6 ms·

I balk at calls for peace from Henry Kissinger, who didn't seem to have qualms at raining death on millions of innocent people for his own personal political ga

I balk at calls for peace from Henry Kissinger, who didn't seem to have qualms at raining death on millions of innocent people for his own personal political gains. Nevertheless, I did read the article. Kissinger's framework for understanding the world is still rooted in an outdated cold war mentality and this article seems like he is naively trying to shove the cat back in the bag and return to a paradigm that he felt he understood. But I don't think we can return to the way things were. Russia's hegemony over its neighbours was not because of its nuclear power, but because of its military power, which it has demonstrated is considerably weaker than we had previously understood. I think this conflict has actually weakened the power of a nuclear arsenal considerably compared to conventional military strength, because it really has no strategic use beyond nuclear deterrence.

vlovich123 4y ago
With Russia‘s nukes, it seems unlikely Ukraine will invade Russia. It’s possible they wouldn’t be so cautious of Russia if it had disarmed its nuclear capabilities. EDIT: fixed the multiple wording mistakes that made the statement nonsense from start to finish.
- totalZero 4y ago
  It seems unlikely that Ukraine will invade Ukraine, because Ukraine occupies Ukraine and has done so ever since Ukraine became Ukraine. Perhaps you mean that it seems unlikely Ukraine will invade Russia due to Russian nuclear capability? What do you mean when you say "without Russia's nukes" (do you mean "with")?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- darthrupert 4y ago
  By Russia's fucked up interpretation of reality, Ukraine has already invaded Russia and is currently occupying two of its cities. Or did you mean they would invade real Russian territory, like Moscow? Why would they do that?
  - vlovich123 4y ago
    Russia territory from before all the conflict > why would they do that Russia has a regime that’s clearly hostile to Ukraine. Additionally, they have a history of trying to assisted people in their way politically. So, if you’re successfully pushing back the army, you have the momentum to try to overthrow this regime and ensure some long term security on your border. Whether or not that would work or be wise would be separate calculus but nuclear weapons in the hands of an unstable leader adds at least a little bit uncertainty that would make you pause in addition to everything else.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    They might, for instance, get tired of Russia sending missiles at Ukraine, and decide to go after the launch sites.
psychphysic 4y ago
It's sounds like you're arguing for war with Russia while they are weak?
- jamincan 4y ago
  Not at all. Kissinger specifically frames this as a war between two great powers over a conventionally armed nation. In this framing, western nations have the power to end this war and set the terms for peace. But I don't believe this is true, and I feel this is a relic of a different era. Western nations can influence the war - sending Ukraine more arms, or cutting off supply would certainly influence its chances. But fundamentally Ukraine is a sovereign nation and will decide peace on its own terms. Eastern European nations threatened by a world order where their sovereignty is subordinate to Russia's will support Ukraine on their terms. This is just fundamentally not a Russia v. NATO war as much as it might be more convenient if it were.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    More than that: if the West pulls away and stops supporting Ukraine, it will not make peace. Imagine Russian army overcoming the remaining Ukraine defenses and occupying 100% of it's territory. So you think the people of Ukraine will grudgingly lay down arms, and return to normal daily life? Come on. Ukraine has always had a strong separatist movement while a part of the USSR. It was a founding member of the USSR, but the last vestiges of armed separatist forces were only suppressed by the end of 1950s. This was under Stalin, a tyrant with a very efficient suppression machine and no qualms about killing his subjects whatsoever. A peer comment suggests that it could be fine to just let Russia have what it's currently grabbed, and cease the fire ASAP. I think it'd be the one of the worst courses of action. An Ukraine defeated by Russia would be another Afghanistan. With current technology, and with the general ineptitude that the Russian state repeatedly demonstrates throughout the campaign, there's no doubt that guerilla warfare will be widespread and hurtful. This is on top of letting an authoritarian regime to conquer by war and annex a sovereign European state, right next to "real" Western states. This would send many signals, of all the wrong sorts, of what the Wast is going to put up with. In general, an abscess, once it exists, should be treated, one way or another, until it disappears completely. Stopping to treat it because it hurts is a way to make it hurt more, and become more dangerous.
mmmwww 4y ago
While I agree with you, I think this information will already be understood in coming negotiations. Although the author’s legitimacy is questionable, I read the solution he proposes as sensible: End of war. Removal of the army from Ukraine except for Crimea, at first and international oversight of referenda for the regions. Potential threat of cost of reparations and what it would mean for Russia to lose is probably what keeps Russia fighting, and away from the negotiation table.
- psychphysic 4y ago
  What Kissinger is correct about most is that none of this matters as much as ending this war. With hindsight ww2 could have been avoided if it wasn't for the prolonged punishment for ww1. Russia has too many ways to ruin the world for it to be worth not trying out best to bring them into the fold tightly and fast. Sadly this will upset Ukrainians but that's unfortunately not as important as avoiding another world war. Heck as I spell out below, what would happen if Russia simply continues to use its own fossil fuel supply? That's bad enough.
  - yywwbbn 4y ago
    > With hindsight ww2 could have been avoided With hindsight most of WW2 could have been avoided if UK/France invaded Germany while its army was busy in Poland. Even during the Sudeten crisis, though this would have probably required a soviet intervention which would have been problematic. Then again the German Army wasn’t that well prepared for an all-out war back in 1938 and might have been bogged down in Czechoslovakia similarly to how Russia is now stuck in Ukraine. Support for Hitler in Germany wasn’t that necessarily that strong prior to the conquest of France especially amongst the military leadership* so a coup wouldn’t have been out of the question. The Battle of France pretty much turned Hitler into a German Napoleon. * mainly because they didn’t believe that a quick victory was an option and feared a repeat of WW2. They obviously wanted to win a war against France eventually.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    WWII in Europe ended not just with the fall of Berlin, but with the Marshall plan. If something like that happened after WWI, Europe would have been very different. But enacting a Marshall plan requires a definite military defeat first. Else it's pacifying the aggressor again, with the same efficacy as in 1938.
yywwbbn 4y ago
> Russia's hegemony over its neighbours was not because of its nuclear power, but because of its military power Arguably dependence on Russian oil & gas was as or more important. Basically countries in the region had a choice either pay the market price (or more if you don’t have access to the global market to buy natural gas) or submit to Russia politically and get massive discounts. Not an easy choice to make for poor post-soviet countries with no natural resources. e.g. I don’t think the Belarusian regime would survive long without energy subsidies from Russia. The situation in Ukraine prior to 2014/2004 was not that different.
- jamincan 4y ago
  That's a fair point; military power isn't the only way to project power. I do think, though, that the war in Ukraine may lead to us reevaluating just what nuclear power provides you. Certainly it is a deterrent to attack and especially a deterrent to a nuclear attack. But with time, especially after nuclear threats from Putin and Kim repeatedly prove to be empty threats, its ability to project power beyond a country's own borders seems more and more limited.
refurb 4y ago
I balk at calls for peace from Henry Kissinger, who didn't seem to have qualms at raining death on millions of innocent people for his own personal political gains. Nevertheless, I did read the article. “War monger suggests peace” Look at his track record! He’s wrong we need more war!
- jamincan 4y ago
  Do you think your straw man reflects what I posted?
  - refurb 4y ago
    It's not a straw man. Just pointing out the delicious irony. You claim we shouldn't listen to Kissinger because he "didn't seem to have qualms at raining death on millions of innocent people". Your logic being, don't listen to his calls for peace, what we need is war. Which would unavoidable result in "raining death on [..] innocent people"
    - jamincan 4y ago
      I'm not claiming we need war at all. I am pointing out that Kissinger's road plan for peace is built on a false framework.
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  Exactly this. When the guy who never met a war he didn't like is telling you our current path is a bad idea, you had better fucking listen.

