1º de Novembro, dia dos santos e santas e dos que já partiram. E consulta no Tarot sobre a guerra israelo-americana contra o Irão.

                                            
1º de Novembro, dia dos que já partiram, e mais particularmente de todos os santos, santas e mestres, familiares e amigos. Lux e Amor estejam em todos vós!!

Tantos, tantos, a quem tanto devemos, e como poderemos retribuir um pouco as graças recebidas senão acendendo uma vela, um incenso e enviando algumas orações e pensamentos de gratidão e amor, ou mesmo pedindo desculpas de não os termos amado tanto como mereciam. Amor, Amor, brilhe nos vosso íntimo!

Cerro os olhos e oro: - Queridos amigos e amigas que estas vibrações cheguem até vos e vos sejam agradáveis e úteis, que estas invocações das bênçãos divinas sobre todos vos toquem. Possam a luz, alegria e ligeireza aumentarem em  todos . Que a Luz, o Amor e a Força divina estejam convosco, connosco. Aum, Amen, Hum.

Ó Santos e santas, ó grandes seres, mestres e sábios, onde quer que estejais abençoai-nos, bem como aos nossos familiares e amigos que já tendo partido ainda não se elevaram tanto como se desejaria.

Ó Anjos da guarda, ó Arcanjos e demais espíritos celestiais, harmonizai-nos e derramai as vossas inspirações e bênçãos sobre todos nós. Que consigamos convosco ligar-nos melhor à Divindade!

Ó Divindade, ó Trindade, ò Unidade, nos vos celebramos e invocamos. Possamos compreender-vos, contemplar-vos e amar-vos mais e melhor.

Ó familiares e amigos que já estais nos mundos espirituais, que haja hoje nas vossas almas muito raios e flechas de luz, de nós e dos anjos, a chegarem e a vos iluminarem. Nós vos amamos, eu vos amo. Luz e Amor em vós.

II - Pelo campo unitário da consciência e energia que subjaz, permeia e sobrevoa tudo, chegam-nos sopros ou ecos do que se passa no mundo, e das lutas graves e intensas e do qual pouco se pode antever com segurança de resultados: a luta entre o Ocidente, e a Ucrânia contra a Rússia. A luta de Israel, Estados Unidos da América e aliados contra o Irão, o Yémen, a Palestina e o Líbano. A luta dos governantes europeus assalariados da oligarquia financeira globalista neo-liberal contra os povos (e destes contra ele) e os direitos europeus. Lutas entre a verdade e a mentira ou o Bem e o Mal...

                               

Os resultados das eleições norte-americanas vão ser importantes, em especial quanto à política internacional do império yankee, e logo do mundo e nomeadamente se vai haver ou não o ataque fulminante israelo-americano que Netanyahu, Trump e os seus associados mais radicais ou fanáticos tanto desejam e ameaçam.

Creio, pelo pouco que tenho ouvido ou lido fragmentariamente na internet mas em vários dos bons geo-políticos analistas, que o ataque se irá realizar, que haverá tentativa de destruição da montanha que alberga o urânio enriquecido e de outros locais estratégicos e energéticos, a partir de ataques de muitos misseis e aviões, ao que o Irão responderá bombardeando e cortando vários núcleos militares e energéticos essenciais dos países adversários que os rodeiam e nomeadamente de Israel. Quantos dias durará o ataque e a resposta justa (que nunca teve sequer o direito de ser o primeiro atacar, e que mesmo apenas respondendo defendendo-se foi violentamente criticado pelos hipócritas governantes ocidentes e mesmo das Nações Unidas)  e como terminará, não sabemos, mas é evidente que o governo, o exército e o povo iraniano não se renderão, e embora os egoístas norte-americanos nada sofram nas suas terras e lhes seja muito fácil estrangularem, bombardearem ou invadirem meio mundo, já Israel e os seus aliados árabes serão duramente castigados, nomeadamente Telavive, embora os bunkers abundantemente construídos evitem mais que uns escassos mortos. E claro as respostas do eixo de resistência ao mal liderado pelo Irão podem de novo surpreender e pela terceira vez, de certo modo, derrotar ou deter, os invejosos e cobardes agressores norte-americanos, israelitas, da Nato e demais coligados.

III. Será que no mundo pluridimensional subtil e espiritual já se sabe o que vai acontecer? É bem provável a certos níveis mais elevados, pois veem todos os preparativos que nem todos sabemos na Terra e sobretudo discernem as intenções e determinações, os ódios e insatisfações prestes a eclodirem.

Já quanto aos resultados, dir-se-á que sim, teoricamente saberão aqueles seres que estão já numa consciência acima da divisão do tempo sucessivo e desfrutam de uma visão de eternidade. Que creio que serão muito poucos, a ser possível tal estado de consciência que é contudo afirmado até para os humanos incarnados em diferentes tradições religiões e espirituais, bem como por certos pesquisadores cientifico-espirituais da consciência, um tema e uma capacidade potencial humano-espiritual sem dúvida muito extraordinária e a merecer  aprofundamento.

Como não tenho tal capacidade, e como não tive sequer sonhos que possam ecoar o que vem dos mundos subtis das causas, vou simplesmente abrir o livro do Tarot, fazer istixara sobre os seus vinte e dois arcanos arcanos espalhados em três filas diante de mim e ver o que me indicarão.

Escolherei quatro cartas: a 1ª representa o Irão, a 2ª os adversários, 3ª o que as pessoas pensam, 4ª o que vai resultar.

Pergunto-me: O Irão será a Força, ou o Mundo, ou seja, sair-lhe-á o arcano XI - Força, ou o XXI- Mundo? 

Quanto aos adversários ambientais, será  o Diabo (XV) ou a Casa de Deus (XVI)?

Quanto ao que o mundo ou as pessoas pensam ou vêem, será representado pela carta do  Imperador (IV) ou a Morte (XV)?

E a 4ª carta e resultado final, será, positivamente o Mundo (XXI), a Estrela (XVII), o Conquistador (VII).

Abramos ou viremos para cima então sucessivamente as quatro cartas: - Acertei, na 1ª: o Mundo. Irão é mesmo a sabedoria e a honra do mundo, desde há séculos e séculos e sempre perseguido e atacado e ocultados.

                                     

Na 2ª, os Adversários, saiu uma carta próxima do que prevera, a Morte (XV), e de facto, os atacantes vão matar mas também ser mortos, e esperemos que não recorram a bombas nucleares. O Império norte-americano e o Sionismo israelita são demoníacos,  assassinos, sobretudo nos seus chefes, indiferentes a qualquer legalidade ou moralidade, e portanto pode-se prever que vão tentar matar em espacial o presidente Pezeshkian, o carismático ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros Araghchi e o lucidíssimo porta voz parlament Qalibaf, para além das chefias militares.

                                                    Nûr!

                                      

 Claro, o supremo líder o ayatollah Khamenei seria o máximo assassinarem como já fizeram ao seu pai, só que ele se encontra bem escondido, como já é tradicional na linha dos 12 Imans dos Shiaas, o último tendo desaparecido por volta do ano sem se saber o que lhe sucedeu, e portanto onde está. É o Madhi, o Imam ocultado, que alguns pensam que virá por fim para reestabelecer a paz e a justiça no mundo.

                                  

Quanto à 3ª carta, o que mundo pensa, antes de a abrir, talvez acrescente como hipótese a Lua (XVII), pois as pessoas vão ver na televisão  como se fosse um jogo de futebol ou o resultados das eleições, num espelhismo de consumidores já algo estupidificados por tantas horas de Milhazes, Rogeiros, Solres, Ferro Gouveia, Ireneus, Márcias,  CNN e companhia. 

Não, abri e saiu a carta do Julgamento (XX) indicando que o mundo vê a situação como grave, como decisiva, como um julgamento e um apelo de ressurreição. É uma boa carta para descrever o que se passa no mundo, e de facto a terceira carta duma tiragem em cruz, ou de quatro cartas, pode significar isso.

                                             

4ª carta, o resultado. É com algum receio e relutância que vou terminar a consulta ao futuro e virar a carta e saber. Revejo os 22 arcanos: será a Força, positiva, ou será a Casa de Deus de grande desgraça, negativa. Mistério, que se vai desvendar agora. 

Pois sai o Eremita. Uma carta boa de sabedoria. Indica que o líder supremo e os sábios do Irão, individuais ou como pessoas do povo, podem triunfar, podem manifestar a luz dos shamans, dos magos, de Zaratustra, dos 12 Imans shiaa, de Sohrawardi e seus ishraqui, de Ruzbehan e Molla Sadra, e de cavalaria do amor e da poesia que possuem, na sua fabulosa tradição literária e espiritual, de Firdousi e Attar a Sa'adi e Hafiz, e da qual partilhei uma lista de sugestões: https://pedroteixeiradamota.blogspot.com/2026/02/bons-livros-10-sobre-o-irao-e-sua.html

                                  

Oremos para que a Sabedoria triunfe. Mas anoto que esta carta poderá contudo assinalar que s sabedoria e a prudência triunfaram e que o ataque não sucederá. Tudo em aberto, mas confiemos nas forças do Bem e da Verdade e na sua vitória sobre as da mentira, da violencia e do mal.

Que o sagrado Irão e o seu povo triunfem!

Que o além não seja inundado de almas precocemente mortas e impreparadas para conscientemente se adaptarem ao além e avançarem para a Luz

Que as almas amigas já no mundo espiritual tenham um dia em que recebam mais amor e possam até crescer nos seus corpos de glória pelas nossas lembranças e orações, ou que ao contrário nos façam harmonizar e  crescer pelas suas influencia subtis.

Que a a Humanidade não tenha de suportar mais a brutalidade dos fanáticos do grande império americano, do grande Israel  ou da gananciosa NATO e as pobrezas e crises económicas e sociais geradas por eles,  nem que a Terra tenha de suportar muitos mais toneladas de bombas a altas temperaturas no seu seio esventrado. Que triunfem o bem senso, a verdade, o amor, a  justiça, a fraternidade, a multipolaridade, o BRICS!

Que a ligação entre e terra e o mundo espiritual entre os vivos e os mortos, entre humanos e anjos, esteja aberta, luminosa, harmoniosa, e que o Espírito e a Divindade brilhem mais em  todos nós e particularmente nas nossas intenções e na Humanidade.

Efemérides da 1ª semana de Novembro do encontro entre o Oriente e o Ocidente, da Índia e Portugal.

 

1ª semana, extraída das Efemérides de Novembro do encontro entre o Oriente e o Ocidente, da Índia e Portugal em especial, com notícia de muitas subtis almas e seus feitos. Boas inspirações e realizações!

1-XI. Termina neste dia em 1539 o famoso 1º cerco de Diu, na Índia, no qual 700 portugueses e algumas corajosas mulheres, capitaneados por António da Silveira, conseguiram resistir durante quinze meses às investidas duma poderosa armada (com navios europeus), de 20.000 turcos do sultão do Cairo comandada por Solimão, e dos exércitos de Cambaia ou Guzarate comandados por Coge Sofar. Após o último ataque, «o capitão vestiu os seus melhores fatos e ordenou aos seus fizessem o mesmo, depois do que, começaram a cantar e a bailar todos, em grande algazarra de vozes e soar de trombetas, gastando toda a noite nessa folgança», tentando fazer crer ao inimigo o excesso de forças que lhes minguava já, como relata Damião de Goes, para o ataque final. Mas de manhã chegam as naus de Goa, com os reforços portugueses e alguns milhares de nobres malabares, os naires, que responderam ao apelo do rei de Cochim e a derrota dos inimigos é grande. Tal  vitória ergue alto o prestígio dos portugueses, rendendo-lhes mais tratados e alianças. Esta colaboração de uma Cavalaria espiritual indiana com os portugueses não passou desapercebida a um Fiel do Amor, Jorge Ferreira de Vasconcelos que os nomeia no seu magnífico, e um dos últimos elos da literatura de cavalaria, Memorial das Proezas da Segunda Távola Redonda, dado à luz em 1567, em Lisboa.

Nasce em 1935, em Jerusalém, Edward Wadie Said, filho dum palestiniano e de uma libanesa cristã. O pai, tendo sido um oficial na 1ª grande Guerra nas Forças Expedicionárias Norte-americanas, obterá a nacionalidade americana pelo que Edward Said fará os seus estudos nos Estados Unidos manifestando grandes qualidades humanas e intelectuais e tornando-se professor na Columbia University, sendo autor de livros importantíssimos e um pensador corajoso e respeitado. Será o seu livro Orientalisms, dado à luz em 1978, que  grangeará muitos seguidores da sua visão crítica das narrativas ocidentais do Oriente e em particular do Médio Oriente (nomeadamente com Maria Todorova, e Lorenzo Kamel com The Impact of "Biblical Orientalism" in Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-Century Palestine, 2014), na qual demonstrou e destacou quão fortes tinham sido os preconceitos de superioridade, racismo  e desvalorização do outro ou do tema do Oriente em muitos dos historiadores. Tomou parte activa em tentativas de coexistência de árabes e judeus, co-fundando mesmo uma orquestra mista (tanto mais que era um excelente pianista e escreveu quatro livros sobre música),  defendeu a solução de dois estados independentes, Israel e Palestina, e venceu com as suas posições bem estruturadas alguns orientalistas que, ofendidos pelas suas críticas, o atacaram fortemente. Não receou assumir algum activismo, mais simbólico do que radical, nomeadamente quando lançou em 2000, no fim da ocupação israelita do norte do Líbano (1985-2000) um calhau em direcção das linhas de força do exército israelita, o que provocou reacções iradas dos grupos de direita e do sionismo norte-americano, e ainda da suspeita Sociedade de Freud, na Áustria.  Em 1998 saiu uma edição revista e melhorada de outra obra seminal acerca do Islão visto pelo Ocidente, muito actual e profético em relação ao que se passará com as sucessivas guerras do império norte-americano e dos seus coligados e terroristas: Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How we see the rest of the World, no qual desmascara muito do imperialismo norte-americano e da sua aliança com os meios financeiros, os media e os especialistas mais racistas e reaccionários. Foi membro de várias sociedades internacionais e recebeu numerosos prémios, deixando algumas prestações valiosas para televisões ou filmes. Partiu da Terra em 25 de Setembro de 2003, deixando um filho também de valor intelectual e humano forte. 

