Military Review

Kissinger's Vision

57
Henry Kissinger, a former national security adviser and former US secretary of state, recently met with Vladimir Putin, as well as Bavaria’s prime minister, Horst Seehofer. The other day in the influential edition of The National Interest a large article by Kissinger appeared in which the former politician set out his own vision of Russian-American relations and called on Washington and Moscow to engage in constant dialogue. The expert spoke in favor of the dialogue that will “merge” the future of the United States and the Russian Federation.




Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in The National Interest outlined his vision of Russian-American relations (the source of Kissinger’s article is "InoSMI").

Ex-Secretary of State recalled that relations between the United States and the Russian Federation "are much worse today than ten years ago." They are probably even “in the worst condition ever since the end of the Cold War.” The confidence of both sides has weakened, and confrontation has come to replace cooperation.

In the past, at the end of the Cold War, the Americans hoped that a period of relaxation of tension would lead to fruitful cooperation on world problems. So thinks Kissinger. Maintain strategic stability and prevent proliferation weapons mass destruction has become imperative. The prospects for trade and investment have also opened, and cooperation in the field of energy has come to the first place. However, the construction of a state policy was predetermined by the power of “global shocks,” the ex-secretary of state believes. He recalls that Russia "carried out military operations in the Caucasus in the 2008 year and in the Ukraine in the 2014-m." There was a "feeling of alienation." At the same time, the former partners put "all the blame" on each other, and in addition, "each side has a tendency to demonize if not the other country, then its leaders."

In Russia, the corresponding feelings, Kissinger believes, are amplified by memories of the first post-Soviet decade, when Russia was experiencing a sharp crisis, and the United States, on the contrary, was in a period of economic growth.

Kissinger believes that one of the strongest differences in the perception of the United States and the Russian Federation historical representations. If the United States interpreted the end of the Cold War as a reaffirmation of America's traditional belief in the inevitable triumph of democracy, then Russia, with its complex history, had its own security priority.

“When the border of security moves from the Elbe a half thousand kilometers to the east towards Moscow, a strategic component inevitably appears in the Russian view of the world order,” Kissinger writes. “The task of our time is to merge these two dimensions, geopolitical and legal, into a single coherent concept.”

So how does America cooperate with Russia? After all, Russia does not share all its values, being at the same time an “indispensable component of the world order”? And how will Russia defend its security interests? Kissinger believes that his goal is “to promote efforts to find these answers.”

Many commentators, both Russian and American, today reject the possibility of cooperation between the United States and Russia. Kissinger opposes such an unambiguous statement of the question.

“The last 70 years,” he writes, “I somehow dealt with Russian-American relations. I was present at the decision-making centers when the level of anxiety increased, and at joint celebrations in honor of diplomatic achievements. Our countries and the nations of the world need better prospects. ”

“I advocate a dialogue that will merge our future together, and will not aggravate our conflicts - and I believe that it is possible,” the former politician said. “For this, mutual respect of both sides for each other’s vital values ​​and interests is necessary.”

At the same time, he notes that the Obama administration “for the time left for it” will not solve these tasks. Nevertheless, their decision “cannot be postponed in favor of American domestic policy.”

“These tasks can be accomplished only in this case,” Kissinger points out, “if Washington and Moscow, the White House and the Kremlin are ready to step over their grievances and discontent, they stop thinking that they are being deceived and persecuted, and will respond to those large-scale challenges threaten our countries in the coming years. "

Kissinger's article caused a variety of responses in the world press.

Sevil Nuriev in Star gazete (Turkey, source of translation - "InoSMI") in many respects stands with Kissinger.

In her opinion, the “idea to put Kissinger into the game” began to seem reasonable.

Previously, Mr. Kissinger has repeatedly warned the United States on the issue of Ukraine, saying that it is necessary to be cautious about the issue of membership of this state in NATO.

“Putin is not a leader who loves and knows how to make concessions. Since the American state also knows this, it believes that such a move with the participation of Kissinger will be beneficial, ”the journalist writes.

