When Henry Kissinger suggested an end to the conflict in Ukraine, the West

Real political veteran schools are ideologues today, but they will not like lessons

The ideologues who dominate today’s Western foreign policy are largely responsible for Ukraine’s military conflict, escalating tensions with Russia. And now the grandmaster of real politics — that is, foreign relations shaped by realism and on-the-ground truth instead of deliberate thinking দিয়েছে has given NATO’s ambitions over Ukraine only a rhetorical push.

Henry Kissinger, the Nixon-era US Secretary of State and a living legend of international politics, is celebrating his 99th birthday this week. On Monday, he took to the stage via video conference at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, to offer his advice on resolving the Ukraine conflict.

The parties need to bring peace talks within the next two months. Ukraine should have been a bridge between Europe and Russia, but now, with the reshaping of relations, we can enter a place where the dividing line will be drawn again and Russia will be completely isolated. Kissinger made the remarks in a conversation with Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of WEF.

Separating Russia from Europe seems to be aimed at getting Moscow involved in the war by arming and supporting Ukrainian fighters in order to operate effectively as a NATO proxy. This will further explain why Washington is investing so much in the conflict, both financially and ideologically.

An EU-Ukraine-Russia axis will be competitive with Beijing and Washington in the global game. But the Atlantist leaders in Brussels and their various Russophobic allies have privileged the Cold War ideology of history for the long-term political and economic interests of their own citizens, who will be best served by normalizing relations and increasing cooperation across the European continent.


Justin Trudeau wants freedom for Ukrainians that he will not allow Canadians to enjoy

“We are now facing a situation where Russia could completely disassociate itself from Europe and look for a permanent alliance elsewhere.” Dr. Kissinger. “It simply came to our notice then. We must work for long-term peace. “ So far, the most likely scenario is Russia’s relationship with China to be even stronger.

The end result could be a stronger military-industrial bloc competing with the United States for global economic and political influence, and a reduction in influence for the European Union, which would only become a less influential partner of Washington, with less autonomy. It would have enjoyed it if it had not subjugated all its interests to Washington and instead maintained a more independent and balanced position.

Kissinger’s decades of experience in global affairs at the highest level as an advisor to heads of state, government and multinational corporations, and as advocates for realistic solutions to complex global problems, all value his advice on any global crisis.

During the administration of Republican President Richard Nixon, Kissinger was a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in bringing an end to the bloody Vietnam War with North Vietnam, a former Secretary of State for Kissinger and a national security adviser. He has previously served as an adviser to Democratic President John F. Kennedy. If he calls for a speedy resolution of the conflict in Ukraine, it is informed by his professional experience. Perhaps he sees the shadow of Vietnam in Ukraine?

Kissinger’s solution to the regional dispute between Russia and Ukraine is unlikely to please the current US foreign policy body. “Ideally, the dividing line should return to normal. Continuing the war beyond that point will be a new war, not against Ukraine’s independence, but against Russia. Kissinger said, with Dr. “StatusHe noted that Russia had left Crimea, Lugansk and Donetsk under its control.


America's chosen rage over Ukraine is created by an oiled propaganda machine ... just ask the people of Yemen

Once upon a time “The Most Admired People in America”, According to Gallup polls in 1973, 1974 and 1975, in the context of peace in Vietnam, Kissinger has often strayed from the path of Washington’s defeated foreign policy. He created the first blueprint for cooperation between the United States and China. He also opposed NATO bombings in Yugoslavia under former President Bill Clinton. “The rejection of the long-range strategy explains how it was possible to slide into the Kosovo conflict without adequate consideration of all its effects – especially the visceral response of almost all nations of the world against the new NATO doctrine of humanitarian intervention.” Kissinger wrote in a 1999 Newsweek article.

Kissinger’s remarks precisely predicted military intervention by NATO member states on humanitarian grounds against Syria, Syria, Libya and now Ukraine, with the ultimate goal of regime change. He equally predicted why, despite the widespread publicity and revolt of these Western wars, so much opposition existed against them. Although the scope of attention and the news cycle may have been shorter since the time of Kissinger’s diplomatic tensions, some people may still realize that ideologically driven conflicts can produce long-term negative systemic responses that are more than short-term satisfaction arising from ideologically driven conflicts.

As soon as those who are feeding the current chaos realize Kissinger’s advice, we can all inevitably alleviate the subsequent diplomatic, economic and political hangover.

The statements, opinions and opinions expressed in this column do not merely represent the author and RT’s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.