009. We proposed concluding a European Security Treaty. We received a polite and condescending answer to the effect that this would not work, because the West is prepared to provide legal security guarantees only to NATO members.

This led neutral states to believe that joining NATO will make things good for them. That approach of ours in 2009 was ignored just like the draft treaty that we came up with in November 2021.

Speaking at the expanded board meeting in our ministry, President of Russia Vladimir Putin proposed concluding a Russia-US and Russia-NATO treaty.

It would affirm security guarantees for all countries of the region, including Ukraine and other states that are not members of any military-political bloc.

Blocs will not be expanded.

The participants will outline reliable guarantees that will not create a feeling of danger or threat for anyone. This was arrogantly shot down as well. 

In the meantime, Ukraine was being physically drawn into NATO.

The perpetrators made public statements about the lack of any obstacles to Ukraine’s accession and said this wasn’t Russia’s business.

They planned to deploy strike weapons in Ukraine. Our British colleagues were building a naval base in the Sea of Azov.

Much was being done to turn Ukraine into “anti-Russia” as President Vladimir Putin put it. All this was going on against the backdrop of the processes unleashed by the coup d’etat in 2014 when undeniable radicals and neo-Nazis came to power. They demanded the end to the status of Russian language in Ukraine. They wanted to oust Russians from Crimea and sent units of militants to storm the building of the Crimean Supreme Council.

As a result, people in the east of Ukraine (particularly in Crimea) expressed their own opinion. They rejected the perpetrators of the coup d’etat and decided in referendums that they would live according to their own rules and values.

This was followed by a war that was stopped in February 2015 by the Minsk agreements. They merely provided for a special status for the regions of eastern Ukraine with respect for the territorial integrity of that country. For eight long years, presidents of Ukraine, up to and including the current one, flatly refused to honour these agreements in public and continued using force against Donbass.

The West that guaranteed the Minsk agreements and voted for them in the UN Security Council, rather than encouraging Kiev to abide by what it had signed, did everything it could to persuade it to avoid direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk. President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke about this several times.

We had no other choice than to recognise these republics and rally to the defence of Donbass, Russian culture and language, and Russian media that were banned in Ukraine in the past few years. That country codified in law efforts to encourage neo-Nazi theories and practices."
Sergey Lavrov 17 May 2022

"Let’s return to the dialectics of history, the alternation of periods of conflict and cooperation. Has the world really changed so much that this theory

 [editor - dialectical theory - the theory that world is in a state of constant flux, with creative and destructive elements, the dominance of each element creating conditions for the rise of its opposite. Social change arises through the challenge of contradictions which are apparently irreconcilable and yet must be resolved by a search for a synthetic consensus.]

no longer applies? Let’s try to look at what is happening today from a slightly different angle: what is the essence of the conflict, and who is involved in it today?

Since the middle of the last century, when Nazism – the most malicious and aggressive ideology, the product of fierce controversies in the first half of the 20th century – was defeated through timely action and at the cost of tremendous losses, humanity was faced with the task of avoiding the revival of this evil and a recurrence of world wars.

Despite all the zigzags and local skirmishes, the general vector was defined at that time. It was a total rejection of all forms of racism, the dismantling of the classical colonial system and the inclusion of a greater number of full-fledged participants in international politics. There was an obvious demand for openness and democracy in the international system, along with rapid growth in different countries and regions, and the emergence of new technological and socio-economic approaches aimed at expanding development opportunities and achieving prosperity.

Like any other historical process, this gave rise to a clash of interests. Yet again, the general desire for harmony and development in all aspects of this concept was obvious.

Our country, then called the Soviet Union, made a major contribution to consolidating these trends.

The Soviet Union assisted states that had renounced colonial or neo-colonial dependence, whether in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Middle East or Latin America. I would like to emphasise that in the mid-1980s, it was the Soviet Union that called for an end to ideological confrontation, the overcoming of the Cold War legacy, an end to the Cold War and its legacy, and the elimination of barriers that hampered global unity and comprehensive world development.

Yes, our attitude towards that period is complicated, in light of the consequences of the national political leadership’s policies. We have to confront certain tragic consequences, and we are still battling with them.

