Category Archives: Ethical Egoism

Unedited Lecture/Video Notes on Ethical Egoism

For the video, click below:

Ethical Egoism Video

Chapter 3: Ethical Egoism: should morality be based solely on self-interest?

Main Idea: Ethical egoists believe you should always act in your self-interest. So, is your morality solely based on self-interest? Should you try to live as an ethical egoist? What would that look like?

Ethical Egoism reminds us that self-interest is a virtue, but most philosophers believe ethical egoists are mistaken in arguing that it is the only virtue. To flourish, we should seek self-interest, but not just self-interest. Morality is more than pursuing self-interest.

My opinion: "Nor should you choose to live as an ethical egoist for you will miss out on the best experiences in life likethe deepest forms oflove, friendship, wonder, and beauty that destroy all conceptions of self and self-interest. The best experiences in life ecstatically transcend self-interested thinking. Still, it is your choice to be an egoist or not."

In the previous chapter on psychological egoism, we found that people are not always selfish or self-interested. We are capable of acting with regard for others; we are capable of acting altruistically. But should we act altruistically?

In this chapter, we will explore ethical egoism, which is the prescriptive theory that you should always act in your self-interest.

The Theory

According to ethical egoism, you should only act in your self -interest. Ethical Egoists do not believe you should pursue the interests of others as well as your own interests, rather they believe you should only pursue your interests. An egoist believes that What makes an action good is that it is good for ME.

It is important to avoid caricatures and straw man versions of ethical egoism. For example, the ethical egoist does not believe you should be a scrooge. Most egoists believe you should sometimes help others, but only because it is in your interest. For example, an ethical egoist may think it good to scratch anothers back, but only because this act is somehow in his rational self-interest (e.g. the other will scratch his back in return). According to EE (ethical egoism), the fact that an action is in my self- interest is precisely what makes it good.

It is also important to see that ethical egoists can live disciplined lives. For example, most ethical egoists will attempt to stop smoking because they recognize smoking is not in their long term self-interest and is therefore bad. Ethical Egoism does not support doing whatever you feel, rather it encourages you to follow your objective and rational self-interest.

Ethical egoists make moral judgments. For example, most ethical egoists will judge the murderer as wrong because it is rarely in ones long term self-interest to murder. There is, after all, a chance you will get caught and end up in prison. Or maybe some God will send you to Hell for murder.

**Some ethical egoists also argue its bad because the object of the murderers self-interest is bad. That is, the ethical egoist seems to believe there are good and bad forms of self-interested activity. As we will see later, this may be a problem for EE.

Some philosophers distinguish between individual ethical egoism and universal ethical egoism. Individual ethical egoism is the idea everyone ought to serve my interests. An act is good only if it benefits me, and morality dies when I die. Universal ethical egoism is the idea that everyone ought to seek their own self-interest, not just me. Universal Ethical Egoism is stronger because it includes everyone, not just myself. This chapter will focus mostly on universal ethical egoism.

Why do people like ethical egoism? As you read, evaluate the strength of each argument for ethical egoism.

Many of these arguments come from Ayn Rand, especially The Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, and the Fountainhead. Some also come from Nietzsche, Thomas Hobbes, and my students.

Exercise and Criticism

Now that you have explored some of the arguments for ethical egoism, do you think it is a strong ethical theory? If it is, it should be able to: A) explain, or be consistent with, your core moral beliefs and, B) help you lead a meaningful and flourishing life. It should also be based on facts when facts are relevant. Discussing the following questions will help you analyze and evaluate ethical egoism.

No, almost every student says it is wrong to kill someone for money even if the student believes it is in his or her self-interest. This is a problem for EE because, according to EE, it should be good because it is in your self-interest. So, the existence of even one self-interested act that you think bad proves that ethical egoism is not the whole of your moral story, it does not explain all of your moral beliefs.

Now you may have some objections to the life insurance case, but the point is that you probably believe some actions are wrong even though they are in your self-interest. So, the first criticism is that ethical egoism is inconsistent with what you believe is right or wrong. Again, most people would say something is wrong with this killing in self-interested even if they arent sure what is wrong. But there is nothing wrong with it if ethical egoism is true. Therefore, most people hold beliefs that are inconsistent with ethical egoism.

Question: Survey your moral mind. Can you find examples of acts that you think are wrong even though they are in your self-interest? Are psychopaths more likely to be ethical egoists? Teenagers?

The problem is this argument supports utilitarianism, not ethical egoism. If pursuing my interest is good because everyone benefits, then its not good simply because I benefit. But if I dont believe its good simply because I benefit then Im not an ethical egoist. In this case, I am a Utilitarian.

For example, if I pursue my self-interest of earning money by building a convenience store, then your self-interest may also be served since you now have a neighborhood convenience store. But I am not an ethical egoist if I argue it is good because both you and I benefit. As an ethical egoist, I must say its good only because I benefit. So, ethical egoism may be true, but this type of argument does not support it because it presupposes caring for others for their own sake, not simply because it is in my self-interest.

In my experience, most ethical egoists are inconsistent because they believe such acts are good partly because everyone benefits, not just themselves.

They shouldnt. Ethical egoism says they should only care about their self-interest. An ethical egoist shouldnt care about the future and posterity because she will be dead in the future.

If an ethical egoist counters that their self includes their grandchildren, notice how the meaning of self has been greatly inflated to meet the posterity objection. If one allows this inflated definition of self, the theory is now closer to utilitarianism than ethical egoism.

In short, why should I care about posterity if there is nothing in it for me, nothing in my self-interest? But I do care, so ethical egoism is inconsistent with my core moral beliefs.

In The Elements of Moral Philosophy, James Rachels argued this is the deepest criticism of ethical egoism. He believes the egoist thinks like racists and sexists because they believe their interests ultimately count for more simply because they are in the right race or gender. That is, there is US and THEM, and were better because we are Us and they are Them. So, we can treat them however we please.

Ethical egoists categorize people in the same way. They say, There is ME and EVERYONE else, and my interests count for more simply because they are mine. If you ask an egoist why their interests count for more, they say, Because they are MY interests. But this answer is no better than the racist answer that MY group is better because it is MY group.

Think of all the people you have encountered today. Do their interests not count? Dont you care about them? Dont others have feelings, goals, pains, pleasures, and interests just like you? Why should your pain count for more than their pain just because it is your pain? Isnt the starving child sometimes on par with your own interests? (Rachels)

Lets say you save some money to buy a video game, but then give it up to feed a starving child. Is this not a good act, and is this not a case of letting another persons interests outweigh your interests? Most importantly, dont you think this is a good act?

Now, lets say the child is not starving, she just wants a new bicycle. In this case, your interests may outweigh the childs because you choose to buy the video game.

The point is that it is too simplistic to say morality is always based on self-interest. When you think morally, you are considering your interests, but you are also considering the interests of others for their own sake.

Of course, it does not follow from these examples that you must always sacrifice your own interests, rather it only shows that their interests count too. As Lawrence Hinman says, Self-love is a virtue, but its not the only virtue.

In a way, this criticism shows that ethical egoism does not even enter the moral sphere of thinking because moral thinking begins when we start considering other peoples interests, not simply our own.

Self-love is a virtue, but not the only virtue (Lawrence Hinman).

Lets begin by exploring how the same act can be both altruistic and egoistic.

I may throw a grenade to save myself and my buddies. This act seems both self-interested (saving self) and altruistic (saving buddies). I may jump on the grenade, which seems altruistic, but not self-interested. I may watch the grenade explode, which is neither altruistic nor self-interested. Or, I may run away without warning my buddies, which seems very selfish.

The point is egoists present a false dichotomy because they believe actions (and motives) must be entirely self-interested or entirely altruistic. But this is too simplistic, morality and human motivation are more complex than this.

For example, I may help the old lady across the street because I care about her and because I want the nickel she will give me. I may become a teacher because I want to learn, help others, make money, and improve my reputation. Its rare to find an act or motive that is purely altruistic or purely self-interested.

Also, it is sometimes good to give up my interests (e.g. feed a starving child), and sometimes it is not good (e.g. staying in a toxic relationship). The point is an Aristotelian one; Morality is a mean between the extremes. Morality is not about always surrendering your self-interest, nor is it about always pursuing your self-interest. Moral thinking means you are weighing all interests and sometimes choosing your interests over others, and sometimes choosing the interests of others over your own. In short, ethical egoism is too extreme and presents a false dilemma. The choice is not between 1) always altruistic or 2) always self-interested.

No. Many ethicists believe morality begins with the common point of view, with considering other peoples interests for their own sake. If I believe only my interests count, I never enter the moral sphere. Of course, most ethical egoists are probably moral, but they are moral in a logically inconsistent way (i.e. ethical egoism contradicts their moral beliefs).

No, his act is bad because he was not acting in his objective self-interest. He sacrificed his self-interest and this is especially clear if he is an atheist and does not believe in a self-interested afterlife. According to ethical egoism, we should not think such an act is morally praiseworthy because we believe everyone should act according to their self-interest. The atheist soldier probably did not act according to his self-interest since he is sacrificing/killing himself. The egoist has to inflate the meaning of self-interest to argue he is seeking his self-interest by killing himself, by killing all his interests.

Perhaps. It depends on what you mean by friendship. However, the answer is no if you believe true friendship means caring about your friends good for her own sake, not simply for the self-interested benefit you receive from her. This type of true friendship seems to be beyond the reach of the egoist (Hinman) because it requires one to sometimes transcend self-interest.

Indeed, the logically consistent ethical egoist should view true friendship as bad because it causes a person to act in non-self-interested ways. Furthermore, a logically consistent ethical egoist may even seek to harm his friends if it suddenly becomes in his self-interest to do so.

So, as Lawrence Hinman states, ethical egoism may be good in a world where people are like individual atoms colliding with each other, but it is not so good if you believe in true friendship and love. Ethical egoism is not the philosophy for you if you CHOOSE true friendship and true love.

These words are ambiguous, and it is helpful to know how people distinguish them.

Some define selfish as that which is in your short term pleasure (e.g. smoking cigarettes), and self-interest as that which is in your objective long-term interest (e.g. not smoking cigarettes).

Some define selfish as seeking your own good without regard for others, being excessively concerned with yourself (e.g. killing my way to the top). They then define self-interest as seeking your own good, but not at any cost to others. A self-interested person values justness and fairness.

Some use selfish and self-interest in equivalent ways.

Finally, others equivocate between all of these meanings, which makes for difficult reading.

As always, define your terms clearly before you begin a discussion on this topic.

Perhaps not, it depends on whether it is in your self-interest. It might not be in your self-interest to tell others (or even yourself) that you are an egoist. This may be a problem for egoism because it seems to imply that nobody should reveal their egoism.

Merrill M. Flood and Melvin Dresher created The Prisoners Dilemma in 1950. Think of it as a puzzle that has moral implications.

Imagine you and Mr. Jones have been arrested. The jailor gives you the following options:

Jones Confesses

Jones doesnt confess

I confess

5 years for both of us

Jones gets 10 years, I am free

I dont confess

Jones is free, I get 10 years

1 year for both of us

The jailor tells you that Mr. Jones is being offered the same deal, but you cannot communicate with him.

Now, the point is to think like an ethical egoist. When you think like an egoist, it becomes clear that you should confess. Here is how James Rachels explains it:

On the other hand, suppose Smith does not confess. Then you are in this position: If you confess you will go free, whereas if you do not confess you will remain imprisoned for a year. Clearly, then, even if smith does not confess, you will still be better off if you do.

Therefore, you should confess because you would get out of jail the soonest, regardless of what Smith does. Notice then that wanting everyone to pursue their own self-interests is not in your self-interest. Rather, you should want others to sometimes give up their interests. But to achieve that, it seems you should give up self-interest as well (so they will trust you). Paradoxically, pursuing your self-interest involves sometimes giving up your self-interest. You should cooperate.

Nor should you choose to live as an ethical egoist for you will miss out on the best experiences in life like experiencing a love, friendship, or sense of wonder and beauty that destroys all conceptions of self and self-interest. The best experiences in life ecstatically transcend self-interested thinking.

Sources: Many primary and secondary texts. The clearest and most logical overview is in Russ Shafer Landau's The Fundamentals of Ethics.

See original here:

Ch. 3: Ethical Egoism - Lucid Philosophy

My husband and I have three adult children whom we love very much, and wish for them to have healthy, productive, ethical and loving lives.

Like many siblings, even though they were raised in the same household, they have their own individual lives with disparate beliefs and views. We dont always agree with them, but respect them nonetheless as adults.

Even so, we do let them know how we feel as parents and remind them of how they were raised.And yes, there have been some heated discussions over the years, but ultimately we know that our relationships are more important than politics or religious beliefs.

However, sometimes the fruit rolls very far from the tree. We have a daughter who lives in a different state and has refused to communicate with us for over two years, and simply doesnt want us to know anything about her life.

Are we being vengeful or malicious to consider dropping her, or just realistic and practical?

She has criticized and mocked our familys values, and even accused us of things that never happened. She did this both on social media and in person.

She has told us that we are toxic parents, and she doesnt need the stress we create for her with our beliefs. OK. Thats how she feels. We are very hurt by her words and accusations, and her siblings are also perplexed and think that shell get over it.

We have tried to contact her, but we are ignored.She has made her point clear. She is married and has a good profession and, I assume, a happy life without our stress.

At times, I feel shes not my daughter anymore. At least, she doesnt want to be. My husband and I have even considered removing her from our will, but go back and forth, especially when we think of her as a young child.

But then we decide that she will always be our child regardless, and should inherit her portion, which will be about $2 million or more in todays value. Honestly, I dont think she would even care if we disinherited her.

Are we being vengeful or malicious to consider dropping her, or just realistic and practical? Should we give her the benefit of the doubt and demonstrate our love unconditionally, and leave her in our will?

My children have no idea of the value of their inheritance, as we have always been frugal. Nor have they any idea that we are considering dropping their sibling from our will.

Were in our early 60s and hopefully will be around for a couple of more decades, but you never know and we need to update our wills anyway, whether or not we decide to cut off our daughter.

The Giving Tree

You can email The Moneyist with any financial and ethical questions related to coronavirus at qfottrell@marketwatch.com, and follow Quentin Fottrell onTwitter.

Dear Giving,

Treat your children equally, in life and in death. The breakdown of a relationship is rarely, if ever, the responsibility of one party. Whether the conflict is political, ideological or personal, someone always believes theyre right.

If you cut her out of your will, you will leave acrimony and hurt feelings behind. It suggests or worse, confirms that your love has a gift tax. If your daughter is responsible, $2 million would make a huge difference to her.

Some apples should roll far from the tree. Children should make up their own minds about how they want to live their life. If you want your daughter to be happy and live life on her terms, resist the urge to punish her.

This research published in the European Journal of Ageing looked at 55 cases involving heirs, donors and professionals, attempting to understand peoples motivations and mistakes when carving up their estate among their heirs.

The researchers identified four reasons for leaving people an inheritance: altruism driven by family solidarity (it feels good to be nice), equity to maintain family unity, egoism, and reciprocity (I give you if you give me).

If you want your daughter to be happy and live life on her terms, resist the urge to punish her.

Altruistic motivation rests on family values (shared by heirs and donors), which aim to maintain family identity, therefore the inheritance of moral principles is valued in the absence of material inheritance, the authors wrote.

Equality oriented motivation lies in the maintenance of family ties avoidance of conflicts and recognizes individual needs, they added. In other words, equity and family cohesion are not mutually exclusive.

If you wanted to control your daughter in life and she rebelled, you are likely to use money to amplify that message in your will. You have another choice: let go of ill will and misunderstandings. Do it for her, and for yourself.

You write, There have been some heated discussions over the years, but ultimately we know that our relationships are more important than politics or religious beliefs. Sometimes, the answer is in the question.

