Vladimir Putin: Valdajské fórum 2026 - Bod, odkud už není návratu

Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, it is a good tradition that we gather at the annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club to discuss the most pressing global issues . We have always strived not only to diagnose the state of the world but also to outline the contours of the emerging world order. I am convinced that the intellectual capital and the experience of direct, trusting dialogue accumulated by the club will be in demand when all of us—East and West, North and South—sooner or later have to agree on the principles of a new global order that can ensure progress and development for the coming decades. Unfortunately, I must admit that today we are facing other tasks, far more urgent and acute. Although the moderator said we should calm everyone down, the acute problems have not gone away; they are still here. The troubling trends we observe on the international stage force us to think first and foremost not about how to organize global interaction more wisely , effectively, and fairly, although all of that is certainly extremely important. We must think first about how to preserve global peace and security right now, at a time when many old legal norms have been discarded and new ones have yet to emerge. What, then , must be done to avoid the most catastrophic scenarios? The responsibility for our common future is by no means an abstract concept. It is a set of practical actions aimed at preventing humanity from sliding toward the brink of survival and avoiding the irreparable. The world has reached a decisive turning point in its development. And it is not just about politics. Politics, as always, is derived from deeper changes. Changes are occurring in all areas, from almost any technology to the social structure of society, from climate to medicine, from military affairs to bioethics, from energy issues to demographic shifts, from universal digitalization and artificial intelligence to entirely new models of economic development. The list could go on for a long time. Taken together, this creates the conditions for a qualitative transformation. We cannot yet assess all its circumstances and consequences unequivocally or in full, if only because these listed changes are unfolding simultaneously, and their impact on society and the state is contradictory. But I will mention this again. The scale of the changes that have already occurred and those to come is simply enormous. And it seems we understand this. It is no accident that there are so many disputes about the future right now. Often, they carry a distinct undertone of anxiety due to uncertainty and unpredictability. But humanity, while sensing great changes, has not yet fully grasped the caliber of the challenge it is facing. This is the beginning of an entirely new, absolutely new reality. Threats and dangers are closely intertwined with opportunities and prospects. They are, at the same time, inseparable from one another. Our entire life is changing. I will emphasize once again: we are not talking only, or even primarily, about a shift in the balance of power between states or a redistribution of economic and technological influence—this is, of course, important and is taking place. But, most importantly, these changes touch upon the biological and moral-ethical nature of man, his essence, our way of existence, and the foundations of our worldview. Technologies are opening up truly fantastic—in the literal sense of the word—prospects for overcoming limitations and improving the quality of life. But they also bring the possibilities of total destruction to a new level, unfortunately, as a result of military conflicts, rapid environmental degradation, or the loss of control over initiated technological processes. It is clear that such an atmosphere cannot help but cause increased nervousness among people and societies, and a rise in internal tension linked to uncertainty and a lack of understanding of what tomorrow will bring. One of the consequences is domestic political fever in many countries, especially since classic party systems are increasingly failing to reflect the rapidly changing social structure. For any state, regardless of how it is organized and what cultural or historical traditions it relies on, internal stability—I think you will agree with me—is always more important than anything else. And for the sake of preserving it, governments can take all sorts of actions, including those that affect the state of affairs abroad, in neighboring countries, regions, and in the world as a whole. In other words, unfortunately, to export instability. All this only aggravates and intensifies the heat, if one can put it that way, of the international environment. Whatever scenario unfolds in the world in the coming years, the continuation of international conflicts, unfortunately, is highly probable. In particular, this is because the ongoing fundamental shifts and the opportunities opening up here stimulate and fuel ambitions and a willingness to take risks for the sake of an apparent large gain. I would like to be wrong in this assessment, but the stable trends of today, unfortunately, are exactly this. But we are confident that in the strategic perspective, as we move away from Western hegemony, the world situation will gradually change for the better, toward a more stable, democratic, and free multipolar international order. However, it is also obvious that on the path to such a world order, we face all kinds of risks for states, communities, and