Kissinger’s Fairy Tales for Idiots
Kissinger’s idea of bringing peace by having Ukraine join NATO is as crazy as the thought of putting out a fire with kerosene.
In October 2019, the online edition of Progressnews.ge published the article “The Dissolution of the Soviet Union was the Biggest Crime of the United States — Henry Kissinger is Disappointed with Capitalism”, which quotes an alleged statement by Henry Kissinger, the 56th U.S. Secretary of State and 7th U.S. National Security Advisor, from which it could be concluded that the experienced politician, diplomat, political theorist, and geopolitical advisor, in the later years of his life, repented of his role in the destruction of the Soviet Union and that he fondly recalls the Soviet way of life. “A Soviet individual was able to find happiness in things as simple as jeans, toilet paper, and smoked sausage and was living a complete life. We corrupted them and opened them a door to a world in which, behind the glittering seductions, the cruel laws of capitalism hide… We only had sex, while they had true love. We only had money, while they had pure human gratitude, and this relates to all spheres of life. Of course, nobody can call me an admirer of socialism, as I am a Western individual with a Western mindset; however, I believe that the Soviet Union was giving birth to a true new human. One can label such humans as homo soveticus. This human was one step above us, and I honestly regret that we destroyed this sanctuary. It may be our biggest crime ever” — these are the words that the article attributed to Kissinger. However, it soon turned out to be a joke, and a Russian one at that.
Namely, Progressnews.ge carelessly transferred an article from the Russian satirical source Panorama.pub, considering it to be authentic. The original humorous article was written a year earlier in the spirit and manner characteristic of the traditional school of Russian satire, whose deciphering and correct understanding require not only a certain level of intelligence but also a good knowledge of the Russian mentality. So it is not surprising that this cute work, for which the author did not want to take credit by avoiding signing it, easily fooled the Progressnews editorial staff. Henry Kissinger was, beyond any doubt, a brilliant man of exceptional intelligence who, if he had been interested, could have easily penetrated into the all undoubted advantages of the Soviet way of life, and then he would really have been able to say something similar to what the satirical article attributed to him. Unfortunately, the man who in the White House was called simply “the K” but with awe and in whispers, a Teflon man for all seasons, even at the end of his long life full of intrigues, secrets, action, and excitement, remained consistent and one of the greatest enemies of modern Russia, as he was also the fierce foe of the Soviet Union, and as he only could, taking into account his German-Jewish roots, would most certainly be a determined adversary of the Russian Empire. Kissinger has simply always been a natural opponent of everything that is Russian of all times and spaces. Russia will undoubtedly remember him long after his death as one of the most intelligent, cunning, and therefore most dangerous opponents it has ever had, but of course, this will not prevent the witty Russians from continuing to make jokes about all that in the future.
Decades after the political death of the 37th President of the USA, Richard Nixon, under whom Kissinger served as the U.S. Secretary of State from September 1973 to January 1977 and probably one of the most powerful men ever to hold that office, “the K” remained a presence in American public life as a figure of immense authority whose opinion had a powerful influence not only on the course of national foreign policy but also on political turmoil in other countries. However, all this does not mean that he was inevitably and at the same time a moral authority; on the contrary, he was anything but that. It seems that the psychological phenomenon known as “identification with the aggressor” shaped Kissinger’s political character to a great extent and made him as ruthless in the international affairs in which he was involved as the Nazis were — the same villains that he himself, in 1938, as a teenager, fled to the USA with his family and at whose criminal hands 13 members of his family perished. In his long political career, Kissinger, in a manner characteristic of the Nazis, had little or no respect for the lives of innocent people, especially in countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia, where his only legacy was his contribution to the genocide of innocent civilians. Despite all that, for his participation in the negotiations for the cessation of hostilities in Vietnam, Kissinger received no less than the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973, which is one of the most controversial awards of this prize ever since peace did not come until two years later. On the same occasion, Le Duc Tho, a Vietnamese politician who participated in these same negotiations, refused to receive this prestigious award and thus became the only person who ever refused to receive it, but he therefore preserved his dignity and honor in front of the Vietnamese and world public. Kissinger not only did not contribute to the end of the Vietnam War but, in fact, wholeheartedly fueled it and was directly responsible for crimes such as the illegal bombing of Cambodia, which he managed to hide not only from the American public but also from Congress. As a pragmatic and cruel Machiavellian, one might even say, as a man whose mentality closely resembled that of the cold-blooded desk killers who were responsible for the Holocaust, Kissinger is one of the American politicians who most contributed to the birth of American militant hegemony, imperialism, and neo-colonialism — an ideology that still completely defines American foreign policy today. He not only mysteriously survived the Watergate affair politically, although he was eventually forced to resign as U.S. Secretary of State, but also became increasingly influential over time, and his rise continued over the following decades. Although he was heavily involved in, or exactly because he was part of, a whole series of American dirty wars and covert operations around the world, from Southeast Asia to the Middle East to Chile, Kissinger remained the éminence grise of the American deep state until today, when, at the age of 100, he still feels the need to deal a painful blow to those he perceives as the enemies of the USA.
The outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis, which was caused by a coup directed by the CIA, gave Kissinger the opportunity to publish an article in the prestigious “Washington Post” in March 2014 in which he emphasized that Ukraine has the right to a “European future”, but that it should not join NATO, which he had also claimed years before. At the same time, he claimed that Ukraine must retain “sovereignty” over Crimea, although he certainly knew very well the circumstances under which this ethnically purely Russian territory was separated from Russia and given to Ukraine on February 19, 1954, by the self-will of the Ukrainian Khrushchev and for his personal political interests. We shouldn’t forget that at that time, Ukraine was simply an administrative unit of the USSR, not an independent state, which it would become for the first time in its history only in 1991. However, in his eight-hour interview for “The Economist” that Kissinger gave at the end of April of this year and which was published on May 17, Kissinger went a step further in his elegant, cunning, and pseudo-intellectual Russophobia, which may not have a personal nature at all but is simply an expression of his need to continue to act as a loyal ideologue and unofficial mouthpiece for what many call the gerontocratic Zionist-Anglo-Saxon plutocratic elites who are at the very center of the power structures of the American deep state. This interview is more than a voluminous read stretching over fifty pages, so here it is only possible to comment on its most interesting details regarding Russia and its unwanted military conflict with the collective West.
First of all, “the K” has, perhaps expectedly, changed his earlier opinion on Ukraine’s membership in NATO, if it has ever been his honest opinion at all and not only a part of a typical American tactic of achieving seemingly unattainable goals gradually and in stages, in processes that sometimes last for decades. Let’s suppose, however, that Kissinger had previously clearly seen how such a brutal provocation of Russia, such as the arrival of NATO at Moscow’s doorstep, could be dangerous for world peace, and that for some reason he was now deprived of his earlier, correct political instinct. Kissinger now not only does not call for responsible prudence but also openly criticizes the European leaders who, precisely out of caution, which is healthy and commendable, are hesitating about Ukraine’s membership in NATO. Kissinger makes it clear that it is inadmissible even to simply return things to the state before February 24, that is, before the beginning of the Russian Special Military Operation. This is, one would say, something that, according to him, cannot satisfy the current American ambitions, and he openly calls it the wrong way to end the war. Ukraine must be part of NATO in order to become a knife edge in the hands of the collective West on Russia’s bare neck. The cunning “Teflon Don” of the American deep state justifies the change of his attitude in relation to this more than serious and sensitive issue concerning the survival of all humanity, even with his supposed concern for the best interests of Russia: “If I talked to Putin, I would tell him that he, too, is safer with Ukraine in NATO”.
