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.'
— Sergei Lavrov
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.
Do not form your judgment about our military doctrine from the assessments given by NATO representatives.
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.
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.
With regards to the expansion of NATO, I see it as a mistake, even a provocation in a way.
Saddam Hussein was the one person after whom the United States went, and they ruined the country.
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.
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?
I wouldn't even go into the history of the last days of the Soviet Union, the withdrawal from Europe, and what promises were given at that time, because those were oral promises, and our leaders of that time strongly believe that, like in ancient Russia, a word given is better than any treaty.
What we did say is that it is up to the Syrians themselves to decide how to run the country, how to introduce the reforms, what kind reforms, without any outside interference.
Russia would not support anything which would be actually imposed on Syrians.
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.
Sanctions are a sign of irritation; they are not the instrument of serious policies.
I don't think you can perpetrate war crimes with defensive weapons, with air defense systems.
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.
I can only say it is not for us to decide who should lead Syria. It is for the Syrians to decide.
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.
We have no desire to continue a sanctions war, trading blows.
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.
Our stand is crystal-clear - we want peace in Ukraine, which can only be attained through broad national dialogue in which all regions and all political forces of the country must participate.
Russian citizens being attacked is an attack against the Russian Federation.
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.
We are categorically against proliferation of nuclear weapons.
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.
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.
I can only say that I have good personal relations with all secretaries of state with whom I have a chance to work.
The Russian Federation and the United States of America, the two biggest nuclear powers in the world, but apart from nuclear-wise, we have a lot in common. We have huge territories, natural resources, technologies, science, education, and of course human capital.
We can only talk to those who opt for the sovereign, territorially integral, secular, multiethnic and multi-confessional Syria.
You cannot strengthen the law by violating the law.
Every country has its political face and political traditions.
Regarding the visa-free regime, it has undoubtedly become a problem for the European Union, above all in terms of its capacity to reach agreements.
I very much hope that the United States will finally... realise that they can no longer act as the prosecutor, the judge, and the executioner in every part of the world and that they need to cooperate to resolve issues.
It is absolutely unacceptable to talk to Russia - or anyone for that matter - in the language of ultimatums and coercive measures.
When Ukrainians kill Ukrainians, I believe this is as close to a civil war as you can get.
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.
Russia has every reason to dispose of its nuclear arsenal... to suit its interests and international legal obligations.
Even the state TV channels are not monolithic in their pro-government line, and the views they express are quite pluralistic.
Historical experience shows that a crisis causes either a recovery or catastrophic consequences.
A second opinion never hurts, not only in medicine, but also in politics.
The international community unfortunately did take sides in Libya, and we would never allow the Security Council to authorise anything similar to what happened in Libya.
We have looked into the general problems with adoption in the United States, and we discovered - on the basis of the reports written by American NGOs - we discovered that not only Russians but kids from other countries and the American-born kids have been subject to very unfortunate behavior on the part of their adopted parents.
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.