every individual person. In conditions of radical shifts, this is inevitable. Therefore, minimizing risks at any level, from global to personal, is the main task today for responsible decision-makers in politics, business, science, and in life in general. Much depends on these people. Responsibility also lies in helping people realize such risks and be prepared for them, so that a person or a family is not left alone to face problems in security, the changing labor market, the digital space, and so on. What is very important now, in my view? Caution and prudence, so as not to be caught under an avalanche of uncontrolled changes. Or an active, assertive approach to overcome adverse scenarios, or to use circumstances for one's own purposes. There is no single answer here. In each specific case, a different course of action is appropriate. Decision-makers certainly try to adapt to what is happening, but in the current, as they say, all-encompassing and widespread crisis field, it is objectively very difficult for them to step back from the daily management rush and look ahead, beyond it. Current responsibilities are enormous. A mistake can be very costly, including for the future. Today's tasks often push strategic goals into the background. This is, of course, understandable, but very and extremely dangerous. It is impossible to respond to many current challenges without considering how our actions today will affect our future. As one famous classic of domestic political thought said, one must not miss the forest for the trees. So, what does the big picture look like? It is obvious that the mechanisms for reconciling the interests and actions of states, created in previous periods, are not fully capable of effectively performing a regulatory function. Not because they are bad, but because the conditions under which they were once created have changed. The emerging new reality will, of course, facilitate the creation of new tools, but this is a very long process. Let's be frank, some international organizations now often do not reduce risks, but sometimes generate and provoke them by serving the interests of one country or a group of countries. And yet, that is not what they were created for. Criticism is also directed at such a fundamental structure as the United Nations, which, in accordance with its charter, is called upon to play the role of a central coordinating mechanism in world affairs. This criticism is, of course, not always objective, but there are also valid points. Partly, they are connected with the fact that the UN, although it is the most representative global organization, is in fact managed much less collegially and democratically than intended. A disproportionately large influence is exerted by a limited group of Western countries which, being a clear global minority, seek to appropriate for themselves the functions of management. And since the real influence of these states is declining in favor of an increasingly independent and self-confident global majority, the imbalances in the UN structure are becoming more and more prominent. This is a systemic problem that cannot be solved overnight. Russia has always supported, and continues to support, the idea of a fair reform of the United Nations, but this reform is impossible without an internal consensus, which is currently difficult to achieve. I repeat, we consistently advocate for the UN structure to reflect the full diversity of the world, so that countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East play a much more significant role in the organization. At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that the transformation of the UN is not just about expanding the Security Council and other measures for more balanced geographical representation in international governance bodies. It also concerns new substance for the organization's work and priority areas of its activity, including future-oriented ones. Moreover, global changes are creating a great many new dilemmas that simply did not exist before. The most obvious example is the question of artificial intelligence, with which we all still have to learn to live and work. How will its rapid development affect the intellectual level of humanity itself, and its spiritual and cultural heritage? It is no coincidence that the concept of careful digitalization is being discussed—that is, refusing the uncontrolled introduction of such technologies into spheres that have always remained important and sensitive for human moral development. Indeed, the social and humanitarian aspects of the spread of artificial intelligence are now being analyzed more closely and carefully than the technical or economic ones. Experts are increasingly expressing alarm that the spread of artificial intelligence could become another attempt to bring everyone to a common denominator—to depersonalization—now through the use of algorithms configured by someone. Such digital totalitarianism would be just as dead-end, bleak, and inhumane as the examples of totalitarian societies of the past that we know. And one more significant question—it is relevant today and will become even more acute in the near future—is: how can states, which are overcoming and transitioning to an increasingly digitized basis, ensure sovereignty in this sphere, that is, guarantee their security and identity without walling themselves off from global progress and falling behind in technological development? Another direction in which science and technology are radically changing the world is the human ability to deeply intervene in what was