РУССКИЙ
16:01 02.10.2026 •
Photo: Kremlin.ru
Vladimir Putin addressed the plenary session of the 23rd annual meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club. This year’s theme is “Responsibility for the Future: Limits of the Possible, or Limitless Possibilities?”
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues.
As is customary, we have gathered at the annual forum of the Valdai Discussion Club to discuss the most pressing global issues.
We have always sought not only to diagnose the state of the world, but also to provide an outline of the emerging world order.
I am convinced that the Club’s intellectual legacy and many years of direct and candid dialogue will certainly be called upon when all of us – East and West, North and South – will sooner or later need to come to terms on the principles for shaping a new world order that is capable of ensuring progress and development of humanity for decades to come.
Unfortunately, we must admit that we are facing different tasks today: ones that are more pressing and acute. Although the moderator spoke about the need to calm everyone, these acute problems have not disappeared.
The alarming trends we are seeing on the international stage compel us to think first and foremost not about how to organise global interaction more wisely, effectively, and equitably in the future – although all of this is, of course, vitally important – but about how to preserve global peace and security here and now, at a time when many established legal norms have been cast aside and new ones have yet to emerge.
What must be done to avert the most catastrophic scenarios? Responsibility for our shared future is far more than just an abstract slogan. It entails a set of practical measures aimed at preventing humanity from being pushed to the brink of survival and averting irreparable consequences.
The world has reached a decisive turning point in its development. This is not just because of politics; politics, as always, is a consequence of profound changes. Transformations are taking place across every sphere: from virtually all areas of technology to the social structures of our societies; from climate to medicine; from military science to bioethics; from the future of energy to demographic shifts; and from universal digitalisation and artificial intelligence to entirely new models of economic development. The list goes on. Taken together, these factors are creating the conditions for a fundamental transformation. We cannot yet fully assess or definitively interpret all the circumstances and consequences of this shift, if only because these changes are unfolding simultaneously and their impact on societies and states is contradictory. But I will return to this later.
The scale of the changes that have already taken place, and those still to come, is truly immense. We seem to grasp this – as evidenced by the many debates that are being held about the future, often tinged with anxiety over uncertainty and unpredictability – but humanity has not yet fully comprehended the true magnitude of the challenge it faces. We are entering a completely new and unprecedented reality. Threats and dangers are inextricably intertwined with opportunities and prospects; they cannot be separated from one another. Our entire way of living is changing.
To reiterate, this is not only and not so much about shifts in the balance of power among major powers or the redistribution of economic and technological influence. All of that is, of course, important and is effectively taking place. What matters most, though, is that these changes affect the biological and moral nature of human beings, go to our core, and impact our way of life and the foundations of our worldview. Technology is opening up, quite literally, fantastic prospects for extending lifespans and improving the quality of life. However, it is also taking the possibilities for the destruction of all humanity to a whole new level, be it as a result of military conflicts, rapid degradation of the environment, or loss of control over technological processes that have been set in motion.
Clearly, an atmosphere like that cannot but exacerbate anxiety among people and societies, and cause an increase in internal tensions stemming from uncertainty and a lack of understanding of what tomorrow will bring us. One consequence includes domestic political “fever” in many countries, all the more so because traditional party systems are increasingly failing to reflect rapidly changing social structures. For any state, regardless of how well it is organised or what cultural and historical traditions it relies on, internal stability – I think you will agree – is always more important than anything else. To preserve it, governments may take a wide range of actions, including actions that affect the situation beyond their borders in neighbouring countries, regions, and, indeed, the world at large. In other words, they may, unfortunately, export instability which only exacerbates and heightens tensions and – if I may put it that way – further increases the overall strain in the international environment.
Whatever scenario unfolds in the world in the years ahead, the international conflicts, unfortunately, are likely to continue. This is due in part to the fact that the profound shifts now under way, and the opportunities they create, fuel and encourage ambitions and a willingness to take risks for what may appear to be a major payoff. I wish I were wrong in this assessment, but the sustainable trends we are witnessing, unfortunately, suggest otherwise.
