Kissinger’s 8-hour Interview Displays How Stupid Powerful People Can Be

On May 17th, Britain’s Economist magazine published its 8-hour, 16,000-word, interview of Henry Kissinger, and the irrationality of his thinking there was undeniable. Senility might be blamed for it, but, if so, then he has always been senile, because his thought-processes were always stupid and pretentious in the same way, as will be documented here. Only, this time, he contradicted himself even more than he usually does, because of the sheer length of this interview.

He said that, upon further reflection, he no longer believes what he previously did, that Ukraine should not be admitted into NATO. Previously, he had said that Ukraine shouldn’t be allowed into NATO because “The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country,” and yet he also said at that time (2014) that: “Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations” and “Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people,” so that what Russia wants should be ignored.

That’s like saying: When Cuba’s Government, in 1962, wanted the Soviet Union to place its nuclear missiles there, only 1,131 miles away from being able to blitz-annihilate America’s central command in Washington DC (and so to prevent JFK from having enough time to authenticate that launch and then to respond to it by hitting the button to launch America’s retaliatory weapons against Cuba and against the Soviet Union) in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, only what Cubans wanted was relevant, and what Americans wanted (survival) was not. In other words: Kissinger’s statement at that time was stupid, even nonsensical because thoroughly self-contradictory — but, in any case, irrelevant. So: what is his new viewpoint on this matter?:

We are on the path to great power confrontation. And what makes it more worrisome to me is that both sides have convinced themselves that the other represents a strategic danger. [Oh, they don’t represent a “strategic danger” to each other as being the world’s two nuclear super-powers? Really? They aren’t? That’s not even an issue here, according to him. But he says it used to be. He doesn’t say how or why it no longer is.]

The Economist: Russia has destroyed, I think, any chance of finding a way to live with Europe. In the short term, it’s going to be a junior partner to China, even as it is sort of clinging to its imperialist dream, with the invasion of Ukraine. Was where we are now inevitable, was it a failure of Western diplomacy? Or was it a catastrophic failure of judgement by Putin?

Henry Kissinger: It was certainly a catastrophic mistake of judgement by Putin at the end. I wrote an article, which you’ve probably seen, in which I substantially predicted the evolution. I thought that the decision to leave open the membership of Ukraine in NATO was very wrong. It was unwise, because if you looked at it from the Russian point of view, in 1989, they controlled Europe up to the Elbe River. They then withdrew from there, under compulsion of their internal system, but still — they withdrew from it. And every square inch of what they withdrew from became part of NATO. The only territory that was left was the country they always considered the little brother closest to them organically and historically. And now it’s going into NATO, too. So [that] was a big turning point, it was a final turning point. [NOTE: In his entire 16,000 words, he ignores that the condition under which Gorbachev agreed to end the Soviet Union and its communism and its Warsaw Pact mirroring America’s NATO military alliance, was America’s promise that NATO would not expand in the direction of Russia, which turned out to have been a U.S. Government lie. Kissinger ignores this crucial fact.]

And at that time Putin was even saying that he didn’t object to Ukraine becoming part of an economic system with Europe, but not NATO. The year before the war [NO, it was 17 December 2021, which Kissinger also totally ignores], he made a proposal on NATO’s long-term evolution [to reverse it]. And we didn’t take it seriously. It was not acceptable by itself but could have been a starting point. Our negotiator was a wonderful lady, I like her very much, but she hates Putin so totally. [That “she” is Wendy Sherman, Biden’s version of Victoria Nuland — but her instructions came from Antony Blinken, and there WERE NO ‘negotiations’, but ONLY THIS, which ignored each one of Russia’s demands — all of which were essential to Russia’s national security.]

Kissinger’s interview
Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger attends a luncheon with French President Emmanuel Macron, Vice President Kamala Harris and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, December 1, 2022, at the State Department in Washington.

Compare that with how the West reacted to the Berlin Ultimatum. Both Macmillan and Eisenhower used it to start long negotiations that went on for 20 years until Nixon and Brezhnev found the preconditions for a new Berlin agreement, which then lasted the rest of the cold war. We didn’t do that with Ukraine. And in fact, our negotiators said at the negotiation, that one American basic principle is that any country that meets our membership qualification can join. So that meant Russia will be totally surrounded by NATO countries. [He accepts that as being okay, though the U.S. Government had promised Gorbachev that it would never be allowed.] What is Georgia doing in NATO? We have every right to defend it, but why as part of a multilateral institution? In the 19th century Britain might have defended for a strategic reason. But it wouldn’t have brought in everybody else.

To Putin, [his being against] Ukraine membership in NATO was an obsession. So now I’m in the weird position that people say, “He [Kissinger]’s changed his mind, now he’s in favour of full membership of Ukraine in NATO.” And my reason for that is twofold. One, Russia is no longer the conventional threat that it used to be. [Again he lies.] So the challenges of Russia should be considered in a different context. And secondly, we have now armed Ukraine to a point where it will be the best-armed country and with the least strategically experienced leadership in Europe. If the war ends like it probably will, with Russia losing many of its gains, but retaining Sevastopol, we may have a dissatisfied Russia, but also a dissatisfied Ukraine — in other words, a balance of dissatisfaction.

