There is no doubt that today's speech by the Russian president at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, as actually announced by the Kremlin, will become a topic for very lively discussions in serious media for at least weeks, or even months ahead.
And the point here is not at all that now, during the special military operation in the Donbass, any phrase, even casually and casually thrown by Vladimir Putin, is considered literally under a magnifying glass.
Everything is much easier.
The message really had a programmatic character and in many respects was not so much an important, but above all a political speech, as a direct guide to action.
And the times we have now, as you know, are not the easiest.
And non-fulfillment of actual direct orders from the authorities is fraught with at least official well-being.
It is no coincidence that Vladimir Vladimirovich directly addressed either the government, or the banking environment, or the business community - it is somehow extremely stupid not to understand.
What is especially important here.
Without trying, according to the precepts of the unforgettable Kozma Prutkov, to embrace the immensity, let's try to highlight some of the most interesting, in our opinion, theses.
The first, most important thesis of the message (in fact, Putin began with this - almost from the very first words - and this was unconditionally and emphasized addressed to the listeners not only externally, but also internally): a return to the recent prosperous past , so that it was “like with a grandmother” (as Emperor Alexander I said upon accession to the throne), it definitely will not.
And the point here is not that you don’t want to, but that it is already absolutely impossible: your “grandmother” has left, sorry.
Under no circumstances will it be returned.
And it is by no means accidental that Putin spoke so much, firstly, about the need for sovereignty (not only political, but also economic and even technological), and secondly, about the need to be strong in every sense of the word.
In the world, on the ruins of global unipolarity, new centers of power are now being actively formed.
And our country, if it wants to simply survive, needs to become at least one of them.
We have all the possibilities for this - we need strength and will.
The second, no less important, in my opinion, thesis is, if you like, about true values.
And about the potential conversion of even sovereign reserves from, excuse me, the cut paper of the "global world" into "real resources".
And not simply, but as (again, excuse me, I will quote the president) part of the transition of the “economy of imaginary entities” to the principles of the real, new world.
And this, in my opinion, is a very deep and, if you like, philosophical question, which is still to be discussed and discussed.
The third thesis that I would single out already as a journalist who writes professionally about the problems of the fuel and energy complex is the issue of traditional European markets for us.
If I were our exporters, I would take Putin's forecast of a systemic deterioration in the European economy for years to come very seriously.
The obvious thing is that the oil and gas embargo may come quite automatically in our regard, because with such trends there will be no one to trade with after some time.
Everything is simple here.
The sharp increase in inflation, as Putin rightly pointed out, in the commodity and raw materials markets became a fact long before the events of this year.
The world has been consistently driven into such a situation by the long-term irresponsible macroeconomic policies of the G7 countries, including uncontrolled emission, insane projects such as the green transition, and other unthinkable beauty.
The special operation in the Donbass has absolutely nothing to do with it.
This is a systemic problem, and solutions are not particularly visible here.
Especially if you take into account the quality of the current European elites.
And these are our traditional markets, for a second.
Something must be decided.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.