Sergey Lavrov quotes
Sergey Lavrov has been quoted 241 times. The one recent article where Sergey Lavrov has been quoted is Top German diplomat Gabriel warns of new NATO-Russia arms race. Most recently, Sergey Lavrov was quoted as having said, “Let's sit down as part of the NATO-Russia Council. But instead of repeating pro-Ukrainian, pro-coup – as I would put it – claims, lets…start working on what it was created for. Lets focus on European and Atlantic security.”.
Sergey Lavrov has been quoted 241 times. The one recent article where Sergey Lavrov has been quoted is Top German diplomat Gabriel warns of new NATO-Russia arms race. Most recently, Sergey Lavrov was quoted as having said, “Let's sit down as part of the NATO-Russia Council. But instead of repeating pro-Ukrainian, pro-coup – as I would put it – claims, lets…start working on what it was created for. Lets focus on European and Atlantic security.”.
Let's sit down as part of the NATO-Russia Council. But instead of repeating pro-Ukrainian, pro-coup – as I would put it – claims, lets…start working on what it was created for. Lets focus on European and Atlantic security.
All this is very much reminiscent of a witch hunt and the McCarthyism era which we all thought was long gone.
If we applied the same principle to [U.S.] Ambassador to Russia [John] Tefft, this would be real fun.
If we applied the same principle to Ambassador (John) Tefft's activities in Russia and his contacts, it would have made quite a funny picture.
This strongly resembles a witch hunt or the times of McCarthyism which we thought were long over in the United States as a civilised country.
It is difficult for me to comment because it is not possible to lease something from oneself.
On Feb. 20, the ceasefire regime will start, and withdrawal of heavy military hardware will also start to the places where they are supposed to be. We have actively supported this decision and obviously expressed a conviction that this time, failure should not be allowed to take place.
We do not discuss sanctions. We assume that this is an anomaly and that those who are imposing sanctions have to evaluate their effectiveness and decide whether they are in line with the normal relations between countries and if artificial attempts to politicise certain issues correspond to their international interests.
Naturally we couldn't solve all the problems. But we have a shared understanding that on issues where our interests coincide, and there quite a few of them, we should move forward.
As I understand it, when the Americans are talking about safety zones, first of all they are interested to reducing the number of immigrants especially through Syria from going to the West.
Overcoming the most heavy damage inflicted on the U.S.-Russian relations by the administration of Barack Obama will take time and serious effort.
We know that Trump is considered a master of the deal but Vladimir Putin knows how to make deals, too, in the interests of Russia.
In this situation the European Union needs to de-escalate the situation.
They state, first of all, that freedom of movement for the population should not be restricted and secondly that ethnic Albanian forces should not be present in the north of Kosovo, which is populated by Serbs.
A whole range of leaders of countries which are US allies openly campaigned for Hillary Clinton. Angela Merkel was actively doing that as well as François Hollande, Theresa May and other leaders of European states. Moreover, besides direct campaigning for Hillary Clinton, official representatives of the European countries were not shy to demonise Donald Trump.
Trump has a particular set of views which differ a lot from his predecessor. By concentrating on a pragmatic search for mutual interests we can solve a lot of problems.
It's one of key themes between Russia and the United States. I am convinced we will be able to restart a dialogue on strategic stability with Washington that was destroyed along with everything else by the Obama administration.
(That) means that we are dealing with people who won't get involved in moralising, but will try to understand their partner's interests.
What we hear from Donald Trump (on Syria) and his team speaks to how they have a different approach (to Obama) and won't resort to double standards.
It's not for me to prove any of this is false, as far as I know there is a presumption of innocence, so it's up to you to prove it's true.It's the same people who fail to create universal rules to bestow order on the media, who fail to consolidate efforts to fight cyber fraud who are accusing us, without any proof, of taking almost the entire world under our control.
If NATO power structures could not think of better ways to use its forces rather than in Estonia on the border with Russia, it means its intelligence is doing a poor job. It means NATO does not realise what's going on in other parts of the world, parts of the world that are under NATO responsibility.
We hope that the new administration will be able to accept that proposal.
The time of foreign policy demagogues is over, and, feeling hurt, they fabricate all kinds of fakes. First, officials leak fakes to the media, then media start spinning them and, finally, officials comment on them as facts.
We've seen some poor accusations that don't hold water, that since have been shrugged off by the British and their American counterparts who tried to jeopardize the new administration.
Donald Trump has unique views that differ from the views of his predecessors, both Democrats and Republicans. And at the core of it is the interest of United States as Donald Trump sees it. When we hear that his main focus is fighting terrorism, of course we will support it because this is actually what our American partners have been missing up until now.
