IPSEs IN THE LAST 24H
  • Ursula von der Leyen
    Ursula von der Leyen “I am following the situation in Georgia with great concern and condemn the violence on the streets of Tbilisi. The European Union has also clearly expressed its concerns regarding the law on foreign influence. The Georgian people want a European future for their country.” 12 hours ago
  • Oleksandr Kozachenko
    Oleksandr Kozachenko “If we compare it with the beginning (of the Russian invasion), when we fired up to 100 shells a day, then now, when we fire 30 shells it's a luxury. Sometimes the number of shells fired daily is in single digits.” 12 hours ago
  • Abdallah al-Dardari
    Abdallah al-Dardari “The United Nations Development Programme's initial estimates for the reconstruction of … the Gaza Strip surpasses $30bn and could reach up to $40bn. The scale of the destruction is huge and unprecedented … this is a mission that the global community has not dealt with since World War II.” 12 hours ago
View All IPSEs inserted in the Last 24h

#Soviet Union

Page with all the IPSEs stored in the archive with the tag #Soviet Union linked to them.
The IPSEs are presented in chronological order based on when the IPSEs have been pronounced.

“We have huge debts, we have no money for hospitals, we have no money for our farmers, we have no money for pensions, we have no money for our public services, but we are happy to invest billions in NATO. We are crazy. NATO controls every country like a slave. Yet, as a union, NATO should have disappeared with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. North Atlantic Alliance managed to continue its existence because the United States can always find or invent a threat. And they chose Russia as the enemy. I think by 2030, the enemies will be Russia and China. But France should not participate in this game.”

author
French Politician
Read More

“There are countries that have long-standing, decades-long relationships with Russia, with the Soviet Union before, that are challenging to break off in one fell swoop. It's not flipping a light switch, it's moving an aircraft carrier. India for decades had Russia at the core of providing military equipment to it and its defenses, but what we've seen over the last few years is a trajectory away from relying on Russia and moving into partnership with us and other countries.”

author
U.S. Secretary of State
Read More

“After the end of World War II, a large group of Germans believed that if there is stability in the country today, it is because hundreds of thousands of soldiers from the Soviet Union left German territory without firing a single shot. Many in Germany believe that the country owes a certain debt of gratitude to the Kremlin, in turn initiating economic and political partnerships with Russia. But over the years, Germany has failed to realise that Russia is no longer interested in partnership. Russia has been keen to turn the clock back in time to the Soviet era, for quite some time now. Berlin continued to believe in the idea of partnership, even while others had already started to warn Germany that it would probably … pay a price for not abandoning this idea.”

author
Former German ambassador to the United States and chairman of the Munich Security Conference from 2008 to 2022
Read More

“The preservation and development of Ukraine's neutral status, a demilitarization of Ukraine, a whole range of issues related to the size of the Ukrainian armed forces are being discussed. Ukraine is proposing the Austrian, Swedish versions of a neutral demilitarized state, which is a state that has an army and a navy. All these issues are being discussed at the level of the leadership of the Russian and Ukrainian defense ministries. Ukraine holds neutrality at the moment. Neutrality is enshrined in Ukraine's Declaration of Sovereignty and was the condition under which Ukraine seceded from the Soviet Union. Certainly, the key issue for us is the status of Crimea and Donbass and some humanitarian issues including de-Nazification, the rights of Russian-speaking people and the status of the Russian language and so on.”

author
Russian President's Assistant
Read More

“In terms of the government, the problem is that they're silent about the economy. The first reaction for many of them - because they grew up in the Soviet Union, so that's the mentality they have - is price controls and things like that. They might work temporarily, but in the long-run it's a disaster for the economy. It's really hard to even imagine what the government can do. In some senses they're hostage to this situation. All the main events are completely unrelated to the government's decisions. The danger of this approach [nationalization of property of foreign investors and government-mandated prices] is it works in the short-term. But this is a crisis that will be very prolonged. The closer we are to a planned economy, the more the government intervenes and nationalises, the harder it will be for the economy to adjust and more likely it will end up really bad.”

author
Economist and rector of Moscow's New Economics School
Read More

“The long-term goals of Russia following the end of the Cold War have been to recover the great power status of Soviet Union, to be seen as equal by the West and to be able to influence political developments in its smaller neighbours like Ukraine, Moldova or Kazakhstan. However, Ukraine has been incorporating itself into the Western orbit of influence, and thus going against Putin's interests. Accordingly, placing a Russian-friendly government in Kyiv is most likely the main objective of the Kremlin's military intervention.”

author
Lecturer in Diplomacy and International Governance at Loughborough University London
Read More

“It's unprecedented in the rhetoric of world leaders, but also for Russia. It's quite strange. Why would you spend so much time, you know, looking back into the past, when we now live in the 21st century? We should be looking into the future. It puzzles me as to what audience is intended for such as speech, because it's not going to resonate with Russians and it's rubbish for an international audience. I think he's [Vladimir Putin] in some sort of self-induced concept of reality that is very revanchist, based in the past, and in the trauma of the dissolution of Soviet Union. Frankly speaking, we are in a situation where the leader of a major nuclear country is living in his own world.”

