Listen to Russia – for a change

by Karl-Jürgen Müller

Have you ever asked your family, neighbours, friends and acquaintances: “Have you noticed that for several years now, our media and almost all our politicians have been saying nothing but bad things about Russia ... and certainly nothing good about Russian politics and politicians?” And then asked: “Do you think it’s realistic that in any country on earth, everything – politics, economy and society – is bad?” And then asked: “How do you explain that here, when it comes to Russia, everything is maligned?”
  On 2 October, Roger Köppel, editor-in-chief of the Swiss magazine Weltwoche, wrote in a lengthy article on the war in Ukraine: “The fact remains that, according to neutral observers such as the International Red Cross, this war [in Ukraine] is being fought on both sides with the utmost restraint towards the civilian population. The claim that Russia is waging a ‘war of extermination’ against its brother people, the Ukrainians, is a violation of history and, above all, a trivialisation of the real ‘war of extermination’ carried out by the German Wehrmacht from 1941 to 1945, which resulted in the deaths of around 26 million Soviet citizens.” Ask your family, neighbours, friends and acquaintances if it wouldn’t make sense to scrutinize such statements, which contradict “brutal and ruthless war of aggression”. Köppel himself speaks in the previous paragraph of “horrific reports about Russian warfare that have been circulating in the West since the invasion began”.
  If indeed in our countries we are no longer being informed objectively and appropriately about what Russia is doing but are instead bombarded with propaganda, how should we deal with these daily “reports”, “analyses” and “commentaries”?
  Isn’t it better to study the sources instead of simply believing what is written? For example, what did the Russian president – a Russian politician who is particularly demonised in our country – really say? And only then ask: what are we to make of it?
  This also applies – very currently – to the Russian president’s speech at this year’s international Valdai Forum in Sochi, Russia, on 2 October, as well as to the subsequent detailed discussion. Current Concerns cannot publish the entire text of the speech plus the discussion – as much as we would like to document both. But the texts are available, as are videos of the nearly four-hour event.1
  It would be good if our media reported on this objectively. But once again, they have failed to do so.
  Now what was the content of the speech?
  The theme of the multi-day Valdai Conference was: “The Polycentric World: Instructions for Use”. “Polycentric” is another word for “multipolar”. The Russian president was also asked to speak on this topic but noted at the beginning of his speech that he was “unlikely to be able to formulate any guidelines or instructions”. Instead, he said: “Let me offer my view on what is happening in the world, the role of our country in it, and how we see its development prospects.”

With multipolarity …

Vladimir Putin said that currently the world was changing “very rapidly” and “radically”, that Russia had to be prepared for this, and that the stakes involved were “extremely high”. He characterised the current state of advanced multipolarity as follows: “First, today’s world offers a much more open – indeed, one might say creative – space for foreign policy”; “Second, multipolarity space is highly dynamic”; “third [...] this new space is more democratic”; fourth, “the cultural, historical and civilisational specificities of different countries now play a greater role than ever before”; “fifth, decisions are possible only on the basis of agreements” (which requires “harmony and balance” if results are to be achieved), and sixth, “the opportunities and dangers of a multipolar world are inseparable from one another”.
  According to Putin, “Paradoxically, multipolarity has become a direct consequence of attempts to establish and preserve global hegemony, a response by the international system and history itself to the obsessive desire to arrange everyone into a single hierarchy, with Western countries at the top.”
  Putin recalled how, after the end of the Cold War, Russia had tried in vain to “eliminate the grounds for bloc confrontation and to create a common space of security”. With a few striking strokes, Putin painted a picture of the history of the past 35 years as it appears to Russia and diagnosed the West as follows:
  “A clear rejection of the excessive ambitions of the political elite of the leading Western European nations has emerged and is mounting among the societies in those countries.” The problem, he said, was that “The establishment does not want to cede power, dares to directly deceive its own citizens, escalates the situation internationally, resorts to all sorts of tricks inside their countries – increasingly on the fringes of the law or even beyond it.” All of this contradicted the will of the citizens: “The will of the people, the will of the citizens in those countries, is clear and simple – let the countries’ leaders deal with the citizens’ problems, take care of their safety and quality of life, and do not chase chimeras.”