I hope our cooperation in regards to the Syrian crisis and fighting terrorism will be more successful than the one we had with President Obama's administration.
If the NATO forces do not see any other place for themselves aside from the Russian-Estonian border, it means their Intelligence services are not doing a good job as they don't see what is happening in other areas.
We surely cannot leave such tricks without an answer.
We made a decision, I was informed by the Turkish Prime Minister about it, to eternalize Mr. Andrei Karlov's memory in Ankara. I have in mind renaming the street where the Embassy of the Russian Federation is located after Andrei Karlov.
Iran, Russian and Turkey express their readiness to act in favour and become guarantors of the agreement that is being prepared and negotiated at the moment by the Syrian government and opposition. The three call on all the other countries that have influence on the situation on the ground to do the same.
As our presidents have agreed yesterday this tragedy forces all of us to fight terrorism even more decisively and makes our meeting today even more relevant.
The Russian side wants to do that only when the corridors are established.
The situation is very, very bad. The civil defense has stopped operating in the city.
We are tired of hearing this whining from our American colleagues in the current administration that we need to immediately halt military action.
We say, keeping in mind our previous experience, when the militants used any break to regroup and receive reinforcements from abroad and terrorise the peaceful population even more fiercely, let us initially agree on which corridors will be created. We can agree on that with the Americans very quickly.
But after three days they revoked that agreement and returned to their old, dead-end position which comprises this: Before the agreement on corridors there has to be a truce... as I understand, this would just mean the rebels would get a break.
That leads us to a thought - and I am sincerely hoping I am wrong, that this is all orchestrated, coordinated to give a break to those bandits that are in eastern Aleppo.
Our American colleagues do, so to speak, agree with that, and from Dec. 3 when we met John Kerry in Rome they supported such a concept and even gave us their approval on paper.
Combat operations by the Syrian army in east Aleppo have been suspended because the largest operation of evacuation of civilians from east Aleppo is being carried out. A column of about 8 thousand people, it is a tremendous operation.
An agreement has been reached to hold a meeting on Saturday in Geneva between our military experts and diplomats, in order to finalise the work that has somewhat sporadically continued over all these days on a document that would determine ways and means of reaching a final solution for the eastern Aleppo problem, by ensuring the withdrawal of all militants as well as civilians who would want to leave.
Serious conversations with are our American partners are not working.
Those who refuse to leave nicely will be destroyed. There is no other way.
To ensure the withdrawal of all rebels without exception from eastern Aleppo, ensure humanitarian supplies to the city residents and the restoration of normal life in eastern Aleppo.
We informed the UN in New York and Geneva that there is no problem with delivering aid to eastern Aleppo, and all that needs to happen is for an agreement to be made with the Syrian government for these convoys to travel through the area. They are in no danger now.
It is widely understood that Russia has nothing to do with this. Neither did the Syrian Arab Republic or its airforce.
We respect the choice of the American people. We're open about working with the new president and that would've been the case whatever the result. Of course we expect that the relations between Russia and the US, which at the moment are going through a very very unfavourable period, will become smoother and return to normal, which is not only in the interests of our peoples but also the international community.
Unfortunately on many occasions, efforts for a political resolution have been sabotaged. That is not in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions. Some parties are backing extremists aimed at removing the Assad regime. We are convinced that if those resolutions had been carried out in an honest way, the situation in Syria would have already improved.
President Putin has suggested that we start thinking about a Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Syria. We think that terrorists are not the only ones responsible for the worsening of the socio-economic situation of the Syrian people but also the countries that are behind the illegal economic sanctions against Syria which strike first hand the civilian population.
Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham and other organisations that cooperate with them are sabotaging the UN efforts, that were made with the support of Russia and Syrian government, to set up humanitarian supplies in the east of Aleppo. The routes that such humanitarian aid can go through are being directly shelled.
There are a few ideas we discussed today in this circle of countries that can influence the situation. We agreed to continue contacts in the next few days aiming at agreements that could advance the settlement. We spoke clearly in favor of a quick launch of a political process.
So far, we haven't seen our partners to make any steps to get closer to fulfilling the agreements that we have.
If they decided to do something, let them do it.
One can only speak about the ceasefire revival only on the collective basis.
It is inadmissible to use this situation as a pretext for massive militarization of northeast Asia and deployment of another position area for U.S. global missile defense there.
We will keep working to reestablish the ceasefire. There have been attempts on the part of some of our colleagues to suggest that the government should take unilateral steps, but we insist that the opposition should also take the necessary steps and we have support of others on that.
