Sergei Lavrov Quotes

We are not wedded to anyone in Syria. We are not concerned with any personality. We are concerned with keeping Syria in one piece, territorially integral, sovereign, independent and secular, where the rights of all groups, ethnic and others, are fully respected.

Russia and the U.S. bear a special responsibility in world affairs. We have much to offer the rest of the world. Our common history testifies to this, and modern challenges demand that we work together.

Our stand is crystal-clear - we want peace in Ukraine, which can only be attained through broad national dialogue in which all regions and all political forces of the country must participate.

I can only say that I have good personal relations with all secretaries of state with whom I have a chance to work.

We have been protecting the lives of the Russian peacekeepers who had been attacked by their Georgian comrades, because there was a joint peacekeeping force.

I don't want to say that sanctions are ridiculous and that we couldn't care less; these are not pleasant things ... We find little joy in that, but there are no painful sensations. We have lived through tougher times.

Humanitarian issues must bring together all people who act in good faith trying to alleviate the suffering of people in dire need - especially women, children and the elderly.

Frankly speaking, we don't see any other way for the steady development of the Ukrainian state apart from as a federation.

You know that we are not in the regime-change game. We are against interference in domestic conflicts.

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 wouldn't even go into the history of the last days of the Soviet Union, the withdrawal from Europe, and what promises were given at that time, because those were oral promises, and our leaders of that time strongly believe that, like in ancient Russia, a word given is better than any treaty.

We have been getting out of the situation where we found ourselves in the early '90s, when the Soviet Union disappeared and the Russian Federation became what it is - you know, with no borders, with no budget, no money, and with huge problems starting with lack of food and so on and so forth.

We firmly oppose the use of violence in the course of current transformations in Arab States, especially against civilians. We are well aware of the fact that the transformation of a society is a complex and generally long process, which rarely goes smoothly.

The Americans have taken the course of confrontation and do not assess their own steps critically at all.

The E.U.'s Eastern Partnership programme is designed to bind the so-called focus states tightly to itself, shutting down the possibility of co-operation with Russia.

The international community unfortunately did take sides in Libya, and we would never allow the Security Council to authorise anything similar to what happened in Libya.

I know that Britain and the United States and others ship arms in the Middle East, 10 or maybe 100 times more than the Russian does.

Germany has traditionally played a very constructive role regarding E.U. ties with Russia and the West as a whole with Russia.

Syria is a multi-confessional state: in addition to Sunni and Shia Muslims, there are Alawites, Orthodox and other Christian confessions, Druzes, and Kurds.

We still believe that if the Russian Federation and the United States bring their minds together, we can develop a common system which would be efficient in protecting the Euro-Atlantic region from threats coming outside this region.

Russia would not support anything which would be actually imposed on Syrians.

I very much hope that the United States will finally ... realise that they can no longer act as the prosecutor, the judge, and the executioner in every part of the world and that they need to cooperate to resolve issues.

We feel no isolation. But, having said that, I want to emphasise in particular that we do not want to go to extremes and abandon the European and American directions in our foreign economic cooperation.

Assertions that Russia has undermined efforts to strengthen partnerships on the European continent do not correspond to the facts.

Washington has openly declared its right to unilateral use of force anywhere to uphold its own interests.

Sanctions are a sign of irritation; they are not the instrument of serious policies.

Regarding the visa-free regime, it has undoubtedly become a problem for the European Union, above all in terms of its capacity to reach agreements.

Russia has been entirely proportionate in its military response to Georgia's attack on Russian citizens and peacekeepers.

When you buy a company at an auction, and you are committing yourself to pay some $300 million to the state because it was a privatization deal, and you don't pay it, is it OK? Isn't it something that deserves court procedures?

In the spirit of commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, we will strive to achieve real progress in disarmament and arms control.

Conversations with my counterparts in Europe have made clear that many of them recognize NATO's limitations and understand the need for reform.

Shouldn't the General Assembly adopt a declaration on the inadmissibility of interference into domestic affairs of sovereign states and nonrecognition of coup d'etats as a method of the change of power?

The jihadists come from many European countries, Russia included, and some even from the United States; hundreds of them - if you take Europe, Russia and the U.S. - are fighting in the ranks of extremist groups.

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

There's no room for petty grievances in politics.

Russia has done more than any other country to support the independent Ukrainian state, including for many years subsidising its economy through low energy prices.

Crimea was not a non-nuclear zone in an international law sense but was part of Ukraine, a state which doesn't possess nuclear arms.

We provide transit facilities, we cooperate in equipping the Afghan army and security forces with arms and helicopters, we cooperate in training officers for law enforcement agencies.

Every country has its political face and political traditions.

If it acts like a terrorist, if it walks like a terrorist, if it fights like a terrorist, it's a terrorist, right?

What we did say is that it is up to the Syrians themselves to decide how to run the country, how to introduce the reforms, what kind reforms, without any outside interference.

Attempts to settle crises by unilateral sanctions outside the framework of U.N. Security Council decisions threaten international peace and stability. Such attempts are counterproductive and contradict the norms and principles of international law.

People versed in politics need not be told that the devil is in the detail, and tough solutions implying the use of force cannot produce a lasting long-term settlement.

Historical experience shows that a crisis causes either a recovery or catastrophic consequences.

Russia and the U.S. must jointly manage expectations to ensure that attempts to 'reset' our relationship succeed.

I can only say it is not for us to decide who should lead Syria. It is for the Syrians to decide.

Russia is doing all it can to promote early stabilisation in Ukraine.

The U.S.-led western alliance, while acting as an advocate of democracy, rule of law and human rights, is acting from the opposite position, rejecting the democratic principle of the sovereign right of states enshrined in the U.N. Charter and trying to decide for others what is good and what is bad.

The Russian Federation and the United States of America, the two biggest nuclear powers in the world, but apart from nuclear-wise, we have a lot in common. We have huge territories, natural resources, technologies, science, education, and of course human capital.

We believe Russian-American relations are broader and larger than emotions and mutual grudges, including the situation with the U.S. fugitive Edward Snowden.

Russian citizens being attacked is an attack against the Russian Federation.

Saddam Hussein was the one person after whom the United States went, and they ruined the country.

We can only talk to those who opt for the sovereign, territorially integral, secular, multiethnic and multi-confessional Syria.

When Colonel Gadhafi started using his air force against civilians on the ground, we did not hesitate. Then we supported the resolution of the Security Council, which introduced arms embargo for Libya.

Do not form your judgment about our military doctrine from the assessments given by NATO representatives.

We have absolutely no intention of, or interest in, crossing Ukraine's borders.

Attempts to put pressure on Russia and to compel it to abandon its values, truth and justice have no prospects whatsoever.

For years, we have been asking the E.U. to create something similar to the Russia-NATO council. Not in order to simply exchange opinions and work out recommendations, but to make decisions.

All our security now depends on the wise decisions and cooperation of our leaders.

We are categorically against proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Even the state TV channels are not monolithic in their pro-government line, and the views they express are quite pluralistic.

We believe that this is not right for a democracy to make revolutions the beacon of promoting democracy.

Hours before the Georgian invasion, Russia had been working to secure a United Nations Security Council statement calling for a renunciation of force by both Georgia and South Ossetians. The statement that could have averted bloodshed was blocked by western countries.

We have no desire to continue a sanctions war, trading blows.