РУССКИЙ
1:19 03.10.2025 •
Vladimir Putin at the plenary session of the 22nd annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.
Photo: Kremlin.ru
Plenary session of the 22nd annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. October 2, 2025. Sochi.
The theme of the meeting is “The Polycentric World: Instructions for Use.”
The plenary session is moderated by Research Director of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai International Discussion Club Fyodor Lukyanov.
* * *
Research Director of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai International Discussion Club Fyodor Lukyanov:
Ladies and gentlemen, guests of the Valdai Club!
We are beginning the plenary session of the 22nd annual forum of the Valdai International Discussion Club. It is a great honour for me to invite President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin to this stage.
Mr President, thank you very much for once again finding time to join us. The Valdai Club enjoys this great privilege of meeting with you for 23 consecutive years to discuss the most topical issues. I believe that no one else is that lucky.
The 22nd meeting of the Valdai Club, which took place over the past three days, was titled “The Polycentric World: Instructions for Use.” We are attempting to move from merely understanding and describing this new world to practical matters: that is, comprehending how to live in it, since it is not yet entirely clear.
We may consider ourselves advanced users, but we are still only users of this world. You, however, are at least a mechanic and perhaps even an engineer of this very polycentric world order, so we eagerly await some guidelines for use from you.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin:
I am unlikely to be able to formulate any guidelines or instructions – and that is not the point, because people often ask for instructions or advice only not to follow them later. This formula is well known.
Let me offer my view on what is happening in the world, the role of our country in it, and how we see its development prospects.
The Valdai International Discussion Club has indeed convened for the 22nd time, and these meetings have become more than a good tradition. Discussions at Valdai platforms provide a unique opportunity to assess the global situation impartially and comprehensively, to reveal changes, and to comprehend them.
Undoubtedly, the Club’s unique strength lies in the determination and ability of its participants to look beyond the banal and the obvious. They do not simply follow the agenda imposed by the global information space, where the internet makes its input – both good and bad, often difficult to discern – but pose their own unconventional questions, offer their own vision of ongoing processes, attempting to lift the veil that conceals the future. This is not an easy task, but it is often achieved here at Valdai.
We have noted repeatedly that we are living in an era when everything is changing, and very rapidly at that; I would even say radically. Of course, none of us can fully foresee the future. However, that does not absolve us of the responsibility to be prepared for it. As time and recent events have shown, we must be ready for anything. In such periods of history, everyone bears a special responsibility for their own destiny, for the fate of their country, and for the world at large. The stakes today are extremely high.
As has been mentioned, this year’s Valdai Club report is devoted to a multipolar, polycentric world. The topic has long been on the agenda, but now it requires special attention; here I fully agree with the organisers. The multipolarity that has in fact already emerged is shaping the framework within which the states act. Let me try to explain what makes the present situation unique.
First, today’s world offers a much more open – indeed, one might say creative – space for foreign policy. Nothing is predetermined; developments can take different directions. Much depends on the precision, accuracy, consistency and thoughtfulness of the actions of each participant in international communication. Yet in this vast space it is also easy to get lost and lose one’s bearings, which, as we can see, happens quite often.
Second, multipolarity space is highly dynamic. As I have said, change occurs rapidly, sometimes suddenly, almost overnight. It is difficult to prepare for it and often impossible to predict. One must be ready to react immediately, in real time, as they say.
Third, and of particular importance, is that fact that this new space is more democratic. It opens opportunities and pathways for a wide range of political and economic players. Perhaps never before have so many countries had the ability or ambition to influence the most significant regional and global processes.
Next. The cultural, historical, and civilisational specificities of different countries now play a greater role than ever before. It is necessary to seek points of contact and convergence of interests. No one is willing to play by the rules set by someone else, somewhere far away – as a very well-known chansonnier sang in our country, “beyond the mists,” or beyond the oceans, as it were.
In this regard, the fifth point: any decisions are possible only on the basis of agreements that satisfy all interested parties or the overwhelming majority. Otherwise, there will be no viable solution at all, only loud phrases and a fruitless game of ambitions. Thus, to achieve results, harmony and balance are essential.
Finally, the opportunities and dangers of a multipolar world are inseparable from one another. Naturally, the weakening of the dictate that characterised the previous period and the expansion of freedom for all is undeniably a positive development. At the same time, under such conditions, it is much more difficult to find and establish this very solid balance, which in itself is an obvious and extreme risk.
