Tatyana Parkhalina, President of the RF Association for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation:
—The world has seen some interesting events in the past ten days, like the NATO summit, Trump's visit to the UK, the Helsinki summit, and others. It appeared to me that Trump had displayed some political incorrectness when he had met with his European allies, and I believe it was deliberate. However, he'd shown completely opposite behavior in Helsinki. He was quite respectful, and, perhaps, some may disagree with me on this, but psychologically speaking, I believe it was a major victory for the Russian president. I suppose this is exactly what caused the reaction in American society, including their elite. Even Schwarzenegger, being an actor, and possibly understanding the situation better, had called Trump "a wet noodle."
—That's envy because Trump destroyed Schwarzenegger when he replaced him on a talk show. Trump was rather harsh on Schwarzenegger when he had posted on Twitter about him. "Arnold Schwarzenegger was fired by his bad (pathetic) ratings, not by me."
—Perhaps, it is so.
—They have a long history.
—I think this situation is a lot more complicated. Everything that has happened, and, by the way, I'd like to remind everyone that it wasn't just in Hamburg that Trump had refused to fulfill the agreement with the Russian president, especially on cybersecurity, only three days later. And now, upon his return to Washington, obviously under pressure by the US establishment, he had refused to comply with many things as well.
Oleg Morozov, Federation Council:
—That's just his style.
—We should pay attention to this "style." As the French say, "Tone defines music." Well, style defines politics. Frankly, we cannot ignore this.
—Is Trump a politician?
—I think the world is in a very complicated situation right now. Someone mentioned the words "world" and "order" here. Over the past 30 years, which is a short period, historically speaking, the world has gone from bipolar confrontation to a unipolar world, then to a multipolar one. And right now, it seems, it's moving towards becoming non-polar. In my opinion, by declaring his intention to "make America great again," Mr. Trump sabotages one of the foundations of his American polarity: his inter-allied relations with Europe. When we speak of dividing the world between three parties, it won't work because the EU doesn't participate in these attempts to divide. I'd like to remind you of a very interesting event that took place after the Helsinki summit. I'm talking about the free trade area agreement between the European Union and Japan. The so-called JEFTA includes over 600 million people, and it's quite serious. The French newspaper Le Monde described Trump's actions in Europe as an isolationist. I think that, currently, it resembles economic nationalism more than isolationism. That's what Trump seems to be focusing on. However, by agreeing to meet with Putin in Helsinki, it appeared that Trump was finally climbing out of his little hole, his so-called state of siege, but now he seems to be going back to that state. I see his suggestion to the Russian president to visit Washington in September or October is his way of responding to the way he has been bent over in his own country.
—I can't help it when educated people use such words.
— I'm sorry.
—I suggest sticking to academic language from now on. That's not very nice.
—I felt like using slang; it's okay once in a while.
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, LDPR leader:
—Criminal slang is inappropriate. Don't do it.
—We must take a short break now.
—You're not letting me point out all the mistakes on time.
—You can point them out later.
—People will forget.
—They won't forget.
—Total disagreement.
—And total disagreement.
—Name three mistakes.
—I can name more than three. Something quite fascinating is happening in Europe right now. If we consider the announcements of the new people in Italian politics, the announcements of the Americans who are creating a new conservative center, we'll realize that the liberal Europe we're used to seeing will change soon. It's possible it will become more rightist with all the new parties in the European Parliament. They will have a completely different collective idea of what's right and wrong. But, more about that later.
—We didn't let you finish your thought. Go ahead.
Tatyana Parkhalina:
—Yes, I'd like to finish my thought, if I may. Frankly, it seems to me that our world currently exists in a modern version of the Cold War. Obviously, it can't be compared with the Cold War of bipolar confrontation. Our version is more of a hybrid war; it's the light version of the original. However, there are four factors that correlate it to the previous Cold War. I will not list them right now. However, it inflicts just as much harm to relations and economics as the first Cold War. Even more. I still remember the original Cold War, and if we're to compare the two, I think the rhetoric and the information war are harsher now than in the 1970s and the 1980s. In my opinion, the main goal for the leaders who aim for leadership in the modern world, no pun intended, should be focused on striving to stop this Cold War phase that's expressed through a military confrontation, including military-political and military-technical aspects, and through economic wars. No matter what our Chinese friends call them, there's a new loop of economic wars. Among other factors are value-based confrontations and nearly hot conflicts in third and fourth regions.
—Why should it stop?
—Well, mostly because it's all very dangerous in terms of international security.
—Life is dangerous; it causes death.
—Of course, I agree, life is terminal. It's necessary to start talking about it, and the first ones to start doing it are the leaders of great powers. I'm talking about Trump and Putin or Putin and Trump. We also need a new stage of the arms control process. All because new weapons, even the conventional ones, aren't included (in arms control agreements). I'm talking about robotic technology and hypersonic weapons — they aren't included. The armaments race that has already begun and can grow bigger is not in our country's interest, in my opinion.
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, LDPR leader:
—You interrupted me just in time.
—Go ahead.
—I'll be brief. Don't say that someone won. Two presidents met. What victory are you talking about?
