A Quote by Vladimir Putin

It is a fact that the US defence budget is larger than the defence budgets of all other countries taken together. This is why I understand the US President when he says that his NATO allies should take over part of this burden. It is a pragmatic and understandable approach.
Nato allies have been looking at various missile-defence options for some time. Nato itself is developing protections for our deployed troops.
Within NATO, our Defence Capabilities Initiative has identified the essential capabilities all Allies must have for modern operations, and Allies are working to meet those requirements.
I think NATO is obsolete. NATO was done at a time you had the Soviet Union, which was obviously larger - much larger than Russia is today. I'm not saying Russia is not a threat. But we have other threats. We have the threat of terrorism. And NATO doesn't discuss terrorism. NATO's not meant for terrorism. NATO doesn't have the right countries in it for terrorism.
Well, you have a defence attache here, that's a step forward. Your Defence Minister has been here, our defence people have exchanges with you. So friendly relations at the military level are already in existence.
Every established fact which is too bad to admit of any other defence is always presented to us as an injunction of religion.
Other people have to understand where we are coming from, including our allies. Our allies have taken advantage of us.
The great tragedy of Alzheimer's disease, and the reason why we dread it, is that it leaves us with no defence, not even against those who love us.
The defence and air defence ministers were both replaced and more than 2,000 officers lost their jobs.
In order to preserve a balance, while we aren't planning to build a missile defence of our own, as it's very expensive and its efficiency is not quite clear yet, we have to develop offensive strike systems. They [U.S.] should give us all the information about the missile defence, and we will be ready then to provide some information about offensive weapons.
We know that defence work results in more than great defence hardware - it can drive innovation and advances in all areas of our life.
A more worldly and competent foreign and defence policy is by far the preferred first line of defence - rather than the default position of relying on expensive but problematic hardware.
I understand all the problems for the Ministry of Defence, of course I do; working within a budget and trying to do so many things is not easy.
From the bowler's point of view, if I look at a batsman, I don't see his shots, I see his defence. If a player has a strong defence, he is a very good player.
We must defend our NATO allies, but we should also ensure that everyone pays their fair share. The United States shouldn't be responsible for funding other countries' shares.
The US spends more on energy R&D than all other countries put together, and I personally consider it quite inadequate. In fact, I would have said we should more than double it, if I thought the absorptive capacity could scale up and if it was actually possible to get to that level.
I see NATO as a good thing to have - I look at the Ukraine situation and I say, so Ukraine is a country that affects us far less than it affects other countries in NATO, and yet we are doing all of the lifting, they're not doing anything.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!