Otherwise nothing will happen, There will not be any unilateral pauses.
The strikes on the 16th of September by the coalition against the government positions in Deir el- Zor were a clear violation of the cessation of hostilities and, immediately after those strikes, ISIL began assaults against the government forces.
I have a very demanding task now - not to let this list (of terrorist organisations) be reduced. I have no reason not to trust (U.S. Secretary of State) John Kerry, but what we see on the ground (in Syria) is that the coalition is very reluctant to strike the positions of the Nusra Front.
This all creates the necessary conditions for resumption of the political process, which has been stalling for a long time.
We, as John has just said, are creating a joint operations centre where military and special forces from Russia and the US will treat practical questions of separating terrorists and moderate opposition. We will then coordinate joint strikes on terrorists with Russia and US Air Forces.
This is just the beginning of our new relations. The Syrian government has been informed of these arrangements and is ready to fulfill them.
If Aleppo continues to be torn apart, the prospects for Syria and its people are grim.
It is too early to bury the six-party talks. We should look for ways that would allow us to resume them.
This is just the beginning of our new relations.
We are very much concerned and the resolutions of the Security Council must be implemented and we will send this message very strongly.
Of course the leaders discussed the issue of a peace treaty. There was an agreement that we will continue these consultations and the results will be passed on during the visit of the Russian leader to Japan, which will take place ... before the end of the year.
This is an example I think will get some following.
I don't want to spoil the atmosphere for the negotiations.
In the case we're discussing there has been no supply, sale or transfer of warplanes to Iran.
These military aircraft are being used by Russian air forces with Iran's agreement as a part of the anti-terrorist operation on the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic and on the request of the legal Syrian leadership which the Islamic republic of Iran also cooperates with upon request.
I don't want to use four-letter words.
Well, I don't want to use four-letter words.
We believe that this referendum is an internal affair of the U.K. But we're closely monitoring the situation because we're very much concerned with the impacts it might have on the relationship between Russia and the EU, Russia and the U.K.
But we noticed that this decision didn't include multilateral formats and we are ready to use them.
We regret that our American colleagues have announced the stoppage or suspension of our bilateral work on Syria.
Violence has decreased since February when the cessation of hostilities was declared. Humanitarian access has improved although we have to do better there and in the framework of the political process we had another round of talks in Geneva chaired by Mr Steffan De Mistura and his team.
As you know, Russia from day one stood in solidarity with the international campaign in your support, for your liberation and your return to your motherland. We had been consistently pressing (for your release), including in our contacts with the Americans, and we are glad that in the long run our participation in your release turned out to be useful and yielded results.
We are not giving up. We will strive for fulfilment of the (UN) Security Council decisions. We believe that the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) can and should play an important role in it.
At the moment all our Western partners, overseas and in Europe, talk only about Nadezhda Savchenko when the topic of human rights in the Russian Federation is discussed. No one remembers now that Russian journalists were killed in Ukraine.
Unfortunately from the very beginning there were many who wished to break down the agreements, including from within the U.S. administration. And as you know, yesterday to our deep regret those who were against political settlement of Syrian crisis, against the fulfilment of the relevant U.N. resolutions and have clear plans for solving the situation by force – succeeded.
Beyond all doubt, we are interested - maybe more than the other foreign partners of these two countries - in this conflict being settled as soon as possible.
Literally on the day Russia and the United States approved the joint initiative on the ceasefire in Syria, voices could be heard from the capitals of US allies and from Washington questioning the viability of this agreement. We want to say frankly that these voices are a call for war rather than for peace.
Their participation on an individual basis in the delegation formed at Riyadh meeting does not mean – and it is acknowledged by everyone including our American colleagues as co-chairs of the Vienna process – does not mean any acknowledgment of Jaish al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham as partners in the negotiations.
The talk is about people who arrived in Russia saying it was to either work in Russia or to see relatives. They did not declare the (true) purpose of their visit, which was transiting on their way to Norway. This means they gave false data about the purpose of their visit to the Russian Federation.
In both cases, the answer is: 'No'. This is untrue ... No one asked about political asylum, and no one offered anything of the kind. We have helped to break the trend in the country and narrow the area controlled by terrorists.
Hopefully the talks will start in the very near future. We agreed that once the political process has started we will be able to talk about a ceasefire.
We are ready to do this. We hope our Japanese friends are open to a relationship with no artificial constraints in all fields, too.
Only the Syrian people themselves can define their future. This is a clear response to attempts to impose a solution from outside on Syrians on any issues including those regarding its president.
We support the idea of reassembling in New York this Friday December 18th for the next regular meeting of the international group of support for Syria at the ministerial level and we expect that by the end of that meeting with the consent of all the members of the group, we would present the draft resolution to the UN Security Council.
We met Minister Cavusoglu at his insistent request. We heard nothing new. The Turkish minister confirmed the approaches previously voiced publically by both the president and prime minister of Turkey.
We have more and more questions about the real intentions of Ankara and its real commitment to eradicating terrorism, particularly in Syria and its interest in a normalisation of the situation in the Syrian Arab Republic.
We think it is absolute cynicism if Iraq and Syria's neighbours declare they support the UN's decision and say they will take part in an anti-terrorist coalition when in reality they play a double game, and are the terrorists' secret allies.
That also applies to the destiny of Bashar al-Assad and any other politician in that country.
If it acts like a terrorist, if it walks like a terrorist, if it fights like a terrorist, it's a terrorist, right?
We were not invited, we were not asked, and we are polite people, as you know. We don't come if not invited.
The Russian Ministry of Defence presented a full report on what was hit and what was the targets. We targeted ISIL associated depots, armaments and sites. We would be coordinating with the Syrian army and that is, I think, commonplace, recognised everywhere that airstrikes alone will not solve the problem.
We agreed that the military should get into contact with each other very soon… We all want Syria democratic, united, secular – a Syria which is a home for all ethnic and confessional groups, whose rights are guaranteed, but we have some differences as for the details on how to get there.
Certainly, there were military supplies, they are ongoing and they will continue. They are inevitably accompanied by Russian specialists, who help to adjust the equipment, to train Syrian personnel how to use this weaponry and there is no mystery or secret about it.
Justice requires those countries who unleashed the conflicts to face their responsibilities and provide humanitarian help to victims.
Among other things, it is necessary to help unify all the opposition groups, on a constructive basis, on a basis formed first of all from concern about the future of Syria, about saving it as an integral state, in which all the ethnic and religious groups feel protected.
It is clear a deal will not be a single momentous action, but rather an agreement that will have its stages, and that's now being finalised at the talks in Vienna.
You know, it is a kind of Joker card in the hands of the Ukrainian authorities. The Ukrainians will disrupt the implementation of the Minsk agreements but it will be Russia who will suffer because no one will lift the sanctions against them.
I agree with John that the ceasefire regime continues to be violated. There are also violations of the agreement to withdraw heavy weaponry, by both sides, sometimes more by one side, sometimes more by the other.
That is absolutely unacceptable, at least because we have had the Partnership and Cooperation agreement with the EU from 1999 which no-one cancelled, and it is written there that the parties shall not take actions that will lead to the deterioration of business conditions.
The first is for terrorist organisations to which a ceasefire would not apply. The second list is for opposition delegations which will hold talks with the government – under UN auspices – with the representative of the Secretary-General taking a coordinating role.
The chances are high. They are probably not 100 percent but you can never be 100 percent certain of anything. But the odds are quite 'doable.
This is a clear example of double standards.
We call for the obvious things: to influence Ukrainian authorities so that commitments supported by Petro Poroshenko, as Ukrainian president, are fulfilled.
All of the calls to judge the rebels, Russia, someone else, over breaking the ceasefire are aimed at only one thing: not to allow the situation to cross over to the path of political resolution.
Once again we call on everybody including those in Debaltseve, to stop fire now. Yes, there are people who got into encirclement, but let's decide their fates through negotiations and consideration for people's lives.
We have confirmation that the US was directly involved from the very start in this anti-governmental coup, and I want to underline that President Obama's rhetoric clearly shows Washington intends to do everything it can to unconditionally support the Ukrainian authorities.
I think that this draft law which abandons the non-aligned status and aspires to join NATO is counterproductive. Ukrainian politicians openly say it will solve the deep crisis of the Ukrainian state but this is just an illusion.
There were talks between representatives on the different sides in the conflict.
The special monitoring mission of the OSCE is increasing. It will watch over the heavy weapons withdrawal from the dividing line and will generally monitor that the cease-fire between Kiev security forces and militiamen is respected.
I think we will recognise the results of this election because it is very important for us and for Ukraine to finally have authorities that are not fighting each other or involved in a tug-of-war between the west and the east, but rather will deal with the real issues facing the country.
I think we will recognise this election because it is very important for us that Ukraine finally will have authorities which do not fight one another, do not drag Ukraine to the West or to the East, but which will deal with the real problems facing the country.
We cannot lose Ukraine, because Ukraine is not a group of individuals who have committed a coup and seized power. Ukraine is not those Nazis who continue to march in Kyiv and other big cities, who commit acts of vandalism, destroy monuments and praise Hitler's accomplices. Ukraine is the closest of brotherly nations to us.