We remain confident, though, that, in the long term, as the world moves away from Western hegemony, the international situation will gradually improve leading to a more stable, democratic, and free multipolar international order. It is equally clear, however, that on the path towards such a world order, states, communities and every individual will face various risks. This is inevitable in times of profound change. That is why minimising risks at every level from global to personal is the key task today for policymakers, business leaders, and top figures in science and life in general. Much depends on these people. Responsibility also means helping people understand these risks and be prepared for them, so that individuals and families are not left one-on-one with problems in the area of security, changing labour market, or the digital environment, to name a few.
What has more importance these days: caution and good judgement for avoiding being swept by an avalanche of uncontrolled change, or sticking to an assertive approach for overcoming unfavourable scenarios or using the existing circumstances to serve our own needs? There is no clear-cut answer to this question since each particular case requires its own line of rational conduct.
Of course, decision-makers seek to adapt to what is going on around us. However, considering , as they call it, the polycrisis, all-encompassing and ubiquitous, these decision-makers struggle to look beyond their everyday administrative travails and deadlines and adopt a more forward-looking perspective, beyond the polycrisis. The weight of responsibility is immense, and mistakes will come at a dire cost, including for the future. Immediate goals tend to relegate strategic objectives to the background. While this is obviously understandable, it is also extremely dangerous. Responding to many of the existing challenges would be impossible without taking into account how our current actions are going to affect our future. As one well-known classic of Russian political thought said, you must be able to see the wood for the trees.
So what is the overall situation? It is obvious that the mechanisms for striking a balance between state interests and actions as they evolved over the preceding years are unable to fully and effectively fulfil their regulating function. Not because they are no good but because the conditions in which they were created in their day – these conditions have changed. Of course, the new emerging reality will help develop new instruments but this will be a lengthy process. Let us be honest – today, certain international organisations often fail to mitigate risks and sometimes even create and provoke them by serving the interests of a single country or a group of nations. However, these structures were designed to serve a different purpose.
There have been critical voices targeting also the United Nations, a fundamental structure. According to its Charter, it must operate as a central coordinating mechanism in international affairs. This criticism is not always objective, of course, but well-grounded objections do exist. To an extent, they stem from the fact that the United Nations, even if it is the most representative international organisation, falls short of the collective and democratic principles in the way it is being managed compared to its original design. A narrow grouping of Western countries wields an unproportionally large influence. It constitutes a global minority by all accounts while seeking to appropriate administrative functions. And since these countries’ are seeing their influence diminish as it is taken over by a more and more independent and confident global majority, the lack of balance within the UN system is becoming increasingly obvious. This is a system-wide issue that cannot be resolved in an instant.
Russia still continues to support the idea of fair reform of the United Nations, yet such reform is impossible without internal consensus that is difficult to achieve today. Let me reiterate that we consistently advocate a UN structure that fully reflects the diversity of the world, with countries from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East playing a far more significant role in the Organisation. Meanwhile, it is crucial to recognise that reforming the UN entails far more than simply expanding the Security Council or adopting other measures to achieve more balanced geographical representation in international governing bodies. It also involves redefining the Organisation’s substance, its priorities, including future ones – particularly given that global changes are creating a list of new dilemmas that simply did not exist before.
The most obvious example is artificial intelligence – something we must all learn to live and work with. How will its rapid development affect humanity’s intellectual capacity, or spiritual and cultural heritage? It is no coincidence that the concept of “mindful digitalisation” is being discussed. This means refusing to allow the uncontrolled integration of such technologies into areas that have always been vital and sensitive to human moral development. Indeed, the social and humanitarian implications of the spread of artificial intelligence are currently being examined even more closely and thoroughly than its technical or economic aspects. Experts are increasingly voicing concern that the proliferation of artificial intelligence could represent yet another attempt to reduce everyone to a common denominator, stripping away individuality – this time through algorithms configured by others. Such digital totalitarianism would be just as much of a dead end, and just as bleak and inhumane, as the totalitarian societies of the past which we are all familiar with.
There is another significant issue, one that is already relevant today and will become even more acute in the near future: how can states undergoing increasingly extensive digitalisation ensure their sovereignty in this sphere? In other words, how can they safeguard their security and distinct identity without isolating themselves from global progress or falling behind in technological development?
Another area in which science and technology are radically changing the world is the ability of humans to intrude deeply into what was previously seen as the Creator’s domain: genetic changes to the body, the shaping of personality, the programming of human behaviour and even of thought itself. It is essential to combine the efforts of countries and communities to work together on mutually acceptable solutions to these extremely delicate, defining, truly existential questions.
It would be logical to do this work within existing international frameworks. Yet, many of these organisations, as I have already noted, are under excessive influence of Western countries, which are not interested in universal progress – only in maintaining their own power. The institutions that worked well after World War II no longer reflect the reality in the second quarter of this century. Is it possible to reform them successfully so that they conform to modern realities? The question remains open.
New international communities are also emerging, generated by the current international situation. Of course, they have great prospects, whether they are regional associations or global structures such as BRICS. However, it must be admitted that all of them have a great deal of work to do to define their functionality, the optimal areas for its application, and the limits of their own capabilities. Of course, organisations that are relatively new can hardly be expected to quickly reshape the world order and build a multipolar architecture; this is a long and thorny path with many unknowns, but it will undoubtedly lead to results.
Does this mean that we are now doomed to chaos? No, it is certainly premature to make such a judgement. In general, a world regulated by clearly defined norms and the institutions that uphold them – a world that is orderly, so to speak – is a recent invention, one that emerged only in the last century. All previous centuries managed without it. As we know, the results were mixed, to put it mildly: arrogance, envy, and greed have always plagued world politics, and they still occur today.
Nevertheless, responsible powers have always competed with each other in one way or another, but they have also worked together, collaborated to build frameworks for relations among themselves and with smaller states, and in general, as a rule, still sought to maintain stability.
Amid the ongoing crisis of institutions and the erosion of international law, the major powers bear an enormous responsibility that matches their immense capabilities. Such states have the potential to take actions that can reverse global trends towards achieving greater predictability and security or, conversely, towards exacerbating all existing problems. This potential gets multiplied by the innovative technologies I have mentioned before. Clearly, the future of the world and every individual depends on how effectively risks are managed during the period of abrupt changes.
The absence of universally recognised rules and a shared understanding of the principle of equal and indivisible security – or cancelling that principle altogether – often encourages selfish behaviour. In some cases, it turns into aggressive attempts to secure unilateral advantages, aggravate the confusion and exploit it to promote one’s own interests. International politics provides examples of this almost every day. Every conceivable and inconceivable taboo is being violated. I will not go over them now. I think everyone in this room understands perfectly well what I am talking about. I am deeply convinced that something as complex as international relations nevertheless requires prudence and adherence not only to established laws but also, as lawyers say, customary law, meaning not only the letter but also the spirit of the law, as well as established and universally recognised practice.
Moral and ethical constraints and basic standards of decency still matter, because respecting them creates at least a possibility to maintain some kind of dialogue. Conversely, the systematic failure to honour commitments, deception, turning communication into a farce and any substantive discussion into a propaganda exercise, and the blatant mockery and distortion of facts for the sake of fleeting gains destroy the very foundation of international coexistence.
Such, if you will, approach to conducting international affairs is short-sighted and dangerous. A temporary gain achieved in this manner can turn into long-term setbacks, and, most importantly, make the situation worse for everyone, because the interconnectedness of the world is here and is not going away. The might makes right principle sometimes appears to guide certain international actors who are convinced of their own military-political, economic and, as they think, moral exceptionalism. We know perfectly well from history that this never ends well.
Let me digress from the main topic for a while. There are people here in this room who hold a very diverse mix of opinions regarding an extremely acute present-day conflict – the Ukraine conflict, and what caused it. I would like to say a few words on this matter. It is a fact that many hundreds or even thousands of experts, your colleagues who will study the materials from this Valdai Club meeting, they have their own opinions on this matter. I am, of course aware that some within the expert community might ask why Russia started the war while talking about peace. I have commented this many times already, but let me say this once again in front of this audience.
