Wiesbaden, Oktober 7 2025
Elisabeth Hellenbroich
There could not have been a starker contrast than the one between the informal EU leaders’ summit in Copenhagen (October 1rst) and the 22nd annual Valdai discussion Forum in Sochi (29th September to October 2nd) under the title “The Polycentric World: Instructions for Us.” The conference gathered 140 guests form 42 countries, including Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Germany, UK, Indonesia, Iran, Venezuela, Uzbekistan and USA.
As every year, the Valdai discussion club published a new report with the challenging title: “Dr. Chaos or: How to Stop worrying and Love the disorder.” Having regularly watched over the past years the annual Valdai discussion club conference, that got founded 2004 as a platform for informal discussion between Russia and the West as well as increasingly also the Global South, what was striking this year for the author, was the speech given by a quite relaxed and confident Russian president, that was followed by a three and a half hours lasting Q & A period between Putin and the 140 guests at the Valdai conference.
The main thesis of this year’s Valdai Report, compiled by Oleg Barbanov, Anton Bespalov, Timofei Bordachev, Fyodor Lukyanov, Andrey Sushentsov and Ivan Timofeev, underline that today changes are unfolding that are without parallel, changes that are “non -linear” by nature. The modern world, it is stated “is surprisingly resilient to the challenges generated, by the very engines of its development. This sustainability does not represent an attempt to cling to old relations or preserve obsolete opportunities as the Western-created international system phases out. (…) Instead, it stems from a more fundamental shift in both the global structure and the internal development of states.” These changes “represent a new era that does not need to be compared to any other. (….) However, judging by the processes unfolding around the world, one can argue that the present- day system of trade and economic links, military and political constraints is more resilient than its creators could have imagined. That said, the latter i.e. those who shaped this model, will be playing an increasingly diminished role in global affairs as new and more diverse centers of power, influence and economic potential emerge around the world,” the report states.
It’s stated that the main feature of today’s world is “multipolarity”, presents “an environment that is less linear and offers much more variability but should not be regarded as forming a new order in itself.” The authors further underline that “nuclear weapons play a stabilizing role, of course, by making a direct armed confrontation between nuclear powers pointless. In fact, the principle of guaranteed mutual destruction still largely defines the relations between nuclear powers and their strategy towards one another…. However, the Cold War no longer defines the world order in terms of the way international politics is structure.”
In respect to the character of US President Donald Trump, the report underlines that “Donald Trump and his team seem to focus on national interests without giving much thought to the international order and its categories. As representatives of the world’s biggest power, they have opted for treating other countries in an arbitrary fashion with multiple variables. It all comes down to the extent to which the United States has an edge over the specific countries it deals with. In this regard it has been able to preserve this competitive advantage in its relations with almost all other countries. (…) The global hegemon, which claims to be reshaping world politics, is acting alone against the whole world (take Trump’s global trade war for example). This is because its primary aim is to dismantle the elements of order (institutions), that allowed other countries to somewhat compensate for the force of its hegemony (…) Even if we view Trump as a revolutionary determined to break the global order apart, replacing it with an order offering greater justice and better representation is not on his agenda. Trump’s foreign policy is designed to do everything to enable the United States to further increase its economic might and use alle the available resources around the world for domestic development. Other countries will form ad hoc coalition to defend their interests.”
