Photo: RIA Novosti
The following are excerpts from the full transcript of the meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club courtesy of the Kremlin Press Service.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin:
Good afternoon, friends, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that the place
for your discussions, for our meetings is well chosen and that the
timing is good. We are in the centre of Russia – not a geographical
centre, but a spiritual one. [Novgorod Region] is a cradle of Russian
statehood. Our outstanding historians believe and have analysed how the
elements of Russian statehood came together right here. This is in the
light of the fact that two great rivers – the Volkhov and Neva – acted
as natural means of communication, providing a natural linkage at the
time. And it was here that Russian statehood gradually began to emerge.
As
has already been pointed out, this year the [Valdai] club has brought
together an unprecedented list of participants: more than 200 Russian
and foreign politicians, public and spiritual leaders, philosophers and
cultural figures, people with very different, original and sometimes
opposing views.
You have already been conferring here
for a few days now, and I'll try not to bore you unduly. But
nevertheless, I will allow myself to state my views on subjects that you
have touched on during these discussions in one way or another. I am
not only thinking about analysing Russian historical, cultural, and
governance experiences. First and foremost, I am thinking of general
debates, conversations about the future, strategies, and values, about
the values underpinning our country’s development, how global processes
will affect our national identity, what kind of twenty-first-century
world we want to see, and what Russia, our country, can contribute to
this world together with its partners.
Today we need new
strategies to preserve our identity in a rapidly changing world, a
world that has become more open, transparent and interdependent. This
fact confronts virtually all countries and all peoples in one form or
another: Russian, European, Chinese and American – the societies of
virtually all countries. And naturally, including here in Valdai, we
strive to better understand how our partners are attempting to meet this
challenge, because we are meeting here with experts on Russia. But we
proceed from the fact that our guests will state their views on the
interaction and relationship between Russia and the countries that you
represent.
For us (and I am talking about Russians and
Russia), questions about who we are and who we want to be are
increasingly prominent in our society. We have left behind Soviet
ideology, and there will be no return. Proponents of fundamental
conservatism who idealise pre-1917 Russia seem to be similarly far from
reality, as are supporters of an extreme, western-style liberalism.
It
is evident that it is impossible to move forward without spiritual,
cultural and national self-determination. Without this we will not be
able to withstand internal and external challenges, nor we will succeed
in global competitions. And today we see a new round of such
competitions. Today their main focuses are economic-technological and
ideological-informational. Military-political problems and general
conditions are worsening. The world is becoming more rigid, and
sometimes forgoes not merely international law, but also basic decency.
[Every
country] has to have military, technological and economic strength, but
nevertheless the main thing that will determine success is the quality
of citizens, the quality of society: their intellectual, spiritual and
moral strength. After all, in the end economic growth, prosperity and
geopolitical influence are all derived from societal conditions. They
depend on whether the citizens of a given country consider themselves a
nation, to what extent they identify with their own history, values and
traditions, and whether they are united by common goals and
responsibilities. In this sense, the question of finding and
strengthening national identity really is fundamental for Russia.
Meanwhile,
today Russia’s national identity is experiencing not only objective
pressures stemming from globalisation, but also the consequences of the
national catastrophes of the twentieth century, when we experienced the
collapse of our state two different times. The result was a devastating
blow to our nation’s cultural and spiritual codes; we were faced with
the disruption of traditions and the consonance of history, with the
demoralisation of society, with a deficit of trust and responsibility.
These are the root causes of many pressing problems we face. After all,
the question of responsibility for oneself, before society and the law,
is something fundamental for both legal and everyday life.
After
1991 there was the illusion that a new national ideology, a development
ideology, would simply appear by itself. The state, authorities,
intellectual and political classes virtually rejected engaging in this
work, all the more so since previous, semi-official ideology was hard to
swallow. And in fact they were all simply afraid to even broach the
subject. In addition, the lack of a national idea stemming from a
national identity profited the quasi-colonial element of the elite –
those determined to steal and remove capital, and who did not link their
future to that of the country, the place where they earned their money.
Practice
has shown that a new national idea does not simply appear, nor does it
develop according to market rules. A spontaneously constructed state and
society does not work, and neither does mechanically copying other
countries’ experiences. Such primitive borrowing and attempts to
civilize Russia from abroad were not accepted by an absolute majority of
our people. This is because the desire for independence and sovereignty
in spiritual, ideological and foreign policy spheres is an integral
part of our national character. Incidentally, such approaches have often
failed in other nations too. The time when ready-made lifestyle models
could be installed in foreign states like computer programs has passed.
We
also understand that identity and a national idea cannot be imposed
from above, cannot be established on an ideological monopoly. Such a
construction is very unstable and vulnerable; we know this from personal
experience. It has no future in the modern world. We need historical
creativity, a synthesis of the best national practices and ideas, an
understanding of our cultural, spiritual and political traditions from
different points of view, and to understand that [national identity] is
not a rigid thing that will last forever, but rather a living organism.
Only then will our identity be based on a solid foundation, be directed
towards the future and not the past. This is the main argument
demonstrating that a development ideology must be discussed by people
who hold different views, and have different opinions about how and what
to do to solve given problems.
All of us – so-called
Neo-Slavophiles and Neo-Westernisers, statists and so-called liberals –
all of society must work together to create common development goals. We
need to break the habit of only listening to like-minded people,
angrily – and even with hatred – rejecting any other point of view from
the outset. You can’t flip or even kick the country's future like a
football, plunging into unbridled nihilism, consumerism, criticism of
anything and everything, or gloomy pessimism.