The assumed level of simple-minded naivety or idiocy required to believe such nonsense, which Kissinger expects from the Russian side, to whom, in fact, he is publicly addressing this message, could be much more offensive if it were not a brazen threat nicely wrapped in false benevolence. Namely, Kissinger is suddenly “worried” that Ukraine, which has been armed to the teeth by the collective West with the most advanced weapons, as he himself admits, but does not have adequate strategic experience, that is, responsibility or even brains, if it does not join NATO, could make decisions on its own territorial pretensions, where he obviously talks about the territories of Russia and possibly Belarus. “So, for the safety of Europe, it is better to have Ukraine in NATO, where it cannot make national decisions on territorial claims”, says Kissinger, and the threat in his words is more than obvious. In short, Kissinger expects the Kremlin to start seeing the Nazi regime in Kiev as a beast that will tear Russia apart unless NATO keeps it firmly on a leash of thick chains that symbolize the obligations each member has in relation to this criminal military alliance. Kissinger confidently predicts, in fact trying to deceive us, that after some successful Ukrainian offensive, the Russian Federation will lose all its territories that were part of Ukraine in the past and where the Russian population absolutely dominates, but that it could happen that it will keep Sevastopol, perhaps referring to the whole of Crimea or even only that city, and states that it would be unsatisfactory not only for Moscow but also for Kiev and calls it a “balance of dissatisfaction”. This alludes to the blasphemous idea that, in Kissinger’s opinion, it could be a possible epilogue of the war that Russia should consider quite an acceptable compromise. The truth is, of course, quite different and much worse. For the Americans, Ukraine itself, without full access to Crimea, is not worth much because only with dozens of planned military bases on this peninsula could they control the Black Sea and neutralize the Russian navy and military aviation. The article published by Ben Hodges, a retired general of the United States Army, in the British “Telegraph” in April of this year unequivocally indicates that the main goal of the Ukrainian war is full American control of Crimea, which would be a springboard for the continuation of their mindless version of “Drang nach Osten”.
Russia cannot allow the loss of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Luhansk People’s Republic, Kherson Oblast, and Zaporozhye Oblast, and especially cannot afford to lose Crimea at any price, not even the highest. Likewise, the entry of Ukraine into NATO would represent an absolutely unacceptable level of threat to the basic security of the Russian Federation, which is out of the question even at the cost of Washington, London, and Brussels having to disappear in clouds of radioactive dust. Not only that, but Russia cannot and will never give up its original intention to completely destroy the armed forces of the Kiev regime, no matter how many western weapons are poured into them, and it will carry out the denazification of its western neighbor to the very end. The war will continue until the current criminal regime in Kiev is ousted from power and replaced by a set of Ukrainian politicians who will ensure the long-term conduct of a responsible and peaceful policy in relation to Ukraine’s neighbors and its own population, bearing in mind above all ethnic Russians, as well as Ukrainians whose mother tongue is Russian or who are believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is in canonical unity with the Moscow Patriarchate. If by any chance Kissinger was on the Russian team and not the American one, as an experienced geopolitical advisor, strategist, and person of brilliant intelligence, he would have thought exactly the same way and would have known that Russia will not and must not give up on its intentions. As a survivor of the Holocaust, no matter how loyal he is to America, which gave him everything: prestige, influence, power, and wealth, it is absolutely immoral and shameful that Kissinger, like the rest of the collective West, turns his head in relation to all the crimes of the Ukrainian Nazis committed against Russian civilians from 2014 until today. It was these crimes that gave full legitimacy to the Russian Special Military Operation, which the Russian leadership decided on even though it was fully aware that it was an obvious American trap. Wanting to protect Russian civilians at all costs, Russia entered into a proxy war with NATO and the rest of the collective West because it simply had no other choice.
Ignoring the abundance of documentation, articles, videos, photographs, and other material that clearly testify not only to the real existence and active operation of Ukrainian Nazi organizations and their military units with all their more than recognizable iconography but also to the terrible crimes they committed, it is inadmissible for someone whose family members themselves suffered under those same symbols of pure evil — no matter how flexible Kissinger had to be to survive as an American politician. Pragmatism similar to that which existed in the ranks of the members of the Sonderkommando — Jews who became collaborators of the Nazis in the death camps from the lowest and most selfish motives — does not serve the honor of any members of the global Jewish community, no matter how pro-Western they might be. Nazis who kill Russians can’t be better than Nazis who killed Jews in the past! Nazis led by a Jewish president can’t be better than any other Nazi either. Nazis are always just Nazis and nothing better than that, and Kissinger should gather enough moral resolve and courage to say so publicly because we all know he is wise enough to be aware of all this. When he said in his interview for “The Economist” about Ukraine that it is now “a major state” and called his Jewish tribesman Zelensky an “extraordinary leader”, Kissinger humiliated himself the most. As a man of high intellectual qualities and with a PhD from Harvard, it is simply impossible that he can honestly have any positive opinion about Zelensky, which means that even at such a late age he is forced to lie and unnecessarily compromise his name. It is more than clear to everyone that the Ukrainian president enjoys only the apparent, artificial, and insincere respect of the Western political elites, who finance him only in order to cause as much harm to Russia and kill as many Russians as possible. Why does the Western mainstream media not report on the anti-war protests of ordinary Europeans and Americans who openly despise Zelensky as a scoundrel, a drug addict, and a man who brought them only poverty and insecurity with his endless begging and lists of demands? Even the Western elites will one day, willingly and with relief, get rid of Zelensky once his expiration date has expired, and that time is approaching. A poor comedian, now the main actor of a horror reality show in Ukraine, who came to power by promising peace and stability to his compatriots, only to bring them destruction, death, and war with no end in sight, is deeply despised by the Ukrainians themselves, and you can be sure that every fair election in Ukraine would clearly demonstrate that.
Zelensky will in the near future certainly have the opportunity to kneel before the Russian president and beg him for forgiveness, as he promised the voters in the election campaign that he would do when he becomes the president of Ukraine, but the question is whether Kissinger, who has devoted his whole life to the art of diplomacy, will, regardless of the fact that he is a fierce enemy of Russia, have enough time to save his professional honor, which, as a historical figure, he should certainly strive for. Does Kissinger, who was given so much influence by God and thus even more responsibility, want to be remembered as a notorious warmonger who, in addition to his numerous other crimes from the past, towards the end of his life, recklessly and selfishly helped to condemn younger generations to the horrors of nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare, thus leaving them without a future? No one should think for a moment that World War III will not be absolutely terrible in every possible way, and that is why all people of influence should do everything in their power to prevent it from ever happening. At least intimately, and out of a sense of intellectual pride if nothing else, “the K” would have to have far more understanding of the Russian strategic way of thinking. Even Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, whose country is a member of the European Union and NATO, has repeatedly warned that a nuclear power such as Russia should not be cornered under any circumstances. How then is it possible that a man of enormous geopolitical experience like Kissinger does not see what is obvious to many other western politicians, experts, analysts, and journalists? If the current leaders of the collective West, for understandable reasons, find it difficult or impossible to tell the truth about the war against Russia, what prevents Kissinger from saying publicly what every person in this world with at least an average IQ knows? Russia did not expand towards Warsaw, Bucharest, Berlin, Paris, Brussels, or London, but beyond any doubt, it was NATO’s aggressive expansion towards the Russian borders that brought humanity one step away from global catastrophe.
So Kissinger’s idea of bringing peace by having Ukraine join NATO is as crazy as the thought of putting out a fire with kerosene. Similarly, the unforeseeable but inevitable consequences of Finland’s completely unnecessary entry into the North Atlantic Alliance are yet to be felt and could range from the unpredictable to the absolutely terrifying. Russia did not threaten Finland in any way, nor did it have any interest in doing so because there are more than enough problems on many other sides of the enormous Russian frontiers. Elementary logic forces us to understand that Russia most certainly wanted a peaceful and stable, demilitarized border with Finland and that Finnish politicians, with their humble and slavish obedience to the U.S., have brought their nation into the most dangerous situation since its existence without any good reasons. That extremely crude provocation turned Finland into a Russian priority target, whose military bases and cities will be the first to be wiped out from the face of the earth in the event of any open military hostilities between Russia and NATO because they represent an immediate and great danger to the survival of the largest state in the world. If anyone thinks that this claim is exaggerated, they should study the Russian nuclear doctrine again. What threatens Russia the most at this moment are definitely the U.S. missile bases in Poland and Romania, because we all know that their role is not defensive and that they were not built in fear of Iran, but that they are offensive combat systems whose purpose is a surprise attack on Russia. From these threatening military bases, Moscow and St. Petersburg could be hit by American hypersonic missiles in just a few minutes, and Russia would not be able to defend its two largest cities. Therefore, without any further warnings, the Kremlin already has the full legal right, if not the obligation, to reduce these bases to a cratered lunar landscape with its Kinzhals and other hypersonic weapons carrying conventional warheads. However, Moscow refrains from making such and similar decisions because the Russian leadership, unlike the American one, is moral and responsible, which does not mean that Russian patience will not run out at some completely unexpected moment. Although the Russian leadership knows very well that it is at war with NATO, it is aware of the magnitude of the military forces at its disposal, which is why it still does not show great concern. The Russian armies will continue to destroy the armed forces controlled by Kiev, but if the conflict drags on, Russia could begin a completely different way of warfare that would be much more Soviet-like and could have very similar outcomes. After all, the Soviet model of warfare with million-strong armies, massive missile strikes, epic tank assaults, hundreds of sun-blocking fighter planes, and warfare deep behind enemy lines had already proven its effectiveness against the Nazis of the past.
In Kissinger’s interview with “The Economist”, it is obvious that he is well aware of how close we are to World War III and offers his various demagogic and completely useless solutions about how it could be avoided, but for some unknown reason, he is focused mainly on a possible military conflict between China and the USA, which he openly says would have the potential to destroy humanity: “We’re in the classic pre-World War One situation, where neither side has much margin of political concession and in which any disturbance of the equilibrium can lead to catastrophic consequences”. For unknown reasons, Kissinger completely ignores the risks of a full military conflict between NATO and Russia — the superpower with the largest arsenal on the planet with over 6,000 nuclear warheads — just as he turns a blind eye to the fact that NATO’s aggressive expansion is the main cause of the war in Ukraine. For those who really want peace in Europe, the solution is obvious, logical, and very simple. Instead of expanding NATO, a buffer zone should have been created that would safely separate the Russian Federation from NATO members. That buffer zone would consist of Finland, Poland, the Baltic republics, Ukraine, and Romania. With the joint guarantees and supervision of China, the EU, Russia, and the USA, these countries could even be part of the European Union, including Ukraine, but not NATO or any other military alliance, not even any kind of European joint military forces, nor could they host U.S. or any other foreign military bases because they would commit to permanent military neutrality and partial demilitarization. In turn, these countries could have privileges in trade exchange with the same powers that would guarantee them tightly controlled military neutrality, which would surely lead to the great economic prosperity of the buffer zone. It is still not too late for this or a similar solution to be put into practice, and then the USA, Russia, the EU, and China, after securing peace, could work together to rebuild Ukraine, which would, of course, have to renounce the militaristic Nazi junta that ruined the country, and its political system would be returned to the state it was in before Euromaidan. The problem is that NATO is in the hands of irresponsible lunatics who want war at any cost and completely ignore the very realistic risks of a sudden outbreak of nuclear war.
Finally, let’s mention that in this interview, Kissinger commented with a touch of irony on Sino-Russian relations, alluding that they are insincere. “I have never met a Russian leader who said anything good about China. And I’ve never met a Chinese leader who said anything good about Russia, they are sort of treated with contempt”. What else could be expected from the creator of Triangular diplomacy, also known as the Kissinger Doctrine, the essence of which was to make China quarrel with the USSR, or today with modern Russia? However, the old fox again made a fundamental mistake because his way of political reasoning was outdated. First of all, although the Americans had a lot to offer Chairman Mao’s China in the 1970s and even later, modern China no longer really needs them, and even if it were not so, the Chinese leadership is aware that the Americans cannot be trusted when making long-term strategic geopolitical deals. Precisely on the basis of the fate that befell Russia, which had Western guarantees that the expansion of NATO would not happen, the Chinese recognize the uncontrollable American desire for aggressive expansion throughout Asia and can easily imagine American military bases on their borders. “Until the agreement between Putin and Xi at the Olympic Games, when Xi stated his opposition to NATO expansion—I don’t think any Chinese leader had expressed a view on European evolution before this. Xi must have known that Putin would go into Ukraine. That is a serious Chinese commitment”, remarks Kissinger with displeasure, but the question is whether he understands the essence of this kind of Chinese devotion to Russia. Unlike the U.S., Russia is a reliable partner that truly respects China and offers partnership and alliance without blackmailing China or making heavy demands. In addition, the Chinese are no longer ready to tolerate attempts by the U.S. and the EU to talk to them from a position of strength. Finally, the Americans are seriously mistaken if they think that the wise and patient Chinese will ever forgive them for the bombing of their embassy in Belgrade on May 7, 1999, under the guise of NATO aggression against Serbia. That terrible night, at 11:45 p.m., the Americans took the opportunity to hit the Chinese embassy building, obviously a civilian and not a military target, with three devastating missiles, causing havoc and bloodshed. Three innocent Chinese citizens were killed in that barbaric attack, and many others were wounded. NATO later hypocritically expressed regret for the unfortunate “incident”, justifying it with outdated maps, but no one believed them. It was clear to all that this crime was not a mistake but a deliberate, premeditated, and malicious show of power and an attempt to intimidate the most populous nation on the planet. Much to the regret of the U.S., China did not understand the American message in the way expected. The Chinese did not back down one bit, but they also refrained from rash and ill-advised actions and boldly continued to strengthen their economy and armed forces. Today, when China is far more powerful than the U.S. in every possible way, it also reserves the right to, if it wishes, take revenge on the Americans in a way, time, and place of its own choosing. In any case, May 7, 1999, remains an infamous historic date that will be remembered for the fact that on that fateful night, it was Kissinger’s doctrine, his life’s work, that was blown to smithereens.
