Russia (bbabo.net), - Russian President Vladimir Putin was right when, in his speech at the Munich Conference, he warned of the security threats posed by the ideas of a unipolar world and NATO expansion. This was stated in an interview with RIA Novosti by the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Austria Karin Kneissl.

As the diplomat drew attention to, then, in 2007, it was about the possibility of starting a new Cold War. "Some things may be better judged 15 years later, and I came to the conclusion that President Putin was very right in his words and in his warnings then," Kneissl said.

According to her, just a few days ago she was reviewing that speech of the Russian leader. "It seemed to me that it clarifies a lot," said the ex-Foreign Minister of Austria. “I would say that, in fact, about everything that President Putin spoke about then, one has to admit that, firstly, he, unfortunately, was right, and secondly, since then everything has become even worse and more complicated” Kneissl added.

It is worth noting that even before she was much more objective than her European colleagues regarding Russia and statements made from Moscow. So, when she was foreign minister, she urged other EU countries not to rush to impose sanctions against the Russian Federation because of the Skripal story, but to wait until the end of the investigation (then Vienna refused to follow the lead of London and expel Russian diplomats). Kneissl also praised Putin's speech after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack a few years ago. Then the Russian president said that Russia is a European power, but many of the most important decisions in Europe are made without her participation. He called for abandoning Cold War patterns and being equal partners of both the European and world security architecture. Kneissl expressed regret that the message was not supported in Europe, and time was wasted.

Now the former head of the Austrian Foreign Ministry recognized Putin's rightness at the 2007 Munich Security Conference. Then he harshly criticized US foreign policy and the ideas of a unipolar world order, sharply opposed plans for NATO expansion and the deployment of American missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe.

***

Text of Putin's Munich speech in 2007:

"Please don't be angry with me" Speech by the President of Russia at the Munich Conference on Security Policy, February 10.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much, dear Madam Federal Chancellor, Mr. Telchik, ladies and gentlemen!

I am very grateful for the invitation to such a representative conference, which brought together politicians, military men, entrepreneurs, and experts from more than 40 countries of the world.

The format of the conference gives me the opportunity to avoid "excessive politeness" and the need to speak in round, pleasant, but empty diplomatic clichés. The format of the conference allows me to say what I really think about the problems of international security. And if my arguments seem to our colleagues too polemically pointed or inaccurate, I ask you not to be angry with me - this is just a conference. And I hope that after two or three minutes of my speech, Mr. Telchik will not turn on the "red light" there.

So. It is known that the problems of international security are much broader than questions of military-political stability. These are the stability of the world economy, overcoming poverty, economic security and the development of dialogue between civilizations.

Such a comprehensive, indivisible character of security is also expressed in its basic principle: "the security of each is the security of all." As Franklin Roosevelt said in the early days of the outbreak of World War II: "Wherever peace is broken, peace is everywhere in danger and under threat." These words continue to be relevant today. This, by the way, is evidenced by the theme of our conference, which is written here: "Global Crises - Global Responsibility."

Just two decades ago, the world was ideologically and economically divided, and its security was ensured by the huge strategic potentials of the two superpowers. The global confrontation pushed extremely acute economic and social issues to the periphery of international relations and the agenda. And like any war, the "cold war" left us "unexploded shells", figuratively speaking. I mean ideological stereotypes, double standards, other patterns of bloc thinking. The unipolar world that was proposed after the Cold War did not materialize either.

The history of mankind, of course, also knows periods of a unipolar state and striving for world domination. What has not happened in the history of mankind. However, what is a unipolar world? No matter how this term is decorated, it ultimately means only one thing in practice: it is one center of power, one center of power, one center of decision-making.This is a world of one master, one sovereign. And this is ultimately fatal not only for everyone who is within the framework of this system, but also for the sovereign himself, because it destroys him from the inside. And this has nothing to do, of course, with democracy. Because democracy is, as you know, the power of the majority, taking into account the interests and opinions of the minority.

By the way, Russia, we are constantly being taught democracy. But those who teach us, for some reason, do not really want to learn. I think that for the modern world a unipolar model is not only unacceptable, but even impossible.

And not only because with sole leadership in the modern - namely in the modern world - neither military-political nor economic resources will be enough. But what is even more important is that the model itself is non-working, since it does not and cannot have the moral base of modern civilization.

At the same time, everything that is happening in the world today, and we have only just begun to discuss it, is the result of attempts to introduce precisely this concept into world affairs - the concept of a unipolar world.

And what is the result?

Unilateral, often illegitimate actions have not solved a single problem. Moreover, they have become a generator of new human tragedies and hotbeds of tension. Judge for yourself: there are no fewer wars, local and regional conflicts. Mr. Telchik mentioned this very gently. And people in these conflicts die no less, and even more than before. Much more - much more!