Cartaz de homenagem a ele na Palestina, West Bank, provavelmente destruído no genocídio

                                           

2-X. Lopo Vaz de Sampaio (1480-1534), 6º governador interino na Índia de 1526 a 1529, e por meios forçados mantido na posição em detrimento de Pêro de Mascarenhas (pois só deveria governar enquanto este não chegasse de Malaca, onde se encontrava quando se abriram as cartas contendo as vias de sucessão), derrota neste dia uma parte da armada do Samorim de Calecut em 1528, ano em que se empenhou em derrotar os dois destemidos irmãos Kutti Ali, capitães do Samorim e há muito numa luta de resistência ao domínio português. O mais novo foi mesmo capturado e em seguida resgatado por alto preço, jurando sobre o Corão não mais combater os portugueses. Era da escola de Vasco da Gama, de quem fora capitão.

De regresso de Portugal, onde se mostrara vestido à monge indiano e celebrara no Porto e em Évora a missa ao modo Índia, resistindo às tentativas de o reterem na corte, desembarca em Goa neste dia, em 1690, S. João de Brito. Consegue que um objecto tido como relíquia por ter sido tocado pelo corpo de S. Francisco de Xavier seja enviada para sua mãe D. Brites, de quem se despedira há pouco com o pressentimento que já não se veriam mais, e parte para missionarização indiana e o final martírio. 

O notável vice-rei D. Pedro de Noronha Albuquerque (1661-1731) escreve neste dia ao rei em 1694 acerca das pensões às famílias de goeses que a Fazenda real não quisera pagar: «Não sei que razão pode haver para que não sejam premiáveis os serviços e ainda a morte destes homens, sendo cristãos e vassalos de Vossa Majestade e assim lhe peço mande Vossa Majestade declarar esta matéria». A resposta do rei determinará «que àqueles naturais da terra que morreram em acto semelhante de guerra, vivendo por este caminho gloriosamente para a memória, se deve dar a suas mulheres seu sustento a meia praça, como fizestes praticar no caso que referis». Será ainda vice-rei do Brasil de 1713 a 1618, e o 1º marquês de Angeja, numa longa vida dinâmica. 

O inspirado poeta e pensador Teixeira de Pascoais nasce neste dia em 1877, em Amarante, junto à sua serra mágica, o Marão. Foi com Leonardo Coimbra o mestre do movimento da Renascença Portuguesa, no princípio do século. Visionário do Portugal telúrico, poeta duma capacidade inaudita de humanizar imaginativamente a natureza, também soube entrar no mar, como nos Poetas Lusíadas,  sugerindo «que o espírito de Neptuno encarnara em Luís de Camões, quando ele, em certas estrofes dos Lusíadas, é a própria voz do mar. Todos cenários marítimos, deslumbrando ou aterrorizando os nautas descobridores, se integraram por fim no génio da Raça. Camões, tendo herdado aquela imensa lembrança tempestuosa, contemplava o grande Oceano, a bordo da nau S. Bento que o levou para a Índia, em 1553. Ele via a vastidão das águas e outras águas, mais profundas e salgadas, marulhavam na sua memória, como longínqua recordação. E assim as duas imagens do mar (a exterior e a interior) se desdobraram nas ondas dos seus versos oceânicos. Nenhum poeta deu o mar como Camões, porque ninguém, como ele, tão intimamente o possuiu».
 3-XI. Uma postura do Senado de Goa datada deste dia de 1618 determina que ninguém de qualquer nacionalidade está autorizado a exercer a profissão de médico, cirurgião, ou barbeiro sangrador cirurgião, sem ter sido primeiro examinado e obtido o respectivo diploma. Visava-se obstar a consequências mais melindrosas do ditado: «De médico e de louco todos temos um pouco»..
  Pronunciando os nomes "Jesus, Maria" desencarna em 1713 o padre Francisco de Santa Maria, autor do Ano Histórico, vasta obra em que muitas das efemérides dos Descobrimentos estão debuxadas catolicamente. Nunca dizia mal dos sermões que ouvia, menos quando confessou ter colhido o grande fruto de conhecer-se pelo homem mais ignorante, já que ouvira pregar na sua língua uma hora, mas nada entendera. 

 Wladmir Ivanov, um dos grandes orientalistas russos nasce neste dia 3/11/ de 1886 (e morrerá em 19/6/1970). Formado em S. Petersburg, conservador no Museu Asiático, colecionador de valiosos manuscritos trazidos de expedições, era um bom conhecedor do árabe, do persa e do Islão e especializou-se nos estudos ismaelitas, nas suas origens, desmascarando as falsas acusações sobre os fundadores do Ismaelismo, nomeadamente que teria sido Abdul Lah Ibn Al Qaddah, um religioso e pregador pouco ortodoxo e que instituíra um esquema complexo de iniciação. No Internet Archive, encontra os importantes Studies in Early Persian Ismailism, e The Alleged Founder of Ismailism.

  Começa a publicar-se em Pangim neste dia em 1897 o jornal Era Nova, órgão do conde de Mahém D. José de Noronha, sendo editor José Maria Pereira, e durante seis anos será um dos jornais, primeiro semanário e depois diário, animadores da vida cultural de Goa. O historiador Germano Correia dirá: «D. José de Noronha era oriundo daquela fidalguia de outrora que deixando os seus lares pátrios, acorre presurosa e intimorata, para a maior glória de Deus e da Nação, onde quer que a sua presença fosse reclamada... Foram os fidalgos dessa têmpera — quais cavaleiros do Graal — em cujo seio não se sabe o que brilhava mais, se o rútilo eco das suas armaduras brasonadas, se o fulgor do seu amor pátrio. O conde de Mahém foi um autêntico valor nesta sociedade, onde escasseiam as individualidades produtivas. A sua inconfundível figura de gentil homem brilhou tanto nos salões como nos campos de lavoura, junto à terra em prol de que tanto trabalhou, e no seio da qual criou juz a repousar em paz».  

Nasce Charlotte Vaudeville, na Isére, França, em 1918, e será uma das mais sábias indologistas, na filologia e nas ciência históricas e religiosas, aprendendo e trabalhando com Louis Renou, Dhirendra Varma, Jules Bloch, e desenvolvendo estudos muitos valiosos sobre o Ramayana e o Ayhodya Khanda, de Tulsi Das, o Granthavali de Kabir, o Haripath de Jnana Deva e as Pastorais de Surdas, sendo considerada a melhor especialista moderna de Kabir. Foi professora em diversas universidades, membro de várias instituições cientificas e deixou uma vasta obra de livros e artigos. Deixou a Terra em 28 de Abril de 2006.
  4-XI. O papa Paulo III envia em 1543 um breve a D. João III, denominado o Piedoso, acerca do pedido de de expulsar-se de Roma, pela sua maldade, o bispo de Viseu e já então cardeal D. Miguel da Silva e Menezes (1448-1456), no qual afirma que «é digno de Vossa Majestade, pela sua piedade e religião, não se intrometer nas coisas eclesiásticas, nem de modo algum impedi-las». Da alta qualidade humanista e anímica de D. Miguel da Silva, sobrinho de Santa Beatriz da Silva e do Beato Asmodeu da Silva, durante muitos anos embaixador de Portugal, e depois, pela animosidade algo fanática de D. João III, que o chegou a desnaturalizar, refugiado em Roma, falam o papa Leão X, considerando-o "embaixador óptimo, cheio de bondade, de prudência e inteligência", e a dedicatória que lhe consagrou Baltasar Castiglione da sua famosa obra acerca das pessoas dos paços e cortes, do amor e costumes gentis, O Cortesão.  Além da inveja pessoal do rei D. João III, o pouco apoio à instalação da Inquisição em Portugal e o seu erasmismo, devem ter sido outros dos factores do ódio do famigerado rei tido como piedoso. Em contraposição, as vibrações anímicas de D. Miguel de Silva e dos seus amigos humanistas  serão perenemente luminosas, ou não fossem todos eles amigos de Erasmo, tais como Pietro Bembo, Paolo Giovio, Beroaldo, Sadoleto e Castiglione.
  Carta do P. Francisco de Pina em 1561 acerca da viagem feita na armada do vice-rei D. Francisco Coutinho: junto a Moçambique quando se receava o naufrágio há «um milagre evidentíssimo, que em saindo o sol, que já estávamos todos desconfiados, Nosso Senhor parece que movido das vossas orações lá, veio logo de improviso um vento fresco da terra e começou-nos a tirar do baixo, e durou-nos até nos pôr na altura do mar. Todo o caminho a gente falava neste milagre». Conta também como «ao dia do Espírito Santo fizeram um Imperador; preguei-lhe aquele dia», prova importante da vitalidade ainda em curso desta corrente espiritual bem valiosa em Portugal, mesmo em plena navegação.
  São publicados em 1609 dois alvarás contra as doações, dádivas e acrescentamentos dos bens eclesiásticos, criticando-se ainda a devassidão do trato e mercância por religiosos, registando-se que «a conversão dos gentios esfriara pelo escândalo». Já Erasmo criticara a mania dos missionários de converterem os outros antes de se terem convertido à philosophia christi, como ele chamava frequentemente ao Catolicismo, que se esquecia desse "amor à Sophia ou Sabedoria" que Jesus vivera e partilhara
                                      
  Nasce o 5º conde da Ericeira D. Luís Carlos Inácio Xavier de Meneses neste dia em 1689. Estudioso, falando várias línguas, participando nas Academias e conferências da época, foi duas vezes vice-rei na Índia (1717-1721 e 1740-1742), vitorioso em várias batalhas, bom governador, e diplomata cordial com os Mogóis e os Persas, mas atribulado nas viagens e nas intrigas invejosas, nomeadamente do próprio rei  que, quando ele regressou o manteve afastado do Paço durante doze anos, embora continuasse a ser consultado pelo Conselho Ultramarino, provação  de que sairá contudo vitorioso e reabilitado. Em 1719 valorizou com a sua visão universalista a acção dos jesuítas na China, ao pedir ao arcebispo de Goa que os apoie na questão da adopção dos ritos chineses. Tornar-se-á o 1º marquês do Louriçal e deixará descendência notável.

    

5-XI. Valiosa carta de S. Francisco Xavier escrita neste dia em 1549, em Kagoshima, no Japão, relatando ter «conversado frequentemente com bonzos mais instruídos, sobretudo um deles, muito respeitado dos seus irmãos pela sua doutrina, a sua vida, a sua dignidade e também a sua idade; tem 80 anos, chama-se Ninjit, ou seja, em japonês, coração da verdade. É como o abade deles... Ele mostra-se tão meu amigo que é maravilhoso... Temos os dois conversado frequentemente; encontrei-o hesitante quanto ao ponto de saber se a alma é imortal ou se ela morre com o corpo; tanto diz sim, como diz não; assim devem ser todos os seus letrados». Assim referia Francisco Xavier um dos pontos principais das doutrinas do budismo zen, a inexistência do eu e portanto a mortalidade da alma, com a qual ele não podia concordar. O arguto observador P. Luís Fróis, na  sua História do Japão, explica que «era aquele mosteiro da seita dos Jenxus (ramo Sôtô), que tem para si não haver mais que nascer e morrer, e que não há outra vida, nem castigo dos males, nem remuneração dos bens, nem autor que governe o universo. Entre outras muitas coisas, que o P. Mestre Francisco passou com este Ninjit, foram duas: a 1ª é que têm por costume aqueles bonzos, dentro dum ano, meditarem — cem dias uma ou duas horas determinadas, a que chamam zazen — sobre este não haver nada, para melhor extinguirem o remorso da consciência; e na compostura do corpo estavam com tanta modéstia, recolhimento e tranquilidade, como se estivessem arrebatados em uma contemplação divina. Passando uma vez o P. Mestre Francisco com este bonzo velho, superior do mosteiro, por este lugar comum, aonde todos os bonzos estavam fazendo sua meditação, perguntou o padre a Ninjit: «Que é que fazem aqui estes religiosos?» Ele sorrindo-se, lhe respondeu: «Uns estão fazendo de conta de quanto têm ganhado com seus fregueses os meses atrás passados; outros, donde poderão adquirir melhores vestidos e tratamentos para suas pessoas; outros em suas recreações e passatempos; e finalmente nenhum, em coisa que seja de algum momento». Eram as primeiras descrições ocidentais do zazen e das suas dificuldades no controle das vagas do pensamento. Em 1560, o P. Luís de Almeida e os discípulos de Ninjit relembrarão com gratidão os diálogos de seus mestres, sem dúvida momentos pioneiros do diálogo interreligioso ainda hoje tão necessário para a paz, a sabedoria e o além das pessoas, religiões e sociedades.

                

  O alvará do privilégio para a impressão dos Colóquios dos simples e drogas he coisas da Índia, de Garcia de Orta é dado neste dia pelo vice-rei D. Francisco Coutinho em 1562. Da dedicatória a Martim Afonso de Sousa: «É aprovada de todos a sentença de Salústio em que encomenda aos homens que trabalhem exceder e ter preeminência sobre os outros animais, que não passem a vida em silêncio, como fazem os brutos que não têm mais cuidado que de comer e beber... determinei fazer este tratado». Segue-se um soneto ao mesmo, umas odes de Camões ao vice-rei, recomendando Garcia de Orta: «Olhai que em vossos anos / Produz uma Orta insigne várias ervas, / Nos campos Lusitanos, / As quais, aquelas doutas e protervas / Medeia e Circe nunca conheceram, / Posto que as leis da Mágica excederam... O qual está pedindo / Vosso favor e ajuda ao grão volume, / Que agora em luz saindo / Dará da medicina um novo lume; / E descobrindo irá segredos certos, a todos os antigos encobertos». Vem depois um prólogo do médico valenciano Dimas Bosque: «Comum doutrina foi de todos os filósofos, prudente leitor, os homens, por causa e razão dos próprios homens serem nascidos, e de seu próprio nascimento, terem obrigação de aproveitar os outros: isto sentia o divino Platão quando dizia, não ser nascido homem só para si, mas também para pátria e amigos, e ainda que os homens, cumprindo com sua humana inclinação, aproveitando os outros, façam aquilo para que naturalmente gerados foram, contudo se lhes deve muito, pois não receando trabalhos, puseram suas forças em descobrir a verdade, tirando a névoa e véu que impedem os humanos entendimentos no perfeito conhecimento dela, e, o que mais é para arrecear, sujeitar-se a opinião de tantos e tão diversos pareceres». Por fim, há uma epístola do mesmo licenciado ao Dr. Tomé Rodrigues, lente de Medicina na Universidade de Coimbra, e um epigrama em latim de Tomé Dias Caiado considerando Garcia de Orta excelente médico quão filósofo.
  Graças à iniciativa do Físico-mór Mateus Cesário Rodrigues Moacho, formado em Lisboa e Lovaina, é criada a Escola Médico-Cirúrgica de Nova Goa por portaria provincial datada de 5 de Novembro de 1842  emitida pelo governador da Índia Francisco Xavier da Silva Pereira, Conde das Antas, que teve apenas uns meses no cargo.  Nesta escola formaram-se mais de 1300 médicos e cerca de 470 farmacêuticos, de grande qualidade, até ser extinta dois anos depois da reintegração de Goa no Estado indiano, em 1963.

