Speech by Sergey Naryshkin, Chairman of the Russian Historical Society, at the round table "The Yalta-Potsdam system of International Relations and Modern Challenges. On the 80th anniversary of the Crimean Peace Conference."
Dear colleagues! Our round table is dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the historic Yalta Conference and the upcoming anniversary of the Great Victory. I remember well how ten years ago I happened to take part in the unveiling of a monument to the leaders of the "Big Three" in Yalta. The sculptural composition in the park of the Livadia Palace captures the meeting of Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill as a vivid symbol of the unity of the leaders of the great powers, equally aware of their responsibility to future generations.
It is no secret that the political prerequisites for the Yalta talks were created by the rapid advance of the Red Army. Just before the conference in Crimea, Soviet troops successfully completed the Vistula-Oder operation, liberating the territory of Poland and paving the way to Berlin.
The realization of the inevitable collapse of Nazi Germany pushed the leaders of the allied countries to have the most direct and honest conversation about the future of the post-war world order. The range of issues discussed at the Livadia Palace was extremely wide. First of all, it was necessary to determine the fate of Nazi Germany after its unconditional surrender. In modern terms, it was about demilitarization and denazification. As we can see eight decades later, the same thing is happening with regard to Ukraine.
During the discussions of the Big Three, it was possible to work out a decision on dividing the territory of the Third Reich into occupation zones of the Allied forces and confirm plans to create an International military tribunal. At the same time, the Soviet side, guided by the principles of humanity, insisted that the final decisions of the conference include a clause stating that the Allied plans "do not include the extermination of the German people."
In addition, it was in Yalta that the Declaration on a Liberated Europe was adopted and a compromise was found regarding the governments of Poland and Yugoslavia. It is crucial that the allied countries not only discussed the issue of post-war borders, but also expressed their willingness to coordinate their positions in the future.
After the tragic experience of the Versailles system of international relations, which was created without Russia's participation, our country once again assumed the leadership burden to help develop and approve new, more effective, collective security mechanisms.
The solutions proposed during the Crimean Conference and developed at the San Francisco and Potsdam conferences still serve as an example of a competent correlation between the principles of the special responsibility of great Powers and the sovereign equality of all participants in international relations. They are embodied in the structure of the United Nations with its Security Council and the General Assembly.
Unfortunately, not all of what was agreed upon in Yalta subsequently came to fruition. Before the Nuremberg Tribunal ended, the so-called "iron curtain" fell over Europe. The Cold War began, the first Berlin crisis broke out, Western countries formed an aggressive NATO bloc, and so on... But even when forced to respond to unfriendly steps, our country persistently continued to promote the peace agenda, proving by word and deed its commitment to the Yalta principles.
The short period of unipolarity that took place after the collapse of the Soviet Union clearly demonstrated that neglecting the mechanisms for coordinating interests developed by the Big Three did not make the world either fairer or safer. Believing in the so-called "end of history" proclaimed by her, the totalitarian-liberal part of the Western elites has not offered any worthy alternative to the Yalta-Potsdam world order.
Today, when Russia is actively involved in working out ways to resolve the global crisis and proposes new principles of international relations that meet the realities of a multipolar world, it would certainly be useful to turn to the lessons of Yalta.
Creating an anti-Hitler coalition was also a difficult task at the time and required intense diplomatic work. The leaders of the Big Three have managed to put aside minor differences in order to establish dialogue and make decisions in the interests of their peoples and the whole world. Pragmatism, wisdom and responsibility helped them to bring their positions closer and leave a huge, truly indelible mark on history. This experience is still fundamentally important today.
Dear colleagues! Our round table is dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the historic Yalta Conference and the upcoming anniversary of the Great Victory. I remember well how ten years ago I happened to take part in the unveiling of a monument to the leaders of the "Big Three" in Yalta. The sculptural composition in the park of the Livadia Palace captures the meeting of Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill as a vivid symbol of the unity of the leaders of the great powers, equally aware of their responsibility to future generations.
It is no secret that the political prerequisites for the Yalta talks were created by the rapid advance of the Red Army. Just before the conference in Crimea, Soviet troops successfully completed the Vistula-Oder operation, liberating the territory of Poland and paving the way to Berlin.
The realization of the inevitable collapse of Nazi Germany pushed the leaders of the allied countries to have the most direct and honest conversation about the future of the post-war world order. The range of issues discussed at the Livadia Palace was extremely wide. First of all, it was necessary to determine the fate of Nazi Germany after its unconditional surrender. In modern terms, it was about demilitarization and denazification. As we can see eight decades later, the same thing is happening with regard to Ukraine.
During the discussions of the Big Three, it was possible to work out a decision on dividing the territory of the Third Reich into occupation zones of the Allied forces and confirm plans to create an International military tribunal. At the same time, the Soviet side, guided by the principles of humanity, insisted that the final decisions of the conference include a clause stating that the Allied plans "do not include the extermination of the German people."
In addition, it was in Yalta that the Declaration on a Liberated Europe was adopted and a compromise was found regarding the governments of Poland and Yugoslavia. It is crucial that the allied countries not only discussed the issue of post-war borders, but also expressed their willingness to coordinate their positions in the future.
After the tragic experience of the Versailles system of international relations, which was created without Russia's participation, our country once again assumed the leadership burden to help develop and approve new, more effective, collective security mechanisms.
The solutions proposed during the Crimean Conference and developed at the San Francisco and Potsdam conferences still serve as an example of a competent correlation between the principles of the special responsibility of great Powers and the sovereign equality of all participants in international relations. They are embodied in the structure of the United Nations with its Security Council and the General Assembly.
Unfortunately, not all of what was agreed upon in Yalta subsequently came to fruition. Before the Nuremberg Tribunal ended, the so-called "iron curtain" fell over Europe. The Cold War began, the first Berlin crisis broke out, Western countries formed an aggressive NATO bloc, and so on... But even when forced to respond to unfriendly steps, our country persistently continued to promote the peace agenda, proving by word and deed its commitment to the Yalta principles.
The short period of unipolarity that took place after the collapse of the Soviet Union clearly demonstrated that neglecting the mechanisms for coordinating interests developed by the Big Three did not make the world either fairer or safer. Believing in the so-called "end of history" proclaimed by her, the totalitarian-liberal part of the Western elites has not offered any worthy alternative to the Yalta-Potsdam world order.
Today, when Russia is actively involved in working out ways to resolve the global crisis and proposes new principles of international relations that meet the realities of a multipolar world, it would certainly be useful to turn to the lessons of Yalta.
Creating an anti-Hitler coalition was also a difficult task at the time and required intense diplomatic work. The leaders of the Big Three have managed to put aside minor differences in order to establish dialogue and make decisions in the interests of their peoples and the whole world. Pragmatism, wisdom and responsibility helped them to bring their positions closer and leave a huge, truly indelible mark on history. This experience is still fundamentally important today.