The Polycentric World: Instructions for Use
Commentary by Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Valdai Discussion Forum
Multipolarity and the Failure of Hegemony
This week, the 22nd Valdai International Discussion Club convened in Sochi, Russia. It is now one of the few global forums where difficult, unconventional questions can still be asked. Valdai’s strength lies in refusing to simply echo the narratives of the global media space.
This week, the focus of the discussion was “The Polycentric World”. The emergence of a multipolar world presents both vast opportunities and considerable challenges - will it lead to chaos or stability?
“Any decisions are possible only on the basis of agreements that satisfy all interested parties or the overwhelming majority. Otherwise, there will be no viable solution at all, only loud phrases and a fruitless game of ambitions. Thus, to achieve results, harmony and balance are essential,” commented Vladimir Putin.
During his speech and subsequent Q&A on Thursday, October 2, Russian President Vladimir Putin noted that what makes this moment in history particularly urgent is the speed of change. We are living in an era when everything is shifting rapidly.
Below are my key takeaways of the Russian President’s speech, the translated version of which you are welcome to read at the end of this post. During the Q&A follow-up, Putin offered equally insightful commentary on the Ukraine conflict, the path to a peaceful co-existence with the United States and Europe, the recognition of Palestine, and several other key issues. I will discuss those separately in one of my upcoming posts here in the next couple of days.
The Multipolar World: Opportunity and Risk
This year’s Valdai report focused on the reality of multipolarity. For years, it was only an idea. Today, it is the framework in which states actually operate. For Russia, Putin notes, multipolarity involves shifting East and engaging with Asian partners while recalibrating relations with the United States and Europe, if and when it regains sovereignty.
“Multipolarity space is highly dynamic,” said Vladimir Putin.
According to the Russian President, this new world has several defining features:
Openness and creativity. Nothing is predetermined. Nations have the freedom to shape their course, though this freedom comes with the danger of losing direction.
Dynamism. Change comes suddenly, sometimes overnight, leaving little time to prepare.
Democracy in influence. More states than ever before have the ability and ambition to shape global and regional affairs.
Civilizational depth. Historical, cultural, and civilizational identities now play a greater role than the “rules” imposed from afar.
Fragility. Multipolarity weakens old hierarchies, but maintaining balance becomes harder. With opportunity comes instability.
In short: multipolarity is not just liberation from dominance — it is a test of whether the world can build harmony without a single hegemon dictating the terms.
The Path Not Taken
“The power of the United States and its allies reached its peak at the end of the 20th century. But there has never been, nor will there ever be, a force capable of ruling the world, dictating everyone how to act, how to live, even how to breathe. Such attempts have been made, but every one of them has failed”, said Putin
This transformation is also a direct response to failed attempts at global hegemony. After the Cold War ended 35 years ago, there was genuine hope for cooperation - at least in the USSR, as it did not view the United States as an existential competitor. Coexistence was the preferred route, despite not aligning with Washington's views and plans. Vladimir Putin noted that - not once, but twice, Russia even signaled readiness to join NATO — first in 1954, and again in 2000 during President Bill Clinton’s visit to Moscow. On both occasions, the proposal was dismissed. As Putin said, on both occasions, “we were essentially refused outright.” However, a European security framework cannot be created without the Russian Federation.
What prevailed instead was the temptation of absolute power. The United States and its allies reached their zenith in the late 20th century, and with it came the belief that a single order could be imposed on the rest of the world. That order — hierarchical, rigid, and dismissive of dissent — brought temporary convenience to some, but at the cost of autonomy for many others.
The result was predictable: resentment, resistance, and, ultimately, the erosion of the very order that sought to perpetuate itself. Global problems went unresolved. Institutions of governance weakened. New conflicts multiplied. As the Russian saying goes: “There’s no counter to a crowbar, except another crowbar.” Every attempt at domination inevitably produced its counterforce. The “unipolar” moment, Putin notes, was temporary as it is unnatural for states not to compete.
The Militarization of Europe
Vladimir Putin addressed the ongoing warmongering campaigns in Europe, where, without any proof, the elites systematically instill fear of Russia “attacking NATO”. Putin emphasized it would be wiser for European leaders to address their domestic challenges rather than spread “nonsense”.
The Ukraine tragedy, Putin said, is “common pain for all of us”. The West doesn’t care about Ukrainians; it views them as cannon fodder, and Europe is primarily to blame for the failure to achieve a ceasefire, as Russia has been open to negotiations that take into consideration the security interests of all involved actors.
A Question for the Future
Putin noted that even some in the United States now reflect with unease: “We gained the whole world, but lost America.” Was it worth it? Did they truly gain anything at all?