vlovich123 4y ago

With Russia‘s nukes, it seems unlikely Ukraine will invade Russia. It’s possible they wouldn’t be so cautious of Russia if it had disarmed its nuclear capabilities. EDIT: fixed the multiple wording mistakes that made the statement nonsense from start to finish.

totalZero 4y ago
It seems unlikely that Ukraine will invade Ukraine, because Ukraine occupies Ukraine and has done so ever since Ukraine became Ukraine. Perhaps you mean that it seems unlikely Ukraine will invade Russia due to Russian nuclear capability? What do you mean when you say "without Russia's nukes" (do you mean "with")?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
darthrupert 4y ago
By Russia's fucked up interpretation of reality, Ukraine has already invaded Russia and is currently occupying two of its cities. Or did you mean they would invade real Russian territory, like Moscow? Why would they do that?
- vlovich123 4y ago
  Russia territory from before all the conflict > why would they do that Russia has a regime that’s clearly hostile to Ukraine. Additionally, they have a history of trying to assisted people in their way politically. So, if you’re successfully pushing back the army, you have the momentum to try to overthrow this regime and ensure some long term security on your border. Whether or not that would work or be wise would be separate calculus but nuclear weapons in the hands of an unstable leader adds at least a little bit uncertainty that would make you pause in addition to everything else.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  They might, for instance, get tired of Russia sending missiles at Ukraine, and decide to go after the launch sites.

psychphysic 4y ago

It's sounds like you're arguing for war with Russia while they are weak?