This
means that liberals have to learn to talk with representatives of the
left-wing and, conversely, that nationalists must remember that Russia
was formed specifically as a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional country
from its very inception. Nationalists must remember that by calling
into question our multi-ethnic character, and exploiting the issue of
Russian, Tatar, Caucasian, Siberian or any other nationalism or
separatism, means that we are starting to destroy our genetic code. In
effect, we will begin to destroy ourselves.
Russia’s
sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity are unconditional.
These are red lines no one is allowed to cross. For all the differences
in our views, debates about identity and about our national future are
impossible unless their participants are patriotic. Of course I mean
patriotism in the purest sense of the word.
Too often
in our nation's history, instead of opposition to the government we have
been faced with opponents of Russia itself. I have already mentioned
this; Pushkin also talked about it. And we know how it ended, with the
demolition of the [Russian] state as such. There is virtually no Russian
family that completely escaped the troubles of the past century.
Questions about how to assess certain historical events still divide our
country and society.
We need to heal these wounds, and
repair the tissues of our historic fabric. We can no longer engage in
self-deception, striking out unsightly or ideologically uncomfortable
pages of our history, breaking links between generations, rushing to
extremes, creating or debunking idols. It's time to stop only taking
note of the bad in our history, and berating ourselves more than even
our opponents would do. [Self-]criticism is necessary, but without a
sense of self-worth, or love for our Fatherland, such criticism becomes
humiliating and counterproductive.
We must be proud of
our history, and we have things to be proud of. Our entire, uncensored
history must be a part of Russian identity. Without recognising this it
is impossible to establish mutual trust and allow society to move
forward.
Another serious challenge to Russia's identity
is linked to events taking place in the world. Here there are both
foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the
Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including
the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilisation.
They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities:
national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing
policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief
in God with the belief in Satan.
The excesses of
political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously
talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote
paedophilia. People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid
to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or
even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is
their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export
this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct
path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic
and moral crisis.
What else but the loss of the
ability to self-reproduce could act as the greatest testimony of the
moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations
are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of
migration. Without the values embedded in Christianity and other world
religions, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over
millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider
it natural and right to defend these values. One must respect every
minority’s right to be different, but the rights of the majority must
not be put into question.
At the same time we see
attempts to somehow revive a standardized model of a unipolar world and
to blur the institutions of international law and national sovereignty.
Such a unipolar, standardized world does not require sovereign states;
it requires vassals. In a historical sense this amounts to a rejection
of one’s own identity, of the God-given diversity of the world.
Russia
agrees with those who believe that key decisions should be worked out
on a collective basis, rather than at the discretion of and in the
interests of certain countries or groups of countries. Russia believes
that international law, not the right of the strong, must apply. And we
believe that every country, every nation is not exceptional, but unique,
original and benefits from equal rights, including the right to
independently choose their own development path.
This
is our conceptual outlook, and it follows from our own historical
destiny and Russia's role in global politics. Our present position has
deep historical roots. Russia itself has evolved on the basis of
diversity, harmony and balance, and brings such a balance to the
international stage.
I want to remind you that the
Congress of Vienna of 1815 and the agreements made at Yalta in 1945,
taken with Russia’s very active participation, secured a lasting peace.
Russia’s strength, the strength of a winning nation at those critical
junctures, manifested itself as generosity and justice. And let us
remember [the Treaty of] Versailles, concluded without Russia’s
participation. Many experts, and I absolutely agree with them, believe
that Versailles laid the foundation for the Second World War because the
Treaty of Versailles was unfair to the German people: it imposed
restrictions with which they could not cope, and the course of the next
century became clear.
There is one more fundamental
aspect to which I want to draw your attention. In Europe and some other
countries so-called multiculturalism is in many respects a transplanted,
artificial model that is now being questioned, for understandable
reasons. This is because it is based on paying for the colonial past. It
is no accident that today European politicians and public figures are
increasingly talking about the failures of multiculturalism, and that
they are not able to integrate foreign languages or foreign cultural
elements into their societies.
Over the past centuries
in Russia, which some have tried to label as the "prison of nations",
not even the smallest ethnic group has disappeared. And they have
retained not only their internal autonomy and cultural identity, but
also their historical space. You know, I was interested to learn (I did
not even know this) that in Soviet times [authorities] paid such careful
attention to this that virtually every small ethnic group had its own
print publication, support for its language, and for its national
literature. We should bring back and take on board much of what has been
done in this respect.
Along with this the different
cultures in Russia have the unique experience of mutual influence,
mutual enrichment and mutual respect. This multiculturalism and
multi-ethnicity lives in our historical consciousness, in our spirit and
in our historical makeup. Our state was built in the course of a
millennium on this organic model.
Russia – as
philosopher Konstantin Leontyev vividly put it – has always evolved in
"blossoming complexity" as a state-civilization, reinforced by the
Russian people, Russian language, Russian culture, Russian Orthodox
Church and the country’s other traditional religions. It is precisely
the state-civilization model that has shaped our state polity. It has
always sought to flexibly accommodate the ethnic and religious
specificity of particular territories, ensuring diversity in unity.
Christianity,
Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and other religions are an integral part of
Russia’s identity, its historical heritage and the present-day lives of
its citizens. The main task of the state, as enshrined in the
Constitution, is to ensure equal rights for members of traditional
religions and atheists, and the right to freedom of conscience for all
citizens.
However, it is clearly impossible to identify
oneself only through one’s ethnicity or religion in such a large nation
with a multi-ethnic population. In order to maintain the nation’s
unity, people must develop a civic identity on the basis of shared
values, a patriotic consciousness, civic responsibility and solidarity,
respect for the law, and a sense of responsibility for their homeland’s
fate, without losing touch with their ethnic or religious roots.
