He's not though, he basically invented detente with the Soviets way back in the early 1970s. It's how he thinks. His approach is based on finding solutions that involve give and take. Some find that type of thinking not to their liking and favour have the WWII and current Russian approach of blowing the hell out of the enemy.
There definitely have been accusations that he was too close to Putin in the last few years and not necessarily an honest broker (people were already accusing him of being a Putin appeaser five or six years ago) :
It's how he's been for 50 years. Some admire him, a lot do not and say so quite a lot but he's very much a voice that will get attention regardless of what he says. Incidentally he backed Ukraine pre-Crimea. I don't think he has any sway whatsoever over Putin and he's really just another opinion.
That's the thing. Kissinger's view that "Nations do not have permanent friends or enemies, only interests" is at its core supremely pragmatic. However, it is based on a flawed principle, namely that the leadership of a nation is willing to act in a rational manner and compromise to further said interests, akin to how China acted in the 1970s, after the Sino-Soviet split. Side note, whatever you think of Kissinger, I highly recommend you check out his book "On China". I found it extremely interesting and useful with regards to the "stand-off" between the west and China in recent years.
But back to the topic at hand. This "interest-based" policy breaks down when confronted with a nation that acts from an emotional point of view, whether it is a longing for past grandeur, as seen in post-Brexit UK politics, a fear of encirclement by presumed hostile nations or alliances, a combination of those or another point entirely. Kissinger is, in my eyes, simply falling into the same trap that a number of European politicians have already fallen into, namely that this type of rational policy will work on a fundamentally irrational government.
On that Putin front I fully agree but there still needs to be a plausible path to give an out, even if it's a path that will never be trodden by Putin.
Afghanistan was due to the Russians trying to forcibly occupy a country and deal with insurgencies, similar to US in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I think you are missing the point here.
The Americans conquered Iraq in a few weeks.
The Russians conquered Afghanistan in a few months and when I say conquered I mean they took over their key cities.
The issue was of course holding the ground and occupying the country.
Conquering the country was supposed to be the easy part for Russia in this war, but they managed to **** that up. Are we to say they are going to be better occupiers than the Americans, given we have seen that Ukraine know how to fight, they have a western border with NATO country with heavy arms pouring in?
Not.a.chance.
What is the best-case scenario here for Russia? They conquer the Donbas, say "We want peace now" and Ukraine say grand and they live happily ever after? Even if Russia takes more territory in the next few weeks or months, its more territory they have to manage, secure, keep stable....
I cannot see an easy out for Russia here. They have gone in and Putin and Russia would get out if they could save face, but its too late for that now.
I suspect Russia will run out of steam soon. If they were strong they would have made more progress over the past 3 weeks. They might now be out of puff.
The Spook business is a strange one, a lot of stuff that goes on would make a Tom Clancy novel blush.
Exactly. No one has explained the bit where Ukraine gets sophisticated modern weaponry in sufficient numbers needed to actually retake the swathes of the country that is under occupation.
This isn't like Kyiv where small concentrations of troops were badly over-extended while trying to maintain bad lines of communication. Russia is a lot better positioned in the east and south. They won't be withdrawing as easily as they did in Kyiv. Strolling into Russian controlled territory with a Javelin on your shoulder isn't going to cut it.
A small number of Russian troops around Kiev there was tens of thousands of Russians .
🤣🤣🤣🤣
That was asymmetric warfare, in this case it isn't. Apples and oranges.
40bn of what? The US refused to allow obsolete Polish MiG's be donated to Ukraine.
But yet they are getting Patriot and harpoon missles , which means they can shoot down Russian aircraft over the blacksea and the east and sink their ships up to 100 -300 km away
Reaper drones go to Ukraine? High Tension:America Most Lethal Drones Arrive To Ukraina - YouTube
I'd be very suspicious of the motivations for his current intervention and wonder if he is up to something i.e. doing the regime a favour (perhaps he has been in contact with Putin?). I don't see him as any sort of honest broker.
Wrong. The US said they would not be providing the planes or replacements to Poland. They didn't 'refuse to allow.'
If Poland decided to supply planes to Ukraine in the morning, then that would be Poland's decision, and Poland's alone.
Ukraine says No!
To the point, and a very good point at that.
Absolutely not to the last line, but I don't think that Putin wants that either. I would say he wants a world of laws more rigid than they are now, but laws which, crucially, benefit mainly him and serve to increase his power. Attempting to tear up the current order and current set of rules would just be a stepping stone to this final objective.
Our great grand parents and further back knew all about that in this country.
Plan A.
Well, talk about stating the obvious. I just wish someone in Moscow got on with it and retired the madputin.
I'd like all that to be true about Putin. At the very least, it would go some way to explaining this folly he has embarked upon, but all the word about this seems to only be coming out of Ukraine so far. If someone close to Putin is willing to go on record at some point and say the same, that's when it gets really juicy.
There is some utility in Ukraine claiming that Putin's sick, even if he's not. Putin hates looking weak in the eyes of others for one thing, but, also, getting that rumour to Russia and getting people talking there serves to erode public trust in Putin.
Clearly inspired back into the skies by the Top Gun remake...
I find it hard to believe the head of UA intel. would say something like that if there was not some truth in it.
I suggested that this would possibly happen Belarus apparently are going back to Russia
That would just be typical NATO expansionism adding to the border between Russia and NATO.
It could very well be true, but until we get some sort of confirmation from someone on the other side, I'm not going to start basing assumptions on how things will play out around it.
Looks like nuvorussia is the next plan
..
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/282101dc2976956f9dfc87f7a2ef2413.svg)
