글로벌 안보: 다극화와 국제 관계

### 블라디미르 푸틴 러시아 대통령: 글로벌 보안을 위한 비전
* 🌍 푸틴 대통령은 국제 안보는 군사적, 정치적 안정 그 이상을 포함하며 **세계 경제, 빈곤 감소, 경제 안보, 문명 간 대화 등**을 포괄한다고 강조합니다.
* 🌐 그는 **"한 곳의 평화가 깨지면 전 세계 모든 국가의 평화가 위험에 처한다"는 프랭클린 루스벨트 대통령의 말**을 인용하며 **"한 사람의 안전이 곧 모두의 안전"**이라는 보편적 원칙을 강조합니다.
* 🌐 푸틴은 단극 세계 모델이 "불가능"하고 "결함이 있다"고 비판하며, 도덕적 기반이 부족하고 일방적이고 불법적인 행동으로 이어져 **"영구적인 갈등의 심연"**을 초래한다고 주장합니다.
* ☮ 그는 특히 인도와 중국과 같은 새로운 글로벌 경제 강국의 부상으로 다극화가 심화되고 있는 상황에서 **"국제 대화에 참여하는 모든 참가자들의 이해관계가 합리적으로 균형을 이루어야 한다"**고 강조합니다.
* ☢ 푸틴 대통령은 군비 통제와 비확산의 중요성을 강조하며 **핵무기 감축에 대한 러시아의 의지**를 표명하고 **우주 공간에 무기를 배치하지 않겠다는 합의**를 제안했습니다.
* 🇪🇺 그는 나토의 확장을 상호 신뢰를 약화시키는 **'심각한 도발'**이라고 비판하며 유럽 재래식 군대 조약의 상태에 대해 우려를 표명합니다.
* 🛢 푸틴은 공정한 글로벌 경제 관계를 옹호하며 **공여국 기업과 연계된 재정 지원의 사용**을 비판하고 모두에게 발전의 기회를 제공하는 시스템을 요구합니다.
* 🕊 그는 **OSCE가 안보의 모든 측면을 검토**하고 존중, 신뢰, 투명성을 바탕으로 주권 국가와의 관계를 구축하는 본래의 임무로 돌아갈 것을 촉구합니다.

러시아 대통령은 모두를 위한 글로벌 안보와 번영을 보장하기 위해 공정하고 민주적인 세계 질서의 필요성을 강조합니다.

[Applause] Thank you very much, dear Madame Federal Chancellor, Mr. tchic, ladies and gentlemen. I am truly grateful to be invited to such a representative conference that has assembled politicians, military officials, entrepreneurs, and experts from more than 40 Nations. This conference's structure allows me to avoid excessive politeness and the need to speak in roundabout pleasant but tempty Matic terms. This conference's format will allow me to say what I really think about International Security problems, and if my comments seem unduly polemical, pointed, or inexact to our colleagues, then I would ask you not to get angry with me. After all, this is only a conference, and I hope that after the first two or three mes of my speech, Mr. talik will not turn on the red light over there. It is well known that International Security comprises much more than issues relating to military and political stability. It involves the stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty, Economic Security, and developing a dialogue between civilizations. This Universal indivisible

character of security is expressed as the basic principle that security for one is security for all. As Franklin de Roosevelt said during the first few days that the second world war was breaking out, when peace has been broken anywhere, the Peace of all countries everywhere is in danger. These words remain topical today. Incidentally, the theme of our conference, Global crisis, Global responsibility, exemplifies this. Only two decades ago, the world was ideologically and economically divided, and it was the huge strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured Global Security. This Global standoff pushed the sharpest economic and social problems to margins of the international communities and the world's agenda. And just like any War, the Cold War left us with live ammunition, figuratively speaking. I am referring to ideological stereotypes, double standards, and other typical aspects of Cold War block thinking. The unipolar world that had been proposed after the cold war did not take place either. The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to World Supremacy and what hasn't happened in world

history. However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making. It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign, and at the end of the day, this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself, because it destroys itself from within. And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy, because as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority. Incidentally, Russia, we are constantly being taught about democracy, but for some reason, those who teach us do not want to learn themselves. I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable, but also impossible possible in today's world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today's, and precisely in today's world, then the military, political, and economic resources would not suffice. What is even

