Kersti Kaljulaid Quotes

If a future U.S. president were to refuse to defend an ally under attack, NATO would lose all credibility.

I think NATO is a Cold War product. I think NATO historically should have shut up shop in 1990 along with the Warsaw Pact; unfortunately, it didn't.

The logical thing is to implement the Arab Defense Agreement.

NATO is the most important military alliance in world history.

NATO is indispensable to America's national security.

We'll uphold our treaty obligations, including the mutual defense agreement that is NATO.

I don't believe Russia would attack a NATO country or NATO as such, no matter which country we are talking about.

In both world wars, Britain understood that our national sovereignty could only endure if we cooperated with other nations. That our fate is inexorably bound with that of our neighbours.

The principal purposes to be answered by union are these the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.

In general, states do not count on pledges of 'no more war' from their neighbors. Israel's army never counted on it from Egypt, for example.

War is just a racket... I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else.

When you look at where the Democratic field is going relative to foreign policy, they are increasingly moving away from a policy of pre-emptive self-defense that the president has adopted since September 11.

The first condition of success for the League of Nations is, therefore, a firm understanding between the British Empire and the United States of America and France and Italy that there will be no competitive building up of fleets or armies between them.

Most Americans will be horrified that President Obama is compromising our deterrent to chemical and biological attacks on this country. Our allies will also be troubled by his aspiration to eliminate U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.

If a country is suspected of going nuclear, you need to understand why. Why does it feel insecure?

The thing that makes countries want to pursue some kind of nuclear deterrent is precisely the fact that they feel threatened.

Turkey's a NATO member. If Turkey gets attacked, we have to help defend Turkey.

For the United States to be a global leader, we have to have a very tight relationship with Europe. And we've held that relationship since 1949 when we established the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. NATO is the bond. It's a security bond.

These measures may not constitute an absolute guarantee of peace, but, in my opinion, they constitute the greatest preventive measures ever adopted by nations.

NATO was built to counteract the Soviet Union in its day and time. At this point there is no threat coming from the Soviet Union, because there is no Soviet Union anymore. And where there was the Soviet Union once, there is now a number of countries, among them the new and democratic Russia.

Nobody wants any country to have nuclear weapons.

The United States, obviously, has a great interest in helping to maintain peace and security in Europe, and we have a formal alliance, NATO, to do so.

Security provided by peace treaties is preferable to security enforced by troops.

I believe in peace through strength. I would prefer to rely on the military rather than diplomats to protect our homes.

[In a nuclear era:] It is necessary for all [nations] to feel they are equally secure.