Theme of the this year’s discussion: The World Order: New Rules or No Rules?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXh6HgJIPHo

I have watched only the first thirty minutes of his 41 minute speech. This year’s theme of the Valdois Discussion Club is interesting, in that it seems to assume that the only alternative to the “New World Order” is a world without order, i.e., anarchy which is assumed, in turn, to be a terrible idea. But is it Really? See my next post.

I didn’t listen to the entirety of Putin’s speech, but here’s what I did hear him say. Overall, I appreciate the striking contrast between his detached, even-toned manner and his harshly correct assessment of the global results of the devious machinations of self-righteous U.S. hegemony since the Cold War.

Also appreciate his recognition, at minute 9:35, of the difference between the new world order being called for now and the architects of the last world order (minute 9:35):

The architects of the world order as it stabilized after World War II respected one another, did not try to extort through force, but were forced to seek compromise. The system of checks and balances that took decades to create. We should not have destroyed it without something to replace it.

Unfortunately, the U.S. who believe themselves the winner of the Cold War, don’t believe in checks and balances. The cold war is over but not with the signing of peace. Not with clearcut standards and rules to be observed. The so-called winners decided to get the most out of the situation, exploit it as much as possible and refashion the world in accordance with their ideas. If the old checks and balances were not in their interests, they declared them outdated. This is how the nouveau riche behaves. Squandering their gains believing they will last forever.

More from my notes (not verbatim):

We have entered a period of distrust in international relations. Total control of international media enabled our counterparts to spin their stories any way they wanted. The abundance of satellites — impose their own recipes as something universal. They had so much ambition that their own ideas, established behind closed doors, were declared universal.

Media pressure, interference in domestic affairs, certain national leaders blackmailed through spying and surveillance — even their allies. How comfortable do we feel in a world like that?

Does the U.S. doing whatever it wants a good thing? Unilateral dictatorship has led to escalation rather than resolving conflicts . . . I can’t wonder how time and again they keep repeating their same mistakes. They either support or create terrorists.

Let me remind you that Russia was the first to offer the U.S. support after 9/11.

They interfered in Iraq and Libya. Iraq is now a playground for terrorists. In Syria, the U.S. started to supply terrorists with weapons and hardware. Where do they get their money, their weapons? How did ISIS become a strong battle group?

Nowadays it’s not only revenues from drug trafficking (which increased during U.S. in Afghanistan).

Russia’s warned numerous times how dangerous it is to interfere in domestic affairs of sovereign states. But what have we seen? Our calls were not heeded. It seems that our western counterparts keep fighting the vices that they breed themselves.

Bringing up a single power does not make the world more manageable. It’s proved highly unstable, and trampling on others’ will. A unipolar world is basically dictatorship and hegemony of some states over others. Once again, attempts to split up the world, dividing lines, shape an image of an enemy, same as the Cold War. We all remember that, the U.S. used to tell their allies they had a common foe, and axis of evil, and that gives them the right to decide how to protect everybody and be in charge of it. Nowadays the same methods used, and they are in conflict with global diversity.

We see what happens when you substitute the logic of cooperation with the logic of confrontation. Nowadays the global business community is experiencing pressure from western governments: “the free world is in danger, we need to mobilize” the sanctions are undermining confidence. Why? The prosperity of the U.S. depends on their investors, and yet that confidence is undermined.

They’re sawing off the branch that they are sitting on.

The external pressure will only consolidate us, keep us from going complacent, and focus on the key issues for development.

We are not going to isolate ourselves.

What if we choose to live without rules? 29:00

—–

Unfortunately, Putin seems to be saying that the U.S. is interfering with establishing a New World Order that will work for everybody. Apparently, he, like all the others who inhabit the upper strata of “power over” other people, can’t even imagine that “a world without rules” might actually work well, once we recognize that people are basically good, and that war, as well as much other violence and coercion comes from centrally organized states. Moreover, it appears that he’s all for Agenda 21, the way he talks about “development” and business interests.

Here’s one assessment, on RT, of the best quotes from that speech.

‘Global media control allows US to sell black for white’: Putin’s key Valdai quotes