[RUS] Putin's Valdai speech - heartfelt

[Zenaan Harkness]

One thing the naysayers against Putin have failed so far to produce,
is any evidence - that is, actual facts - in support of anything
other than Putin as a genuine and heartfelt man who cares
passionately for his country and further not only for the Russian
people both in Russia and the diaspora abroad, but for all humans on
this planet.

Putin is nothing if not consistent.

>From his Crimea speech to his UN 75th anniversary speech, and this
recent Valdai Club speech, Putin is always consistently "fatherly" is
perhaps the best word - in the --actual words he speaks-- ‼!

We in the West have (pretty rightfully it's hard to not agree)
disdain for pretty much any purported "leader" on the world stage -
but it would behoove us to occasionally check out dichomatic
reactions (undoubtedly well programmed/ schooled) - if a man or woman
cannot be taken at face value, until and unless contrary facts
demonstrate they are a human who deceives, and whilst such a person's
actions do indeed match their words, then are we not doing ourselves
a disservice if we accept "popular “wisdon”" handed down by the lame
stream media?

Here is Putin's latest speech. The RI article has Dmitry Orlov's
solid prefix for those who enjoy that, see here:

 Putin to Western Elites: You Flunked!
 http://russia-insider.com/en/putin-western-elites-you-flunked/ri21355



Otherwise, here's just the transcript:

 "I am not sure how optimistic it will sound, but I am aware that you
 had very lively discussions over the last three days. I will try, as
 has now become customary, to share with you what I think about some
 of the issues. Please do not take it badly if I say something that
 has already been said as I did not follow all the discussions.

 To begin with, I would like to welcome Mr Karzai, Mr Ma, Mr Toje,
 our colleagues and all our friends. I can see many familiar faces in
 the audience. Welcome everyone to the Valdai Club meeting.

 By tradition, this forum focuses on discussing the most pressing
 global political as well as economic matters. This time, the
 organisers, as was just mentioned again, have come up with a fairly
 difficult challenge asking the participants to try to look beyond
 the horizon, to ponder over what the coming decades may be like for
 Russia and the international community.

 Of course, it is impossible to foresee everything and to take into
 account all the opportunities and risks that we will be faced with.
 However, we need to understand and sense the key trends, to look for
 outside-the-box answers to the questions that the future is posing
 for us at the moment, and will surely pose more. The pace of
 developments is such that we must react to them constantly as well
 as quickly.

 The world has entered an era of rapid change. Things that were only
 recently referred to as fantastic or unattainable have become a
 reality and have become part of our daily lives.

 Qualitatively new processes are simultaneously unfolding across all
 spheres. The fast-paced public life in various countries and the
 technological revolution are intertwined with changes on the
 international arena. The competition for a place in the global
 hierarchy is exacerbating. However, many past recipes for global
 governance, overcoming conflicts as well as natural contradictions
 are no longer applicable, they often fail, and new ones have not
 been worked out yet.

 Naturally, the interests of states do not always coincide, far from
 it. This is normal and natural. It has always been the case. The
 leading powers have different geopolitical strategies and
 perceptions of the world. This is the immutable essence of
 international relations, which are built on the balance between
 cooperation and competition. 

 True, when this balance is upset, when the observance and even
 existence of universal rules of conduct is questioned, when
 interests are pushed through at any cost, then disputes become
 unpredictable and dangerous and lead to violent conflicts. 

 Not a single real international problem can be resolved in such
 circumstances and such a framing of the issues, and so relations
 between countries simply degrade. The world becomes less secure.
 Instead of progress and democracy, free rein is given to radical
 elements and extremist groups that reject civilization itself and
 seek to plunge it into the ancient past, into chaos and barbarism. 

 The history of the past few years graphically illustrates all of
 this. It is enough to see what has happened in the Middle East,
 which some players have tried to reshape and reformat to their
 liking and to impose on it a foreign development model through
 externally orchestrated coups or simply by force of arms. 