In the chapter “Back to the future,” the authors focus on the Ukraine crisis as “representing the culmination of a process that began with the end of the Cold War. Its essence lies in NATO serving as a tool to preclude any alternative solutions in European security affairs. In other words, it became a means to inflict a definitive political defeat upon Russia, which – having failed to secure a respectable place within the proposed system- became its adversary. After February 2022, the notion of political defeat transformed into that of military and political, even strategic defeat. The Atlantic Community operated on the assumption that such an outcome was achievable. (…) Donald Trump was the first leader to recognize the contrary and stated it openly. He initiated negotiations with Moscow regarding Ukraine, demonstrating a fundamental willingness to compromise- thus shifting the process from the moral sphere, where bargaining is inappropriate, to another category altogether. A deal on the Ukraine would be unlikely to resolving the underlying contradictions (…) However the realistic objective would no longer be total defeat but rather the continual adjustment of the status quo (using all available means) and the situational extraction of more favorable terms for the immediate future. (…) Should this model become systematically entrenched in international relations, we might witness a peculiar renaissance of 18th century foreign policy practice. That era is replete with bloody wars, yet these typically stopped short of completely annihilating the adversary. When making peace, parties prepared for renewed conflict- but upon re-engaging -they sought more advantageous peace terms rather than the opponent’ s destruction. One crucial distinction is, that three centuries ago, Europe was the epicenter of world politics. Today such approaches are becoming universal.” It then states that “military confrontations – inherently unpredictable by the very nature- become even more so. Securing a strategic victory over an adversary appears unattainable even for major powers, while the cost of any attempt to achieve it, surpasses what any part if prepared to pay. “
In the chapter “Classical diplomacy in a new environment”, the authors enlist five types, the fifth being: “Solidarity of countries united by a common economic interest… The member countries of the Eurasian Economic Union are guided by the same principle. Although their diplomatic vectors are not identical, the obvious economic advantages of cooperation outweigh all other settlement methods based on national currencies, crypto- currencies, as well as other assets and arrangements, whose range widens as the United States uses the dollar and its financial system to persecute opponents. Discrete deals with pragmatic outcomes can unite numerous countries keen on development and prosperity and will over time bring closer the emergence of a new system of financial and economic relations. (…) But the fundamental diplomatic practice is here to stay, too, creating and maintaining structuralized relations between major countries, as we can see in the case of Russia and China as well as the Eurasian Economic Union, BRICS, the SCO and other Organizations.”
That means “diplomacy has more room for action in an epoch of crumbling order and constantly emerging new seats of contradictions. However, its task is not to solve these contradictions, but to maintain them at a level permitting to avoid fatal manifestations of conflict and achieve at least a minimum of required cooperation.”
The report concludes at the end that the “United States realizes that it can no longer exploit its global supremacy as it once did, and any attempts to fully defend it would incur enormous costs. Russia would not risk its socioeconomic stability for a decisive victory in a military conflict. One exception is direct full-scale aggression, but the probability of such an action against a nuclear superpower is close to zero. In fact, domestic problems constitute the only real threat to the existence of major nuclear powers. India and Pakistan are unwilling to jeopardize their development for the sake of resolving their territorial issue. However, they will continue this conflict as part of their broader diplomacy.”
Putin’s speech and discussion with the audience – creative space for foreign policy
The Russian president illustrated in what unprecedented pace the present world is changing and on the background of the Valdai Report focusing attention on the “multipolar and polycentric world,” he explained “what makes the present situation unique. (…) First today’s world offers a much more open- indeed one might say- creative space for foreign policy. Nothing is predetermined; developments can take different directions. Much depends on the precision, accuracy, consistency and thoughtfulness of the actions of each participant in international communication. Yet, in this vast space it is also easy to get lost and lose one’s bearings, which, as we can see, happens quite often. Second “multipolarity space” is highly dynamic… Change can occur rapidly, sometimes overnight. It is difficult to prepare for it and often impossible to predict. One must be ready to react immediately, in real time, as they say.” He also underlined that cultural, historical and civilizational specificities of different countries now play a greater role than ever before (…) “None is willing to play by the rules set by someone else, somewhere far away. And agreements are only possible on the basis of agreements that satisfy all interested parties of the overwhelming majority.”