jamincan 4y ago
Not at all. Kissinger specifically frames this as a war between two great powers over a conventionally armed nation. In this framing, western nations have the power to end this war and set the terms for peace. But I don't believe this is true, and I feel this is a relic of a different era. Western nations can influence the war - sending Ukraine more arms, or cutting off supply would certainly influence its chances. But fundamentally Ukraine is a sovereign nation and will decide peace on its own terms. Eastern European nations threatened by a world order where their sovereignty is subordinate to Russia's will support Ukraine on their terms. This is just fundamentally not a Russia v. NATO war as much as it might be more convenient if it were.
- nine_k 4y ago
  More than that: if the West pulls away and stops supporting Ukraine, it will not make peace. Imagine Russian army overcoming the remaining Ukraine defenses and occupying 100% of it's territory. So you think the people of Ukraine will grudgingly lay down arms, and return to normal daily life? Come on. Ukraine has always had a strong separatist movement while a part of the USSR. It was a founding member of the USSR, but the last vestiges of armed separatist forces were only suppressed by the end of 1950s. This was under Stalin, a tyrant with a very efficient suppression machine and no qualms about killing his subjects whatsoever. A peer comment suggests that it could be fine to just let Russia have what it's currently grabbed, and cease the fire ASAP. I think it'd be the one of the worst courses of action. An Ukraine defeated by Russia would be another Afghanistan. With current technology, and with the general ineptitude that the Russian state repeatedly demonstrates throughout the campaign, there's no doubt that guerilla warfare will be widespread and hurtful. This is on top of letting an authoritarian regime to conquer by war and annex a sovereign European state, right next to "real" Western states. This would send many signals, of all the wrong sorts, of what the Wast is going to put up with. In general, an abscess, once it exists, should be treated, one way or another, until it disappears completely. Stopping to treat it because it hurts is a way to make it hurt more, and become more dangerous.

mmmwww 4y ago

While I agree with you, I think this information will already be understood in coming negotiations. Although the author’s legitimacy is questionable, I read the solution he proposes as sensible: End of war. Removal of the army from Ukraine except for Crimea, at first and international oversight of referenda for the regions. Potential threat of cost of reparations and what it would mean for Russia to lose is probably what keeps Russia fighting, and away from the negotiation table.

psychphysic 4y ago
What Kissinger is correct about most is that none of this matters as much as ending this war. With hindsight ww2 could have been avoided if it wasn't for the prolonged punishment for ww1. Russia has too many ways to ruin the world for it to be worth not trying out best to bring them into the fold tightly and fast. Sadly this will upset Ukrainians but that's unfortunately not as important as avoiding another world war. Heck as I spell out below, what would happen if Russia simply continues to use its own fossil fuel supply? That's bad enough.
- yywwbbn 4y ago
  > With hindsight ww2 could have been avoided With hindsight most of WW2 could have been avoided if UK/France invaded Germany while its army was busy in Poland. Even during the Sudeten crisis, though this would have probably required a soviet intervention which would have been problematic. Then again the German Army wasn’t that well prepared for an all-out war back in 1938 and might have been bogged down in Czechoslovakia similarly to how Russia is now stuck in Ukraine. Support for Hitler in Germany wasn’t that necessarily that strong prior to the conquest of France especially amongst the military leadership* so a coup wouldn’t have been out of the question. The Battle of France pretty much turned Hitler into a German Napoleon. * mainly because they didn’t believe that a quick victory was an option and feared a repeat of WW2. They obviously wanted to win a war against France eventually.
- nine_k 4y ago
  WWII in Europe ended not just with the fall of Berlin, but with the Marshall plan. If something like that happened after WWI, Europe would have been very different. But enacting a Marshall plan requires a definite military defeat first. Else it's pacifying the aggressor again, with the same efficacy as in 1938.

yywwbbn 4y ago

> Russia's hegemony over its neighbours was not because of its nuclear power, but because of its military power Arguably dependence on Russian oil & gas was as or more important. Basically countries in the region had a choice either pay the market price (or more if you don’t have access to the global market to buy natural gas) or submit to Russia politically and get massive discounts. Not an easy choice to make for poor post-soviet countries with no natural resources. e.g. I don’t think the Belarusian regime would survive long without energy subsidies from Russia. The situation in Ukraine prior to 2014/2004 was not that different.

jamincan 4y ago
That's a fair point; military power isn't the only way to project power. I do think, though, that the war in Ukraine may lead to us reevaluating just what nuclear power provides you. Certainly it is a deterrent to attack and especially a deterrent to a nuclear attack. But with time, especially after nuclear threats from Putin and Kim repeatedly prove to be empty threats, its ability to project power beyond a country's own borders seems more and more limited.

refurb 4y ago

jamincan 4y ago
Do you think your straw man reflects what I posted?
- refurb 4y ago
  It's not a straw man. Just pointing out the delicious irony. You claim we shouldn't listen to Kissinger because he "didn't seem to have qualms at raining death on millions of innocent people". Your logic being, don't listen to his calls for peace, what we need is war. Which would unavoidable result in "raining death on [..] innocent people"
  - jamincan 4y ago
    I'm not claiming we need war at all. I am pointing out that Kissinger's road plan for peace is built on a false framework.
hackinthebochs 4y ago
Exactly this. When the guy who never met a war he didn't like is telling you our current path is a bad idea, you had better fucking listen.