According to Kissinger, he is a prominent specialist “in matters of shadow governments,” and the inclusion of him in the game, the author believes, is designed to help measure the degree of nuclear threat from the United States and Russia. In addition, the idea of ​​"you do not know what to expect from Putin" has become obsessive in the current American administration.

Meanwhile, the main thing is different: the probability is quite high that America, not Russia, will make concessions. There is a historical example: in the last century there was a similar confrontation in the period of Kennedy and Khrushchev. Kennedy's step at that time looked like a concession, but he saved the world from a nuclear catastrophe.

The content of the Kissinger and Putin talks can be judged by the actions that Russia and America will take in the near future, the journalist said.

The reaction to the inclusion of Russian experts in Kissinger’s “game” is also well known.

Political analyst Sergei Chernyakhovsky in the newspaper "News" writes: “Kissinger has always fought with the USSR, but not against the USSR. He always defended the principles of political realism. And political realism is a statement of real goals and an action not in accordance with one or another idealistic norms, but an orientation towards means that are good for ensuring urgent tasks. ”

The expert recalls that Henry Kissinger "became the father of detente because the United States could no longer openly confront the USSR." “A little more,” the author points out, “and America, perhaps, would have fallen, as it had fallen, abandoning the struggle, the USSR in 20 years. The United States needed a break, and even more - a change in the format of the struggle. ”

And yet, according to the political scientist, Kissinger was afraid of the collapse of the USSR and his departure from Europe. He understood: the United States is not ready to assume the role of a single world center of power: in this case, they will try to take on more than they can carry.

And “if this political heavyweight comes to a state regarding which the policy of his own country is stalled, it looks like a kind of invitation to dialogue, a hint of a new“ reset ”, the expert summarizes.

* * *


It is difficult to say how likely the new “reset” in relations between the United States and the Russian Federation is with such dissimilar positions of “partners” in Ukraine and Syria, as well as Moscow’s complete rejection of the thesis of “exclusivity” of America, which is constantly repeated by both the State Department and President Obama. The White House continues to insist on the special role of the United States in world politics, appealing to liberal “values” and the need for “democratic” changes throughout the world. This inflexible position of the current Washington is at odds with Kissinger’s confidence in the US’s inability to steer the entire planet.

It’s hard to imagine an American president (with the possible exception of the former candidate for the 2012 election of Mr. Merlin Miller), who would abandon the strategic goal of US domination throughout the world and cover all external military bases. Such a person would never have entered the Oval Office. Donald Trump, of course, wants to be friends with Russia verbally, but in reality this friendship may most likely turn out to be something like “peregruzka” - a number that the trio of Obama, H. Clinton and Ambassador McFaul played on the international stage.

Observed and commented on Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
57 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Telemon
    Telemon 11 February 2016 07: 00
    +6
    You know, IMHO, BASIC is: "... the former politician outlined his own vision of Russian-American relations and called on Washington and Moscow to ongoing dialogue."- the mattresses are not yet ready for this, MORAL.
    1. Sensatus
      Sensatus 11 February 2016 07: 07
      12
      Kissanger is too large a figure to assume that his words are only his personal opinion. This is part of the American elite. It remains only to understand which part will win.
      1. cniza
        cniza 11 February 2016 08: 16
        18
        This cunning and clever fox, he represents the interests of capital ... so they began to incur losses and realized that it was time to negotiate.
        1. guzik007
          guzik007 11 February 2016 10: 07
          +5
          “I advocate a dialogue that will merge our future together, and will not exacerbate our conflicts - and I believe that it is possible,” the former politician says.
          -----------------------------------------------------------------------
          But this is unlikely. at least in the next 30 years. We drank blood, bastards. Such a long time is not forgotten. By time, so for a whole generation of negativity accumulated and spoiled.
          1. marna
            marna 11 February 2016 13: 16
            +1
            Quote: guzik007
            for a whole generation of negativity accumulated and shamed

            And most importantly, a tremendous distrust arose in the west for generations to come.
      2. Telemon
        Telemon 11 February 2016 08: 16
        +8
        Quote: Sensatus
        Kissanger is too large a figure to assume that his words are only his personal opinion. This is part of the American elite. It remains only to understand which part will win.