There
are broad discussions on how the ideology of national development will
be structured politically and conceptually – including with your
participation, colleagues. But I deeply believe that individuals’
personal, moral, intellectual and physical development must remain at
the heart of our philosophy. Back at the start of the 1990s,
Solzhenitsyn stated that the nation’s main goal should be to preserve
the population after a very difficult 20th century. Today, we must admit
that we have not yet fully overcome the negative demographic trends,
although we have veered away from a dangerous decline in the national
potential.
Unfortunately, throughout our nation’s
history, little value was given at times to individual human lives. Too
often, people were seen simply as a means, rather than a goal and a
mission for development. We no longer have that right and we cannot
throw millions of human lives into the fire for the sake of development.
We must treasure every individual. Russia’s main strength in this and
future centuries will lie in its educated, creative, physically and
spiritually healthy people, rather than natural resources.
The
role of education is all the more important because in order to educate
an individual, a patriot, we must restore the role of great Russian
culture and literature. They must serve as the foundation for people’s
personal identity, the source of their uniqueness and their basis for
understanding the national idea. Here, a great deal depends on the
teaching community, which has been and remains a highly important
guardian of nationwide values, ideas and philosophies. This community
speaks the same language – the language of science, knowledge and
education, despite the fact that it is spread out over an enormous
territory, from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok. In this way, the community
of teachers, the educational community overall, in the broad sense of
the word, binds the nation together. Supporting this community is one of
the most important steps on the path toward a strong, flourishing
Russia.
I want to stress again that without focusing
our efforts on people’s education and health, creating mutual
responsibility between the authorities and each individual, and
establishing trust within society, we will be losers in the competition
of history. Russia’s citizens must feel that they are the responsible
owners of their country, region, hometown, property, belongings and
their lives. A citizen is someone who is capable of independently
managing his or her own affairs, freely cooperating with equals.
Local
governments and self-regulated citizens’ organizations serve as the
best school for civic consciousness. Of course, I’m referring to
non-profits. Incidentally, one of the best Russian political traditions,
the country council tradition, was also built on the principles of
local government. A true civil society and a true, nationally-focused
political elite, including the opposition with its own ideology, values
and standards for good and evil – their own, rather than those dictated
by the media or from abroad – can only grow through effective
self-governing mechanisms. The government is prepared to trust
self-regulating and self-governing associations, but we must know whom
we are trusting. This is absolutely normal global practice, which is
precisely why we have passed new legislation to increase the
transparency of nongovernmental organizations.
Speaking
of any kind of reforms, it is important to bear in mind that there is
more to our nation than just Moscow and St Petersburg. In developing
Russian federalism, we must rely on our own historical experience, using
flexible and diverse models. The Russian model of federalism has a
great deal of potential built into it. It is imperative that we learn to
use it competently, not forgetting its most important aspect: the
development of the regions and their independence should create equal
opportunities for all of our nation’s citizens, regardless of where they
live, to eliminate inequalities in the economic and social development
of Russia’s territory, thereby strengthening the nation’s unity.
Ultimately, this is a huge challenge because these territories’
development has been very unbalanced over the course of decades and even
centuries.
I would like to touch on another topic. The
21st century promises to become the century of major changes, the era
of the formation of major geopolitical zones, as well as financial and
economic, cultural, civilisational, and military and political areas.
That is why integrating with our neighbors is our absolute priority. The
future Eurasian Economic Union, which we have declared and which we
have discussed extensively as of late, is not just a collection of
mutually beneficial agreements. The Eurasian Union is a project for
maintaining the identity of nations in the historical Eurasian space in a
new century and in a new world. Eurasian integration is a chance for
the entire post-Soviet space to become an independent centre for global
development, rather than remaining on the outskirts of Europe and Asia.
I
want to stress that Eurasian integration will also be built on the
principle of diversity. This is a union where everyone maintains their
identity, their distinctive character and their political independence.
Together with our partners, we will gradually implement this project,
step by step. We expect that it will become our common input into
maintaining diversity and stable global development.
Colleagues,
the years after 1991 are often referred to as the post-Soviet era. We
have lived through and overcome that turbulent, dramatic period. Russia
has passed through these trials and tribulations and is returning to
itself, to its own history, just as it did at other points in its
history. After consolidating our national identity, strengthening our
roots, and remaining open and receptive to the best ideas and practices
of the East and the West, we must and will move forward.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Member of the Valdai Discussion Club advisory board Piotr Dutkiewicz: Mr. President, this is the tenth year that we are meeting with you here.
This
is a unique platform and a unique format – there is nothing like it in
the world. Thank you for these ten years of warm support for our club.
I
have a two-part question concerning your article in The New York Times.
It was an excellent idea and a brilliant article. Indeed, you are
personally responsible for stopping the expansion and deepening of the
Syrian conflict, which is an enormous achievement.
Question:
who came up with this idea? Was it Lavrov, Shoigu, Peskov or someone
else? And when did you discuss it for the first time with President
Obama?
The
second part of the question: it seems to me that you put yourself in a
rather awkward position with this brilliant idea, this brilliant
article, because you became a kind of hostage. You and Russia have taken
on the burden of responsibility for the success of this agreement. You
already have many detractors because they do not want to see major
global policy to develop as a Putin and Obama duet. What happens if it
doesn’t work?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: Thank you for your kind words.
My
colleagues and I have always been pleased that there are people in the
world interested in Russia, its history and its culture. Ten years ago,
when I was told that these people would like to come to Russia, talk
with us, engage in debate, and want to learn about our point of view on
key issues in the development of the nation itself and its place in the
world, well, naturally, we supported it immediately; I supported it and
my colleagues supported it. I am very happy that over the last ten
years, this platform has become even more prestigious compared to the
first steps taken a decade ago. The interest in our nation is not
waning; on the contrary, it is increasing and growing.
