Kissinger weeps for Pooty Poot

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Russia Suffering Crippling Loss in Ukraine Threatens World Order: Kissinger

Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger warned in a new essay that Russia being "rendered impotent" from the war in Ukraine could have vastly negative consequences on the entire world.

The essay—entitled "How to Avoid Another World War"—appears in the new issue of The Spectator. In it, Kissinger lays out several opinions on the war that Russian President Vladimir Putin launched on Ukraine in late February.

The German-born political consultant, who served in the cabinets of former Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, compares the situation in Ukraine to World War I, which he called "a kind of cultural suicide that destroyed Europe's eminence."

During the Great War, the nations of Europe managed to "inflict unprecedented devastation on one another," Kissinger, 99, wrote in the British weekly magazine.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-suffering-crippling-loss-in-ukraine-threatens-world-order-kissinger/ar-AA15mZZ1

Easy solution to the problem. Withdraw Russian forces from Ukraine.

We're not even close to an armistice like in WWI.

[Me.]

1. THe Consequences To The Entire World Could Be Peace

I've never heard such gobbledegook. Wonder what's in it for him and the other Chamberlains

[ShazamIam]

2. Sounds like Kissinger supports the empowerment of the current libertarian oligarchs and oil-agarchs.

libertarian meaning a return to privatization of every human need for profit and support of the owner class by the labor of the peasant class and so many are falling for it and believing, that, "some," are better more perfect humans than, "others.'

OP, Yo Mamma been loggin, Do you support this idea or are you posting as a warning? I don't know how to post talking points to your links? am I to understand you post as supporting or merely informing us of anti-democratic policies and beliefs?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

5. I don't support a damn thing Kissinger said.

We're not even close to an armistice yet so I'm not sure what that would entail.

His being weepy eyed over Russia and not Ukraine where many of the casualties are civilians is offensive to me.

[Meadowoak]

7. I didn't think he was still alive, what is he, 120?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

8. I believe he's 100

[Sky Jewels]

13. He's 99. He'll be 100 in May.

Drinking the blood of tortured orphans keeps him young and virile.

[sarcasmo]

14. Evil Lives.

[ShazamIam]

16. At least you didn't have to delete my post like on that other thread. /lol

[haele]

22. He always loves him some Capitalist Autocrats.

So long as they aren't Commie, it's all good...

Haele

[Mopar151]

54. The ultimate sin of Communisim?

Downward redistribution of wealth, by any fair and legal means. No matter how that wealth was gotten! Or the effects of these actions, on the greater society/economy.

[Sky Jewels]

3. Yo, Hank:

[Blue Owl]

4. LOL

[hatrack]

6. "German-born political consultant" - pretty much his legacy in a nutshell . . .

[Autumn]

9. I begin to think that evil SOB will never fucking die.

[LastDemocratInSC]

10. The Spectator magazine is, indeed, MAGA.

Consider the source.

[Walleye]

11. What a load of crap. I remember years ago when Kissinger said

“Russia will try to take territory, it is what they do.”
He should listen to himself from back then

[Renew Deal]

24. Wasn't he right?

What you said he said happened.

[Walleye]

25. Yep I can hear him saying it, and I thought about it immediately when Putin invaded Ukraine

I can’t remember what context, it was on TV maybe Buckley or something like that or it might’ve been a Q&A, but I can hear it now I wish I could remember exactly when it was.

[sarcasmo]

12. The Cambodia killer weeps for Putin. 3,875 bombings in Cambodia.

[LeftInTX]

15. My brain hurts....

I just can't....Please Henry, aren't you retired????
At least enjoy your retirement and do something rewarding.....Maybe read a good book....

[samsingh]

17. kissinger has always kissed up to dictators and fascists instead of Democracies

it's disgusting. the man has always been a criminal and traitor.

[iemanja]

20. I don't think most of you read the article

and instead decided to free associate about Kissinger.

[wnylib]

26. For some of us it is memory, not free association.

Last edited Sat Dec 17, 2022, 07:54 PM - Edit history (1)

I read the article and I'm not sure I would agree with Kissinger's premise or comparison to pre WWI.

