Ronald Reagan Quotes

A broader reading of history shows that appeasement, no matter how it is labeled, never fulfills the hopes of the appeasers.

The management of a balance of power is a permanent undertaking, not an exertion that has a foreseeable end.

There are some who, for varying reasons, would appease Red China. They are blind to history's clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement has led to more than a sham peace. Like blackmail, it lays the basis for new and successively greater demands until, as in blackmail, violence becomes the only other alternative.

[Recep Tayyip] Erdogan is an adherent of realpolitik. He knows that international relations are not built on the strength of unilateral demands, but on solutions that are in everybody's best interest.

It would be easier to be tough on Russian than make a deal. I don't know if we'll make a deal.

If anything good is going to emerge out of this, it's going to be the result of an acceptable modus vivendi between Ukraine and Russia. The two of them will have to get together at some point. It is going to be a result that many people in the West will not like, because Russia, as the bigger power, is going to get the better of the deal. So, a lot of people will say, that's appeasement. That's this - that - it's reality.

Many politicians in the West cling to the notion of a partnership with Russia. They want to include [Vladimir] Putin, make compromises and constantly negotiate new deals with him. But history has taught us that the longer we pursue appeasement and do nothing, the higher the price will be later on. Dictators don't ask "Why?" before they seize even more power. They ask: "Why not?"

If you treat China like a foe, surely she will become one.

Appeasement was never a very clever policy, and it should not be our option today.

Reasonable, even intelligent people can, and frequently do, disagree on how best to achieve peace in the Middle East, but, peace must be the goal of our foreign policy tools, whether they be by the stick or by the carrot.

Americans tend to go for it all. In international politics you can’t have it all. You have to compromise.

Great powers engage.

Clearly, for France in her present position, intelligent activity consists of practicing a policy of entente with Germany in order to survive

Diplomacy and force are two sides of the same coin.

The United States sits down with her enemies because they have some semblance of power.

The origins of the principle of the balance of power are lost in the mists of history.

If war is so easily averted as all this it does seem a pity no P[rime] M[inister] except Neville Chamberlain] has thought of it before. Peace without Honour seems to be what we have got. I'm glad. One can't expect both.

Mr. President, we need to be strong and firm, but that doesn't mean you have to commit political suicide.

We had to avoid wounding Austria too severely; we had to avoid leaving behind in her any unnecessary bitterness of feeling or desire for revenge; we ought rather to reserve the possibility of becoming friends again with our adversary of the moment, and in any case to regard the Austrian state as a piece on the European chessboard and the renewal of friendly relations as a move open to us. If Austria were severely injured, she would become the ally of France and of every other opponent of ours; she would even sacrifice her anti-Russian interests for the sake of revenge on Prussia.

[To Americans] diplomacy means all the wicked devices of the Old World, spheres of influence, balances of power, secret treaties, triple alliances, and, during the interwar period, appeasement of Fascism.

In relations with other nations, there is neither right nor wrong; there is only strength and weakness.

Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour. They will have war.

War should never be thought of as something autonomous, but always as an instrument of policy.

A multipolar world means more compromise [on Human Rights violations]… more back-scratching and less principled denunciation.

We will be no worse if we try diplomacy and fail.