Richard Katz Quotes

So, anything that avoids a conflict that could draw in, unhappily again, outside powers such as the United States or revisit, for example, Japan's interests in the Taiwan area would be the last thing that anyone would want.

For four hundred years the foreign policy of England has to oppose the strongest, most aggressive, most dominating Power on the Continent …

Taking into consideration that we are involved in Russia's orbit, any coughing there will produce painful economic and political convulsions here.

Obviously it is the intention of the American Government to conspire with Great Britain and other countries to obstruct Japan's efforts toward the establishment of peace through the creation of a New Order in Asia.

That's the problem with Russia: The world has changed. Europe is not at war, and no one wants to negotiate with us. The world has changed, but Russia prefers to pretend it has not.

If the Cold War is really over, and the West really won, then continuing implicit deterrence does less to protest against a negligible threat from Russia than to feed suspicions that aggravate political friction. In contrast to during the Cold War, it is now hard to make the case that Russia is more a threat to NATO than the reverse.

Japan and China are isolated and without intercourse with other countries; hence the President directed me to attend to or watch the state of affairs in China also.

I've always held the view that great states need strategic space. I mean, George Washington took his space from George III. Britain took it from just about everybody. Russia took all of Eastern Europe. Germany's taken it from everywhere they can, and China will want its space too.

If America would withdraw from South Korea, there could be a power struggle between such as China and Japan.

American presence is, you know, the major cause of balance of power and the stability in this region.

Someone has said that nations have interests, they don't have friends, and you see that over and over in U.S. policy.

NATO expansion and Russian expansion - one leads to the other, and one reflects the other.

The United States and Russia probably do not have common aims and dreams, but they have common worries: Both Washington and Moscow are concerned about the rise of China and are threatened by the rise of radical Islam.

With regards to the expansion of NATO, I see it as a mistake, even a provocation in a way.

You know, in the WikiLeaks cables, the Chinese discovered that Kevin Rudd was urging the Americans to keep the military option open against them. This is hardly a friendly gesture.

I believe it is still true that conflicts among major powers usually stem from geopolitical rivalries but rarely from economic competition.

Many in China find it perplexing that the U.S. and Russian perceptions are still so heavily influenced by the Cold War.

It is clearly unwise for us to continue the attempt to carry alone, or largely single-handed, the opposition to Soviet expansion. It is urgently necessary for us to restore something of the balance of power in Europe and Asia by strengthening local forces of independence and by getting them to assume part of our burden.

The United States does not believe in durable coexistence with a moral threat.

A state worthy of the name has no friends—only interests. [This is a generalized expression of British Prime Minister John Henry Temple's statement a century earlier.

We should get back to the ... doctrine of brinkmanship, where everybody knows we have the power and will use it.

There will no longer be need for spheres of influence, for alliances, balances of power ...

The overall or political objective is to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and British Empire.

Most people are disturbed by the shift from deterrence to preemption but the fact is that in international relations, deterrence has a poor track record

America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests