Overcoming Anxiety and Creating a New World. Day 1 of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club
Sochi, Russia
© Valdai Discussion Club
On November 4, the 21st Annual Meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club opened in Sochi. The name of this year’s event is “Lasting Peace on What Basis? Common Security and Equal Opportunities for Development in the 21st Century”. The first day included a presentation of the annual report and four sessions.
Opening the meeting, Andrey Bystritskiy, Chairman of the Board of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai Discussion Club, noted that Valdai experts have been discussing the most important problems of the global community for twenty years now. They can only be solved through cooperation and collective intellectual work, and many of the conclusions made during this time have proven to be correct, he emphasised. This year, about 140 experts from 50 countries are participating in the meeting. If at the dawn of the Valdai Club, foreign participants were almost exclusively from Western countries, today the geographic coverage is much wider.
The discussion of the annual report was moderated by Ivan Timofeev, the Club's programme director (a recording of the broadcast is available on our website). In his opening remarks, he noted that the previous picture of the world's hierarchy is blurring, and we are moving towards a different principle of world order based on horizontal connections. This is most clearly evident in Eurasia.
His colleague Timofei Bordachev emphasised that the dramatic changes we see in the world are not a problem; they open up new opportunities. The level of independence of states is growing, and therefore the new rules of the world order will differ from the previous ones, which are not adapted to a world in which dozens of states which have their own ideas strive to live. The world has demonstrated its readiness to develop outside the hierarchical system of relations, and any group of states claiming the role of the world elite will not be able to exercise sole leadership. This is what allows us to look to the future with optimism: when each state bears responsibility, this is more a blessing than a problem, Bordachev stressed.
Sanjar Valiev, Director of the Centre for Foreign Policy Studies and International Initiatives (Uzbekistan), noted that the annual Valdai reports are a chronicle that dynamically describes the stages of development of the international environment. Up to a certain point, there is a growing sense of anxiety, then the point of no return is passed - and a substantive discussion begins on where we should go next. This is the stage we are at today.
Nelson Wong, Vice Chairman & President, Shanghai Centre for RimPac Strategic and International Studies, emphasised in his speech that the world has always been multipolar, and the unipolar moment after the end of the Cold War is an anomaly. The goal of the United States is to contain the development of economic rivals and destroy those who do not submit to its will, but the times of hegemony have passed irrevocably, Wong said.
According to Rein Müllerson, President of the Institut de Droit International in Geneva (2013–2015), the geopolitical tragedy of the collapse of the USSR was that it created a unipolar world without checks and balances. The impudence and recklessness of one superpower cannot be contained by international law alone; a balance of power is needed.
Müllerson noted that today Eurasia is an area of stability – with the exception of its western edge. In Western Europe, according to him, a revolutionary situation is emerging due to an unprecedented gap between the cosmopolitan elites who have benefited from globalisation and the broad masses. However, due to the overproduction of elites, not everyone has a place at the “trough”, and some elites take the side of the masses, resulting in the growth of populist movements. Western countries are forced to concentrate on solving their own problems – perhaps this will lead to what Müllerson called the “devassalisation” of Western Europe.
Alan Freeman, Co-director of the Research Group on Geopolitical Economics at the University of Manitoba, Canada, used the term “Columbian nations” to describe Western countries. Their mentality is based on appropriation and capitalist genocide, he said. Today, they are in decline and jealous of the development of the world majority, whose economies are growing faster than the “Columbian nations.”
Rajendra Singh Yadav, director of the Centre for Strategic Studies and Modelling (CS3) at India’s Joint Institute for Defence Studies, agreed with previous speakers that the post-World War II order is no longer relevant. The tendency to act unilaterally is not welcomed by most nations, he noted. Yadav also noted the special role of India, China and Russia in shaping an inclusive and balanced world order.
Session One of the Annual Meeting, titled “Conflict or Agreement? What Will Most Likely Resolve Differences in the Post-Globalisation Era?" was also open, and the recording of the broadcast can be viewed on our website.
Clashes are inevitable, said Sergei Karaganov, Professor Emeritus, Academic Supervisor of the Faculty of World Economics and International Relations, HSE University. The world's dominant socio-economic model of globalist liberal imperialism has exhausted itself, but imperialism requires geographical expansion. This means an increased risk of armed confrontation, and, consequently, the role of nuclear deterrence is increasing. The world needs new institutions to ensure security, Karaganov emphasised. In the context of the emergence of new weapons systems (the drone revolution), existing mechanisms for arms limitations do not work.