        Our undoubtedly! For nothing this man will not roll. After all, one of two things - either persuaded Putin to change the vector in foreign policy, or offered some kind of support ... recourse request . Big People, we can only guess, make assumptions. And write comments about the unknown.
        1. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 11 February 2016 08: 50
          +7
          Quote: Telemont
          offered some kind of support ...

          is this old man then Kissanger? come on...! russophobe what to look for!
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 11 February 2016 10: 16
            +4
            Quote: Andrey Yurievich
            is this old man then Kissanger? come on...! russophobe what to look for!

            If to send to Moscow there is no one else but Kissenger’s grandfather, then seeing amers’s affairs is not so hot at all.
            For reference, Kissenger is 92 years old.
          2. Telemon
            Telemon 11 February 2016 10: 45
            10
            Quote: Andrey Yurievich
            is this old man then Kissanger? come on...! russophobe what to look for!

            Brzezinski is a Russophobe, without options, and Kissanger, primarily a Politician. hi
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 11 February 2016 15: 25
              0
              Quote: Telemont
              Brzezinski is a Russophobe, without options, and Kissanger, primarily a Politician.

              Kisenger, the first figure to show the possibility of the collapse of the USSR, is the main enemy, quiet and invisible, the only plus is that he could not bring up continuity and there is no continuity in global politics in the United States today. Psaki maximum what happened
              1. tol100v
                tol100v 11 February 2016 21: 20
                0
                Quote: saturn.mmm
                Brzezinski is a Russophobe, without options, and Kissanger, primarily a Politician.

                Radish horseradish is not sweeter! Simply, each of them speaks of the same thing in his own way!
      3. CHILD
        CHILD 11 February 2016 08: 42
        +3
        And he came for his deal ... a sly scoundrel)))
        1. Wolverine
          Wolverine 11 February 2016 11: 49
          +1
          And our grandfathers always said, the higher the fence, the nicer the neighbor, and so gentlemen, old cunning crooks.
      4. Asadullah
        Asadullah 11 February 2016 22: 41
        0
        Kissanger is too large a figure to assume that his words are only his personal opinion. This is part of the American elite. It remains only to understand which part will win.


        This is an old Jew who survived the Second World War and raised more than one generation of smart and educated politicians. This is a cohort of people who have created all the best that is in the United States. Alas, he can no longer do anything and influence nothing. He came to share his pain, seeing how the policy of tolerance turned the entire leadership of the most powerful country in the world into a bunch of clowns with the journalist mentality from the tabloid press.
    2. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 11 February 2016 08: 48
      +5
      Kissinger's Vision
      here the question is: he has Vision, or is he already seeing ... years are already right!
      1. kaa_andrey
        kaa_andrey 11 February 2016 09: 44
        +3
        negotiator or parliamentarian?
        I am impressed by the second ...
    3. siberalt
      siberalt 11 February 2016 11: 52
      +3
      First, let the NOTES dissolve, and only then can you normally talk to them. Does Kissanger really not understand this?
    4. Skif83
      Skif83 11 February 2016 17: 30
      0
      Yes, we somehow do not really need their "dialogue".
      When in Russia they manage their affairs with their own heads, without looking back at foreign ones, then Russia makes a breakthrough, wins, conquers, etc.
      And the "bohoizb-a-a-annaya" face of the censor cannot offer anything good.
      Not otherwise than something doesn’t stick to the mattress, or they’ll cook another bastard!
      It is not clear why our GDP is so happy about this.
  2. Olfred
    Olfred 11 February 2016 07: 20
    +2
    oh, this kisya ... give advice, yes, he’s a master hi
    1. Voice of the Mind
      Voice of the Mind 11 February 2016 10: 37
      +2
      I like Kissinger, in 2013 stated that the state of Israel would not be on the world map by 2022. True, then they justified themselves by the entire State Department, saying that it wasn’t me, I was not, I didn’t participate, I didn’t speak
      http://politikus.ru/events/5877-g-kissindzher-cherez-10-let-izrailya-ne-budet.ht
      ml
      1. Rostovchanin
        Rostovchanin 11 February 2016 14: 05
        0
        Most likely it would be so if the IG project was implemented 100%
  3. Leprekon
    Leprekon 11 February 2016 07: 20
    +9
    Kisserger was not and will not be a "friend" of Russia! Even reading the article (hopefully literal statements), one can see his one-sided perception of the positioning of the source of all troubles - Russia. What is not a replica, then the fault is obvious:
    the Americans expected that a period of easing tension would lead to fruitful cooperation on world problems ...

