Vladimir Zhirinovsky Quotes

Suppose another war on a huge scale is threatened, how can it be averted by recognizing and patching up treaties with a Power which makes not the least secret--and the frankness of the actual Soviet leaders we must admit--of its desire and intention to smash our whole system of civilization, including Christianity.

If Russia and the United States approach each other in starkly adversarial terms, the conflict will badly warp the foreign policy of both countries ...

A war between Europeans is a civil war.

As for myself, I was never against Russia.

If I am elected President I will immediately issue an ultimatum to the leaders in Chechnya. If they do not capitulate within 10 days, Chechen villages and the entire Chechnya will be covered with blue clouds of smoke from missiles and projectiles.

It’s not a very nice solution, but a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war

Serbia must now be dealt with.

There is no common ground between us and Iran.

Many Europeans are concerned that stronger sanctions are a slippery slope toward war unless the U.S. is at the table.

I'm sure it is, I'm not for any kind of war, we've been engaged in several wars since the second world war and we lost in Korea, we lost in Vietnam, they are political wars, they have nothing to do with any real threat, nor does this one.

I believe - though I may be wrong, because I'm no expert - that this war is about what most wars are about: hegemony, money, power and oil.

I don't know why you use a fancy French word like detente when there's a good English phrase for it - cold war.

I told him that my own opinion was that the time now and the method now to deal with Russia was to keep our mouths shut and let our actions speak for words.

Politics are very much like war. We may even have to use poison gas at times.

All war represents a failure of diplomacy.

It is not uncommon in modern times to see governments straining every nerve to keep the peace, and the people whom they represent, with patriotic enthusiasm and resentment over real or fancied wrongs, urging them forward to war.

In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful.

We must continue to pursue peace through diplomacy, but we must also not shrink from our responsibility through the option of strength. We must take advantage of internal resistance and change from within Iran to avert this path of mutual destruction.

One of the elements in the film that really fascinated me was not to look at the world in bi-polar terms of us vs them or east vs west, which was a by-product of the Cold War.

Restoration of friendship with Russia, our biggest neighbor, is necessary for our peace and economy.

Going to war against Iran - whether one calls such a move 'surgical' or 'total' - would be an extremely serious undertaking; with worldwide economic, military, diplomatic and human ramifications in both the short- and the long-term.

Other than being crazy enough to press a button, there is nothing that Putin can do militarily to fundamentally alter American interests.

I know that military alliances and armament have been the reliance for peace for centuries, but they do not produce peace; and when war comes, as it inevitably does under such conditions, these armaments and alliances but intensify and broaden the conflict.

President Kennedy was willing to go to war. He was not a coward. The man had been in war and so had Ken O'Donnell. He was ready to protect this nation, but he was not ready for a military solution just because it was being rammed down his throat.

Everything that could produce a clash between the Arab world and the West seemed dangerous to me.