Where is the truth? The truth is that we did not want and were not the ones who started to fight. In fact, they started to fight against us. They should have refrained from encouraging aggressive nationalism and Russophobia in Ukraine so as to turn it into a tool for fighting Russia. NATO should not have embarked on an effort to make our historical territories part of its military space in its own interests and should not have planned setting up its bases there. Radicals in Kiev should not have been pushed to a government coup while the de facto illegal regime should not have been pumped full of all kinds of offensive weapons after that. Plans for setting up concentration camps for the people from Donbass and Crimea should not have been drafted. Unarmed people should not have been rolled over by tanks, shelled with missiles and bombed from the air and burnt alive just for being Russian, in terms of both their ethnic background and their spirit.
The list of these do-nots goes on, but let me stop at that. I am convinced that this was an intentional effort to place Russia in a situation when it was simply forced to defend itself with arms in hand to respond to this obvious act of aggression. They pushed us to this brink knowingly and intentionally. Overall, Russophobia, oppressing and killing Russian people and destroying Russia should not be turned into state ideology while striving to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. This was the way it was all articulated, right? No one forgot this. At least, we did not forget this.
If we want to live – and who does not? – as I have already said during one of my public appearances, let us live in friendship and work together for finding ways to accomplish this aim. Of course, confidence building is a painstaking and fragile process. Placing it on the right track is very hard, while it can be derailed very easily.
The interests never fully coincide even when it comes to the closest partners, let alone countries which are rivals and are locked in an all-out competition or even confrontation against one another.
Sooner or later, the international situation and the international system will settle into some form of stable equilibrium. This is undoubtedly a complex, multifaceted and multilayered process built on mutual compromises, willingness to meet each other halfway, and a level-headed assessment of the situation, including by the West. The former hegemon will unavoidably have to acknowledge the realities of a multipolar world – just look at the trends shaping the global economy – and learn to cooperate with the countries of the Global Majority on the basis of respect for their fundamental interests. Of course, this will take time. We are going to have to live in an extremely unstable and ever changing world. The path to a new system will be full of unexpected twists and turns; unfortunately, often unpleasant and even dangerous ones.
I would like to turn to the history of our country. Russia has travelled a thorny path of profound transformation, and this process is still underway. Thirty-five years ago, we experienced the collapse of the state system, which was a genuine tragedy for tens of millions of people who woke up one morning to find themselves beyond the borders of their own country and whose lives – and the lives of their children – were changed overnight. Both in Russia and in neighbouring countries this led to a fundamental transformation and international affairs get transformed as well.
I would also like to highlight a certain naivety, idealism, or perhaps even complacency on the part of those who stood at the helm of the state during the final years of the Soviet era. Blind trust in Western partners and confidence in “gentlemen’s agreements,” when they thought they could simply take someone at their word and come to terms also played a cruel joke on the Soviet Union.
In retrospect, it becomes clear just how destructive a role this played not only in the fate of the Soviet Union, but also in ensuring long-term global stability. The Soviet leaders wanted the West to like them, while Western leaders sought to reshape the world to suit their needs and to grab their share – preferably a large one – of the Soviet legacy. We can see the result now.
The Soviet Union collapsed due to a mix of internal imbalances. This is the most important dimension to it. This is the truth, and this is what happened. Specifically, internal imbalances, as well as mistakes made by successive generations of the country’s leadership. Short-sightedness, narrow and unrealistic ideological dogmas instead of pragmatism, incompetence, and the practice of sweeping obvious problems under the carpet gradually exacerbated and undermined the Soviet Union’s domestic and international standing. Ultimately, these factors led to its collapse.
What is happening in the world today, the present-day conflicts and upheavals – all this largely stems from the fact that late 20th-century politicians, both in the East and the West, were unwilling, unprepared or unable to treat the era of major shifts with the required seriousness and depth. This is not a question of shifting responsibility onto the leaders of the past; this is simply how it all happened in reality.