I
want to respond to your words of gratitude in kind. I would like to
thank all the experts on Russia who remain faithful to their love of our
nation and their interest in our nation.
Now,
regarding the article. I had this idea completely by chance. I saw that
President Obama took the discussion on the possibility of attacking
Syria to the Congress and Senate. I followed the course of that
discussion and I just wanted to convey our position, my own position, to
the people who will be forming their opinions on this issue, and to
clarify it. Because unfortunately, the media often present various
problems very one-sidedly, or simply stay completely silent.
So
this was my idea; I called one of my aides and said that I would like
to publish an article in an American newspaper – it didn’t matter which
one, but one of the leading ones – so that this information would reach
the readers, and dictated what I wanted to see written. You may have
noticed that it does not contain anything I have not stated earlier, in
various places in public. I have already talked about all of it in one
way or another. So I just dictated it, and then when my colleagues put
it together, I took a look. I didn’t like everything, so I rewrote and
added a few things, gave it back to them, they worked on it some more
and brought it to me again. I made some more changes and felt it was
ready for publishing. We arranged through our partners that it would be
in The New York Times; we came to an agreement with this respected
publication that the article would be published without any cuts. If
they didn’t like it, we could give it to another newspaper.
But
I must give credit to the New York Times editors: they completely
abided by our agreements and published everything as I wrote it. They
even waived their usual requirements on the number of characters and
words in the article; it was a little bit over the limit. They were
going to submit it, but then one of my aides said, “President Obama is
going to address the nation tomorrow. What if he announces that there
won’t be any strikes, that they changed their minds? It’s better to
wait.” I said, “Very well.” We waited, and the next morning, I was
getting ready for work and I was given President Obama’s speech. I began
to read it and realized that nothing had changed fundamentally, so I
laid it aside without finishing it. But then I thought, “No, I need to
read it to the end.” And when I read all of it, it became clear that my
article was incomplete. As you understand, the matter at hand was
America’s exceptionalism. So I picked up the article, and right then and
there, I hand-wrote the last paragraph. I gave it to my colleagues,
they passed it on to The New York Times, and there it was.
Now,
concerning responsibility. You know, you are all very experienced,
smart and clever people. Here is what I will say about Russia’s special
responsibility. We have equal rights and equal responsibilities with all
our colleagues involved in the discussion on Syria. This is not the
first time I hear that I now carry a special responsibility. We all
carry a special responsibility; we all carry it equally. If the attempt
to resolve the problem by peaceful means is unsuccessful, that will be a
tragedy. But we must investigate before we do take any other steps. My
good friend Francois Fillon – we have known each other for a long time
and have become friends during our years of working together – talked
about how after the report was released by UN experts, it became clear
that chemical weapons had been used. But this was clear to us from the
very beginning, and our experts agreed. The only thing that is unclear
is who used it.
We are constantly talking about
responsibility on the part of Assad’s government, whether he used
chemical weapons or not. But what if they were used by the opposition?
Nobody is saying what we would then do with the opposition – but this,
too, is an important question. We have every reason to believe that this
was a provocation. You know, it was clever and smart, but at the same
time, the execution was primitive. They used an ancient, Soviet-made
projectile, taken from the Syrian army’s armaments from a long time ago –
it even had “Made in the USSR” printed on it. But this was not the
first time chemical weapons were used in Syria. Why didn’t they
investigate the previous instances?
This matter should
be investigated as thoroughly as possible. If we finally get an answer,
despite all obstacles, to the question of who did this, who committed
this crime – and there is no question that it was a crime – then we will
take the next step; we will then work with other UN Security Council
colleagues to determine the culpability of those who committed this
crime, together and in solidarity.
Thank you.
Moderator Svetlana Mironyuk:
They say that Senator McCain followed your example and published an
article of his own in Pravda newspaper. He probably remembers from the
Soviet years that Pravda was a well-known publication and the most
popular newspaper in the country. True, a lot of time has passed and
things have changed a bit since then, so it’s no longer true. I don’t
know if you heard about this or not, Mr President.
Vladimir Putin:
No, I didn’t know about it. I have met the senator before. He was in
Munich when I made the speech there that went on to become so famous.
Actually, there was nothing anti-American in that speech. I simply
stated our position frankly and honestly, and there was nothing
aggressive in what I said, if you only take a closer look. What I said
then was that we were promised at one point that NATO would not expand
beyond the former Federal Republic of Germany’s eastern border. That was
a promise directly made to Gorbachev. True, it was not actually set out
and written down. But where is NATO today, where is the border? We got
cheated, to put it quite simply. That’s the whole story. But there’s
nothing aggressive here. It’s more just a reluctance to admit to what I
just said. But I didn’t say those words to offend anyone. I said them so
that we would be able to lay everything before each other plain and
clear and discuss the problems in an honest, open fashion. It’s easier
to reach agreements this way. You shouldn’t keep things hidden.
The
senator has his own views. I do think though that he is lacking
information about our country. The fact that he chose to publish his
article in Pravda – and he wanted after all to publish it in the most
influential and widely read newspaper – suggests that he is lacking
information. Pravda is a respected publication of the Communist Party,
which is now in opposition, but it does not have very wide circulation
around the country now. He wants to get his views across to as many
people as possible, and so his choice simply suggests that he is not
well-informed about our country.
Actually, I would have
been happy to see him here at the Valdai Club say, taking part in the
discussions. As far as I know, our big television channels, the national
channels, proposed that he come and take part in an open and honest
discussion. There you have it, freedom of speech, freedom of the press.