This is the paradox of hegemony: power without balance always undermines itself. Multipolarity is not simply an alternative order — it is the natural consequence of hegemony’s failure.
The task before us now is not to mourn the passing of the old order, but to ask: can this multipolar world find equilibrium? Can it turn opportunity into stability rather than chaos?
I am so grateful for you taking the time to tune in today. And thank you for your support through subscriptions, especially paid ones, that allow me to continue contributing to this wonderful community here at Substack!
The full speech of Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Valdai Discussion Club, as reported by the Kremlin.
“Research Director of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai International Discussion Club Fyodor Lukyanov: Ladies and gentlemen, guests of the Valdai Club!
We are beginning the plenary session of the 22nd annual forum of the Valdai International Discussion Club. It is a great honour for me to invite President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin to this stage.
Mr President, thank you very much for once again finding time to join us. The Valdai Club enjoys this great privilege of meeting with you for 23 consecutive years to discuss the most topical issues. I believe that no one else is that lucky.
The 22nd meeting of the Valdai Club, which took place over the past three days, was titled “The Polycentric World: Instructions for Use.” We are attempting to move from merely understanding and describing this new world to practical matters: that is, comprehending how to live in it, since it is not yet entirely clear.
We may consider ourselves advanced users, but we are still only users of this world. You, however, are at least a mechanic and perhaps even an engineer of this very polycentric world order, so we eagerly await some guidelines for use from you.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: I am unlikely to be able to formulate any guidelines or instructions – and that is not the point, because people often ask for instructions or advice only not to follow them later. This formula is well known.
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.
The Valdai International Discussion Club has indeed convened for the 22nd time, and these meetings have become more than a good tradition. Discussions at Valdai platforms provide a unique opportunity to assess the global situation impartially and comprehensively, to reveal changes, and to comprehend them.
Undoubtedly, the Club’s unique strength lies in the determination and ability of its participants to look beyond the banal and the obvious. They do not simply follow the agenda imposed by the global information space, where the internet makes its input – both good and bad, often difficult to discern – but pose their own unconventional questions, offer their own vision of ongoing processes, attempting to lift the veil that conceals the future. This is not an easy task, but it is often achieved here at Valdai.
We have noted repeatedly that we are living in an era when everything is changing, and very rapidly at that; I would even say radically. Of course, none of us can fully foresee the future. However, that does not absolve us of the responsibility to be prepared for it. As time and recent events have shown, we must be ready for anything. In such periods of history, everyone bears a special responsibility for their own destiny, for the fate of their country, and for the world at large. The stakes today are extremely high.
As has been mentioned, this year’s Valdai Club report is devoted to a multipolar, polycentric world. The topic has long been on the agenda, but now it requires special attention; here I fully agree with the organisers. The multipolarity that has in fact already emerged is shaping the framework within which the states act. Let me try to explain what makes the present situation unique.
First, today’s world offers a much more open – indeed, one might say creative – space for foreign policy. Nothing is predetermined; developments can take different directions. Much depends on the precision, accuracy, consistency and thoughtfulness of the actions of each participant in international communication. Yet in this vast space it is also easy to get lost and lose one’s bearings, which, as we can see, happens quite often.
Second, multipolarity space is highly dynamic. As I have said, change occurs rapidly, sometimes suddenly, almost overnight. It is difficult to prepare for it and often impossible to predict. One must be ready to react immediately, in real time, as they say.
Third, and of particular importance, is that fact that this new space is more democratic. It opens opportunities and pathways for a wide range of political and economic players. Perhaps never before have so many countries had the ability or ambition to influence the most significant regional and global processes.
Next. The cultural, historical, and civilisational specificities of different countries now play a greater role than ever before. It is necessary to seek points of contact and convergence of interests. No one is willing to play by the rules set by someone else, somewhere far away – as a very well-known chansonnier sang in our country, “beyond the mists,” or beyond the oceans, as it were.
In this regard, the fifth point: any decisions are possible only on the basis of agreements that satisfy all interested parties or the overwhelming majority. Otherwise, there will be no viable solution at all, only loud phrases and a fruitless game of ambitions. Thus, to achieve results, harmony and balance are essential.
Finally, the opportunities and dangers of a multipolar world are inseparable from one another. Naturally, the weakening of the dictate that characterised the previous period and the expansion of freedom for all is undeniably a positive development. At the same time, under such conditions, it is much more difficult to find and establish this very solid balance, which in itself is an obvious and extreme risk.
This situation on the planet, which I have tried to outline briefly, is a qualitatively new phenomenon. International relations are undergoing a radical transformation. 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. The failure of such an endeavour was only a matter of time, something we have always spoken about, by the way. And by historical standards, it happened fairly quickly.