                                

6-XI. O padre Henrique Henriques (1520-1600), em carta escrita neste dia em 1550 ao seu patriarca S. Inácio de Loiola, refere a abundância de palavras do vocabulário ou dicionário da língua do Malabar, o  Tamil, que ele aprendera e compusera, que espantará os naturais e será muito útil aos outros missionários. Natural de Vila Viçosa, primeiro frade franciscano e depois jesuíta, cheio de energia e de fé, não parou enquanto andou pelas costas ocidentais da Índia a pregar, sendo um dos mais ousados dialogantes com a religião oriental e convivendo bastante com um mestre yogi, que conseguiu por fim converter. Restam da sua faina algumas cartas notáveis: «Fizemos uma regra entre nós senão falar malabar e há uma pena para quem falar em português, a não ser falando nós das coisas de Deus, encorajando-nos a servi-Lo» Erasmo, quando entre 1507 e 1508, estivera em Veneza a aprofundar a língua grega com Marco Musuro, na famosa tipografia de Aldo Manucio, esteve sob a mesma regra na Academia Aldina, de não poderem falar senão em grego, sob pena de pagarem um contributo para um agape convivial. O Padre Henrique Henrique  imprimiu em caracteres tamil uma Vidas de Santos e uma Doutrina Cristã, permitindo assim que o tamil fosse a primeira língua não-europeia a ser impressa em caracteres móveis.

 Neste dia, 6-XI-1556, o Patriarca da Etiópia [e Oriente], Dom João Nunes Barreto, em Goa, escreve para Lisboa dando conta ao provincial dos jesuítas Luís Gonçalves da Câmara  não só do bom funcionamento do curso de Filosofia no Colégio de S. Paulo, como do começo da Tipografia na Índia, que chegara dois meses antes ao continente indiano, ao sair à luz hindustânica as Conclusiones Philosophicas que Francisco Cabral defendeu perante Padre António Quadros, seu professor no Colégio de S. Paulo: «António Quadros prega a filosofia. Houve conclusões públicas, que parecia que eram sustentadas em Coimbra, onde houve grande concurso de gente e padres (...) João   [Bustamante] imprimiu já estas conclusões e outras coisas, o que se faz já bem e muito melhor se fará cada vez mais ao diante. O índio é muito bem inclinado e amigo de se confessar muitas vezes; no mar nos serviu muito bem na cozinha e aqui mostrou saber bem da impressão; e de que o P. Francisco Rodrigues está contente e deseja outro. Neste colégio agora querem imprimir a Doutrina Cristã que fez mestre Francisco; espero que em Etiópia se faça muito fruito com essa impressão».                                             

  O rei D. João IV morre em 1656, com 52 anos de idade e o corpo é sepultado debaixo do sacrário da capela-mor de S. Vicente de Fora, com bela música, a que tanto se dedicara, a acompanhá-lo. Filho de D. Teodósio II, sétimo duque de Bragança e duma duquesa castelhana, manteve-se discreto durante a ocupação e espanhola e, hesitando em aderir à revolução dos nobre conjurados em 1640, foi sua mulher Dona Luísa de Gusmão, por sinal espanhola de nascimento mas portuguesa de afeição quem o espicaçou, ensinando-lhe: «Mais vale ser rainha uma hora, que duquesa toda a vida». No seu reinado, de apertada luta pela sobrevivência perante Espanha, mas vitoriosa, a opção do Brasil em vez da Índia começou a desenhar-se cada vez mais. Está sepultado no mosteiro de S. Vicente de Fora, no antigo refeitório transformado em refrigerante panteão real da Casa de Bragança e não só.
                                                           
7-XI. Morre neste dia em 1629 em Goa, Frei Sebastião de S. Pedro. Natural de Condeixa-a-Nova, partira para a Índia em 1582, como frade agostinho. Em 1614 escreveu a Recopilação das causas, porque o Imperador de Japão desterrou de seus Reinos todos os Padres, criticando a actuação dos missionários jesuítas, sendo refutado pelo provincial jesuíta Valentim Carvalho, na sua Apologia do Japão. Como bispo de Cochim entre 1615 e 1625, escreveu para a Mesa de Consciência e Ordens, em Lisboa, o organismo do Estado que fundado em 1532 superintendia o espiritual no Ultramar, queixando-se dos franciscanos no Ceilão. Esteve depois na Pérsia, onde os missionários eram tanto agentes comerciais e diplomatas como sacerdotes. Regressado a Lisboa, parte como bispo de S. Tomé de Meliapor, que governará de 1623 a 1625, defendendo-a contra os holandeses três meses; pelo seu conhecido destemor foi mandado pelo vice-rei na expedição contra o cerco dos holandeses em Paleacate, que será também levantado. Chegará depois a arcebispo de Goa e Primaz das Índias em 1625 e será construtor de templos, até em 1629, rasgar o véu que o separava do Templo da Eternidade e para aí se encaminhar. A luta pela sobrevivência dos portugueses era tão forte que não será fácil avaliar ou julgar estes monges militares que, não oferecendo a outra face, preferiam expulsar os, para eles, vendilhões do templo, neste caso os holandeses. 

O sábio historiador Luciano Cordeiro, vice-presidente da Comissão dos Monumentos Nacionais, lê o seu parecer As Obras dos Jeronymos, na sessão de 7 de Novembro de 1895, historiando as vicissitudes das reparações e reconstruções com que uma série de arquitectos e responsáveis destruíram e alteraram partes substanciais da Igreja e do mosteiro. Apresenta a visão do que se poderá fazer de mais harmonizador,  e defenderá o espírito do local: «No Monumento fundiu-se uma ideia; reside e perpetua-se nele uma intenção, um culto, uma consagração histórica que se quer respeitar desde que se quer conservar e restaurar o Monumento./ Se não se compreende, se não se sente, se não se respeita isto, parece hipocrisia o empenho e o cuidado da conservação material./ O monumento comemorativo de um feito que sintetiza e glorifica o nome, o esforço, a missão histórica de um povo através das idades e nações, não pode ser vazadouro ou asilo eventual de serviços e instituições avulsas sem carácter nem significado que com a dele condigna numa espontânea e nobre consonância moral./ Santa Maria de Belém é o Te-Deum que agradece e celebra a vitória da ideia, da fé e do esforço que alargaram o nome e a terra da Pátria portuguesa./ Como Santa Maria canta e celebra o triunfo do direito, da vontade, da razão das gerações que fizeram essa Pátria independente e soberana./ Completam-se e continuam como padrões do desenvolvimento de um povo no tempo e no espaço, na sua solidariedade histórica e na sua individualidade política. Pertencem à história desse país. São monumentos religiosos, menos já porque o sejam de uma crença mística do que porque o são da honra e do nome comum. Guardar, conservar, reparar, amoravelmente, devotamente, tais monumentos, - estes como tantos; - restituir aos Jerónimos, - que é o caso especial, oportuno, que nos preocupa, a continuidade, a integridade, a conclusão panorâmica, estética, monumental, nada mais honesto, mais digno, mais digno, mais afirmativo da nossa dignidade cívica e da nossa cultura moral. Mas não é tudo...» Admitirá então mais do que se tornar um Panteão, acolher a Torre do Tombo ou um Museu de Arqueologia. Luciano Cordeiro, um ser de visão alargada (e clarividente quanto ao museu), com vasta obra sobre os Descobrimentos.

Vladimir Putin addresses the plenary session of the 23rd annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club, 2026. Theme is “Responsibility for the Future: Limits of the Possible, or Limitless Possibilities?”

Vladimir Putin addressed the plenary session of the 23rd annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. This year’s, 2026, in the 1º of October, the theme is “Responsibility for the Future: Limits of the Possible, or Limitless Possibilities?”

The discussion was moderated by Research Director of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai International Discussion Club Fyodor Lukyanov.

* * *                          

Fyodor Lukyanov: Friends, ladies and gentlemen.

It is a pleasure to welcome you to the plenary session of the 23rd annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. I am pleased to invite President Vladimir Putin to join us.

Mr President, welcome. We are very pleased that, as in previous years, you have taken the time to meet with us.

Valdai meetings are always packed with events. Apparently, in keeping with the global dynamics, they are becoming increasingly packed and intense, and the mood is becoming increasingly upbeat as well, to put it mildly.

This year, if I were to list the key takeaways from the meeting, the forum that we have held over the past three days, first thing I would mention is change. Clearly, we witness changes taking place across all areas of human activity; second, responsibility, because the greater the changes, the less clarity we have about the way things will unfold in the future, and the greater the responsibility we all bear for such developments; and third, surprising as it may seem, and discussed this matter at length, is the concept of calm.

Our annual report this year is titled “Don’t Panic.” Given the difficult circumstances, we suggest avoiding the worst possible response, namely, giving in to panic.

I think that, given your position, you have a better sense of which international issues are the most important right now, so I am pleased to invite you to speak.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues.

As is customary, we have gathered at the annual forum of the Valdai Discussion Club to discuss the most pressing global issues.

We have always sought not only to diagnose the state of the world, but also to provide an outline of the emerging world order.

I am convinced that the Club’s intellectual legacy and many years of direct and candid dialogue will certainly be called upon when all of us – East and West, North and South – will sooner or later need to come to terms on the principles for shaping a new world order that is capable of ensuring progress and development of humanity for decades to come.

Unfortunately, we must admit that we are facing different tasks today: ones that are more pressing and acute. Although the moderator spoke about the need to calm everyone, these acute problems have not disappeared.

The alarming trends we are seeing on the international stage compel us to think first and foremost not about how to organise global interaction more wisely, effectively, and equitably in the future – although all of this is, of course, vitally important – but about how to preserve global peace and security here and now, at a time when many established legal norms have been cast aside and new ones have yet to emerge.

What must be done to avert the most catastrophic scenarios? Responsibility for our shared future is far more than just an abstract slogan. It entails a set of practical measures aimed at preventing humanity from being pushed to the brink of survival and averting irreparable consequences.

The world has reached a decisive turning point in its development. This is not just because of politics; politics, as always, is a consequence of profound changes. Transformations are taking place across every sphere: from virtually all areas of technology to the social structures of our societies; from climate to medicine; from military science to bioethics; from the future of energy to demographic shifts; and from universal digitalisation and artificial intelligence to entirely new models of economic development. The list goes on. Taken together, these factors are creating the conditions for a fundamental transformation. We cannot yet fully assess or definitively interpret all the circumstances and consequences of this shift, if only because these changes are unfolding simultaneously and their impact on societies and states is contradictory. But I will return to this later.

The scale of the changes that have already taken place, and those still to come, is truly immense. We seem to grasp this – as evidenced by the many debates that are being held about the future, often tinged with anxiety over uncertainty and unpredictability – but humanity has not yet fully comprehended the true magnitude of the challenge it faces. We are entering a completely new and unprecedented reality. Threats and dangers are inextricably intertwined with opportunities and prospects; they cannot be separated from one another. Our entire way of living is changing.

To reiterate, this is not only and not so much about shifts in the balance of power among major powers or the redistribution of economic and technological influence. All of that is, of course, important and is effectively taking place. What matters most, though, is that these changes affect the biological and moral nature of human beings, go to our core, and impact our way of life and the foundations of our worldview. Technology is opening up, quite literally, fantastic prospects for extending lifespans and improving the quality of life. However, it is also taking the possibilities for the destruction of all humanity to a whole new level, be it as a result of military conflicts, rapid degradation of the environment, or loss of control over technological processes that have been set in motion.

Clearly, an atmosphere like that cannot but exacerbate anxiety among people and societies, and cause an increase in internal tensions stemming from uncertainty and a lack of understanding of what tomorrow will bring us. One consequence includes domestic political “fever” in many countries, all the more so because traditional party systems are increasingly failing to reflect rapidly changing social structures. For any state, regardless of how well it is organised or what cultural and historical traditions it relies on, internal stability – I think you will agree – is always more important than anything else. To preserve it, governments may take a wide range of actions, including actions that affect the situation beyond their borders in neighbouring countries, regions, and, indeed, the world at large. In other words, they may, unfortunately, export instability which only exacerbates and heightens tensions and – if I may put it that way – further increases the overall strain in the international environment.

Whatever scenario unfolds in the world in the years ahead, the international conflicts, unfortunately, are likely to continue. This is due in part to the fact that the profound shifts now under way, and the opportunities they create, fuel and encourage ambitions and a willingness to take risks for what may appear to be a major payoff. I wish I were wrong in this assessment, but the sustainable trends we are witnessing, unfortunately, suggest otherwise.

We remain confident, though, that, in the long term, as the world moves away from Western hegemony, the international situation will gradually improve leading to a more stable, democratic, and free multipolar international order. It is equally clear, however, that on the path towards such a world order, states, communities and every individual will face various risks. This is inevitable in times of profound change. That is why minimising risks at every level from global to personal is the key task today for policymakers, business leaders, and top figures in science and life in general. Much depends on these people. Responsibility also means helping people understand these risks and be prepared for them, so that individuals and families are not left one-on-one with problems in the area of security, changing labour market, or the digital environment, to name a few.

What has more importance these days: caution and good judgement for avoiding being swept by an avalanche of uncontrolled change, or sticking to an assertive approach for overcoming unfavourable scenarios or using the existing circumstances to serve our own needs? There is no clear-cut answer to this question since each particular case requires its own line of rational conduct.

