On Wednesday, October 1, the 22nd Annual meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club held its three regular sessions. Participants also met with high-ranking guests: Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Alexander Novak and Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office Maxim Oreshkin.
The eighth session was devoted to the role of the West in a multipolar world. While the characterisation of the West as a “global minority” may seem ironic, it accurately reflects the state of affairs over the centuries. Europe, and later what became known as the Western world, has always been a minority, albeit a disproportionately influential one. According to one speaker, this influence stemmed from military superiority, the first serious challenge to which was posed only during the Cold War, when the USSR achieved nuclear parity with the United States. He believes that this period can be considered the beginning of the West's weakening. The Cold War's end with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disappearance of a second pole of power gave the West a false sense of triumph. But the "unipolar moment" was brief by historical standards.
However, the political West's existence as a unified entity is also not so long-lived. It first emerged as such after 1945, when the United States declared itself the leader of the "free world," understood as countries sharing the principles of liberal democracy. At the same time, the West began to identify itself with the entire global community: the culmination of this paradigm, according to one participant, was the presidency of Joe Biden, who proclaimed a worldwide struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. The world's move toward polycentricity is evidence that the non-West has rejected the Western-centric liberal order, and the re-election of Donald Trump as US president indicates that the American electorate rejects this order, the expert believes.
The session participants agreed that the West's role in the world will steadily decline, but it will remain one of the world's poles—perhaps the strongest one. According to one speaker, its configuration could be as follows: the United States as the metropolis and Europe as a privileged periphery. Overall, judging by the opinions expressed, the United States' prospects look much better than those of the European Union, which has become hostage to the Ukraine conflict, having misjudged the situation and begun moving in the wrong direction. “Europe cannot let go of this hopeless war,” noted one participant. “It no longer has the strength, but its voice is growing louder.”
In any case, the West's adaptation to its new role will be difficult and fraught with new conflicts. Countries accustomed to commanding find it difficult to transition to partnerships. “Swallowing pride is not capitulation, but pragmatism,” emphasised one speaker. If the Western countries learn to cooperate with their rivals on specific issues, even while competing fiercely on others, it will only benefit them.
The ninth session focused on the global economy, which is facing numerous challenges. The lack of fiscal discipline in the West, which participants linked, among other things, to short electoral cycles, has not only led to the accumulation of public debt, but also undermines trust in Western economies as such. At the same time, non-Western countries are not forcing revolutionary changes in the global economic system, seizing the opportunities opening up amid the collapse of the old order.
Such opportunities are being created, in particular, by the West's economic war against Russia. The two sides are trading painful blows, but this confrontation also stimulates the emergence of new opportunities. These include the development of alternative financial mechanisms and innovative economic solutions, while those countries that build partnerships with Moscow, despite Western pressure, are reaping concrete dividends.
The dollar continues to dominate global trade, but the role of other currencies, primarily the yuan, is increasing. This is due to both objective processes and concerns about the dollar's use as an economic weapon. Session participants also discussed the digitalisation of financial systems—where countries in the Global South are already emerging as leaders—and the growing role of digital currencies, which BRICS countries are showing interest in. Russia takes digital currencies very seriously, as well as stablecoins, whose stability is ensured by states, unlike volatile cryptocurrencies.
The session served as a prelude to the participants' meetings with Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Alexander Novak and Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office Maxim Oreshkin, during which a wide range of issues concerning the development of the Russian and global economies were discussed.
The third day of the Annual Meeting concluded with a special session titled “Man and Time: The Role of Personality in Political History.” Participants examined the question of whether the historical process is determined by laws and institutions or by outstanding individuals. According to Ambassador Ramzy Ezzeldin Ramzy, Former Senior Undersecretary at the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Assistant Secretary-General of the UN, history is written by those heroes who defy time through their actions, even when they make mistakes. Pamela Yong, Chairperson of the Malaysian Institute of Strategic Analysis and Policy Research, agreed that history is often written as the story of great individuals, but she is convinced that institutions also play an important role.
The importance of a charismatic leader directly depends on the phase of the historical cycle, experts noted. During periods of stability, the demand for strong personalities is minimal, whereas during periods of systemic crises and transformations, their role comes to the fore, becoming a catalyst for change. To influence the course of history, a leader must possess a vision and consistently implement it, despite the risks. As an example, Mark Episkopos, a research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Public Administration, cited Richard Nixon, whose idea for rapprochement between the United States and China had far-reaching consequences for the entire world.
Alexander Lomanov, Director of the Centre for Asian-Pacific Studies at IMEMO RAS, discussed the “leader/institutions” dichotomy in the Chinese context. According to him, for Chinese civilisation, the problem of personality in history is the balance between law and morality. He emphasised that the principle of a controlled combination of morality and law still pervades in Chinese politics.
The topic of artificial intelligence, which has been discussed repeatedly before, could not go unmentioned at this session. Societies periodically demand not the smooth functioning of procedures, but the personalised power of a charismatic leader. According to Adil Kaukenov, Director of the Belt and Road Scientific and Educational Centre (Kazakhstan), if AI begins to play a real role in politics, it will at some point lead to a new Luddite movement: people will simply rebel against machines.
It can be concluded that the search for an answer to the question of the role of the individual in political history remains open. The outcome of the discussion was not a definitive formula, but rather a recognition of the dialectical nature of history, in which the will of the individual and the power of institutions are in constant and complex interaction, determining the trajectory of global development.