However, even during that period, there were people, both in the East and West, there were other kinds of politicians who developed a keen understanding of these challenges and offered what I believe to be the right ways of resolving them. Today, their assessments can be viewed as visionary.
You know that I have mentioned Egon Bahr in the past, a politician from the Federal Republic of Germany. He was a member of the Social Democratic Party’s Executive Committee.
I will share just a few thoughts with you. I was very surprised to learn about his contacts with the Soviet leadership in both Bonn and Moscow. What surprised me was the extent to which this person had mastered the subject, his intelligence and competence.
Let me share some of the things he said in June and February 1990. As we all understand, this was a time of radical shifts for Europe and the entire world.
Bahr’s main concern was the threat of a lingering confrontation in Europe after Germany’s reunification, and once, and I quote, “those circles within NATO which are not at all eager to pursue the path of pan-European cooperation and ending the confrontation” reinforced their positions and influence. This is what he said. He could already see at that time that forces of this kind existed. He was well-placed to know this, wasn’t he? During the 1990 talks, Egon Bahr said, and here is another quote: “Without a decisive step towards overcoming Europe’s disintegration into hostile blocs, events can take quite a negative turn that would doom the USSR to international isolation.” This is what he said. What did that mean? By the way, we can see that it all happened just as he had predicted and warned.
What was the offer for Eastern and Central Europe? The proposal consisted of setting up a security council that would include both the United States and the USSR and giving this structure a broad mandate. This council was designed to include almost all Eastern and Central European countries.
However, after the USSR’s dissolution, the forces which came to dominate the West, just as Egon Bahr said, had little, if any, interest in pursuing the path of pan-European cooperation. Despite the fact that new Russia spent many years – and I would like to emphasise that this was a process that lasted for many years – trying to integrate into the so-called Western civilisation, they did everything to effectively isolate the Russian Federation and break it down even further. All the shifts in Russia’s domestic politics notwithstanding, and despite all these changes, they still viewed Russia as the core element of the historical Russian Empire. To this day, they keep talking at all kinds of events and gatherings about the need to complete the effort to break up the Empire.
Taken together, all this produced a rather dangerous, to put it bluntly, situation in Europe and around the world.
I would stress, ladies and gentlemen, that it is my deep belief that Mr Bahr did not have anything other than Europe’s future on his mind at that time. He was thinking about this pan-European home. The USSR leadership also talked about it a lot at that time but, unfortunately, they failed to put words into action.
Russia probably understands better than many the difficulties of overcoming the consequences of historical collapses and cataclysms, and of finding its way forward in new and often unfavourable conditions. We often had to learn by trial and error, making quick decisions in response to emerging situations.
But we never forget that the nation needs a perspective and a clear view of the road ahead. Of course, there is no future without a past. The legacy of our forefathers, who built a great and unique country, must be preserved and strengthened. No society can exist without a historical foundation and respect for traditions. But the opposite is also true: the past becomes meaningless without a future. No matter how great the achievements of our forefathers, the nation must not become a museum of its past greatness.
The true greatness of a state is impossible without the ability to keep pace with the times and, ideally, to move ahead of them. Multiplying one’s heritage and creatively developing it amid modern conditions are the best guarantees of preventing our national tradition from becoming a vintage collectible, a trendy historical accessory, or the sole subject of our undivided attention. We must take into account the vibrant and productive environment for our future accomplishments.
As for the future, much is really shrouded in uncertainty, and there are too many incoming and rapidly changing factors. But we certainly need a roadmap for our movement into the future. What we need is not wishful thinking, an abstract and speculative construct or an unrealistic visualisation of our wishes, but a realistic assessment of risks, capabilities and essential objectives. Russia is building this path to the future for itself, and is certainly ready to do this jointly with other nations around the world.
As I said, the scale and, more importantly, the speed of changes underway in the world are unprecedented. We must realise that the point of no return can come very quickly and unexpectedly for all. It may turn out one day that the logic of escalating mutual retaliation leads to a point of fatal irreversibility.