Its easy to say that when its not my money. However, including her in your will is a statement regardless of your personal disagreements and differences in worldview that you loved her unconditionally.

By emailing your questions, you agree to having them published anonymously on MarketWatch.By submitting your story to Dow Jones & Company, the publisher of MarketWatch, you understand and agree that we may use your story, or versions of it, in all media and platforms, including via third parties.

Check outthe Moneyist private Facebook group, where we look for answers to lifes thorniest money issues. Readers write in to me with all sorts of dilemmas. Post your questions, tell me what you want to know more about, or weigh in on the latest Moneyist columns.

The Moneyist regrets he cannot reply to questions individually.

More from Quentin Fottrell:

Read the original:

My daughter no longer speaks to me or my husband, and mocked our family values. Do we cut her out of her $2 million inheritance? - MarketWatch

Yoga is the art of looking inward. The ultimate purpose of this ancient science of human well-being is to understand and experience the reality that underlies this ever-changing apparent world. Through the sincere practice of yoga, one becomes aware of Purusha (the Atman). He gains knowledge of his true nature and also of the true nature of the universe. In this exalted state of being, one obtains supreme mastery over the senses and the mind. He, then, is freed from the worldly sorrows. This is what is called liberation of the soul.

From the practical standpoint, yoga is meant to be a system of the enhancement of ones physical, psychological and emotional robustness. Yoga aims at the cultivation of an attitude of self-discipline, focussed attention and higher awareness. Constant mindfulness of inner experiences helps one in reducing mental stress and increasing inner joy.

Patanjali in his yoga sutras has defined yoga as the cessation (nirodha) of fluctuations (vrittis) of the mind-stuff (chitta). Yoga, thus, means checking the chitta from taking different forms. To put it in simple words, yoga is the control of various thought-waves, arising in the mind, from time to time. Restraint of the thought-waves brings about an exhilarating flow of tranquility. Serenity of the mind is thus attained. It has further been explained that the thought-waves can be controlled by practice and detachment. Yoga, thus, defines the goal and also prescribes the means of achieving that goal.

The chitta comprises three components namely manas, buddhi and ahamkara. Manas is the storing facility which gathers messages, received through the senses, from the outside world. Buddhi is the faculty of intelligence which classifies these messages and responds to them accordingly. Ahamkara is the self-sense, an idea of egoism. It is the concept of individuality, which creates a sense of I and my.

All three constituents of the chitta relate to the material nature ; and are, therefore, not self-aware. The chitta is not called self-luminous as it cannot perceive both (the mind itself and the object of its perception) simultaneously. It itself is an object of perception (different from the seer, the one who perceives it i. e. the soul). Purusha, on the other hand, being pure consciousness is self-luminous. Though indivisible oneness, it yet expresses itself through different minds, various thought-waves ; and innumerable activities. Chitta is the instrument through which jivatman (the self) relates to the external world. It is only when the self stands behind the mind, that it becomes intelligent.

Though non-conscious itself, chitta reflects the consciousness of the Atman. Being animated by the consciousness of the soul, the mind also appears to be conscious. The seer forgets his real nature ; and identifies himself with the mind and senses etc. In other words, instead of the soul, one considers himself to be only the mind-body complex. This wrong identification of the jivatman with the chitta is avidya, the spiritual ignorance. It is the cause of misery in life. The aim of yoga is to end this false identification by overcoming avidya, and thus escape from the worldly sufferings.

How can this ignorance be removed ? Patanjali has explained that uninterrupted awareness of the distinction between the self (which is timeless, changeless and free of sorrows) and the non-self (the material nature) i.e. between the soul on the one hand and the mind and other objects of nature, on the other leads to destruction of the ignorance. He has also enumerated various methods through the practice of which impurities of the body and of the mind are wiped out ; and the veil of ignorance is removed.

The yamas and niyamas have prescribed ethical behaviour. The practice of asanas improves physical health. Through the practice of pranayama, vital energy is enhanced. Pratyahara seeks to bring the senses under control. And the three internal components of yoga namely dharana, dhyana and samadhi turn the mind towards kaivalya, the eternal liberation. When the thought-waves are stilled through the use of above methods, all the obstacles to awareness are removed ; and the lake of the mind becomes quiet and clear. And through that transparent mirror of the mind, one is able to see the inner light of the soul. The ego-sense dissolves and one attains his essential nature. Serenity of the mind is obtained.Patanjali has also disclosed that on the way to spirituality, one may get some siddhis (perfections). These supernatural powers such as the capacity to levitate, walk on water etc. etc. are met on their own. They are not the real goal of yoga. They, in fact, are obstructions on the path of self-realisation. When the aspirant remains indifferent to these powers, only then can he attain the highest goal of spiritual freedom.

Yoga, thus, cannot be reduced into the pursuit of a singular activity. It is rather a comprehensive way of leading a healthy, harmonious and blissful life. When one realises that he himself is the light of knowledge, the self is established in its own purity. One attains the freedom of the soul, which is the ultimate purpose of life.

Here is the original post:

The Goal of Yoga - Daily Pioneer

The first two decades of the 21st century saw a major rise in the number of people in the USA who describe their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular, which now stands at 26% of the American population, up nine points from 17% in 2009.

The next two decades will see a major post covid-19 religious revival and the evidence for that statement comes from The 2020 Census of American Religion by PRRI (Public Religion Research Institute) a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to conducting independent research (07.08.2021).

Evangelical Lutherans dropped from 5.3 million in 1987 to 3.4 million now. The Presbyterian Church USA had 3.2 million in 1982 but now is around 1.3 million. The Episcopal Church went down 50% from 3.4 million in the 1960s to 1.7 million now.

Disaffiliating white Christians fueled the growth of the religiously unaffiliated during the last 15-20 years. Only 16% of Americans reported being religiously unaffiliated in 2007; this proportion rose to 19% by 2012, and then gained roughly a percentage point each year from 2012 to 2017. In the2018 General Social Survey of USattitudes, no religion became the single largest group, edging out evangelical Christians.

Reflecting the patterns above, the proportion of religiously unaffiliated Americans hit a high point of 26% in 2018; but has since then declined to 23% in 2020. This marks a more than 10% decline in the number of Americans who describe their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular, in just three years.

Of teens and young adults who say they are affiliated with an organized religion, 52% say they have little or no trust in organized religion according to the State of Religion and Young People study which surveyed more than 10,000 Americans ages 13 to 25 about their involvement in, and feelings about, religion.

The study also found that 60% of teens and young adults who are not involved with an organized religion described themselves as at least slightly spiritual; 19% said they attend religious gatherings at least once a month, and 12% of unaffiliated young people have become more religious in the last 5 years.

This last group will lead the next religious revival starting post Codid-19 as Prophet Amos predicted: Behold, days are coming, declares the Lord God, when I will send a famine on the land, not a famine for bread or a thirst for water, but rather for hearing the words of the Lord. (Amos 8:11)

But this 12% of unaffiliated young people that have become more religious in the last 5 yearsgroup will lead the next religious revival only if the leaders of todays religions will be open to the desire of young people for religions that are not homophobic; and advocate religious diversity by respecting other religions because they do not claim an exclusive we have the only truth or our religion is the only one approved by God theology.

According to a 2008 Pew survey, one in five Christians in America believe that non-Christian faiths cannot lead one to salvation. That number soared to 60 percent for white evangelical Protestants who attend church once a week. But the PRRI study reports that white evangelicals (who are often negative about the Quran) have declined from 23 percent in 2006 to 14.5 percent in 2020.

This is especially important for Americas Islamic and Jewish leaders because the Quran is a strong proponent of Religious Diversity: Indeed, the believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabianswhoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good will have their reward with their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve. (Quran2:62)

A survey of over 35,000 Americans in 2008 found that most Americans agree with the statement: many religions not just their own can lead to eternal life. Among those affiliated with some religious tradition, seven-in-ten say many religions can lead to eternal life.

This view is shared by a majority of adherents in nearly all religious traditions, including 82% of Jews, 79% of Catholics, 57% of evangelical Protestants and 56% of Muslims. (From the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2008, Pew Research Center.)

Thus, in 21st century United States most Christians, Jews, and Muslims have rejected the only one truth religious mind set and believe in the Qurans pluralism teachings: For every one of you did We appoint a law and a way. If Allah had wanted, He could have made you one people, but (He didnt) that He might test you in what He gave you. Therefore compete with one another to hasten to do virtuous deeds; for all return to Allah (for judgement), so He will let you know [about] that in which you differed.[5:48]

Only those who reject God by disbelief or by unrepentant evil activities will be the losers when Judgement Day comes. Although most only one truth or only one God approved religious mind set theologians will learn that they might not be as smart as they thought they were.

It is very important to understand that religious pluralism is the will of God is different from religious, moral or cultural relativism. Relativism teaches that all values and standards are subjective, and therefore there is no higher spiritual authority available for setting ethical standards or making moral judgments. Thus, issues of justice, truth or human rights are, like beauty, just in the eye of the beholder.

Most people, especially those who believe that One God created all of us, refuse to believe that ethics and human rights are simply only a matter of taste. Religious pluralism as the will of God is the opposite of cultural psychological or philosophical relativism.

The fundamental idea supporting religious pluralism is that religious people need to embrace humility in all areas of religion. All religions have always taught a traditional anti self-centered personal egoism type of humility.

Religious pluralism also opposes a religious, philosophical, and self righteous intellectual egoism that promotes a tendency to turn our legitimate love for our own prophet and Divine revelation into universal truths that we fully understand and know how to apply.

Religious pluralism teaches that finite humans, even the most intelligent and pious of them, can not fully understand everything the way the infinite One does.

This is true, for every human being, even for Gods messengers themselves. When prophet Moses, who God spoke with face to face, as a person speaks with a friend (Exodus 33:11) asks to see God face to face, he is told, You cannot see My face, for no man can see My face and live. (33:20)

Similarly, in the Quran prophet Jesus admits to God, You know everything that is within myself, whereas I do not know what is within Yourself. (5:116)

And when Prophet Jesus was asked, in private, by his disciples, What will be the sign for your coming (back) and the end of the age? (Matthew 24:3) Jesus warns his disciples about upheavals and false Messiahs that will come. Then Jesus concluded by saying, But about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, not even the son: only the Father. (24:36)

A similar statement was made by Prophet Muhammad when he was asked, Tell me about the Hour. He said: The one questioned about it knows no better than the questioner. (Muslim book 1 Hadith 1&4)

God taught the general principle of epistemological humility through his Prophet who taught his followers I am no novelty among the messengers. I do not know what will be done to me, or to you. (Quran 46:9) In truth, the only universal truth should be the humility to admit: Only God knows.

Or as Allahs Apostle said, Dont give me superiority over Moses, for people will fall unconscious on the Day of Resurrection. I will be the first to regain consciousness, and behold! Moses will be there holding the side of Allahs Throne. I will not know whether Moses was among those people who became unconscious and then has regained consciousness before me, or was among those exempted by Allah from falling unconscious. (Volume 8, Book 76, #524)

As God declares through Prophet Zechariah: These are the things that you shall do:Speak the truth to one another;render in your gates judgmentsthat are true and make for peace;do not devise evil in your hearts against one another, andlove no false oath, for all these things I hate, declares theLord. (8:16-17)

Finally: Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in Allah, the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets and gives wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveler, those who ask [for help], and for freeing slaves; [and who] establishes prayer and gives zakah; [those who] fulfill their promise when they promise; and [those who] are patient in poverty and hardship and during battle. Those are the ones who have been true, and it is those who are the righteous. (Quran 2:177)

As God declares through Prophet Zechariah: These are the things that you shall do:Speak the truth to one another;render in your gates judgmentsthat are true and make for peace;do not devise evil in your hearts against one another, andlove no false oath, for all these things I hate, declares theLord. (Biblical Book of Zachariah 8:16-7)

And as Prophet Micah makes it clear, what God wants is not one religious belief or ritual but your whole heart and commitment. He has told you, O man, what is good; and what the Lord requires of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? (Biblical Book of Micah 6:8)

As Prophet Isaiah states:Learn to do right; seek justice, defend the oppressed, take up the cause of the fatherless and plead the case of the widow. (Biblical Book of Isaiah 1:17)

Amos, the farmer-turned-prophet, preached during a time of surging national optimism: business was booming, and boundaries were growing.But Amos saw through the faade and preached against the greed, hypocrisy, and false worship. As our world comes to grips with a pandemic that has devastated booming economies, will we go back to putting our hope in ourselves or will we place our hope in God?Look, the days are comingwhen I will send a famine through the land; not a famine of bread or a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord. People will stagger from sea to sea and roam from north to east seeking the word of the LORD, but they will not find it. (Amos 8:11-12)

See original here:

Religious Diversity And Religious Revival Will Come Together OpEd - Eurasia Review

If we assume that the main task of the social sciences is to provide a theoretical understanding of the events taking place in the world, then the past year and a half since the start of the coronavirus pandemic has provided sufficient time to start doing this. The specific nature of the social sciences in the 21st century is the almost-obligatory combination of theory with a set of values and an ethical imperative. In this regard, the question of ethical analysis of the pandemic is quite appropriate.

Here it could be interesting to look at previous examples. The world wars gave rise to the concept of collective security. The Cuban missile crisis has shaped the modern theory of foreign policy decision-making. The aftermath of many previous major disasters has yielded some form of ethical and theoretical analysis. After Chernobyl, the theory of risk society emerged, which was further developed after Fukushima. What new theory will emerge after Covid? Is it only the theory of the green transformation imperative? After all, the thesis that the Covid crisis should provide a convenient start for restructuring the world economy on green principles is becoming more and more popular. If you look at the global agenda today, its main focus is not at all on overcoming the consequences of the pandemic, but on climate and decarbonisation. Does this mean that the pandemic, in fact, has become only a pretext for a green transformation and therefore does not deserve attention in itself?

During the year and a half of Covid, there has been a discussion about whether the world has changed after the pandemic or remained the same. Various answers to this dilemma are reflected in the publications of the Valdai Discussion Club.in our opinion, properly in this context, the issue of ethical responsibility and an ethical understanding of the pandemic should be considered. What is perhaps quite clear is that the pandemic did not change the egoism of states in world politics. From this point of view, nothing has really changed.

In any case, there is the natural question of what should be done (if anything should it be done at all) to make the consequences of eventual future pandemics less devastating than today? To understand why this choice is ethical, it also makes sense to look at previous disasters. Again, after Chernobyl and Fukushima, the world began to rethink nuclear energy and ideas about its safety; it was removed from the green/clean spectrum. In the discussions held during the first years after both accidents, opinions that the ethical choice of mankind should be the rejection of nuclear power were loudly voiced. Over time, however, they came to naught.

Here the question of how strategies are chosen clearly arises, and Chernobyl can be said to resemble a pandemic. The question is, which is better: to develop in this or that direction, which has been working normally and profitably for decades (cheapness and purity of nuclear energy), knowing that once in a generation a catastrophe can occur, or completely abandoning it.

A similar question arises in relation to a pandemic: is it necessary to create emergency medical capacity (beds) and infectious diseases hospitals, which are not really needed from year to year in the developed countries of the modern world, with their level of healthcare development? Would it be better to redirect these resources, in the interests of society, to other goals (we wont consider the corruption-generating component of this optimisation of medical infrastructure in a number of cases). Are pandemics a once-in-a-generation (or more often) occurrence? A catastrophe can occur, like Covid, for which the medical system in most countries will not be ready. Is it necessary to keep medical reserves in a frozen state and waste resources on them, given the usual state of affairs?