previously considered the prerogatives of the Creator. Genetic modifications of the organism, influence on the formation of personality, programming of human behavior, and even ways of thinking. It is necessary to combine the efforts of countries and communities to jointly seek acceptable solutions for all to these extremely delicate, truly existential questions of being. It would be logical to conduct such work within the framework of international organizations, but many of them, as I have already noted, are subject to the excessive influence of Western countries interested not in universal progress, but only in maintaining their own power. The institutions that were effective after World War II do not reflect the situation in the second quarter of the current century. Is it possible to effectively reform them so that they correspond to modern realities? And the question remains open. New international communities are also emerging, born out of the current world situation. They certainly have great prospects, be it various regional associations or such global structures as BRICS has become. However, it must be admitted that they all have a great deal of work ahead in defining their functionality, optimal spheres of application, and the limits of their own capabilities. Of course, one should not expect relatively recently emerged structures to quickly reshape the surrounding world and formalize its multipolar model. This is a long, thorny path with many unknowns, but it will undoubtedly lead to a result. Does this mean that we are currently doomed to chaos? No. Rendering such a verdict is, undoubtedly, premature. In general, a world regulated by clearly defined norms and governing institutions—an orderly world, so to speak—is a recent invention of the last century. All previous centuries managed without this. The results, as we know, were, to put it mildly, mixed. Arrogance, envy, and greed have always had a place in world politics. They are still encountered today. Nevertheless, responsible powers have always competed in one way or another, but they also worked together, constructing and building systems of relations among themselves and with other, smaller states. And, on the whole, they generally sought to maintain stability. Now, against the backdrop of an institutional crisis and the degradation of international law, a huge responsibility rests on the major powers, commensurate with their own enormous capabilities. Such states possess the potential for actions capable of immediately shifting global trends toward greater predictability and security or, conversely, toward deepening and exacerbating a collapse of all problems. This potential is increased exponentially by the new technologies already mentioned. And it is obvious that the future of the entire world, and therefore of every person, depends on how effectively risks are managed during this stage of sharp changes. The absence of generally recognized rules and an understanding of the principle, an understanding of the principle of equal and indivisible security, or the abandonment of this principle, often pushes toward selfish behavior, and in some cases, it turns into aggressive attempts to gain unilateral advantages, exacerbate the confusion, and use it for one's own interests. World politics provides examples of this almost every day. All conceivable and inconceivable taboos are being broken. I will not list them all now, but I think those sitting in this room understand this perfectly well. I am deeply convinced that such a complex matter as international relations still requires careful handling, compliance not only with adopted laws but also, as lawyers say, with customary law—that is, not just the letter, but the spirit of the law and established, generally accepted practices. Moral and ethical restrictions and decency are important, because respecting them creates the possibility for at least some dialogue. And conversely, the systematic failure to fulfill obligations, deception, turning communication into a farce of any meaningful conversation—into propaganda, and the demonstrative mockery of facts and turning them inside out for the sake of momentary gain, destroys the very foundation of international existence. Such a practice of conducting international affairs, if one can call it that, is shortsighted and dangerous. A temporary gain obtained in this way can turn into long-term failures and, most importantly, worsen the situation for everyone. After all, the interconnectedness of the world is not going anywhere. The principle that " might makes right" seems at times to be the guiding one for certain international players who are confident in their own military-political, economic, and, as they believe, moral exceptionalism. We know very well from history that this never leads to any good. Let me briefly digress from the main topic. There are people present here with very different points of view on today's very acute conflict, the Ukrainian conflict, and its causes. I would like to say a few words about this. Many hundreds or even thousands of experts, your colleagues who will study the materials of this Valdai Club meeting, also have their own thoughts on this. I know, of course, that some in the expert community have a question . Russia talks about peace, but it started a war itself. Well, I have already spoken about this many times. I will say it once more in such a gathering, where the truth lies. The truth is that it was not us who wanted to fight and not us who started the war ; it was they who started fighting against us. There was no