He says that WWI upset the balance of powers in Europe and set the stage for the Russian revolution. Kissinger promotes maintaining the balance of power in Europe and the rest of the world regarding Russia. Trying to maintain a balance of powers in Europe and to preserve the status quo was part of the cause of WWI. The world (including Russia) was already changing economically, socially, and politically prior to WWI. Trying to stop that change from happening was a large contributing factor in causing WWI.

Kissinger's talk of maintaining a balance of powers reminds me of another German who tried to balance powers in Europe through diplomacy, backed by military nationalism and threats - Otto von Bismarck.

Bismarck opposed the political and social changes toward parliamentarianism and social/civil rights of common people that were spreading through Europe prior to WWI. He was a monarchist through and through. That backfired on him when he turned Crown Prince Wilhelm II against his parents (Kaiser Frederick and Kaizarina Victoria of England) because of their parliamentarian reform plans for Germany. Wilhelm became such an absolute monarch that he decided that he didn't need Bismarck and fired him.

The war was indeed a catalyst for the Russian Revolution, but it would have happened anyway without the war. Conditions were so bad in Czarist Russia that people were forming opposition for years before the Revolution.

Austria and Britain were trying to preserve their own empires at a time when imperialism was dying and people were demanding autonomy and self government.

So Kissinger's argument on behalf of preserving a status quo balance of power in the world is not a convincing one to me. Russia is trying to preserve or recapture a lost status quo against Ukrainian self identity and autonomy. It is trying to destroy democratic governments beyond Ukraine.

I get Kissinger's concern for what would happen to Russia's nuclear weapons if Russia disintegrates politically due to becoming a world pariah and losing its role in the world balance of power and economics. We went through the same concerns when the Soviet Union collapsed. I also know that there is always the possibility of a local war expanding and escalating. But the world cannot let Russia destroy the governments of the rest of us with their threats and belligerence. Kissinger's proposal of negotiating a ceasefire at the borders that existed prior to Putin's latest (current) invasion of Ukraine in order to begin negotiations about its prior annexation of Crimea is appeasement of Russian aggression. It would do exactly what Russia wanted to happen with the current war - reward Russian aggression in both Crimea and the rest of Ukraine.

Kissinger suggests a referendum in Crimea monitored by external sources as an alternative to Russia's phony referendum. But Russia has been moving Russians into Crimea and removing Ukrainians from there, so a referendum now would favor Russia and reward not only its aggression, but also it's dislocating ethnic cleansing of Crimea.

So, IMO, Kissinger's ideas in the current Ukrainian/Russian war are pandering and appeasing support of Russian authoritarianism.

[iemanja]

33. Your post is far more thoughtful than the one I responded to

or that of the OP.

Another result of the allies' retribution on the losers in WWI was the rise of Nazi Germany. Most historians agree that it was a serious mistake. And I do think the specter of a power grab in Russia could be lethal for humanity, precisely because of their nuclear arsenal. I'd like to see Putin out, but I don't want a free-for-all there.

I don't agree with much of the article, including ceding Crimea to Russia, but Kissinger is certainly not "crying for Pooty." His concerns are the well-being of the world, not Putin.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. I read the MSN/Newsweek article, and the post above seems accurate about Kissinger's take

"The preferred outcome for some is a Russia rendered impotent by the war. I disagree," Kissinger wrote."For all its propensity to violence, Russia has made decisive contributions to the global equilibrium and to the balance of power for over half a millennium. Its historical role should not be degraded."

Yep, that's kissing up to dictators and fascists - saying the violent and powerful should remain in power because they've been in power for centuries.

"Its competing societies might decide to settle their disputes by violence. Other countries might seek to expand their claims by force," Kissinger said.

Well, since Putin is already settling his dispute with violence, and seeking to expand Russia's claims by force, what's the moral difference? It's that Putin is a dictator in power, and not a democratic politician.

"I have repeatedly expressed my support for the allied military effort to thwart Russia's aggression in Ukraine," he wrote. "But the time is approaching to build on the strategic changes which have already been accomplished and to integrate them into a new structure towards achieving peace through negotiation."

But, as Zelensky pointed out, he suggested Russia should get some of Ukraine in the peace settlement. That doesn't thwart Putin's aggression. It accedes to it.