[editor - inexplicably placing the Soviet west Russian population into the Ukrainian entity in the 1920's, and the attempt to spread the communist ideology in emerging nations.]

I would like to highlight the unjustifiably idealistic urges of our leaders and our nation, as well as their sometimes naïve approaches, as we can see today. Undoubtedly, this was motivated by sincere aspirations for peace and universal wellbeing. In reality, this reflects a salient feature of our nation’s mentality, its traditions, values, and spiritual and moral coordinates.

But why did these aspirations lead to diametrically opposite results? This is an important question.

We know the answer, and I have mentioned it repeatedly, in one way or another. The other party to the ideological confrontation

[editor - the ideological confrontation was communism vs capitalism and Soviet Russia's decision to break up the Union of Soviet Republics and for the 'Russia' entity to embrace of the worst of exploitative vulture capitalism]

 perceived those historical developments as its triumph and victory, viewing them as our country’s surrender to the West and as an opportunity and the victor’s right to establish complete dominance, rather than as a chance to rebuild the world based on new and equitable concepts and principles.

...In the mid-1990s and even in the late 1990s, a US politician remarked that, from that point on, they would treat Russia not as a defeated adversary but as a blunt tool...They ...failed to comprehend the situation and understand Russia.

By distorting the results of the Cold War to suit their interests and reshaping the world according to their ideas, the West displayed flagrant and unprecedented geopolitical greed.

These are the real origins of the conflicts in our historical era, beginning with the tragedies in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and now Ukraine and the Middle East.

Some Western elites thought that their monopoly and the moment of unipolarity in the ideological, economic, political and partially even military-strategic sense were the destination point. Here we are. Stop and enjoy the moment! This is the end of history, as they arrogantly announced.

I do not need to tell this audience how short-sighted and inaccurate that assumption was. History has not ended. On the contrary, it has entered a new phase.

And the reason is not that some malicious opponents, rivals or subversive elements prevented the West from establishing its system of global power.

To tell the truth, after the collapse of the Soviet Union as a Soviet socialist alternative, many thought that the monopoly system had come to stay, almost for all eternity, and they needed to adjust to it. But that system started wobbling on its own, under the weight of the ambitions and greed of those Western elites.

When they saw that other nations became prosperous and assumed leadership in the system they had created to suit their needs...they immediately tried to adjust it, violating in the process the very same rules they upheld the day before and changing the rules they themselves had established.

What conflict are we witnessing today?...It is a conflict between the overwhelming majority of the global population, which wants to live and develop in an interconnected world with a great deal of opportunities, and the global minority, whose only concern...is the preservation of its domination. To achieve this goal, they are ready to destroy the achievements that are the result of a long period of movement towards a common global system. As we see, they are not succeeding and will not succeed.

At the same time, the West is hypocritically attempting to persuade us that the achievements humanity has strived for since the Second World War are jeopardised. This is not the case at all...Both Russia and the vast majority of nations are committed to bolstering the spirit of international advancement and the aspirations for lasting peace that have been central to development since the mid-20th century.

What is truly at stake is something quite different. What is at stake is the West's monopoly, which emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union and was held temporarily at the end of the 20th century.

But let me reiterate, as those gathered here understand: any monopoly, as history teaches us, eventually comes to an end. There can be no illusions about this.

Monopoly is invariably detrimental, even to the monopolists themselves.

The policies of the elites within the collective West may be influential, but given the limited membership of this exclusive club, they are neither forward-looking nor creative; rather, they focus on maintaining the status quo. Any sports enthusiast, not to mention professionals in football, hockey, or martial arts, knows that a holding strategy almost invariably leads to defeat.

Turning to the dialectics of history, we can assert that the coexistence of conflict and the pursuit of harmony is inherently unstable.

The contradictions of our era must eventually be resolved through synthesis, transitioning to a new quality.

As we embark on this new phase of development, building a new global architecture, it is crucial for us all to avoid repeating the mistakes of the late 20th century when, as I have previously stated, the West attempted to impose its, in my view, deeply flawed model of Cold War withdrawal, which was fraught with the potential for new conflicts.