Today we are witnessing an almost unrestrained, exaggerated use of force in international affairs - military force - a force that plunges the world into the abyss of successive conflicts. As a result, there is not enough strength for a comprehensive solution to any of them. Their political solution becomes impossible as well.

We see a growing disregard for the fundamental principles of international law. Moreover, separate norms, yes, in fact, almost the entire system of law of one state, primarily, of course, the United States, has crossed its national borders in all areas: in the economy, in politics, and in the humanitarian sphere, it is being imposed on others states. Well, who will like it? Who will like it?

In international affairs, more often there is a desire to resolve this or that issue, based on the so-called political expediency, based on the current political situation. And this, of course, is extremely dangerous. And it leads to the fact that no one feels safe anymore. I want to emphasize this - no one feels safe! Because no one can hide behind international law like behind a stone wall. Such a policy is, of course, a catalyst for the arms race.

The dominance of the force factor inevitably fuels the craving of a number of countries for the possession of weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, fundamentally new threats have appeared that were known before, but today are acquiring a global character, such as terrorism.

I am convinced that we have reached the turning point when we must seriously think about the entire architecture of global security.

And here we must start from the search for a reasonable balance between the interests of all subjects of international communication. Especially now, when the "international landscape" is changing so tangibly and so quickly - it is changing due to the dynamic development of a number of states and regions.

The Federal Chancellor has already mentioned this. Thus, the total GDP of India and China in terms of purchasing power parity is already greater than that of the United States of America. And calculated according to the same principle, the GDP of the BRIC countries - Brazil, Russia, India and China - exceeds the total GDP of the European Union. And, according to experts, in the foreseeable historical perspective, this gap will only increase.

There is no doubt that the economic potential of the new world growth centers will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity.

In this regard, the role of multilateral diplomacy is seriously increasing. There is no alternative to openness, transparency and predictability in politics, and the use of force should be a truly exceptional measure, just like the use of the death penalty in the legal systems of some states.

Today, on the contrary, we are witnessing a situation where countries where the use of the death penalty is prohibited even for murderers and other criminals - dangerous criminals, despite this, such countries easily take part in military operations that can hardly be called legitimate. But people are dying in these conflicts - hundreds, thousands of civilians!But at the same time, the question arises: should we look indifferently and limply at various internal conflicts in individual countries, at the actions of authoritarian regimes, tyrants, at the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? This, in essence, was at the heart of the question that was put to the Federal Chancellor by our esteemed colleague, Mr. Lieberman. After all, I correctly understood your question (addressing Lieberman)? And, of course, this is a serious question! Can we just stare blankly at what is happening? I will try to answer your question too. Of course, we must not look indifferently. Of course not.

But do we have the means to counter these threats? Of course have. Suffice it to recall recent history. After all, there has been a peaceful transition to democracy in our country? After all, the peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime took place - a peaceful transformation! And what mode! With how many weapons, including nuclear weapons! Why is it now necessary to bomb and shoot at every opportunity? Do we really lack political culture, respect for the values ​​of democracy and for the law in the absence of the threat of mutual destruction?

I am convinced that the only decision-making mechanism on the use of military force as a last resort can only be the UN Charter. And in this regard, I either did not understand what was said quite recently by our colleague, the Minister of Defense of Italy, or he expressed himself inaccurately. In any case, I heard that the use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is made in NATO, or in the European Union, or in the UN. If he really thinks so, then we have different points of view with him. Or I misheard. The use of force can be considered legitimate only if the decision is made on the basis and within the framework of the UN. And neither NATO nor the European Union should replace the United Nations. And when the UN really unites the forces of the international community, which can really react to events in individual countries, when we get rid of the disregard for international law, the situation may change. Otherwise, the situation will only come to a standstill and multiply the number of serious mistakes. At the same time, of course, it is necessary to ensure that international law has a universal character both in the understanding and in the application of norms.

And we must not forget that the democratic course of action in politics necessarily involves discussion and painstaking decision-making.

Ladies and gentlemen!

The potential danger of destabilizing international relations is also connected with the obvious stagnation in the field of disarmament. Russia stands for the resumption of dialogue on this important issue. It is important to preserve the stability of the international legal disarmament framework, while at the same time ensuring the continuity of the nuclear arms reduction process.

We have agreed with the United States of America to reduce our nuclear potentials on strategic delivery vehicles to 1,700-2,200 nuclear warheads by December 31, 2012. Russia intends to strictly fulfill its obligations. We hope that our partners will also act transparently and will not postpone, just in case, for a "rainy day" an extra couple of hundred nuclear warheads. And if today the new United States Secretary of Defense announces to us here that the United States will not hide these extra charges either in warehouses or "under the pillow" or "under the covers", I suggest that everyone stand stand to greet this. This would be a very important statement.