need to encourage aggressive nationalism and Russophobia in Ukraine for years to turn it into a tool for fighting Russia . There was no need for NATO to begin the military development of our historic territories for the organization's own interests. Planning their bases there. There was no need to push radicals in Kyiv toward a coup d'état, and then pump the illegally created regime with a wide variety of offensive weapons. There was no need to make plans to organize concentration camps for the residents of Donbas and Crimea. There was no need to crush them with tanks, bombard them with missiles, strafe them with planes, and burn unarmed people alive. Just because they are Russian by nationality and by spirit. There are many more such "no needs," but I will stop there. I am convinced that Russia was deliberately put in a situation where it was simply forced to protect itself with weapons in hand in response to this obvious aggression. They consciously led us to this line. One should not turn Russophobia, the oppression and killing of Russian people, and the destruction of Russia into a state ideology and set the goal of Russia’s strategic defeat . That is how it all sounded, right? No one has forgotten that. We, in any case , do not forget, if we want to live— and everyone wants to live. As I once said in a public speech, let us live in friendship and together look for ways to do so. Building trust is, of course, a complex and fragile process; it is very difficult to establish and very easy to destroy. The interests of even the closest partners cannot coincide completely. What is there to say about countries that are in relations of rivalry, fierce competition, and, all the more, confrontation? Sooner or later, the international situation and system will reach a state of some kind of stable balance. Undoubtedly, this is a complex, multifactorial, multi-layered process requiring mutual compromises, movement toward each other , and a sober assessment of the situation, including from the West. The former hegemon will inevitably have to recognize the realities of a multipolar world. This is inevitable. Look at the development trends of the global economy. We will need to learn to cooperate with the countries of the global majority based on respect for their fundamental interests. This, of course, will not happen quickly. We have to live in an extremely unstable and changing world. The path to a new system will be full of unexpected turns and plot twists, unfortunately often unpleasant and even dangerous. And here I would like to turn to our own national history. Russia has gone through a difficult path of radical transformations, and this process continues. Thirty-five years ago, we experienced a collapse of the state structure, which became a real tragedy for tens of millions of people who woke up abroad overnight, changing their fate and the fate of their children. Both in Russia and in neighboring countries, all this led to a fundamental transformation in global affairs as well. I will specifically note a certain naivety, a beautiful soul, or perhaps even the recklessness of those who led the state in the final years of the Soviet era. Blind trust in Western partners, confidence in the possibility of "gentlemen's agreements, " as if it were enough to take someone at their word and reach an understanding. That is what played a cruel joke on the Soviet Union. In retrospect, it becomes clear how destructive a role this played not only in the fate of the USSR but also in ensuring long-term global stability. Soviet leaders wanted to please the West, while the West wanted to reshape the world to suit itself and grab as large a share of the Soviet legacy as possible. We see the result. The collapse of the USSR was the result of a combination of accumulated internal imbalances. First of all, we must talk about this. This is the truth; that is how it is. Specifically, internal imbalances and mistakes made by more than one generation of the country's leadership. Short-sightedness, narrow and inadequate ideological templates instead of pragmatism, and unprofessionalism—sweeping obvious problems under the rug step by step— worsened and undermined the USSR's internal and international position, ultimately leading to its collapse. What is happening in the world today. Current conflicts and upheavals are largely the fruits of the unwillingness , lack of readiness, or inability of politicians of the late 20th century, both in the East and in the West, to seriously and deeply approach an era of grand changes. And this is not shifting responsibility onto the leaders of the past; it is reality. But even in that time, now distant from us, there were other people, other politicians, both in the East and in the West, who deeply understood the problems and proposed, in my view, the right paths to solve them. Their assessments today can truly be called prophetic. You know, I have publicly recalled a political figure from the FRG, Egon Bahr, a couple of times already. He was a member of the presidium of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. I will give you just a bit—you know, when I read about his contacts with the Soviet leadership both in Bonn and in Moscow, I was simply amazed. Amazed at how substantial, intelligent, and competent a person he was. I will quote some of his statements made in June and February 1990. As we understand, a pivotal time for the fates of Europe and the entire world. The main thing that worried Mr. Bahr was the threat of continued confrontation in Europe after the reunification of Germany and the