[iemanja]

31. It's not an issue of morality

but rather the lessons of history suggest that devastated losing parties in war can lead to dire consequences, eg. the end of WWI, which gave rise to Nazi Germany. He fears a free for all in Russia, which still maintains lots of nuclear weapons. You may see that as morally equal to the present condition, but it could be lethal for humanity.

For Kissinger, foreign relations has never been about morality, for better or worse.

I don't agree with his call for peace talks in Russia because I don't see Russia as an honest broker in this situation. What Kissinger is not doing, most certainly, is "weeping for Pooty." Nor is he advocating for Russian control over Ukraine, with the exception of Crimea.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. Well, no, he called for the border to be that before Feb 24th, ie the Donbas as well as Crimea

in Russian hands. He's saying "let's forget about the unpleasantness this year" (which he calls "two nuclear powers contest a conventionally armed country", as if the roles of the USA and Russia are equivalent), and just accept the military conquests Putin made a few years ago. Yes, he fears a free for all in Russia (that's his weeping for Pooty), but it's a crap argument - either Putin gets to keep some conquered territory, or his entire country will fall apart. He can imagine nothing in between, eg Putin withdraws forces from Donbas, or Crimea, or Putin resigns and someone else orders that. He has brought into Putin's argument that Putin is Russia, and Russia is Putin.

No-one actually expects Ukraine, or NATO, to "devastate" Russia. Kill a lot of Russian soldiers currently in Ukraine, yes; but the NATO position has been clear that it's not going to attack Russia itself, and however the war goes inside Ukraine, Ukraine will not have the power to devastate Russia.

[Sympthsical]

36. "A peace process should link Ukraine to Nato, however expressed."

Yeah, I read the essay. There is no universe in which it is pro-Putin.

It was a pretty thoughtful, "This is where we are now. Build on what's been accomplished. Here's some things."

Because this war doesn't have a traditional kind of victory. No one is invading Russia. Unless the Russians themselves topple Putin - and they might - there is nothing the West can do other than stabilize its own order in Europe while guarding against whatever domestic chaos might arise in Russia in the end.

War has its own inertia and the ends can begin to justify themselves with tunnel vision blocking out collateral consequences that can ripple.

That said, I'm not sure how this would work:

If the pre-war dividing line between Ukraine and Russia cannot be achieved by combat or by negotiation, recourse to the principle of self-determination could be explored. Internationally supervised referendums concerning self-determination could be applied to particularly divisive territories which have changed hands repeatedly over the centuries.

The problem is Russia has manipulated these self-determination processes in the past. How would we ensure that they wouldn't be manipulated after any negotiation? The idea that Russia would submit itself to Western overview seems unlikely at best. Russia has a history of being like a bristling, underappreciated child who demands respect and acts out when it feels it is not receiving sufficient due. It's just how the country has been. Authoritative governments and dictator/tsar types have typically risen because they have that autocratic drive to make demands on other nations that are snubbing their seat at the table.

It could work if Russia were a good faith actor in the scheme, but I don't think anyone finds that likely in any scenario where Putin is yet the head of government. I think a lot of people think the Russian rot begins at the head, but if you glance through history, there is just something in that political culture, where domestic politics are a bizarre type of Squid Game - who can knife all the others on their way to the top.

The 90s where Yeltsin came in was the aberration - not Putin.

There aren't a lot of easy answers here to the Russia problem. But we mustn't hesitate to take a step back and consider conditions for negotiation. War Logic can lead to unforeseen outcomes where millions die. I agree with Kissinger on that much.

[iemanja]

37. Putin would find Ukraine membership in Nato unacceptable

Last edited Sun Dec 18, 2022, 01:15 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't see anything in the article that is pro-Putin. I read an argument that is about global stability. That could conceivably exist without Putin, but I agree with Kissinger that historical precedent warns against completely vanquishing losers of wars.

I agree with you about Russia not being a good faith actor, and I don't agree with Kissinger's optimism about peace talks. That said, your response is far more thoughtful that any of those in this thread when I wrote this post. If I had read a post like yours or the others responding to my post, I wouldn't have made that comment. My post was accurate when I made it.

[Sympthsical]

44. I agree with your view of the situation

And agreed, I think Kissinger is being more optimistic and less realistic about what is possible with a Putin-led Russia.

His solution only works if you kind of ignore who Putin is. But as you said, I take his point about trying to grind Russia into the dirt. It won't work, and it could have consequences.

(Yeah, I saw your post and had the same thought that the essay wasn't read at all, so I figured, hey, opportunity for substantive conversation!)

[iemanja]

55. You hadn't posted when I made the comment

Nor had anyone else who read the article. So why do so many people feel compelled to come along to prove they read the article after the fact? Bully for you.

[Autumn]

53. I lived when he was in power. I don't have to read an article about him. He has lived too long.

Unlike those he caused to die.

[ellie]

18. God, I cannot stand

that asshole.

[iemanja]

19. He's not weeping for Putin

He's invoking history as a caution.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

28. I read Kissinger's original article.

I found nothing persuasive in it.

He made many assertions, but none logically built upon another. There is a lot of bad reasoning and false analogies, in addition to a call for "negotiations" that will never pan out.

Ultimately, Kissinger's biggest concern is that Russia might be so weakened that areas that are now inside the Russian Federation are tempted to break off (or third party nations seek to settle old boundary disputes).

However, Russia maintaining a hold on Ukrainian territory does nothing to ameliorate those possibilities.

To the contrary, the need for Russian forces to deploy inside contested territory would only divert troops that might be used to help ensure the domestic integration of the Russian Republic.

[iemanja]

30. I didn't see where he thought Russia maintaining hold over Ukraine was a desirable option

Last edited Sun Dec 18, 2022, 03:08 AM - Edit history (1)

Rather he argues that Russia should not be made devastated by the results of a peace process, citing the example of the end of WWI, which gave rise to Nazi Germany. He fears what a power vacuum in Russia would yield because of their nuclear arsenal.

He did say he supported US intervention in Ukraine, but thought it was time for a peace process. I agree that seems unlikely to yield reasonable results given Russian's duplicitousness.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

48. Whether "desirable" or not desirable, under Kissinger's "plan" Russia would control

Ukrainian territory. Full stop.

His plan would give them control over the portions of eastern Ukraine that have been under de facto Russian control since 2014, plus the entirety of the Crimean peninsula.

Kissinger suggests the future status of these territories would be subject to negotiations. What could possibly cause Putin to give up control of said territories? I'd suggest there is nothing.

Kissinger's fallback--as even he seems to recognize that "negotiations" would be fruitless, is to have referendums. Referendums in territories where residents opposed to Putin have been rounded up and sent off to slave labour camps in the Russian hinterlands and/or where Russians have been "imported" (such as in Crimea) in order to upset the demographic balance in Russia's favor.

Is Kinninger unaware of these realities? Or does he just not care?

Either way, not conditions for a just peace that is acceptable to the Ukrainians, methings, not one that ought to be.

[iemanja]

49. Not "full stop"

Crimea, not the rest of Ukraine. The lands seized in the current war would return to Ukraine, according to him.
I'm not saying I'm agreeing with it, but it does not equate to "weeping for Pooty."

[Just A Box Of Rain]

51. Not correct. Kissinger said the pre-invasion boundaries would hold.

That means all the territories held by separatists in eastern Ukraine would remain under Russian control. That is a significant part of eastern Ukraine (plus Crimea).

It would not include the additional territories captured since the invasion and currently under Russian control, but the others would be lost (or subject to "negotiations" or referendums).

[iemanja]

56. Hardly the entirety of Ukraine

which is what you claimed by "full stop."

[Just A Box Of Rain]

57. Dead wrong, yet again.

Here is what I wrote:

Whether "desirable" or not desirable, under Kissinger's "plan" Russia would control Ukrainian territory. Full stop.

His plan would give them control over the portions of eastern Ukraine that have been under de facto Russian control since 2014, plus the entirety of the Crimean peninsula.

Before you "correct" others, it might be nice to read what they actually wrote.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

60. Not true. That is your invention.

Russia would control Ukrainian territory under Kissinger's plans, and I specifically mentioned which parts.

This is beyond bizarre.

[iemanja]

58. Direct quote

"Whether "desirable" or not desirable, under Kissinger's "plan" Russia would control

Ukrainian territory. Full stop." If you meant something else, you should have chosen different words.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

59. No, the words I choose are entirely clear and entirely accurate.

Under Kissinger's plan Russia would control Ukrainian territory. That is correct.