In other words, as Putin underlined: “This situation on the planet, which I have tried to outline briefly, is a qualitatively new phenomenon. International relations are undergoing a radical transformation. Paradoxically, multipolarity has become a direct consequence of attempts to establish and preserve global hegemony, a response by the international system and history itself to the obsessive desire to arrange everyone into a single hierarchy with Western countries at the top.” (…) Thirty-five years ago, when the confrontation of the Cold War seemed to be ending, we hoped for the dawn of an era of genuine cooperation. It seemed that there were no longer ideological or other obstacles that would hinder the joint resolution of problems common to humanity or the regulation of inevitable disputes and conflicts on the basis of mutual respect and consideration of each other’s interests” (…) He then elaborated how his country tried to eliminate the grounds for bloc confrontation and to create a common space of security, how it declared even readiness to join NATO (1954 during Soviet era, then the proposal to President Bill Clinton, in May 2000). “We were ready for joint work, for non- linear steps in the sphere of security and global stability. But our western colleagues were not prepared to free themselves from the shackles of geopolitical and historical stereotypes, from a simplified schematic view of the world.”
“Some in their arrogance, saw themselves entitled to lecture the rest of the world: others were content to play along with the powerful as obedient bargaining chips, eager to avoid unnecessary trouble in exchange for a modest but guaranteed bonus. There are still many such politicians in the old part of the world: in Europe.” He stated that this didn’t bring anything good. Not a single global problem was resolved. He described that “a clear rejection of the excessive ambitions of the political elite of the leading Western European nations has emerged and is mounting among the societies in those countries. The barometer of public opinion indicates this across the board. The establishment does not want to cede power, dares to directly deceive its own citizens, escalates the situation internationally, resorts to all sorts of tricks inside their countries- increasingly on the fringes of the law or even beyond it.” And he stated that attempts to turn elections into a farce (as in Romania E.H.) is not going to work out. And the “subordination of the majority to the minority inherent in the international relations during the past period of western domination, is giving way to a multilateral and more cooperative approach.”
The necessity for a revival of the art of high diplomacy.
Putin stated that Russia had to experience that much efforts had been spent “to put Russia out of the global system and drive us into political, cultural and international isolation and economic autarchy.” By the number of punitive measures imposed on us, which they ashamedly call “sanctions”, Russia has become the absolute record -holder in world history. 30.000 or perhaps even more restrictions of every kind imaginable. (…) Yet it all failed, given that Russia has demonstrated to the world the highest degree of resilience. “Hence Russia feels proud for its citizens and the Armed Forces”. This makes clear that a lot of Putin’s speech was addressed to the Russian people. It got reflected in his statement that “those who wants to inflect a ‘strategic defeat’ against Russia have to realize that the global balance can’t be built without Russia: neither the economic balance nor the strategic balance, nor the cultural or logistical one.” (…) “Given the fact that the world today is extremely complex (…) it is precisely due to this complexity of the world, that the overall capacity for agreement, in my view, nevertheless tends to increase. After all linear, unilateral solutions are impossible, while non- linear and multilinear solutions require very serious, professional, impartial, creative, and at times unconventional diplomacy. (…) Therefore, I am convinced that we will witness a kind of ‘renaissance’, a ‘revival of high diplomatic art.’ Its essence lies in the ability to engage in dialogue and reach agreements- both with neighbors and like- minded partners, and – no less important but more challenging -with opponents.”