Of course, decision-makers seek to adapt to what is going on around us. However, considering , as they call it, the polycrisis, all-encompassing and ubiquitous, these decision-makers struggle to look beyond their everyday administrative travails and deadlines and adopt a more forward-looking perspective, beyond the polycrisis. The weight of responsibility is immense, and mistakes will come at a dire cost, including for the future. Immediate goals tend to relegate strategic objectives to the background. While this is obviously understandable, it is also extremely dangerous. Responding to many of the existing challenges would be impossible without taking into account how our current actions are going to affect our future. As one well-known classic of Russian political thought said, you must be able to see the wood for the trees.

So what is the overall situation? It is obvious that the mechanisms for striking a balance between state interests and actions as they evolved over the preceding years are unable to fully and effectively fulfil their regulating function. Not because they are no good but because the conditions in which they were created in their day – these conditions have changed. Of course, the new emerging reality will help develop new instruments but this will be a lengthy process. Let us be honest – today, certain international organisations often fail to mitigate risks and sometimes even create and provoke them by serving the interests of a single country or a group of nations. However, these structures were designed to serve a different purpose.

There have been critical voices targeting also the United Nations, a fundamental structure. According to its Charter, it must operate as a central coordinating mechanism in international affairs. This criticism is not always objective, of course, but well-grounded objections do exist. To an extent, they stem from the fact that the United Nations, even if it is the most representative international organisation, falls short of the collective and democratic principles in the way it is being managed compared to its original design. A narrow grouping of Western countries wields an unproportionally large influence. It constitutes a global minority by all accounts while seeking to appropriate administrative functions. And since these countries’ are seeing their influence diminish as it is taken over by a more and more independent and confident global majority, the lack of balance within the UN system is becoming increasingly obvious. This is a system-wide issue that cannot be resolved in an instant.

Russia still continues to support the idea of fair reform of the United Nations, yet such reform is impossible without internal consensus that is difficult to achieve today. Let me reiterate that we consistently advocate a UN structure that fully reflects the diversity of the world, with countries from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East playing a far more significant role in the Organisation. Meanwhile, it is crucial to recognise that reforming the UN entails far more than simply expanding the Security Council or adopting other measures to achieve more balanced geographical representation in international governing bodies. It also involves redefining the Organisation’s substance, its priorities, including future ones – particularly given that global changes are creating a list of new dilemmas that simply did not exist before.

The most obvious example is artificial intelligence – something we must all learn to live and work with. How will its rapid development affect humanity’s intellectual capacity, or spiritual and cultural heritage? It is no coincidence that the concept of “mindful digitalisation” is being discussed. This means refusing to allow the uncontrolled integration of such technologies into areas that have always been vital and sensitive to human moral development. Indeed, the social and humanitarian implications of the spread of artificial intelligence are currently being examined even more closely and thoroughly than its technical or economic aspects. Experts are increasingly voicing concern that the proliferation of artificial intelligence could represent yet another attempt to reduce everyone to a common denominator, stripping away individuality – this time through algorithms configured by others. Such digital totalitarianism would be just as much of a dead end, and just as bleak and inhumane, as the totalitarian societies of the past which we are all familiar with.

There is another significant issue, one that is already relevant today and will become even more acute in the near future: how can states undergoing increasingly extensive digitalisation ensure their sovereignty in this sphere? In other words, how can they safeguard their security and distinct identity without isolating themselves from global progress or falling behind in technological development?

Another area in which science and technology are radically changing the world is the ability of humans to intrude deeply into what was previously seen as the Creator’s domain: genetic changes to the body, the shaping of personality, the programming of human behaviour and even of thought itself. It is essential to combine the efforts of countries and communities to work together on mutually acceptable solutions to these extremely delicate, defining, truly existential questions.

It would be logical to do this work within existing international frameworks. Yet, many of these organisations, as I have already noted, are under excessive influence of Western countries, which are not interested in universal progress – only in maintaining their own power. The institutions that worked well after World War II no longer reflect the reality in the second quarter of this century. Is it possible to reform them successfully so that they conform to modern realities? The question remains open.

New international communities are also emerging, generated by the current international situation. Of course, they have great prospects, whether they are regional associations or global structures such as BRICS. However, it must be admitted that all of them have a great deal of work to do to define their functionality, the optimal areas for its application, and the limits of their own capabilities. Of course, organisations that are relatively new can hardly be expected to quickly reshape the world order and build a multipolar architecture; this is a long and thorny path with many unknowns, but it will undoubtedly lead to results.

Does this mean that we are now doomed to chaos? No, it is certainly premature to make such a judgement. In general, a world regulated by clearly defined norms and the institutions that uphold them – a world that is orderly, so to speak – is a recent invention, one that emerged only in the last century. All previous centuries managed without it. As we know, the results were mixed, to put it mildly: arrogance, envy, and greed have always plagued world politics, and they still occur today.

Nevertheless, responsible powers have always competed with each other in one way or another, but they have also worked together, collaborated to build frameworks for relations among themselves and with smaller states, and in general, as a rule, still sought to maintain stability.

Amid the ongoing crisis of institutions and the erosion of international law, the major powers bear an enormous responsibility that matches their immense capabilities. Such states have the potential to take actions that can reverse global trends towards achieving greater predictability and security or, conversely, towards exacerbating all existing problems. This potential gets multiplied by the innovative technologies I have mentioned before. Clearly, the future of the world and every individual depends on how effectively risks are managed during the period of abrupt changes.

The absence of universally recognised rules and a shared understanding of the principle of equal and indivisible security – or cancelling that principle altogether – often encourages selfish behaviour. In some cases, it turns into aggressive attempts to secure unilateral advantages, aggravate the confusion and exploit it to promote one’s own interests. International politics provides examples of this almost every day. Every conceivable and inconceivable taboo is being violated. I will not go over them now. I think everyone in this room understands perfectly well what I am talking about. I am deeply convinced that something as complex as international relations nevertheless requires prudence and adherence not only to established laws but also, as lawyers say, customary law, meaning not only the letter but also the spirit of the law, as well as established and universally recognised practice.

Moral and ethical constraints and basic standards of decency still matter, because respecting them creates at least a possibility to maintain some kind of dialogue. Conversely, the systematic failure to honour commitments, deception, turning communication into a farce and any substantive discussion into a propaganda exercise, and the blatant mockery and distortion of facts for the sake of fleeting gains destroy the very foundation of international coexistence.

Such, if you will, approach to conducting international affairs is short-sighted and dangerous. A temporary gain achieved in this manner can turn into long-term setbacks, and, most importantly, make the situation worse for everyone, because the interconnectedness of the world is here and is not going away. The might makes right principle sometimes appears to guide certain international actors who are convinced of their own military-political, economic and, as they think, moral exceptionalism. We know perfectly well from history that this never ends well.

Let me digress from the main topic for a while. There are people here in this room who hold a very diverse mix of opinions regarding an extremely acute present-day conflict – the Ukraine conflict, and what caused it. I would like to say a few words on this matter. It is a fact that many hundreds or even thousands of experts, your colleagues who will study the materials from this Valdai Club meeting, they have their own opinions on this matter. I am, of course aware that some within the expert community might ask why Russia started the war while talking about peace. I have commented this many times already, but let me say this once again in front of this audience.

Where is the truth? The truth is that we did not want and were not the ones who started to fight. In fact, they started to fight against us. They should have refrained from encouraging aggressive nationalism and Russophobia in Ukraine so as to turn it into a tool for fighting Russia. NATO should not have embarked on an effort to make our historical territories part of its military space in its own interests and should not have planned setting up its bases there. Radicals in Kiev should not have been pushed to a government coup while the de facto illegal regime should not have been pumped full of all kinds of offensive weapons after that. Plans for setting up concentration camps for the people from Donbass and Crimea should not have been drafted. Unarmed people should not have been rolled over by tanks, shelled with missiles and bombed from the air and burnt alive just for being Russian, in terms of both their ethnic background and their spirit.

The list of these do-nots goes on, but let me stop at that. I am convinced that this was an intentional effort to place Russia in a situation when it was simply forced to defend itself with arms in hand to respond to this obvious act of aggression. They pushed us to this brink knowingly and intentionally. Overall, Russophobia, oppressing and killing Russian people and destroying Russia should not be turned into state ideology while striving to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. This was the way it was all articulated, right? No one forgot this. At least, we did not forget this.

If we want to live – and who does not? – as I have already said during one of my public appearances, let us live in friendship and work together for finding ways to accomplish this aim. Of course, confidence building is a painstaking and fragile process. Placing it on the right track is very hard, while it can be derailed very easily.

The interests never fully coincide even when it comes to the closest partners, let alone countries which are rivals and are locked in an all-out competition or even confrontation against one another.

Sooner or later, the international situation and the international system will settle into some form of stable equilibrium. This is undoubtedly a complex, multifaceted and multilayered process built on mutual compromises, willingness to meet each other halfway, and a level-headed assessment of the situation, including by the West. The former hegemon will unavoidably have to acknowledge the realities of a multipolar world – just look at the trends shaping the global economy – and learn to cooperate with the countries of the Global Majority on the basis of respect for their fundamental interests. Of course, this will take time. We are going to have to live in an extremely unstable and ever changing world. The path to a new system will be full of unexpected twists and turns; unfortunately, often unpleasant and even dangerous ones.

I would like to turn to the history of our country. Russia has travelled a thorny path of profound transformation, and this process is still underway. Thirty-five years ago, we experienced the collapse of the state system, which was a genuine tragedy for tens of millions of people who woke up one morning to find themselves beyond the borders of their own country and whose lives – and the lives of their children – were changed overnight. Both in Russia and in neighbouring countries this led to a fundamental transformation and international affairs get transformed as well.

I would also like to highlight a certain naivety, idealism, or perhaps even complacency on the part of those who stood at the helm of the state during the final years of the Soviet era. Blind trust in Western partners and confidence in “gentlemen’s agreements,” when they thought they could simply take someone at their word and come to terms also played a cruel joke on the Soviet Union.

In retrospect, it becomes clear just how destructive a role this played not only in the fate of the Soviet Union, but also in ensuring long-term global stability. The Soviet leaders wanted the West to like them, while Western leaders sought to reshape the world to suit their needs and to grab their share – preferably a large one – of the Soviet legacy. We can see the result now.

The Soviet Union collapsed due to a mix of internal imbalances. This is the most important dimension to it. This is the truth, and this is what happened. Specifically, internal imbalances, as well as mistakes made by successive generations of the country’s leadership. Short-sightedness, narrow and unrealistic ideological dogmas instead of pragmatism, incompetence, and the practice of sweeping obvious problems under the carpet gradually exacerbated and undermined the Soviet Union’s domestic and international standing. Ultimately, these factors led to its collapse.

What is happening in the world today, the present-day conflicts and upheavals – all this largely stems from the fact that late 20th-century politicians, both in the East and the West, were unwilling, unprepared or unable to treat the era of major shifts with the required seriousness and depth. This is not a question of shifting responsibility onto the leaders of the past; this is simply how it all happened in reality.

However, even during that period, there were people, both in the East and West, there were other kinds of politicians who developed a keen understanding of these challenges and offered what I believe to be the right ways of resolving them. Today, their assessments can be viewed as visionary.

You know that I have mentioned Egon Bahr in the past, a politician from the Federal Republic of Germany. He was a member of the Social Democratic Party’s Executive Committee.

I will share just a few thoughts with you. I was very surprised to learn about his contacts with the Soviet leadership in both Bonn and Moscow. What surprised me was the extent to which this person had mastered the subject, his intelligence and competence.

Let me share some of the things he said in June and February 1990. As we all understand, this was a time of radical shifts for Europe and the entire world.

Bahr’s main concern was the threat of a lingering confrontation in Europe after Germany’s reunification, and once, and I quote, “those circles within NATO which are not at all eager to pursue the path of pan-European cooperation and ending the confrontation” reinforced their positions and influence. This is what he said. He could already see at that time that forces of this kind existed. He was well-placed to know this, wasn’t he? During the 1990 talks, Egon Bahr said, and here is another quote: “Without a decisive step towards overcoming Europe’s disintegration into hostile blocs, events can take quite a negative turn that would doom the USSR to international isolation.” This is what he said. What did that mean? By the way, we can see that it all happened just as he had predicted and warned.

What was the offer for Eastern and Central Europe? The proposal consisted of setting up a security council that would include both the United States and the USSR and giving this structure a broad mandate. This council was designed to include almost all Eastern and Central European countries.

However, after the USSR’s dissolution, the forces which came to dominate the West, just as Egon Bahr said, had little, if any, interest in pursuing the path of pan-European cooperation. Despite the fact that new Russia spent many years – and I would like to emphasise that this was a process that lasted for many years – trying to integrate into the so-called Western civilisation, they did everything to effectively isolate the Russian Federation and break it down even further. All the shifts in Russia’s domestic politics notwithstanding, and despite all these changes, they still viewed Russia as the core element of the historical Russian Empire. To this day, they keep talking at all kinds of events and gatherings about the need to complete the effort to break up the Empire.

Taken together, all this produced a rather dangerous, to put it bluntly, situation in Europe and around the world.

I would stress, ladies and gentlemen, that it is my deep belief that Mr Bahr did not have anything other than Europe’s future on his mind at that time. He was thinking about this pan-European home. The USSR leadership also talked about it a lot at that time but, unfortunately, they failed to put words into action.

Russia probably understands better than many the difficulties of overcoming the consequences of historical collapses and cataclysms, and of finding its way forward in new and often unfavourable conditions. We often had to learn by trial and error, making quick decisions in response to emerging situations.

But we never forget that the nation needs a perspective and a clear view of the road ahead. Of course, there is no future without a past. The legacy of our forefathers, who built a great and unique country, must be preserved and strengthened. No society can exist without a historical foundation and respect for traditions. But the opposite is also true: the past becomes meaningless without a future. No matter how great the achievements of our forefathers, the nation must not become a museum of its past greatness.

The true greatness of a state is impossible without the ability to keep pace with the times and, ideally, to move ahead of them. Multiplying one’s heritage and creatively developing it amid modern conditions are the best guarantees of preventing our national tradition from becoming a vintage collectible, a trendy historical accessory, or the sole subject of our undivided attention. We must take into account the vibrant and productive environment for our future accomplishments.

