Interview with breathtaking honesty between Henry Kissinger and co-ethnic Jacob Heilbrunn.
I have always had an expansive view of national interest
Kissinger is talking about a euphemism for the US global empire/NWO, of which he used to be a supporter and still would like to be a supporter, were it not that he is burdened with a king-size brain, that tells him it is not going to happen.
China inherently presents a fundamental challenge to American strategy.
It sure does. So what’s the point of the quarrel with Russia?
Heilbrunn: And do you think they’re pushing for a more Sinocentric world, or can they be integrated into some sort of Westphalian framework, as you outlined in your most recent book, World Order?
Kissinger: That’s the challenge. That’s the open question. It’s our task. We’re not good at it, because we don’t understand their history and culture. I think that their basic thinking is Sinocentric. But it may produce consequences that are global in impact.
To date the Chinese thinking is Sinocentric indeed. But recently the Chinese leadership was already openly hinting towards ‘de-Americanizing the world’. That sounds like a global ambition to us. And it doesn’t sound like the Chinese are interested to be integrated in ‘Westphalian frameworks’ of sorts.
Heilbrunn: How greatly do you rate the chances of a real Sino-Russian rapprochement?
Kissinger: It’s not in either of their natures, I think—
Heilbrunn: Because the Russians clearly would like to create a much closer relationship.
Kissinger: But partly because we’ve given them no choice.
Precisely. Russia under Putin clearly played the European card and still does. The current SCO/BRICS arrangement is purely ad hoc, forced upon Russia and China by the aggressive behavior of the US and its silly dream of a US global empire, where the US is ten years away from third world status. Meanwhile, America’s most important ally Europe is very uncomfortable with the present situation and refuses to engage in further antagonizing European-Russian relations.
I saw Putin at the end of November 2013… Ukraine… America was passive.
That is absolute baloney; US NGOs had been preparing the ground in Ukraine for years. The Maidan uprising may have been a spontaneous grass roots event, but the US State Department was quick to seize the opportunity and hijack the revolution, bring in neo-Nazi hotheads from Lvov, who smelled their chance to ‘Ukrainize’ bi-lingual Ukraine and get rid of the ‘Moskals’.
Heilbrunn: Another country that’s obviously taken a lead role in Europe is Germany—on Ukraine, on Greece—
Kissinger: They don’t really seek that role. The paradox is that seventy years after having defeated German claims to dominating Europe, the victors are now pleading, largely for economic reasons, with Germany to lead Europe. Germany can and should play an important role in the construction of European and international order.
It is difficult to discern any leadership at all in Europe these days.
Btw, Germany never ‘claimed to dominate Europe’. Between 1815-1945 it had been solely Britain that unofficially claimed leadership, or rather occupied the dominating role in Europe, by ensuring that Germany never got the chance to dominate in the first place, even if it had wanted that role (it didn’t). After 1945, Britain ended up as a US colony and it is the US itself since 1945 that claims the dominating role in Europe. The hypocrisy is breathtaking again.
The United States has put forward no concept of its own except that Russia will one day join the world community by some automatic act of conversion.
Read: will become part of the US empire, er… we meant to say ‘Westphalian framework’.
The West hesitates to take on the economic recovery of Greece; it’s surely not going to take on Ukraine as a unilateral project. So one should at least examine the possibility of some cooperation between the West and Russia in a militarily nonaligned Ukraine. The Ukraine crisis is turning into a tragedy because it is confusing the long-range interests of global order with the immediate need of restoring Ukrainian identity. I favor an independent Ukraine in its existing borders.
Agree in principle, but it could very well turn out that too much blood has been spilled and Donbass separatism is irreversible.
Heilbrunn: But we have witnessed a return, at least in Washington, DC, of neoconservatives and liberal hawks who are determined to break the back of the Russian government.
Kissinger: Until they face the consequences.
Fascinating, straight from the horse’s mouth, Kissinger confirms that Washington wants to break up the Russian government [read: drawn Russia into the Western camp].
we refuse to learn from experience. Because it’s essentially done by an ahistorical people.
That’s absolutely true. Like the former USSR, the US is a young ideological country that won’t grow old.
Heilbrunn: The Atlanticist generation in Germany and the approach it embodied have largely disappeared.
Kissinger: That’s a pity.
Heilbrunn: The younger CDU [Christian Democratic Union] politicians that I’ve met are not that interested in the United States, which is a dramatic shift, since the whole Adenauer policy was based on Westbindung.
Kissinger: It’s partly their fault and partly our fault.
Germany and the rest of Europe are gradually turning eastwards now that the Iron Curtain has vanished, already 25 years ago. Endless economic opportunities are opening up. For Europe, not for America, Russia is an important trading partner.
[nationalinterest.org] – The Interview: Henry Kissinger
The difference between the likes of Kissinger and Heilbrunn on the one hand and neocon fanatics like Nuland on the other is that Kissinger and Heilbrunn recognize a train wreck when they see one:
[jstor.org] – They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons
Heilbrunn was once a neocon himself until he drew the right conclusions from the Iraq disaster.
[mondoweiss.net] – Jews have replaced WASPs in foreign policy establishment, Heilbrunn in NYT
No need to frequent neo-Nazi sites like Stormfront; the New York Times will do just fine these days to keep you informed about the US power structure. They now admit themselves that they run US foreign policy (and the rest of US society, like immigration policy, we would like to add). And once you have accepted the fact that ‘these people’ control giants like the US per their own admission, it is not a big step to accept the fact that they once controlled that other giant the USSR as well, as claimed by none other than our hero Vladimir Putin. Until an even greater crook like Stalin gradually pushed them aside, between ca. 1938-1953. But the USSR could still be used by ‘these people‘ to organize the War on Europe (WW2). Once that job was done, the US foreign policy establishment could agitate to get Russia under control again (Cold War), in which they succeeded after 1991. Until in 2000 the Russian Charles de Gaulle came along and kicked them out again. Until today.