So, for the safety of Europe, it is better to have Ukraine in NATO, where it cannot make national decisions on territorial claims. [That’s his new argument.]

The Economist: So your argument for having Ukraine in NATO is an argument for reducing the risks of Ukraine to Europe rather than an argument about the defence of Ukraine? [However: who assigned to U.S. taxpayers the obligation to fund the multi-hundred-billion-dollar ‘defence of Ukraine’? What right does the U.S. regime even have to be ‘policeman for the world’? Who is really benefitting from all this? Is it really ‘the people of Ukraine’? Or is it U.S.-and-allied billionaires, instead?]

Henry Kissinger: We’ve proved now the capability to defend Ukraine. What the Europeans are now saying is, in my view, madly dangerous. Because the Europeans are saying: “We don’t want them in NATO, because they’re too risky. And therefore, we’ll arm the hell out of them and give them the most advanced weapons.” [And that’s a lie, too, because America has provided the vast majority of those weapons and advisors to the U.S.-installed Ukrainian regime.] And how can that possibly work? We shouldn’t end it in the wrong way. Assuming the outcome is the probable outcome, that would be somewhere along the line of the status quo ante that existed [prior to February 24, 2022]. The outcome should be one in which Ukraine remains protected by Europe [Oh, really? Europe will protect Ukraine?] and doesn’t become a solitary state just looking out for itself. [Again: he ignores that ever since February 2014, Ukraine has been a stooge-regime or vassal of the U.S. regime.]

I want to avoid that. Before, I wanted Ukraine to be a neutral state. But with Finland and Sweden in NATO it doesn’t make sense. [Why? He doesn’t say. It’s another lie.] I want Russia to give up much of what it conquered in 2014 [But America via coup conquered all of Ukraine except Crimea in February 2014, and that is what actually started this war], and it’s not my job to negotiate a peace agreement. I can tell you the principles of an enhanced, independent [ruled by the U.S. regime, as a satellite or vassal-nation] Ukraine, closely tied to Europe and either closely tied under a NATO guarantee or part of NATO. …

NATO should be maintained. But it’s not the spontaneous place to define our future in every area of the world. So much dedication has gone into NATO, and there are so many good people who believe in it and so many useful tendencies in its countries, but I don’t think NATO is the place to develop creative policies for all the issues of the world you are asking me about. Its greatest utility is a defence of Europe. …

If I talked to Putin, I would tell him that he, too, is safer with Ukraine in NATO.

This is not about my legacy as such. But the idea is, I have tried to implement [my view] from the perspective of having seen the challenges of societies in Europe.

The Economist: Yesterday was like recreating the last chapter of Diplomacy for the present day.

Henry Kissinger: [Immanuel Kant] said peace would either occur through human understanding or some disaster. He thought that it would occur through reason, but he could not guarantee it. That is more or less what I think.

A stupid person becomes easily distracted by irrelevancies in order to be enabled to continue believing the falsehoods that the person believes and holds dear. However, here are the basic facts that he ignores, and which he ignored even when he opposed allowing Ukraine into NATO (and, because it has no irrelevancies, it takes only 160 words, instead of 16,000 words):

JFK was right in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis to be willing to take the U.S. to a hot war (WW III) against both Cuba and the Soviet Union if Soviet missiles would become operational in Cuba a mere 1,131 miles away from blitz-nuclear-missile-annihilating America’s central command in Washington DC, disabling America’s ability to launch its retaliatory weapons.

Putin was right to be willing to take Russia to a hot war (WW III) against both Ukraine and America (and its NATO military alliance) if Ukraine would be admitted into NATO so that America then would be able to place its nuclear missiles 317 miles away from blitz-nuclear-missile-annihilating Russia’s central command in The Kremlin, disabling Russia’s ability to launch its retaliatory weapons. (Russia has also a “dead-hand” system installed in order to launch automatically if The Kremlin becomes annihilated, but it might not work. In any case, America’s intent here is evil, and must not be allowed to test its effectiveness. However, Kissinger thinks it should.)

Kissinger’s stupidity is in service to his personal psychopathy, nothing more. But what he has revealed repeatedly in his statements over the years is that stupid psychopaths can and often do end up in top positions not only in Nazi Germany but in post-WW-II America.

In this interview, he similarly lies in order to justify the U.S. regime’s attempts to replace international laws with international rules, and he even has the audacity to assert that China’s Government — which strongly opposes this U.S. goal — merely wants to participate with the U.S. regime in defining what those “rules” will be: “They’re not heading for world domination in a Hitlerian sense [like the U.S. regime actually is]. That is not how they think or have ever thought of world order. [To them,] world order means they are the final judges of their interests. What they want is participation in how the rules are made.”

His assumption is that his audience will be at least as stupid as he is — and sufficiently misinformed so as to believe what he says. But how does such a person basically differ from any other of the sleaziest salesmen? What’s the difference between what he is and what they are? Maybe the difference is that he has been more successful at it.

Reposts are welcomed with the reference to ORIENTAL REVIEW.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

    Leave a Reply