Henry Kissinger has never been one to mince words when it comes to his desire to engage in genocide, the destruction of entire civilizations, or the imposition of Atlanticist world hegemony. In a recent address given to the Margaret Thatcher Conference on Security and subsequently published online in an expanded version, Kissinger lived up to his reputation for stating openly a desire to move ahead with disastrous geopolitical policies.
In his address, Kissinger spoke of a number of issues – Russia, China, Iran, the Middle East, and the “Atlantic Alliance.” Kissinger began his discussion with Russia, warning of Russian “nationalism” which Kissinger considers dangerous to the Atlanticist ideology. He stated,
Putin’s view of international politics is often described as a recurrence of 1930s European nationalist authoritarianism. More accurately, it is the heritage of the worldview identified with the novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky, as exemplified in his 1880 speech at the dedication of a monument to the poet Pushkin. Its passionate call for a new spirit of Russian greatness based on the spiritual qualities of the Russian character was taken up in the late 20th century by Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
Abandoning his exile in Vermont to return to Russia, Solzhenitsyn, in his book On the Russian Question, called for action to save the Russian people who had been “driven out” of Russia. In the same spirit, Putin has railed against what he has interpreted as a 300-year-old Western effort to contain Russia. In 2007 in a Dostoevskyan-like outburst at the Munich Security Conference, he accused the West of having unjustly exploited the troubles of post-Cold War Russia to isolate and condemn it.
How should the West develop relations with Russia, a country that is a vital element of European security but which, for reasons of history and geography, has a fundamentally different view of what constitutes a mutually satisfactory arrangement in areas adjacent to Russia. Is the wisest course to pressure Russia, and if necessary to punish it, until it accepts Western views of its internal and global order? Or is scope left for a political process that overcomes, or at least mitigates, the mutual alienation in pursuit of an agreed concept of world order?
Is the Russian border to be treated as a permanent zone of confrontation, or can it be shaped into a zone of potential cooperation, and what are the criteria for such a process? These are the questions of European order that need systematic consideration. Either concept requires a defense capability which removes temptation for Russian military pressure.
Kissinger also seems to accept the inevitable decline of the United States and the rise of China. Notice how casually he mentions Mao’s bloody reign even after criticizing Putin’s statement regarding the collapse of the Soviet Union, implying that the Russian President’s statement was heresy. He says,
The “Belt and Road Initiative” is being put forward in an international strategic environment that has been Westphalian, defined by the West’s philosophy of order. But China is unique, transcending the dimension of the Westphalian state: it is at once an ancient civilisation, a state, an empire, and a globalised economy. Inevitably, China will seek adaptation of international order compatible with its historical experience, growing power, and strategic vision.
This evolution will mark the third transformation of China in the last half-century. Mao’s brought unity, Deng’s brought reform, and now, President Xi Jinping is seeking to fulfil what he calls “the Chinese dream”, going back to the late Qing reformers, by realising “the two 100s”. When the People’s Republic of China enters its second hundred years in 2049, it will in Xi’s definition be as powerful as, if not more powerful than, any other society in the world and have the per capita GDP of fully developed countries.
In the process, the United States and China will become the world’s two most consequential countries both economically and geopolitically, obliged to undertake unprecedented adaptations in their traditional thinking. Not since it became a global power after World War II has the United States had to contend with a geopolitical equal. And never in China’s millennia-long history has it conceived of a foreign nation as more than a tributary to it, the Central or “Middle” Kingdom.
When it comes to the Middle East, however, Kissinger exposes how the Atlanticist ideology fears the expansion of Iran more-so than that of ISIS, warning that destroying ISIS could result in an “Iranian radical empire.” In other words, ISIS is preferable to the expansion of Iran. He writes,
Across large areas of Iraq and Syria, an ideologically radical religious army, Isis, has declared itself a relentless foe of modern civilisation, seeking violently to replace the international system’s multiplicity of states with a single Islamic empire governed by Sharia law. In these circumstances, the traditional adage that the enemy of your enemy can be regarded as your friend no longer applies. In the contemporary Middle East, the enemy of your enemy may also be your enemy. The Middle East affects the world by the volatility of its ideologies as much as by its specific actions.
The outside world’s war with Isis can serve as an illustration. Most non-Isis powers—including Shia Iran and the leading Sunni states—agree on the need to destroy it. But which entity is supposed to inherit its territory? A coalition of Sunnis? Or a sphere of influence dominated by Iran? The answer is elusive because Russia and the Nato countries support opposing factions. If the Isis territory is occupied by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards or Shia forces trained and directed by it, the result could be a territorial belt reaching from Tehran to Beirut, which could mark the emergence of an Iranian radical empire.
And thus we see the strategy partially revealed. The destruction of Syria and the existence of ISIS in parts of Syria and Iraq prevent the Shia Crescent from taking shape, keeping Iran from being able to influence world affairs through its connections to Hezbollah, traversing Syria, and its influence in Iraq. This is preferable to Kissinger than seeing ISIS defeated, regional players co-existing and working together and, of course unmentioned but always at the forefront, Israel’s ability to continue massacring, murdering, and attacking its neighbors being threatened.
After discussing the Middle East Kissinger then went back to the question of Russia. But while he seems willing to accept the rise of China, he is clearly not willing to accept Russia re-emergence. He says,
The new role of Russia will affect the kind of order that will emerge. Is its goal to assist in the defeat of ISIS and the prevention of comparable entities? Or is it driven by nostalgia for historic quests for strategic domination? If the former, a cooperative policy of the West with Russia could be constructive. If the latter, a recurrence of Cold War patterns is likely. Russia’s attitude towards the control of current Isis territory, sketched above, will be a key test.
Without actually stating the direction he would like to see NATO take, Kissinger hinted that the international organization should move beyond simply defending the territory of member states and move towards “pro-active” aggressive actions across the world. Of course, NATO has already moved in this direction, having launched attacks in various forms against several sovereign nations across the world.
Kissinger’s statements are not news both in the fact that they are currently being implemented as policy or in the fact that Kissinger is simply enumerating an ideology that exists within the halls of the establishment. What is concerning, however, is that Kissinger and the establishment itself would be confident enough to state these ideas openly, aware that opposition is so small and irrelevant, it cannot pose a threat to his agenda.
Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 andvolume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome. Turbeville has published over 1000 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST atUCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.
This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.