In the emerging multipolar world, there should be no nations or peoples left as losers or feeling aggrieved and humiliated. Only then can we secure truly sustainable conditions for universal, equitable, and secure development. The desire for cooperation and interaction is undoubtedly prevailing, overcoming even the most acute situations. This represents the international mainstream – the backbone course of events.

Of course, standing at the epicentre of the tectonic shifts brought about by profound changes in the global system, it is challenging to predict the future. However, understanding the general trajectory – from hegemony to a complex world of multilateral cooperation – allows us to attempt to sketch at least some of the pending contours.

Russia's 6 Principles of International Relations in the New Epoch  [Editor: heading added}

During my address at last year’s Valdai Forum, I ventured to delineate six principles which, in our estimation, ought to underpin relations as we embark upon a new phase of historical progression. I am persuaded that the events which have unfolded and the passage of time have only corroborated the fairness and validity of the proposals we advanced....

1. Firstly, openness to interaction stands as the paramount value cherished by the overwhelming majority of nations and peoples.

The endeavour to construct artificial barriers is not only flawed because it impedes normal and advantageous to everyone economic progression, but also because it is particularly perilous amidst natural disasters and socio-political turmoil, which, unfortunately, are all too common in international affairs.

To illustrate, consider the scenario that unfolded last year following the devastating earthquake in Asia Minor. For purely political reasons, aid to the Syrian people was obstructed, resulting in certain regions bearing the brunt of the calamity. Such instances of self-serving, opportunistic interests thwarting the pursuit of the common good are not isolated.

The barrier-free environment I alluded to last year is indispensable not merely for economic prosperity but also for addressing acute humanitarian exigencies.

Moreover, as we confront new challenges, including the ramifications of rapid technological advancements, it is imperative for humanity to consolidate intellectual efforts. It is telling that those who now stand as the principal adversaries of openness are the very individuals who, until recently, extolled its virtues with great fervour.

Presently, these same forces and individuals endeavour to wield restrictions as a tool of pressure against dissenters. This tactic will prove futile, for the same reason that the vast global majority champions openness devoid of politicisation.

2. Secondly, we have consistently underscored the diversity of the world as a prerequisite for its sustainability.

It may appear paradoxical, as greater diversity complicates the construction of a unified narrative.

Naturally, universal norms are presumed to aid in this regard. Can they fulfil this role? It stands to reason that this is a formidable and complicated task.
Firstly, we must avoid a scenario where the model of one country or a relatively minute segment of humanity is presumed universal and imposed upon others.
Secondly, it is untenable to adopt any conventional, albeit democratically developed code, and dictate it as an infallible truth to others in perpetuity.

The international community is a living entity, with its civilisational diversity making it unique and presenting an inherent value.

International law is a product of agreements not even between countries, but between nations, because legal consciousness is an integral part of every unique culture and every civilisation. The crisis of international law, which is the subject of broad public discussion today, is, in a sense, a crisis of growth.

The rise of nations and cultures that have previously remained on the periphery of global politics for one reason or another means that their own distinct ideas of law and justice are playing an increasingly important role. They are diverse. This may give the impression of discord and perhaps cacophony, but this is only the initial phase.

It is my deep conviction that the only new international system possible is one embracing polyphony...a world system that is going to be polyphonic rather than polycentric, one in which all voices are heard and, most importantly, absolutely must be heard.

Those who are used to soloing and want to keep it that way will have to get used to the new “scores” now.

Have I mentioned post-WWII international law? This international law is based on the UN Charter, which was written by the victorious countries. But the world is changing – with new centres of power emerging, and powerful economies growing and coming to the forefront. That predictably calls for a change in the legal regulation as well. Of course, this must be done carefully, but it is inevitable. Law reflects life, not vice versa.

3. Thirdly, we have said more than once that the new world can develop successfully only through the broadest inclusion.

The experience of the last couple of decades has clearly demonstrated what usurpation leads to, when someone arrogates to themselves the right to speak and act on behalf of others.

Those countries that are commonly referred to as great powers have come to believe that they are entitled to dictate to others what their interests are – in fact, to define others’ national interests based on their own. Not only does this violate the principles of democracy and justice, but worst of all, it hinders an actual solution to the problems at hand.