Therefore, even now, if we assume that Covid is an exception, something that could happen once in a generation, then there is no need to keep medical reserves any longer and return to optimisation in ordinary conditions. It seems that several years after the end of the epidemic, this creeping transition back to abandoning reserves and optimising medical infrastructure will somehow happen. This is how the crawling return to nuclear power happened a few years after Chernobyl and Fukushima. Thus, from the point of view of the ethical perception of the challenges of the risk society, nothing really has changed. And heightened ethical responsibility, at least at the level of a desire to change something, will lose steam after first couple of years.

A separate topic related to the ethical perception of the pandemic is a kind of medical totalitarianism, when medical officials determine the basic parameters of the life of society (quarantines, lockdowns, masks, etc.). As the first fears of uncertainty subsided last spring, this medical totalitarianism increasingly began to be perceived as a real threat to human rights and freedoms. Therefore, it led to large-scale social protests in many countries, which often took on a violent nature. Will this medical totalitarianism (a kind of medical analogue of the movie The Matrix) become, not a one-off reaction of the authorities to the pandemic, but a long-term aspect of the new normal where restrictions remain with us forever? There is an understandable managerial temptation to do so. The more restrictions and prohibitions, the simpler the system of control becomes. Here a new nuance appears to the thesis that nothing has changed in the world.

Another area of the new normal after Covid is the issue of poverty, food security and hunger. The economic crisis expected to follow the pandemic, the rise in unemployment, etc., can become delayed long-term triggers to strengthen these processes. Food security is also linked to climate change. All this can lead to obvious social consequences - including the possible erosion and depletion of the global middle class. In turn, these processes can increase migration flows, despite borders, at present, being more tightly closed. Incidentally, it is quite possible to maintain enhanced border controls from a long-term, post-Covid perspective or to selectively open them - since for developed countries the closed borders represent a convenient tool to control unwanted migration pressure, a temptation that wont be given up lightly. Thus, it is possible to predict the growing social stratification both within countries and between them - as a real medium-term consequence of the pandemic. Superimposed on the almost inevitable stratification of winners and losers in the green transformation/hydrogen economy, this could be an important factor in the evolution of the world in the future. Thus, the post-Covid world will become more socially polarised than it is now. This will also become part of the new normal and just another nuance to the thesis that nothing has changed in the world. And the new ethics will have to explain this.

As a result, it seems that the coronavirus "does not deserve" serious ethical comprehension (at least so far) at the level of value determinants of world politics, similar to the comprehension of wars and nuclear disasters. Does this mean that the pandemic is just an annoying accident, which should not distract humanity from other really important matters?

Here is the original post:

Global Ethical Responsibility in the Context of Covid - Valdai Discussion Club

After terming the vaccines developed by global drugmakers as "no panacea", North Korean state media has criticized some countries for storing an excessive stock of coronavirus vaccines while others suffer from a lack of supplies in a recent United Nations session.

In a statement presented at the 74th World Health Assembly, North Korea also urged the World Health Organization to help achieve a fair distribution of the vaccines across the globe.

"The development of COVID-19 vaccines and medicines might be the achievement for the common mankind whereas an unfair reality is to be seen that some countries are procuring and storing the vaccines more than its needs by inspiring the vaccine nationalism plainly when other countries can't even procure it with their affordability," it said.

Criticising further Pyongyang also alleged countries for engaging in "national egoism with the vaccine and making bottleneck for the mass production of it by seeking only for the profit.

"It then called on WHO to make an effort "for a thorough consideration in the moral and ethical phase of the health workers to save the human life and for removal of the global inequality.

"It further added that North Korea has claimed to be coronavirus-free but has taken relatively swift and tough measures against the global pandemic, such as imposing strict border controls, since early last year.

Meanwhile, A shipment of coronavirus vaccines to North Korea via the global COVAX sharing programme that was expected for late May has been delayed again amid protracted consultations, South Korea's Unification Ministry said on Tuesday.

COVAX, which secures vaccines for poor countries, has said it will provide nearly 2 million doses of AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine to North Korea.

(With inputs from agencies)

Go here to read the rest:

North Korea criticises nations for piling up the excessive supply of COVID-19 vaccines - WION

Ellen Teague

This has to be the weightiest book I have ever reviewed at more than 700 pages, and the length is the reason I have delayed reading. However, Christmas and New Year is a good time to look into altruism, and there can be no better resource than Paul Vallely's 'Philanthropy: From Aristotle to Zuckerberg'. There is no surprise that this book, which is nothing short of a 'magnus opus', is the result of five years of research.

Clearly, philanthropy - private initiatives for the public good - is a complex issue, interweaving all manner of motivations and intentions, personal and social, political and economic. We hear that both altruism and egoism are at work in philanthropy.

We learn of the scale of wealth of the world's richest people and the philanthropy of some of them. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation alone has a bigger budget than 70 percent of the world's nations. I was surprised how few of the super-rich donate substantial wealth - around nine percent - and those that do get perks out of it, from privileged access to tickets for prestigious events to having a major say on the boards of charities and even at the highest level political gatherings.

A fascinating chapter, 'Survival of the Fattest' starts with a focus on Andrew Carnegie, the rags-to riches philanthropist who was the wealthiest man in the world in the late nineteenth century. Yet, he once said, "he who dies rich, dies disgraced". Carnegie eventually gave away some $350 million, the bulk of his wealth, but it was built on ruthless tactics such as cutting the wages of his steelworkers to increase profits. He built a network of nearly 3,000 libraries and other institutions to help the poor elevate their aspirations, but social justice was absent from his agenda. Then, as now, wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few, almost completely untouched by tax and regulation. Carnegie and his associates, their critics say, neglected the great ethical question of the day, which centred on, "the distribution rather than the redistribution of wealth". Paul asks, "can epic acts of benevolence ever compensate for a lifetime of callous exploitation?"

There was a change in thinking with the founders of the Quaker confectionary companies: Cadbury's, Fry's, and Rowntree's. During the Victorian era, the popularity of chocolate catapulted the three Quaker confectioners into public prominence and they adopted innovative approaches to business. George and Richard Cadbury believed that benevolence was a quality that should inform the whole way a good life is led. They built houses, parks and recreation centres in Bourneville, Birmingham, so that their workers had comfortable accommodation away from city smog. Quaker employers also pioneered pension schemes and lobbied for improved labour laws. They founded charities and philanthropic foundations that continue today. Yet, they realised that philanthropy on its own cannot deliver social justice.

I found myself most fascinated by the sections about today's philanthropists. Philanthropy, it is popularly supposed, transfers money from the rich to the poor. However, in the US barely a fifth of the money donated by big givers goes to the poor. Much goes to the arts, sports teams and other cultural pursuits, and half goes to education and healthcare. The biggest donations in education in 2019 went to the elite universities and schools that the rich themselves had attended. In the UK, in the 10-year period to 2017, more than two-thirds of all millionaire donations - 4.79bn - went to higher education, and half to just two universities: Oxford and Cambridge. When the rich and the middle classes give to schools, they give more to those attended by their own children than to those of the poor. British millionaires in that same decade gave 1.04bn to the arts, and 222m to alleviating poverty.

Much elite philanthropy is about elite causes. It is always an expression of power and giving is often based on the personal whims of super-rich individuals. The philanthropy of Microsoft's Bill Gates has brought huge advances in tackling Malaria, for example, and his knowledge of health threats led him to warn prophetically in 2015 about the dangers of viral pandemics. However, many radical grassroots groups based in the global south question the unaccountability of his power. They suggest there has been an overwhelming focus on developing and promoting new vaccines at the expense of supporting local public health systems. Also, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has invested heavily in genetically modified organism (GMO) research and advocated for genetically modified crops - also a favourite beneficiary of the Sainsbury family - over local agroecology practices to meet food security goals. Indian ecologist Vandana Shiva has challenged "philanthro-imperialism" and said in 2019 that "industrial agriculture is inefficient, unproductive, creates dependency on corporations for eternal inputs, and dependency on global supply chains which impose uniformity on farms."

Paul explores the argument that public goods and services should remain within democratic institutions. The Global Policy Forum, an independent policy watchdog that monitors the work of the United Nations general assembly, warned in 2015, about, "the unpredictable and insufficient financing of public goods, the lack of monitoring and accountability mechanisms, and the prevailing practice of applying business logic to the provision of public goods". Perhaps philanthropists' money might be put to better use if it was collected as taxes and spent according to the priorities of a democratically elected government. In which case, Paul reflects, should the state be giving tax relief to philanthropists at all? The Facebook empire, for example, is one of the top five tech companies in the UK that avoided 1.3 billion in tax in 2018. Paul suggests that, "if Mark Zuckerberg wants to demonstrate the moral seriousness of his philanthropism he should pay more tax." Disposal of power should go alongside disposing of wealth.

A 2017 report by Oxfam called 'An Economy for the 99%' highlighted the injustice and unsustainability of a world suffering from widening levels of inequality: for since the early 1990s, the top 1% of the world's wealthy people have gained more income than the entire bottom 50%. Oxfam's report places the blame firmly with corporations and the global market economies in which they operate. Some kinds of philanthropy may have become not just undemocratic, but anti-democratic. Charles Koch and his late brother, David, are undoubtedly the most prominent example of rightwing philanthropy at work, with the secret funding of climate denial groups by Koch industries. Should philanthropists have so much power to advance their own vision of a better society?

A chapter on celebrity philanthrophy drew heavily on Paul's insights into Bob Geldof's outlook after accompanying him to Africa following the success of LiveAid. He admires how pop stars Geldof and Bono both informed themselves of the structural injustices within the issue of international debt and trade. And yet, he also documents the unease that celebrities were heard at the G8 summit in Gleneagles in July 2015 at the expense of voices from the global south. As one of the half a million people attending 'Make Poverty History' in Scotland a decade earlier who could find only Geldof being interviewed on the television news that evening, I am sympathetic to this, but undoubtedly celebrities helped make Jubilee 2000 in particular the success that it was. Geldof explained to Paul that he has continued his commitment over more than three decades, "because it works".

Of course, Jubilee 2000, Make Poverty History and today's Climate campaigns have a backbone of support from the churches. Church altruism goes back a long way: from Saints Basil the Great and Ambrose in the fourth century talking about almsgiving being redemptive, to Thomas Aquinas endorsing charitable outreach, to the growth in the Caritas network in the 1980s, to Pope Francis calling climate stability a common good and urging action to protect it. Work towards social, economic and environmental justice is firmly on the agenda of the churches. Fossil fuel disinvestment, for example, is a growing area for Christian campaigning, along with positive impact investing in such areas as renewable energy, which will first help poor communities most impacted by a warming world.

The very first question in the book is, "Can the rich save the world?"

There are more philanthropists than ever before, giving tens of billions annually to charitable causes. So how come inequality keeps rising? Paul suggests that fears are growing amongst the super-rich that further growth in inequality, "could lead to the kind of anti-capitalist unrest which might threaten the social order to such a degree that could render philanthropy quite irrelevant." He urges them to abandon top-down initiatives and pet projects and think afresh - forging partnerships with one another, with governments, with the business sector and with communities at the grassroots.

Paul's long-term experience of justice and peace networks, knowledge of the architecture of philanthropy, considerable writing skills and perception have made him the perfect person to write this fascinating book.

Philanthropy: From Aristotle to ZuckerbergPAUL VALLELY(BLOOMSBURY CONTINUUM, 768 PP, 30)Tablet bookshop price 25 Tel 020 7799 4064

Tags: Paul Vallely, Philanthropy, Philanthropy - Can the rich save the world?, Ellen Teague, Charity

ICN aims to provide speedy and accurate news coverage of all subjects of interest to Catholics and the wider Christian community. As our audience increases - so do our costs. We need your help to continue this work.

Please support our journalism by donating to ICN today.

Read the original here:

Book Review: Philanthropy - Can the rich save the world? - Independent Catholic News

Although ethical egoism and ethical subjectivism differ in many respects, they are both ethical theories. The purpose of ethical theories is to put in place a system of principles individuals use to make moral choices and to justify those choices. By doing this, the ultimate goal is to help people lead the best life possible for themselves and for society. Ethical egoism and ethical subjectivism approach these goals in different ways.

Ethical egoism contends each person has a duty to act in ways that promote his or her self-interest above the interests of all others. When a moral decision must be made, the person should exclusively consider how the results will benefit him or her. This differs from other types of ethical theories which give weight to how the choice will affect others as well. For example, if you would benefit more from keeping $10,000 than you would from donating it to charity then the morally correct decision would be to keep the money for yourself if you are an ethical egoist.

Ethical subjectivism argues that no ethical theory is objectively true. Statements contained in those theories, such as the duty to act in ones self interest, are only true as long as they are believed by the person holding the theory. Therefore, ethics becomes less a matter of what is objectively true and more a matter of individual perception. If Person A believes it is morally right to keep $10,000 instead of donating it to charity then for Person A that is the ethical thing to do. However, if Person B believes donating the money to others would be ethically correct then for Person B that is the correct ethical decision.

Ethical subjectivism contends that objective concepts of good and evil or right and wrong do not exist. This leads into other theories such as moral relativism which suggests these concepts are determined by agreement. On the other hand, ethical egoism argues that what is right and good is the action that promotes a persons self-interest. Likewise, what is wrong and bad goes against that persons self-interest. Additionally, the ethical egoist believes his or her decisions can be objectively justified by weighing the benefits for them and the costs for them. However, the ethical subjectivist would argue that those supposedly objective justifications are really just subjective statements of the persons values and desires. Whether one thinks it is ethically right to donate to charity or keep the money is not much different for the ethical subjectivist then thinking chocolate or vanilla ice cream is the best flavor.

Although ethical egoism and ethical subjectivisms biggest difference is that the former claims to be objectively true while the latter says no ethical theory can be objectively true, they do have a common theme: the importance of the individual. In both theories what is right and wrong comes down to the beliefs, values, and interests of the person making the moral decision. In fact because no one can never predict the full ramifications of their ethical decisions, it could be argued that ethical egoists are merely basing their decisions on what they perceive to be best for them at the time and not on objective criteria.

Go here to see the original:

The Difference Between Ethical Egoism & Ethical ...

75 years have passed since the end of the Great Patriotic War. Several generations have grown up over the years. The political map of the planet has changed. The Soviet Union that claimed an epic, crushing victory over Nazism and saved the entire world is gone. Besides, the events of that war have long become a distant memory, even for its participants. So why does Russia celebrate the 9th of May as the biggest holiday? Why does life almost come to a halt on June 22? And why does one feel a lump rise in their throat?

They usually say that the war has left a deep imprint on every familys history. Behind these words, there are fates of millions of people, their sufferings and the pain of loss. Behind these words, there is also the pride, the truth and the memory.

For my parents, the war meant the terrible ordeals of the Siege of Leningrad where my two-year old brother Vitya died. It was the place where my mother miraculously managed to survive. My father, despite being exempt from active duty, volunteered to defend his hometown. He made the same decision as millions of Soviet citizens. He fought at the Nevsky Pyatachok bridgehead and was severely wounded. And the more years pass, the more I feel the need to talk to my parents and learn more about the war period of their lives. But I no longer have the opportunity to do so. This is the reason why I treasure in my heart the conversations I had with my father and mother on this subject, as well as the little emotion they showed.

People of my age and I believe it is important that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren understand the torment and hardships their ancestors had to endure. They need to understand how their ancestors managed to persevere and win. Where did their sheer, unbending willpower that amazed and fascinated the whole world come from? Sure, they were defending their homes, children, loved ones and families. However, what they shared was the love for their homeland, their Motherland. That deep-seated, intimate feeling is fully reflected in the very essence of our nation and became one of the decisive factors in its heroic, sacrificial fight against the Nazis.