 Instead of working together to redress the situation and deal a real
 blow to terrorism rather than simulating a struggle against it, some
 of our colleagues are doing everything they can to make the chaos in
 this region permanent. Some still think that it is possible to
 manage this chaos.

 Meanwhile, there are some positive examples in recent experience. As
 you have probably guessed, I am referring to the experience of
 Syria. It shows that there is an alternative to this kind of
 arrogant and destructive policy.

 Russia is opposing terrorists together with the legitimate Syrian
 Government and other states of the region, and is acting on the
 basis of international law. I must say that these actions and this
 forward progress has not come easy.

 There is a great deal of dissension in the region. But we have
 fortified ourselves with patience and, weighing our every move and
 word, we are working with all the participants of this process with
 due respect for their interests.

 Our efforts, the results of which were questioned by our colleagues
 only recently, are now – let me put it carefully – instilling us
 with hope. They have proved to be very important, correct,
 professional and timely. 

 Or, take another example – the clinch around the Korean Peninsula. I
 am sure you covered this issue extensively today as well.

 Yes, we unequivocally condemn the nuclear tests conducted by the
 DPRK and fully comply with the UN Security Council resolutions
 concerning North Korea. Colleagues, I want to emphasise this so that
 there is no discretionary interpretation.

 We comply with all UN Security Council resolutions.

 However, this problem can, of course, only be resolved through
 dialogue. We should not drive North Korea into a corner, threaten
 force, stoop to unabashed rudeness or invective.

 Whether someone likes or dislikes the North Korean regime, we must
 not forget that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a
 sovereign state.

 All disputes must be resolved in a civilised manner. Russia has
 always favoured such an approach. We are firmly convinced that even
 the most complex knots – be it the crisis in Syria or Libya, the
 Korean Peninsula or, say, Ukraine – must be disentangled rather than
 cut.

 The situation in Spain clearly shows how fragile stability can be
 even in a prosperous and established state. Who could have expected,
 even just recently, that the discussion of the status of Catalonia,
 which has a long history, would result in an acute political crisis?

 Russia's position here is known. Everything that is happening is an
 internal matter for Spain and must be settled based on Spanish law
 in accordance with democratic traditions. We are aware that the
 country’s leadership is taking steps towards this end.

 In the case of Catalonia, we saw the European Union and a number of
 other states unanimously condemn the supporters of independence.

 You know, in this regard, I cannot help but note that more thought
 should have gone into this earlier. What, no one was aware of these
 centuries-old disagreements in Europe? They were, were they not? Of
 course, they were. However, at one point they actually welcomed the
 disintegration of a number of states in Europe without hiding their
 joy.

 Why were they so unthinking, driven by fleeting political
 considerations and their desire to please – I will put it bluntly –
 their big brother in Washington, in providing their unconditional
 support to the secession of Kosovo, thus provoking similar processes
 in other regions of Europe and the world?

 You may remember that when Crimea also declared its independence,
 and then – following the referendum – its decision to become part of
 Russia, this was not welcomed for some reason.

 Now we have Catalonia. There is a similar issue in another region,
 Kurdistan. Perhaps this list is far from exhaustive. But we have to
 ask ourselves, what are we going to do? What should we think about
 it?

 It turns out that some of our colleagues think there are “good”
 fighters for independence and freedom and there are “separatists”
 who are not entitled to defend their rights, even with the use of
 democratic mechanisms.

 As we always say in similar cases, such double standards – and this
 is a vivid example of double standards – pose serious danger to the
 stable development of Europe and other continents, and to the
 advancement of integration processes across the world.

 At one time the apologists for globalisation were trying to convince
 us that universal economic interdependence was a guarantee against
 conflicts and geopolitical rivalry. Alas, this did not happen.
 Moreover, the nature of the contradictions grew more complicated,
 becoming multilayer and nonlinear.

 Indeed, while interconnectedness is a restraining and stabilising
 factor, we are also witnessing an increasing number of examples of
 politics crudely interfering with economic, market relations.

 Quite recently there were warnings that this was unacceptable,
 counterproductive and must be prevented. Now those who made such
 warnings are doing all this themselves. Some do not even conceal
 that they are using political pretexts to promote their strictly
 commercial interests.

 For instance, the recent package of sanctions adopted by the US
 Congress is openly aimed at ousting Russia from European energy
 markets and compelling Europe to buy more expensive US-produced LNG
 although the scale of its production is still too small.

 Attempts are being made to create obstacles in the way of our
 efforts to forge new energy routes – South Stream and Nord Stream –
 even though diversifying logistics is economically efficient,
 beneficial for Europe and promotes its security.

 Let me repeat: it is only natural that each state has its own
 political, economic and other interests. The question is the means
 by which they are protected and promoted.

 In the modern world, it is impossible to make a strategic gain at
 the expense of others. Such a policy based on self-assurance,
 egotism and claims to exceptionalism will not bring any respect or
 true greatness.

 It will evoke natural and justified rejection and resistance. As a
 result, we will see the continued growth of tensions and discord
 instead of trying to establish together a steady and stable
 international order and address the technological, environmental,
 climate and humanitarian challenges confronting the entire human
 race today.

 Colleagues,

 Scientific and technological progress, robotic automation and
 digitalisation are already leading to profound economic, social,
 cultural changes, and changes in values as well.

 We are now presented with previously inconceivable prospects and
 opportunities. But at the same time we will have to find answers to
 plenty of questions as well.

 What place will people occupy in the “humans–machines–nature”
 triangle?

 What actions will be taken by states that fail to provide conditions
 for normal life due to changes in climate and environment?

 How will employment be maintained in the era of automation?

 How will the Hippocratic oath be interpreted once doctors possess
 capabilities akin to all-powerful wizards?

 And will human intelligence finally lose the ability to control
 artificial intelligence?

 Will artificial intelligence become a separate entity, independent
 from us?

 Previously, when assessing the role and influence of countries, we
 spoke about the importance of the geopolitical factor, the size of a
 country’s territory, its military power and natural resources. Of
 course, these factors still are of major importance today. But now
 there is also another factor – the scientific and technological
 factor, which, without a doubt, is of great importance as well, and
 its importance will only increase over time.

 In fact, this factor has always been important, but now it will have
 game-changing potential, and very soon it will have a major impact
 in the areas of politics and security. Thus, the scientific and
 technological factor will become a factor of universal and political
 importance.

 It is also obvious that even the very latest technology will not be
 able to ensure sustainable development on its own. A harmonious
 future is impossible without social responsibility, without freedom
 and justice, without respect for traditional ethical values and
 human dignity. Otherwise, instead of becoming a world of prosperity
 and new opportunities, this “brave new world” will turn into a world
 of totalitarianism, castes, conflicts and greater divisions. 

 Today growing inequality is already building up into feelings of
 injustice and deprivation in millions of people and whole nations.
 And the result is radicalisation, a desire to change things in any
 way possible, up to and including violence. 

 By the way, this has already happened in many countries, and in
 Russia, our country, as well. Successful technological, industrial
 breakthroughs were followed by dramatic upheavals and revolutionary
 disruptions. It all happened because the country failed to address
 social discord and overcome the clear anachronisms in society in
 time. 

 Revolution is always the result of an accountability deficit in both
 those who would like to conserve, to freeze in place the outdated
 order of things that clearly needs to be changed, and those who
 aspire to speed the changes up, resorting to civil conflict and
 destructive resistance.

 Today, as we turn to the lessons of a century ago, namely, the
 Russian Revolution of 1917, we see how ambiguous its results were,
 how closely the negative and, we must acknowledge, the positive
 consequences of those events are intertwined. Let us ask ourselves:
 was it not possible to follow an evolutionary path rather than go
 through a revolution?

 Could we not have evolved by way of gradual and consistent forward
 movement rather than at a cost of destroying our statehood and the
 ruthless fracturing of millions of human lives.

 However, the largely utopian social model and ideology, which the
 newly formed state tried to implement initially following the 1917
 revolution, was a powerful driver of transformations across the
 globe (this is quite clear and must also be acknowledged), caused a
 major revaluation of development models, and gave rise to rivalry
 and competition, the benefits of which, I would say, were mostly
 reaped by the West.

 I am referring not only to the geopolitical victories following the
 Cold War. Many Western achievements of the 20th century were in
 answer to the challenge posed by the Soviet Union. I am talking
 about raising living standards, forming a strong middle class,
 reforming the labour market and the social sphere, promoting
 education, guaranteeing human rights, including the rights of
 minorities and women, overcoming racial segregation, which, as you
 may recall, was a shameful practice in many countries, including the
 United States, a few short decades ago.

 Following the radical changes that took place in our country and
 globally at the turn of the 1990s, a really unique chance arose to
 open a truly new chapter in history. I mean the period after the
 Soviet Union ceased to exist.

 Unfortunately, after dividing up the geopolitical heritage of the
 Soviet Union, our Western partners became convinced of the justness
 of their cause and declared themselves the victors of the Cold War,
 as I just mentioned, and started openly interfering in the affairs
 of sovereign states, and exporting democracy just like the Soviet
 leadership had tried to export the socialist revolution to the rest
 of the world in its time.

 We were confronted with the redistribution of spheres of influence
 and NATO expansion. Overconfidence invariably leads to mistakes. The
 outcome was unfortunate. Two and a half decades gone to waste, a lot
 of missed opportunities, and a heavy burden of mutual distrust. The
 global imbalance has only intensified as a result.

 We do hear declarations about being committed to resolving global
 issues, but, in fact, what we see is more and more examples of
 selfishness. All the international institutions designed to
 harmonise interests and formulate a joint agenda are being eroded,
 and basic multilateral international treaties and critically
 important bilateral agreements are being devalued.

 I was told, just a few hours ago, that the US President said
 something on social media about Russia-US cooperation in the
 important area of nuclear cooperation. True, this is the most
 important sphere of interaction between Russia and the United
 States, bearing in mind that Russia and the United States bear a
 special responsibility to the world as the two largest nuclear
 powers.

 However, I would like to use this opportunity to speak in more
 detail about what happened in recent decades in this crucial area,
 to provide a more complete picture. It will take two minutes at
 most.

 Several landmark bilateral agreements were signed in the 1990s. The
 first one, the Nunn-Lugar programme, was signed on June 17, 1992.
 The second one, the HEU-LEU programme, was signed on February 18,
 1993. Highly enriched uranium was converted into low-enriched
 uranium, hence HEU-LEU.

 The projects under the first agreement focused on upgrading
 control systems, accounting and physical protection of nuclear
 materials, dismantling and scrapping submarines and
 radioisotope thermoelectric generators.

 The Americans have made – and please pay attention here, this
 is not secret information, simply few are aware of it – 620
 verification visits to Russia to check our compliance with the
 agreements.

 They visited the holiest of holies of the Russian nuclear
 weapons complex, namely, the enterprises engaged in developing
 nuclear warheads and ammunition, and weapons-grade plutonium
 and uranium. The United States gained access to all top-secret
 facilities in Russia. Also, the agreement was almost
 unilateral in nature.

 Under the second agreement, the Americans made 170 more visits
 to our enrichment plants, touring their most restricted areas,
 such as mixing units and storage facilities.

 The world’s most powerful nuclear enrichment plant – the Urals
 Electrochemical Combine – even had a permanent American
 observation post. Permanent jobs were created directly at the
 workshops of this combine where the American specialists went
 to work every day.

 The rooms they were sitting in at these top-secret Russian
 facilities had American flags, as is always the case.

 In addition, a list was drawn up of 100 American specialists
 from 10 different US organisations who were entitled to
 conduct additional inspections at any time and without any
 warning. All this lasted for 10 years. Under this agreement,
 500 tonnes of weapons-grade uranium were removed from military
 circulation in Russia, which is equivalent to about 20,000
 nuclear warheads.

 The HEU-LEU programme has become one of the most effective
 measures of true disarmament in the history of humankind –
 I say this with full confidence. Each step on the Russian
 side was closely monitored by American specialists, at a
 time when the United States limited itself to much more
 modest reductions of its nuclear arsenal, and did so on a
 purely goodwill basis. 

 Our specialists also visited enterprises of the US nuclear
 arms complex but only at their invitation and under
 conditions set by the US side.

 As you see, the Russian side demonstrated absolutely
 unprecedented openness and trust. Incidentally – and we
 will probably talk about this later – it is also common
 knowledge what we received from this: total neglect of our
 national interests, support for separatism in the
 Caucasus, military action that circumvented the UN
 Security Council, such as the bombing of Yugoslavia and
 Belgrade, the introduction of troops into Iraq and so on.

 Well, this is easy to understand: once the condition of
 the nuclear complex, the armed forces and the economy had
 been seen, international law appeared to be unnecessary.

 In the 2000s our cooperation with the United States
 entered a new stage of truly equitable partnership. It was
 marked by the singing of a number of strategic treaties
 and agreements on peaceful uses of nuclear energy, which
 is known in the US as the 123 Agreement. But to all
 intents and purposes, the US side unilaterally halted work
 within its framework in 2014. 

 The situation around the 2000 Plutonium Management and
 Disposition Agreement (PMDA) of August 20 (signed in
 Moscow) and September 1 (in Washington) is perplexing and
 alarming. In accordance with the protocol to this
 agreement, the sides were supposed to take reciprocal
 steps to irreversibly convert weapons-grade plutonium into
 mixed oxide (MOX) fuel and burn it in nuclear plants, so
 that it could not be used for military purposes. Any
 changes in this method were only allowed by consent of the
 sides. This is written in the agreement and protocols to
 it.

 What did Russia do? We developed this fuel, built a plant
 for mass production and, as we pledged in the agreement,
 built a BN-800 plant that allowed us to safely burn this
 fuel. I would like to emphasise that Russia fulfilled all
 of its commitments.

 What did our American partners do? They started building a
 plant on the Savannah River Site. Its initial price tag
 was $4.86 billon but they spent almost $8 billion, brought
 construction to 70 percent and then froze the project.
 But, to our knowledge, the budget request for 2018
 includes $270 million for the closure and mothballing of
 this facility.

 As usual, a question arises: where is the money? Probably
 stolen. Or they miscalculated something when planning its
 construction. Such things happen. They happen here all too
 often. But we are not interested in this, this is not our
 business.

 We are interested in what happens with uranium and
 plutonium. What about the disposal of plutonium? Dilution
 and geological storage of the plutonium is suggested. But
 this completely contradicts the spirit and letter of the
 agreement, and, most important, does not guarantee that
 the dilution is not reconverted into weapons-grade
 plutonium. All this is very unfortunate and bewildering.

 Next. Russia ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban
 Treaty more than 17 years ago. The USA has not done so
 yet.

 A critical mass of problems is building up in global
 security. As is known, in 2002 the United States pulled
 out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. And despite
 being initiators of the Convention on the Prohibition of
 Chemical Weapons and international security, they
 initiated that agreement themselves, they are failing to
 meet their commitments.

 They remain as of today the only and largest holder of
 this form of weapon of mass destruction. Moreover, the USA
 has pushed back the deadline for eliminating their
 chemical weapons from 2007 to as far as 2023. It does not
 look proper for a nation that claims to be a champion of
 non-proliferation and control.

 In Russia, on the contrary, the process was completed on
 September 27 of this year. By doing so our country has
 made a significant contribution to enhancing international
 security. By the way, the western media preferred to keep
 quiet, not to notice it, though there was one fleeting
 mention somewhere in Canada, but that was it, then
 silence. Meanwhile, the chemical weapons arsenal
 stockpiled by the Soviet Union is enough to destroy life
 on the planet multiple times over.

 I believe that it is time to abandon an obsolete agenda. I
 am referring to what was. Without a doubt, we should be
 looking forward, we have to stop looking back. I am
 talking about this so as to understand the origins of the
 current situation that is taking shape. 

 It is high time for a frank discussion among the global
 community rather than just a group of the chosen,
 allegedly the most worthy and advanced. Representatives of
 different continents, cultural and historical traditions,
 political and economic systems. In a changing world, we
 cannot afford to be inflexible, closed off, or unable to
 respond clearly and quickly. Responsibility for the future
 – this is what should unite us, especially in times like
 the current ones when everything is changing rapidly. 

 Never before has humankind possessed such power as it does
 now. The power over nature, space, communications, and its
 own existence. However, this power is diffuse: its
 elements are in the hands of states, corporations, public
 and religious associations, and even individual citizens.
 Clearly, harnessing all these elements in a single,
 effective and manageable architecture is not an easy task.
 It will take hard, painstaking work to achieve this. And
 Russia, I will note, is willing to take part in it
 together with any partners who are interested.

 Colleagues, how do we see the future of the international
 order and the global governance system? For example, in
 2045, when the UN will mark its centennial anniversary?
 Its creation has become a symbol of the fact that
 humanity, in spite of everything, is capable of developing
 common rules of conduct and following them. Whenever these
 rules were not followed, it inevitably resulted in crises
 and other negative consequences.

 However, in recent decades, there have been several
 attempts to belittle the role of this organisation, to
 discredit it, or simply to assume control over it. All
 these attempts predictably failed, or reached a dead end.
 In our opinion, the UN, with its universal legitimacy,
 must remain the centre of the international system. Our
 common goal is to raise its authority and effectiveness.
 There is no alternative to the UN today.

 With regard to the right of veto in the Security Council,
 which is also sometimes challenged, you may recall that
 this mechanism was designed and created in order to avoid
 direct confrontation of the most powerful states, as a
 guarantee against arbitrariness and recklessness, so that
 no single country, even the most influential country,
 could give the appearance of legitimacy to its aggressive
 actions.

 Of course, let us face it, the experts are here, and they
 know that the UN has legitimised the actions of individual
 participants in international affairs after the fact.
 Well, at least that is something, but it will not lead to
 any good, either.

 Reforms are needed, the UN system needs improvement, but
 reforms can only be gradual, evolutionary and, of course,
 they must be supported by the overwhelming majority of the
 participants in the international process within the
 organisation itself, by broad consensus.

 The guarantee of the UN effectiveness lies in its
 representative nature. The absolute majority of the
 world’s sovereign states are represented in it. The
 fundamental principles of the UN should be preserved for
 years and decades to come, since there is no other entity
 that is capable of reflecting the entire gamut of
 international politics.

 Today, new centres of influence and growth models are
 emerging, civilisational alliances, and political and
 economic associations are taking shape. This diversity
 does not lend itself to unification. So, we must strive to
 harmonise cooperation.

 Regional organisations in Eurasia, America, Africa, the
 Asia-Pacific region should act under the auspices of the
 United Nations and coordinate their work.

 However, each association has the right to function
 according to its own ideas and principles that correspond
 to its cultural, historical and geographical specifics.

 It is important to combine global interdependence and
 openness with preserving the unique identity of each
 nation and each region. We must respect sovereignty as the
 basis underlying the entire system of international
 relations.

 Colleagues, no matter what amazing heights technology can
 reach, history is, of course, made by humans.

 History is made by people, with all their strengths and
 weaknesses, great achievements and mistakes. We can have
 only a shared future.

 There can be no separate futures for us, at least, not in
 the modern world. So, the responsibility for ensuring that
 this world is conflict-free and prosperous lies with the
 entire international community.

 As you may be aware, the 19th World Festival of Youth and
 Students is taking place in Sochi.

 Young people from dozens of countries are interacting with
 their peers and discussing matters that concern them.

 They are not hampered by cultural, national or political
 differences, and they are all dreaming about the future. T

 hey believe that their lives, the lives of younger
 generations will be better, fairer and safer.

 Our responsibility today is to do our best to make sure
 that these hopes come true.

 Thank you very much for your attention.