It seems that Henry Kissinger, 92-years-old former US Secretary of State, and also a former adviser to the White House on national security, decided to refresh and is once again trying to reconcile America with Russia. Forty-three years ago he initiated the policy of “detente” between the US and the USSR, for which he received the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize. Now Kissinger communicates regularly with the Russian leader, but the outcome of such meetings is not clear. They met before in October 2013, in Moscow. And just a few months later Russia annexes Crimea and then starts the aggression in eastern Ukraine.
None of the experts could say why Kissinger visited the master of the Kremlin, what did he tell to Putin, and whose message did he convey: was it someone from the White House or a presidential candidate. The press office of the Russian president remains silent on that matter, having released only a brief acknowledgment of the meeting and a photo on the website.
But we can certainly say that light on the question is shed by Kissinger’s own article, published February 4, 2016 [the day after his meeting with Putin. – Ed.] on www.nationalinterest.org. Even the title is indicative: “Kissinger’s Vision for U.S.-Russia Relations: Russia should be perceived as an essential element of any new global equilibrium.” In fact, the basis of the article is Primakovian lecture that Kissinger delivered in Gorchakov fund in Moscow.
The article is available on this link: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/kissingers-vision-us-russia-relation....
We should pay attention to the place the author of Diplomacy and New World Order reserves for Ukraine in the context of US-Russian relations.
“There are, as we know, a number of divisive issues before us, Ukraine or Syria as the most immediate. For the past few years, our countries have engaged in episodic discussions of such matters without much notable progress. This is not surprising, because the discussions have taken place outside an agreed strategic framework. Each of the specific issues is an expression of a larger strategic one. Ukraine needs to be embedded in the structure of European and international security architecture in such a way that it serves as a bridge between Russia and the West, rather than as an outpost of either side,” writes Kissinger.
And in the last paragraph of his address, the former Secretary of State actually admits the purpose of his visit to Moscow, “I am here to argue for the possibility of a dialogue that seeks to merge our futures rather than elaborate our conflicts. This requires respect by both sides of the vital values and interest of the other. These goals cannot be completed in what remains of the current administration. But neither should their pursuits be postponed for American domestic politics. It will only come with a willingness in both Washington and Moscow, in the White House and the Kremlin, to move beyond the grievances and sense of victimization to confront the larger challenges that face both of our countries in the years ahead.”
COMMENTARIES
Volodymyr OHRYZKO, former foreign minister of Ukraine; director, Center for Russian Studies:
“Kissinger’s speech in Moscow reveals the fact that human psyche returns to the past as it ages, and this is the prism through which those people see or want to see the future. Apparently, this has happened to Kissinger.
“The diplomatic fortune brought me opportunities to hear his speeches in various classrooms in different capitals. Of course, well after he withdrew from active engagement in politics. Looking back and comparing those speeches with the latest one, delivered in Moscow, I can conclude that he seems to continue living in the framework of political and strategic cliches that dominated the world in the 1960s-1970s.
“The division of the world among the two superpowers (though was the USSR really one?), so-called zones of special interests, ideological wars and competition, arms race – these and other ‘charms’ of the past seem to never have left the mind of the famous American politician.
“He speaks nothing of respect for the international law, nothing of condemnation to those who violate it, he determines the fate of nations and peoples instead of letting themselves do it. May it really be called the political thinking, the foreign policy concept that suits the 21st century?
“Perhaps that is why Kissinger is welcomed so cordially by the incumbent leaders of Russia, for whom law and morality are completely incomprehensible concepts.
“I can’t help, however, emphasizing that Kissinger is a figure in American politics that does not make any haphazard moves. I still have the feeling that his visit to Moscow might be a part of a clever combination: see, Kissinger himself came in person and asks to respect the ‘legitimate rights’ of Russia! And can be a signal of some political circles in the US behind individual presidential candidates that want to relay some message to the Kremlin.
“But in any case, Kissinger’s concept is a distant past. Any hopes to bring it back in the future are futile. And that is the fact Moscow does not want to put up with. Of course, they can continue to press and hold this hopeless and self-isolating course. But in the end it will be suicidal.”
Yurii SHCHERBAK, diplomat, political writer:
“Many Western analysts now are divided. Some believe that Ukraine should directly or indirectly be subordinated to Russia and become a kind of pro-Russian bridge between Russia and the West. And there are others who believe that Ukraine should become an outpost of the West and go to the side of the Western world. In particular, this is related to the fact that we proclaimed European integration as the main geopolitical strategic goal of Ukraine. We have begun the process of decommunization, departing from the Russian – and these processes are quite understandable, given the fact that there is an occupation war waged in Ukraine by the Russian regime.
“The position of Kissinger is not surprising, because he has often made controversial statements. In particular, he said that in any case Ukraine should not be a member of NATO, and opposed Ukraine’s turn to the West. He looks through the prism of the old Soviet-American relations, in which Ukraine was an integral part of the Soviet Union. Obviously, this mode of thinking still lingers in him; though, in my opinion, the very development of events in Syria, in which Russian air strikes on Syrian insurgents tore apart the talks to resolve the crisis, should open the eyes of Americans on the relations with Russia. After all, America is perceived in Russia as the enemy number one, and no one conceals that fact. Everyone knows the position of Putin, Russia is an enemy of Ukrainian independence. It is regrettable that such wise men as Kissinger, and to some extent Brzezinski, adopt a very hazy stance on that; eventually, it will not turn out for the good of the United States.”