… on the road to recovery

But still Putin was confident that the world as a whole was on the road to recovery: “The subordination of the majority to the minority inherent in international relations during the period of Western domination” was giving way to “a multilateral and more cooperative approach”. This was based “on agreements of the leading players and consideration of everyone’s interests”. Differences of opinion and conflicts, which of course also exist in a multipolar world, could be resolved peacefully and constructively. A division of the world could not be maintained; the world remained “integral, interconnected and interdependent”. That is why it had not been possible to isolate Russia. On the contrary: “It turns out that the very global system they wanted to expel us from simply refuses to let Russia go. Because it needs Russia as an essential part of the global balance”.
  Putin said that sooner or later the West would have to recognise this too.
  Shaping a polycentric, multipolar world together was a very complex task. There were no unilateral solutions to the real problems of the world; “multilateral solutions require very serious, professional, impartial, creative, and at times unconventional diplomacy”. Therefore, he was “convinced that we will witness a kind of renaissance, a revival of high diplomatic art”.
  Its essence lies “in the ability to engage in dialogue and reach agreements – both with neighbours and like-minded partners, and – no less important but more challenging – with opponents.” This also required new structures – Putin referred, among others, to BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation(SCO). What they had in common was that “they do not operate on the principle of hierarchy or subordination to a single dominant power. They are not against anyone; they are for themselves”. The modern world needed “agreements, not the imposition of anyone’s will. Hegemony – of any kind – simply cannot and will not cope with the scale of the challenges.” This was another reason why “bloc-based ambitions pre-programmed to exacerbate confrontation have, without a doubt, become a meaningless anachronism.”

Highly dangerous: Russia as an enemy

Putin once again addressed the widespread perception of Russia as an enemy in Europe, emphasising that such a perception is highly dangerous. Russia was closely monitoring “the growing militarisation of Europe. Is it just rhetoric, or is it time for us to respond?” And he made it clear: “I believe no one has any doubt that Russia’s response will not be long in coming. To put it mildly, the reply to these threats will be highly convincing.”

Correcting mistakes made

But in fact, there were other issues at stake: “There are so many objective problems in the world [...] that expending energy and resources on artificial, often fabricated contradictions is impermissible, wasteful, and simply foolish”.
  One of these problems is international security. Putin once again recalled “the principle of indivisible security”: “the security of some cannot be ensured at the expense of others. Otherwise, there is no security at all – for anyone”. But this principle has not yet been established. “The euphoria and unchecked thirst for power among those who saw themselves as victors after the Cold War – as I have repeatedly stated – led to attempts to impose unilateral, subjective notions of security upon everyone”. According to Putin, this “became the true root cause of not only the Ukrainian conflict but also many other acute crises of the late 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century”. The consequence: “As a result […] no one today feels truly secure.” Therefore, he said, “It is time to return to fundamentals and correct past mistakes”.
  In the course of his speech, Putin addressed other global problems and reiterated his view that any meaningful “solution to global challenges requires, first, an approach free from an ideological bias and didactic pathos, in the manner of ‘Now I will tell you what to do’”. What is needed, he said, was “the joint efforts of all countries and nations”: “Each culture and civilisation should make its contribution because, I repeat, no one knows the right answer separately. It may only be generated through a joint constructive search, through combining – not separating – efforts and national experience of various countries”. In response to the question of how to deal with conflicts of interest, he emphasised once again: “the question is how to resolve them. A polycentric world […] is a return to the classical diplomacy, when settlement needs attention, mutual respect but not coercion.”