People often wonder: What would todays generation do? How will it act when faced with a crisis situation? I see young doctors, nurses, sometimes fresh graduates that go to the red zone to save lives. I see our servicemen fighting international terrorism in the North Caucasus, fighting to the bitter end in Syria. They are so young. Many servicemen who were part of the legendary, immortal 6th Paratroop Company were 1920 years old. But all of them proved that they deserved to inherit the feat of the warriors of our Motherland that defended it during the Great Patriotic War.

This is why I am confident that one of the characteristic features of the peoples of Russia is to fulfil their duty without feeling sorry for themselves when the circumstances so demand. Such values as selflessness, patriotism, love for their home, their family and Fatherland remain fundamental and integral to the Russian society to this day. These values are, to a large extent, the backbone of our countrys sovereignty.

Nowadays, we have new traditions created by the people, such as the Immortal Regiment. This is the memory march that symbolises our gratitude, as well as the living connection and the blood ties between generations. Millions of people come out to the streets carrying the photographs of their relatives who defended their Fatherland and defeated the Nazis. This means that their lives, the ordeals and sacrifices they endured, as well as the Victory that they passed to us will never be forgotten.

We have a responsibility to our past and our future to do our utmost to prevent those horrible tragedies from happening ever again. Hence, I was compelled to come out with an article about World War II and the Great Patriotic War. I have discussed this idea on several occasions with world leaders, and they have showed their support. At the summit of CIS leaders held at the end of last year, we all agreed on one thing: it is essential to pass on to future generations the memory of the fact that the Nazis were defeated first and foremost by the entire Soviet people and that representatives of all republics of the Soviet Union fought side by side together in that heroic battle, both on the frontlines and in the rear. During that summit, I also talked with my counterparts about the challenging pre-war period.

That conversation caused a stir in Europe and the world. It means that it is indeed high time that we revisited the lessons of the past. At the same time, there were many emotional outbursts, poorly disguised insecurities and loud accusations that followed. Acting out of habit, certain politicians rushed to claim that Russia was trying to rewrite history. However, they failed to rebut a single fact or refute a single argument. It is indeed difficult, if not impossible, to argue with the original documents that, by the way, can be found not only in Russian, but also in foreign archives.

Thus, there is a need to further examine the reasons that caused the world war and reflect on its complicated events, tragedies and victories, as well as its lessons, both for our country and the entire world. And like I said, it is crucial to rely exclusively on archive documents and contemporary evidence while avoiding any ideological or politicised speculations.

I would like to once again recall the obvious fact. The root causes of World War II mainly stem from the decisions made after World War I. The Treaty of Versailles became a symbol of grave injustice for Germany. It basically implied that the country was to be robbed, being forced to pay enormous reparations to the Western allies that drained its economy. French Marshal Ferdinand Foch who served as the Supreme Allied Commander gave a prophetic description of that Treaty: This is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years.

It was the national humiliation that became a fertile ground for radical and revenge-seeking sentiments in Germany. The Nazis skilfully played on peoples emotions and built their propaganda promising to deliver Germany from the legacy of Versailles and restore the country to its former power while essentially pushing German people into war. Paradoxically, the Western states, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States, directly or indirectly contributed to this. Their financial and industrial enterprises actively invested in German factories and plants manufacturing military products. Besides, many people in the aristocracy and political establishment supported radical, far-right and nationalist movements that were on the rise both in Germany and in Europe.

Versailles world order caused numerous implicit controversies and apparent conflicts. They revolved around the borders of new European states randomly set by the victors in World War I. That boundary delimitation was almost immediately followed by territorial disputes and mutual claims that turned into time bombs.

One of the major outcomes of World War I was the establishment of the League of Nations. There were high expectations for that international organisation to ensure lasting peace and collective security. It was a progressive idea that, if followed through consistently, could actually prevent the horrors of a global war from happening again.

However, the League of Nations dominated by the victorious powers of France and the United Kingdom proved ineffective and just got swamped by pointless discussions. The League of Nations and the European continent in general turned a deaf ear to the repeated calls of the Soviet Union to establish an equitable collective security system, and sign an Eastern European pact and a Pacific pact to prevent aggression. These proposals were disregarded.

The League of Nations also failed to prevent conflicts in various parts of the world, such as the attack of Italy on Ethiopia, a civil war in Spain, the Japanese aggression against China and the Anschluss of Austria. Furthermore, in case of the Munich Betrayal that, in addition to Hitler and Mussolini, involved British and French leaders, Czechoslovakia was taken apart with the full approval of the League of Nations. I would like to point out in this regard that, unlike many other European leaders of that time, Stalin did not disgrace himself by meeting with Hitler who was known among the Western nations as quite a reputable politician and was a welcome guest in the European capitals.

Poland was also engaged in the partition of Czechoslovakia along with Germany. They decided together in advance who would get what Czechoslovak territories. On September 20, 1938, Polish Ambassador to Germany Jzef Lipski reported to Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland Jzef Beck on the following assurances made by Hitler: in case of a conflict between Poland and Czechoslovakia over our interests in Teschen, the Reich would stand by Poland. The Nazi leader even prompted and advised that Poland started to act only after the Germans occupy the Sudetes.

Poland was aware that without Hitlers support, its annexationist plans were doomed to fail. I would like to quote in this regard a record of the conversation between German Ambassador to Warsaw Hans-Adolf von Moltke and Jzef Beck that took place on October 1, 1938, and was focused on the Polish-Czech relations and the position of the Soviet Union in this matter. It says: Mr Beck expressed real gratitude for the loyal treatment accorded to Polish interests at the Munich conference, as well as the sincerity of relations during the Czech conflict. The Government and the public [of Poland] fully appreciated the attitude of the Fuehrer and Chancellor.

The partition of Czechoslovakia was brutal and cynical. Munich destroyed even the formal, fragile guarantees that remained on the continent. It showed that mutual agreements were worthless. It was the Munich Betrayal that served as the trigger and made the great war in Europe inevitable.

Today, European politicians, and Polish leaders in particular, wish to sweep the Munich Betrayal under the carpet. Why? The fact that their countries once broke their commitments and supported the Munich Betrayal, with some of them even participating in divvying up the take, is not the only reason. Another is that it is kind of embarrassing to recall that during those dramatic days of 1938, the Soviet Union was the only one to stand up for Czechoslovakia.

The Soviet Union, in accordance with its international obligations, including agreements with France and Czechoslovakia, tried to prevent the tragedy from happening. Meanwhile, Poland, in pursuit of its interests, was doing its utmost to hamper the establishment of a collective security system in Europe. Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Jzef Beck wrote about it directly in his letter of September 19, 1938 to the aforementioned Ambassador Jzef Lipski before his meeting with Hitler: in the past year, the Polish government rejected four times the proposal to join the international interfering in defence of Czechoslovakia.

Britain, as well as France, which was at the time the main ally of the Czechs and Slovaks, chose to withdraw their guarantees and abandon this Eastern European country to its fate. In so doing, they sought to direct the attention of the Nazis eastward so that Germany and the Soviet Union would inevitably clash and bleed each other white.

That was the essence of the western policy of appeasement, which was pursued not only towards the Third Reich but also towards other participants of the so-called Anti-Comintern Pact the fascist Italy and militarist Japan. In the Far East, this policy culminated in the conclusion of the Anglo-Japanese agreement in the summer of 1939, which gave Tokyo a free hand in China. The leading European powers were unwilling to recognise the mortal danger posed by Germany and its allies to the whole world. They were hoping that they themselves would be left untouched by the war.

The Munich Betrayal showed to the Soviet Union that the Western countries would deal with security issues without taking its interests into account. In fact, they could even create an anti-Soviet front, if needed.

Nevertheless, the Soviet Union did its utmost to use every chance to create an Anti-Hitler coalition. Despite I will say it again the doubledealing on the part of the Western countries. For instance, the intelligence services reported to the Soviet leadership detailed information on the behind-the-scenes contacts between Britain and Germany in the summer of 1939. The important thing is that those contacts were quite active and practically coincided with the tripartite negotiations between France, Great Britain and the USSR, which were, on the contrary, deliberately protracted by the Western partners. In this connection, I will cite a document from the British archives. It contains instructions to the British military mission that came to Moscow in August 1939. It directly states that the delegation was to proceed with negotiations very slowly, and that the Government of the United Kingdom was not ready to assume any obligations spelled out in detail and limiting their freedom of action under any circumstances. I will also note that, unlike the British and French delegations, the Soviet delegation was headed by top commanders of the Red Army, who had the necessary authority to sign a military convention on the organisation of military defence of England, France and the USSR against aggression in Europe.

Poland played its role in the failure of those negotiations as it did not want to have any obligations to the Soviet side. Even under pressure from their Western allies, the Polish leadership rejected the idea of joint action with the Red Army to fight against the Wehrmacht. It was only when they learned of the arrival of J. Ribbentrop to Moscow that J. Beck reluctantly and not directly, but through French diplomats, notified the Soviet side: in the event of joint action against the German aggression, cooperation between Poland and the Soviet Union, subject to technical conditions which have to be agreed, is not out of the question. At the same time, he explained to his colleagues: I agreed to this wording only for the sake of the tactics, and our core position in relation to the Soviet Union is final and remains unchanged.

In these circumstances, the Soviet Union signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Germany. It was practically the last among the European countries to do so. Besides, it was done in the face of a real threat of war on two fronts with Germany in the west and with Japan in the east, where intense fighting on the Khalkhin Gol River was already underway.

Stalin and his entourage, indeed, deserve many legitimate accusations. We remember the crimes committed by the regime against its own people and the horror of mass repressions. In other words, there are many things the Soviet leaders can be reproached for, but poor understanding of the nature of external threats is not one of them. They saw how attempts were made to leave the Soviet Union alone to deal with Germany and its allies. Bearing in mind this real threat, they sought to buy precious time needed to strengthen the countrys defences.

Nowadays, we hear lots of speculations and accusations against modern Russia in connection with the Non-Aggression Pact signed back then. Yes, Russia is the legal successor state to the USSR, and the Soviet period with all its triumphs and tragedies is an inalienable part of our thousand-year-long history. However, let me also remind you that the Soviet Union gave a legal and moral assessment of the so-called MolotovRibbentrop Pact. The Supreme Soviet in its resolution of December 24, 1989 officially denounced the secret protocols as an act of personal power which in no way reected the will of the Soviet people who bear no responsibility for this collusion.

Yet other states prefer to forget the agreements carrying signatures of the Nazis and Western politicians, not to mention giving legal or political assessments of such cooperation, including the silent acquiescence or even direct abetment of some European politicians in the barbarous plans of the Nazis. It will suffice to remember the cynical phrase said by Polish Ambassador to Germany J. Lipski during his conversation with Hitler on September 20, 1938: for solving the Jewish problem, we [the Poles] will build in his honour a splendid monument in Warsaw.

Besides, we do not know if there were any secret protocols or annexes to agreements of a number of countries with the Nazis. The only thing that is left to do is to take their word for it. In particular, materials pertaining to the secret Anglo-German talks still have not been declassified. Therefore, we urge all states to step up the process of making their archives public and publishing previously unknown documents of the war and pre-war periods the way Russia has been doing it in recent years. In this context, we are ready for broad cooperation and joint research projects engaging historians.

But let us go back to the events immediately preceding the Second World War. It was nave to believe that Hitler, once done with Czechoslovakia, would not make new territorial claims. This time the claims involved its recent accomplice in the partition of Czechoslovakia Poland. Here, the legacy of Versailles, particularly the fate of the so-called Danzig Corridor, was yet again used as the pretext. The blame for the tragedy that Poland then suffered lies entirely with the Polish leadership, which had impeded the formation of a military alliance between Britain, France and the Soviet Union and relied on the help from its Western partners, throwing its own people under the steamroller of Hitlers machine of destruction.

The German offensive was mounted in full accordance with the blitzkrieg doctrine. Despite the fierce, heroic resistance of the Polish army, on September 8, 1939 only a week after the war broke out the German troops were on the approaches to Warsaw. By September 17, the military and political leaders of Poland had fled to Romania, betraying its people, who continued to fight against the invaders.

Polands hope for help from its Western allies was vain. After the war against Germany was declared, the French troops advanced only a few tens of kilometres deep into the German territory. All of it looked like a mere demonstration of vigorous action. Moreover, the Anglo-French Supreme War Council, holding its first meeting on September 12, 1939 in the French city of Abbeville, decided to call off the offensive altogether in view of the rapid developments in Poland. That was when the infamous Phony War started. What Britain and France did was a blatant betrayal of their obligations to Poland.

Later, during the Nuremberg Trials, German generals explained their quick success in the East. Former Chief of the Operations Staff of the German Armed Forces High Command General Alfred Jodl admitted: we did not suffer defeat as early as 1939 only because about 110 French and British divisions stationed in the west against 23 German divisions during our war with Poland remained absolutely idle.

I asked for retrieval from the archives of the whole body of materials pertaining to the contacts between the USSR and Germany in the dramatic days of August and September 1939. According to the documents, paragraph 2 of the Secret Protocol to the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of August 23, 1939 stated that, in the event of territorial-political reorganisation of the districts making up the Polish state, the border between the spheres of interest of the two countries would run approximately along the Narew, Vistula and San rivers. In other words, the Soviet sphere of influence included not only the territories that were mostly home to Ukrainian and Belorussian population but also the historically Polish lands in the Vistula and Bug interfluve. This fact is known to very few these days.

Similarly, very few know that, immediately after the attack on Poland, in the early days of September 1939, Berlin strongly and repeatedly called on Moscow to join the military action. However, the Soviet leadership ignored those calls and planned to avoid engaging in the dramatic developments as long as possible.

It was only when it became absolutely clear that Great Britain and France were not going to help their ally and the Wehrmacht could swiftly occupy entire Poland and thus appear on the approaches to Minsk that the Soviet Union decided to send in, on the morning of September 17, Red Army units into the so-called Eastern Borderlines (Kresy), which nowadays form part of the territories of Belorussia, Ukraine and Lithuania.

Obviously, there was no alternative. Otherwise, the USSR would face seriously increased risks because I will say this again the old Soviet-Polish border ran only within a few tens of kilometres from Minsk. The country would have to enter the inevitable war with the Nazis from very disadvantageous strategic positions, while millions of people of different nationalities, including the Jews living near Brest and Grodno, Przemyl, Lvov and Wilno, would be left to die at the hands of the Nazis and their local accomplices anti-Semites and radical nationalists.

The fact that the Soviet Union sought to avoid engaging in the growing conflict for as long as possible and was unwilling to fight side by side with Germany was the reason why the real contact between the Soviet and the German troops occurred much farther east than the borders agreed in the secret protocol. It was not on the Vistula River but closer to the so-called Curzon Line, which back in 1919 was recommended by the Triple Entente as the eastern border of Poland.

As is known, the subjunctive mood can hardly be used when we speak of the past events. I will only say that, in September 1939, the Soviet leadership had an opportunity to move the western borders of the USSR even farther west, all the way to Warsaw, but decided against it.

The Germans suggested formalising the new status quo. On September 28, 1939 J. Ribbentrop and V. Molotov signed in Moscow the Boundary and Friendship Treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union, as well as the secret protocol on changing the state border, according to which the border was recognised at the demarcation line where the two armies de-facto stood.

In autumn 1939, the Soviet Union, pursuing its strategic military and defensive goals, started the process of incorporation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Their accession to the USSR was implemented on a contractual basis, with the consent of the elected authorities. This was in line with international and state law of that time. Besides, in October 1939, the city of Wilno and the surrounding area, which had previously been part of Poland, were returned to Lithuania. The Baltic republics within the USSR preserved their government bodies, language, and had representation in the higher government entities of the Soviet Union.