In its very diversity, the emerging world is bound to be anything but simple. The more fully-fledged participants involved in this process, the more challenging it becomes to identify an optimal solution that satisfies all parties.

Yet, once such a solution is achieved, there is hope that it will be both sustainable and enduring.

This, in turn, allows us to dispense with arrogance and impulsive flip-flop policies, instead fostering political processes that are both meaningful and rational, guided by the principle of reasonable adequacy. By and large, this principle is spelled out in the UN Charter and within the Security Council.

What is the right of veto? What purpose does it serve? It exists to prevent the adoption of decisions that do not suit players on the international stage. Is this beneficial or detrimental? It may be perceived as detrimental by some, as it allows one party to obstruct decision-making. However, it is beneficial in that it prevents the passage of decisions that are unacceptable to certain parties. What does this imply? What does this stipulation signify? It urges us to enter the negotiating chamber and reach consensus. That is its essence.

As the world transitions to a multipolar reality, we must develop mechanisms to broaden the application of such principles. In each instance, decisions must not only be collective but must also involve those participants capable of making a meaningful and significant contribution to resolving the issues at hand. These are primarily the actors with a vested interest in finding a positive resolution, as their future security – and, consequently, their prosperity – depends on it.

There are countless examples where complex yet solvable contradictions between neighbouring countries and peoples have escalated into intractable, endemic conflicts due to the manoeuvrings and blatant interference of external forces, who are, in essence, indifferent to the fate of the conflict participants, regardless of the bloodshed or casualties inflicted. Those who intervene externally do so purely out of self-interest, without bearing any responsibility.

Moreover, I believe that regional organisations will assume a significant role in the future, as neighbouring nations, irrespective of the complexity of their relations, are invariably united by a shared interest in stability and security. For them, compromises are indispensable to achieving optimal conditions for their own development.

4. Next, the key principle of security for all without exception is that the security of one nation cannot be ensured at the expense of others’ security.

I am not saying anything new. It has been set out in OSCE documents. We only need to implement them.

The bloc policy and the legacy of the Cold War colonial era run contrary to the essence of the new international system, which is open and flexible.

There is only one bloc in the world that is held together by the so-called obligations and strict ideological dogmas and cliches. It is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which continues expansion to Eastern Europe and is now trying to spread its approaches to other parts of the world, contrary to its own statutory documents. It is an open anachronism.

We talked on many occasions about the destructive role NATO continued to play, especially after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty Organisation, when it seemed that the alliance had lost its formally declared reason and the meaning of its existence.

I believe that the United States recognised that this instrument was becoming unattractive and redundant, but it needed the bloc and still needs it to exercise command in the zone of its influence. That is why they need conflicts.

You know, even before the modern-day acute conflicts began, many European leaders told me: “Why are they trying to scare us with you? We are not frightened, and we do not see any threats.” This is an exact quote, do you see? I believe that the United States was aware of or sensed this as well, and regarded NATO as an organisation of secondary importance. Trust me, I know what I am speaking about.

However, experts there knew that they needed NATO. How could they maintain its value and attraction? They needed to scare everyone and to divide Russia and Europe, especially Russia and Germany and France, by means of conflicts. This is why they pushed the situation towards a state coup in Ukraine and hostilities in its southeastern regions, in Donbass. They simply forced us to respond, and in this sense, they have attained their goal. As I see it, the same is taking place in Asia and on the Korean Peninsula now.

Actually, we see that the global minority is preserving and strengthening its military bloc in order to maintain its power. However, even the bloc countries themselves see and understand that the Big Brother’s harsh dictate does not help achieve the goals they are facing. Moreover, these aspirations run contrary to the interests of the rest of the world.

Cooperating with countries that can benefit you and developing partner ties with those who are interested in this is a clear priority for the majority of countries worldwide.

It is obvious that military-political and ideological blocs are yet another form of obstacles created to hinder a natural development of a multipolar international system.

I would like to point out that the notion of a zero-sum game, where only one side wins and all the others lose in the end, is a Western political creation. During the period of Western domination, this approach was imposed on everyone as a universal approach, but it is far from being universal and not always effective.