more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization. Along with this, what is happening in today's world, and we just started to discuss this, is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept into International Affairs: the concept of a unipolar world, and with which results, unilateral and frequent illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems; moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension. Judge for yourselves: Wars, as well as local and regional conflicts, have not diminished. Mr. tchic mentioned this very gently, and no less people perish in these conflicts; even more are dying than before, significantly more significantly more. Today, we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force, military force, in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result, we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts; finding a political settlement also becomes impossible. We are seeing a greater and greater disdain

for the basic principles of international law and independent legal norms are as a matter of fact coming increasingly closer to one state's legal system. One state, and of course first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural, and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this? In international relations, we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency based on the current political climate. And of course, this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this: no one feels safe because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course, such a policy stimulates an arms race. The forces' dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, significantly new threats, though they were also well known before, have appeared. And today, threats such as terrorism have taken on a global

character, I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of Global Security, and we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue, especially since the international landscape is so varied and changes so quickly in light of the dynamic development in a whole number of countries and regions. Madame Federal Chancellor already mentioned this. The combined GDP measured in purchasing power parity of countries such as India and China is already greater than that of the United States. A similar calculation with the GDP of the big countries Brazil, Russia, India, and China surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU, and according to experts, this gap will only increase in the future. There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centers of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity. In connection with this, the role of multilateral diplomacy is significantly increasing. The need for principles such as openness, transparency, and predictability in politics is

uncontested, and the use of force should be a really exceptional measure, comparable to using the death penalty in the Judicial Systems of certain States. However, today we are witnessing the opposite tendency, namely a situation in which countries that forbid the death penalty, even for murderers and other dangerous criminals, are participating in military operations that are difficult to consider legitimate. And as a matter of fact, these conflicts are killing people, hundreds and thousands of civilians. At the same time, the question arises of whether we should be indifferent and aloof to various internal conflicts inside countries, to authoritarian regimes, to tyrants, and to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As a matter of fact, this was also at the center of the question that, uh, dear colleague, Mr. Liber, asked the federal Chancellor. If I correctly understood your question, then of course it is a serious one. Yep, can we be indifferent observers in view of what is happening? I will try to answer your question as well. Of course not, but do we have the means to counter

these threats certainly we do it is sufficient to look at recent history did not our country have a peaceful transition to democracy indeed we witnessed a peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime a peaceful transformation and what a regime with what a number of weapons including nuclear weapons why should we start bombing and shooting now at every available opportunity is it the case when without the threat of mutual destruction we do not have enough political culture respect for democratic values and for the law I am convinced that the only mechanism that can make decisions about using military force as a last resort is the charter of the United Nations and in connection with this either I did not understand what our colleague the Italian defense minister just said or what he said was inexact in any case I you understood that the use of force can only be legitimate when the decisions taken by NATO the EU or the UN if he really does think so then we have different points of view or I didn't hear correctly the use of force can only be

considered legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by the UN, and we do not need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN. When the UN will truly unite the forces of the International Community and can really react to events in various countries, when we will leave behind this disdain for international law, then the situation will be able to change. Otherwise, the situation will simply result in a dead end, and the number of serious mistakes will be multiplied. Along with this, it is necessary to make sure that international law has a universal character, both in the conception and application of its norms. And one must not forget that Democratic political actions necessarily go along with discussion and the laborious decision-making process. Dear ladies and gentlemen, the potential danger of the destabilization of international relations is connected with obvious stagnation in the disarmament issue. Russia supports the renewal of dialogue on this important question. It is important to conserve the international legal framework relating to weapons destruction and therefore ensure continuity in the process of reducing nuclear weapons together with

the United States of America. We agreed to reduce our nuclear strategic missile capabilities to up to 1,700 to 2,000 nuclear warheads by 30 on December 2012. Russia intends to strictly fulfill the obligations it has taken on. We hope that our partners will also act in a transparent way and will refrain from laying aside a couple of hundred superfluous nuclear warheads for a rainy day. And if today the new American defense minister declares that the United States will not hide these superfluous weapons in a warehouse or, as one might say, under a pillow or under the blanket, then I suggest that we all rise and greet this declaration standing. It would be a very important declaration. Russia strictly adheres to and tends to further adhere to the treaty on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, as well as the multilateral supervision regime for missile technologies. The principles incorporated in these documents are universal ones. In connection with this, I would like to recall that in the 1980s the USSR and the United States signed an