During all these months there was an ongoing invisible diplomatic and politico-military struggle and intelligence work. Moscow understood that it was facing a fierce and cruel enemy, and that a covert war against Nazism was already going on. And there was no reason to take official statements and formal protocol notes of that time as a proof of friendship between the USSR and Germany. The Soviet Union had active trade and technical contacts not only with Germany, but with other countries as well. Whereas Hitler tried again and again to draw the Soviet Union into Germanys confrontation with the UK. But the Soviet government stood firm.

The last attempt to persuade the USSR to act together was made by Hitler during Molotovs visit to Berlin in November 1940. But Molotov accurately followed Stalins instructions and limited himself to a general discussion of the German idea of the Soviet Union joining the Tripartite Pact signed by Germany, Italy and Japan in September 1940 and directed against the UK and the USA. No wonder that already on November 17 Molotov gave the following instructions to Soviet plenipotentiary representative in London Ivan Maisky: For your informationNo agreement was signed or was intended to be signed in Berlin. We just exchanged our views in Berlinand that was allApparently, the Germans and the Japanese seem anxious to push us towards the Gulf and India. We declined the discussion of this matter as we consider such advice on the part of Germany to be inappropriate. And on November 25, the Soviet leadership called it a day altogether by officially putting forward to Berlin the conditions that were unacceptable to the Nazis, including the withdrawal of German troops from Finland, mutual assistance treaty between Bulgaria and the USSR, and a number of others. Thus it deliberately excluded any possibility of joining the Pact. Such position definitely shaped the Fuehrers intention to unleash a war against the USSR. And already in December, putting aside the warnings of his strategists about the disastrous danger of having a two-front war, Hitler approved Operation Barbarossa. He did this with the knowledge that the Soviet Union was the major force that opposed him in Europe and that the upcoming battle in the East would decide the outcome of the world war. And he had no doubts as to the swiftness and success of the Moscow campaign.

And here I would like to highlight the following: Western countries, as a matter of fact, agreed at that time with the Soviet actions and recognised the Soviet Unions intention to ensure its national security. Indeed, back on October 1, 1939 Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty back then, in his speech on the radio said, Russia has pursued a cold policy of self-interest But that the Russian Armies should stand on this line [meaning the new Western border] was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. On October 4, 1939, speaking in the House of Lords, Britains Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax said, it should be recalled that the Soviet governments actions were to move the border essentially to the line recommended at the Versailles Conference by Lord Curzon I only cite historical facts and believe they are indisputable. Prominent British politician and statesman David Lloyd George emphasised, The Russian Armies occupied the territories that are not Polish and that were forcibly seized by Poland after World War I It would be an act of criminal insanity to put the Russian advancement on a par with the German one.

In informal communications with Soviet plenipotentiary representative Ivan Maisky, British high-ranking politicians and diplomats spoke even more openly. On October 17, 1939, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs R. A. Butler confided to him that the British government circles believed there could be no question of returning Western Ukraine and Belorussia to Poland. According to him, if it had been possible to create an ethnographic Poland of a modest size with a guarantee not only of the USSR and Germany, but also of Britain and France, the British government would have considered itself quite satisfied. On October 27, 1939, Neville Chamberlains senior advisor Horace Wilson said that Poland had to be restored as an independent state on its ethnographic basis, but without Western Ukraine and Belorussia.

It is worth noting that in the course of these conversations the possibilities for improving British-Soviet relations were also explored. These contacts to a large extent laid the foundation for future alliance and Anti-Hitler coalition. Winston Churchill stood out among responsible and far-sighted politicians and, despite his infamous dislike for the USSR, had been in favour of cooperating with the Soviets even before. Back in May 1939, he said in the House of Commons, We shall be in mortal danger if we fail to create a Grand Alliance against aggression. The worst folly would be to drive away any natural cooperation with Soviet Russia And after the start of hostilities in Europe, at his meeting with Ivan Maisky on October 6, 1939 he confided that there were no serious contradictions between the UK and the USSR and, therefore, there was no reason for strained or unsatisfactory relations. He also mentioned that the British government was eager to develop trade relations and willing to discuss any other measures that might improve the relationships.

World War II did not happen overnight, nor did it start unexpectedly or all of a sudden. And German aggression against Poland was not out of nowhere. It was the result of a number of tendencies and factors in the world politics of that time. All pre-war events fell into place to form one fatal chain. But, undoubtedly, the main factors that predetermined the greatest tragedy in the history of mankind were state egoism, cowardice, appeasement of the aggressor who was gaining strength, and unwillingness of political elites to search for compromise.

Therefore, it is unfair to claim that the two-day visit to Moscow of Nazi Foreign Minister J. Ribbentrop was the main reason for the start of World War II. All the leading countries are to a certain extent responsible for its outbreak. Each of them made fatal mistakes, arrogantly believing that they could outsmart others, secure unilateral advantages for themselves or stay away from the impending global catastrophe. And this short-sightedness, the refusal to create a collective security system cost millions of lives and tremendous losses.

Saying this, I by no means intend to take on the role of a judge, to accuse or acquit anyone, let alone initiate a new round of international information confrontation in the historical field that could set countries and peoples at loggerheads. I believe that it is academics with a wide representation of respected scholars from different countries of the world who should search for a balanced assessment of what happened. We all need the truth and objectivity. On my part, I have always encouraged my colleagues to build a calm, open and trust-based dialogue, to look at the common past in a self-critical and unbiased manner. Such an approach will make it possible not to repeat the mistakes committed back then and to ensure peaceful and successful development for years to come.

However, many of our partners are not yet ready for joint work. On the contrary, pursuing their goals, they increase the number and the scope of information attacks against our country, trying to make us provide excuses and feel guilty. They adopt thoroughly hypocritical and politically motivated declarations. Thus, for example, the resolution on the Importance of European Remembrance for the Future of Europe approved by the European Parliament on September 19, 2019 directly accused the USSR along with the Nazi Germany of unleashing the Second World War. Needless to say, there is no mention of Munich in it whatsoever.

I believe that such paperwork for I cannot call this resolution a document which is clearly intended to provoke a scandal, is fraught with real and dangerous threats. Indeed, it was adopted by a highly respectable institution. And what did it show? Regrettably, it revealed a deliberate policy aimed at destroying the post-war world order whose creation was a matter of honour and responsibility for the countries a number of representatives of which voted today in favour of this deceitful resolution. Thus, they challenged the conclusions of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the efforts of the international community to create after the victorious 1945 universal international institutions. Let me remind you in this regard that the process of European integration itself leading to the establishment of relevant structures, including the European Parliament, became possible only due to the lessons learnt form the past and its accurate legal and political assessment. And those who deliberately put this consensus into question undermine the foundations of the entire post-war Europe.

Apart from posing a threat to the fundamental principles of the world order, this also raises certain moral and ethical issues. Desecrating and insulting the memory is mean. Meanness can be deliberate, hypocritical and pretty much intentional as in the situation when declarations commemorating the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II mention all participants in the Anti-Hitler coalition except for the Soviet Union. Meanness can be cowardly as in the situation when monuments erected in honour of those who fought against Nazism are demolished and these shameful acts are justified by the false slogans of the fight against an unwelcome ideology and alleged occupation. Meanness can also be bloody as in the situation when those who come out against neo-Nazis and Banderas successors are killed and burned. Once again, meanness can have different manifestations, but this does not make it less disgusting.

Neglecting the lessons of history inevitably leads to a harsh payback. We will firmly uphold the truth based on documented historical facts. We will continue to be honest and impartial about the events of World War II. This includes a large-scale project to establish Russias largest collection of archival records, film and photo materials about the history of World War II and the prewar period.

Such work is already underway. Many new, recently discovered or declassified materials were also used in the preparation of this article. In this connection, I can state with all responsibility that there are no archive documents that would confirm the assumption that the USSR intended to start a preventive war against Germany. The Soviet military leadership indeed followed a doctrine according to which, in the event of aggression, the Red Army would promptly confront the enemy, go on the offensive and wage war on enemy territory. However, such strategic plans did not imply any intention to attack Germany first.

Of course, military planning documents, letters of instruction of Soviet and German headquarters are now available to historians. Finally, we know the true course of events. From the perspective of this knowledge, many argue about the actions, mistakes and misjudgement of the countrys military and political leadership. In this regard, I will say one thing: along with a huge flow of misinformation of various kinds, Soviet leaders also received true information about the upcoming Nazi aggression. And in the pre-war months, they took steps to improve the combat readiness of the country, including the secret recruitment of a part of those liable for military duty for military training and the redeployment of units and reserves from internal military districts to western borders.

The war did not come as a surprise, people were expecting it, preparing for it. But the Nazi attack was truly unprecedented in terms of its destructive power. On June 22, 1941, the Soviet Union faced the strongest, most mobilised and skilled army in the world with the industrial, economic and military potential of almost all Europe working for it. Not only the Wehrmacht, but also Germanys satellites, military contingents of many other states of the European continent, took part in this deadly invasion.

The most serious military defeats in 1941 brought the country to the brink of catastrophe. Combat power and control had to be restored by extreme means, nation-wide mobilisation and intensification of all efforts of the state and the people. In summer 1941, millions of citizens, hundreds of factories and industries began to be evacuated under enemy fire to the east of the country. The manufacture of weapons and munition, that had started to be supplied to the front already in the first military winter, was launched behind the lines in the shortest possible time, and by 1943, the rates of military production of Germany and its allies were exceeded. Within eighteen months, the Soviet people did something that seemed impossible. Both on the front lines and the home front. It is still hard to realise, understand and imagine what incredible efforts, courage, dedication these greatest achievements were worth.

The tremendous power of Soviet society, united by the desire to protect their native land, rose against the powerful, armed to the teeth, cold-blooded Nazi invading machine. It stood up to take revenge on the enemy, who had broken, trampled peaceful life, peoples plans and hopes.

Of course, fear, confusion and desperation were taking over some people during this terrible and bloody war. There were betrayal and desertion. The harsh splits caused by the revolution and the Civil War, nihilism, mockery of national history, traditions and faith that the Bolsheviks tried to impose, especially in the first years after coming to power all of this had its impact. But the general attitude of the of Soviet citizens and our compatriots who found themselves abroad was different to save and protect the Motherland. It was a real and irrepressible impulse. People were looking for support in true patriotic values.

The Nazi strategists were convinced that a huge multinational state could easily be brought to heel. They thought that the sudden outbreak of the war, its mercilessness and unbearable hardships would inevitably exacerbate inter-ethnic relations. And that the country could be split into pieces. Hitler clearly stated: Our policy towards the peoples living in the vastness of Russia should be to promote any form of disagreement and split.

But from the very first days, it was clear that the Nazi plan had failed. The Brest Fortress was protected to the last drop of blood by its defenders representing more than 30 ethnicities. Throughout the war both in large-scale decisive battles and in the protection of every foothold, every metre of native land we see examples of such unity.

The Volga region and the Urals, Siberia and the Far East, the republics of Central Asia and Transcaucasia became home to millions of evacuees. Their residents shared everything they had and provided all the support they could. Friendship of peoples and mutual help became a real indestructible fortress for the enemy.

The Soviet Union and the Red Army, no matter what anyone is trying to prove today, made the main and crucial contribution to the defeat of Nazism. These were heroes who fought to the end surrounded by the enemy at Bialystok and Mogilev, Uman and Kiev, Vyazma and Kharkov. They launched attacks near Moscow and Stalingrad, Sevastopol and Odessa, Kursk and Smolensk. They liberated Warsaw, Belgrade, Vienna and Prague. They stormed Koenigsberg and Berlin.

We contend for genuine, unvarnished or whitewashed truth about war. This national, human truth, which is hard, bitter and merciless, has been handed down to us by writers and poets who walked through fire and hell of front trials. For my generation, as well as for many others, their honest and deep stories, novels, piercing trench prose and poems have left their mark on the soul forever. Honouring veterans who did everything they could for the Victory and remembering those who died on the battlefield has become our moral duty.

And today, the simple and great in their essence lines of Alexander Tvardovskys poem I was killed near Rzhev dedicated to the participants of the bloody and brutal battle of the Great Patriotic War in the centre of the Soviet-German front line are astonishing. In the battles for Rzhev and the Rzhev Salient alone from October 1941 to March 1943, the Red Army lost 1,342,888 people, including wounded and missing in action. For the first time, I call out these terrible, tragic and far from complete figures collected from archive sources. I do it to honour the memory of the feat of known and nameless heroes, who for various reasons were undeservingly, and unfairly little talked about or not mentioned at all in the post-war years.

Let me cite another document. This is a report of February 1945 on reparation from Germany by the Allied Commission on Reparations headed by Ivan Maisky. The Commissions task was to define a formula according to which defeated Germany would have to pay for the damages sustained by the victor powers. The Commission concluded that the number of soldier-days spent by Germany on the Soviet front is at least 10 times higher than on all other allied fronts. The Soviet front also had to handle four-fifths of German tanks and about two-thirds of German aircraft. On the whole, the USSR accounted for about 75 percent of all military efforts undertaken by the Anti-Hitler Coalition. During the war period, the Red Army ground up 626 divisions of the Axis states, of which 508 were German.

On April 28, 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his address to the American nation: These Russian forces have destroyed and are destroying more armed power of our enemies troops, planes, tanks, and guns than all the other United Nations put together. Winston Churchill in his message to Joseph Stalin of September 27, 1944, wrote that it is the Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military machine

Such an assessment has resonated throughout the world. Because these words are the great truth, which no one doubted then. Almost 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives on the fronts, in German prisons, starved to death and were bombed, died in ghettos and furnaces of the Nazi death camps. The USSR lost one in seven of its citizens, the UK lost one in 127, and the USA lost one in 320. Unfortunately, this figure of the Soviet Unions hardest and grievous losses is not exhaustive. The painstaking work should be continued to restore the names and fates of all who have perished Red Army soldiers, partisans, underground fighters, prisoners of war and concentration camps, and civilians killed by the death squads. It is our duty. And special role here belongs to members of the search movement, militarypatriotic and volunteer associations, projects like the electronic database Pamyat Naroda (Memory of the People), which contains archival documents. And, surely, close international cooperation is needed in such a common humanitarian task.

The efforts of all countries and peoples who fought against a common enemy resulted in victory. The British army protected its homeland from invasion, fought the Nazis and their satellites in the Mediterranean and North Africa. American and British troops liberated Italy and opened the Second Front. The US dealt powerful and crushing strikes against the aggressor in the Pacific Ocean. We remember the tremendous sacrifices made by the Chinese people and their great role in defeating Japanese militarists. Let us not forget the fighters of Fighting France, who did not fall for the shameful capitulation and continued to fight against the Nazis.

We will also always be grateful for the assistance rendered by the Allies in providing the Red Army with munition, raw materials, food and equipment. And that help was significant about 7 percent of the total military production of the Soviet Union.

The core of the Anti-Hitler Coalition began to take shape immediately after the attack on the Soviet Union where the United States and Britain unconditionally supported it in the fight against Hitlers Germany. At the Tehran Conference in 1943, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill formed an alliance of great powers, agreed to elaborate coalition diplomacy and a joint strategy in the fight against a common deadly threat. The leaders of the Big Three had a clear understanding that the unification of industrial, resource and military capabilities of the USSR, the United States and the UK will give unchallenged supremacy over the enemy.

The Soviet Union fully fulfilled its obligations to its allies and always offered a helping hand. Thus, the Red Army supported the landing of the Anglo-American troops in Normandy by carrying out a large-scale Operation Bagration in Belorussia. In January 1945, having broken through to the Oder River, our soldiers put an end to the last powerful offensive of the Wehrmacht on the Western Front in the Ardennes. Three months after the victory over Germany, the USSR, in full accordance with the Yalta agreements, declared war on Japan and defeated the million-strong Kwantung Army.