As for the future, much is really shrouded in uncertainty, and there are too many incoming and rapidly changing factors. But we certainly need a roadmap for our movement into the future. What we need is not wishful thinking, an abstract and speculative construct or an unrealistic visualisation of our wishes, but a realistic assessment of risks, capabilities and essential objectives. Russia is building this path to the future for itself, and is certainly ready to do this jointly with other nations around the world.

As I said, the scale and, more importantly, the speed of changes underway in the world are unprecedented. We must realise that the point of no return can come very quickly and unexpectedly for all. It may turn out one day that the logic of escalating mutual retaliation leads to a point of fatal irreversibility.

The word “escalation” is often used now to describe and forecast various global conflicts, meaning unwillingness to use real diplomacy based on reality and respect for the interests of all sides, a desire to aggravate the situation, raise the stakes and even bluff, crossing red lines in the hope of suppressing and intimidating the opponent, and breaking their will. There is nothing new in the escalation of hostilities and sanctions; this practice has been used in many conflicts, and it is never unilateral, because one side’s provocations inevitably trigger a response from the other side. Therefore, the spiral is tightening, and the devastating consequences are growing.

Escalation is based – I am not telling you anything new – on arrogance and overconfidence. It is a path towards a precipice, especially today when the world’s leading powers have weapons in their arsenals that are capable of destroying all life or at least reducing the Earth to a catastrophic state. Can we guarantee that these weapons will never be used? We cannot, of course. We all remember the saying that if you have a rifle hanging on the wall in the first act, it will eventually be fired. We must remember this and try to prevent it.

The more uncompromising a response, and the more clearly the goal of the opponent’s “strategic defeat” is declared, the greater the chances that the battle will escalate into the most violent phase. The survival of the fittest applies not only to the natural world but also to social communities, if they are faced with the possible loss of their independence, dignity and the very right to exist.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Let me reiterate: the fundamental formation of a new world order is inevitable – and one hopes it will occur within the foreseeable future. For now, however, events are unfolding in a highly turbulent and spontaneous manner. We are only beginning to outline, feeling our way towards, the contours of what is to come.

This, however, does not mean we should sit idly by and wait to see what happens next. To reach the phase of building – which, as I have said, will undoubtedly arrive sooner or later – we must first weather the current period of danger and avert the most destructive threats.

I consider it particularly important to emphasise once again two aspects that, in my view, should be the subject of serious discussion by us all – at the political, technical, expert and even philosophical levels.

First and foremost is the issue I have already touched upon: artificial intelligence. A global debate is currently underway as to whether measures should be taken to deliberately slow research and development in this field, to prevent these technologies from spiralling out of human control. This is a multifaceted issue requiring thorough examination. Human history demonstrates that technological progress cannot be halted; however, we must understand the consequences of that progress – above all when it comes to the use of its achievements, particularly in the military domain.

There are already documented cases of artificial intelligence making decisions based on its own assessment of what is expedient. This applies to both civilian and military contexts. As artificial intelligence technologies become more widely adopted, their role will grow, and algorithms will assume greater responsibility. After all, humans simply cannot compete with a machine’s ability to analyse a situation almost instantaneously. Yet humans possess other qualities: instinct, intuition and the ability to make decisions that may not be immediately obvious but ultimately prove to be the only correct ones, and even life-saving.

I would like to recount a story from the Soviet era – from the everyday reality of those years. It was September 1983. Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Petrov, an officer at a missile early-warning centre, was on duty when the system picked up a signal. Both we and the United States had long since had such systems in place and operational. The system detected the launch of five American intercontinental ballistic missiles. Any algorithm would have classified this as an unambiguous trigger for a retaliatory strike. Yet the experienced officer questioned the accuracy of the signal, suspecting a system malfunction. And he turned out to be right. Had artificial intelligence been in his place, things might have turned out very differently. To my mind, this is a very compelling example.

The limits on the use of AI technologies in the security sphere are a matter of humanity’s survival. AI can increase the effectiveness of means of warfare, which also makes conflicts more destructive.

We need an unbiased and professional international discussion on modern methods of warfare to preserve humanitarian limits and mitigate the most brutal effects of armed conflicts related to the growth of destructive capabilities. I know that your forum held a session that was very accurately titled The Ethics of the New War: Humans and Inhumanity.

It is true that the inhumanity of modern conflicts can be interpreted in two ways. It is increasing brutality and disregard for humanitarian norms. It is also the new forms of confrontation, where AI and autonomous systems play a growing role in hostilities, gradually replacing humans, including in decision-making, which is especially significant. This is a huge and complex topic, which requires the utmost attention. The automation and digitalisation of war lead to the dehumanisation of perception, turning bloodshed and the loss of human lives into a kind of computer game, into a mechanistic routine. To call a spade a spade, this is a path towards the regression of humanity into savagery amid endless talk about grandiose technological progress.

At the end of the 19th century, more precisely in 1899, Russia proposed holding the Hague Conference, which for the first time formalised the rules of war, peaceful settlement of conflicts, and the humanisation of hostilities. Of course, the true and noble ideas laid down back then did not save humanity from the tragedies of the 20th century. The world wars seemingly wiped out the achievements of humanitarian law. But now the time has come when we must again raise the issue of the rules of armed confrontation.

We have no illusions: wars have been a constant feature throughout human history, they are still waged today, and armed conflicts will most likely continue in the future. Regrettably, this is an integral part of human existence. Military service is the profession of those who defend the interests of their countries, but professionalism in the military sphere includes respect for humanitarian norms. In particular, the Russian military have always been guided by the inviolability of these norms, and I would like to emphasise that they were never the first to attack facilities that are not related to the adversary’s military infrastructure.

The rise in international tensions and overall confrontation has one more extremely negative and long-term consequence – this is the second fact I would like to draw your attention to today. In this conflict situation, we are sacrificing the solution of global problems of concern to the whole of humanity. We addressed these problems – climate, the environment, poverty and inequality – only recently, but today we have forgotten all about them. They have been pushed aside, but they are growing more acute. This has not changed. Regrettably, there are no grounds to hope that the international community as a single body will be able to deal with this agenda in the near term. But if acute and pressing issues are not settled on a global scale, we must address them at the regional level, especially since it is closer to home and easier for people to understand.

We are all responsible for our planet as a whole, but we are first and foremost responsible for our own home and its immediate surroundings. Our home in the broader sense is Eurasia, a vast territory that is the centre and the setting for the most important processes unfolding in the world. A great deal on the international stage as a whole depends on how we develop Eurasia.

The idea of a Greater Eurasian Partnership advanced by Russia some time ago is acquiring special significance amid growing instability worldwide. Military-political confrontations are undermining global connectivity and endangering industrial, transport and logistics chains, as well as the established trade and communication paths. The task and responsibility of Eurasian countries is to maximally protect our space from global risks and destructive processes, using all available technological and other opportunities to improve the quality of Eurasian interaction and strengthen connectivity across this vast territory.

I would also like to note that Eurasian cultural and civilisational communities have, over many centuries, established mutual understanding even in the most complicated historical eras. Eurasia can become the prototype of international communication in conditions of diverse cultures, approaches and interests, where differences do not become an obstacle but an advantage for the development of a sustainable and balanced partnership.

In this connection, I would like to draw your attention to the initiative we have advanced jointly with our Belarusian friends, the drafting of a Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century. Last week, the foreign ministers of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and our other partners launched practical work on this fundamental document at their meeting held on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

The primary significance of Eurasia is that it is largely self-sufficient and capable of dealing with any problems. The only thing this vast community of nations needs is indivisible security, the absence of military threats, and lasting peace.

Colleagues,

All of us, the international community as a whole, bear overall responsibility for the future. This is not an exaggeration or a metaphor. As I have said, this is an absolutely practical task that requires our immediate attention.

One would like to believe that our descendants will read in their history books that the second quarter of the 21st century was the turning point when humanity, becoming aware of the scope of change and the challenges to its existence, managed to put aside petty squabbles, ambitions and selfishness and joined hands to address common problems, turned the technological revolution from a set of threats into a wide range of possibilities, addressed the problems of social inequality and environmental degradation in deed rather than in word, realised the futility of military confrontation and dictate and the need for mutually acceptable solutions to all arising questions and problems, and started, at long last, to build a new stable world order. I am confident that this is how it will be, because if this does not happen, there is a risk that there will be no one left to use these textbooks, and nobody to write these textbooks.

Let us hope for the best and, most importantly, do everything in our power to make this better future happen and be with us.

I would like to thank you for your attention and to wish you success. I really appreciate our meetings. Thank you very much.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, thank you very much for such a comprehensive overview of all these problems, both specific and broader ones.

You quoted Egon Bahr. He lived a very long life and died in 2015. In other words, he witnessed the beginning of Europe’s slide into a real military and political crisis. We know that he was deeply distressed by the events unfolding in Europe during the final years of his life. As someone who first observed and then participated in European processes, can you perhaps identify, or pinpoint, a moment when the ideals of which Bahr spoke at the time became lost?

Vladimir Putin: He did not write about them.

Fyodor Lukyanov: He spoke about them.

Vladimir Putin: I want to emphasise once again that what I have just recounted comes from the archives – from his discussions with representatives of the Soviet leadership in Bonn and Moscow.

Fyodor Lukyanov: When did the vision he set out at the time, and which the Soviet leaders probably agreed with, become impossible?

Vladimir Putin: That is precisely the point: it was not so much that they agreed with it; they listened and listened, and did nothing. You know, this prompted Bahr to say something that shocked me. He said, “I never thought that at my age I would have to put forward such a point of view in Moscow. If the Soviet leadership does not do anything but remains a passive bystander (this is roughly what he said), I will not come to Moscow again; you will not see me here.”

Fyodor Lukyanov: Be that as it may, did that moment come?

Vladimir Putin: Which moment?

Fyodor Lukyanov: The moment when all that became impossible.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course. As soon as the Soviet Union fell apart, as I mentioned in my remarks, the aggressive NATO quarters, which Bahr mentioned, actually took that as a cue that Russia should not be included, as I said, into the family of civilised nations of Europe and the world. They used that situation to spur its disintegration. That is how it all started. It all started precisely with this.

They said that NATO would not expand eastwards – and immediately they broke that promise and started doing so. There were five or six waves of expansion. And the Soviet Union, and then Russia, kept saying: no, this should not be done; we had an agreement, after all. They did not care; they did as they saw fit, precisely in the direction Bahr had spoken about – towards isolating Russia and subsequently breaking up the Russian Federation.

There was support for separatism in the Caucasus, and, in fact, support using the instruments of terrorism. Those who were fighting there were terrorists. Everyone knew that they were from the Islamic State, from ISIS. Everyone condemned what they were doing in other parts of the world, but looked away when they did it in Russia. They acted as if they did not know about it, which is remarkable, and simply turned a blind eye.

In other areas as well, I vividly recall my discussions with representatives of international financial organisations and political circles at that time. My jaw literally dropped every time. There was clearly a deliberate strategy at play. That was all it took. Everything went downhill from there. This impunity and permissiveness on the part of the West – that is precisely where it all led.

Fyodor Lukyanov: In other words, when in the first half of the 2000s there were very intensive contacts with the Europeans, new ideas, the four common spaces, and so on – it was all hopeless, wasn’t it?

Vladimir Putin: You know, the forces in the West that sought to fight Russia to the end gained the upper hand, that’s all. I have said this before, and we all know – and criticise – the UN for its ineffectiveness, for this and for that. But where did it all begin? With NATO’s attack on Yugoslavia. Yes, there was a grave internal conflict. But did it warrant launching a military operation on the territory of an independent state in the heart of Europe without the sanction of the UN Security Council? Did it warrant bombing the capital, Belgrade? Why? Without any decision by the Security Council, without its sanction, a major war was unleashed. That’s how it all started. Naturally, everyone around the world saw it. But if one country is allowed to do it, then everyone else is allowed to do it too. That’s all there is to it.

The system that developed after World War II was based on the balance of power between the victorious countries. Then the Soviet Union was brought down, and this balance collapsed. And Western countries thought to themselves: “Why should we comply with these rules that were signed alongside the Soviet Union, when the Soviet Union no longer exists? We will now make the rules for ourselves, as we see fit, in order to achieve our interests in the international arena.” And that was that. And so the process began, and was implemented step by step.

I also remember Boris Yeltsin trying to reach an agreement on Yugoslavia, to resolve those problems, and he said that yes, of course, it was necessary to take into account the aspirations of the peoples living there – let us do it peacefully. Excuse my bluntness, but they didn’t give a damn. They did as they pleased, by force. And that was that. Every step after that has been a form of pressure – military, economic or financial. It is all talk from a position of strength.

We had to live with that reality because, naturally, all the disintegration processes unfolding across the former Soviet Union had an immediate impact, in one way or another, on the new Russia – the Russian Federation. We had to deal with the consequences while rebuilding and strengthening the statehood of Russia, our economy, our Armed Forces and so on. We were not in a position to sit down with the world’s leading powers and negotiate the rules of conduct on the international stage. We were focused on ourselves, on strengthening our own country. That’s all there is to it. And that is how the situation deteriorated.

We continued down the same path, moving further and further in that direction, until Ukraine eventually became the focus. Yanukovych was president at the time. I am not going to pass judgement on him now. The people of Ukraine may well have had every reason to say that he should not be president. Fine. But he had agreed to everything, including holding new elections – early elections, at that. All that was needed was to go to the polls and solve the problem. But no – it was deemed absolutely necessary to stage a coup d’état.

When I asked some of my European colleagues, “Why did you do it? It was obvious that Yanukovych would lose power at the next election, let alone an early one,” they would say, “Yes, that’s true.” “Then why did you do it?” And the answer was, “Well, that’s just how it happened.”

“That’s just how it happened” – what kind of explanation is that? They removed from power a person who supported Ukraine’s accession to the European Union but opposed its NATO membership. They ousted him, and events began to spiral: Russophobia became rampant, hostilities broke out in southeastern Ukraine, and we had to intervene to protect the people of Crimea. And so it continued, step by step. Then came the Minsk agreements, which, as it later became clear, no one had any intention of honouring. In fact, they said so openly: they had never intended to implement the Minsk agreements.

This went on for eight years – eight years, do you understand? Throughout that entire period, we did not recognise the LPR and the DPR. But eventually it became clear that the situation could no longer continue, and we recognised them. Once we had done so, we had the right to conclude treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with them. Was that a violation of international law? No, it was not. So, we concluded those treaties.