strengthening—and this is a quote— the strengthening of the influence of those circles in NATO that are by no means eager to embark on the path of pan-European cooperation and the winding down of confrontation. That is his quote. He saw back then that such circles existed. Yes, it was clearer to him, indeed. During the negotiations in 1990, Egon Bahr stated—and this is also a quote: "If decisive steps are not taken to overcome the division of Europe into hostile blocs, developments could take a very unfavorable turn, dooming the USSR to international isolation." This is also his quote. And what was proposed? By the way, we see that exactly as he warned, that is how it ultimately turned out. And what was proposed for Eastern and Central Europe ? It was proposed to create a Security Council with the participation of both the USA and the USSR, and with broad powers at that. This council was to include practically all of Eastern and Central Europe. However, after the collapse of the USSR, those very forces prevailed in the West which, as Egon Bahr said, were not eager to embark on the path of pan-European cooperation. And despite many years—and I want to emphasize this, many years—of attempts by the new Russia to become part of the so-called Western civilization, in practice, they did everything to truly isolate and finish dismantling the Russian Federation itself, viewing it—despite all the domestic political changes that occurred within Russia. Despite all these changes, they viewed it as a key part of the historical Russian Empire. And they still say this at various events and gatherings. They still say, "We must finish dismantling the empire. " All of this has led to today's, let's be frank, very dangerous situation in Europe and the world. I would like to draw your attention, ladies and gentlemen, to my deep conviction that Mr. Bahr was thinking then exclusively about the future of Europe, about this very "common European home" that the leaders of the USSR talked about so much at the time, but, unfortunately, limited themselves only to words. In Russia, perhaps better than many, we know how difficult it is to overcome the consequences of historical collapses and cataclysms, and to grope our way forward in new and often unfavorable circumstances. We often had to use the trial-and-error method and react directly to emerging situations on the fly. But we never forget that a nation needs a perspective, and needs an understanding of the direction of the path into the future. Without the past, of course, there is no future. The legacy of our ancestors, who built a great and unique country, must be preserved and strengthened. Without a historical foundation and respect for traditions, no society can exist. But the reverse is also true. Without a future, the past loses its meaning. No matter how grandiose the achievements of our predecessors may have been, we cannot turn into a museum of past greatness. True greatness of a state is impossible without the ability to keep pace with the times. Ideally, to stay ahead of them. The enrichment of our heritage and its creative development in line with new conditions is the best guarantee that national tradition will not turn into an antique, and that a fashionable historical accessory will not be our only focus. We must focus on a living, fruitful environment for future achievements. As for the future, much of it is indeed shrouded in a veil of uncertainty. There are too many rapidly emerging and fast-changing factors. But a roadmap, a map of the path to it—to the future—is, of course, necessary. This is not a utopia , not abstract speculation, and not the designing of desired images detached from life, but a realistic assessment of risks, opportunities, and necessary goals. Russia is building such a route into the future for itself and is, of course, ready to participate in this work together with other countries and peoples of the world. I repeat, the scale and, what is especially important , the speed of the changes taking place in the world are unprecedented. And we must realize that the moment when nothing can be changed anymore may come very quickly and unexpectedly for everyone. It may simply turn out that the logic of escalating mutual harsh responses leads to fatal irreversibility. Currently, the word " escalation" is often heard in the context of describing and predicting various global conflicts. The unwillingness to turn to genuine diplomacy, based on reality and the consideration of all parties 'interests , pushes one to inflame the situation, raise the stakes, often bluff, and cross red lines in the hope of suppressing and intimidating an opponent, or forcing them to yield. The escalation of hostilities and sanctions —this is not a new practice. It has been used in many conflicts, and it is never one-sided. Provocative steps by some are followed by the response of others. Thus, the spiral tightens, and the destructive consequences grow. At the core of escalation, I will say nothing new. Arrogance and overconfidence are the path to the edge of the abyss. Especially today, when the arsenals of the world's leading powers contain weapons capable of destroying all life, or at the very least, bringing the Earth to a catastrophic state. Can we be sure that these weapons will never be used? Well, of course not. We all know the famous saying. If a gun is hanging on the wall at the beginning of a play, it must, in the end, be fired. We must keep this in mind and avoid it. The more uncompromising the confrontation, and the more openly the goal of the strategic defeat of an opponent