According to Putin hegemony and bloc- based ambitions to exacerbate confrontation, have become meaningless anachronism. “This was visible in Europe which tries to cover the cracks running through the building of Europe. They try to boost up the shaky unity, not by addressing the domestic issues but by inflating the image of an enemy. (…) They are recreating an image of an old enemy, they once created centuries ago, which is Russia. Most people in Europe find it hard to understand why they should be so afraid of Russia, that in order to oppose it they must tighten their belts even more, abandon their own interests, just give them up and pursue policies that are clearly detrimental to themselves. Yet the ruling elites of united Europe continue to whip up hysteria. They claim that war with Russia is almost at the doorstep. They repeat this nonsense, this mantra over and over again. …. They are saying that Russia is about to attack NATO…” Putin qualified this as total “nonsense” and incompetence. “I am tempted to say: calm down, sleep peacefully and deal with your own problems. Look at what is happening in the streets of European cities, what is going on with the economy, the industry, European culture and identity, massive debts and the growing crisis of the social security systems, uncontrolled migration and rampant violence- including political violence, the radicalization of leftists, ultra- liberals, racist and other marginal groups.” He underlined that Russia is closely monitoring the militarization of Europe and clearly stated: “If anyone still feels tempted to challenge us militarily – as we say in Russia, freedom is for the free- let them try. Russia has proven time and again: when threats arise to our security, to the peace and tranquility of our citizens, to our sovereignty and the very foundations of our statehood, we respond swiftly.”
The plea for an indivisible security and the UN
Concerning the root causes of the Ukraine conflict, there were attempts to impose unilateral subjective notions of security on everyone, Putin elaborated. Global challenges can only be solved if done together and constructively, i.e. if all countries and nations join efforts. “A polycentric world, as I have already said today, is a return to the classical diplomacy, when settlement needs attention, mutual respect, but no coercion.” He mentioned the Palestinian conflict as a case in point, but also Trumps recent peace initiative for Gaza, which to him seem like some light at the end of the tunnel. The Ukraine crisis according to him, is “a horrifying example which would not have erupted if NATO had not been used for this purpose as it advanced to our borders; and if Ukraine had ultimately preserved its independence and its genuine sovereignty.” The President expressed confidence that all these crises could be solved if there is a rejection of “bloc philosophy”, an absence of “rigid, externally imposed obligations or models featuring senior and junior partners. The absence of antagonisms becomes the guiding principle.” He particularly underlined the significance of the UN as a universal and most representative organization in the world but also a symbol of spirit of cooperation, which helped to join forces. He called the UN “the legacy of victory in the Second World War and so far, the most successful experience of creating an international organization aimed at solving current global problem. In other words, the Global Majority countries now constitute an overwhelming majority at the UN and its structure and governing bodies should therefore be adjusted to this fact, which will also be much more in keeping with the basic principle of democracy.”
He underlined that a new world order which is coming to the fore, involves a long period of trial and error and said that “when a new system will finally take shape – and what its framework will look like- is unknown. We must be ready for the fact for a considerable time, social, political and economic development will be unpredictable, sometimes even turbulent. (…) To stay on course and not lose our bearings, everyone needs a firm foundation. In our view, this foundation is, above all, the values, that have matured over centuries within national cultures. Culture and history, ethical and religious norms, geography and space- these are the key elements that shape civilizations and enduring communities. They define national identity, values and traditions, providing the compass that helps us withstand the storms of international life.”
The significance of the Alaska summit
Putin particularly referred to the experience of the recent interaction between Russia and the United States, which he called “absolutely natural.” “What matters is how we resolve these disagreements and whether we can settle them peacefully,” he said. “We can see the current US administration is guided primarily by its own national interests- as it understands them. And I believe this is a rational approach. But then, if you will excuse me, Russia is also entitled to be guided by its own national interests. One of which by the way, is the restoration of the full- fledged relations with the United States. Regardless of our disagreements, if two parties treat each other with respect, then their negotiations- even the most challenging, stubborn bargaining – will still be aimed at finding common ground. And that means mutually acceptable solutions can ultimately be achieved. (…) Multipolarity and polycentrism are not just concepts; they are a reality that is there to stay.” He added that Trump was a “comfortable interlocutor” and that intense discussions took place in Alaska about how to find solutions to the Ukraine conflict. Trump would have carefully listened.
Q& A period: On Ukrainian deserters, Uranium deals with US, Trumps peace plan for Gaza
The exchange of views after Putin’s speech was fascinating. Its didn’t get reported at all in the European Press, even if Valdai Discussion Club is the most prestigious Russian Think Tank. President Putin was asked by Valdai Club moderator Professor Lukyanov (Editor in Chief of the Magazine Russian in Global Affairs, Professor at the HSE university and Research director of Valdai club) about the Russian emperor Alexander I, w(ho after the Napoleonic wars was negotiating with the other European victors at the Congress of Vienna 1815, how to bring about a new world order (E.H.). Putin emphasized that “Alexander I united Europe by force, defeating an enemy that had invaded our territory; we remember what he did – the Congress of Vienna and so on.” With respect to modern institutions Putin pointed to the degradation of such institutions like the OSCE, which happened particularly at the end of the Cold War when people acted, as he put it, “as if they were directed by their Washington bosses behaving crudely, disregarding everything and everywhere. Hence the OSCE was reduced to become a platform for discussing, for example human rights in the post- Soviet space.”
He qualified the nature of “the War in Ukraine as one where Russian Armed Forces are seeing a direct involvement of NATO with a command center having been created in Europe for the purpose of coordinating our adversary’s war effort: Providing the Armed Forces of Ukraine with intelligence, satellite imagery, weapons, and training. And I must reiterate these foreign personnel are not only involved in training; they are directly participating in operational planning and combat operations themselves.” The Russian Armed Forces, that according to the President, are the most superb in the world, he said, when being asked to qualify Trumps recent remarks about Russia being a “paper tiger”, that “they had not been fighting the Armed Forces of Ukraine itself these past years, but effectively the entire NATO bloc.” The Russian President as Commander- in- chief gave a precise picture about the military situation on the battlefield: On the North, West, South Group of Forces, Centre Group of Forces, East Group of Forces and the Dnieper Group of Forces, underlying that approximately almost “100% of the Lugansk Region is ours”. In the Donetsk Region they control marginally 19%, in the Zaporoshye and Kherson regions the figure stands at roughly 24-25 % respectively. “Everywhere, I repeat- Russian forces- I emphasize – maintain undisputed strategic initiative…… Yet, if we are combating the entire NATO alliance, advancing this with unwavering confidence, and are deemed ‘paper tiger’—what does that make NATO itself?” What kind of entity is it then?
He also mentioned the 150.000(!) deserters from the Armed Forces of Ukraine, that deserted the battlefield from January to August and the forced mobilization occurring in Ukraine. He strongly rejected the allegation, often made by the West, that equate Stalin with Hitler, referring to the Molotov- Ribbentrop deal. Putin called this ‘absurd’ in light of the Great Patriotic War which Russia conducted under Stalin which led to the defeat of Nazism. At a certain point he read from a Pushkin Poetry book, a poem about the Battle of Borodino (written by Pushkin in 1831, which was a major defeat for the Napoleonic forces and the beginning of the end of Napoleons invasion into Russia, that then ended with the famous Congress of Vienna E.H.) In the poem Puskin speaks of those who invaded Russia, ruled by haughty pride and their disastrous flight. Putin commented: “You see, Russia’s very existence displeases many and all wish to partake in this historic endeavour, inflicting a strategic defeat upon us.”
Upon being questioned by Seyed Mohammad Marandi what he thought about the Trump peace proposal for Gaza, Putin underlined that Russia is overall ready to support it. The question of how long this international administration under Tony Blair should operate and to whom powers would be transferred to the Palestinians administration must still be solved. “The conflict can only be solved fundamentally through the creation of a Palestinian state.” Isreal’s position would be crucial and it is to be seen how the Israeli leadership reacts to this and whether it is ready to implement what is being proposed by the US? Let me reiterate, the creation of a Palestinian State is the cornerstone of any comprehensive settlement.”
