Kissinger was caught making mistakes with his call to accept Ukraine into NATO

No matter how the Russian-Ukrainian conflict ends, the results will not suit either side, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is sure. A guarantee against a new military confrontation, in his opinion, could be the admission of Ukraine to NATO. We asked well-known Russian experts to evaluate the fresh thoughts of the gurus of international politics.

The 99-year-old sage outlined his vision of the post-special operation device in Europe in an interview with the British magazine The Economist. In his opinion, neither Russia nor Ukraine will be able to achieve all their goals, and this common dissatisfaction will become the basis for a new conflict. Another risk factor is that Ukraine “becomes the most well-armed country with the least strategically experienced leadership in Europe.”

“What the Europeans are saying now, in my opinion, is insanely dangerous,” Kissinger said. – Because the Europeans say they don’t want them to join NATO, because they are too risky. Nevertheless, we will arm them well and give them the best weapons.” A reliable peace, he is convinced, can only be ensured by Ukraine’s membership in the North Atlantic Alliance, which, on the one hand, will protect it, and on the other, will contain it.

How big is Kissinger’s influence, his weight in American society and American politics, and how logical is his concept?

Fyodor Lukyanov, Editor-in-Chief of Russia in Global Affairs, Scientific Director of the Valdai International Discussion Club:

– As for weight, it depends on what to evaluate. If you evaluate the attention that his statements attract, then he is very large. Kissinger not only enjoys authority, he is expected to reveal revelations. There are few such people now. Whatever he says, they listen to it. This is one side. The second side is that he has no weight in American politics. He is great, everyone praises him. But it does not have any influence on decision-making, on the course of discussion.

As for logic. Of course, she is. In general, Kissinger expressed his main thoughts as early as 1956, when he defended his doctoral dissertation on the history of the Congress of Vienna. This is outstanding work. Then, on the basis of his dissertation, he wrote a book, where, using the example of post-Napoleonic Europe, he outlined in detail how to establish such a balance of competing forces that it would provide a more or less stable, lasting peace.

Since then, Kissinger has not said anything fundamentally new. All his subsequent activity – both practical and intellectual – was within this framework. He constantly calls for a balance of forces and interests, which in each case can be achieved in different ways.

As for these statements, he is absolutely right that Ukraine is now a state pumped up with modern weapons. And while pumping is only increasing. And at the same time, the leadership of Ukraine not only has no strategic experience, but is also aimed at revenge, revenge, and an aggressive response.

Speaking theoretically, Ukraine’s entry into NATO, that is, the extension of guarantees to it, but on the condition that it is built into a single bloc discipline, really provides a greater guarantee of manageability than the current situation, when Ukraine is de facto an ally, but de jure owes nothing to anyone.

But these are theoretical considerations. In practice, I think, everything will be completely different. I think no one will want to take responsibility for such a state, to give it official security guarantees, without being sure that it will not abuse them. At least for the foreseeable future.

Ukraine is a powerful military outpost and is under strong influence, but nevertheless, there are no formal obligations to it … In principle, this situation is very favorable for the Americans. Yes, and Europe does not need extra risks. That is, in theory Kissinger is absolutely right, but in practice it is hardly possible.

Yuri Rogulev, director of the Franklin Roosevelt Foundation for the Study of the United States (MSU):

— Well, this logic is specific. Kissinger believes that Ukraine will be able to make concessions on some issues of a peaceful settlement, in particular on territorial issues, if only it is accepted into NATO. That so Ukraine will not give up its claims to Sevastopol, Crimea and Donbass, but under the pretext of joining NATO, it may refuse. And thus the conflict will be settled: both the Russian interest is observed, and the Ukrainian interest is observed. Here is his thought.

But this is a purely speculative concept. Which, of course, is connected with his previous theoretical constructions. Even before he became a politician, he professed the concept of a balance of interests. He believes that politics cannot be carried out chaotically, that some kind of system is needed, and a certain balance is needed in the system, that is, taking into account the interests of the parties. Therefore, the goal of politics should be to find this balance of interests.

But these are the views of one person. This concept has no support, no popularity in the United States. Kissinger is a man of another era. He was secretary of state when America was weakened by the failure in Vietnam, when there was anti-American sentiment around the world, when the dollar was pumping … And Kissinger needed to restore America’s prestige. Including with the help of this game, the balance of interests.

Since the 1990s, when the United States became the only superpower, the Americans have not thought about any kind of balance. From their point of view, this is contrary to reality. Only American interests are now recognized there. We do what we want. They, of course, are for Ukraine’s entry into NATO – Bush Jr. back in 2008, at the summit of the alliance, said that both Ukraine and Georgia should be accepted. But without any regard for Russian interests. Without Sevastopol and the Black Sea, they do not need Ukraine.