About the war in Ukraine

Putin once again spoke clearly about the war in Ukraine: “Those who encouraged, incited, and armed Ukraine, who goaded it into antagonising Russia, who for decades nurtured rampant nationalism and neo-Nazism in that country, frankly – pardon me the bluntness – did not give a hoot about Russia’s or, for that matter, Ukraine’s interests. They do not feel anything for the Ukrainian people. For them – globalists and expansionists in the West and their minions in Kiev – they are expendable material. The results of such reckless adventurism are in plain sight, and there is nothing to discuss.”
  And a little later:
  “For other countries, the situation in Ukraine is merely a playing card in a different, much larger, game, a game of their own, which usually has little to do with the actual problems of the countries involved, including this particular one. It is merely an excuse and a means to achieve their own geopolitical goals, to expand their area of control, and to make some money off the war. That is why they brought NATO infrastructure right up to our doorstep, and have for years been looking with a straight face at the tragedy of Donbass, and at what was essentially a genocide and extermination of the Russian people on our own historic land, a process that began in 2014 on the heels of a bloody coup in Ukraine.”

The majority of countries think differently

However, Putin also emphasised:
   “In contrast to such conduct demonstrated by Europe and, until recently, by the United States under the previous administration, stand the actions of countries belonging to the global majority. They refuse to take sides and genuinely strive to help establish a just peace.”
  He is also confident about the majority of countries and peoples: “Today, most countries and peoples – precisely this global majority – recognise their true interests. Crucially, they now feel the strength and confidence to defend these interests against external pressures.”
  This majority of countries and peoples cultivate their relationships in the way that a polycentric world requires: “This is pragmatism and realism – a rejection of bloc philosophy, an absence of rigid, externally imposed obligations or models featuring senior and junior partners. Finally, it is the ability to reconcile interests that seldom fully align yet rarely fundamentally contradict one another. The absence of antagonism becomes the guiding principle.” As a result, “A new wave of decolonisation is rising now, as former colonies are acquiring, in addition to statehood, also political, economic, cultural and world outlook sovereignty.”
  Towards the end of his speech, the Russian president addressed the United Nations, its significance after the end of the Second World War, its history since then and its future role. Despite all the justified criticism, he said: “Yet there is nothing better than the UN so far.” And: “The potential of the UN system has only started unfolding, and I am confident that this process will be completed very quickly in the nascent new era.” He is confident that the countries of the global majority also form a convincing majority within the UN. It is therefore necessary to adapt the structures of the UN to this fact.

Respect for traditions

Before expressing his hope for better relations with the US at the very end, he summarised his fundamental thoughts:
  “We have entered a long period of searching, often moving by trial and error. When a new, stable system will finally take shape – and what its framework will look like – remains unknown. We must be ready for the fact that, for a considerable time, social, political and economic development will be unpredictable, sometimes even turbulent.
  To stay on course and not lose our bearings, everyone needs a firm foundation. In our view, this foundation is, above all, the values that have matured over centuries within national cultures. Culture and history, ethical and religious norms, geography and space – these are the key elements that shape civilisations and enduring communities. They define national identity, values, and traditions, providing the compass that helps us withstand the storms of international life.
  Traditions are always unique; each nation has its own. Respect for traditions is the first and most important condition for stable international relations and for resolving emerging challenges.
  The world has already lived through attempts at unification, at imposing so-called universal models that clashed with the cultural and ethical traditions of most peoples. The Soviet Union once made this mistake by imposing its political system – we know this […]. Later the United States took up that baton, and Europe, too, tried. In both cases, it failed. What is superficial, artificial, imposed from outside cannot last.” •

https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2025/nr-22-14-oktober-2025/russland-einfach-mal-zuhoeren

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT (WW3) HITS THE FAN:

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

THESE WILL ALSO INCLUDE ODESSA, KHERSON AND KHARKIV.....

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

TRANSNISTRIA TO BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

RESTORE THE RIGHTS OF THE RUSSIAN SPEAKING PEOPLE OF "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

RESTITUTE THE ORTHODOX CHURCH PROPERTIES AND RIGHTS

RELEASE THE OPPOSITION MEMBERS FROM PRISON

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE EU.....

EASY.

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

SEE ALSO: