Friends
Russian President Vladimir Putin, Владимир Путин, gave a speech
to the Valdai Club yesterday, Friday. The Valdai International Discussion
Club describes itself as an “International Framework of Experts” from
around the world to debate the role of Russia in the World. It was started
in 2004 named after Lake Valdai, which is located close to Veliky Novgorod,
where the club’s first meeting took place. The Russian President and Prime
Minister interact with the Club’s members during its annual events. This
year the <http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/756174> Valdai Club held its event
at Sochi with the <http://valdaiclub.com/photo/73261.html> Russian
President addressing the Closing Session.
Ladies and Gentlemen the president of Russia Vladimir Putin, Владими
р Путин {October 24 2014}
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 programmes 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 standardised model of a
unipolar world and to blur the institutions of international law and
national sovereignty. Such a unipolar, standardised 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-civilisation, reinforced by
the Russian people, Russian language, Russian culture, Russian Orthodox
Church and the country’s other traditional religions. It is precisely the
state-civilisation 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 focussing 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’ organisations 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 organisations.
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 neighbours 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 realised 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.
Thé Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja and Dr. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda is in
anarchy"
Kuungana Mulindwa Mawasiliano Kikundi
"Pamoja na Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja na Dk. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda ni
katika machafuko"
_______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
[email protected]
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet
UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
All Archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---------------------------------------