    Russia "carried out military operations in the Caucasus in 2008 and in Ukraine in 2014 ...

    differences in the perception of the US and the Russian Federation of historical representations. If the United States interpreted the end of the Cold War as a confirmation of America’s traditional belief in the inevitable triumph of democracy, then Russia ...

    So, I agree with the author of the article
    but in reality this friendship, most likely, may turn out to be something like “peregruzka” - a number performed on the international stage by a trio of Obama, H. Clinton and Ambassador McFaul
    1. Telemon
      Telemon 12 February 2016 05: 32
      0
      Quote: Leprechaun
      So, I agree with the author that it’s a matter of fact, this friendship will most likely turn out to be something like “peregruzka” - a number performed on the international stage by a trio of Obama, H. Clinton and Ambassador McFaul

      Smallish figures in the geopolitical arena, the aforementioned are "one-day". No more.
  4. parusnik
    parusnik 11 February 2016 07: 20
    +5
    He recalls that Russia "carried out military operations in the Caucasus in 2008 and in Ukraine in 2014." There was a "feeling of alienation"... Of course, the United States rearmed the Georgian army and Russia "insidiously", while in South Ossetia, carried out military operations against South Ossetia ... and in the second, the United States gave 5 yards to the Maidan and Crimea, and Russia took Crimea .. There will be alienation ... such money to the wind .. smile
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. Sars
    Sars 11 February 2016 07: 33
    +6
    The first TV channel said that Putin had talks with the envoy of one of the three main global control centers (Rothschild). Well, firstly: this ethnic organized crime group has no decisive voice in America; and secondly, everything could be passed on to our president through Comrade. Medvedeva D.A.
  7. igorra
    igorra 11 February 2016 07: 44
    +2
    "You do not know what to expect from Putin"
    Materiel should be taught, not guessing at Putin, although what you get from them is stupid.
  8. Red_Hamer
    Red_Hamer 11 February 2016 07: 48
    +2
    Rockefeller and Rothschild man, came with a "carrot", hold the whip for now. How did Clinton speak to our President? She called him a bully. Before our eyes, a very interesting process is developing. What will happen next? What is he there, brought the "Plan for a New World Order"?
    1. Nyrobsky
      Nyrobsky 11 February 2016 20: 36
      +1
      Quote: Red_Hamer
      A man of the Rockefellers and Rothschilds, came with a "carrot", they will hold the whip until ..... Before our eyes, a very interesting process is developing. What will happen next? What is he there, brought the "Plan for a New World Order"?

      What he brought us, we will soon learn from the statements of Lavrov and Kerry. Changes are coming, but not before Obama leaves, it's not for nothing that he emphasized this - "" "
      Quote: Red_Hamer
      At the same time, he notes that the Obama administration “for the time left for it” will not solve these tasks. Nevertheless, their decision “cannot be postponed in favor of American domestic policy.”

      Only here for the remaining time of the presidency, Obama can still break firewood.
      At the same time, it is clear that the mattresses did not get the effect that they had hoped for by imposing sanctions against Russia and ignoring its interests in Ukraine and Syria. No one wants to bring the situation to an exchange of nuclear strikes, and the Americans can no longer afford to maintain chaos around the world amid a deepening crisis, it is too expensive, and unity with Europe has been shaken. Against the background of what is happening, they clearly see the growth of Russia's prestige in the Middle East and in the world, and their image losses, which forces them to change their tactics and agree with Russia on the division of spheres of influence, or at least freeze them at the current level. In fact, Obama is just an executor - and Kissinger is exactly the representative of the "shadow world government" - whether Putin agreed with the proposed plan, we will see.
  9. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 11 February 2016 07: 51
    +4
    Putin is acting on the principles of political realism. Kissinger, as a cadre of the old school, these principles are also inherent and close.