And once those treaties were in place, did we have the right to provide assistance and support when they asked us to do so? Of course, we did. And that is precisely what we did. When the UN Secretary-General visited Moscow, I set out this entire sequence of events for him and asked, “Where exactly is the mistake [in this reasoning]?” He looked at me, paused for a moment and said, “Well, all right… but it was you who attacked anyway.” And that was the end of it.

But no one wants to consider how we actually reached this full-scale, hot phase of the conflict. Or rather, everyone understands perfectly well how we got here; they simply do not want to acknowledge it. That is the problem. And it all began with what Egon Bahr was talking about. He saw where it was heading.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Following this trajectory, as you said, we have now arrived at an interesting juncture: NATO exercises are taking place in the Baltic Sea, accompanied by very stern statements and threats directed at Kaliningrad. Meanwhile, the Russian side has promised that, should the need arise –specifically, in the event of an attempt to blockade Kaliningrad – it would use every means at its disposal, up to and including nuclear weapons. Is this a genuine escalation? Are we on the brink of war, or are we simply trying to scare one another?

Vladimir Putin: We are not trying to scare anyone. What you have just mentioned – the Foreign Ministry’s statement and the letters it sent to certain countries – is not intimidation; it is a response to attempts to intimidate us.

After all, it is not use who are making these statements about the need, possibility, or preparation for a war with Russia in 2029 or 2030. These statements come from Western and European politicians. We hear them constantly. Constantly. And then there are concrete actions: one exercise after another in the Baltic Sea, followed by attempts to detain our ships and vessels. All of this constitutes escalation, as I said in my remarks. All this is escalation.

Then we began hearing a statement concerning the Kaliningrad Region. The Foreign Ministry’s statement and the letters that were sent out were entirely justified. If it comes to a direct attack on the Russian Federation – in this case, Kaliningrad, although it could potentially involve other territories as well – the question of Russia using all the weapons at its disposal would inevitably and immediately arise. That is inevitable.

This has nothing to do with who holds the post of Supreme Commander-in-Chief or President of Russia. The point is this: as I understand it, the NATO Secretary General spoke about the 300 million people in Europe, and so on. Yes, that is precisely why we would inevitably have to consider employing all the forces and means at our disposal.

Why? First, we understand that we would be facing an adversary with twice our population. It has immense economic and military potential. Yes, we would not have a vast array of forces and means at our disposal to counter such a threat. We would have to rely on our competitive advantages in this struggle. And what are they? The fact is that we possess such advantages in the means we have to defend ourselves. Yes, of course, France and the UK are nuclear powers. We understand that perfectly well and are fully aware of it. But no one else possesses the kinds of strike capabilities that Russia has today. And these are our competitive advantages.

So, how can we counter an aggressor? We are not threatening anyone. We are simply stating that we do not have all that many means of defending ourselves. And, incidentally, neither that letter nor the Foreign Ministry’s statement mentions the use of nuclear weapons. They speak, as I have just put it, of employing all the forces and means available to our country. As for how that would actually happen, we will decide that ourselves.

Fyodor Lukyanov: But the NATO Secretary General you mentioned reacted to this, I would say, quite calmly. He said they did not consider it serious.

Vladimir Putin: Quite right. Unless, of course, one considers their threats against us to be serious.

Fyodor Lukyanov: One more topic, then, to round off this discussion.

A few weeks ago, the Ministry of Defence…

Vladimir Putin: By the way, Fyodor, excuse me for interrupting, but I think you understand what lies behind the constant escalation of tensions by many European countries. It is driven by the serious deterioration in their economic and domestic political situation.

Just look at what is happening to their economies, their social policy and the living standards of people in the major European countries. Under these circumstances, they desperately need to divert public attention away from domestic problems and towards external issues.

I have just had to respond to the questions you asked me. And I believe this is precisely the kind of response they expected to hear from us, because they will now seize on it and exploit this argument that Russia is threatening them with nuclear weapons. They will use it to distract their citizens from the fact that it is they who are pursuing an aggressive policy towards Russia and pushing their people towards a dangerous threshold of confrontation.

We are not threatening anyone. We have no intention of attacking anyone, whether in 2029, 2030 or 2050. But if we are subjected to aggression, we will have no choice but to respond. People in European countries need to understand this clearly and distinguish between our position and that of their current political leaders. It seems to me, however, that they do understand the difference. We can see it in the election results and in public sentiment across major European countries. [More and more evident one month after, as today 31-X-26, with a strong wind of revolt in Europe against such so bad governments, as the ones of Macron, Melloni, Merz, etc.]

Fyodor Lukyanov: I am beginning to feel like an accomplice in the domestic political manipulations of European governments.

Vladimir Putin: I believe they are doing this deliberately. They are intelligent people who shape their messaging, including their public statements, in such a way as to produce the specific domestic political effect they want.

Fyodor Lukyanov: There is one more point concerning this rhetoric – or the absence of it. A few weeks ago, the Ministry of Defence published a list of European facilities involved in manufacturing and supplying weapons to Ukraine, explicitly identifying them as potential targets. This was subsequently confirmed on several occasions and at various levels, including by the Foreign Ministry.

Suppose that, at some point, such a warning has to be followed up with action, and a strike will be carried out against one of these major facilities. This would most likely be regarded as an attack by Russia and could lead to the invocation of NATO’s collective defence clause. Are we prepared for that?

Vladimir Putin: Countries supplying weapons to other countries is nothing new. This is a matter of military-technical cooperation and does not cause us any concern. However, other countries’ involvement in direct combat operations is certainly a cause for concern.

What do I mean? We are fully aware that strikes deep into Russian territory could not be carried out so smoothly by the Ukrainian armed forces without space-based intelligence and technical assistance from Western specialists. This poses a threat to everyone. It means that these countries are becoming involved in the war against Russia, which creates additional threats for the future.

There is nothing positive about supplying weapons to conflict zones; all countries around the world generally try to avoid doing so. Supplying arms to conflict zones is considered improper. For instance, we do not receive weapons from anyone. We rely solely on our own defence industry and our own economic capabilities.

Ukraine, as I know and as everyone knows, cannot exist on its own. It is actually losing elements of its statehood. In my view, this is obvious: it is being governed from outside. And when someone seeks to fight us through others – in this case, through the Ukrainian regime, which sends its own people (although I doubt it even considers them its own) into the line of fire, effectively to their extermination – when someone starts fighting us through others, that is, of course, a threat. I am not saying that we intend to launch strikes tomorrow against the territory or facilities of the countries supplying weapons to Ukraine. But this is a threat that we must clearly understand, assess, and keep in mind.

And, of course, the Russian Armed Forces and military intelligence must understand where these threats are coming from. We are monitoring this closely.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you. But Egon Bahr, of course, had he lived to see the present day, would have been absolutely horrified to see how far things have gone.

Vladimir Putin: I don’t know; I didn’t know him personally. Let me repeat: when I read what he had said – how can I put it in plain language? The Russian audience will understand me, although it sounds undiplomatic – I was absolutely stunned. I was amazed at how intelligent and knowledgeable he was, how far ahead he could see. And how much he thought both about the future of his own country, Germany, and about the future of Europe as a whole.

I read out his quotation, after all. He said that the division of Europe had to be overcome, and he suggested a way of resolving the problem. One could argue with that; it was a relevant issue at the time. Perhaps it is no longer quite so relevant today, but he was thinking about how to overcome that division. And what did he say? If we failed to overcome it, NATO would, in effect, absorb the whole of Eastern European region, leaving the Soviet Union isolated. And that would be bad for the whole world – that was his point. He was certainly an intelligent man. One can only marvel at his foresight. He said that this was what would happen. And that is exactly what happened. His assessment of the situation at the time and his predictions for the future cannot but command respect.

Unfortunately, as I have said, no one listened to him. No one set about working to overcome this division into blocs. Russia, for its part, made unsuccessful attempts to integrate into the so-called community of civilised countries, but was pushed out of it every time. Moreover, they continued to gnaw away at us from all sides, seeking, as I have already said, to finish off the disintegration of the historic Empire.

This is what led to the conflict we see today, because eventually they encroached on Ukraine. We said a thousand times: don’t do it, stop, stop. But no – they kept going further and further. And there we are: this is the result.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Do you regret that, as President, you spent time and effort back in the 2000s trying to integrate Russia into that system?

Vladimir Putin: No, I don’t regret it. Otherwise, all of us – not just me, but the entire country – would be thinking that we had failed to do something, that we had left something unfinished, that we should have done more, made further concessions here and there, or proposed something else. But we did everything; we made every proposal, and we realised that we were not welcome there. They simply said “no”, that was all. And at the same time, they continued to hammer away at our entire space, steadily biting off more and more of it, quite forcefully, rather brazenly and aggressively. And so, in the end, everything reached the state we see today.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Colleagues, we will now move on to questions from the floor. Please signal if you wish to speak.

Let us give the floor to Vadim Voynikov, since we began with Kaliningrad.

Vadim Voynikov: Thank you very much.

Mr President, my question concerns freedom of navigation. I represent Kaliningrad, the Baltic Federal University, and this issue is of particular concern to us.

Recently, alarming developments have been taking place in the world’s oceans: attacks on underwater infrastructure and attempts to detain tankers and civilian ships. This, of course, exposes a whole series of problems, including legal ones, where certain unscrupulous participants in international relations abuse the instruments developed under international law, which for decades have been used and observed in principle by all states.

I am referring to the fact that some countries revoke flags, playing along with other states, while others stop ships without any legal grounds. In other words, these mechanisms are effectively being abused to serve specific political and economic ends.

In this connection, I have a question: is the global majority now ready to adapt these international rules to new challenges? Of course, much is being said today about the loss of significance of international law. But I believe that, apart from international law, we have no other legal mechanism for resolving these problems. Is Russia ready to put forward such an initiative? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We are in favour of freedom of navigation; we are against all restrictions.

Do we need to invent something new? I do not think so. We simply need to comply with what already exists. We may invent something new, but what then? If no one will observe these new rules, who needs them?

There is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is there not? I believe it is from 1982 or 1986. It is from 1982, is that right? 1982. We simply need to comply with it. This applies to all areas and all regions of the world.

You spoke of attempts to detain our ships. Yes, that is, of course, a violation. I was in the Far East – you have surely seen it – but the world’s oceans do not end with the Baltic and North Atlantic regions; there are other areas of the world’s oceans. And we will act symmetrically – perhaps in the Baltic and the Atlantic, or perhaps in the Pacific, somewhere else, in the Indian Ocean, I do not know. Wherever it is more advantageous for us, that is where we will act.

Who needs this? No one needs it. But this, too, is one of the elements of aggressive behaviour towards Russia. It must stop. We do not do this; we do not attack anyone; we do not seize anyone’s ships. It must stop.

Regarding the Black Sea – I have already spoken about this before, but I will repeat it here for this audience – yes, there are hostilities in the Black Sea. We have struck military vessels and ships transporting military materiel, and we have almost never been mistaken in our assessments, because whenever we hit a target, there were secondary explosions. That means there was military cargo on board.

But the Kiev authorities began striking our tankers and other ships carrying non-military cargo – absolutely civilian goods. As I said, when they started – publicly announcing it in early June, without a shred of hesitation – they knocked out 40 of our ships in the first ten days alone, and over the course of the conflict, they damaged more than 100. And what happened? We started hitting back. Now, we are being bombarded with appeals from every direction: “Oh, please stop.” But they were the ones who started it. So here’s a grenade from a Soviet soldier; take that – and like it! No, they don’t seem to like it.

It is the same story with our oil refineries. They started striking our refineries and openly declared their goal: to damage our economy. Did they succeed? Partially; by our estimates, we lost about 1 percent of GDP. And they did this deliberately – targeting civilian facilities. So, what happened? They received a response in kind.

We began striking facilities that are vital to their economy. We did not start this. Now, by their own admission, they effectively have no metallurgical industry left. But that industry is dual-use, by the way, because the output is used for more than just rails or construction materials. Guns and everything else used to be made from metal produced at local plants. But not anymore. And the budget no longer receives revenue from certain other goods. They have problems now.

Or we are told: “How about they stop striking your oil refineries, and you stop striking their ships? Let them export civilian cargoes of agricultural produce.” But what about our other civilian cargoes, such as oil and petroleum products? Suppose they stop the strikes and there is more diesel available – the kind that is so needed in the United States, for instance. We would have more of it, but we already have enough diesel as it is. Yet it wouldn’t reach global markets because bans and sanctions against our oil and petroleum products are in effect. There are sanctions on insurance, and freight costs are rising. How, then, would our diesel reach the global market while sanctions remain? It simply wouldn’t. And in response, we would be expected to stop striking targets that are economically sensitive to them. You must agree: that sounds simply absurd. All of this can be discussed, but the discussion must be based on a balance of interests.

As for the law of the sea, let me repeat what I said at the outset: we support freedom of navigation in all regions of the world and compliance with all international norms in this area.

I want to conclude by reiterating what I said at the start: I do not think we need to invent new norms; we need to observe the ones that already exist.

Fyodor Lukyanov: So, the answer to what is being blared from every direction – as you put it – is ”no“ for now.

Vladimir Putin: But that is not strictly related to the law of the sea.

Fyodor Lukyanov: No, not to the law of the sea. But earlier you mentioned the proposal coming from every direction.

Vladimir Putin: Oh. No indeed.

Fyodor Lukyanov: No. Thank you.

So, on the subject of the law of the sea, Professor Dehshiri from Iran is directly involved in this field.

Mohammad Reza Dehshiri: Thank you, Mr President. I am from Iran.

Therefore, you know that after unlawful aggression of the United States and the Israeli regime on Iran, there were a lot of problems: the aggression of United States, and then there was the exchange of fire between the two sides – between Iran and the southern parts of the Persian Gulf.

Therefore, now the main question is what the Russian position is about the future of security arrangements in the region. What is your position and approach?

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: As for our assessment of the events that are unfolding, the Foreign Ministry has set out our position in considerable detail on numerous occasions and in various contexts.

Most recently, our Foreign Minister addressed this issue at the UN General Assembly, so there is no need for me to repeat what has already been said. Our position is open and public, and we have never shied away from stating it clearly.

As for aggression, I have already touched on this, but I would like to emphasise it once again. What is happening in Ukraine is also an act of aggression by the collective West against Russia, carried out through the Ukrainian nationalist regime. That, too, is aggression.