agreement on destroying a whole range of small and medium-range missiles, but these documents do not have a universal character. Today, many other countries have these missiles, including the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Pakistan, Israel. Many countries are working on these systems and plan to incorporate them as part of their weapons arsenals, and only the United States and Russia bear the responsibility to not create such weapon systems. It is obvious that in these conditions, we must think about ensuring our own security. At the same time, it is impossible to sanction the appearance of new destabilizing high-tech weapons. Needless to say, it refers to measures to prevent a new area of confrontation, especially in outer space. S was is no longer fantasy, it is a reality. In the middle of the 1980s, uh, American partners were already able to intercept their own satellite. In Russia's opinion, the militarization of autos space could have unpredictable consequences for the international community and provoke nothing less than the beginning of a nuclear era. And we

have come forward more than once with initiatives designed to prevent the use of weapons in outer space. Today, I would like to tell you that we have prepared a project for an agreement on the prevention of deploying weapons in outer space, and in the near future, it will be sent to our partners as an official proposal. Let us work on this together. Plans to expand certain elements of the anti-missile defense system to Europe cannot help but disturb us. Who needs the next step of what would be in this case an inevitable arms race? I deeply doubt that Europeans themselves do missile weapons with a range of about 5 to 8,000 km that really pose a threat to Europe. Do not exist in any of the so-called problem countries, and in the near future and Prospects this will not happen and is not even foreseeable and any hypothetical launch of, for example, a North Korean rocket to American territory through Western Europe obviously contradicts the loss of ballistics as we see in Russia. It would be like using the right hand to reach

the left ear and here. In Germany, I cannot help but mention the pitiable condition of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. The adapted Treaty on Conventional Land Forces in Europe was signed in 1999. It took into account a new geopolitical reality, namely the elimination of the Warsaw Pact. Seven years have passed, and only four states have ratified this document, including the Russian Federation. NATO countries openly declare that they will not ratify this treaty, including the provisions on flank restrictions on deploying a certain number of armed forces in the flank zones until Russia removes its military bases from Georgia. Our army is leaving Georgia, even according to an accelerated schedule. We resolved the problems we had with our Georgian colleagues. As everybody knows, there are still 1,500 servicemen in Gudauta that are carrying out peacekeeping operations and protecting warehouses with ammunition left over from Soviet times. We constantly discuss this issue with Mr. Solana, and he knows our position. We are ready to further work in this.

direction, but what is happening at the same time. Simultaneously, the so-called flexible Frontline American bases appear in Bulgaria and Romania, with up to 5,000 men in each. It turns out that NATO has put its Frontline forces on our borders, and we continue to strictly fulfill the treaty obligations and do not react to these actions at all. I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask, against whom is this expansion intended, and what happened to the assurances our Western Partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them, but I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr. Warner in Brussels on the 17th of May 1990. He said at the time that the fact

that we are ready not to place a NATO Army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee where are these guarantees. The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as souvenirs, but we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was possible thanks to a historic choice, one that was also made by our people, the people of Russia, a choice in favor of democracy, freedom, openness, and a sincere partnership with all the members of the big European family. And now they are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us. These walls may be virtual, but they are nevertheless dividing ones that cut through our continent. And is it possible that we will once again require many years and decades, as well as several generations of politicians, to disassemble and dismantle these new walls. Dear ladies and gentlemen, we are unequivocally in favor of strengthening the regime of nonproliferation. The present international legal principles allow us to develop technologies to manufacture

nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes, and many countries, with all good reasons, want to create their own nuclear energy as a basis for their energy independence. But we also understand that these technologies can be quickly transformed into nuclear weapons. This creates serious international tensions. The situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear program acts as a clear example, and if the international community does not find a reasonable solution for resolving this conflict of interests, the world will continue to suffer similar destabilizing crises because there are more threshold countries than simply Iran. We both know this. We are going to constantly fight against the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Last year, Russia put forward the initiative to establish international centers for the enrichment of uranium. We are open to the possibility that such centers not only be created in Russia but also in other countries where there is a legitimate basis for using civil nuclear energy. Countries that want to develop their nuclear energy could guarantee that they will receive you through direct participation in these centers, and the centers would, of course.

