Kissinger's Vietnam syndrome in Davos

Among politicians there are characters very similar to giraffes. However, they skillfully sell their narrow-mindedness, passing it off as moderation, consideration and even enlightenment. As a matter of fact, such people often become the figures of various conspiracy versions, and, not surprisingly, are political long-timers.

So is Henry Kissinger, the patriarch of the American establishment, national security adviser and secretary of state under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. The author of the idea of ​​"saving face" of the USA in the failed Vietnam war, a casuist in the political practice of those years (the whip and gingerbread policy - to talk to the Viet Cong about peace, and therefore to use carpet bombing to "stimulate peace"). One of the initiators of the American intervention in this adventure, its political strategist, and therefore a "peacemaker", who actually handed Vietnam over to the communists, but managed to convert this "treason" into the Nobel Peace Prize…

“Kissinger is one of the initiators of the American intervention in the Vietnamese adventure, its political strategist, and therefore a "peacemaker" who actually gave Vietnam into the hands of the communists, but managed to convert this "betrayal" into the Nobel Peace Prize…”

So, in his statements about the war in Ukraine, Kissinger remained the same "giraffe" as he was in the distant 70s. The intermediate summary of his rhetoric (because no one knows what Mr. Henry will say tomorrow) was yesterday's statement at the World Economic Forum in Davos. The "architect of detente", the "Vietnamese hawk of peace" never wavered and declared about the "appropriateness" of Ukraine's membership in NATO.

“Before this war, I was against Ukraine's membership in NATO, because I was afraid that it would start exactly the process that we are seeing now. Now, when the process has reached such a level, the idea of ​​a neutral Ukraine in such conditions no longer makes sense,” the American politician said. 

"Against membership" is putting it too mildly.  Exactly one month ago, Kissinger convinced that it was necessary to negotiate with Russia, and on terms unacceptable to Kyiv, that is, to give the annexed territories to Putin.

“Against membership" is putting it too mildly.  Exactly one month ago, Kissinger convinced that it was necessary to negotiate with Russia, and on terms unacceptable to Kyiv, that is, to give the annexed territories to Putin.”

And even earlier, when the process of Ukraine's integration into the North Atlantic Alliance was significantly accelerated as a result of Russian aggression, Kissinger categorically defended his conclusion that the decision of the Bucharest Summit in 2008 to deny Kyiv its desire to join NATO was correct.  What this "correctness" is, the ex-adviser and ex-Secretary of State does not explain. However, in his public speeches, the leitmotif sounds a thought that leads to sad conclusions. Henry Kissinger is constantly trying to turn Putin's aggressive, toxic Russia into a victim position. Like, if Ukraine, with the support of NATO (read - the West), tries to take the annexed Crimea, then it will be wrong.  “The continuation of the war beyond this point will no longer be about the freedom of Ukraine... but about a new war against Russia itself.”

“Politicians-patriarchs can absolutely not care about the consequences of their statements.  They don't care whether Ukraine will be in NATO or not; will Russia give Crimea to its rightful owner or keep it for itself.”

Of course, Kissinger is happy to hang out among much younger, and therefore, in his opinion, inexperienced politicians. Of course, the ego of a potential patient of a geriatric boarding house is warmed by mentions in the world press, comments on the airwaves of the most influential television companies. But I think about the fact that similar politicians-patriarchs can absolutely not care about the consequences of their statements.  They don't care whether Ukraine will be in NATO or not; will Russia give Crimea to its rightful owner or keep it for itself.

After all, how indifferent was the much younger Kissinger to the fate of almost half a million residents of South Vietnam repressed by the communists after the Paris Agreement to end that senseless massacre. But he pretended that this was an acceptable price for his peacemaking efforts and maneuvers. 

About the author. Ihor Hulyk, journalist, Editor-in-Chief of the Espreso.West website. 

The editors do not always share the opinions expressed by the authors of the blogs.