In October 2025, at the Annual Meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club, Vladimir Putin offered the audience a vision of the near future and a new model of international relations in the post-globalisation era. In studying this speech, it is important to consider that the Valdai Club is one of the venues where the Russian President makes strategic statements.
Vladimir Putin based the key points of his speech on the principles of the “philosophy of complexity” and polycentrism, or multipolarity. Moreover, the idea of the philosophy of complexity de facto represents a development and expansion of the familiar concepts of “multipolarity” and “polycentricity”, elevating them from their previous, structural level to a new, methodological level. The Russian President emphasised that in the new world, “each has its own advantageous aspects and competitive strengths, which in every case create a unique combination and composition,” but to understand all of this, “simple laws of logic, cause-and-effect relationships, and the patterns arising from them are insufficient. What is needed here is a philosophy of complexity – something akin to quantum mechanics, which is wiser and, in some ways, more complex than classical physics.”
In essence, the philosophy of complexity is a relevant approach in scientific methodology used to study combined systems with nonlinear connections, which are commonly referred to as “complex paradigms”. An important property of such systems is emergentness, that is, the irreducibility of the laws of the whole to the laws of the systems within it. This phenomenon is also central to the theory of synergy–the self-organisation of complex systems.
According to Vladimir Putin, the principles of complexity philosophy must be applied to a new global community that will embrace equality and the fair alignment of interests among its constituent entities, the preservation of their cultural uniqueness, and a multi-vector history. This latter approach entails viewing history not as a “natural” evolution or a corporate governance procedure, but as a series of multidirectional processes and a fair alignment of interests. All this precludes the dictates of a global “board of directors” in the form of a global governing class.
Speaking about the connection between the political philosophy of complexity and “polycentricity”, it should be noted that “polycentricity”is now being used as a synonym for “multipolarity,” even though the latter used to dominate. We believe that this shift is not accidental. The semantic difference between these concepts is that “polycentricity”, unlike “multipolarity”, denotes not simply a set of components, but a new configuration governed by its own laws.
It is worth noting that analogues of some tenets of complexity philosophy are originally to be found in Orthodox theology. Thus, from a Christian perspective, there are no self-sufficient theoretical truths other than the Creed and God-given commandments. Everything else arises and is developed through shared action, collaboration, that is, in a conciliar manner. In essence, Vladimir Putin calls for the use of precisely this methodology, characteristic of traditional religions.
The broad applicability of this methodology is understandable. After all, the traditional religions of peoples, as is well known, determine the forms of their cultural life and the nature of their social institutions. For example, the sociocultural context of the Russian World is, in one way or another, a projection of authentic Orthodox religiosity. In this case, the topos of a “just world order”, characteristic of our entire tradition, is preserved and reproduced in new cultural and historical conditions. Of course, today it is perceived much more pragmatically than half a century ago, and is built on new, far from charitable and internationalist foundations. Nevertheless, it is the idea of fair cooperation that serves as the foundation of Putin’s vision of the future world.
Thus, Vladimir Putin seeks to introduce an element of conciliarity into international relations. He argues that the world can no longer be structured as a corporation, and that only through the association of equal members and the fair balancing of their interests can the incommensurability of positions and worldviews be overcome. This is the philosophy of complexity of a polycentric or multipolar world. It will allow countries and peoples to survive the collapse of the neoliberal system.
Both concepts, “philosophy of complexity” and “polycentrism”, imply a systemic rejection of globalism as a historical disease of the Western world in the near future.
As Vladimir Putin emphasises, in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, “Western countries succumbed to the temptation of absolute power,” and so today “institutions of global governance created in an earlier era either ceased to function or have lost much of their effectiveness.” Hegemony is “giving way to a multilateral, more cooperative approach.”
We all remember the Westphalian system from our history classes. After the long Thirty Years’ War, the world of the seventeenth century changed radically, as it began to follow the principle of national sovereignty. The Holy See no longer imposed uniform rules on all of Europe. Global politics was now structured as a “concert” of European powers.
We are experiencing a similar situation today, at a new historical juncture, with the United States, Britain, and the transnational oligarchy attempting to play the role of Catholic Rome. In a “rules-based world”, the rules were developed in Washington and London. But today we see that their “rules” are no longer effective. The neo-colonial system of economic plunder and socio-cultural depersonalisation has seriously failed, and global elites can no longer control the world through managed conflicts.
Vladimir Putin has effectively proclaimed a transition to a new “Westphalian system”. The modern world is once again composed of sovereign entities, and if we look at history as the history of peoples, not elites, we see it as a multitude of communities. Is it possible for them to unite into a single community? It could be productive and non-violent, for example, if it shares a common value foundation. But this is still a long way off, as many traditional religions have weakened their immunity to the influence of secularist globalism.
Any liberal-secular principles of “universal” unification will inevitably lead to new globalist projects, similar to the communist Comintern or the worldwide “international” of financial structures. After all, any liberal-secular universalism emanates from the enemy of mankind. This is clearly indicated by the Gospel episode of the temptation of Christ. The devil tempts Christ with the very idea of universality, complete and sole power over the world, of course, through his, the devil’s, mediation. Christ refuses. “Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour. ‘All this I will give you,’ he said, ‘if you will bow down and worship me.’”
Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’” Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him. (Matthew 4:8-11).
The analogy between globalism and the construction of a new Babylon is quite obvious, including in the context of the Revelation of John the Theologian. In Revelation, as is well known, “One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, ‘Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits by many waters. With her the kings of the earth committed adultery, and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries.’” (Revelation 17:1-2).
Today, the world is once again becoming a world of regions, rather than a single global centre. It is precisely in this context that, for example, the Catholic Church, with its propensity for globalism, is incorporating the concept of a “theology of the periphery” into its diplomatic strategy.
These efforts are being undertaken through religious proselytism, which functions as a “soft power” for Westernisation and, ultimately, promotes Euro-Atlanticist strategies. Thus, the West seeks to seize the political resources of the Global South to control Europe and prepare for its planned clash with Russia.
In this complex situation, a strategic vision of international relations is of great importance to Russia. After all, in the context of a global crisis, all global players are locked in a state of zugzwang and prefer to play a tactical waiting game: who will make the first mistake or exhaust their resources? Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin is already prepared, drawing on the philosophy of complexity, to outline the contours of a new, conciliar world order in which Russia and the BRICS countries could play a role as systemically important players.