—I implied a psychological victory.
—Psychological? It's not soccer. You can talk about victory in terms of soccer, saying that France won. Here, two equal people simply met; there was no "victory" for either of them. That's what causes resentment in American public opinion. So, they begin bugging their president because we see it as a win. There was no victory. Second, don't forget the European Union. We remember the concentration camps and two world wars. The human race will never forget that it's Europe's fault that the entire 20th century is covered in blood. So don't think he can…
—There was no EU back then.
—Fine, Europeans, the EU countries. Stop picking apart words like a first-grade teacher. The EU, Europeans, the European community, it's all the same with Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, and the others. Third, I'm telling you about the resurrection of industrial capital. But you're talking in a roundabout way, pretending to be blind and deaf. This is why Kissinger was appointed as Trump's advisor, so he'd pull Trump back from all this. This way, global financial capital will dominate. So you should just forget about Europe. Who came up with the Bretton Woods system? Who created the dollar economy? Europe did. It all fell apart in 1944-1945, so don't say that. These are all mistakes. We have to stop beating about the bush. We need to speak clearly. There's a battle for industrial capital to rise. We'll benefit from it, so will China. Everyone else can lie low and be quiet.
—The US will also benefit.
—They will.
—We say that China is an unstoppable monster that will achieve great heights.
—They've had a different development pattern, that's our problem.
—What pattern?
—That's why it got bent over.
—Their pattern was to adjust to the globalization that was at its height a few years ago. Right now, we're discussing this situation. However, what is the reason for the hysteria that's happening in the US? Basically, it's a collision of two approaches. The ideological approach to foreign policy that has always been typical for Democrats. Then, there's the strategic approach, or realpolitik, which is just as typical for Republicans. Thus, I think that those 20-30 years, which China had received during the Cold War, they have already used them up in full. However, we don't know what will happen next. On the other hand, we know what attitude the Americans have shown towards China's growth. They assumed that while China was getting richer, while their middle class was improving, China would become one of their own. But now they see the complete opposite of what they expected. And it's getting worse.
Vladimir Zhirinovsky:
—Yes, they're always wrong.
—This is the biggest concern. Who will set the rules for the game in our time? Not in the 22nd or the 23rd century, as you've said, but in our time.
—Someone actually mentioned a very important thesis about maintaining balance. Remember, we have all these discussions with only one goal in mind. Obviously, we need to determine Russia's interests in all these processes. The way I see it, Russia plays a significant role in maintaining these balances. However, it's important to keep two dimensions in mind. The first one is the economic dimension that we've failed to discuss today for some reason. Let me put it this way. We can't miss out on global economic development because our military-technical development, which has grown tremendously over the past few years, doesn't completely make up for the lack of economic growth. Thus, it's truly necessary for us to focus on developing our economy and its growth rates. Unfortunately, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development published certain data a couple of months ago, but I won't go into that now. Let's just say that the potential for Russia's economic growth doesn't look that promising. I think it's extremely important and significant that focus is brought on economic development, even though it's still in the planning stage.
—Perhaps we should let those who handled our military industrial complex take care of our economy. We'll see results fast.
—Well, I can't say anything about that, that's not my field of expertise. Now, let's move on to maintaining balance. In this case, I will stand by my theory. We cannot forget about Europe no matter what, even though they're dealing with several crises. Europe is undergoing certain processes that are challenging its development. Nonetheless, Europe and the European Union bring something unique to the world, like their socio-economic, sci-tech, and military-technical programs.
—We don't have a problem with any of that. The only problem we have is the one with the policy that the EU's upper circles are pursuing. They think they can tell us what to do and keep imposing sanctions. We don't have a problem with the Italians.
—I think we should work on that. We need to work with the EU's upper circles.
—We do. But why should we? Perhaps, we should wait.
—It's imperative to us.
—Wait, the current upper circles are pro-American, they thought Obama was the center of the world. They're confused now, they don't understand what's happening. They're dealing with the growth of opposing parties that have different views and ideas, and that plan to change Europe from the inside. We'll get along great with that Europe.
—Here's what I wanted to say. If we keep doing this... People are emotional creatures, so we often put our stakes on China, or Trump, or the US, but we have to be careful not to let ourselves get trapped like this. When it comes to maintaining balance, Europe has always played an important role for Russia.
—But it depends on what kind of Europe it is.
—A changing Europe.
—Yes, a changing Europe. We have three of our own pillars, and we all know them dearly: the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. It works great.
Igor Korotchenko, Editor-in-Chief of the National Defense magazine:
—I love our time because we no longer have illusions that the "benevolent West" will help us, that democracy is good, that it's a universal value, that everyone's waiting for their turn to make Russia happy by placing their nonprofits here and financing them, for example. There are no more illusions, and that's a very good thing. Now, we understand the value of today's policy and the current Western politicians. Russia is an independent civilization, we don't force anything upon anyone. However, in order for others to want to negotiate with us in a respectful manner, we must have one crucial thing: Potential. Potential. A fist. A rational, benevolent fist. And we have such a fist. And we have our defense industry to thank for that.