Russia strictly adheres and intends to continue to adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the multilateral missile technology control regime. The principles laid down in these documents are of a universal nature.

In this regard, I would like to recall that in the 1980s the USSR and the United States signed the Treaty on the Elimination of an Entire Class of Intermediate-Range and Short-Range Missiles, but this document was not given a universal character.

Today, a number of countries already have such missiles: the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Israel. Many other states of the world are developing these systems and plan to put them into service. And only the United States of America and Russia bear the obligation not to create such weapons systems.

It is clear that under these conditions we are forced to think about ensuring our own security.

At the same time, new destabilizing high-tech weapons should not be allowed to emerge. I'm not talking about measures to prevent new areas of confrontation, especially in space. Star Wars, as you know, is no longer fiction, but reality. Back in the mid-1980s (of the last century), our American partners intercepted their own satellite in practice.

The militarization of outer space, according to Russia, can provoke consequences that are unpredictable for the world community - no less than the beginning of a nuclear era. And we have repeatedly come up with initiatives aimed at preventing weapons from entering space.Today I would like to inform you that we have prepared a draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space. In the near future it will be sent to partners as an official proposal. Let's work on this together.

We also cannot but be alarmed by the plans to deploy elements of an anti-missile defense system in Europe. Who needs another round of the inevitable arms race in this case? I deeply doubt that the Europeans themselves.

None of the so-called "problem countries" has a missile weapon that really threatens Europe, with a range of about 5-8 thousand kilometers. And in the foreseeable future and the foreseeable future - and will not appear, and is not even expected. Yes, and a hypothetical launch, for example, of a North Korean missile on US territory through Western Europe - this clearly contradicts the laws of ballistics. As we say in Russia, it's like "reaching your left ear with your right hand."

And being here in Germany, I cannot fail to mention the crisis state of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.

An adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was signed in 1999. He took into account the new geopolitical reality - the liquidation of the Warsaw bloc. Seven years have passed since then, and only four states have ratified this document, including the Russian Federation.

NATO countries have openly stated that they will not ratify the Treaty, including provisions on flank restrictions (on the deployment of a certain number of armed forces on the flanks), until Russia withdraws its bases from Georgia and Moldova. Our troops are being withdrawn from Georgia, and even in an accelerated manner. We have solved these problems with our Georgian colleagues, and everyone knows this. A grouping of 1,500 military personnel remains in Moldova, who perform peacekeeping functions and guard ammunition depots left over from Soviet times. And we are constantly discussing this issue with Mr. Solana, he knows our position. We are ready to continue working in this direction.

But what happens at the same time? And at the same time, so-called light American forward bases of five thousand bayonets each appear in Bulgaria and Romania. It turns out that NATO is pushing its advanced forces to our state borders, and we, strictly complying with the Treaty, do not react to these actions in any way.

I think it's obvious that the process of NATO expansion has nothing to do with the modernization of the alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it is a serious provoking factor that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have a fair right to ask frankly - who is this expansion against? And what happened to the assurances given by the Western partners after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are these statements now? Nobody even remembers them. But let me remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote from the speech of NATO Secretary General Mr. Werner in Brussels on May 17, 1990. He then said: "The very fact that we are ready not to deploy NATO troops outside Territory F gives the Soviet Union firm security guarantees." Where are these guarantees?

Stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been sold for souvenirs. But we must not forget that its fall was also possible thanks to the historic choice, including our people - the people of Russia, the choice in favor of democracy and freedom, openness and sincere partnership with all members of the large European family.

Now they are trying to impose on us new dividing lines and walls - albeit virtual, but still dividing, cutting our common continent. Will it really take years and decades again, a change of several generations of politicians, to "take down" and "dismantle" these new walls?

Ladies and gentlemen!

We unambiguously stand for the strengthening of the non-proliferation regime. The existing international legal framework makes it possible to create technologies for the production of nuclear fuel for its peaceful use. And many countries, with good reason, want to create their own nuclear power industry as the basis of their energy independence. But we also understand that these technologies can be quickly transformed into weapons-grade materials.

This causes serious international tension. A vivid example of this is the situation with the Iranian nuclear program. If the international community does not come up with a reasonable solution to this conflict of interest, the world will continue to be shaken by such destabilizing crises, because there are more threshold countries than Iran, and I know this. We will constantly face the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.Last year, Russia came up with an initiative to create multinational centers for uranium enrichment. We are open to the creation of such centers not only in Russia, but also in other countries where peaceful nuclear energy exists on a legitimate basis. States wishing to develop nuclear energy could be guaranteed to receive fuel through direct participation in the work of these centers, of course, under the strict control of the IAEA.

The latest initiatives of US President George W. Bush are also consonant with the Russian proposal. I believe that Russia and the United States are objectively and equally interested in tightening the regimes for non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. It is our countries, which are leaders in nuclear and missile potential, that should also become leaders in the development of new, tougher measures in the field of non-proliferation. Russia is ready for such work. We are consulting with our American friends.

In general, we should talk about creating a whole system of political levers and economic incentives - incentives under which states would be interested not to create their own nuclear fuel cycle capacities, but would have the opportunity to develop nuclear energy, strengthening their energy potential.

In this regard, I will dwell in more detail on international energy cooperation. The Federal Chancellor also briefly mentioned this, but she touched on this topic. In the energy sector, Russia is oriented towards the creation of uniform market principles and transparent conditions for all. Obviously, the price of energy carriers should be determined by the market, and not be the subject of political speculation, economic pressure or blackmail.

We are open for cooperation. Foreign companies participate in our largest energy projects. According to various estimates, up to 26 percent of oil production in Russia - just think about this figure, please - up to 26 percent of oil production in Russia is accounted foreign capital. Try, try to give me an example of such a wide presence of Russian business in key sectors of the economy of Western countries. There are no such examples! There are no such examples.

Let me also remind you of the ratio of investments coming to Russia and coming from Russia to other countries of the world. The ratio is about fifteen to one. Here is a visible example of the openness and stability of the Russian economy.

Economic security is an area where everyone should adhere to the same principles. We are ready to compete fairly.

For this, the Russian economy has more opportunities. Such dynamics are objectively assessed by experts and our foreign partners. Thus, Russia's rating in the OECD was recently upgraded: our country moved from the fourth risk group to the third. And I would like to take this opportunity here in Munich today to thank our German colleagues for their assistance in making the above decision.

Further. As you know, the process of Russia's accession to the WTO has entered the final stage. I note that in the course of long, difficult negotiations, we heard more than once about freedom of speech, freedom of trade, equal opportunities, but for some reason exclusively - in relation to our Russian market.

And there is another important topic that directly affects global security. There is a lot of talk today about fighting poverty. What is really going on here? On the one hand, financial resources are allocated to programs to help the poorest countries - and sometimes not small financial resources. But, to be honest, and many people here also know about it, often - under the "development" by the companies of the donor countries themselves. But at the same time, on the other hand, subsidies in agriculture remain in developed countries, access to high technologies is limited for others.

And let's call a spade: it turns out that "charitable assistance" is distributed with one hand, and with the other - not only economic backwardness is conserved, but also profit is collected. The emerging social tension in such depressed regions inevitably results in the growth of radicalism, extremism, fuels terrorism and local conflicts. And if, in addition, all this happens, say, in the Middle East in conditions of a heightened perception of the outside world as unfair, then there is a risk of global destabilization.

Obviously, the leading countries of the world must see this threat. And, accordingly, to build a more democratic, fair system of economic relations in the world - a system that gives everyone a chance and opportunity for development.

Speaking at the conference on security, ladies and gentlemen, one cannot pass over in silence the activities of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. As you know, it was created to consider everything - I will emphasize this - everything, all aspects of security: military-political, economic, humanitarian, and in their interconnection.What do we see in practice today? We see that this balance is clearly disturbed. They are trying to turn the OSCE into a vulgar instrument for ensuring the foreign policy interests of one or a group of countries in relation to other countries. And the bureaucratic apparatus of the OSCE, which has absolutely nothing to do with the founding states, was "tailored" for this task. Decision-making procedures and the use of so-called "non-governmental organizations" were "tailored" for this task. Formally, yes, independent, but purposefully funded, and therefore controlled.

According to the fundamental documents, in the humanitarian sphere, the OSCE is called upon to provide member states, at their request, with assistance in complying with international human rights standards. This is an important task. We support her. But this does not at all mean interference in the internal affairs of other countries, much less imposing on these states how they should live and develop.

It is obvious that such interference does not contribute to the maturation of truly democratic states. And vice versa, it makes them dependent, and as a result, politically and economically unstable.

We expect that the OSCE will be guided by its immediate tasks and build relations with sovereign states on the basis of respect, trust and transparency.

Ladies and gentlemen!

In conclusion, I would like to note the following. We very often, and I personally very often hear calls for Russia from our partners, including from European partners, to play a more active role in world affairs.

In this regard, let me make one small remark. We hardly need to be pushed and encouraged to do so. Russia is a country with more than a thousand years of history, and almost always it has enjoyed the privilege of pursuing an independent foreign policy.

We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, we clearly see how the world has changed, we realistically assess our own capabilities and our own potential. And, of course, we would also like to deal with responsible and also independent partners, with whom we could work together to build a just and democratic world order, ensuring security and prosperity in it not for the few, but for all.

Thank you for attention.

bbabo.Net