In turn, Wang Huiyao, Founder and President of the Beijing-based Centre for China and Globalisation, emphasised the need for dialogue and cooperation. Peaceful co-existence in different models of life and civilisations is necessary, he emphasised. Humanity needs shake-ups, believes Oleg Makarov, director of the Belarusian Institute for Strategic Studies, but changes in the world order should occur through non-military impulses.
Criticism of the West, which seeks to politicise globalisation processes and turn them into a weapon, was also voiced by P.S. Raghavan, Chairman of National Security Advisory Board of the National Security Council, India. According to him, an illustration of this was the participation of the NATO Secretary General at the World Economic Forum in Davos, who told the audience about what the world economy should be like.
The world has returned to a dangerous point similar to the situation before the First World War, believes Nabil Fahmy, emeritus dean of the School of International Affairs and Public Policy at the American University in Cairo. Stability can only be achieved through a balance of power, he believes.
Finally, Trinh Minh Manh, Director General of the Institute for Foreign Policy and Strategic Studies at the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam, presented ASEAN's view of global processes. If rivalry between major powers is inevitable, they must show responsibility, he is convinced. Small and medium powers that are part of ASEAN do not want to be forced to choose a side in the confrontation. “We love you all,” Trinh concluded.
The subsequent sessions of the first day were held in a closed-door format. Participants in the second session, titled “Eurasian Security: New Principles, New Opportunities”, noted the degradation of the existing world order. The West is ceasing to be the world's economic and technological leader, one of the speakers noted, but, in addition, the ideas that ensured its ideological dominance have ceased to be popular. The task of the non-West is to offer the world new meaning and global goals.
While these meanings and ideas are only just emerging, in institutional terms, the countries of Eurasia are already offering good working alternatives. These are organisations such as the SCO, CSTO, and the EAEU. All participants in the session agreed that Eurasian security is indivisible and cannot be implemented on a bloc basis. One of the speakers called the Western concept of a “rules-based world order” meaningless. In fact, it makes sense to talk about “rules tailored to the Western world order,” he emphasised.
Much attention was paid to the distorted perception of the interaction of Eurasian countries by external players. For years, the West considered the Russian-Chinese alliance a "marriage of convenience," but now there is a slow realisation that they are based on a coincidence of points of view on fundamental issues of the world order and the sincere interest of both sides in further deepening relations.
The third session was devoted to the perception of the concept of “civilisation” in the modern world and the possibility of harmonious coexistence. The starting point of the discussion was the discussion of European civilisation, which in one way or another has influenced the fate of the entire world. According to one of the experts, European civilisation can be defined at three levels. The first is "cultural Europe" (of which Russia is a part). The second is "Western civilisation", which is the result of Europe's entry into the global arena, a specific type of modernity that considers itself the only possible one. The third is the “political West”, a product of the "cold war", created by the logic of confrontation. For several centuries, the concept of “European/Western civilisation” was synonymous with progress. A hundred years ago, the question of whether it was necessary to borrow cultural forms from the West, for example, greatly confused the minds of China, one of the experts recalled. Is it possible to follow the path of modernisation without losing yourself? Today, it is obvious that China has answered this question in the affirmative. Countries such as Russia and China, each of which considers itself a state-civilisation, are striving today to understand and strengthen their roots in order to survive in difficult times, the expert concluded.
The first day of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Valdai Club concluded with the fourth session, titled “A Formula of War and an Equation of Peace. A Fair Solution to the Ukrainian Crisis Amid the General Changes.” Researchers from different countries of Eurasia presented their points of view on this issue.
According to one of them, Ukraine will eventually be divided, but this division should be fair and not hinder its existence as a viable state. Having become neutral, Ukraine should receive effective security guarantees, one of the experts emphasised. In addition, after the division, the rights of national minorities should be ensured: Russia should not de-Ukrainise new territories, and Ukraine should stop de-Russification, the expert believes.
Several speakers noted that the start of the military operation in Ukraine was not unexpected - according to one of them, it was the most predictable conflict in modern history, which could have been easily prevented if not for the hidden agenda of the West. Russia's military response was a reaction to the change in the balance of power, which Western countries were persistently pursuing. The West's interest in continuing the conflict is also evidenced by the breakdown of the Istanbul agreements, which was the result of a provocation.
If you have a strong neighbour, then you need to build good relations with it, and not antagonise it, counting on support from abroad, one of the participants in the session emphasised. Zelensky made a mistake by believing that the United States would ensure Ukraine's security in the confrontation with Russia, he added.