The relations between Russia and the European Union have reached a reckoning point when the decision should be taken about the direction of our interaction in the future. When we should answer the question whether we are strategic partners for each other, or whether we still remain geopolitical competitors.
We don't know who is losing out more: Russia or the European Union.
We are absolutely interested in our relations normalising, but it wasn't us who destroyed them. Now there probably needs to be something like what the Americans call a 'reset'. There was a serious rollback in relations with the US in the last years of the younger Bush, and it was the Obama administration that came up with the 'reset' term.
The fight against terrorism should be based on the stable soil of international law. The attempts to act against the charter of this, our organisation, can't help our joint efforts. The fight against terrorism in Syria should be built in co-operation with the Syrian government which has made its readiness for this very clear.
I think that we should prove our commitment and we should assume the responsibility of showing that nobody can change the international law, nobody can abuse other European countries. So it's a price which is worth paying by the European community.
About the negotiations on the future status of Southeast Ukraine, according to the protocol signed in Minsk it is expected to take a step in this direction. We hope this negotiation will start soon without preconditions, between the Ukrainian authorities and the leaders of Luhansk and Donetsk.
The surge in anti-Russian rhetoric that we have seen at the exact moment when there is a very active effort to seek a political solution shows that the party of war in Kyiv is receiving active external support, in this case from the United States.
We have taken into account requests from the Ukrainian side on all aspects of this operation including the route that was suggested by Kiev, despite the fact that it is a very long detour compared to other routes of humanitarian aid delivery.
I think our Western colleagues should play a decisive role in implementing the declaration that was adopted yesterday in Berlin. They should convince the authorities in Kyiv to follow the previsions included in that declaration.
If Petro Poroshenko, before his inauguration, wants to use heavy weapons and the National Guard and the Right Sector and such to oppress the resistance in the southeast, and if Poroshenko tries to enter Donbass as a victor, this will hardly create welcoming conditions for him in the Donetsk region.
Ukrainians are the ones that must respect the agreements. I mean, both the regime and opposition because they must live together in the same country. On the grounds of equality and mutual respect they must co-ordinate the measures needed to put the Geneva agreement in place.
They're fighting with their own people. That is a bloody crime, and those who incited the army to do that will pay, I am sure, and will face justice.
I am convinced that our American colleagues can and should use all their influence to force the current Kiev authorities not just to acknowledge but to turn its responsibility for what's happening into action.
The first steps must be taken by the Kyiv authorities, that is absolutely unarguable, and try to get away from the way our western partners are trying to paint things in Kyiv as angels running things and making no mistakes; that's just incorrect.
The Geneva agreement is not only not being implemented, but also steps are being taken – primarily by those who have seized power in Kyiv – that are crude violations of the agreements reached in Geneva. The authorities aren't doing anything, they haven't lifted a finger to eliminate the causes that are the basis for the deep crisis today in Ukraine.
Steps are being taken – above all by those who seized power in Kiyv – not only that do not fulfil, but that crudely violate the Geneva agreement.
We will ease the situation. We will make it so that the government in Kyiv views with respect the opinions and demands of Ukrainian citizens who live in the southeast and without delay will join negotiations to calm the situation and not inflame it by the use of security bodies, particularly the army, which is explicitly forbidden by Ukrainian law.
Ukraine is spreading lies that Russia is behind the actions in the southeast.
Russia should learn from the experience of 2006/2009. These things when you employ them, energy weapons, do work in the short term, but they backfire in the long term. Russia is more dependent on the income of the gas then Europe is dependent on the gas. So, yes there will be a short term problem if Russia proceeds, but at the end of the day it might have more problems than us.
Regarding the question about who was provoking and who is provoking the events in Ukraine, our American partners are probably trying to treat the situation based on their usual behaviour.
Our stand is that Russian-NATO relations are also regulated by certain rules, including the Rome declaration, and the basic agreement of the NATO-Russia Council, according to which, there must be no additional constant military presence on Eastern European territory.
As for NATO's plans to increase its presence in the territories of its members in Eastern European states, our stand is that Russian-NATO relations are also regulated by certain rules. According to these, there must be no additional constant military presence on Eastern European territory.
When our partners compare Crimea with Kosovo just reflect for a moment – there was a lot of blood before Kosovo's independence was recognised. So I have a question as well, Do we need a lot of blood to be spilled in Crimea for everybody to agree that the people of Crimea have a right to self determination.
I am also satisfied to have this meeting today. This is a difficult situation we are in. Many things have happened and a lots of time has been lost, so now we have to think what can be done.
He, [Kerry], agreed previously, but called me back on Saturday and told me he would like to 'postpone the trip,' as he said.
All obligations, signed in an agreement of February 21st, must be fulfilled, including the start of a constitutional reform for all the regions of Ukraine taking into account their opinions.
We call for a responsible approach, to put aside geopolitical calculations, and above all to put the interests of the Ukrainian people first.
This draft contains a completely unacceptable ultimatum for the government; if all of this is not decided in the next couple of weeks, then sanctions will be automatic. This is not serious.
The invitations were sent, incidentally, not by the host country, but by the International Olympic Committee. Therefore those characters who think too much of themselves – the international and European politicians who have announced their rejection of the invitation – they actually rejected the invitation of the International Olympic Committee. We congratulate them all for that.
Why don't we condemn those who seize and hold government buildings, attack the police, torch the police, use racist and anti-semitic and Nazi slogans?
Attempts from the outside to impose any models of reform on the countries of the Middle East and North Africa, any experiments in social engineering, will turn back the clock on progress made and will hamper the process of political and economic modernisation, and we don't have to look far for examples. Once again, I call upon all external players to strictly abide by the basic principles of International Law to respect sovereignty.
Our task here is to put an end to the tragic conflict going on in Syria, which is causing the Syrian people a lot of suffering. A conflict that is destroying an ancient land. We cannot let this wave of upheavals have an impact on neighbouring countries.
This is of course a mistake. I've already said it before. But there has been no catastrophe.
Such meetings are not a format that would cause problems for the Japan-US relationship. And we hope that the Japan-US relationship wouldn't get in the way of cooperation with Russia. When we create friendly relationships with one party, we don't do it to antagonise another.
We hope that the UN Security Council resolution, which was adopted 10 days ago, will be fulfilled by all parties, as well as the countries which are neighbours of Syria.
We have serious grounds to believe that it was a provocation, and several of our partners without irrefutable proof, have announced that only the regime (of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad) could use such chemical weapons, but the truth has to be determined.
Now that the Assad government has joined the chemical weapons convention we have to engage our professionals together with the Chemical Weapons Prohibition Organisation and with the United Nations to design a road, which would make sure that this issue is resolved quickly, professionally and as soon as practical.
It was OK John, don't worry.
We believe resolving this problem will render air strikes on the Syrian Arab Republic unnecessary. Without doubt our American partners, as President Obama has said prefer a peaceful way to solve the problem of chemical weapons in Syria.
If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in that country would allow avoiding strikes, we will immediately start working with Damascus.
We were shown some findings which contained no specifics, neither geographical coordinates, nor names, nor proof that tests had been carried out by professionals. There are too many doubts.
I remember when we met John Kerry for the first time. He told me a great responsibility rests on our two countries, a lot of things depend on us. That is why we have to work as adults. This is what we are trying to do and we hope that it is reciprocal.
It's critical to support the constructive approach of the Iranian leadership.
You know, we are not in contact with Snowden and the issues he discussed with human rights activists were widely reported in the media. I heard about them in the same way as everyone else. To obtain political asylum under Russian law you have to go through specific procedures. The first step in this process is to make a formal appeal to the Federal Migration Service.
He chose his route himself, and we learned, like everyone else, from the mass media. He didn't cross the Russian border.
If our goal is the conference, then we must avoid any discussions and, of course, any action designed to establish a no-fly zone. We must avoid confrontational debates and one-sided resolutions in the United Nations General Assembly and in the Human Rights Council because all this is not helping to create the atmosphere necessary to convene a conference.
The only thing that unites the Syrian National Coalition is their demand for the immediate dismissal of Bashar al-Assad. They have no platform, are not ready to talk, and have impossible pre-conditions. It is clear to all, including our Western partners, that this position is unrealistic.
Russia and the United States will push the Syrian government and opposition groups to reach a political resolution.
We have long been trying to calm the situation [in Syria]. But as soon as the slightest glimmer of hope appears… someone immediately does everything possible to frustrate the hope. There will be no winner.
There is no disagreement with the US on Korea.
The proposal was made to all the embassies in Pyongyang, and we are now trying to clarify the situation. We asked our North Korean neighbours a number of questions we have to ask in this situation. We're now in close contact with China, the United States, South Korea and Japan – participants in the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear programme.
The situation may slip out of control and fall into a vicious circle.
The North Korean authorities have ignored international law again, ignored UN Security Council decisions. Undoubtedly, it deserves both condemnation and an adequate reaction.
In regard to Bashar al-Assad, he has repeatedly, in public, in private and at his recent meetings with Lakhdar Brahimi in Damascus, stated that he is not going to leave, that he will remain in the office until the very end.
As we have been doing for all these months, we actively encourage the Syrian leadership to make as concrete as possible its declared readiness for dialogue with the opposition.
There cannot be any artificial deadlines in this case. The investigation should be completed first, and only after this, will the material evidence will be handed over. That's our law and we can't change it.
As the coalition has been recognised as the only legitimate representative, it seems that the United States decided to place all bets on the armed victory of this same national coalition.
It was electro-technical equipment for a radar station. It is of dual use but not forbidden by any international convention.
We still believe that if all those who took part in the Geneva meeting in June demanded all the parties involved in the Syrian conflict agree to stop the violence, we would be able to start negotiations on how a temporary government could be established in the country. Then we would have an opportunity for a solution which could save many human lives.
My opinion is that after the start of Geneva process there is no need any more for any other activities like a meeting in Paris where 150 countries are taking part. It is difficult to expect serious talks on the settlement in Syria with such high participation.
The meeting in Geneva was planned to add support to Kofi Annan's plan. It has to create the conditions whereby the violence can be stopped and a national Syrian dialogue can be opened, but not to impose any results from this dialogue.
To impose on the Syrians decisions taken elsewhere and which are not a product of an inter Syrian dialogue, are not acceptable to us and we will have nothing to do with it.
We want this conference to be effective. For this reason all parties who have influence in this conflict have to participate and Iran is one of these countries.
There is effectively a functioning transit through Russian territory of different goods for international forces.
I will tell you frankly, we voiced our assessment with our Syrian colleagues. We think they could have been more active, their actions more decisive, executing provisions of Kofi Annan's plan.
This must be simultaneous, there can't be a situation where the government is called on to withdraw from towns and cities but not armed groups.
We should draw serious conclusions regarding the situation in Syria. It remains a cause of grave concern for Russia and the whole international community.
I believe that we all agree when we talk on Syria that the immediate task now is to end violence irrespective of the sources – like the Arab League initiative from 2nd November says – and allow humanitarian assistance to all those who are in need of it.
We believe it is absolutely necessary to avoid any steps which might undermine cooperation between the IAEA and Iran.
Today on Euronews, I saw a represantative of the so-called Syrian Liberation Army who said in the microphone that they have been waiting for additional supplies of weapons from abroad to be able to continue their struggle.
That means that not only peaceful citizens are involved but also armed forces fighting against the government. Not to accept this fact and to present the situation as if Assad's forces are just killing peaceful demonstrators, is just incredible. And generally, a half truth is always even worse than a lie.
Some of the voices coming from the West, assessing the results of the UN Security Council vote on the Syrian resolution, are indecent I would say, and border on hysteria. In this regard, I recall a proverb to the effect that those who get angry are rarely right.
(This would be) an absolutely unrealistic provision, expecting that the government of Syria would withdraw from cities and towns exactly at the time when the armed groups are taking over quarters of those cities and towns.
A fourth essential element of any (UN) resolution is the firm statement that this resolution may not be used to – cannot be interpreted to – justify any kind of outside military intervention in Syria.
At the moment, the Arab League is calling for an end to violence and the beginning of dialogue. But there have been calls from the West and other countries in the region advising the opposition not to enter into dialogue with President Bashar al-Assad's regime.
It's not the first time Israel has threatened Iran with an air strike. Our approach is clear: that will be a big mistake fraught with unpredictable consequences. For the Iran nuclear problem, just like any other problem in the modern world, the military solution doesn't exist.
Anyone's attempts to corner someone never leads to good relations, not to mention strategic relations. Russia is not resorting to such attempts. In relations with Ukraine we are guided by the principles of a strategic partnership.
We hope this will help us move forward faster than has been the case until now and that we can resume negotiations soon.
It means once again that those who declare recognition (of the rebels' National Transitional Council) stand fully on the side of one political force in a civil war which is ongoing in Libya. It means once again that supporters of such a decision are supporters of a policy of isolation, in this case the isolation of those forces that represent Tripoli.
As regards possible proposals to sanction through the UN Security Council a ground operation in Libya, the resolution 1973, which the Security Council has already adopted, directly and unequivocally rules out such an option.
The NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the Libyan operation was being conducted to protect the population, not to arm it. We fully agree with the NATO Secretary-General on this.
I think what happened has to be condemned. This could escalate into war. This is a massive danger, which must be avoided using all means available.