He is welcome to share his point of view with the whole country and
discuss things with his equals, with political analysts and politicians,
members of the State Duma or the Federation Council.
In
this respect, I can only express my regret that our American colleagues
did not react to our parliamentarians’ proposal and refused to receive
them in Washington for a discussion on Syria. Why did they do this? To
be honest, I don’t see anything so bad about this proposal, which, on
the contrary, seems to me of interest and the right thing to do. The
more we actually discuss things directly with each other, the easier it
will be to find solutions.
Svetlana Mironyuk: Thank you.
Are there more questions from the floor?
Let’s stick to the subjects if we can, so as not to jump from one topic to another.
Bridget Kendall, go ahead.
Diplomatic correspondent for the BBC Bridget Kendall: Thank you.
Again
about Syria, Russia has been lauded for its achievement for bringing
about a deal which looks as though it could lead to the elimination of
chemical weapons in Syria, all the more an achievement given that the
Syrian government didn't admit it had them until very recently. Would
you have been able to persuade President Assad to do this if there
hadn't been a threat of American military strikes? In other words, did
the threat of US military strikes actually play a rather useful role?
Vladimir Putin:
Am I right in understanding that you are asking about whether it is the
threat of military strikes that plays a part in Syria’s agreeing to
have its weapons placed under control?
First, I’d like
to ask you all to address your questions to everyone taking part in
today’s discussion, so as not to turn this into a boring dialogue. If
you permit, I will redirect your question to my colleagues and ask them
to share their points of view on this issue.
The threat
of the use of force and actual use of force are far from being a
cure-all for international problems. Look at what we are actually
talking about after all. We are forgetting the heart of the matter. We
are talking about using force outside the framework of current
international law. We’ve just been saying how the US Congress and Senate
are discussing whether to use force or not. But it is not there that
this matter should be discussed. It should be discussed in the UN
Security Council. That is the heart of the issue. That is my first
point.
Second, on whether we will manage to convince
Assad or not, I don’t know. So far it looks as though Syria has fully
agreed to our proposal and is ready to act according to the plan that
the international community is putting together, working through the UN.
Russia and the USA, in the persons of Secretary of State Kerry and
Foreign Minister Lavrov have already practically drafted the outlines of
this plan. There is a special organization that will work together with
the UN on this matter of eliminating chemical weapons. Syria has
declared that it will join and that it indeed already considers itself
to have joined the International Chemical Weapons Convention. These are
practical steps that the Syrian government has already taken. Will we
succeed in taking the process through to completion? I cannot give a
100% guarantee. But what we have seen just lately, over these last few
days, gives us hope that this is possible and will be done.
Let
me just remind you about how these chemical weapons came about. Syria
got itself chemical weapons as an alternative to Israel’s nuclear
arsenal, as we know. What can be done about the various issues
associated with proliferation and non-proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction remains a very relevant question today, perhaps the most
important issue of our time. If this situation gets out of control, like
it once happened with gunpowder, the consequences will be unimaginable.
We therefore need to strive towards nuclear-free status in particular
parts of the world, especially in such volatile regions as the Middle
East.
We need to be very careful in our action so as to
give unconditional security guarantees for all participants in this
process. After all, there are people in Israel itself who categorically
oppose nuclear weapons. You remember the well-known case when a nuclear
physicist was sent to prison, served his sentence and still continues to
think that his position was right. Why? There is nothing anti-Israeli
in his position. He is a Jew himself and a citizen of his country, but
he simply believes that Israel’s technological superiority is such that
the country does not need nuclear weapons. Israel is already
technologically and militarily a long way ahead of the region’s other
countries. But nuclear weapons only turn the country into a target and
create foreign policy problems. In this respect, there is sense in the
position of this nuclear physicist, who disclosed the existence of
Israel’s nuclear weapons.
But to come back to your question about whether the plan will succeed or not, we hope that it will.
Svetlana Mironyuk:
Mr. President, I suggest that since we have veered away from defense
and security issues, we should give Mr. Rühe a chance to reply, ask a
question, and express his opinion.
Mr. Rühe, you have the floor.
Former Defence Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany Volker Rühe: Well, I wanted to speak about the young generation in this country.
First,
I would like to begin – because I’ve been here from the beginning – to
also compliment our Russian friends on the format of Valdai, the
architects – because it would not be enough to call them organizers.
What we have seen here, I call the culture of inclusiveness and a love
of pluralism. And I can tell you, Mr. President, we are quite fascinated
by the pluralistic voices from Russia, including very powerful
statements by people that are in opposition to your politics, and I
think this shows the strength of the country, that it was organized in
this way.
I’ve
never looked at Russia with the somewhat narrow eyes of a defense
minister, you know this. I was first here in 1971, and Sergei Karaganov
is a friend of mine since the late 1970s. We don’t look it, but it’s a
fact of life. We have lived through SS-20 and Pershing.
And
what I would like to say is, I came here as Defense Minister in 1995
and I went to St Petersburg. And I said, I don’t want to see any tanks
or artillery, or any generals. I want to see the Mayor, Sobchak. And I
got to know you also, you were part of his team. Why? He was a
lighthouse for me, as a young member of parliament in West Germany,
still in the divided Germany, and I think what he was doing was much
more important than tanks and artillery, and it has proved to be this
way. So it’s a lifelong interest in a neighbor. And we all, I believe,
on this continent, are interested in a successful, modern Russia.
Now,
the young generation. What I’ve seen – and of course it was very
interesting for me to listen to his daughter, who is a powerful voice
for the young generation, two days ago.