Nowhere did I say Russia would control the "entirety" of Ukraine's territory, rather I specifically and explicitly stated that Russia would have control over the portions of eastern Ukraine that have been under de facto Russian control since 2014, plus the entirety of the Crimean peninsula.

Instead of offering an apology for your wrongheadedness, you insist on doubling-down.

Not a good look.

[Renew Deal]

23. I don't think he's crazy

Russia will come back stronger, smarter, and meaner at some point. The world doesn't seem to be preparing for it

[Baitball Blogger]

27. I'm throwing up.

To think that Kissinger had such influence in the world, and all he wanted to do was maintain the status quo among known leaders.

Good-ole boy style.

[BlueWaveNeverEnd]

32. The 10 most ghoulish quotes of Henry Kissinger's gruesome career

https://www.salon.com/2016/02/13/the_10_most_ghoulish_quotes_of_henry_kissingers_monstrous_partner/

1. Soviet Jews: “The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy. And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.” (link)

[Behind the Aegis]

45. Frankly, that sounds right.

While he is disgusting, if that were to happen then (or now), that would be the attitude.

[Captain Zero]

34. I think Kissinger will outlive Keith Richards

nt

[maxsolomon]

35. I suggest everyone read it before condemning.

His proposal is that Russia withdraw to the pre-war borders (meaning Crimea, and DPR remain occupied) and then a negotiation occurs. He dangles out internationally-administered plebiscites to determine borders.

I know we all hate him for good reasons, but that's not entirely crazy as a proposal to end the hot war, unless you have an absolutist position.

What's crazy is the idea that a weakened Russian breaks apart and consumes itself in literal infighting, and that isn't a preferable outcome. That's pretty far-fetched. Putin is in charge of his police state till he dies; just like Stalin was.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

39. No, it is a contemptable plan that would leave Russia in control of Ukrainian territory

as an ongoing reward for a war of agression that Russia is otherwise in the process of losing.

Having "plebiscites" in territories to determine borders that have been subject to ethnic cleansing is a sick joke.

[maxsolomon]

46. that's legitimate.

Kissinger probably sees the annexation of crimea and the DPR as a fait accompli, and it isn't. yet.

that said, there probably has to be some carrot that will get Putin into negotiations and a cease fire. i don't think it's the worst proposal i've ever seen.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

47. Putin only understands "sticks." Unfortunately.

The Ukrainians understand this. Putin's forces will need to be pushed out.

I think Kissinger's proposal is absolutely dreadful and appoints to appeasement.

[maxsolomon]

62. i don't think there are enough sticks to make him understand.

the NYT special section yesterday was a tragic eye-opener. he doesn't care what the cost is.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

64. I entirely disagree.

Putin decided to fuck around and he's finding out that a highly-motivated, well-trained, disciplined, and creative UKR military and government that has the full support of the US, our NATO allies, and the rest of the free-world to provide weapons and material sorrort is a force that he can't defeat.

To the contrary, Putin's forces are being defeated on the ground.

He will feel the sticks.

[maxsolomon]

65. hope you're right.

there could easily be a half-million dead before the shooting stops.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

66. Putin should have thought of that before waging war on a neighbor

who has the will to resist is campaign of genocide (and one that has A LOT of allies willing to help them).

Putin blundered. People are dying as a result.

[leftstreet]

38. He knows a lot about history and geopolitics

Bloodthirsty white supremacist imperialist warmonger is probably right

I just can't believe he's still alive...

[Just A Box Of Rain]

40. He's not right now and he has rarely been "right" in his entire career.

Kissinger lead the US into bluder after blunder.

This is not a wise man.

[leftstreet]

41. He worked for bloodthirsty imperialists, not us n/t

[niyad]

42. Tom Lehrer: "Political satire became obsolete when kissinger was awarded

the Nobel Peace Prize."

[iemanja]

50. right?

[Autumn]

52. Fuck that bastard. He's lived over a hundred years too long.

[KG]

61. piss on that guy anyway

[róisín_dubh]

63. "Fuck that guy"

- Tens of thousands of Latin Americans, probably.

It annoys me that my grandparents aren't alive, but that fucker still is.