This visit will allow the president to identify the tasks needed to resolve the region's socio-economic problems. President Medvedev told me he will also visit the other islands.
This verdict is unlawful and we are concerned. The Thai court's decision is political and is regrettable. We have been giving this Russian citizen assistance all these months, in contact with his lawyers and family. We will keep doing our best to bring him home.
Unfortunately we have to conclude this regime's policy in the Caucasus has failed. While they don't change direction they don't have a chance in beating terrorism. And what's more, the security services fight the opposition and people's protests more than they fight terrorists.
All this re-reinforces the necessity of even stronger coordination for our international efforts so terrorists – those who organise, plan, pay for terrorist acts – cannot feel safe anywhere.
Today's phone call between the Russian and US presidents brought the negotiation process to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. We achieved the main aim: to agree on a true START treaty, based on absolute parity and respect of full and equal security.
I would advise you not to worry. It will be included, it will be legally attached so there will be no problem.
Unfortunately, the Iranian side did not support this preliminary agreement and started to move towards alternative ideas, which were not supported by the IAEA. If Iran is ready to return to the original formula, we will only welcome this.
We're very cautious about sanctions in principle. They rarely give results. But there are situations where sanctions cannot be avoided.
The (United Nations) Security Council must come out firmly and must work out those measures that would prevent a further dilution of the (nuclear) non-proliferation regime.
This only proves that we were 100% right when we warned those taking part in the war games not to do so, because it leads to a sharp rise in tension.
I think it is another provocation, both in the information field and in the geopolitical field. The present Georgian leadership has proven to be a supporter of this kind of provocation. I'm absolutely sure that it's not by chance it happened right before manouevers in Georgia on May 6 that we warned shouldn't take place.
But I have to say, some of the comments we have heard about this initiative from the European Union do worry us.
Our agenda is heavy but I ask you not to compare it with the stone Sisiphus had to roll up the hill. I assure you we will overcome our task.
All the accusations are against us as if there was nothing in the text demanding that Georgian forces return to their pre-crisis positions.
Our troops will be withdrawn gradually as these measures are put in place.
In addition to the American flag on the moon, you can list the flags of all nations whose citizens conquered Everest.
It will set a precedent for several territories, not only Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but – according to our figures – for some 200 regions in states around the world. If we allow someone to do something, many others will expect the same treatment.
We understand that Poland will make a decision based on its own security interests – hoping it will take pan-European security issues into consideration. We just want our concern to to understood.
I understand, of course, that historical memory, maybe linked to nostalgia for the colonial era, sometimes prevails over the legal aspect of the matter. But, in any case, one cannot speak to Russia in this way.
We believe that to make the joint work of Russian and US experts most effective, plans on deploying the third positioning region of the missile defence should be frozen.
There is no doubt that what is happening in Gaza is a coup, an uprising against the law. We are well aware of the seriousness of the situation between Fatah and Hamas.
We view the Nato-Russia Council as a valuable forum to discuss everything, despite our differing points of view, and I hope we can better understand each other.
I've heard about the idea of bringing international forces into Palestinian territories. To do this we would need the consent of all Palestinian representatives, Fatah and Hamas, and all Palestinians. We discussed this in the context of a comprehensive settlement of the Palestinian Israeli conflict.
Such an effect is being felt because we see attempts from the British side to use the criminal case to build up some sort of political campaign. We are against that.
We are not being at all ridiculous. The US is kick-starting the arms race.
From our side the Scotland Yard investigation does not effect political relations. I can't judge how it looks from the British side. I have already said that a campaign around this case, to make a political sensation out of it, has reached saturation point.
What does Georgia have to do to Russia? I hope nothing. We have enough from Georgia, and I do believe that it is not doing anything for anybody but it's coming back to normal civilized relationship.
Russia and Poland have a commun interest in the development of bilateral ties. There are difficult issues between our two states but we've aggreed to work together to improve relations.
We all want North Korea to get back to the moratorium on launches of missiles and to get back to the six-party talks on the basis of the outcome that was reached in September last year to resolve the nuclear issue of the Korean peninsula.
We are ready. All the necessary paperwork has been done in preparation for next month's meeting.
Many of them (euro-deputies) after the meeting expressed the interest in continuing this type of dialogue, I am sure that this dialogue will be further continued.
His letter expresses concerns that, in his opinion, some of the medical methods applied by doctors from the War Crimes Tribunal were negatively affecting his health.
We would not of course be advocating what some people call regime changes anywhere. We think the democratic process, the process of reform, cannot be imposed from outside.
Most quoted people
They clearly like the desert. But they've never even looked for a house.
They have to be rejected, because they are fundamentally un-American.