Thirty-five years ago, when the confrontation of the Cold War seemed to be ending, we hoped for the dawn of an era of genuine cooperation. It seemed that there were no longer ideological or other obstacles that would hinder the joint resolution of problems common to humanity or the regulation and resolution of inevitable disputes and conflicts on the basis of mutual respect and consideration of each other’s interests.
Allow me here a brief historical digression. Our country, striving to eliminate the grounds for bloc confrontation and to create a common space of security, twice declared even its readiness to join NATO. Initially this was done in 1954, during the Soviet era. The second time was during the visit of US President Bill Clinton to Moscow in 2000 – I have already spoken about this – when we also discussed this topic with him.
On both occasions, we were essentially refused outright. I reiterate: we were ready for joint work, for non-linear steps in the sphere of security and global stability. But our Western colleagues were not prepared to free themselves from the shackles of geopolitical and historical stereotypes, from a simplified, schematic view of the world.
I also spoke publicly about this when I discussed it with Mr Clinton, with President Clinton. He said, “You know, it’s interesting. I think it’s possible.” And then in the evening he said, “I consulted with my people – it’s not feasible, not feasible now.” “When will it be feasible?” And that was it, it all slipped away.
In short, we had a genuine chance to move international relations in a different, more positive direction. Yet, alas, a different approach prevailed. Western countries succumbed to the temptation of absolute power. It was indeed a powerful temptation – and resisting it would have required historical vision and a good background, intellectual and historical background. It seems that those who made decisions at that time simply lacked both.
Indeed, the power of the United States and its allies reached its peak at the end of the 20th century. But there has never been, nor will there ever be, a force capable of ruling the world, dictating everyone how to act, how to live, even how to breathe. Such attempts have been made, but every one of them has failed.
However, we must recognise that many found that so-called liberal world order acceptable and even convenient. True, an hierarchy severely limits opportunities for those not perched at the top of the pyramid, or, if you prefer, the top of the food chain. But those at the bottom were relieved of responsibility: the rules were simple: accept the terms, fit into the system, receive your share, however modest, and be content. Others would think and decide for you.
And no matter what anyone says now, no matter how some try to disguise the reality – that is how it was. The experts gathered here remember and understand this perfectly well.
Some, in their arrogance, saw themselves entitled to lecture the rest of the world. Others were content to play along with the powerful as obedient bargaining chips, eager to avoid unnecessary trouble in exchange for a modest but guaranteed bonus. There are still many such politicians in the old part of the world, in Europe.
Those who dared object and tried to defend their own interests, rights, and views, were at best dismissed as eccentrics and told, in effect: “You will not succeed, so give up and accept that compared to our power, you are nonentity.” As for the truly stubborn, they were “educated” by the self-proclaimed global leaders, who no longer even bothered to hide their intent. The message was clear: resistance was pointless.
But this did not bring anything good. Not a single global problem was resolved. On the contrary, new ones are constantly multiplying. Institutions of global governance created in an earlier era either ceased to function or lost much of their effectiveness. And no matter how much strength or resources one state, or even a group of states, may accumulate, power always has its limits.
As the Russian audience knows, there is a saying in Russia: “There’s no counter to a crowbar, except another crowbar,” meaning, you don’t bring a knife to a gunfight, but another gun. And indeed, that “other gun” can always be found. This is the very essence of world affairs: a counterforce always emerges. And attempts to control everything inevitably generate tension, undermining stability at home and prompting ordinary people to ask a very fair question of their governments: “Why do we need all this?”
I once heard something similar from our American colleagues, who said: “We gained the whole world, but lost America.” I can only ask: Was it worth it? And did you truly gain anything at all?”
It still amazes me that the western world, despite its obvious crumbling power right now, still tries to create a narrative of world domination, as if the old colonial mindset just can't be erased. Russia, for all of it's faults, has been willing to extend the olive branch, but never a capitulation to the west. Look at what happened when the old Soviet Union collapsed? Did the west try to help? No, they danced in their little parliaments thinking that now we can pillage the Russian motherland.
Even though I live in the west, I think it's high time they learn a lesson in humility and learn to play nice with the rest of the world. But as we are watching in real time, they're refusing to let the global south and the east play on their playgrounds still, thinking that they still have the best toys to play with. While not realizing just how tarnished the paint is on those toys now.
The lessons in humility are coming, whether the west likes it or not. Unfortunately, as always, the average citizens will always be the ones who pay the price while the oligarchs steal what's left of the crown jewels and money. We're seeing that also play out as the American, German, French, and British economies and governments are crashing down around their heads and these governments keep decrying that all is well, don't worry, we have a plan to fix things. Meanwhile the proverbial buildings are on fire around them.