Vladimir Putin Quotes

Statesmen should, you see, be very careful how they proceed to acts of positive hostility against the towns or inhabitants of any country with whom they ever intend to be on terms of alliance or kindness

Trump has got to define what he seeks to achieve with Russia, and then use diplomacy and sometimes coercion to achieve those ends. Right now, aside from this fight with ISIS, which I would underscore, you know, the Obama administration has been trying to fight ISIS with Russia for several years now.

Diplomacy is the art of telling plain truths without giving offense.

I have always said that a conference was held for one reason only, to give everybody a chance to get sore at everybody else. Sometimes it takes two or three conferences to scare up a war, but generally one will do it.

The United States is willing to exert strong leadership to give diplomacy its very best chance to succeed.

I think we can't be naive in dealing with the Russians or dealing with the Syrians. But at the same time, I think we could try to encourage - and I think this is what diplomacy should do - encourage the self-interests of all parties to believe that it is in their best interest to get evil actors or rogue actors such as Syria or Iran, if you try to have less belligerent and less bellicose behavior.

Diplomacy is much more than just talking to your friends... You've got to talk to people who aren't our friends, and even people you dislike.

You cannot have a diplomatic offensive without talking.

When a nation issues ultimatums, it leaves no room for compromise and ensures that war will continue.

We are desperately in need of the kind of smart diplomacy that has worked for America in the past. If you use force, it should be a last resort. And it needs to be used with full understanding of the consequences.

I ought to have seized the initiative in 1938 instead of allowing myself to be forced into war in 1939; for war was, in any case, unavoidable. However, you can hardly blame me if the British and the French accepted at Munich every demand I made of them! (14th February 1945)

You are here to step into the shoes of UN ambassadors - to draft resolutions, to plot strategy, to negotiate with your allies as well as your adversaries. Your goal may be to resolve a conflict, to cope with a natural disaster or to bring nations together on an issue like climate change. You may be playing a role, but you are also preparing for life. You are acting as global citizens.

You've seen President Trump act decisively when it comes to Syria. It didn't take him long to pull the trigger in regard to a response to the chemical attack. That's a decisive leader and that's who the G20 leaders saw in Hamburg, as someone who is decisive, someone who is not afraid, someone who doesn't kowtow, and stands up for himself when it comes to issues of disagreement like trade and the Paris agreement.

If I say look unless you change your leaders I will not give you any aid, you are likely to have people who say: "To the hell with you, we will struggle on the way but we will do it". Therefore what I am saying is - and I do not whether it is coming through clearly - there has to be a lot of care exercised by the people who are in the position to give or withhold assistance: if they start throwing their weight around, using extreme language, seeming to order other nations to do their bidding, then there will not be a good result, it will not be done.

I'm not going to Russia and tell them to go to hell and think - that's not the way things are done. You chip away at something and you hope that there will be dialogue and that the situation can get better. You don't just go in there with guns blazing and say well, to hell with you because they're going to say to hell with you and get out of the country.

A really good diplomat does not go in for victories, even when he wins them.

Appeasement is feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last.

We cannot give Russia veto over deployment of forces on NATO territory. But we have to understand their particular sensitivities, and, therefore, there should be a dialogue on these issues.

Only professional diplomats, inveterate idiots and women view diplomacy as a long-term substitute for war.

I would a whole lot rather had Carly Fiorina over there doing our negotiation than John Kerry. Maybe we would've gotten a deal where we didn't give everything away. But the issue for us is to have a Congress that stands up and says not only no, but "Hell no" to this money going to a [Iran] regime that is going to use it for terror...

In several speeches and interviews, Donald Trump has brought up his book 'The Art of the Deal,' and said that Obama would have negotiated a better deal with Iran if he had read it. It got even more awkward for Obama when Iran was like, 'It worked for us - you guys got screwed!'

In Washington, as we learned from the White House transcripts, a president may speak of kicking butts, call a problem a can of worms, decide not to be in the position of basically hunkering down, anticipate something hitting the fan, propose to tough it through, sight minefields down the road, see somebody playing hard ball, claim political savvy, and wonder what stroke some of his associates have with others.

The only treaties that ought to count are those which would effect a settlement between ulterior motives.

If the United States is accommodating, the North Koreans become accommodating. If the United States is hostile, they become hostile.

Nor is any evidence to be found, either in History or Human Nature, that nations are to be bribed out of a spirit of encroachment and aggression, by humiliations which nourish their pride, or by concessions that extend their resources and power.