We oppose aggression in all its forms. We believe that all issues should be resolved peacefully, through negotiations. We hope that the strait will remain open and that the sanctions against Iran, which Iran is quite rightly seeking to have lifted, will be removed. Once those sanctions are lifted, there will be no reason to restrict the passage of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz – or, for that matter, through the other strait whose coastline is controlled by the Houthis. That is our position.

As for Iran’s nuclear programme, our position is well known and we have made no secret of it. I believe that Russia played a very significant and substantive role in resolving the previous crisis and contributed to the conclusion of the JCPOA. At the time, an arrangement was reached, with the agreement of our Iranian friends, under which we proposed that part of Iran’s enriched uranium be moved to Russian territory. And that arrangement worked. Our proposal remains on the table today.

We suggested drawing on that positive experience and transferring enriched uranium from Iran to the Russian Federation. I should note that initially everyone agreed to this – the Iranians, the Americans and the Israelis. But later, however, the United States hardened its position, insisting that the material should be removed from Iran but moved exclusively to the United States. Iran, in turn, toughened its stance as well.

One of our partners, Mr Larijani, who later lost his life – a great loss, because he was a thoughtful man with whom it was possible to reach agreements – came to see me personally and said, “No, we are no longer prepared to send our uranium anywhere. Instead, we propose that you, Russia, establish a joint venture in Iran to reduce the level of enrichment, in other words, to dilute the material there.” I told him that Israel and the US were unlikely to agree to such an arrangement, but that the option remained open. That is where matters stand today.

Nevertheless, our proposals remain on the table. If all those involved in this process ultimately conclude that this approach could help ease tensions, even to some extent, we are ready to move forward with this work.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you. Sergei Karaganov, please.

Sergei Karaganov [political scientist, b.1952]: Mr President, we are all happy that we have been acting so resolutely against the current regime in Ukraine over the past two months. We hope that we will soon liberate a considerable part of Ukraine from that regime. But this will again raise the question which we faced after the Great Patriotic War. I would like to remind you that Ukrainian regions were restored first and foremost, even before neighbouring regions in Russia. For example, the Kharkov Region was rebuilt much quicker that the Bryansk Region. Donbass was an exception, of course. Should we restore the liberated territories or focus on our own, much more interesting spheres of development? Or maybe we should relocate these enterprises to Siberia?

Vladimir Putin: Which enterprises?

Sergei Karaganov: The ones that lie in ruins now but can be rebuilt.

Vladimir Putin: In our territory?

Fyodor Lukyanov: No, in the Ukrainian territory.

Sergei Karaganov: In the liberated territory.

Vladimir Putin: You know, we should certainly first and foremost address our own arising issues. This is an absolute priority.

But if you mean the territories that should and will be incorporated into the Russian state, we will have to rebuild their economy and social sphere. As for what specifically we will do there, this is a different matter.

Take coal mines, for example. It was not clear what to do with them when they were part of Ukraine, meaning problems with their efficiency. We will act out of practical considerations and the fact that the people who will live in these territories are full-fledged citizens of the Russian Federation. We will do everything necessary to improve their standards of living to the average Russian level as soon as possible in all spheres, including in healthcare, education, the economy and people’s incomes.

Overall, we are doing this quite well in Crimea and in the parts of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics and the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions we control. As for what to rebuild and which enterprises to relocate, we will address these matters solely on the basis of economic expediency.

When it comes to ensuring the safety of our industry, including defence enterprises, I can assure you that we are already thinking about this, and when we build new enterprises in this sphere, we take modern methods of warfare into account, doing everything necessary to locate these facilities in the safest areas possible. Their construction is underway.

Vladimir Putin: With regard to the stabilising aspect of building international relations, it seems to me that both we and China share a common understanding that when we speak about Russia as a civilisation-state or China as a civilisation-state, we primarily mean the need to protect our traditional values, our history and our traditions. We will strive to secure respect for our countries precisely from this humanitarian standpoint.

Naturally, the subjects of international law are states. At the same time, however, civilisational dialogue between such states as Russia and the People’s Republic of China is of enormous importance. After all, above all else, this is communication in the humanitarian sphere, and that brings people closer. We see this process, for instance, through a very simple example: the holding of themed years – the Year of Education, the Year of Culture and the Year of Cinema. All of this unites us.

We support the idea of President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping. This civilisational dimension of our relationship is his initiative. During my visit to Beijing, we signed a joint declaration [20 May 2026] to that effect, and, without any doubt, we will work in this direction. China and its leadership regard our initiatives in this direction with the same attention and respect. We know this, and we are grateful to our friends in China. Without question, we will work together to achieve our shared goals.

The role and significance of China in international affairs continue to grow. The friendly, trusting relations between Russia and China – as I have said many times already – are a highly significant stabilising factor in global politics.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, you and President Xi – everyone knows that you share a very strong mutual understanding. However, you are nonetheless representatives of different cultures. Have you ever felt a cultural barrier – where you need to explain to him something that, for example, someone from our culture would understand immediately, whereas an explanation is required for him?

Vladimir Putin: You know, I will give you a very simple example. No, there is no barrier. Moreover, unfortunately, I do not yet speak Chinese, and my friend, President Xi Jinping, does not yet speak Russian either. Recently, we were together in India, and we found ourselves, the two of us, in the so-called “holding room,” where everyone… Well, that is what it is called.

Fyodor Lukyanov: It would be interesting to see this “holding room.” (Laughter.)

Vladimir Putin: Well, it is simply a room in which the leaders gather before proceeding to greet the host of the event – in this case, Prime Minister Modi. He greeted everyone, and each head of delegation proceeds from there into the main hall.

So, the two of us – President Xi Jinping and I – were left alone: he and I, without interpreters. (Laughter in the hall.) You know what is interesting: the moment either of us said a single word, we understood each another without interpreters, despite not knowing each other’s languages.

There you have it. Are there barriers? No, there are none. (Applause.)

Fyodor Lukyanov: I just wanted to say that the words “does not know Russian yet” and “does not know Chinese yet” are reassuring. However, it is clear that, apparently, there is no longer any need for that.

Vladimir Putin: As I have already said: my grandchildren will be my interpreters – they speak Chinese.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you very much.

Taisuke Abiru is seated next.

Taisuke Abiru: Thank you.

Taisuke Abiru, Sasakawa Peace Foundation, Japan.

Mr President, in mid-August you visited Iturup Island for the first time and once again confirmed Russia’s position regarding its sovereignty over these islands. Two years ago, at the Valdai Forum plenary session, you mentioned Japan as a natural partner and stated that Russia was ready to build relations with Japan with a view to the next five and fifty years.

Incidentally, at the end of August I also visited Sakhalin and exchanged views with representatives of the Government of the Sakhalin Region and staff of a marine research laboratory.

During these meetings, I was reaffirmed once again in my belief that there remains enormous potential for cooperation between Japan and Russia in such areas as the development of natural resources, the protection of the marine environment, economic science, the development of the Northern Sea Route and so on.

Now to my question. What significance do relations with Japan have for Russia within the framework of its long-term strategy in the Asia-Pacific region? Admittedly, at present it must be acknowledged that Russian-Japanese relations are in a very difficult situation. However, how do you see Russian-Japanese relations after the current difficulties are overcome?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I see Russian-Japanese relations as good, neighbourly and filled with concrete content, of the kind you have just mentioned. The economy, ecology, joint scientific research and so on.

You mentioned my statements regarding Japan (When was that – two years ago, was it not?). Since then, nothing has changed in Russia’s approaches to Japan. But Japan’s attitude towards Russia has changed. It was not we who imposed sanctions on Japan. It was Japan that imposed sanctions on the Russian Federation. Moreover, we hear rather harsh statements from some senior Japanese leaders. We have not permitted ourselves anything of the sort; we have not done this.

We are interested in cooperation with Japan. At the same time, we are concerned by Japan’s plans for militarisation – I cannot but mention this. We are concerned by the policy of creating military-political blocs in the region – I am obliged to say this. But, as you put it, after overcoming today’s difficulties, how do we see relations with Japan? I repeat once again: we see them as neighbourly and mutually beneficial, and we have areas of mutual interest.

Incidentally, a number of large Japanese companies, despite all the political chalenges, have continued to work in Russia. And despite the clearly unfriendly steps taken by the Japanese government, we not only do not hinder our Japanese partners but we support them, just as we support all those who continue to cooperate with the Russian Federation. And we intend and are ready to act in the same way in the future. We hope that, on the part of the Japanese ruling class, the Japanese political establishment and Japan as a whole, the same disposition tow

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, you just mentioned the “holding room.” It suddenly occurred to me – if you found yourself in a similar “holding room,” say, at the APEC summit – not just the two of you, but the three of you, with President Trump there as well. You would probably understand each other without words, or with just a hint?

Vladimir Putin: It would be more difficult. (Laughter, lively reaction in the audience.)

That said, I have quite a good, long-standing relationship with President Trump. I am grateful to him for his efforts to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, for instance. As I have said many times already, I am convinced that he does it sincerely.

We are grateful to the First Lady of the United States for her work in the humanitarian field. I speak completely sincerely, without any irony. This concerns prisoner exchanges and the resolution of certain other humanitarian issues. But be that as it may, everything that darkens our relations with the United States – and these factors that darken and destroy them did not arise yesterday, or today; they have arisen over the course of decades. We would very much like these factors dividing us to become a thing of the past, and for new prospects for mutually beneficial cooperation to emerge.

As for a possible trilateral meeting you hinted at, I know the media are talking about it. We are all for it. But there is one caveat: we need an agenda. We need to understand what the agenda would be for any trilateral meeting, what we would talk about. But in general, any dialogue is a good thing.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Aleksandar Rakovic.

Aleksandar Rakovic: Mr President, I am Aleksandar Rakovic, a historian from Belgrade, Serbia.

How do you assess the prospects for Serbia’s neutral geopolitical status? This is also important in the context of the upcoming elections in Serbia. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We welcome Serbia’s very restrained position on a number of key and very sensitive issues. And we greatly appreciate the fact that Serbia has refrained from making any decisions on sanctions against Russia.

You know our position on Serbia. It baffles me, frankly, why over the past decades the collective West has treated the Serbian people so unfairly and so asymmetrically. They divided the Serbian people into several parts; Serbs found themselves in different states. I have just met with Milorad Dodik. They themselves once drew up the Dayton Agreement, and now no one wants to implement them. And in other cases, they impose decisions on the Serbs.

Now the Serbs are a divided nation in Europe – and forcibly so. This is unfair, and it is bad, because any injustice leads to difficulties and conflicts. But the current Serbian leadership – including Aleksandar Vucic, who has served as president and, I hope, will soon become prime minister – pursues a restrained policy and shows a willingness to cooperate with Russia. We certainly welcome this and will respond in kind.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Did Zelensky’s visit to Belgrade not unsettle you?

Vladimir Putin: Young ladies get unsettled. We don’t get unsettled – we do politics.

Fyodor Lukyanov: (Laughter.) Thank you.

Mr Gupta.

Arvind Gupta: Good evening, Mr President.

Arvind Gupta from the Vivekananda International Foundation from New Delhi. Thank you very much for your presentation.

I want to just ask a couple of questions, and I want to just carry on the discussion about the civilisation state that you mentioned. My first question is: given this whole geopolitical environment that is shaping up, which you described so eloquently, do you see civilisations bringing people together, or is there now a contradiction between civilisation state and a nation-state? That’s my first question.

My second question is about India-Russia relations. You have recently been to New Delhi for a very successful BRICS Summit and had some very fruitful talks with Prime Minister Modi.

Now, Prime Minister Modi has often talked about that there should not be wars, and endless wars should end. Did you discuss these current scenarios with him and other leaders? And did you apprise them of the gravity of the situation?

My third question is specifically about India-Russia relations. You paid a very successful visit last year to New Delhi, and several new ideas were discussed. But one of the issues between India and Russia is that of connectivity.

We have had some issues pertaining to the international transport corridor through Iran, where some projects needed to be completed, which have not yet happened. The INSTC is probably not working to its full potential. Also, we have been talking about the Eastern Maritime Corridor connecting Chennai with Vladivostok. What is the progress on that?

My final question…

Fyodor Lukyanov: Sorry, that’s enough here.

Vladimir Putin: Please, go on. It’s a dictatorship. Give the microphone back.

(Laughter.)

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank God we have our own traditions.

Vladimir Putin: I will be brief anyway.

Arvind Gupta: In a nutshell, India and Russia have vast potential for improving or developing their relations. In the emerging technologies area, do you think there is now a potential for maybe an intergovernmental agreement between India and Russia on emerging technologies, bringing together semiconductors, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and such areas together so that we make rapid progress? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I will really try to respond briefly.

As for civilisation-states, we regard them as not something that divides people, but something that unites and complements them.

India is a truly striking country in its scale and diversity. Few people realise, as Mr Modi himself told me, that, out of a population of 1.5 billion, only 600 million Indians speak Hindi as their native language. The majority speak other languages, and everyone lives together. It is remarkable and commands admiration.

There is something unique about Indian culture – a blend of distinctiveness and unity – that certainly sets an example worth following. I believe that by drawing on the Indian experience, we can build relationships between diverse nations and countries with different cultures, histories and traditions. I see no contradiction here.

As for Prime Minister Modi’s position on ending wars and similar issues, I can say that he is one of those world leaders who, despite our very warm, friendly even, personal relationship, consistently raises the question of ending the conflict in Ukraine. He brings it up at every time we meet. He takes a keen interest in the matter and has excellent ideas aimed at finding mutually acceptable – I would like to stress ‘mutually’ – solutions. In this sense, the Prime Minister certainly maintains a neutral position while remaining committed to seeing the conflict end. I simply feel it is my duty to state this openly. We are also grateful to the Prime Minister for his ideas – I will not go into details now – and for his commitment to resolving this conflict, among others, peacefully and as quickly as possible.

As for possible joint project, work on the North – South interconnections, as well as the Northern Sea Route and the Eastern Maritime Corridor is underway.

For example, just recently a Chinese container ship and a South Korean vessel made test voyages there. We are also discussing possibilities with our Indian friends. We advocate the joint use of such promising international corridors.