Eastern philosophy...takes a fundamentally different approach. It seeks harmony of interests, aiming for everyone to achieve their essential goals without compromising the interests of others, the principle of “I win, and you win too.”

All the ethnicities of Russia, throughout history, whenever possible, have similarly emphasised that the priority is not to impose one’s views at any cost, but rather to persuade and to foster genuine partnership and equal cooperation.

Our history, including the history of our national diplomacy, has repeatedly demonstrated the values of honour, nobility, peacemaking, and leniency. ...I am referring to the broader approach taken in addressing these [editor: today's] challenges.

The emerging community within the BRICS framework serves as a prototype for new, free, and non-block relationships between states and peoples. This also highlights that even some NATO members, as you know, are interested in closer cooperation with BRICS. It is likely that other countries may also consider deeper collaboration with BRICS in the future.

... I cannot deny that building a unified approach among many countries, each with distinct interests, is a challenging task. Diplomats and government officials had to invest considerable effort, employ tact, and actively practice listening to one another to reach the desired outcome.

This required significant dedication, but it fostered a unique spirit of cooperation grounded not in coercion, but in mutual understanding.

We are confident that BRICS serves as a strong example of genuinely constructive cooperation in today’s evolving international landscape. Additionally, BRICS platforms – where entrepreneurs, scientists, and intellectuals from our countries meet – can become spaces for deep philosophical and foundational insights into the current global development processes. This approach embraces the unique characteristics of each civilisation, including its culture, history, and traditional identities.

The future Eurasian security system, now beginning to take shape across our vast continent, is founded on a spirit of respect and mutual consideration of interests. This approach is not only genuinely multilateral but also multifaceted.

Today, security is a complex notion which encompasses more than just military and political dimensions; it cannot be achieved without socio-economic development and the resilience of states against a range of challenges, from natural to man-made. This concept of security spans both the physical and digital realms, including cyberspace and beyond.

5. My fifth point is about justice for all.

Inequality is the true scourge of the modern world.

Countries face social tension and political instability within their borders due to inequality, while on the international stage the development gap that separates the so-called Golden Billion from the rest of humankind may not only result in more political differences and confrontation, but also, and even more importantly, exacerbates migration-related issues.

There is hardly a developed country on this planet that has not faced an increasingly uncontrolled and unmanageable inflow of people seeking to improve their wellbeing, social status and to have a future. Some of them are simply trying to survive.

In wealthier societies, these uncontrolled migration flows, in turn, feed xenophobia and intolerance towards migrants, creating a spiralling sense of social and political unease and raising the level of aggression.

There are many reasons to explain why many countries and societies have been falling behind in terms of their social and economic development.

Of course, there is no magical cure for this ill. It requires a long-term, system-wide effort, beginning with the creation of the necessary conditions to remove artificial, politically-motivated development barriers.

Attempts to weaponise the economy, regardless of the target, are detrimental to everyone, with the most vulnerable – people and countries in need of support – being the first to suffer.

We are confident that such issues as food security, energy security, access to healthcare and education, and finally, the orderly and free movement of people must not be impacted by whatever conflicts or disputes. These are fundamental human rights.

6. My sixth point is that we keep emphasising that sovereign equality is an imperative for any lasting international framework.

Of course, countries differ in terms of their potential. This is an obvious fact. The same applies to the capabilities and opportunities they have. In this context, we often hear that achieving total equality would be impossible, amounting to wishful thinking, a utopia.

However, what makes today’s world special is its interconnected and holistic nature. In fact, sometimes countries that may not be as powerful or large as others play an even greater role compared to great powers by being more rational and results-driven in using their human, intellectual capital, natural resources and environment-related capabilities, by being more flexible and smart when tackling challenging matters, by setting higher living and ethical standards, as well as in administration and management, while also empowering all their people to fulfil their potential and creating a favourable psychological environment. This approach can bring about scientific breakthroughs, promote entrepreneurial activity, art and creativity, and empower young people. Taken together, all of this counts in terms of global influence and appeal. Let me paraphrase a law of physics: you can outperform others without getting ahead of them.