The word “escalation” is often used now to describe and forecast various global conflicts, meaning unwillingness to use real diplomacy based on reality and respect for the interests of all sides, a desire to aggravate the situation, raise the stakes and even bluff, crossing red lines in the hope of suppressing and intimidating the opponent, and breaking their will. There is nothing new in the escalation of hostilities and sanctions; this practice has been used in many conflicts, and it is never unilateral, because one side’s provocations inevitably trigger a response from the other side. Therefore, the spiral is tightening, and the devastating consequences are growing.
Escalation is based – I am not telling you anything new – on arrogance and overconfidence. It is a path towards a precipice, especially today when the world’s leading powers have weapons in their arsenals that are capable of destroying all life or at least reducing the Earth to a catastrophic state. Can we guarantee that these weapons will never be used? We cannot, of course. We all remember the saying that if you have a rifle hanging on the wall in the first act, it will eventually be fired. We must remember this and try to prevent it.
The more uncompromising a response, and the more clearly the goal of the opponent’s “strategic defeat” is declared, the greater the chances that the battle will escalate into the most violent phase. The survival of the fittest applies not only to the natural world but also to social communities, if they are faced with the possible loss of their independence, dignity and the very right to exist.
Photo: Kremlin.ru
Ladies and gentlemen,
Let me reiterate: the fundamental formation of a new world order is inevitable – and one hopes it will occur within the foreseeable future. For now, however, events are unfolding in a highly turbulent and spontaneous manner. We are only beginning to outline, feeling our way towards, the contours of what is to come.
This, however, does not mean we should sit idly by and wait to see what happens next. To reach the phase of building – which, as I have said, will undoubtedly arrive sooner or later – we must first weather the current period of danger and avert the most destructive threats.
I consider it particularly important to emphasise once again two aspects that, in my view, should be the subject of serious discussion by us all – at the political, technical, expert and even philosophical levels.
First and foremost is the issue I have already touched upon: artificial intelligence. A global debate is currently underway as to whether measures should be taken to deliberately slow research and development in this field, to prevent these technologies from spiralling out of human control. This is a multifaceted issue requiring thorough examination. Human history demonstrates that technological progress cannot be halted; however, we must understand the consequences of that progress – above all when it comes to the use of its achievements, particularly in the military domain.
There are already documented cases of artificial intelligence making decisions based on its own assessment of what is expedient. This applies to both civilian and military contexts. As artificial intelligence technologies become more widely adopted, their role will grow, and algorithms will assume greater responsibility. After all, humans simply cannot compete with a machine’s ability to analyse a situation almost instantaneously. Yet humans possess other qualities: instinct, intuition and the ability to make decisions that may not be immediately obvious but ultimately prove to be the only correct ones, and even life-saving.
I would like to recount a story from the Soviet era – from the everyday reality of those years. It was September 1983. Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Petrov, an officer at a missile early-warning centre, was on duty when the system picked up a signal. Both we and the United States had long since had such systems in place and operational. The system detected the launch of five American intercontinental ballistic missiles. Any algorithm would have classified this as an unambiguous trigger for a retaliatory strike. Yet the experienced officer questioned the accuracy of the signal, suspecting a system malfunction. And he turned out to be right. Had artificial intelligence been in his place, things might have turned out very differently. To my mind, this is a very compelling example.
The limits on the use of AI technologies in the security sphere are a matter of humanity’s survival. AI can increase the effectiveness of means of warfare, which also makes conflicts more destructive.
We need an unbiased and professional international discussion on modern methods of warfare to preserve humanitarian limits and mitigate the most brutal effects of armed conflicts related to the growth of destructive capabilities. I know that your forum held a session that was very accurately titled The Ethics of the New War: Humans and Inhumanity.
It is true that the inhumanity of modern conflicts can be interpreted in two ways. It is increasing brutality and disregard for humanitarian norms. It is also the new forms of confrontation, where AI and autonomous systems play a growing role in hostilities, gradually replacing humans, including in decision-making, which is especially significant. This is a huge and complex topic, which requires the utmost attention. The automation and digitalisation of war lead to the dehumanisation of perception, turning bloodshed and the loss of human lives into a kind of computer game, into a mechanistic routine. To call a spade a spade, this is a path towards the regression of humanity into savagery amid endless talk about grandiose technological progress.