The biggest Americangeopolitical nightmare is certainly the creation of a strong military-political alliance of China, Russia, and Iran. In the last years of his life, Zbigniew Brzezinski, probably the greatest of all Russophobes of all time and space — their champion, ideologue, and, as we can see, prophet — repeatedly warned the American public about this threat. Brzezinski, a Polish-American diplomat and political scientist, pointed out to his colleagues that “the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an ’antihegemonic’ coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances”. American General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the end of March this year, also presented to the American public the danger of the same scenario that will represent a huge problem for the USA in the years to come. That alliance, which is logical and therefore so easily predictable, would be expected to be joined by numerous other countries in Eurasia, the Greater Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. In fact, it is a process that is already largely built on the foundations of organizations such as the Shangai Cooperation Organization, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, BRICS, and the Eurasian Economic Union. Surely fully aware of this, Kissinger, whose persistence is nonetheless worthy of respect, says in an interview that he is “very enthusiastic” when he talks about India’s foreign policy and “close relations” between India and the U.S. At the same time, Kissinger expresses deep “concern” about the alleged threats China poses to India and offers his solution. “I agree with strengthening India militarily with respect to its conflict with China”, declares Kissinger as if he was called to deal with that problem and as if New Delhi is asking him personally or from Washington for approval to strengthen its military forces. The arrogant collective West is completely unable to understand that the ancient Asian nations that were literate more than 5,000 years ago will never again allow themselves to be duped by the collective West, nor will anyone succeed in putting the shackles of neocolonialism on them again. The Sino-Indian border dispute in which the Americans place so much hope is, in relation to the scale of the mutual benefit of the cooperation of the two most populous nations on the planet, truly trivial, and no doubt in the near future it will be easily overcome.
The reality is such that it is probably very difficult for Kissinger to speak about it completely honestly because he is fully aware of the total failure of American diplomacy, not only in Eurasia but on a global level, which is why he is deprived of the right to enjoy his retirement in peace. India and China are now partners in the SCO and BRICS and on the way to becoming allies, and the U.S. can’t do anything about it. With the narrative from the 1970s, Kissinger and the gerontocrats he represents certainly no longer have the diplomatic, intellectual, financial, or military potential to drive a wedge between these countries, especially not between Russia and China. What is most tragic in the whole story is that the Western geopolitical planners are not able to understand that it was precisely they who, with their aggressive and arrogant recklessness, initiated the creation of a large anti-Western bloc that cannot be stopped any longer. With their aggressive, hysterical, almost panicked, and increasingly clumsy diplomatic initiatives and other actions in international affairs, they only accelerate that process. It was exactly the proxy war of the collective West against Russia in Ukraine that sent the rest of the planet, like shock waves, the last and most serious warning that they must unite if they want to survive. We all knew a long time ago that the Americans, the leaders of that Western flock of misguided sheep, couldn’t be trusted, didn’t we? All that remains for them is to continue entertaining us with their diplomatic fairy tales for idiots while we enjoy watching their powers fade.