author
Executive director of Navalny Anti-Corruption Foundation
Read More

“It comes down to Putin because he has a view of history that sees the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century being the dissolution of the Soviet Union. And I think, before he leaves, he's determined to restore as much of that as he can. He's in his late 60s now and I think he's determined to do it before he leaves - bring Ukraine back into Russia by force, if necessary, preferably by bluff.”

author
Former Canadian diplomat
Read More

“There's an old, banal formula that whoever doesn't know the past is doomed to repeat it. The situation of the past decade shows we are moving in that direction. The general prosecutor said we try to portray the Soviet Union as a terrorist organization. Well, we don't have to try. The Soviet Union was a terrorist organization. In no other country were so many citizens imprisoned under false political accusations.”

author
Memorial Board Chairman
Read More

“We will be holding a major round of [security] talks with the United States that will take place immediately after the end of the New Year holidays. NATO is now a purely geopolitical project to develop territory that has become ownerless after the disappearance of the Warsaw Pact and after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is what they are doing.”

author
Russian Foreign Minister
Read More

“The Kremlin had been in a weak bargaining position because the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 provoked economic chaos. In such a position, how can you expect equal relations with the United States, with the West? That's the first thing. Secondly, and no less important, is the triumphal mood in the West, especially in the U.S. Arrogance and self-confidence went to their heads.”

author
Former President of the Soviet Union
Read More

“Sometimes I had to earn extra money. I mean, earn extra money by car, as a private driver. It's unpleasant to talk about, to be honest, but unfortunately that was the case.”

author
President of Russia
Read More

“We have to not be naïve. We have to be very vigilant about what he does on the ground, and not to put ourselves into the trap of Putin's rhetoric. What does Mr. Putin want? To restore the Soviet Union.”

author
Foreign policy adviser to the president of Lithuania
Read More

“The PLA Rocket Force believes hypersonic weapons possess powers of deterrence unmatched by nuclear weapons that can alter the strategic balance and affect an opponent's intent and determination. Indeed, China's early interest in developing a hypersonic defense system demonstrates its concern over the U.S.'s development of hypersonic weapons. As a result, concerns over U.S. hypersonic weapons' development and missile deployments, along with revisions to the MTCR that enable allies and partners like Taiwan, Japan, and Australia to build long-range land-based offensive capabilities, could combine to alter Beijing's strategic calculus on arms control. President Reagan's secretary of state, George Shultz, believed that the U.S. deployment of short-range nuclear missiles in Western Europe played a key role in driving the former Soviet Union to join INF negotiations [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty]. U.S. deployment of hypersonic weapons on either one of the Western Pacific island chains could induce Beijing to perceive a change in the strategic balance to its disadvantage, and compel it to participate in arms control negotiations with the U.S., Russia, and potentially other nuclear weapons states.”

author
Expert in U.S. aerospace industries and former adjunct distinguished lecturer at Taiwan’s War College
Read More

“Deciding not to continue a futile war for less-than-vital interests tells you absolutely nothing about whether a great power would fight if more serious interests were at stake. No one would conclude that withdrawing from Afghanistan after 20 years, 2,500 Americans dead, and more than $1 trillion spent implies that the United States would not fight fiercely to defend Alaska, Hawaii, or Florida. Nor should any serious person conclude the United States would not fight to prevent China from establishing hegemony in Asia or to thwart a (highly unlikely) Russian assault on NATO. The reason is simple: In each of these instances, we are talking about vital interests that could affect U.S. security in profoundly significant ways... History offers a second source of reassurance. The United States suffered an equally humiliating defeat in Vietnam, after losing more than 50,000 troops. Yet the U.S. withdrawal and subsequent fall of Saigon did not cause NATO to collapse, did not lead U.S. allies in Asia to realign with the Soviet Union or China, and did not inspire America's various Middle East client states to run for the exits.”

author
Columnist at Foreign Policy and the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University
Read More

“The basic problem is that China's daunting power is a consequence of the free world's decision to invite a communist dictatorship into global trading networks. China has exploited the West's goodwill and wishful thinking to steal our technology and undercut our industries; and, in the process, become a much more powerful competitor than the old Soviet Union ever was, because it's now a first-rate economy that's rapidly developing a military to match; and spoiling for a fight over Taiwan, a pluralist democracy of 25 million that's living proof there's no totalitarian gene in the Chinese DNA.”

author
Former Australian prime minister and adviser to the British government's Board of Trade
Read More

“The one who was defeated in the presidential election...was not necessarily Dodon. The Soviet Union was defeated in Moldova. The remnants of the Soviet Union were defeated in the Republic of Moldova.”

author
Analyst with the Jamestown Foundation in Washington
Read More

“What’s ambiguous is whether we will defend Taiwan or not. I believe, this administration has been the strongest supporter of Taiwan since the enactment of that treaty [Taiwan Relations Act]. I also believe that we should take away the ambiguity and declare that we would defend Taiwan with our allies and create a bona fide deterrent. What we want do is prevent wars by our willingness to go to war, and that has been a proven principle that we used for dealing with the Soviet Union for 40 years.”

author
Retired American four-star General
Read More
May
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
0102030405
06070809101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031
IPSEs by City
IPSEs by Author
IPSEs by Country
arrow