So
what I’ve seen here, what I’ve seen in Russia is you have really an
asset to the country, your young generation. They are very intelligent.
They want to have a good education. They want to be more internationally
connected. And they want to have a bigger say in the politics of your
country. They are knocking at the doors of the Kremlin.
The
young generation in my country, they also want to build their private
lives, they are very much internationally connected. The doors to our
Kremlins, which is the parliament and the government, are very open, but
they don’t knock at it. They leave it to politicians because they think
things have been arranged very well. And we are very sad that some of
the very best just want to have a successful private life, but don’t
engage in public life.
So
my message really is, Russia can be proud of a young generation, even
if there are political opponents that want to engage in public life,
which is not the case in many of the west European countries. And I’ve
said earlier in Russia also, we should give up this visa regime in the
West, because that would enable hundreds of thousands of young Russians
to come and see our life and our political system. But I must say, it
would also change Russia, because once they have studied in Rome or in
London or in Washington, because they’ll be forces of change, the
necessary change in this country. But I think it would make the country
also more competitive.
Now
what has that to do with security? I think this is the best way to
ensure security and to develop common points of view. And I’m very glad
that this culture of Valdai, I don’t think there’s anything – I have
been to many conferences, and also to Munich, but Munich is very narrow
security-wise, there’s no conference like this in the world.
And
also when we listen for four hours to your people about ideas and
politics – we very often just talk from Monday to Thursday about our
politics. It was very fascinating to see that the Russian speakers are
much more interested in fundamental questions of society than we are,
which is very much on the surface, what we are debating. So I think this
is something to start from, but the real message is, I think it would
be a great project of your third term to integrate this young generation
when they’re knocking at the door of the Kremlin, because don’t forget,
we want more people to knock at the doors of political power in the
West, and you can be proud of these people. That’s my message.
Svetlana Mironyuk: Thank you, Mr. Rühe.
Other questions, please.
President and founder of the Center on Global interests in Washington Nikolai Zlobin: Good afternoon.
Everyone
seems to be expecting me to ask you about 2018 and whether you will run
for a new term. But I’m not going to ask that question. Everyone else I
have put this question to so far have all said no though, so you might
have to run anyway in the end, or else there won’t be anyone at all.
But
I want to come back to a question we have already discussed. Unlike
you, I did read McCain’s article. It should be said that it is not
exactly a reply to your article, because it is really quite a personal
article and not related to Syria. I think it is not very politically
correct really, but that is my personal view.
Actually,
he says there that no criticism of Putin is allowed in Russia. I’m here
as a living example of someone who is always criticizing you. Even here
at Valdai I have often argued with you, but I’m still here as you can
see, alive and well. To be honest, I do not entirely agree with the
things you said today either. But McCain says that the government Russia
has today does not adequately represent Russian society, and that
Russia deserves a different government.
In
this respect I have a question. I know that relations between the
public and the authorities is indeed one of Russia’s big problems, an
old, historical problem. Before last year’s election, I recall that you
said that there is perhaps a need to change the Constitution, change the
relations between government and society, change the mutual
responsibility, develop local government and so on. There was the very
good idea too of bringing more young people into government. Sometimes I
hear voices among the opposition saying that this government should be
swept aside and that a new government is needed. You are now serving
your third term as President. How do you view today the relations
between government and society in Russia? Are you happy with these
relations? What should be changed? Is the Constitution really the issue,
or is McCain perhaps right in a way? I do not think his argument is
correct. But what is your vision now, in the twenty-first century, of
the relations between Russia’s highest authorities and society?
Thank you, Mr. President.
Vladimir Putin:
You recall the words of one of the world’s outstanding political
leaders, a former British Prime Minister, who said of democracy that it
“is the worst form of government except all the others that have been
tried”. Probably then – not probably, but for certain – Russia does
deserve a better quality of government. Is there an ideal form of
government in other countries, including the one that you and Mr. McCain
represent? This is a big question, a very big question, if we are
talking about democracy.
It has happened twice in US
history that the President of the United States was chosen by a majority
in the electoral colleges, but with a minority of the actual voters.
This is an obvious flaw in the electoral procedure, that is to say, a
flaw at the very heart of American democracy. In other words, everyone
has their own problems.
We perhaps have no fewer
problems than you, and maybe even more, though this would only be
natural. Russia has gone through the experience of rule under the tsars,
then communism, then the disintegration of the 1990s. This has been a
period of very difficult and complicated rebuilding. But it is very
clear that Russia is on the road to democracy and is looking for its own
ways to strengthen these democratic foundations. There is this very
fact that for ten years now we have been getting together, debating,
openly discussing, even when we used to meet behind closed doors, it all
became public anyway. And this is not to mention the other aspects of
our life.
As for what kind of government Russia should
have, this is something for our citizens to decide, and not for our
colleagues from abroad. We held an election a year ago, not so long ago,
and the majority of Russia’s citizens voted for me. I base myself on
this decision. That does not mean we can now sit on our laurels. I have
to work on myself, and our institutions need to improve too. This is
just what we are all doing.
Note that we have returned
to holding gubernatorial elections in the regions. This practice is not
so widespread in the world. Such elections are the practice in the
United States, but India say, has a completely different procedure. Many
countries do things very much their own way. Germany has its system,
France has its way of doing things, and in Russia we have decided to
elect regional governors by direct secret ballot.
We
have liberalized political parties’ activity. As a specialist on Russia,
you know just how many new political parties took part in the regional
elections. In many cases they achieved victory, and as far as I know,
the winners of elections from these new political parties are here at
Valdai too. The improvement process is therefore going ahead. I think it
will never stop, because government organization, the political
organization of society, and democratic procedures need to keep up more
or less with a society’s current needs and demands, and society is
developing and changing. The political system will change and develop
with it.
