Reading between the lines of Putin’s U.N. address on Monday | Getty Speechreader Putin’s new world order The Russian president, far from ostracized, is the center of global attention.

The president of Russia uses a Putin-speak in his speeches that we must parse word for word, in our own best interests. Only after translating them into normal speech do we learn what he has said and why. His speech Monday to the United Nations General Assembly made seven overlapping and interdependent points that are worth translating.

Unlike Barack Obama’s passionate address, Putin delivered his remarks in the measured and moderate tones of a world statesman. They were still words of warning: Join us in a broad coalition and leave nondemocratic regimes alone, or catastrophe will strike.

Following are the major points that Putin wished his audience to take back to their respective countries:

First, the United States and its Western allies are responsible for the sad state of world affairs owing to their foolhardy interventions on behalf of democratic revolutions. Democratic revolutions are the dreams of those who have unrealistic views of the world. The USSR learned that it could not export socialist revolution; the West must learn that it cannot export democratic revolution.

Second, the United Nations, not some agglomeration of prosperous Western powers, should guarantee peace and security for all, not just to a select few singled out for narrow benefit. Only the U.N. can form a broad coalition that can put an end to the terrorist threats of ISIL. The matter is urgent. If such a coalition is not formed soon, the migrant flow to Europe will reach into the millions, not tens of thousands, and no country will be safe from terrorist attack, says Putin.

Three, Russia’s status as a veto-welding member of the U.N. Security Council is not affected by Russia’s recent disagreements — namely, the United Nations’ condemnation of the Crimean annexation and Russia’s veto of a criminal tribunal to punish those responsible for shooting down Malaysia Airlines MH17. Such disagreements, even among the major Western powers, have disrupted the work of the Security Council since the U.N.’s founding. Putin tells his audience that the fact that Russia disagrees with certain U.N. resolutions is normal and does not affect its veto power.

Fourth, the West must understand that the choice between governmentalism ('gosudarstvennost’) and chaos must be made in favor of the former. The Assad government may not be ideal, but it is the only institution of statehood that exists. Libya’s Gaddafi regime was tyrannical, but what came afterward has been worse. Well-intentioned actions that destroy a nation’s “governmentalism” leave vacuums that forces of evil, such as ISIL, fill. The ranks of ISIL, for example, were populated with the disaffected remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime. No such thing as a moderate opposition exists, as shown by America’s comedic efforts to train and arm anti-Assad forces.

Fifth, the West must suppress its appetite for supporting democratic opposition forces that challenge “governmentalism” in regimes whose human rights, press freedom, and election procedures fall short of Western ideals. (Not stated by Putin is that he includes Russia in this category; hands off Russia’s internal affairs.) The West’s meddling in Ukraine had the unanticipated consequence of what Putin calls a “spontaneous civil war,” with over 8,000 deaths.

Sixth, the world must return to normal trading patterns, “harmonized” by the World Trade Organization and the U.N. This new order cannot be a diktat of the strong but must be fair and even for all, perhaps including a common market between the European Union and Putin’s proposed Eurasian Union. Sanctions, which are imposed for political reasons and personal financial gains, would have no room in such a world order. The sanctions against Russia must be lifted immediately. The West knows they are not fulfilling the purposes for which they were levied.

Seventh, the Western world must respect the security concerns of Russia over NATO expansion. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO enlargement can only be seen as encircling and threatening Russia’s sovereignty. If the world goes to a common market of common markets (European Union with Putin’s Eurasian Union), there is no reason to be concerned about the EU expanding to include Ukraine.

* * *

Putin’s U.N. speech did not deviate from previews he gave weeks earlier. His broad coalition will include the Assad government as a non-negotiable condition. Putin portrays himself as the knight on a white horse galloping in to save the day for the bumbling Obama. Putin is betting his new world order on the U.N., where less than half of its members are classified as free and where his “leave bad regimes alone” message resonates.

Putin cleverly weaves together points to which Western audiences would agree (we have indeed made a mess of the Middle East and Ukraine) with ideas that are wrong or inoperable. He does not explain how a broad coalition can be formed that includes warring Sunni and Shia factions. Nor does he tell us how his Eurasian Union can blend with the European Union, when both are founded on completely different economic and political principles. Are the Western countries supposed to lift sanctions if Putin’s armed forces fight only against anti-Assad forces? Is the West supposed to tolerate ruling regimes, no matter how terrible, just because they can promise a state that prevents vacuums from being formed?”

Putin was the center of attention in New York. This is what drives him. Instead of Putin the ostracized, he is now Putin the creator of a new world order.

Paul R. Gregory is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. He holds an endowed professorship in the Department of Economics at the University of Houston, Texas, is a research professor at the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin, and is emeritus chair of the International Advisory Board of the Kiev School of Economics.