    The only problem is that the US political establishment needs to be forced to take off pink rogue glasses.
    As long as the ball is ruled by a purely fascist concept of exclusivity, this is hardly possible.
  10. Nikolay71
    Nikolay71 11 February 2016 08: 01
    +4
    Kissinger - a major specialist in “shadow government issues”
    Most likely he came to discuss what relations between Russia and the USA after Obama will be.
    1. Heinrich ruppert
      Heinrich ruppert 11 February 2016 12: 13
      +2
      Quote: Nikolay71
      Kissinger - a major specialist in “shadow government issues”


      This is from the article. In fact, he (Kesinger) is a member of this government. So they agreed on something. The only question is what. Where to expect new military operations, and where the calm of the situation.
  11. AdekvatNICK
    AdekvatNICK 11 February 2016 08: 06
    +1
    it’s not clear why he constantly comes.
  12. Blondy
    Blondy 11 February 2016 08: 08
    +3
    I don’t believe that this political wolf has changed his attitude towards us, most likely they are preparing another combination - they can plan there :, and plan A and plan B and C are all in order to achieve their goal.
  13. shinobi
    shinobi 11 February 2016 08: 17
    +2
    They are testing the soil. With whom of the candidates will the GDP talk. And nothing will change. This belief in own exclusiveness has already destroyed more than one empire. The Yankees will not be an exception.
  14. Mikhail Krapivin
    Mikhail Krapivin 11 February 2016 08: 50
    +3
    Chief Chaim came to test the waters .. Something to promise, how to put pressure, in general, deceive, confuse, distract. Who will be the next "friend" of Russia - Brzezinski?
  15. tehnokrat
    tehnokrat 11 February 2016 08: 51
    +8
    “The idea of ​​putting Kissinger into the game” began to seem reasonable ”
    "If this political heavyweight comes to a state with regard to which the politics of his own country is at an impasse"
    ,

    then this means that both the Obama administration and the State Department have no other capable international experts? He is over 90! But the old fox cringe, insolently!
    According to his reasoning, it turns out that after 1991 the States were ready to cooperate, but
    "... Russia carried out military operations in the Caucasus in 2008 and in Ukraine in 2014." There was a "feeling of alienation."
    And that from the 91st to the 08th did not cooperate?
    Oh yes! You didn’t have time: either the war in the Gulf, then Iraq, then Yugoslavia, then Al-Qaeda came from somewhere ...
    Drove to freedom, bandits! There was no one to be afraid, the employees were bad ?!

    “I stand for a dialogue that will merge our future together (OH ... EAT! Already gurgled!)...
    For this, mutual respect of both parties to the vital values ​​and interests of each other is necessary. ”
    "... if Washington and Moscow, the White House and the Kremlin show willingness to step over their grievances and discontent, stop thinking that they are being deceived and persecuted ..."


    Hey there, on the Hill beyond the puddle! Do you really think that someone will believe ??
    1. Egoza
      Egoza 11 February 2016 09: 33
      +3
      Quote: tehnokrat
      then this means that both the Obama administration and the State Department have no other capable international experts? Him for 90!

      We threw the last reserve into battle! This relic, by the way, remembered Primakov very warmly and respectfully. But it is also a signal that the United States no longer has options for how to "cope" with GDP. And who else knows how to negotiate if not old-school diplomats?
  16. Olkass
    Olkass 11 February 2016 09: 14
    0
    “The last 70 years,” he writes, “I have been engaged in Russian-American relations one way or another. I was present at decision-making centers, when the level of anxiety increased, and at joint celebrations in honor of diplomatic achievements. Our countries and peoples of the world need stronger prospects ”