Particular attention was paid to the peace proposal of China, which, as one of the experts emphasised, involves eliminating the root causes of the conflict. They are conditioned by the bloc thinking, that the West has consistently demonstrated since the end of World War II, rejecting the proposals for security in Europe put forward by the USSR and then Russia and based on an inclusive approach.
Opening the meeting, Andrey Bystritskiy, Chairman of the Board of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai Discussion Club, noted that Valdai experts have been discussing the most important problems of the global community for twenty years now. They can only be solved through cooperation and collective intellectual work, and many of the conclusions made during this time have proven to be correct, he emphasised. This year, about 140 experts from 50 countries are participating in the meeting. If at the dawn of the Valdai Club, foreign participants were almost exclusively from Western countries, today the geographic coverage is much wider.
The discussion of the annual report was moderated by Ivan Timofeev, the Club's programme director (a recording of the broadcast is available on our website). In his opening remarks, he noted that the previous picture of the world's hierarchy is blurring, and we are moving towards a different principle of world order based on horizontal connections. This is most clearly evident in Eurasia.
His colleague Timofei Bordachev emphasised that the dramatic changes we see in the world are not a problem; they open up new opportunities. The level of independence of states is growing, and therefore the new rules of the world order will differ from the previous ones, which are not adapted to a world in which dozens of states which have their own ideas strive to live. The world has demonstrated its readiness to develop outside the hierarchical system of relations, and any group of states claiming the role of the world elite will not be able to exercise sole leadership. This is what allows us to look to the future with optimism: when each state bears responsibility, this is more a blessing than a problem, Bordachev stressed.
Sanjar Valiev, Director of the Centre for Foreign Policy Studies and International Initiatives (Uzbekistan), noted that the annual Valdai reports are a chronicle that dynamically describes the stages of development of the international environment. Up to a certain point, there is a growing sense of anxiety, then the point of no return is passed - and a substantive discussion begins on where we should go next. This is the stage we are at today.
Nelson Wong, Vice Chairman & President, Shanghai Centre for RimPac Strategic and International Studies, emphasised in his speech that the world has always been multipolar, and the unipolar moment after the end of the Cold War is an anomaly. The goal of the United States is to contain the development of economic rivals and destroy those who do not submit to its will, but the times of hegemony have passed irrevocably, Wong said.
According to Rein Müllerson, President of the Institut de Droit International in Geneva (2013–2015), the geopolitical tragedy of the collapse of the USSR was that it created a unipolar world without checks and balances. The impudence and recklessness of one superpower cannot be contained by international law alone; a balance of power is needed.
Müllerson noted that today Eurasia is an area of stability – with the exception of its western edge. In Western Europe, according to him, a revolutionary situation is emerging due to an unprecedented gap between the cosmopolitan elites who have benefited from globalisation and the broad masses. However, due to the overproduction of elites, not everyone has a place at the “trough”, and some elites take the side of the masses, resulting in the growth of populist movements. Western countries are forced to concentrate on solving their own problems – perhaps this will lead to what Müllerson called the “devassalisation” of Western Europe.
Alan Freeman, Co-director of the Research Group on Geopolitical Economics at the University of Manitoba, Canada, used the term “Columbian nations” to describe Western countries. Their mentality is based on appropriation and capitalist genocide, he said. Today, they are in decline and jealous of the development of the world majority, whose economies are growing faster than the “Columbian nations.”
Rajendra Singh Yadav, director of the Centre for Strategic Studies and Modelling (CS3) at India’s Joint Institute for Defence Studies, agreed with previous speakers that the post-World War II order is no longer relevant. The tendency to act unilaterally is not welcomed by most nations, he noted. Yadav also noted the special role of India, China and Russia in shaping an inclusive and balanced world order.
Session One of the Annual Meeting, titled “Conflict or Agreement? What Will Most Likely Resolve Differences in the Post-Globalisation Era?" was also open, and the recording of the broadcast can be viewed on our website.
Clashes are inevitable, said Sergei Karaganov, Professor Emeritus, Academic Supervisor of the Faculty of World Economics and International Relations, HSE University. The world's dominant socio-economic model of globalist liberal imperialism has exhausted itself, but imperialism requires geographical expansion. This means an increased risk of armed confrontation, and, consequently, the role of nuclear deterrence is increasing. The world needs new institutions to ensure security, Karaganov emphasised. In the context of the emergence of new weapons systems (the drone revolution), existing mechanisms for arms limitations do not work.
In turn, Wang Huiyao, Founder and President of the Beijing-based Centre for China and Globalisation, emphasised the need for dialogue and cooperation. Peaceful co-existence in different models of life and civilisations is necessary, he emphasised. Humanity needs shake-ups, believes Oleg Makarov, director of the Belarusian Institute for Strategic Studies, but changes in the world order should occur through non-military impulses.