Back in July 1941, the Soviet leadership declared that the purpose of the war against fascist oppressors was not only the elimination of the threat looming over our country, but also help for all the peoples of Europe suffering under the yoke of German fascism. By mid-1944, the enemy was expelled from virtually all of the Soviet territory. However, the enemy had to be finished off in its lair. And so the Red Army started its liberation mission in Europe. It saved entire nations from destruction and enslavement, and from the horror of the Holocaust. They were saved at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives of Soviet soldiers.

It is also important not to forget about the enormous material assistance that the USSR provided to the liberated countries in eliminating the threat of hunger and in rebuilding their economies and infrastructure. That was being done at the time when ashes stretched for thousands of miles all the way from Brest to Moscow and the Volga. For instance, in May 1945, the Austrian government asked the USSR to provide assistance with food, as it had no idea how to feed its population in the next seven weeks before the new harvest. State Chancellor of the Provisional Government of the Austrian Republic Karl Renner described the consent of the Soviet leadership to send food as a saving act that the Austrians would never forget.

The Allies jointly established the International Military Tribunal to punish Nazi political and war criminals. Its decisions contained a clear legal qualification of crimes against humanity, such as genocide, ethnic and religious cleansing, anti-Semitism and xenophobia. Directly and unambiguously, the Nuremberg Tribunal also condemned the accomplices of the Nazis, collaborators of various kinds.

This shameful phenomenon manifested itself in all European countries. Such figures as Ptain, Quisling, Vlasov, Bandera, their henchmen and followers though they were disguised as fighters for national independence or freedom from communism are traitors and butchers. In terms of inhumanity, they often exceeded their masters. In their desire to serve, as part of special punitive groups they willingly executed the most inhuman orders. They were responsible for such bloody events as the shootings of Babi Yar, the Volhynia massacre, burnt Khatyn, acts of destruction of Jews in Lithuania and Latvia.

Today as well, our position remains unchanged there can be no excuse for the criminal acts of Nazi collaborators, there is no period of limitations for them. It is therefore bewildering that in certain countries those who are smirched with cooperation with the Nazis are suddenly equated with World War II veterans. I believe that it is unacceptable to equate liberators with occupants. And I can only regard the glorification of Nazi collaborators as a betrayal of the memory of our fathers and grandfathers. A betrayal of the ideals that united peoples in the fight against Nazism.

At that time, the leaders of the USSR, the United States, and the UK faced, without exaggeration, a historic task. Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill represented the countries with different ideologies, state aspirations, interests, cultures, but they demonstrated great political will, rose above the contradictions and preferences and put the true interests of peace at the forefront. As a result, they were able to come to an agreement and achieve a solution from which all of humanity has benefited.

The victor powers left us a system that has become the quintessence of the intellectual and political quest of several centuries. A series of conferences Tehran, Yalta, San Francisco and Potsdam laid the foundation of a world that for 75 years had no global war, despite the sharpest contradictions.

Historical revisionism, the manifestations of which we now observe in the West, primarily with regard to the subject of the Second World War and its outcome, is dangerous because it grossly and cynically distorts the understanding of the principles of peaceful development, laid down at the Yalta and San Francisco conferences in 1945. The major historic achievement of Yalta and other decisions of that time is the agreement to create a mechanism that would allow the leading powers to remain within the framework of diplomacy in resolving their differences.

The twentieth century brought large-scale and comprehensive global conflicts, and in 1945, nuclear weapons capable of physically destroying the Earth also entered the scene. In other words, the settlement of disputes by force has become prohibitively dangerous. And the victors in the Second World War understood that. They understood and were aware of their own responsibility towards humanity.

The cautionary tale of the League of Nations was taken into account in 1945. The structure of the UN Security Council was developed in a way to make peace guarantees as concrete and effective as possible. That is how the institution of the permanent members of the Security Council and the right of the veto as their privilege and responsibility came into being.

What is the power of veto in the UN Security Council? To put it bluntly, it is the only reasonable alternative to a direct confrontation between major countries. It is a statement by one of the five powers that a decision is unacceptable to it and is contrary to its interests and its ideas about the right approach. And other countries, even if they do not agree, take this position as a given, abandoning any attempts to realise their unilateral efforts. It means that in one way or another it is necessary to seek compromises.

A new global confrontation started almost immediately after the end of the Second World War and was at times very fierce. And the fact that the Cold War did not grow into the Third World War has become a clear testimony of the effectiveness of the agreements concluded by the Big Three. The rules of conduct agreed upon during the creation of the United Nations made it possible to further minimise risks and keep confrontation under control.

Of course, we can see that the UN system currently experiences certain tension in its work and is not as effective as it could be. But the UN still performs its primary function. The principles of the UN Security Council are a unique mechanism for preventing a major war or a global conflict.

The calls that have been made quite often in recent years to abolish the power of veto, to deny special opportunities to permanent members of the Security Council are actually irresponsible. After all, if that happens, the United Nations would in essence become the League of Nations a meeting for empty talk without any leverage on the world processes. How it ended is well known. That is why the victor powers approached the formation of the new system of the world order with utmost seriousness seeking to avoid repetition of mistakes made by their predecessors.

The creation of the modern system of international relations is one of the major outcomes of World War II. Even the most insurmountable contradictions geopolitical, ideological, economic do not prevent us from finding forms of peaceful coexistence and interaction, if there is the desire and will to do so. Today the world is going through quite a turbulent time. Everything is changing, from the global balance of power and influence to the social, economic and technological foundations of societies, nations and even continents. In the past epochs, shifts of such magnitude have almost never happened without major military conflicts. Without a power struggle to build a new global hierarchy. Thanks to the wisdom and farsightedness of the political figures of the Allied Powers, it was possible to create a system that has restrained from extreme manifestations of such objective competition, historically inherent in the world development.

It is a duty of ours all those who take political responsibility and primarily representatives of the victor powers in the Second World War to guarantee that this system is maintained and improved. Today, as in 1945, it is important to demonstrate political will and discuss the future together. Our colleagues Mr Xi Jinping, Mr Macron, Mr Trump and Mr Johnson supported the Russian initiative to hold a meeting of the leaders of the five nuclear-weapon states, permanent members of the Security Council. We thank them for this and hope that such face-to-face meeting could take place as soon as possible.

What is our vision of the agenda for the upcoming summit? First of all, in our opinion, it would be useful to discuss steps to develop collective principles in world affairs. To speak frankly about the issues of preserving peace, strengthening global and regional security, strategic arms control, about joint efforts in countering terrorism, extremism and other major challenges and threats.

A special item on the agenda of the meeting is the situation in the global economy. And above all, overcoming the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Our countries are taking unprecedented measures to protect the health and lives of people and to support citizens who have found themselves in difficult living situations. Our ability to work together and in concert, as real partners, will show how severe the impact of the pandemic will be, and how quickly the global economy will emerge from the recession. Moreover, it is unacceptable to turn the economy into an instrument of pressure and confrontation. Popular issues include environmental protection and combating climate change, as well as ensuring the security of the global information space.

The agenda proposed by Russia for the upcoming summit of the Five is extremely important and relevant both for our countries and for the entire world. And we have specific ideas and initiatives on all the items.

There can be no doubt that the summit of Russia, China, France, the United States, and the UK will play an important role in finding common answers to modern challenges and threats, and will demonstrate a common commitment to the spirit of alliance, to those high humanist ideals and values for which our fathers and grandfathers fought shoulder to shoulder.

Drawing on a shared historical memory, we can trust each other and must do so. That will serve as a solid basis for successful negotiations and concerted action for the sake of enhancing the stability and security on the planet, for the sake of prosperity and well-being of all states. Without exaggeration, it is our common duty and responsibility towards the entire world, towards the present and future generations.

Link:

75th Anniversary of the Great Victory: Shared Responsibility to History and our Future - New Europe

Seventy-five years have passed since the end of theGreat Patriotic War. Several generations have grown up over the years. The political map of the planet has changed. TheSoviet Unionthat claimed an epic, crushing victory over Nazism and saved the entire world is gone. Besides, the events of that war have long become a distant memory, even for its participants.

So why doesRussiacelebrate the ninth of May as the biggest holiday? Why does life almost come to a halt on June22? And why does one feel a lump rise in their throat?

They usually say that the war has left a deep imprint on every family'shistory. Behind these words, there are fates of millions of people, their sufferings and the pain of loss. Behind these words, there is also the pride, the truth and the memory.

For my parents, the war meant the terrible ordeals of the Siege ofLeningradwhere my two-year-old brother Vitya died. It was the place where my mother miraculously managed to survive. My father, despite being exempt from active duty, volunteered to defend his hometown. He made the same decision as millions of Soviet citizens. He fought at the Nevsky Pyatachok bridgehead and was severely wounded. And the more years pass, the more I feel the need to talk to my parents and learn more about the war period of their lives. However, I no longer have the opportunity to do so. This is the reason why I treasure in my heart those conversations I had with my father and mother on this subject, as well as the little emotion they showed.

People of my age and I believe it is important that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren understand the torment and hardships their ancestors had to endure. They need to understand how their ancestors managed to persevere and win. Where did their sheer, unbending willpower that amazed and fascinated the whole world come from? Sure, they were defending their home, their children, loved ones and families. However, what they shared was the love for their homeland, their Motherland. That deep-seated, intimate feeling is fully reflected in the very essence of our nation and became one of the decisive factors in its heroic, sacrificial fight against the Nazis.

I often wonder: What would today's generation do? How will it act when faced with a crisis situation? I see young doctors, nurses, sometimes fresh graduates that go to the "red zone" to save lives. I see our servicemen that fight international terrorism in the Northern Caucasus and fought to the bitter end in Syria. They are so young. Many servicemen who were part of the legendary, immortal 6thParatroop Company were 19-20years old. But all of them proved that they deserved to inherit the feat of the warriors of our homeland that defended it during the Great Patriotic War.

This is why I am confident that one of the characteristic features of the peoples of Russia is to fulfill their duty without feeling sorry for themselves when the circumstances so demand. Such values as selflessness, patriotism, love for their home, their family and Motherland remain fundamental and integral to the Russian society to this day. These values are, to a large extent, the backbone of our country's sovereignty.

Nowadays, we have new traditions created by the people, such as the Immortal Regiment. This is the memory march that symbolizes our gratitude, as well as the living connection and the blood ties between generations. Millions of people come out to the streets carrying the photographs of their relatives that defended their Motherland and defeated the Nazis. This means that their lives, their ordeals and sacrifices, as well as the Victory that they left to us will never be forgotten.

We have a responsibility to our past and our future to do our utmost to prevent those horrible tragedies from happening ever again. Hence, I was compelled to come out with an article about World War II and the Great Patriotic War. I have discussed this idea on several occasions with world leaders, and they have showed their support. At the summit of CIS leaders held at the end of last year, we all agreed on one thing: it is essential to pass on to future generations the memory of the fact that the Nazis were defeated first and foremost by the Soviet people and that representatives of all republics of the Soviet Union fought side by side together in that heroic battle, both on the frontlines and in the rear.During that summit, I also talked with my counterparts about the challenging pre-war period.

That conversation caused a stir in Europe and the world. It means that it is indeed high time that we revisited the lessons of the past. At the same time, there were many emotional outbursts, poorly disguised insecurities and loud accusations that followed. Acting out of habit, certain politicians rushed to claim that Russia was trying to rewrite history. However, they failed to rebut a single fact or refute a single argument. It is indeed difficult, if not impossible, to argue with the original documents that, by the way, can be found not only in the Russian, but also in the foreign archives.

Thus, there is a need to further examine the reasons that caused the world war and reflect on its complicated events, tragedies and victories, as well as its lessons, both for our country and the entire world. And like I said, it is crucial to rely exclusively on archive documents and contemporary evidence while avoiding any ideological or politicized speculations.

I would like to once again recall the obvious fact. The root causes of World WarII mainly stem from the decisions made afterWorld WarI.The Treaty of Versaillesbecame a symbol of grave injustice for Germany. It basically implied that the country was to be robbed, being forced to pay enormous reparations to the Western allies that drained its economy. French marshal Ferdinand Foch who served as the Supreme Allied Commander gave a prophetic description of that Treaty: "This is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years."

It was the national humiliation that became a fertile ground for radical sentiments of revenge inGermany. The Nazis skillfully played on people's emotions and built their propaganda promising to deliver Germany from the "legacy of Versailles" and restore the country to its former power while essentially pushing German people into war. Paradoxically, the Western states, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States, directly or indirectly contributed to this. Their financial and industrial enterprises actively invested in German factories and plants manufacturing military products. Besides, many people in the aristocracy and political establishment supported radical, far-right and nationalist movements that were on the rise both in Germany and inEurope.

The "Versailles world order" caused numerous implicit controversies and apparent conflicts. They revolved around the borders of new European states randomly set by the victors in World WarI. That boundary delimitation was almost immediately followed by territorial disputes and mutual claims that turned into "time bombs".

One of the major outcomes of World War I was the establishment of the League of Nations. There were high expectations for that international organization to ensure lasting peace and collective security. It was a progressive idea that, if followed through consistently, could actually prevent the horrors of a global war from happening again.

However, the League of Nations dominated by the victorious powers of France and the United Kingdom proved ineffective and just got swamped by pointless discussions. The League of Nations and the European continent in general turned a deaf ear to the repeated calls of the Soviet Union to establish an equitable collective security system, and sign an Eastern European pact and a Pacific pact to prevent aggression. These proposals were disregarded.

The League of Nationsalso failed to prevent conflicts in various parts of the world, such as the attack of Italy on Ethiopia, the civil war inSpain, the Japanese aggression against China and the Anschluss ofAustria. Furthermore, in case of the Munich Betrayal that, in addition toHitlerandMussolini, involved British and French leaders, Czechoslovakia was taken apart with the full approval of the League of Nations. I would like to point out in this regard that, unlike many other European leaders of that time, Stalin did not disgrace himself by meeting with Hitler who was known among the Western nations as quite a reputable politician and was a welcome guest in the European capitals.

Poland was also engaged in the partition of Czechoslovakia along with Germany. They decided together in advance who would get what Czechoslovak territories. On September20,1938, Polish Ambassador to GermanyJzef Lipski reported to Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland Jzef Beck on the following assurances made by Hitler: "in case of a conflict between Poland and Czechoslovakia over our interests in Teschen, the Reich would stand by Poland." The Nazi leader even prompted and advised that Poland started to act "only after the Germans occupy the Sudetes."

****

Poland was aware that without Hitler's support, its annexationist plans were doomed to fail. I would like to quote in this regard a record of the conversation between German Ambassador to Warsaw Hans-Adolf von Moltke and Jzef Beck that took place on October1,1938, and was focused on the Polish-Czech relations and the position of the Soviet Union in this matter. It says: "Mr. Beck expressed real gratitude for the loyal treatment accorded [to] Polish interests at the Munich conference, as well as the sincerity of relations during the Czech conflict. The attitude of the Fhrer and Chancellor was fully appreciated by the Government and the public [of Poland]."

The partition of Czechoslovakia was brutal and cynical. Munich destroyed even the formal, fragile guarantees that remained on the continent. It showed that mutual agreements were worthless. It was the Munich Betrayal that served as a "trigger" and made the great war in Europe inevitable.

Today, European politicians, and Polish leaders in particular, wish to sweep the Munich Betrayal under the carpet. Why? The fact that their countries once broke their commitments and supported the Munich Betrayal, with some of them even participating in divvying up the take, is not the only reason. Another is that it is kind of embarrassing to recall that during those dramatic days of 1938, the Soviet Union was the only one to stand up for Czechoslovakia.

The Soviet Union, in accordance with its international obligations, including agreements with France and Czechoslovakia, tried to prevent the tragedy from happening. Meanwhile, Poland, in pursuit of its interests, was doing its utmost to hamper the establishment of a collective security system in Europe. Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Jzef Beck wrote about it directly in his letter of September19,1938 to the aforementioned Ambassador Jzef Lipski before his meeting with Hitler: "in the past year, the Polish government rejected four times the proposal to join the international interfering in defense of Czechoslovakia."

Britain, as well as France, which was at the time the main ally of the Czechs and Slovaks, chose to withdraw their guarantees and abandon this Eastern European country to its fate. In so doing, they sought to direct the attention of the Nazis eastward so that Germany and the Soviet Union would inevitably clash and bleed each other white.

That is the essence of the western policy of appeasement, which was pursued not only towards the Third Reich but also towards other participants of the so-called Anti-Comintern Pact the fascist Italy and militarist Japan. In the Far East, this policy culminated in the conclusion of the Anglo-Japanese agreement in the summer of 1939, which gave Tokyo a free hand in China. The leading European powers were unwilling to recognize the mortal danger posed by Germany and its allies to the whole world. They were hoping that they themselves would be left untouched by the war.

The Munich Betrayal showed to the Soviet Union that the Western countries would deal with security issues without taking its interests into account. In fact, they could even create an anti-Soviet front, if needed.

Nevertheless, the Soviet Union did its utmost to use every chance of creating an anti-Hitler coalition. Despite I will say it again the doubledealing on the part of the Western countries. For instance, the intelligence services reported to the Soviet leadership detailed information on the behind-the-scenes contacts between Britain and Germany in the summer of 1939. The important thing is that those contacts were quite active and practically coincided with the tripartite negotiations between France, Great Britain and the USSR, which were, on the contrary, deliberately protracted by the Western partners. In this connection, I will cite a document from the British archives. It contains instructions to the British military mission that came to Moscow in August1939. It directly states that the delegation was to proceed with negotiations very slowly, and that the Government of the United Kingdom was not ready to assume any obligations spelled out in detail and limiting their freedom of action under any circumstances. I will also note that, unlike the British and French delegations, the Soviet delegation was headed by top commanders of the Red Army, who had the necessary authority to "sign a military convention on the organization of military defense of England, France and the USSR against aggression in Europe."

Poland played its role in the failure of those negotiations as it did not want to have any obligations to the Soviet side. Even under pressure from their Western allies, the Polish leadership rejected the idea of joint action with the Red Army to fight against the Wehrmacht. It was only when they learned of the arrival of Ribbentrop to Moscow that J. Beck reluctantly and not directly, through French diplomats, notified the Soviet side: " in the event of joint action against the German aggression, cooperation between Poland and the Soviet Union is not out of the question, in technical circumstances which remain to be agreed." At the same time, he explained to his colleagues: " I agreed to this wording only for the sake of the tactics, and our core position in relation to the Soviet Union is final and remains unchanged."

In these circumstances, the Soviet Union signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Germany. It was practically the last among the European countries to do so. Besides, it was done in the face of a real threat of war on two fronts with Germany in the west and with Japan in the east, where intense fighting on the Khalkhin Gol River was already underway.

Stalin and his entourage, indeed, deserve many legitimate accusations. We remember the crimes committed by the regime against its own people and the horror of mass repressions. In other words, there are many things the Soviet leaders can be reproached for, but poor understanding of the nature of external threats is not one of them. They saw how attempts were made to leave the Soviet Union alone to deal with Germany and its allies. Bearing in mind this real threat, they sought to buy precious time needed to strengthen the country's defenses.

Nowadays, we hear lots of speculations and accusations against modern Russia in connection with the Non-Aggression Pact signed back then. Yes, Russia is the legal successor state to the USSR, and the Soviet period with all its triumphs and tragedies is an inalienable part of our thousand-year-long history. However, let us recall that the Soviet Union gave a legal and moral assessment of the so-called MolotovRibbentrop Pact. The Supreme Soviet in its resolution of 24December1989 officially denounced the secret protocols as "an act of personal power" which in no way reected "the will of the Soviet people who bear no responsibility for this collusion."

Yet other states have preferred to forget the agreements carrying signatures of the Nazis and Western politicians, not to mention giving legal or political assessments of such cooperation, including the silent acquiescence or even direct abetment of some European politicians in the barbarous plans of the Nazis. It will suffice to remember the cynical phrase said by Polish Ambassador to Germany J.Lipski during his conversation with Hitler on 20September1938: "for solving the Jewish problem, we [the Poles] will build in his honor a splendid monument in Warsaw."

Besides, we do not know if there were any secret "protocols" or annexes to agreements of a number of countries with the Nazis. The only thing that is left to do is to take their word for it. In particular, materials pertaining to the secret Anglo-German talks still have not been declassified. Therefore, we urge all states to step up the process of making their archives public and publishing previously unknown documents of the war and pre-war periods the way Russia has done it in recent years. In this context, we are ready for broad cooperation and joint research projects engaging historians.

But let us go back to the events immediately preceding the Second World War. It was nave to believe that Hitler, once done withCzechoslovakia, would not make new territorial claims. This time the claims involved its recent accomplice in the partition of Czechoslovakia Poland. Here, the legacy of Versailles, particularly the fate of the so-called Danzig Corridor, was yet again used as the pretext. The blame for the tragedy that Poland then suffered lies entirely with the Polish leadership, which had impeded the formation of a military alliance between Britain, France and the Soviet Union and relied on the help from its Western partners, throwing its own people under the steamroller of Hitler's machine of destruction.

The German offensive was mounted in full accordance with the blitzkrieg doctrine. Despite the fierce, heroic resistance of the Polish army, on 8September1939 only a week after the war broke out the German troops were on the approaches to Warsaw. By 17September, the military and political leaders of Poland had fled to Romania, abandoning its people, who continued to fight against the invaders.

Poland's hope for help from its Western allies was in vain. After the war against Germany was declared, the French troops advanced only a few tens of kilometers deep into the German territory. All of it looked like a mere demonstration of vigorous action. Moreover, the Anglo-French Supreme War Council, holding its first meeting on 12September1939 in the French city of Abbeville, decided to call off the offensive altogether in view of the rapid developments in Poland. That was when the infamous Phony War started. What Britain and France did was a blatant betrayal of their obligations to Poland.

****

Later, during the Nuremberg trials, German generals explained their quick success in the East. The former chief of the operations staff of the German armed forces high command, General Alfred Jodl admitted: " we did not suffer defeat as early as 1939 only because about 110 French and British divisions stationed in the west against 23 German divisions during our war with Poland remained absolutely idle."

I asked for retrieval from the archives of the whole body of materials pertaining to the contacts between the USSR and Germany in the dramatic days of August and September1939. According to the documents, paragraph2 of the Secret Protocol to the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 23August1939 stated that, in the event of territorial-political reorganization of the districts making up the Polish state, the border of the spheres of interest of the two countries would run "approximately along the Narew, Vistula and San rivers". In other words, the Soviet sphere of influence included not only the territories that were mostly home to Ukrainian and Belarusian population but also the historically Polish lands in the Vistula and Bug interfluve. This fact is known to very few these days.

Similarly, very few know that, immediately following the attack on Poland, in the early days of September 1939 Berlin strongly and repeatedly called on Moscow to join the military action. However, the Soviet leadership ignored those calls and planned to avoid engaging in the dramatic developments as long as possible.

It was only when it became absolutely clear that Great Britain and France were not going to help their ally and the Wehrmacht could swiftly occupy entire Poland and thus appear on the approaches to Minsk that the Soviet Union decided to send in, on the morning of 17September, Red Army units into the so-called Eastern Borderlines, which nowadays form part of the territories of Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania.

Obviously, there was no alternative. Otherwise, the USSR would face seriously increased risks because I will say this again the old Soviet-Polish border ran only within a few tens of kilometers of Minsk. The country would have to enter the inevitable war with the Nazis from very disadvantageous strategic positions, while millions of people of different nationalities, including the Jews living near Brest and Grodno, Przemyl, Lvov and Wilno, would be left to die at the hands of the Nazis and their local accomplices anti-Semites and radical nationalists.

The fact that the Soviet Union sought to avoid engaging in the growing conflict for as long as possible and was unwilling to fight side by side with Germany was the reason why the real contact between the Soviet and the German troops occurred much farther east than the borders agreed in the secret protocol. It was not on the Vistula River but closer to the so-called Curzon Line, which back in 1919 was recommended by the Triple Entente as the eastern border of Poland.

As is known, there is hardly any point in using the subjunctive mood when we speak of the past events. I will only say that, in September1939, the Soviet leadership had an opportunity to move the western borders of the USSR even farther west, all the way to Warsaw, but decided against it.

The Germans suggested formalizing the new status quo. On September28,1939 Joachim von Ribbentrop and V.Molotov signed in Moscow theBoundary and Friendship Treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union, as well as the secret protocol on changing the state border, according to which the border was recognized at the demarcation line where the two armies de-facto stood.

In autumn1939, the Soviet Union, pursuing its strategic military and defensive goals, started the process of the incorporation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Their accession to the USSR was implemented on a contractual basis, with the consent of the elected authorities. This was in line with international and state law of that time. Besides, in October1939, the city of Vilna and the surrounding area, which had previously been part of Poland, were returned to Lithuania. The Baltic republics within the USSR preserved their government bodies, language, and had representation in the higher state structures of the Soviet Union.

During all these months there was an ongoing invisible diplomatic and politico-military struggle and intelligence work. Moscow understood that it was facing a fierce and cruel enemy, and that a covert war against Nazism was already going on. And there is no reason to take official statements and formal protocol notes of that time as a proof of friendship' between the USSR and Germany. The Soviet Union had active trade and technical contacts not only with Germany, but with other countries as well. Whereas Hitler tried again and again to draw the Soviet Union into Germany's confrontation with the UK. But the Soviet government stood firm.

The last attempt to persuade the USSR to act together was made by Hitler during the visit of Molotov to Berlin in November1940. But Molotov accurately followed Stalin's instructions and limited himself to a general discussion of the German idea of the Soviet Union joining the Tripartite Pact signed by Germany, Italy andJapanin September1940 and directed against the UK and the USA. No wonder that already on November17 Molotov gave the following instructions to Soviet plenipotentiary representative in London Ivan Maisky: "For your informationNo agreement was signed or was intended to be signed in Berlin. We just exchanged our views in Berlinand that was allApparently, the Germans and the Japanese seem anxious to push us towards the Gulf and India. We declined the discussion of this matter as we consider such advice on the part of Germany to be inappropriate." And on November25 the Soviet leadership called it a day altogether by officially putting forward to Berlin the conditions that were unacceptable to the Nazis, including the withdrawal of German troops from Finland, mutual assistance treaty between Bulgaria and the USSR, and a number of others. Thus it deliberately excluded any possibility of joining the Pact. Such position definitely shaped the Fuehrer's intention to unleash a war against the USSR. And already in December, putting aside the warnings of his strategists about the disastrous danger of having a two-front war, Hitler approved the Barbarossa Plan. He did this with the knowledge that the Soviet Union was the major force that opposed him in Europe and that the upcoming battle in the East would decide the outcome of the world war. And he had no doubts as to the swiftness and success of the Moscow campaign.

And here I would like to highlight the following: Western countries, as a matter of fact, agreed at that time with the Soviet actions and recognized the Soviet Union's intention to ensure its national security. Indeed, back on October1,1939 Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty back then, in his speech on the radio said, "Russia has pursued a cold policy of self-interest But that the Russian armies should stand on this line [the new Western border is meant] was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace." On October4,1939 speaking in the House of Lords British Foreign Secretary Halifax said, "it should be recalled that the Soviet government's actions were to move the border essentially to the line recommended at the Versailles Conference by Lord Curzon... I only cite historical facts and believe they are indisputable." Prominent British politician and statesman D.Lloyd George emphasized, "The Russian armies occupied the territories that are not Polish and that were forcibly seized by Poland after the First World War ... It would be an act of criminal insanity to put the Russian advancement on a par with the German one."

In informal communications with Soviet plenipotentiary representative Maisky, British diplomats and high-level politicians spoke even more openly. On October17,1939 Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs R. A. Butler confided him that the British government circles believed there could be no question of returning Western Ukraine and Belarus to Poland. According to him, if it had been possible to create an ethnographic Poland of a modest size with a guarantee not only of the USSR and Germany, but also of Britain and France, the British government would have considered itself quite satisfied. On October27,1939, Chamberlain's senior advisor H.Wilson said that Poland had to be restored as an independent state on its ethnographic basis, but without Western Ukraine and Belarus.

It is worth noting that in the course of these conversations the possibilities for improving British-Soviet relations were also being explored. These contacts to a large extent laid the foundation for future alliance and anti-Hitler coalition. Churchill stood out among other responsible and far-sighted politicians and, despite his infamous dislike for the USSR, had been in favour of cooperating with the Soviets even before. Back in May1939, he said in the House of Commons, "We shall be in mortal danger if we fail to create a grand alliance against aggression. The worst folly would be to drive away any natural cooperation with Soviet Russia." And after the start of hostilities in Europe, at his meeting with Maisky on October6,1939 he confided that there were no serious contradictions between the UK and the USSR and, therefore, there was no reason for strained or unsatisfactory relations. He also mentioned that the British government was eager to develop trade relations and willing to discuss any other measures that might improve the relationships.

****

The Second World War did not happen overnight, nor did it start unexpectedly or all of a sudden. And German aggression againstPolandwas not out of nowhere. It was the result of a number of tendencies and factors of the world policy of that time. All pre-war events fell into place to form one fatal chain. But, undoubtedly, the main factors that predetermined the greatest tragedy in the history of mankind were state egoism, cowardice, appeasement of the aggressor who was gaining strength, and unwillingness of political elites to search for a compromise.

Therefore, it is unfair to claim that the two-day visit to Moscow of Nazi Foreign Minister Ribbentrop was the main reason for the start of the Second World War. All the leading countries are to a certain extent responsible for its outbreak. Each of them made fatal mistakes, arrogantly believing that they could outsmart others, secure unilateral advantages for themselves or stay away from the impending world catastrophe. And this short-sightedness, the refusal to create a collective security system cost millions of lives and tremendous losses.

Saying this, I by no means intend to take on the role of a judge, to accuse or acquit anyone, let alone initiate a new round of international information confrontation in the historical field that could set countries and peoples at loggerheads. I believe that it is academics with a wide representation of respected scientists from different countries of the world who should search for a balanced assessment of what happened. We all need the truth and objectivity. On my part, I have always encouraged my colleagues to build a calm, open and trust-based dialogue, to look at the common past in a self-critical and unbiased manner. Such an approach will make it possible not to repeat the errors committed back then and to ensure peaceful and successful development for years to come.

However, many of our partners are not yet ready for joint work. On the contrary, pursuing their goals, they increase the number and the scope of information attacks against our country, trying to make us provide excuses and feel guilty, and adopt thoroughly hypocritical and politically motivated declarations. Thus, for example, the resolution on theImportance of European Remembrance for the Future of Europeapproved by the European Parliament on 19September2019 directly accused the USSR together with the Nazi Germany of unleashing the Second World War. Needless to say, there is no mention of Munich in it whatsoever.

I believe that such paperwork' for I cannot call this resolution a document which is clearly intended to provoke a scandal, is fraught with real and dangerous threats. Indeed, it was adopted by a highly respectable institution. And what does that show? Regrettably, this reveals a deliberate policy aimed at destroying the post-war world order whose creation was a matter of honour and responsibility for States a number of representatives of which voted today in favour of this deceitful resolution. Thus, they challenged the conclusions of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the efforts of the international community to create after the victorious 1945 universal international institutions. Let me remind you in this regard that the process of European integration itself leading to the establishment of relevant structures, including the European Parliament, became possible only due to the lessons learnt form the past and its accurate legal and political assessment. And those who deliberately put this consensus into question undermine the foundations of the entire post-war Europe.

