If you look at U.S. Congress, 80 percent of them have never left the U.S.A., so I'm not surprised about Russophobia in Congress.
Sanctions are a sign of irritation; they are not the instrument of serious policies.
Attempts to settle crises by unilateral sanctions outside the framework of U.N. Security Council decisions threaten international peace and stability. Such attempts are counterproductive and contradict the norms and principles of international law.
If our interests - our legitimate interests, the interests of Russians - have been attacked directly, like they were in South Ossetia, for example, I do not see any other way but to respond in accordance with international law.
Russia and the U.S. must jointly manage expectations to ensure that attempts to 'reset' our relationship succeed.
We are categorically against any new military nuclear power, be it Iran, be it North Korea, be it anyone.
You know that we are not in the regime-change game. We are against interference in domestic conflicts.
I don't believe in ideology in international relations.
We keep our reserves both in dollars and in Euros mostly.
We still believe that if the Russian Federation and the United States bring their minds together, we can develop a common system which would be efficient in protecting the Euro-Atlantic region from threats coming outside this region.
Do not form your judgment about our military doctrine from the assessments given by NATO representatives.
Germany has traditionally played a very constructive role regarding E.U. ties with Russia and the West as a whole with Russia.
We provide transit facilities, we cooperate in equipping the Afghan army and security forces with arms and helicopters, we cooperate in training officers for law enforcement agencies.
If you say that your national law allows you to do something, it is fine as long as you do this inside your own territory. As long as you go international, you really have to be sure that there is an international law which you respect and which you follow.
If you think that a coup to overthrow the elected government is a coup everywhere, then you should remember how elections in Ukraine took place in 2004, how elections in Georgia took place in 2003, when the elections results have been torn and thrown away by revolutionary action.
I know that Britain and the United States and others ship arms in the Middle East, 10 or maybe 100 times more than the Russian does.
Shouldn't the General Assembly adopt a declaration on the inadmissibility of interference into domestic affairs of sovereign states and nonrecognition of coup d'etats as a method of the change of power?
We feel no isolation. But, having said that, I want to emphasise in particular that we do not want to go to extremes and abandon the European and American directions in our foreign economic cooperation.
There's no room for petty grievances in politics.
We can say that Japan is the only country that calls into question the outcome of the Second World War; no one else does.
We firmly oppose the use of violence in the course of current transformations in Arab States, especially against civilians. We are well aware of the fact that the transformation of a society is a complex and generally long process, which rarely goes smoothly.
Saddam Hussein was the one person after whom the United States went, and they ruined the country.
In the spirit of commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, we will strive to achieve real progress in disarmament and arms control.
For years, we have been asking the E.U. to create something similar to the Russia-NATO council. Not in order to simply exchange opinions and work out recommendations, but to make decisions.
Every country has its political face and political traditions.
Russia probably knows the true cost of revolutions better than most other countries.
Attempts to put pressure on Russia and to compel it to abandon its values, truth and justice have no prospects whatsoever.
We have no desire to continue a sanctions war, trading blows.
NATO cannot accept that the unconstitutional coup in Ukraine has not led to the subjugation of the whole Ukrainian nation.
You either deny terrorists any acceptance in the international life, or you make your double standard policy work the way it has been working - 'I don't like that guy in this country, so we will be calling him a dictator and topple him. This guy in another country also dictatorial, but he's our dictator.'
All our security now depends on the wise decisions and cooperation of our leaders.
I don't think you can perpetrate war crimes with defensive weapons, with air defense systems.
I can only say it is not for us to decide who should lead Syria. It is for the Syrians to decide.
When the Georgian army started this assault against the sleeping city of Tskhinvali, the Georgian peacekeepers, serving in one contingent with their Russian friends, joined the army and started killing the Russian comrades in arms.
We have become stronger economically; we have been successfully resolving the social problems, raising the level of living - the standards of living - of the population.
Crimea was not a non-nuclear zone in an international law sense but was part of Ukraine, a state which doesn't possess nuclear arms.
You cannot strengthen the law by violating the law.
Humanitarian issues must bring together all people who act in good faith trying to alleviate the suffering of people in dire need - especially women, children and the elderly.
We are categorically against proliferation of nuclear weapons.
We have absolutely no intention of, or interest in, crossing Ukraine's borders.
There is nothing in this world which could be not described as requiring more.
Frankly speaking, we don't see any other way for the steady development of the Ukrainian state apart from as a federation.
Russia and the U.S. have unique experience in ensuring the safety and security of nuclear material.
Historical experience shows that a crisis causes either a recovery or catastrophic consequences.
We are certain that Ukraine needs profound constitutional reform. In all fairness, we can't see any other way to ensure the stable development of Ukraine but to sign a federal agreement.
I started, you know, to work as a diplomat during the Soviet days, and in spite of ideology being very high on the Communist Party agenda, I can assure you that in practical terms, we have always been trying to be pragmatic.
We have been getting out of the situation where we found ourselves in the early '90s, when the Soviet Union disappeared and the Russian Federation became what it is - you know, with no borders, with no budget, no money, and with huge problems starting with lack of food and so on and so forth.
The E.U.'s Eastern Partnership programme is designed to bind the so-called focus states tightly to itself, shutting down the possibility of co-operation with Russia.
NATO has a special relationship with countries far away from Europe: Australia, Japan, South Korea. They have joint projects and programmes which are being implemented without these countries becoming members of NATO.