As for the Northern Sea Route, shipping volumes along it are steadily increasing. I repeat: we want to ensure that this does not cause any sort of conflict. We are absolutely open to cooperation with any country interested in using these corridors, not because they create competition for, say, the Suez Canal, or because of the current difficult situation in the Middle East resulting from hostilities. No; it is simply that global trade volumes are growing, and new opportunities must meet new demands. I believe, and experience confirms this, that this growth will continue.

As for the North–South Transport Corridor, I can tell you that this does not depend on us alone. We are ready to provide the necessary financing. The issue is for our Iranian friends to complete their part of the work at this stage. There is no secret here: the land along the proposed route simply needs to be acquired. I would like to point out that part of the route is to pass through Azerbaijan. We maintain contact with President Aliyev, and there are no issues there either. Azerbaijan agrees to the project’s implementation and considers it promising. We have allocated the necessary financial resources and are ready to make this joint effort.

As for the potential for cooperation with India across various economic sectors beyond just logistics, you are absolutely right: high technology is the most promising area for joint work. We are facing specific challenges, such as trade imbalances, but here, too, we are proposing and implementing measures that go beyond traditional, linear approaches. Typically, when organising exhibitions, joint symposiums, trade fairs and similar events, a country showcases goods it wishes to export. However, with the agreement of our Indian friends and the support from Prime Minister Modi, we are organising events at which Indian importers can present the goods they could bring to the Russian market. We are ready to continue this work. Anyway, we can see great potential for cooperation in high-tech sectors.

Thank you.

Karen Hallberg: Mr President, good evening.

I am Karen Hallberg from Argentina, the Secretary General of the Pugwash Conferences for Science and World Affairs. Thank you very much for explaining and sharing your views on several topics.

I want to touch on nuclear weapons. I have a proposal regarding a trilateral meeting you have mentioned with the US and China. I wanted to say if, after your very useful initiative, which was not considered, but the initiative of extending the moratorium on the New START, which ultimately did not take place, but it would have been, it was an excellent idea to reduce risks.

My question is, do you have a plan to lead or co-lead an agenda for reducing risks in the nuclear weapons? For example, considering the AI, the risk of AI in relation to nuclear weapons, the fact that there has to be a human or important human decision-making in that loop. Or for example, maintaining communications or reducing the high alert status of nuclear weapons, etc.

So the question is, do you have an idea or can you tell me how we can reduce the risk of nuclear weapons, mainly among the three states that have the largest number?

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: The answer will be brief. It was not we who withdrew from all the international agreements and treaties that formed the basis for restraining the arms race and nuclear non-proliferation. It was not we who abandoned those treaties. Under one pretext or another, it was the United States that did so. That applied to START III as well. Well, that is how it is. It was not we who withdrew.

Moreover, let me inform you – it is probably no secret, and perhaps it has been mentioned somewhere – that we proposed to the Obama Administration even then that we resume dialogue on these matters. At first we heard nothing; and at the very end, some three months before that Administration left office, we suddenly received word that the US Administration was ready for such a dialogue. But then they all left office, and it all ground to a halt again. We are not against resuming that dialogue; we never were. We proposed it then, and we are proposing it now. Yet there is no answer. If there is none – as we say, if it is a no, let it be so.

Therefore, it is not that Russia has a vital interest in this – no, because we are developing our nuclear forces: our Strategic Missile Forces, as I have already said, are nearly 98 percent modern. Not a single nuclear power has that level of modernity – not one. We also have new, modern systems. There is the glide vehicle, which appeared several years ago. There is the missile defence penetration system, an entirely new one, and intermediate-range weapons – high-tech, the most modern, which other countries do not yet have either.

Naturally, all nuclear powers are high-tech countries. They will all have these systems one day. But not yet. For now, only we have them. However, we understand the threats you speak of. We understand that there must, after all, be mechanisms of deterrence and that there must be some agreements. I will not go into the details now of who has what in their stockpiles, what has been destroyed and what has not, or which silos are being sealed where. That is a matter for specialists – technical and military.

That said, we are ready – if the current administration, and we are receiving signals that interest in this is in principle reviving – if the current US administration wishes to do this, we are ready to resume this dialogue tomorrow. By all means.

You should talk to them; perhaps they will listen to you. OK?

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Lorenzo Pacini.

Lorenzo Pacini: Thank you, Mr President.

I am from Italy, a country which currently does not have good relations with Russia. As a European, I would like to know what conditions Russia would set for a new system of security for European countries.

Also, assuming a possible post-European Union Europe, would you leave the European continent to be part of a greater Eurasia, or to determine itself with its peoples in permanent competition between the United States and Russia? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Italy is part of Europe, after all, and I am speaking about a Eurasian partnership. So, naturally, we view – and will continue to view – Italy as a Eurasian partner.

Whether the EU survives, or whether Italy remains a member or not – that is not our business; we do not interfere, nor do we wish to get involved in that discussion. We know that the moment we do, they would claim we want to break up the EU – even though we have no desire to wreck anything; we want to build and cooperate, not destroy.

We have no preliminary terms whatsoever for resuming or restoring relations with either Europe as a whole or with concrete European countries. Some politicians argue that Russia must not be allowed to cooperate with individual countries, that everyone must act together, and that no European country should be allowed to establish a dialogue with Russia on its own.

This amounts to a diktat that goes beyond even what we saw during the Soviet era – something I have mentioned before. Back then, at least, there was a single state, and the union republics were part of a unified – and, in reality, strictly centralised – whole. In the European Union, theoretically, that is not the case, yet in practice, it is. Someone is forbidding individual countries from building relations with Russia today. No one forbids us from doing so; we are ready.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Perhaps, since they are imposing bans anyway, we should just go ahead and break them up, so it is easier to deal with individual countries?

Vladimir Putin: No need for that; they will fall apart without any help from us.

Fyodor Lukyanov: I see. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Our colleague from Italy knows better than we do. After all, every problem starts with the economy. How big is Italy’s national debt? 140 percent. And the deficit? Well, it is probably somewhere around four or five percent. No, no, not three – higher, higher. How much? Well, three. (Remark from the audience.) No, no, no, that is too high. Actually – as our colleague is pointing out – it is around three percent. But in other European countries it is higher; some are closing in on five.

Overall, we understand the economic difficulties facing European countries – the challenges they confront. We do not want to criticise or comment on that right now; it is up to those countries themselves, to a united Europe, and to the European Commission to decide how to structure their relations.

In our view, many things have been – and still are being – done incorrectly, with serious consequences for the economies of all European countries. Now is probably not the time for such discussions, but it is a fact. Problems are mounting. Citizens of leading European nations are feeling the impact firsthand. Standards of living are falling, and unemployment is rising.

This, of course, undermines the very foundations of the European Union. But that is none of our business; we are not interfering. We are ready to start a dialogue, either with the EU as a whole, if it wishes, or with individual countries, without preconditions. However, there should be no preconditions on their part, either.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, as we started talking about the European economy, you have recently issued a few directives to transfer important European assets to our administration. Of course, they regarded this as something close to robbery or nationalisation. Where is the truth?

Vladimir Putin: In fact, it is all lies and provocations. We are not taking anything from anyone, nor are we stealing or nationalising anything. They suddenly froze our gold and foreign currency reserves, including the Central Bank’s reserves, and now they even seem to be using the income generated by those reserves to fund the war. I think that this is absolutely unacceptable.

We have not nationalised anything or anyone. Yes, we are placing certain enterprises under termporary external administration. Meanwhile, some European countries have simply seized huge enterprises belonging to us in blatant violation – and I want to emphasise this – of every conceivable rule. Take Germany, for instance. That is what the situation is like, do you see?

They took assets from Gazprom, Rosneft, and our other companies… Look at what is happening with Lukoil. So, what now? We are creating conditions that would enable us to respond if our companies were nationalised or subjected to what amounts to outright robbery. That is the reason behind placing the enterprises you mentioned under external administration.

Fyodor Lukyanov: So, under a favourable scenario, they would get them back?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, they would.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Majid Ehsan: Mr President, I am from Pakistan, Majid Ehsan. Thank you very much for the very comprehensive world view you have given.

My question is regarding your visualisation of a multipolar world. What is the most likely framework this multipolar world, in your view, is going to take shape? Will it be three poles with the US in the Western Hemisphere, Russia and China in the Eastern Hemisphere under a new global system of global governance? Or are we looking at, in a worst-case scenario, another Iron Curtain between the Eastern and Western Hemispheres with a Cold War?

Vladimir Putin: As for the new Iron Curtain, this isn’t now us who are trying to bring down this curtain but the Western comminity. The West is the one doing this. The sanctions are numerous: there are thousands and thousands of them. How many sanctions are there? Several thousand sanctions against Russia. Meetings with Russian representatives are prohibited, and attempts to isolate Russia within international organisations are made – all of this amounts to an attempt to bring down an “Iron Curtain”. But this time, it is not coming from our side, as it happened during the Soviet era, but from the West.

We know full well how the Soviet Union’s attempt to create such a curtain ended: in failure. Any attempt to bring down such a curtain anywhere, especially in today’s world, is bound to fail.

As for how we envision a multipolar world, it cannot be bipolar, tripolar, or quadripolar. It must be diverse and truly multipolar. Our world is, of course, far more complex than consisting of two or even three blocs. It must take into account the interests of all participants in international relations.

And, as we have said multiple times, there is a fundamental principle: the security of some cannot be achieved at the expense of the security of others. This is one of the cornerstones that we believe must underpin the future world order. We cannot yet tell what that order will look like, as I have said from this very podium, but we must strive to seek answers together. At the very least, we need to work together to find the foundations of this future world order, and do so without any preconditions. I have just said so when answering to your colleague from Italy.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Mohammad Marandi.

Mohammad Marandi: Thank you very much, Mr President. It’s a pleasure and an honour being here. I’m Seyed Mohammad Marandi from the University of Tehran. I’m very thankful to you for mentioning Dr Larijani, who was martyred in the aggression against the Iranian people. He worked very hard in the struggle against ISIS and Al-Qaeda. He was very concerned about the well-being of the Palestinian people, and he led the resistance against the aggression against our country after the martyrdom of Ayatollah Khamenei.

We will obviously defend our country, and we will emerge victorious. We recall the children of Minab who were slaughtered on the first day of war, the children of Lamerd who were slaughtered (in a satanic rite] on the first day of war, and the countless people who’ve been traumatised by this aggression.

But the root of the cause is the genocide in Palestine, alongside the independence of the Iranian people. This genocide won’t stop. Every day we’re hearing about new slaughter, and the determination is to exterminate the Palestinian people. And those who oppose that extermination are now being threatened with extermination. What can be done to save the children of Gaza? Thank you.

                                          

Vladimir Putin: This is one of the most acute and sensitive humanitarian issues; as for the tragedies unfolding in Gaza, we are all fully aware of and well informed about the situation there.

I will not go into detail. The position of the Russian Federation on the Palestinian question is well known; it is not subject to any transient or opportunistic considerations – it is not. Fundamentally, the Palestinian question, if we are to speak of the possibility of a long-term settlement, must be based on all previously adopted resolutions of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly, and the cornerstone and foundation of this settlement must be the establishment of a fully-fledged Palestinian state. That is all.

As for Mr Larijani, I have already stated that, alongside all the qualifications and assessments of a purely legal nature repeatedly provided by our Foreign Ministry, I consider this to be a grave mistake. Despite everything, Mr Larijani – with whom I was personally well acquainted [as also Alexander Dugin and Daria Platonova Dugina]– was a highly constructive individual, ready to seek mutually acceptable compromises, primarily, of course, in the interests of the Iranian people.

Therefore, apart from, I repeat, all legal assessments, this is undoubtedly a grave mistake, because a figure of such calibre is needed today to seek compromises and solutions capable of bringing peace to the Persian Gulf region.

Frankly, the entire world is closely following these events and admires the courage, heroism and fortitude of the Iranian people, as well as their deep reserve, so to speak, of high-calibre personnel – both in state governance and in the armed forces, including the IRGC – individuals ready for self-sacrifice for the sake of their nation’s future.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you very much. I would like to take this opportunity to note that the Valdai Club was, of course, profoundly shocked by the assassination of Ali Larijani, because we all vividly remember how, a decade or even less ago, he attended one of our sessions and, it must be said, made a profound impression on everyone with his ability to articulate a position, his persuasiveness, and his intellect.

This is, of course, a truly tragic loss.

B.Sharma: Thank you very much, Mr President. My question is about BRICS. There was a very positive and Global South-centric declaration in Delhi; a number of mechanisms have also been formulated. But the main countries of BRICS have different ecosystems and perhaps a slightly different outlook.

One of the intentions that was stated was to realign the positions of different countries. So, is this going to be a yearly ritual at the top leadership level, or are you going to do a little more – to give a little more push to this great initiative?

Vladimir Putin: As I have said many times, BRICS was born in Russia. It began as a meeting of the leaders of Russia, India, and China – known as RIC – and was later joined by Brazil, South Africa, and the other countries that are members today. I have just said from the podium here that a group like BRICS can indeed be as a prototype for the future global order.

We can see that today it represents almost half of the world’s population, and BRICS’s share of the global economy is constantly increasing. This happens year after year; we can see it, and the statistics confirm it. So indeed, the most important thing is the principles underpinning the formation and functioning of BRICS, with all members being equal and no one dominating. That is what makes it appealing. However, it does not have the feature that the UN Security Council possesses: binding decisions. For the United Nations, this is generally an effective instrument and mechanism.

It is difficult to say today how BRICS will evolve within the new architecture of international relations, but it is absolutely clear that it is a useful instrument and mechanism, given the principles I have just mentioned.

Yet BRICS is not just about formal meetings between national leaders. Modern financial mechanisms are also being developed within its framework. When business representatives meet, they can find very interesting, important and promising joint projects. There is also humanitarian cooperation across various arts, which is crucial because it brings people closer together.

For instance, we proposed establishing a new investment platform within BRICS. This platform would not only help develop the economies of member states but could also operate effectively in other countries – those with rapidly growing populations and developing economies that are striving to raise their people’s living standards to global levels. This holds great promise, particularly considering the ongoing urbanisation process in these countries. Modern settlement systems capable of processing transactions between BRICS countries and their companies independently of external interference could be highly valuable and offer significant potential.

Step by step, gradually, brick by brick, all of this is helping to build a new architecture. Progress will continue in this gradual manner. There is no point in getting ahead of ourselves; it could even be dangerous. We need to address issues and challenges as they arise.»