Translated material
Putin responds to Trump?
"Valdai speech" by the President of Russia
Vladimir Putin speaks at a plenary session of the Valdai International Discussion Club. The Kremlin says that “they were eagerly awaiting this speech.”
According to The Wall Street Journal, US President Donald Trump approved the transfer of intelligence to Ukraine to guide air strikes on energy infrastructure deep in Russian territory. Ukraine also hopes to receive American Tomahawk cruise missiles.
As the Financial Times notes, Russia has improved ballistic missiles so that when shelling Ukrainian cities, they can maneuver and deceive air defense systems, including the American Patriot.
Russia has also managed to improve long-range drones: now they can be used to strike targets in motion, writes The War Zone.
We discuss Vladimir Putin’s speech and Donald Trump’s decision in the “Facing the Event” program with military expert Yuri Fedorov and political scientist Ruslan Aisin.
“The stakes are extremely high,” Vladimir Putin said at the beginning of his speech to members of the Valdai Club “Polycentric World: Instructions for Use.” The Kremlin replaced the word “multipolar” with “polycentric”. But there were no instructions yet. Putin quite traditionally began with a small historical note - about how Russia twice declared its readiness to join NATO, in 1954 and 2000, but was refused. The Russian president then accused Europe of escalating military tensions.
For the first time, the United States can help Ukraine directly strike Russian territory, not only with intelligence, but also with long-range weapons. Wall Street Journal sources say this. The Kremlin reacts to this cautiously, while the State Duma reacts more harshly. Details in our story.
"Valdai speech" by the President of Russia
Text copied width px height px The URL has been copied to your clipboard
No media source currently available
What does American intelligence data about Russian energy facilities change? Military expert Yuri Fedorov answers:
– Transferring data about objects located far from the front line makes sense if the United States has made or is almost making a decision to transfer weapons that can reach these objects. We may be talking about Atakams missiles, these are cruise missiles, but we don’t know about other means yet. What is intelligence data? The exact coordinates of the objects themselves, and data that allows you to develop flight trajectories of cruise missiles that allow you to bypass air defense zones.
Looks like a solution is in the works
In Russia there is no continuous air defense field, but there are certain objects and zones that are protected by air defense systems. Accordingly, both the drones Ukraine launches and the long-range missiles it may acquire must be able to bypass these zones. This requires precise trajectories, precise coordinates and accurate electronic maps of the earth's surface, landscape features, and relief. It looks like a decision is in the works, but it hasn't been announced yet. Perhaps in Washington, Trump and some of his circle are hoping that the prospect of Ukraine receiving missiles could force Putin to make serious concessions, agree to the terms of a ceasefire and peace settlement that would suit Ukraine.
If Ukraine receives long-range missiles, will it be able to use them on its own?
– The condition of the American administrations, both Biden and the current one: weapons supplied by the United States, capable of striking targets located far enough from the line of contact, can be used in agreement with the American military department. This means that Ukraine, if it receives long-range weapons, will have to coordinate this with the Pentagon. Since Ukraine does not have its own funds of this type and quality, it will have to agree to these conditions.
Both Putin and Donald Trump criticized the UN for inaction. Another point of contact: Putin says that Trump is dealing with the problems of his country, and seems to be drawing parallels that he is doing the same thing, albeit in a different vector of foreign policy development. Is this a search for common ground, given that Europe is not taken into account? Political scientist Ruslan Aisin answers:
– Putin wants to leave the door of dialogue open with the United States, to talk personally with Trump, not with Europe. He does not take Europe into account and has said many times that the main beneficiary is the United States. They are the main players, the rest have nothing to do with it. Knowing Trump’s psychology, he is trying to play along with him, saying that if Trump were in power, there would be no war; the President of the United States himself spoke the same theses. Putin’s task is clear; it is to exert maximum pressure, including on Europe. The current United States administration doesn't care much about Europe either, and they have found a scapegoat, the UN. What can the United Nations do, which has neither its own army nor structures that would perform such functions? The UN is just a council that has no resources.
Trump is an isolationist. Putin would also isolate himself...
But both Trump and Putin believe that by criticizing the UN they are strengthening their positions. They say that it is not they who are to blame for everything, not that they are shaking the world order and the world legal system, but some kind of UN. Although talks about reforming the UN have been going on for a long time, and ultimately the UN will most likely be dissolved. After the world wars, new structures emerged, the League of Nations, the United Nations after the Second World War. But, apparently, it is coming to the point that there will be some kind of third phase of the global war, and something new will arise. So they fumble. Trump is an isolationist, no doubt. Putin would also isolate himself, but he believes that the isolationism of the Russian Federation should extend to the territory of Europe, the former Soviet Union, Central Asia, and also the Middle East and Africa. In his perception, isolationism and a just world order are exactly that.