operate under strict IAEA supervision. The latest initiatives put forward by American President George W. Bush are in conformity with the Russian proposals. I consider that Russia and the USA are objectively and equally interested in strengthening the regime of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their deployment. It is precisely our countries with leading nuclear missile capabilities that must act as leaders in developing new stricter non-proliferation measures. Russia is ready for such work. We are engaged in consultations with our American friends. In general, we should talk about establishing a whole system of political incentives and economic stimulus whereby it would not be in States' interests to establish their own capabilities in the nuclear fuel cycle, but they would still have the opportunity to develop nuclear energy and strengthen their energy capabilities. In connection with this, I should talk about International Energy cooperation in more detail. Madame Federal Chancellor also spoke about this briefly. She mentioned touched on this theme in the energy sector. Russia intends to create uniform Market principles

transparent conditions for all. It is obvious that energy prices must be determined by the market instead of being the subject of political speculation, economic pressure, or blackmail. We are open to cooperation; foreign companies participate in all our major energy projects. According to different estimates, up to 26% of the oil extraction in, and please think about this figure, up to 26% of the oil extraction in Russia is done by Foreign Capital. Try, try to find me a similar example where Russian business participates extensively in key economic sectors in Western countries. Such examples do not exist; there are no such examples. I would also recall the parity of foreign investments in Russia and those Russia makes abroad. The parity is about 15 to 1, and here you have an obvious example of the openness and stability of the Russian economy. Economic security is the sector in which all must adhere to uniform principles. We are ready to compete fairly. For that reason, more and more opportunities are appearing in the Russian economy. Experts and our Western partners are objectively evaluating these changes.

as such, Russia's OECD sovereign credit rating improved, and Russia passed from the fourth to the third group. And today in Munich, I would like to use this occasion to thank our German colleagues for their help in the above decision. Furthermore, as you know, the process of Russia joining the WTO has reached its final stages. I would point out that during long, difficult talks, we heard words about freedom of speech, free trade, and equal possibilities more than once, but for some reason, exclusively in reference to the Russian market. And there is still one more important theme that directly affects global security today. Many talk about the struggle against poverty. What is actually happening in this sphere? On the one hand, financial resources are allocated for programs to help the world's poorest countries, and at times substantial financial resources. But to be honest, and many here also know this, linked with the development of that same donor country's companies. And on the other hand, developed countries simultaneously keep their agricultural subsidies and limit some countries' access to high-tech products. And let's say things as they

are one hand distributes charitable help, and the other hand not only preserves economic backwardness, but also Lees the profits thereof. The increasing social tension in depressed regions inevitably results in the growth of radicalism. Extremism feeds terrorism and local conflicts. And if all this happens in sha regions, such as the Middle East, where there is increasingly the sense that the World At Large is unfair, then there is the risk of global destabilization. It's obvious that the world-leading countries should see this threat and that they should, therefore, build a more democratic, fair system of global economic relations. A system that would give everyone the chance and the possibility to develop. Dear ladies and gentlemen, speaking at the conference on security policy, it is impossible not to mention the activities of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. As is well known, this organization was created to examine all, I shall emphasize this, all aspects of security: military, political, economic, humanitarian, and especially the relations between these spheres. What do we see happening today? We see that this balance is clearly

destroyed people are trying to transform the oce into a vulgar instrument designed to promote the foreign policy interest of one or a group of countries. And this task is also being accomplished by the OC's bureaucratic operators, which is absolutely not connected with the state Founders in any way. Decision-making procedures and the involvement of so-called non-governmental organizations are tailored for this task. These organizations are formally independent, but they are purposefully financed and therefore under control. According to the founding documents, in the humanitarian sphere, the OCCE is designed to assist country members in observing international human rights norms at their request. This is an important task, we support this, but this does not mean interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, and especially not imposing a regime that determines how these states should live and develop. It is obvious that such interference does not promote the development of democratic states at all; on the contrary, it makes them dependent and, as a consequence, politically and economically unstable. We expect that the OCCE be guided by its primary tasks and

build relations with sovereign states based on respect, trust, and transparency. Dear ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion, I would like to note the following: we very often, and personally I very often, hear appeals by our partners, including our European partners, to the effect that Russia should play an increasingly active role in world affairs. In connection with this, I would allow myself to make one small remark: it is hardly necessary to incite us to do so. Russia is a country with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has practically always used the privilege to carry out an independent foreign policy. We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, we are well aware of how the world has changed, and we have a realistic sense of our own opportunities and potential. And of course, we would like to interact with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few but for all. Thank you for your [Applause].

AI Translated: Putin's 2007 Munich Security Conference Speech in English, Voiced by Putin Himself

Welcome to Eon Vault, your gateway to a world where iconic speeches and historical events transcend language barriers and time itself. Our channel is dedicated to the art of translating and recreating great speeches, both modern and ancient, into multiple languages using cutting-edge AI technology.

Experience the power of linguistic transformation as we take you on a journey through history, reinterpreting the words of influential figures for audiences around the globe. From the stirring speeches of world leaders to the eloquent orations of ancient philosophers, we breathe new life into these timeless moments.

Join us as we explore the intersection of technology and human expression, celebrating the universal themes that resonate across cultures and generations. Subscribe now to Eon Vault and embark on a journey of discovery where language knows no bounds. Don't miss out on the opportunity to witness history reborn in a multitude of languages.








Eon Vault

이 연설은 세계 경제, 빈곤, 문명 간 대화를 아우르는 국제 안보의 보편적이고 불가분한 본질을 다룹니다.

이 연설은 세계 리더십의 단극적 모델을 비판하며 그 결함과 도덕적 기반 부족을 강조합니다.

이 연설은 또한 국제 관계에서 군사력의 과도한 사용으로 인해 영구적인 분쟁과 정치적 해결의 부재를 초래한 것을 비난합니다.

국가 관계에 대한 국제법의 영향력 확대

미국이 국제법을 점점 더 무시하면서 안전이 위협받고 군비 경쟁을 부추기고 있습니다.

인도와 중국과 같은 국가들의 경제력 변화는 미국의 지배력에 도전하고 다자 외교를 강화하고 있습니다.

분쟁에서 군사력을 사용하는 우려스러운 경향이 나타나면서 내부 갈등과 대량살상무기 확산을 해결하기 위한 국제 사회의 역할에 대한 의문이 제기되고 있습니다.

국제 안보 및 군축에 대한 러시아의 입장

러시아는 2012년에 합의한 대로 핵탄두 감축에 전념하고 있으며 미국도 투명한 방식으로 동일한 조치를 취할 것을 촉구합니다.

러시아는 새로운 불안정한 무기의 출현을 방지할 필요성을 강조하며 우주 공간에 무기를 배치하는 것을 막기 위한 협정을 제안하고 있습니다.

러시아는 유럽에서 미사일 방어 시스템이 확장되는 것에 대해 우려하고 있으며, 이것이 지역의 안보를 위해 필요한지 의심하고 있습니다.

NATO 확장이 유럽 안보에 미치는 영향

유럽 재래식 군대에 관한 조약은 나토 국가들이 비준을 거부하는 등 비준이 제한적으로 이루어지고 있습니다.

러시아는 나토의 확장과 자국 국경 근처에 미군이 배치되는 것에 대해 우려를 표명하고 있습니다.

또한 러시아는 불안정한 위기를 방지하기 위해 핵 확산과 관련된 갈등을 해결하는 것이 중요하다고 강조합니다.

글로벌 안보 및 경제 관계에 대한 러시아 대통령의 입장

미국과 러시아는 비확산 조치를 강화하는 데 똑같이 관심을 갖고 있으며, 부시 대통령의 이니셔티브는 러시아의 제안과 일치합니다.

러시아는 공정한 세계 경제 시스템과 투명한 에너지 시장 원칙의 필요성을 강조하며 러시아의 광범위한 해외 투자를 강조하고 있습니다.

또한 빈곤의 영향을 사회적 긴장, 극단주의, 글로벌 불안정성과 연결시키며 보다 민주적이고 공정한 글로벌 경제 관계 시스템을 촉구합니다.

OCCE는 인도주의라는 본연의 목적에서 벗어나 특정 국가의 외교 정책적 이익을 위해 운영되고 있다는 비난을 받고 있습니다.

주권 국가의 내정에 간섭하여 정치적, 경제적 불안정을 초래한다는 우려도 있습니다.

러시아는 공정하고 민주적인 세계 질서를 옹호하면서 OCCE와 주권 국가 간의 존중과 투명한 관계의 중요성을 강조합니다.