    This gentleman is the right hand of the Rothschilds. All the negative aspects for Russia have always mainly come from this clan.
    Unfortunately, at present, the clan structure among these individuals has decreased to nothing.
    So there is virtually no room for a peaceful political maneuver.
  17. afrikanez
    afrikanez 11 February 2016 09: 14
    +3
    This old globalist, famously wants to push all differences to Russia. He gave all kinds of examples. Here are just one thing I forgot to remember how many shit ... on America itself did. Again, advancing NATO towards Russian borders is not a fact of friendliness. And in this regard, one question: what kind of cooperation can be discussed then, while the states have such world ambitions ????
  18. MMX
    MMX 11 February 2016 09: 39
    +4
    Oh, Kissinger has already been recorded as like-minded ...
    The fact that this gentleman writes in his articles has nothing to do with reality and even more so does not reflect his true views and ideas. Enough to read about his activities. Including public statements about the USSR. And then here on the radio it is already being broadcast almost by another country.
    1. Red_Hamer
      Red_Hamer 11 February 2016 10: 40
      +2
      “Depopulation must become the highest foreign policy priority vis-à-vis the Third World because the American economy will require large and growing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries.” (Henry Kissinger, National Security Memorandum 200, dated 24 April 1974)
      Here he is, here is the "kind" old man Kissinger.
  19. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 11 February 2016 10: 23
    +1
    Henry Kissinger has long been no longer in the power of the United States, but the authority is such that he is always received at the highest level in Russia. Whom does he represent? This can be judged by the quote.
    After all, Russia does not share all its values, being at the same time an “indispensable component of the world order”

    Kissinger is a representative of the world government, which understands that without Russia it would not take over the whole world.
    While the United States interpreted the end of the Cold War as a confirmation of America’s traditional belief in the inevitable triumph of democracy, Russia, which has a complex history, has its own security as a priority.

    Russia's own security is not an end in itself for Russia. It is needed to protect its spiritual bonds - the Orthodox faith. When Greece joined Gayrope, attacks immediately began on the Church, which in this country remained state for the time being. And if the people of Greece do not defend their Faith, then Geyropa will bring it in line with their "values". Hopefully it won't. Greeks often go outside ...
  20. Siga77
    Siga77 11 February 2016 10: 24
    +2
    Kissinger is the same enemy as the overwhelming majority of the amerovskoy "elite", only he does not seem to be from the radical part of them, wanting to start a war with Russia right now. And taking into account his political and diplomatic experience, he was sent to "kick" Putin in the ears about how the mattress is not going to shit on us and how we need to live in a democratic world, naturally under the flag of a mattress. I think so.
  21. stas132
    stas132 11 February 2016 11: 05
    +1
    His attitude is disavowed by words about the Russian war in Georgia and Ukraine, the rest is water.
  22. prorab_ak
    prorab_ak 11 February 2016 11: 16
    +1
    NATIONAL INTEREST influential western magazine ??? laughing laughing bueeeeee ... don't make me laugh. An ordinary tabloid, in which they like to post such an "EXPERT" as Dave Jumayer ... or whatever it is ... but in VO lately they love to refer to this "influential media resource" wassat
  23. triglav
    triglav 11 February 2016 11: 17
    +1
    “If this political heavyweight arrives in a state where the policy of his own country is at an impasse, then this looks like a kind of invitation to a dialogue, a hint of a new“ reset ”
    The main thing is that this hint is understood in the USA. Then you can talk. And with regard to Syria, everything is clear: block all the borders of Syria, wet ISIS until it is completely destroyed, leave its base there and prevent other states from doing this. And then - free elections led by Assad. The government of national unity (together with the Kurds - each with a portfolio) and order.
  24. atlantida04
    atlantida04 11 February 2016 11: 29
    +1
    I suggest that he take all the fascists from Ukraine, Turkey (including the igil), the Baltic states, Poland, with all arms transferred to the United States, only after that conduct such conversations and agreements.
  25. fa2998
    fa2998 11 February 2016 11: 32
    +3
    Quote: Sensatus
    Kissenger is too big a figure