He mentioned during the discussion the case of the American Soldier Michael Gloss (son of a US Navy veteran and of a CIA Deputy director) who fought for Russia and died in Ukraine. A brave American by birth, but a Russian soldier, as Putin put it. In terms of cooperation between Russia and the US Putin mentioned that Russia is still the largest supplier of Uranium for the US i.e. enriched uranium for nuclear fuel in the US. An obvious Paradox if one compares it with the ban of Europe to take Gas from Russia. Being asked about US’s tariff policy and the demand for draconian sanctions against 3rd countries which trade oil and gas from Russia (India, China etc.) Putin characterized the US Tariff Policy as ultimately slowing US economic growth itself. “Why is the US is buying energy from Russia while trying to prevent others from it?”, he asked and used the Latin proverb “Quod licet Iovi, non licet Bovi. What is good for Jupiter, is not allowed for the oxes” (…) China and India are unwilling to become the ox”. He mentioned how Europe lost economically by rejecting Russian gas which also had effects on the fertilizer production and prices. He was then asked about events around the Zaporishye Nuclear Power Plant. According to Putin Ukrainian artillery hit the power of transmission towers. And while the “IAEA chief inspector Grossi knows it, he keeps silent”. (!)
He then stated: “What is happening now at Zaporishye Nuclear Power Plant is no different from the actions of these reconnaissance and sabotage groups – in essence terrorist groups” that have run similar operations against other nuclear plants like for example Kursk. In response to the Hungarian economist Gabor Stier who noted that Europe is suffering from erosion of its own value system, Putin referred very positively to the time of former chancellor Helmut Kohl whom he met in Hamburg 1993. There Kohl said to Putin, that if Europe wanted to remain one of the independent centers of the global civilization, it should be with Russia and that Russia should by all means go together with the EU, with Europe and they would powerfully complement each other especially since they actually stand on the common basis of traditional values which were respected in Europe back then.”
The moderator Lukyanov asked him about the seizure of an oil tanker off the French coast, where the French displayed their sovreignity. “Naturally they are linking this incident with Russia one way or another, although the tanker is flying another flag.” Putin responded by emphasizing that this is “piracy” and that the tanker was seized in neutral waters without any reason whatsoever. He interpreted this “act of piracy” as the “French elite, that has no other way of distracting the attention of the population, French citizens, from complicated and hard to resolve problems in the French Republic” (which has an unimaginable overall debt burden of 3 trillion Euro!!). Putin who en passant emphasized that he has normal working relations with Macron, did underline however that they (French) “want to transfer the tension from inside – being rocked by huge mass protests to the external contour, to excite some other forces, to provoke us into some vigorous actions and tell the people of France that they should rally around their leader who will lead them to victory like Napoleon.” An incredible remark indeed about what could be perceived and is so in Europe as a Macrons Napoleon Complex, while the poem by Pushkin describes how the real, yet much tougher Napoleon, got defeated at Borodino. The example concerning Macron was at other points in the discussion serving as examples of other European leaders, such as the Finnish Prime Minister Stubb or his Swedish counterparts who never had any feud with Russia, but now entered NATO, which means more military tension along the common border.
Putin in answer to a Serb historian about the attempts to stage a “coloured revolution” in Serbia against President Vucic, was adamantly stressing that these attempts – also tried in Ukraine in the past – always failed. He strongly suggested that the young people, demonstrating in the streets of Belgrade to protest against the Vucic government, should be involved in discussions. That there are many patriots among them.
The well-known British Russia expert, Anatol Lieven, who regularly has attended Valdai conferences, asked Putin about the US thinking to give Ukraine long range Tomahawk missiles that could strike deep into Russia. Putin did agree that this formidable weapon whose disposal has not been decided yet by the US and emphasized that it “poses a threat.” But that Russia “will intercept them and improve our air defense. Will this damage our relations considering that we have finally started seeing light at the end of the tunnel? Of course, this would be detrimental to our relations (with the US). How can it be otherwise? You cannot use Tomahawks without the US military personnel’s direct involvement. This would signal the advent of a totally new stage in this escalation, including in terms of Russia’s relations with the United States.”