Apart from posing a threat to the fundamental principles of the world order, this also raises certain moral and ethical issues. Desecrating and insulting the memory is mean. Meanness can be deliberate, hypocritical and pretty much intentional as in the situation when declarations commemorating the 75thanniversary of the end of the Second World War mention all participants in the anti-Hitler coalition except for the Soviet Union. Meanness can be cowardly as in the situation when monuments erected in honour of those who fought against Nazism are demolished and these shameful acts are justified by the false slogans of the fight against an unwelcome ideology and alleged occupation. Meanness can also be bloody as in the situation when those who come out against neo-Nazis and Bandera's successors are killed and burned. Once again, meanness can have different manifestations, but this does not make it less disgusting.

Neglecting the lessons of history inevitably leads to a harsh payback. We will firmly uphold the truth based on documented historical facts. We will continue to be honest and impartial about the events of World WarII. This includes a large-scale project to establish Russia's largest collection of archival records, film and photo materials about the history of World War II and the prewar period.

Such work is already underway. Many new, recently discovered or declassified materials were also used in the preparation of this article. In this regard, I can state with all responsibility that there are no archive documents that would confirm the assumption that the USSR intended to start a preventive war against Germany. The Soviet military leadership indeed followed a doctrine according to which, in the event of aggression, the Red Army would promptly confront the enemy, go on the offensive and wage war on enemy territory. However, such strategic plans did not imply any intention to attack Germany first.

Of course, military planning documents, letters of instruction of Soviet and German headquarters are now available to historians. Finally, we know the true course of events. From the perspective of this knowledge, many argue about the actions, mistakes and misjudgment of the country's military and political leadership. In this regard, I will say one thing: along with a huge flow of misinformation of various kinds, Soviet leaders also received true information about the upcoming Nazi aggression. And in the pre-war months, they took steps to improve the combat readiness of the country, including the secret recruitment of a part of those liable for military duty for military training and the redeployment of units and reserves from internal military districts to western borders.

The war did not come as a surprise, people were expecting it, preparing for it. But the Nazi attack was truly unprecedented in terms of its destructive power. On June22,1941, the Soviet Union faced the strongest, most mobilized and skilled army in the world with the industrial, economic and military potential of almost all Europe working for it. Not only the Wehrmacht, but also German satellites, military contingents of many other states of the European continent, took part in this deadly invasion.

The most serious military defeats in 1941 brought the country to the brink of catastrophe. Combat power and control had to be restored by extreme means, nation-wide mobilization and intensification of all efforts of the state and the people. In summer1941, millions of citizens, hundreds of factories and industries began to be evacuated under enemy fire to the east of the country. The manufacture of weapons and munition, that had started to be supplied to the front already in the first military winter, was launched in the shortest possible time, and by 1943, the rates of military production of Germany and its allies were exceeded. Within six months, the Soviet people did something that seemed impossible. Both on the front lines and the home front. It is still hard to realize, understand and imagine what incredible efforts, courage, dedication these greatest achievements were worth.

The tremendous power of Soviet society, united by the desire to protect their native land, rose against the powerful, armed to the teeth, cold-blooded Nazi invading machine. It stood up to take revenge on the enemy, who had broken, trampled peaceful life, people's plans and hopes.

Of course, fear, confusion and desperation were taking over some people during this terrible and bloody war. There were betrayal and desertion. The harsh split caused by the revolution and the Civil War, nihilism, mockery of national history, traditions and faith that the Bolsheviks tried to impose, especially in the first years after coming to power all of this had its impact. But the general attitude of the absolute majority of Soviet citizens and our compatriots who found themselves abroad was different to save and protect the Motherland. It was a real and irrepressible impulse. People were looking for support in true patriotic values.

The Nazi "strategists" were convinced that a huge multinational state could easily be brought to heel. They thought that the sudden outbreak of the war, its mercilessness and unbearable hardships would inevitably exacerbate inter-ethnic relations. And that the country could be split into pieces. Hitler clearly stated: "Our policy towards the peoples living in the vastness of Russia should be to promote any form of disagreement and division".

But from the very first days, it was clear that the Nazi plan had failed. The Brest Fortress was protected to the last drop of blood by its defenders of more than 30ethnicities. Throughout the war, the feat of the Soviet people knew no national boundaries both in large-scale decisive battles and in the protection of every foothold, every meter of native land.

****

The Volga region and the Urals, Siberia and the Far East, the republics of Central Asia and Transcaucasia became home to millions of evacuees. Their residents shared everything they had and provided all the support they could. Friendship of peoples and mutual help became a real indestructible fortress for the enemy.

The Soviet Union and the Red Army, no matter what anyone is trying to prove today, made the main and crucial contribution to the defeat of Nazism. These were heroes who fought to the end surrounded by the enemy at Bialystok and Mogilev, Uman and Kiev, Vyazma and Kharkov. They launched attacks near Moscow and Stalingrad, Sevastopol and Odessa, Kursk and Smolensk. They liberated Warsaw, Belgrade, Vienna and Prague. They stormed Koenigsberg and Berlin.

We contend for genuine, unvarnished, or whitewashed truth about war. This national, human truth, which is hard, bitter and merciless, has been handed down to us by writers and poets who walked through fire and hell of front trials. For my generation, as well as for others, their honest and deep stories, novels, piercing trench prose and poems have left their mark in my soul forever. Honoring veterans who did everything they could for the Victory and remembering those who died on the battlefield has become our moral duty.

And today, the simple and great in its essence lines of Alexander Tvardovsky's poem "I was killed near Rzhev ..." dedicated to the participants of the bloody and brutal battle of the Great Patriotic War in the center of the Soviet-German front line are astonishing. Only in the battles for Rzhev and the Rzhevsky Salient from October1941 to March1943, the Red Army lost 1,154,698people, including wounded and missing. For the first time, I call out these terrible, tragic and far from complete figures collected from archive sources. I do it to honor the memory of the feat of known and nameless heroes, who for various reasons were undeservingly, and unfairly little talked about or not mentioned at all in the post-war years.

Let me cite you another document. This is a report of February1954 on reparation from Germany by the Allied Commission on Reparations headed by Ivan Maisky. The Commission's task was to define a formula according to which defeated Germany would have to pay for the damages sustained by the victor powers. The Commission concluded that "the number of soldier-days spent by Germany on the Soviet front is at least 10times higher than on all other allied fronts. The Soviet front also had to handle four-fifths of German tanks and about two-thirds of German aircraft." On the whole, the USSR accounted for about 75percent of all military efforts undertaken by the anti-Hitler coalition. During the war period, the Red Army "ground up" 626divisions of the Axis states, of which 508 were German.

On April28,1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his address to the American nation: "These Russian forces have destroyed and are destroying more armed power of our enemies troops, planes, tanks, and guns than all the other United Nations put together". Winston Churchill in his message to Joseph Stalin of September27,1944, wrote "that it is the Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military machine".

Such an assessment has resonated throughout the world. Because these words are the great truth, which no one doubted then. Almost 27million Soviet citizens lost their lives on the fronts, in German prisons, starved to death and were bombed, died in ghettos and furnaces of the Nazi death camps. The USSR lost one in seven of its citizens, the UK lost one in 127, and the USA lost one in 320. Unfortunately, this figure of the Soviet Union's hardest and grievous losses is not exhaustive. The painstaking work should be continued to restore the names and fates of all who have perished Red Army soldiers, partisans, underground fighters, prisoners of war and concentration camps, and civilians killed by the death squads. It is our duty. And here, members of the search movement, militarypatriotic and volunteer associations, such projects as the electronic database "Pamyat Naroda", which contains archival documents, play a special role. And, surely, close international cooperation is needed in such a common humanitarian task.

The efforts of all countries and peoples who fought against a common enemy resulted in victory. The British army protected its homeland from invasion, fought the Nazis and their satellites in the Mediterranean and North Africa. American and British troops liberated Italy and opened the Second Front. The US dealt powerful and crushing strikes against the aggressor in the Pacific Ocean. We remember the tremendous sacrifices made by the Chinese people and their great role in defeating Japanese militarists. Let us not forget the fighters of Fighting France, who did not fall for the shameful capitulation and continued to fight against the Nazis.

We will also always be grateful for the assistance rendered by the Allies in providing the Red Army with ammunition, raw materials, food and equipment. And that help was significant about 7percent of the total military production of the Soviet Union.

The core of the anti-Hitler coalition began to take shape immediately after the attack on the Soviet Union where the United States and Britain unconditionally supported it in the fight against Hitler's Germany. At the Tehran conference in 1943, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill formed an alliance of great powers, agreed to elaborate coalition diplomacy and a joint strategy in the fight against a common deadly threat. The leaders of the Big Three had a clear understanding that the unification of industrial, resource and military capabilities of the USSR, the United States and the UK will give unchallenged supremacy over the enemy.

The Soviet Union fully fulfilled its obligations to its allies and always offered a helping hand. Thus, the Red Army supported the landing of the Anglo-American troops in Normandy by carrying out a large-scale Operation Bagration in Belarus. In January1945, having broken through to the Oder River, it put an end to the last powerful offensive of the Wehrmacht on the Western Front in the Ardennes. Three months after the victory over Germany, the USSR, in full accordance with the Yalta agreements, declared war on Japan and defeated the million-strong Kwantung Army.

Back in July1941, the Soviet leadership declared that the purpose of the War against fascist oppressors was not only the elimination of the threat looming over our country, but also help for all the peoples of Europe suffering under the yoke of German fascism. By the middle of 1944, the enemy was expelled from virtually all of the Soviet territory. However, the enemy had to be finished off in its lair. And so the Red Army started its liberation mission in Europe. It saved entire nations from destruction and enslavement, and from the horror of the Holocaust. They were saved at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives of Soviet soldiers.

It is also important not to forget about the enormous material assistance that the USSR provided to the liberated countries in eliminating the threat of hunger and in rebuilding their economies and infrastructure. That was being done at the time when ashes stretched for thousands of miles all the way from Brest to Moscow and the Volga. For instance, in May1945, the Austrian government asked the USSR to provide assistance with food, as it "had no idea how to feed its population in the next seven weeks before the new harvest." The state chancellor of the provisional government of the Austrian Republic Karl Renner described the consent of the Soviet leadership to send food as a saving act that the Austrians would never forget.

The Allies jointly established the International Military Tribunal to punish Nazi political and war criminals. Its decisions contained a clear legal qualification of crimes against humanity, such as genocide, ethnic and religious cleansing, anti-Semitism and xenophobia. Directly and unambiguously, the Nuremberg Tribunal also condemned the accomplices of the Nazis, collaborators of various kinds.

This shameful phenomenon manifested itself in all European countries. Such figures as Ptain, Quisling, Vlasov, Bandera, their henchmen and followers though they were disguised as fighters for national independence or freedom from communism are traitors and slaughterers. In inhumanity, they often exceeded their masters. In their desire to serve, as part of special punitive groups they willingly executed the most inhuman orders. They were responsible for such bloody events as the shootings of Babi Yar, the Volhynia massacre, burnt Khatyn, acts of destruction of Jews in Lithuania and Latvia.

Today as well, our position remains unchanged there can be no excuse for the criminal acts of Nazi collaborators, there is no statute of limitations for them. It is therefore bewildering that in certain countries those who are smirched with cooperation with the Nazis are suddenly equated with the Second World War veterans. I believe that it is unacceptable to equate liberators with occupants. And I can only regard the glorification of Nazi collaborators as a betrayal of the memory of our fathers and grandfathers. A betrayal of the ideals that united peoples in the fight against Nazism.

****

At that time, the leaders of the USSR, the United States, and the UK faced, without exaggeration, a historic task.Stalin,RooseveltandChurchillrepresented the countries with different ideologies, state aspirations, interests, cultures, but demonstrated great political will, rose above the contradictions and preferences and put the true interests of peace at the forefront. As a result, they were able to come to an agreement and achieve a solution from which all of humanity has benefited.

The victorious powers left us a system that has become the quintessence of the intellectual and political quest of several centuries. A series of conferences Tehran, Yalta, San Francisco and Potsdam laid the foundation of a world that for 75years had no global war, despite the sharpest contradictions.

Historical revisionism, the manifestations of which we now observe in the West, and primarily with regard to the subject of the Second World War and its outcome, is dangerous because it grossly and cynically distorts the understanding of the principles of peaceful development, laid down at theYaltaand San Francisco conferences in 1945. The major historic achievement of Yalta and other decisions of that time is the agreement to create a mechanism that would allow the leading powers to remain within the framework of diplomacy in resolving their differences.

The twentieth century brought large-scale and comprehensive global conflicts, and in 1945 the nuclear weapons capable of physically destroying the Earth also entered the scene. In other words, the settlement of disputes by force has become prohibitively dangerous. And the victors in the Second World War understood that. They understood and were aware of their own responsibility towards humanity.

The cautionary tale of the League of Nations was taken into account in 1945. The structure of the UN Security Council was developed in a way to make peace guarantees as concrete and effective as possible. That is how the institution of the permanent members of the Security Council and the right of the veto as their privilege and responsibility came into being.

What is veto power in theUN Security Council? To put it bluntly, it is the only reasonable alternative to a direct confrontation between major countries. It is a statement by one of the five powers that a decision is unacceptable to it and is contrary to its interests and its ideas about the right approach. And other countries, even if they do not agree, take this position for granted, abandoning any attempts to realize their unilateral efforts. So, in one way or another, it is necessary to seek compromises.

A new global confrontation started almost immediately after the end of the Second World War and was at times very fierce. And the fact that the Cold War did not grow into the Third World War has become a clear testimony of the effectiveness of the agreements concluded by the Big Three. The rules of conduct agreed upon during the creation of the United Nations made it possible to further minimize risks and keep confrontation under control.

Of course, we can see that the UN system currently experiences certain tension in its work and is not as effective as it could be. But the UN still performs its primary function. The principles of the UN Security Council are a unique mechanism for preventing a major war or global conflict.

The calls that have been made quite often in recent years to abolish theveto power, to deny special opportunities to permanent members of the Security Council are actually irresponsible. After all, if that happens, the United Nations would in essence become the League of Nations a meeting for empty talk without any leverage on the world processes. How it ended is well known. That is why the victorious powers approached the formation of the new system of the world order with utmost seriousness seeking to avoid repetition of the mistakes of their predecessors.

The creation of the modern system of international relations is one of the major outcomes of theSecond World War. Even the most insurmountable contradictions geopolitical, ideological, economic do not prevent us from finding forms of peaceful coexistence and interaction, if there is the desire and will to do so. Today the world is going through quite a turbulent time. Everything is changing, from the global balance of power and influence to the social, economic and technological foundations of societies, nations and even continents. In the past epochs, shifts of such magnitude have almost never happened without major military conflicts. Without a power struggle to build a new global hierarchy. Thanks to the wisdom and farsightedness of the political figures of the Allied Powers, it was possible to create a system that has restrained from extreme manifestations of such objective competition, historically inherent in the world development.

It is a duty of ours all those who take political responsibility and primarily representatives of the victorious powers in the Second World War to guarantee that this system is maintained and improved. Today, as in 1945, it is important to demonstrate political will and discuss the future together. Our colleagues Mr. Xi Jinping, Mr. Macron, Mr. Trump and Mr. Johnson supported the Russian initiative to hold a meeting of the leaders of the five nuclear-weapon States, permanent members of the Security Council. We thank them for this and hope that such a face-to-face meeting could take place as soon as possible.

What is our vision of the agenda for the upcoming summit? First of all, in our opinion, it would be useful to discuss steps to develop collective principles in world affairs. To speak frankly about the issues of preserving peace, strengthening global and regional security, strategic arms control, as well as joint efforts in countering terrorism, extremism and other major challenges and threats.

Go here to see the original:

Vladimir Putin: The real lessons of the 75th anniversary of World War II - The New Times