*****************************************************
Inside the mind of Vladimir Putin
By CNN Foreign Affairs Correspondent Jill Dougherty
She’s an expert on Russia’s elites and its political system. For 23 years she headed the Department of Elite Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences and now is director general of the research center “Kryshtanovskaya Laboratory.”
When Kryshtanovskaya looks at Russian President Vladimir Putin, she sees an “average Joe” - make that an “average Ivan.”
“Putin,” she says, “reflects the middle statistical opinion of the average Russian, and what he says is sometimes contradictory, but that is what the majority of Russians think.”
In his first term, she recalls, Putin said the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century was the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
“Every resident of Russia would subscribe to that,” she says.
It’s not that Russians want Communism back, although some do, but the whole structure of life and secure social programs fell apart along with the USSR. So, when people in the West reacted with horror to Putin’s statement, many Russians were surprised, Kryshtanovskaya says, “Everything Putin says is very understandable to us, but not very understandable to you – and vice versa,” she says. “What the American president does, when he starts a war, when he sends troops, when Vietnam begins, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., we can’t understand it.”
Russians who lived during the Soviet Union grew up with government-inspired anti-Americanism. “It’s one of the pillars of our country’s ideology,” she says. “It was formed a long time ago and was carefully instilled in people by the Soviet leaders. Why are there problems? ‘It’s those people, the evil Americans, who are at fault, who make things worse for us.’ It’s an ideological cliché.”
Now, Kryshtanovskaya says, “When Putin thinks of how he can justify his policies, it’s faster to recall this old enemy than to create a new one. This external enemy is a factor of the internal politics of Russia, as strange as that may seem.”
Read More Here
**********************************************************
By Mike Scruggs
Not many Americans or Western Europeans really know Russian President Vladimir Putin, but friend or foe, it is in our interest to know him well. To know him, we must first shake off some of our cold war stereotypes of Russia and Russian leaders. The Russian Federation replaced the old Soviet Union in 1992, after the collapse of the Communist Party.
Boris Yeltsin was the first directly elected president of the new Russian Federation and served until his resignation on December 31, 1999. At that time, he named his recently appointed Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, to the office of President. Putin won the March 26, 2000 election running under the Unity Party banner with 53.4 percent of the vote against 11 other candidates. The Communist candidate came in a distant second with 29.5 percent of the vote. Putin served until March 2008, when Dmitry Medvedev was elected President, and Putin was named Prime Minister.
Putin was elected again to the presidency in March 2012 and appointed Medvedev to the office of Prime Minister. The Russian Federation is not the Communist dominated Soviet Union, and Boris Yeltsin, Dmitry Medvedev, and Vladimir Putin are not Joe Stalins. Putin, however, is not an American. He is among the most Russian of Russians. Putin will be 61 on October 7 and has served 13 years as either President or Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, the ninth most populous country in the world with 144 million people, and the largest country in the world geographically.
Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin was born in 1952 in Leningrad, now known by its original name of St. Petersburg. His parents were Vladimir Spirodonovich Putin (1911-1999) and Maria Ivanova Putina (1911-1998). His father was a Navy veteran and served in the NKVD (state security police) during World War II. He is said to have been a dedicated communist and militant atheist. He later held some minor offices in the Communist Party.
His mother, a factory worker, however, was a devout Russian Orthodox believer, who had the young Vladimir secretly christened in the Russian Orthodox Church. She regularly attended services and took her son with her despite the strong persecution of the Communist Soviet government. Her husband knew this but did not report it to Communist Party officials. Besides Putin’s paternal grandfather, Spirodon Putin, who was a cook in one of Lenin’s country residences, nothing is known of his ancestry.....
Read More Here
**********************************************************
Now before anyone jumps down my throat as to the authenticity of this alleged letter. I have n way to know whether this claim is factual or not . We have only the Word of Breitbart.com to go on. This article is mentioned here as a point of interest. Please take it with a grain of salt as it is intended as a point of speculation to make one think and nothing more. However, we also have an Op Ed piece that was published in the New York Times allegedly by Vladimir Putin as well. SO they seem to be in good company. Time will tell.
~Desert Rose ~
*******************************************************
Breitbart.com
Let’s Join One Another to Crush the Unholy, Unruly, Jihadi Muslims
3 Sep 2013How do I put this politely? You Americans are dumb. Today, Russia and America are fighting each other over fighting the Muslim radicals. Instead, we should be uniting to crush these violent Islamists, once and for all.
You Americans want to remove my ally, the Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad. To borrow a phrase from your John F. Kennedy, Assad may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he’s my son-of-a-bitch.So if you want to destroy him, what are you going to give me in return? If your answer is, “We will give you nothing,” well, why would I ever agree to that? That’s not negotiation, that’s dictation; it’s a return to the bad Yeltsin days, when Holy Mother Russia was pushed into the mud like a used whore.
Look, I’ll be the first to say that Obama’s “red line” comment was dumb. It’s obvious he hadn’t thought it through; one can see it in the words he used to express his policy. He said that the “red line” would be crossed if “a whole bunch” of chemical weapons were used. What kind of language is that? How does one quantify a “whole bunch”? This is the President of the High-and-Mighty United States, and he’s talking like a schoolboy? All for this silliness over sarin in Syria?
Do I think that Assad did it? Gassed those people? I don’t know; I’ve never asked him. He’s certainly capable of it, and yet only the Americans think that the case against Assad is a “slam dunk.” Everyone else agrees that the case is murky. Everyone else follows the first rule of intelligence-gathering: Consider the source--namely, the pro-rebel media. In this instance, the rebels were losing, and then they got “gassed”--and now Uncle Sam is rushing to their side. How convenient.
The Romans, who knew something about both imperialism and trickery, always asked, cui bono--who benefits? Well, the beneficiaries in this episode are the rebels--also known as Al Qaeda. Way to go, Americans!
So let’s check some other news items: Here’s a June 6 item from a Turkish newspaper reporting on “the case of Syrian rebels who were seized on the Turkish-Syrian border with two kilograms of sarin.” And it’s not just the Turks: Carla Del Ponte, the Swiss-born former UN Prosecutor for War Crime Tribunals, has echoed those same charges against the rebels. They’re the bad guys!
Yet could this evidence against the rebels all be Russian disinformation? Hey, we’re good, but not that good.
Meanwhile, go ahead: Look for this information in your mainstream American media--your so-called “free press.” You can barely find it. Yankee lapdog reporters will cover everything that Obama says, and everything that John McCain says, but they won’t send reporters to warzones to go and actually figure out what happened.
Nor will American “presstitutes” remind their people of their own country’s history of helping the Iraqis use poison gas, all the time, in the 80s.
Yes, American reporters are sheep. They try to figure out what Obama wants them to write, and then they write it. Or if Obama doesn’t have a clear line on some topic--which is often--they look over the shoulder of the reporter next to them and copy that. Like I said, sheep.
The result is a herd mentality, showing no understanding of what true necessity truly looks like.
Here’s an example of a real “red line”: It’s June 24, 1812, and Napoleon Bonaparte, having conquered all of continental Europe, is now leading a half-million soldiers across the Neman River, invading Russia, heading straight for Moscow. Six months later, Napoleon retreats in disastrous defeat, but only after he burns our sacred capital and leaves 200,000 Russians dead in battle. Now that’s a red-line situation.
But even the Czars, those blockheads, weren’t dumb enough to send Russian forces halfway around the world because someone wasn’t being nice to someone else.
So in my time, I can hardly get worked up over Assad using poison gas--if he did. Dead is dead, I say. In any case, Assad is adhering to the first rule of a leader: Stay in power. And so you do what it takes.
In fact, I’m not against gas warfare; I’m for gas warfare, if that’s what it takes. For example, I would love to gas the Chechens--all 1.2 million of them. They are like cockroaches, murderous Muslim cockroaches, and if the Chechens had done to Americans what they have done to Russians, maybe the US public would want to join with us. Oh wait, they have: The Boston Bombers, those Tsarnaev brothers, were Chechens. You took them in--against our advice. You put them on welfare for a decade, ignored our intelligence warnings, and then they terror-bomb you. The Chechens deserve to be fumigated. As an aside, what's wrong with your media? They seem like "useful idiots"--to borrow Lenin's phrase--for the terrorists. That Rolling Stone cover? Really? That would never happen in Russia.
In addition, there are another billion or more Muslims to the south of Russia--and a lot of them are trouble, too. Indeed, Russia has been fighting Muslims all across Central Asia for centuries. It’s not easy.
But the American leaders don’t seem to understand any of this. They are lost in their silly theories about liberation, human rights--all that nonsense. They don’t see that the struggle with radical Islam is a war, pure and simple. It’s a war that should unite all the civilized countries of the world. I didn’t say “democratic,” I said “civilized.”
One Western journalist who at least begins to understand where I’m coming from is The New York Times’ Steven Lee Myers. In his report of August 28, Myers accurately describes the Putin view of what’s been going on in the Middle East:
“In his view, the United States and its partners have unleashed the forces of extremism in country after country in the Middle East by forcing or advocating change in leadership — from Iraq to Libya, Egypt to Syria.”
That’s right. Over the last 15 years, from Clinton to Bush 43 to Obama, America has stirred up all the hornet-nests in the Middle East. For the most part, those angry hornets are far away from the US, but those insects are on Russia’s southern border--starting with those lousy Chechens.
And it’s not just the Americans stirring things up; it’s flunky-countries, too. It still kills me to think back to what British Prime Minister Tony Blair said just a few weeks after 9-11. In a speech that made the Americans swoon, Blair chose to regard all the coming wars as a great opportunity for international do-gooding.
After talking up the importance of “freedom,” Blair cited all needy peoples of the Muslim world and declared, “They, too, are our cause.” What kind of bull is that? Radical Muslims kill you, and so you want to go help them? Put them on welfare? America put its blacks on welfare, and were they grateful? Did they become less violent? Yet in Blair’s mind, these same Muslims were supposed to be grateful for all this “help.” That was the theory.
Then Blair concluded with these lines:
“This is a moment to seize. The kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us.”
Read More Here
**********************************************************
A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
Published: September 11, 2013 4447 Comments
MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak
directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is
important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our
societies.
Oliver Munday
Interactive Feature: Reader Reactions to Putin’s Letter
Readers responded to multiple aspects of an Op-Ed by Russian President
Vladimir V. Putin, published by The New York Times on Wednesday, Sept.
11.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood
against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once,
and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international
organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such
devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and
peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the
veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United
Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the
stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of
Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is
possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take
military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong
opposition from many countries and major political and religious
leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and
escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s
borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of
terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the
Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further
destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire
system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict
between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are
few champions of democracy in Syria.
But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all
stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has
designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,
fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal
conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one
of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of
militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our
deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience
acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved
on to Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia
has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a
compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian
government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations
Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s
complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international
relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we
must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international
law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the
Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations
Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
**********************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment
Hello and thank you for visiting my blog. Please share your thoughts and leave a comment :)