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.
We are not wedded to anyone in Syria. We are not concerned with any personality. We are concerned with keeping Syria in one piece, territorially integral, sovereign, independent and secular, where the rights of all groups, ethnic and others, are fully respected.
Russia would prefer to rebuild trust rather than allow it to further corrode. That's why, in July 2007, President Putin, in the spirit of strategic openness, proposed a truly collective effort at missile defense for Europe.
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.'
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?
When you buy a company at an auction, and you are committing yourself to pay some $300 million to the state because it was a privatization deal, and you don't pay it, is it OK? Isn't it something that deserves court procedures?