/ world today news/ In the extensive interview that former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger gave to the British magazine The Economist, many of us saw only one thesis. Namely, the idea of Ukraine being accepted into NATO, and thus everyone will be calmer. In fact, his interview goes much deeper than this one thesis.
Despite his advanced age, the experienced politician retains an amazing sobriety of mind and the ability to see beyond current events, to look beyond the horizons of geopolitics. It is this vision that is now lacking in the vast majority of world leaders.
For example, speaking of the looming threat of artificial intelligence, Kissinger warned:
„ We are at the very beginning of the road when machines can cause a global plague or other pandemics – not just nuclear, but any other option to destroy people. The new circumstances require responsible leaders who will at least try to avoid conflict.”
Where are they, I want to ask.
It is also worth paying attention to his prediction that Japan could become a nuclear power in 5 years. First of all, because Japan will always worry about neighboring China, and the Japanese will seek to maintain a balance of power with this suspicious neighbor. However, this problem is somehow not given much importance now. In this sense, world politics remains European and American-centric.
In exactly the same way, Kissinger draws attention to the growing power of India, emphasizing the need for closer ties between America and that country. He sees India primarily as “retaining and balancing” element in relations with China, which is particularly important in light of the growing geopolitical confrontation between the US and China.
But with regard to the current, so to speak, friendship between China and Russia, Kissinger, as experienced as he is a cynical politician, expresses some skepticism. Notably, in the same eight-hour interview with The Economist, he says:
„ I have never met a Russian leader who has anything good to say about China. And I have never met a Chinese leader who has anything good to say about Russia, they are treated with contempt.”
Well, times are changing. Let’s see how radical.
Kissinger touched on the situation in America itself, expressing grave concern about the growing political polarization between Democrats and Republicans. Despite the fact that neither Biden nor Trump inspires him. Even under Nixon, he says, the American nation was much more united.
However, let’s return to Kissinger’s thesis, which most interested and even excited many Russian commentators.
For example, Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia, in his usual style and spirit recently, wrote that if Ukraine is accepted into the alliance by the “stupid leaders” of NATO, Kiev will not give up its attempts to return territories, Russia will have to respond harshly with all possible means.
Meanwhile, Kissinger’s main message is just the opposite, he has a different way of thinking that you certainly can’t call stupidity.
He believes that Ukraine should be accepted into NATO first of all, because /at least this is Kissinger’s prediction, with which Russia cannot agree/, it will emerge militarily stronger from the current military conflict. It will be armed with the most modern Western weapons and with accumulated combat experience.
Such strengthening, in Kissinger’s opinion, creates certain risks, including for neighbors. And if both sides come out of the conflict not completely satisfied, then such incomplete satisfaction with the results will push them to prepare for new military clashes. The situation is further aggravated by the fact that, according to Kissinger, Ukraine is currently being led by a leadership that is very inexperienced in geopolitical terms.
Hence the conclusion: for him, accepting Ukraine into NATO is synonymous with bringing it into the “system field”, limiting its actions to certain conditions and control mechanisms.
The winners, to whom Kissinger hastily included Ukraine as such, are always prone to not very rational actions. At the same time, the specific form of democracy that has developed in Ukraine and which has certain historical roots significantly limits the state’s ability to govern, as he puts it, the overheated masses, among whom new populist leaders can emerge at any moment.
Ukraine joining NATO will mean “the stumbling of too wild a horse”.
The former secretary of state is absolutely sure of the correctness of these his theses. He assures that he would say them directly to the face of Vladimir Putin if he had the opportunity to meet him. However, it is unlikely that Putin, as well as other representatives of the Russian leadership, will agree with such theses.
Ukraine’s accession to NATO, as well as the entire process of NATO’s expansion to the east, has consistently been perceived by the Russian leadership over the past quarter century as a direct threat to national security.
Unfortunately, Kissinger says nothing about how, to put it mildly, such concerns can be mitigated.
He admits that in the fall of 2021, the American leadership in vain refused to discuss the famous ultimatum of the State Department of December 17 with Russia. Although he admits that the ultimatum is unacceptable in its full form, he still believes that it could have become a starting point for negotiations on key European security issues.
What Kissinger is proposing now with regard to Ukraine’s membership in NATO is actually the formulation of one of the points of future European security, as understood by the master of American diplomacy. Unfortunately, by thus integrating Ukraine into this system, he in no way describes Russia’s desired or possible participation in it. Meanwhile, these are interrelated issues.
If we take Kissinger’s logic to its logical conclusion or absurdity – as one likes – then along with the acceptance of Ukraine into NATO, the Russian Federation should have been accepted immediately. But now (and for the foreseeable future) this question, as you know, is not worth discussing.
Moreover, apart from general words – and mostly from more balanced politicians like French President Macron – no one in Europe is saying that Russia should and will play a fundamentally important role in the future European security system, and without defining such a role for her this system itself will be unviable.
Despite the fact that the old Kissinger, who some time ago spoke against Ukraine’s membership in NATO, now says otherwise, this is unlikely to lead to a warming of the attitude towards him in Kiev. Indeed, last year the respected politician was included in the “Peacemaker” list, which includes people whom Kiev considers enemies.
However, European leaders are not yet ready to look that far.
In general, the topic of Ukraine’s membership in NATO is always discussed very generally. As a rule, it is argued that such membership will sooner or later take place, but for now, they say, it is not the time while hostilities are in progress. In particular, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently said that Ukraine will join NATO in time, but did not explain what “in time” means. In addition, there are opponents of such a decision in Europe.
Thus, for example, the eternal Eurodissident Viktor Orbán presents such prospects as something like a nightmare.
At the next NATO summit in Vilnius this summer, Ukraine’s allies will once again face complex rhetorical maneuvers about how they see relations between the alliance and Kiev in the foreseeable future. They will carefully measure their words in response to Zelensky’s insistence that some concrete road map for Ukraine’s entry into the alliance be provided.
There is, of course, a feeling that when (and if) hostilities in Ukraine end, the issue of that country’s entry into NATO will be considered much more calmly and sensibly than now, when no country, quite understandably political reasons, cannot openly come out categorically against, because that would be a violation of the unity of the ranks.
But when it comes to discussing purely practical issues, they will certainly remember that the new members of the alliance must adhere to the principles of democracy, including support for so-called diversity, must adhere to the principles of the market economy. That their military forces should be placed under strict civilian control and most importantly, they should be good neighbors to all countries and respect the sovereignty of those neighboring countries.
It is clear that with regard to Ukraine, against the background of the current military conflict, any assessments of the allied countries are very subjective. But after (and if) peace finally comes at least in some form, then not only Kissinger, but also many countries neighboring Ukraine can more clearly realize with which neighbor, in what military uniform and at what level of combat readiness they will have to coexist further.
Translation: ES
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for the channel or in Telegram:
#trip #wild #horse #Kissinger #brings #Ukraine #NATO