    Kissinger is a FORMER big figure. Yes, he MAY be invited to consultations, but his recommendations can be shoved, well you know where! HE DOES NOT TAKE A DECISION! In general, our TV other media cannot boast of real successes - the statement of FORM-ministers, secretaries of state, presidents and All sorts of foreign deputies (mainly from the WRONG coalition) are also looming. And a lot of all kinds of "experts", journalists.
    her support is the statement of the FIRST STATES OF THE STATE. It looks like we have no real ALLIES. Even the statement of those who constantly looks into the Russian budget is VERY ACCURATE! negative hi
  26. potalevl
    potalevl 11 February 2016 11: 44
    +1
    What kind of dialogue and mutual respect can we talk about if mattresses consider themselves to be a great nation and try to convince us that we incorrectly evaluate reality, that black is white and vice versa.
  27. Rivares
    Rivares 11 February 2016 12: 41
    +1
    Kissenger's merit was primarily that he once pitted the USSR and China. Now they put it then.
  28. Belousov
    Belousov 11 February 2016 12: 43
    +1
    Since when did Kissinger become a "friend" of Russia? Most likely they were sent to blow dust in the gala with the status of a participant in the shadow government. I was more worried about another thing - his trip to Bavaria. Seeerhofer's demarche could really deprive Merkel of the opportunity to import "children" in batches, at least to Bavaria. And the rest could understand that one can and should be fenced off from migrants, which would lead to the collapse of Merkel's political career almost instantly, and this could lead (not necessarily, but could) to the exit from subordination to the states. And now I wonder how old man Henry put pressure on the Bavarian? Another monkey prostitute like in the case of Strauss-Kahn? Or something else? And did you press it?
  29. Serg1977
    Serg1977 11 February 2016 12: 44
    0
    How do Americans live? This will not be told to you and will not be shown on zombie TV. wassat
    http://zarubezhom.com/GovnoObAmerike.htm
  30. Villon
    Villon 11 February 2016 12: 50
    +2
    “When the security border moves from the Elbe one and a half thousand kilometers east towards Moscow, in the Russian view of world order a strategic component inevitably emerges, ”Kissinger writes.”

    Does Mr. Kissinger really want to say that when moving the security border from the Elbe one and a half thousand kilometers east towards Moscow in the American view of world order didn’t the strategic aspect appear? And notice how again once again Kissinger talked about "world order". Someone else would have said it, he would have been branded for these words. Kissinger can.
  31. Tamanskiy
    Tamanskiy 11 February 2016 13: 15
    0
    This policy is well and thoroughly written about in a very interesting book (Committee 300), I highly recommend it.
  32. RomanN
    RomanN 11 February 2016 14: 22
    +2
    Most likely this tipok offered options for our surrender, promising Putin and others like him a kind of pension after they were handed over. (Until he himself lives, he will not forget) There is nothing to expect from this cattle — this audience always has its own game.
  33. Tektor
    Tektor 11 February 2016 15: 38
    +1
    The West will have to forget about Russia's concessions: they have already come upon it. Now the turn of the West is to make concessions.
  34. 3vs
    3vs 11 February 2016 15: 41
    +1
    Yes, Jewish children, they are like that, they won’t drop an ax on their leg ...
    I recommend reading the latest article by crimson alter:
    "American" Rothschilds are the best friends of corrupt officials
    http://politrussia.com/ekonomika/amerikanskie-rotshildy-905/
  35. uskrabut
    uskrabut 11 February 2016 16: 08
    0
    Mutual misunderstanding ..... I will decipher:
    - The Anglo-Saxons do not understand why the Russians do not want to go to them lackeys.
    - Russians do not understand why they should be lackeys among the Anglo-Saxons.
    And how is it to be agreed? Can offer to change roles? You look and get to the exceptional.
  36. gladcu2
    gladcu2 11 February 2016 17: 56
    +1
    With every visit of Kissinger to Moscow, in China they do not strain much.
    1. fif21
      fif21 11 February 2016 20: 11
      0
      Quote: gladcu2
      With every visit of Kissinger to Moscow, in China they do not strain much.
      And not only there! The USA, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Russian Federation, and the PRC — these are 4 countries capable of preserving or destroying the land. The score is 2: 2. Where the scales swing is a matter of life and death.
  37. hobot
    hobot 11 February 2016 17: 59
    0
    Reloading - as I understand it - a change of tactics, to destroy the Russians, without losing natural resources.
  38. chelovektapok
    chelovektapok 11 February 2016 18: 53
    -1
    Gena Kissin is one of those to whom you should listen. In the sense that this genetic Russophobe and "apostle" of faith in the destruction of Russia in nuclear ashes, if he scolds, then everything is fine. If he begins to praise, as in the case of a marked Judas, the kirdyk is close. "Fear the Danes who bring gifts" (c) Homer explained about Troy so!
  39. tiredwithall
    tiredwithall 11 February 2016 20: 02
    +1
    “The expert spoke in favor of a dialogue that would“ merge ”the future of the United States and the Russian Federation” - if the merger takes place according to Kissinger, then Russia's place is in the stomach of the United States, which means that it will have only one way out - naturally in the appropriate state. Wait, the Russians, they will talk ...
  40. fif21
    fif21 11 February 2016 20: 05
    +1
    1. Russia and the USSR are not the same thing. 2. Russia has grown out of diapers - it is a strong, self-sufficient, rich state. A conversation from a position of strength with Russia is dangerous, and attempts to teach her life are futile. It is still possible to speak with Russia on equal terms. 3. If "America" ​​understands this, it still has a chance to remain a sovereign country. 4. Equal and partnership relations between the West and Russia, a condition for the preservation of intelligent life on earth. 5. As long as the United States considers Russia a country defeated in the Cold War, there will be no dialogue, there will be revenge in the hot one. 6. Russia is the Phoenix country! How many times did she die and rejoice? hi soldier drinks
  41. demo
    demo 11 February 2016 21: 17
    0
    Political analyst Sergei Chernyakhovsky in the newspaper Izvestia writes: “Kissinger has always fought against the USSR, but not against the USSR. He always upheld the principles of political realism. And political realism is the setting of real goals and action not in accordance with some idealistic norms, but the focus on means that are good for providing urgent tasks. ”

    Always envious of political scientists.
    Especially their ability to say a lot and, at the same time, to say nothing.

    If we focus on the means that are good for ensuring urgent tasks, then this is what Russia is now "sinning" about.
    Those. reaction to external irritation, not the foresight of this stimulus.
    And again, to achieve the goals, any means are good.
    This "sins" the United States.

    Fighting the flu, not the flu, is generally aerobatics.
    Those. in order not to lose your job, you must pretend that you are doing this work, "from dawn to dawn."

    Real goals and real tasks are determined by the strategy, depending on the capabilities and desires.
    And to rely on idealistic norms or on realistic ones is a matter of taste.

    Fuh.
    Oh bullshit.
  42. rubidiy
    rubidiy 11 February 2016 23: 35
    -1
    strange to read about the visit of a decision maker. Well, our Vova is promoting, and things are still there. In principle, the normal situation.
  43. Multicast
    Multicast 13 February 2016 01: 11
    +1
    Yes, when in the United States they don’t know what to do then the old people go into battle)) but to me personally all the words said by an elderly uncle seem to be a snag once again. You shouldn’t believe the old man - it’s better to stand upright and raise the economy and army and the education of the next generation, and all the whining about understanding and rebooting - but you can talk but not a step back from our interests!
  44. Andrei946
    Andrei946 14 February 2016 08: 41
    0
    US foreign policy has long come to a standstill. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the Americans, wherever their troops are brought in, are bogged down everywhere. If you still go somewhere, then you need to get out of somewhere, and if they leave any region, then either Russia or China will go there. American power is not the same. And the fact that Henry came to Russia himself, and not Putin was invaded somewhere to meet, he himself confirms the thesis of the collapse of Pax Americana. And Putin and Kissanger solved global issues. This will partially manifest itself in the near future. But among our partners there is no person who clearly understands what Putin is doing. Henry in one of the publications said that he clearly saw what Putin was doing, but he did not write that he understood ....