The line that both Russian officials and Russian propaganda supported was separation from the collective West: the United States separately, Europe separately. Mr. Peskov said today: “Europe is provoking escalation, trying in every possible way to demonize Russia.” Is this an escalation?
– We see information attacks, cyber attacks, and most importantly, aggression with violation of the airspace of European countries. It is Russia that is provoking, it is, as they say, biting NATO by the tooth. Now NATO has split into two or even three parts, given the fact that there are Orban and Fico.
Putin would like the world to be two-field
Putin is actively taking advantage of this and understands that it can reach some limit, because the United States may intervene. I think that's part of the game too. The United States says it will transfer long-range missiles to Ukraine. Moscow is demonstrating that it will provoke escalation within the European Union, create chaos and commit sabotage, attack critical infrastructure, industrial, information, and so on. Consider the war against Ukraine to be a war against Europe. But this does not affect the United States, they are overseas. Essentially, Putin is sending a message to Trump: “Let’s come to an agreement.” They say there are three global players: me, Putin, China and the United States. Well, maybe we’ll also grab India. This is the multipolarity that Putin is talking about. He would like the world to be bipolar, like in the days of his youth, the United States and the Soviet Union. But he understands that this is impossible.
The Valdai Club began with an interesting report from pro-Kremlin political scientists. It's called "Doctor Chaos, or How to Stop Being Afraid and Love Disorder." Let us pay tribute to pro-Kremlin political scientists in their homage to the work of American film director Stanley Kubrick. There, in general, we are talking about the public debts of Western countries, the classic about the total population of the countries of the so-called global south, they say, in total there are much more of us. And the sudden question in this report is: “Do wars make sense?” Let's take a look at the favorites:
"States and societies do not have an internal demand to put everything on the line for victory in any armed confrontation. Russia will not risk its own socio-economic stability for the sake of a decisive victory in a military conflict. The exception is direct full-scale aggression, but its probability against a nuclear superpower tends to zero. Only internal problems pose a real threat to the existence of great nuclear powers. Perhaps things have changed purpose of wars. Now their meaning is not victory, achieving all the goals of one of the participants, but maintaining the balance necessary for relatively peaceful development.”
This thesis seems to be supposed to justify in the future the disruption of the goals and objectives of the so-called special operation: “denazification, demilitarization.” This destroys the Russian propaganda philosophy of a ring of enemies, and the concept that an attack was being prepared from somewhere. Why do the Valdai Club members, who are co-authors of the report, go against the Kremlin’s rhetoric, albeit in detail? Do they go in principle, or does one complement the other?
– Moscow is ready to retreat because it is suffering serious losses and blows to the energy sector. Europe will not back down from supporting Ukraine, and Russia has nowhere to feed itself. Many pro-Kremlin experts comment skeptically on what is happening in relations between China and Russia: partner is partner, but still we are a Western civilization, not an Eastern one. Accordingly, this is an attempt to show the same United States that we are ready; the war does not have to end in victory. The goals and objectives are not very clear, and it has already become clear that Russia will not achieve these goals.
Russia would rather move towards the United States than China
Therefore, you need to carefully get out of this fog in a tricky way, which is what they do. You can quote some war theorists that any war is a respite before peace agreements. I think they will say something similar, that we started the war only to stabilize the world, or to establish some kind of polycentric world. They say that we destroyed the old world and built a new one, according to a famous quote. This is roughly what Putin is trying to convey, that they cannot fight, and you will not attack us, because we are a nuclear power. Therefore, let's agree on our spheres of influence. This is primarily addressed to Trump, and secondly to Xi, because China has its own vision and does not see Russia as an equal partner. Russia would rather move towards the United States than China. I do not share the view that a union between China and the Russian Federation is inevitable. On the contrary, this is a contradictory alliance. There has never been an alliance between Beijing and Moscow. A very short period of Stalin and Mao Zedong, and that’s it. They even fought in the sixties.
How can the Kremlin get closer to the White House if there is talk about transferring long-range missiles to Ukraine?
– They may think that this is a game of big powers, chess. We made a move, you made a move, but strategically we can agree. After all, they met in Anchorage, despite the rhetoric, despite the proxy war against each other, they can agree, because Trump needs support on the Eurasian continent. He wants to put pressure on China. It didn't work out very well with India. Sanctions were introduced, tariffs were raised, and New Delhi did not behave as expected in Washington. But Putin has nowhere to go. Now they will intimidate him with missiles, and, perhaps, through the same Witkoff or another intermediary, through Alexander Lukashenko, for example, they will send a friendly signal about peace and cooperation.
“Access Point” listen without interference