At the end of the 19th century, more precisely in 1899, Russia proposed holding the Hague Conference, which for the first time formalised the rules of war, peaceful settlement of conflicts, and the humanisation of hostilities. Of course, the true and noble ideas laid down back then did not save humanity from the tragedies of the 20th century. The world wars seemingly wiped out the achievements of humanitarian law. But now the time has come when we must again raise the issue of the rules of armed confrontation.
We have no illusions: wars have been a constant feature throughout human history, they are still waged today, and armed conflicts will most likely continue in the future. Regrettably, this is an integral part of human existence. Military service is the profession of those who defend the interests of their countries, but professionalism in the military sphere includes respect for humanitarian norms. In particular, the Russian military have always been guided by the inviolability of these norms, and I would like to emphasise that they were never the first to attack facilities that are not related to the adversary’s military infrastructure.
The rise in international tensions and overall confrontation has one more extremely negative and long-term consequence – this is the second fact I would like to draw your attention to today. In this conflict situation, we are sacrificing the solution of global problems of concern to the whole of humanity. We addressed these problems – climate, the environment, poverty and inequality – only recently, but today we have forgotten all about them. They have been pushed aside, but they are growing more acute. This has not changed. Regrettably, there are no grounds to hope that the international community as a single body will be able to deal with this agenda in the near term. But if acute and pressing issues are not settled on a global scale, we must address them at the regional level, especially since it is closer to home and easier for people to understand.
We are all responsible for our planet as a whole, but we are first and foremost responsible for our own home and its immediate surroundings. Our home in the broader sense is Eurasia, a vast territory that is the centre and the setting for the most important processes unfolding in the world. A great deal on the international stage as a whole depends on how we develop Eurasia.
The idea of a Greater Eurasian Partnership advanced by Russia some time ago is acquiring special significance amid growing instability worldwide. Military-political confrontations are undermining global connectivity and endangering industrial, transport and logistics chains, as well as the established trade and communication paths. The task and responsibility of Eurasian countries is to maximally protect our space from global risks and destructive processes, using all available technological and other opportunities to improve the quality of Eurasian interaction and strengthen connectivity across this vast territory.
I would also like to note that Eurasian cultural and civilisational communities have, over many centuries, established mutual understanding even in the most complicated historical eras. Eurasia can become the prototype of international communication in conditions of diverse cultures, approaches and interests, where differences do not become an obstacle but an advantage for the development of a sustainable and balanced partnership.
In this connection, I would like to draw your attention to the initiative we have advanced jointly with our Belarusian friends, the drafting of a Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century. Last week, the foreign ministers of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and our other partners launched practical work on this fundamental document at their meeting held on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.
The primary significance of Eurasia is that it is largely self-sufficient and capable of dealing with any problems. The only thing this vast community of nations needs is indivisible security, the absence of military threats, and lasting peace.
Colleagues,
All of us, the international community as a whole, bear overall responsibility for the future. This is not an exaggeration or a metaphor. As I have said, this is an absolutely practical task that requires our immediate attention.
One would like to believe that our descendants will read in their history books that the second quarter of the 21st century was the turning point when humanity, becoming aware of the scope of change and the challenges to its existence, managed to put aside petty squabbles, ambitions and selfishness and joined hands to address common problems, turned the technological revolution from a set of threats into a wide range of possibilities, addressed the problems of social inequality and environmental degradation in deed rather than in word, realised the futility of military confrontation and dictate and the need for mutually acceptable solutions to all arising questions and problems, and started, at long last, to build a new stable world order. I am confident that this is how it will be, because if this does not happen, there is a risk that there will be no one left to use these textbooks, and nobody to write these textbooks.
Let us hope for the best and, most importantly, do everything in our power to make this better future happen and be with us.
I would like to thank you for your attention and to wish you success. I really appreciate our meetings. Thank you very much.
read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs
