He concludes writing (in complex, compound sentences) that the world faces numerous serious risks, and it is the duty of "primarily representatives of the victorious powers" of the Second World War to guarantee that post-WWII cooperation is maintained and improved, by convening the "five nuclear powers, permanent members of the Security Council"--US, China, France, UK, and Russia--to "discuss steps to develop collective principles in world affairs." He claims the support of the leaders of these countries to hold such a meeting.
However, Putin's article is riddled with errors of fact and misrepresentations. It is a shoddy basis for assessing global accomplishments and for forging a new international foundation of cooperation because it describes an alternative reality that never existed.
Quick takes on Putin's article include an excellent Twitter feed by Sergey Radchenko of Cardiff University on Putin’s use of language and misrepresentation of fact to distort history, https://twitter.com/DirkMattheisen/status/1273790768596111361, and an article by Daniel Fried at the Atlantic Council.
It is an interesting question though--and I am speculating--as to who helped Putin write his article. It undoubtedly reflects Putin’s views, but it also reflects the thinking and style of Dimitri Simes, the publisher of the National Interest. Simes has for many years published articles that excused Russian (and Putin's) misconduct in domestic and in international affairs. [The original post included a link to an earlier post that contained factual error, misrepresenting Dimitri Simes’ activities, and has been removed.]
