Vladimir Putin Quotes

The United States needs to be far clearer: we cannot and will not support any government where Hamas has a real influence and the security forces stop fighting terror.

I think it's very hard to fight the war on terrorism if we're in retreat.

The struggle against terrorists in the territory of Syria should be structured in cooperation with the Syrian government, which clearly stated its readiness to join it.

I have big hope for the Canadian government to help Somalia with something concrete and tangible. I haven't seen that.

It was not my intention whatsoever for the Japanese government to try to get me out of trouble. And I really appreciate the Japanese government for all they have done for me.

If we speak calmly, in a businesslike fashion, let me draw your attention to the fact that Russia supplies arms to the legitimate government of Syria in full compliance with the norms of international law. We are not breaching any rules and norms.

The UN could help the Iraqi government get on its feet and help the United States withdraw a bit more.

The Iraqis need help establishing a government. We have to provide them with security.

I think Syria is often covered by phone. You have to talk to activists. You have to try to read the tea leaves. You have to talk to government officials. It's remote-control reporting in a way.

The Iraqis, because they had become so tired of war, they were very peaceful and easy to work with. But the Syrian children—–the boys—–they have this idea, "We have to go back to Syria to fight": They hear this constantly from their fathers—–you're going to be a soldier and go back to Syria—–so they're little rebels, not little kids. It's all about ... how they need to go back and avenge what happened.

The United States and our allies across the world are working every day to fight terrorism. We must continue those efforts, and we must promote peace and freedom.

We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace. We know that oppressive governments support terror, while free governments fight the terrorists in their midst. We know that free peoples embrace progress and life, instead of becoming the recruits for murderous ideologies.

If a government is to do great new things, it will need more support. If a government is to change the world, it will need mass support. This is one of the discoveries of modern government.

Today, the government of a free Afghanistan is fighting terror, Pakistan is capturing terrorist leaders, Saudi Arabia is making raids and arrests, Libya is dismantling its weapons programs, the army of a free Iraq is fighting for freedom, and more than three-quarters of al-Qaida's key members and associates have been detained or killed. We have led, many have joined, and America and the world are safer.

What I'm suggesting is we are going to look back, and we're going to see what happened in Syria, and we're going to see the larger destabilization of the Middle East, the rise of extremism, and we're going to wonder... Why didn't we at least try to force a political solution - at an acceptable cost to us, because no one is saying we should send in ground troops - and if we did it would be worse than doing nothing... If we do not act, we are going to look back and wonder why we didn't.

If you want to kill the Syrian people, who's going to support us as a government, as officials? No one.

There's no way to resolve Syria without Iran being involved, given its financing of Assad and the fact that Hezbollah is probably the most effective fighting force that Assad can count on.

We need a united front against Islamic State and Assad happens to be the decisive power that can fight them. But the situation is preposterous because we also have to respect the calls for change. I would be in favor of a dignified change.

I do not see Russia as a friend of the United States in any form or fashion. Are there some things that we might be able to work together on? Sure. We certainly haven't seen evidence of their desire to fight terrorism with us. I mean, we see them kill civilians, and you know, help Syrian President Bashar Assad concentrate more fully his power.

At the U.N., any nation that fights back is censored as an "aggressor."

In the eighties, we asked for international coalition against terrorism after the Muslim Brotherhood crisis in Syria when they started killing, of course they were defeated at that time. We asked for the same thing. So, this is a long-term policy that we base our policy on for years now.

So there are two separate tracks. One track is for the Syrian government and the opposition that is interested in a peaceful future of Syria to come together for national unity, for the political process. At the same time, it is a requirement for everybody to stop supporting the extremist groups, to stop allowing them safe passage, to stop allowing them to receive weapons, to stop allowing them to receive financial assistance, and to come together in actually fighting them.

From our side, from our part as government, we have two missions: the first one is to fight those terrorists to liberate that area [eastern part of Aleppo] and the civilians from those terrorists, and at the same time to try to find a solution to evacuate that area from those terrorists if they accept, let's say, what you call it reconciliation option, in which they either give up their armaments for amnesty, or they leave that area.

Our most important allies in the fight against ISIL are the vast majority of Muslims who reject its apocalyptic ideology of hatred.

[Donald] Trump suggesting to "The Wall Street Journal" that he would stop aiding the rebels fighting [Bashir] Assad.