Criticism of the West, which seeks to politicise globalisation processes and turn them into a weapon, was also voiced by P.S. Raghavan, Chairman of National Security Advisory Board of the National Security Council, India. According to him, an illustration of this was the participation of the NATO Secretary General at the World Economic Forum in Davos, who told the audience about what the world economy should be like.
The world has returned to a dangerous point similar to the situation before the First World War, believes Nabil Fahmy, emeritus dean of the School of International Affairs and Public Policy at the American University in Cairo. Stability can only be achieved through a balance of power, he believes.
Finally, Trinh Minh Manh, Director General of the Institute for Foreign Policy and Strategic Studies at the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam, presented ASEAN's view of global processes. If rivalry between major powers is inevitable, they must show responsibility, he is convinced. Small and medium powers that are part of ASEAN do not want to be forced to choose a side in the confrontation. “We love you all,” Trinh concluded.
The subsequent sessions of the first day were held in a closed-door format. Participants in the second session, titled “Eurasian Security: New Principles, New Opportunities”, noted the degradation of the existing world order. The West is ceasing to be the world's economic and technological leader, one of the speakers noted, but, in addition, the ideas that ensured its ideological dominance have ceased to be popular. The task of the non-West is to offer the world new meaning and global goals.
While these meanings and ideas are only just emerging, in institutional terms, the countries of Eurasia are already offering good working alternatives. These are organisations such as the SCO, CSTO, and the EAEU. All participants in the session agreed that Eurasian security is indivisible and cannot be implemented on a bloc basis. One of the speakers called the Western concept of a “rules-based world order” meaningless. In fact, it makes sense to talk about “rules tailored to the Western world order,” he emphasised.
Much attention was paid to the distorted perception of the interaction of Eurasian countries by external players. For years, the West considered the Russian-Chinese alliance a "marriage of convenience," but now there is a slow realisation that they are based on a coincidence of points of view on fundamental issues of the world order and the sincere interest of both sides in further deepening relations.
The third session was devoted to the perception of the concept of “civilisation” in the modern world and the possibility of harmonious coexistence. The starting point of the discussion was the discussion of European civilisation, which in one way or another has influenced the fate of the entire world. According to one of the experts, European civilisation can be defined at three levels. The first is "cultural Europe" (of which Russia is a part). The second is "Western civilisation", which is the result of Europe's entry into the global arena, a specific type of modernity that considers itself the only possible one. The third is the “political West”, a product of the "cold war", created by the logic of confrontation. For several centuries, the concept of “European/Western civilisation” was synonymous with progress. A hundred years ago, the question of whether it was necessary to borrow cultural forms from the West, for example, greatly confused the minds of China, one of the experts recalled. Is it possible to follow the path of modernisation without losing yourself? Today, it is obvious that China has answered this question in the affirmative. Countries such as Russia and China, each of which considers itself a state-civilisation, are striving today to understand and strengthen their roots in order to survive in difficult times, the expert concluded.
The first day of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Valdai Club concluded with the fourth session, titled “A Formula of War and an Equation of Peace. A Fair Solution to the Ukrainian Crisis Amid the General Changes.” Researchers from different countries of Eurasia presented their points of view on this issue.
According to one of them, Ukraine will eventually be divided, but this division should be fair and not hinder its existence as a viable state. Having become neutral, Ukraine should receive effective security guarantees, one of the experts emphasised. In addition, after the division, the rights of national minorities should be ensured: Russia should not de-Ukrainise new territories, and Ukraine should stop de-Russification, the expert believes.
Several speakers noted that the start of the military operation in Ukraine was not unexpected - according to one of them, it was the most predictable conflict in modern history, which could have been easily prevented if not for the hidden agenda of the West. Russia's military response was a reaction to the change in the balance of power, which Western countries were persistently pursuing. The West's interest in continuing the conflict is also evidenced by the breakdown of the Istanbul agreements, which was the result of a provocation.
If you have a strong neighbour, then you need to build good relations with it, and not antagonise it, counting on support from abroad, one of the participants in the session emphasised. Zelensky made a mistake by believing that the United States would ensure Ukraine's security in the confrontation with Russia, he added.
Particular attention was paid to the peace proposal of China, which, as one of the experts emphasised, involves eliminating the root causes of the conflict. They are conditioned by the bloc thinking, that the West has consistently demonstrated since the end of World War II, rejecting the proposals for security in Europe put forward by the USSR and then Russia and based on an inclusive approach.
Green Digits
09.12.2024