The most harmful and destructive attitude that we see in the modern world is supreme arrogance, which translates into a desire to condescendingly lecture others, endlessly and obsessively. Russia has never done this. This is not who or what we are. We can see that our approach is productive. Historical experience irrefutably shows that inequality – in society, in government or in the international arena – always has harmful consequences.

I would like to add something that I may not have mentioned often before. Over several centuries, the Western-centric world has embraced certain clichés and stereotypes concerning the global hierarchy. There is supposedly a developed world, progressive society and some universal civilisation that everyone should strive to join – while at the other end, there are backward, uncivilised nations, barbarians. Their job is to listen unquestioningly to what they are told from the outside, and to act on the instructions issued by those who are allegedly superior to them in this civilisational hierarchy.

It is clear that this concept works for a crude colonial approach, for the exploitation of the global majority. The problem is that this essentially racist ideology has taken root in the minds of many, creating a serious mental obstacle to general harmonious growth.

The modern world tolerates neither arrogance nor wanton disregard for others being different.

To build normal relationships, above all, one needs to listen to the other party and try to understand their logic and cultural background, rather than expecting them to think and act the way you think they should based on your beliefs about them. Otherwise, communication turns into an exchange of clichés and flinging labels, and politics devolves into a conversation of the deaf.

The truth is that we see how they engage with other cultures that are different. On the surface, they show genuine interest in local music and folklore, seeming to praise and enjoy them, but beneath this facade, their economic and security policies remain neo-colonial.

Look at how the World Trade Organisation operates – it does not solve anything because all Western countries, the main economies, are blocking everything. They always act in their own interests, constantly replicating the same models they used decades and centuries ago – to continue to control everyone and everything.

It should be remembered that everyone is equal, meaning that everyone is entitled to have their own vision, which is no better or worse than others – it is just different, and everyone needs to sincerely respect that. Acknowledging this can pave the way for mutual understanding of interests, mutual respect and empathy, that is, the ability to show compassion, to relate to others’ problems, and the ability to consider differing opinions or arguments. This requires not only listening, but also altering behaviour and policies accordingly.

Listening and considering does not mean accepting or agreeing, not at all. This simply means recognising the other party’s right to their own worldview.

In fact, this is the first necessary step towards harmonising different mindsets. Difference and diversity must be viewed as wealth and opportunities, not as reasons for conflict. This, too, reflects the dialectics of history.

We all understand here that an era or radical change and transformation invariably brings upheavals and shocks, which is quite unfortunate. Interests clash as if various actors have to adjust to one another once again. The world’s interconnected nature does not always help mitigate these differences. Of course, this is quite true. On the contrary, it can make things worse, sometimes even injecting more confusion into their relations and making it much harder to find a way out.

Over the many centuries of its history, humanity has grown accustomed to viewing the use of force as the last resort for resolving differences: “Might makes right.” Yes, sometimes this principle does work. Indeed, sometimes countries have no other choice than to stand for their interests with arms in hand and using all available means.

That said, we live in an interconnected and complex world, and it is becoming increasingly complex. While the use of force may help address a specific issue, it may, of course, bring about other and sometimes even greater challenges. And we understand this. Our country has never been the one to initiate the use of force: we are forced to do that only when it becomes clear that our opponent is acting aggressively and is not willing to listen to any type of argument. And whenever necessary, we will take any measure we need to protect Russia and all its citizens, and we will always achieve our goals.

We live in an intrinsically diverse, non-linear world. This is something we have always understood, and this is what we know today. It is not my intention today to revel in the past, but I can remember quite well the situation we had back in 1999, when I became Prime Minister and then went on to become President. I remember the challenges we faced at the time. I think that Russian people, just like the experts who have gathered in this room, all remember the forces which backed terrorists in North Caucasus, who supplied them weapons, sponsored them, and offered moral, political, ideological and informational support and the extent of these practices.

I can only scoff, with both ridicule and sadness, at what we were hearing at the time: We are dealing with al-Qaeda, which is evil, but as long as you are the target, it is fine. What kind of attitude is that? All this brings nothing but conflict. At the time we had a goal to invest everything we had and spend all the time at our disposal and all capabilities to keep the country together. Of course, this served everyone’s interests in Russia. Despite the dire economic situation in the wake of the 1998 economic crisis and despite the devastated state of our military, we came together as a nation to fend off this terrorist threat and went on to defeat it. Make no mistake about that.

Why have I brought this to your attention? In fact, once again some have come to believe that the world would be better off without Russia. At that time, they tried to finish Russia off after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Today, it seems that someone is once again nurturing this dream. They think that this would make the world more obedient and pliant. However, Russia stopped those aspiring to global dominance in their tracks many times over, no matter who it was. This is how it will be in the future, too. In fact, the world would hardly get any better. This message must finally get across to those trying to go down this road. It would do nothing but make things even more complicated than they are today.

Our opponents are coming up with new ways and devising new tools in their attempts to get rid of us. Today, they have been using Ukraine and its people as a tool by cynically pitching them against Russians and turning them into cannon fodder, all while perorating about a European choice. What kind of choice is that? Let me assure you that this is not our choice. We will defend ourselves and our people – I want this to be absolutely clear to everyone.

Russia’s role is certainly not limited to protecting and preserving itself. It may sound a bit grand, but Russia’s very existence guarantees that the world will retain its wide colour gamut, diversity and complexity, which is the key to successful development. These are not my words. This is something our friends from all regions of the world often tell me. I am not exaggerating. To reiterate, we are not imposing anything on anyone and will never do. We do not need that, and no one else needs it, either. We are guided by our own values, interests and ideas of what is right and what is not, which are rooted in our identity, history and culture. And, of course, we are always ready for a constructive dialogue with everyone.

Those who respect their culture and traditions have no right not to treat others with the same respect. Conversely, those who are trying to force others into inappropriate behaviour invariably trample their own roots, civilisation and culture into mud, some of what we are witnessing.

Russia is fighting for its freedom, rights, and sovereignty. I am not exaggerating, because over the previous decades everything, on the face of it, looked favourable and nice when they turned the G7 into the G8 and, thankfully, invited us to be members.

Do you know what was going on there? I witnessed it first-hand. You arrive at a G8 meeting, and it becomes immediately clear that prior to the G8 meeting, the G7 had got together and discussed things among themselves, including with regard to Russia, and then invited Russia to come. You look at it and smile. I always have. They give you a warm hug and a pat on the back. But in practice they do something opposite. And they never stop to make their way forward.

This can be seen particularly clearly in the context of NATO’s eastward expansion. They promised they would never expand, but they keep doing it. In the Caucasus, and with regard to the missile defence system – take anything, any key issue – they simply did not give a hoot about our opinion. In the end, all of that taken together started looking like a creeping intervention which, without exaggeration, sought to either degrade us or, even better for them, to destroy our country, either from within or from outside.

Eventually, they got to Ukraine, and moved into it with their bases and NATO. In 2008, they decided at a meeting in Bucharest to open the doors to NATO for Ukraine and Georgia. Why, pardon me for my plain language, why on earth would they do that?

Were they confronted with any difficulties in international affairs? Indeed, we did not see eye to eye with Ukraine on gas prices, but we addressed these issues effectively anyway. What was the problem? Why do it and create grounds for a conflict? It was clear from day one what it would lead to ultimately. Still, they kept pressing ahead with it. Next thing you know they started expanding into our historical territories and supporting a regime that clearly tilted toward neo-Nazism.

Therefore, we can safely say and reiterate that we are fighting not only for our freedom, not only our rights, or our sovereignty, but we are upholding universal rights and freedoms, and the continued existence and development of the absolute majority of the countries around the world. To a certain extent, we see this as our country’s mission as well.

Everyone should be clear that putting pressure on us is useless, but we are always prepared to sit down and talk based on consideration of our mutual legitimate interests in their entirety. This is something that we urge all international dialogue members to do.

In that case, there may be little doubt that 20 years from now, in the run-up to the 100th anniversary of the UN, future guests of a Valdai Club meeting, who at this point may be schoolchildren, students, postgraduates, or young researchers, or aspiring experts, will be discussing much more optimistic and life-affirming topics than the ones that we are compelled to discuss today."
Vladimir Putin 7 November 2024