This situation on the planet, which I have tried to outline briefly, is a qualitatively new phenomenon. International relations are undergoing a radical transformation. Paradoxically, multipolarity has become a direct consequence of attempts to establish and preserve global hegemony, a response by the international system and history itself to the obsessive desire to arrange everyone into a single hierarchy, with Western countries at the top. The failure of such an endeavour was only a matter of time, something we have always spoken about, by the way. And by historical standards, it happened fairly quickly.
Thirty-five years ago, when the confrontation of the Cold War seemed to be ending, we hoped for the dawn of an era of genuine cooperation. It seemed that there were no longer ideological or other obstacles that would hinder the joint resolution of problems common to humanity or the regulation and resolution of inevitable disputes and conflicts on the basis of mutual respect and consideration of each other’s interests.
Allow me here a brief historical digression. Our country, striving to eliminate the grounds for bloc confrontation and to create a common space of security, twice declared even its readiness to join NATO. Initially this was done in 1954, during the Soviet era. The second time was during the visit of US President Bill Clinton to Moscow in 2000 – I have already spoken about this – when we also discussed this topic with him.
On both occasions, we were essentially refused outright. I reiterate: we were ready for joint work, for non-linear steps in the sphere of security and global stability. But our Western colleagues were not prepared to free themselves from the shackles of geopolitical and historical stereotypes, from a simplified, schematic view of the world.
I also spoke publicly about this when I discussed it with Mr Clinton, with President Clinton. He said, “You know, it’s interesting. I think it’s possible.” And then in the evening he said, “I consulted with my people – it’s not feasible, not feasible now.” “When will it be feasible?” And that was it, it all slipped away.
In short, we had a genuine chance to move international relations in a different, more positive direction. Yet, alas, a different approach prevailed. Western countries succumbed to the temptation of absolute power. It was indeed a powerful temptation – and resisting it would have required historical vision and a good background, intellectual and historical background. It seems that those who made decisions at that time simply lacked both.
Indeed, the power of the United States and its allies reached its peak at the end of the 20th century. But there has never been, nor will there ever be, a force capable of ruling the world, dictating everyone how to act, how to live, even how to breathe. Such attempts have been made, but every one of them has failed.
However, we must recognise that many found that so-called liberal world order acceptable and even convenient. True, an hierarchy severely limits opportunities for those not perched at the top of the pyramid, or, if you prefer, the top of the food chain. But those at the bottom were relieved of responsibility: the rules were simple: accept the terms, fit into the system, receive your share, however modest, and be content. Others would think and decide for you.
And no matter what anyone says now, no matter how some try to disguise the reality – that is how it was. The experts gathered here remember and understand this perfectly well.
Some, in their arrogance, saw themselves entitled to lecture the rest of the world. Others were content to play along with the powerful as obedient bargaining chips, eager to avoid unnecessary trouble in exchange for a modest but guaranteed bonus. There are still many such politicians in the old part of the world, in Europe.
Those who dared object and tried to defend their own interests, rights, and views, were at best dismissed as eccentrics and told, in effect: “You will not succeed, so give up and accept that compared to our power, you are nonentity.” As for the truly stubborn, they were “educated” by the self-proclaimed global leaders, who no longer even bothered to hide their intent. The message was clear: resistance was pointless.
But this did not bring anything good. Not a single global problem was resolved. On the contrary, new ones are constantly multiplying. Institutions of global governance created in an earlier era either ceased to function or lost much of their effectiveness. And no matter how much strength or resources one state, or even a group of states, may accumulate, power always has its limits.
As the Russian audience knows, there is a saying in Russia: “There’s no counter to a crowbar, except another crowbar,” meaning, you don’t bring a knife to a gunfight, but another gun. And indeed, that “other gun” can always be found. This is the very essence of world affairs: a counterforce always emerges. And attempts to control everything inevitably generate tension, undermining stability at home and prompting ordinary people to ask a very fair question of their governments: “Why do we need all this?”
I once heard something similar from our American colleagues, who said: “We gained the whole world, but lost America.” I can only ask: Was it worth it? And did you truly gain anything at all?
A clear rejection of the excessive ambitions of the political elite of the leading Western European nations has emerged and is mounting among the societies in those countries. The barometer of public opinion indicates this across the board. The establishment does not want to cede power, dares to directly deceive its own citizens, escalates the situation internationally, resorts to all sorts of tricks inside their countries – increasingly on the fringes of the law or even beyond it.
However, perpetual turning democratic and electoral procedures into a farce and manipulating the will of the peoples is not going to work out. Like it was in Romania, for instance, but we won’t go into details. This is happening in many countries. In some of them, the authorities are trying to ban their political opponents who are gaining greater legitimacy and greater voter trust. We know this from our own experience back in the Soviet Union. Do you remember Vladimir Vysotsky’s songs: “Even the military parade was cancelled! They will ban all and everyone soon!” But it doesn’t work, bans don’t work.
Meanwhile, the will of the people, the will of the citizens in those countries is clear and simple – let the countries’ leaders deal with the citizens’ problems, take care of their safety and quality of life, and do not chase chimeras. The United States, where people’s demands have led to a sufficiently radical change in the political vector, is a case in point. And we can say that examples are known to be contagious for other countries.
The subordination of the majority to the minority inherent in international relations during the period of Western domination, is giving way to a multilateral and more cooperative approach. It is based on agreements of the leading players and consideration of everyone’s interests. This certainly does not guarantee harmony and absolute absence of conflicts. The countries’ interests never fully overlap, and the entire history of international relations is, obviously, a struggle to attain them.
Nevertheless, the fundamentally new global atmosphere in which the tone is increasingly being set by the countries of the Global Majority, holds out a promise that all actors will somehow have to take into account each other’s interests when looking for solutions to regional and global issues. After all, no one can achieve their goals all by themselves, in isolation from others. Despite escalating conflicts, the crisis of the previous model of globalisation and the fragmentation of the global economy, the world remains integral, interconnected, and interdependent.
We know this from our own experience. You know how much efforts our opponents have taken in recent years in order to, let’s put it blatantly, push Russia out of the global system and drive us into political, cultural, informational isolation and economic autarky. By the number and scope of punitive measures imposed on us, which they ashamedly call “sanctions,” Russia has become the absolute record-holder in world history: 30,000, or perhaps even more restrictions of every kind imaginable.
So what? Did they achieve their goal? I think it goes without saying for everyone present here: these efforts have completely failed. Russia has demonstrated to the world the highest degree of resilience, the ability to withstand the most powerful external pressure that could have broken not just one country but an entire coalition of states. And in this regard, we feel a legitimate pride. Pride for Russia, for our citizens, and for our Armed Forces.
But I would like to speak about something deeper. It turns out that the very global system they wanted to expel us from simply refuses to let Russia go. Because it needs Russia as an essential part of the global balance: not only because of our territory, our population, our defence, technological and industrial potential, or our mineral wealth – although, of course, all of these are critically important factors.
But above everything else, the global balance cannot be built without Russia: neither the economic balance nor the strategic balance, nor the cultural or logistical one. None at all. I believe those who tried to destroy all of this have begun to realise it. Some, however, still try stubbornly to achieve their goal: to inflict, as they say, a “strategic defeat” on Russia.
Well, if they cannot see that this plan is doomed to fail and persist, I still hope that life itself will teach a lesson even to the most stubborn of them. They’ve made a lot of noise many times, threatening us with a complete blockade. They’ve even said openly, without hesitation, that they want to make the Russian people suffer. That’s the word they chose. They’ve drawn up plans, each more fantastical than the last one. I think the time has come to calm down, to take a look around, to get their bearings, and to start building relations in a completely different way.
We also understand that the polycentric world is highly dynamic. It appears fragile and unstable because it is impossible to permanently fix the state of affairs or determine the balance of power for the long term. After all, there are many participants in these processes, and their forces are asymmetrical and complexly composed. Each has its own advantageous aspects and competitive strengths, which in every case create a unique combination and composition.
Today’s world is an exceptionally complex, multifaceted system. To properly describe and comprehend it, simple laws of logic, cause-and-effect relationships, and the patterns arising from them are insufficient. What is needed here is a philosophy of complexity – something akin to quantum mechanics, which is wiser and, in some ways, more complex than classical physics.
Yet it is precisely due to this complexity of the world that the overall capacity for agreement, in my view, nevertheless tends to increase. After all, linear unilateral solutions are impossible, while nonlinear and multilateral solutions require very serious, professional, impartial, creative, and at times unconventional diplomacy.
Therefore, I am convinced that we will witness a kind of renaissance, a revival of high diplomatic art. Its essence lies in the ability to engage in dialogue and reach agreements – both with neighbours and like-minded partners, and – no less important but more challenging – with opponents.
It is precisely in this spirit – the spirit of 21st century diplomacy – that new institutions are developing. These include the expanding BRICS community, organisations of major regions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, Eurasian organisations, and more compact yet no less important regional associations. Many such groups are emerging worldwide – I will not list them all, as you are aware of them.
All these new structures are different, but they are united by one crucial quality: they do not operate on the principle of hierarchy or subordination to a single dominant power. They are not against anyone; they are for themselves. Let me reiterate: the modern world needs agreements, not the imposition of anyone’s will. Hegemony – of any kind – simply cannot and will not cope with the scale of the challenges.
To be continued.
read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs
