First up, from Der Spiegel, July 15:
"There Is No Good Historical Example" for War in Ukraine
Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, 99, experienced several Soviet leaders during his career in politics. Now, he says that Russian President Vladimir Putin is both calculated and resentful. And that Russia's future relationship with Europe will become a key geostrategic question.
DER SPIEGEL: Mr. Kissinger, when you were born, Lenin was still alive. You were 29 years old when Stalin died, 39 when Nikita Khrushchev deployed nuclear missiles in Cuba and 45 when Leonid Brezhnev crushed the Prague Spring. Which of these Kremlin rulers does Vladmir Putin most remind you of?
Henry Kissinger: Khrushchev.
DER SPIEGEL: Why?
Kissinger: Khrushchev wanted recognition. He wanted to affirm the importance of his country and to be invited to America. The concept of equality was very important to him. In Putin’s case, this is even more acute, because he considers the collapse of the Russian position in Europe from 1989 onward as a strategic disaster for Russia. That has been his obsession. I don't really share the view of many people who think that he wants to regain every bit of territory that was lost. But what he cannot bear is that the entire territory between Berlin and the Russian border fell to NATO. And that’s what made Ukraine such a key point for him.
DER SPIEGEL: Khrushchev triggered the Cuban Missile Crisis, but he ultimately gave in. Do you think the same is possible for Putin and Ukraine?
Kissinger: Putin is not as impulsive as Khrushchev was. He is more calculated and more resentful. It might be easier to settle with some other leaders one has known (from Russia’s past). On the other hand, it is unlikely that the transition from Putin to his successor will go very smoothly. But above all, the evolution of Russia is a Russian issue. The Western nations will have to analyze what they can do depending on that evolution and the military outcome in Ukraine.
Henry Kissinger was born in 1923 in the Bavarian town of Fürth before leaving Nazi Germany in 1938 with his parents for the United States. He became U.S. secretary of state in 1973 under President Richard Nixon and is widely considered one of the most influential statesmen of the postwar period. He has published numerous books on diplomacy and geopolitics, including "Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy," which was published at the end of June.
DER SPIEGEL: The first chapter of your new book, "Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy,” focuses on Germany’s first postwar chancellor, Konrad Adenauer. You write that Adenauer’s policy was based on a view that his country’s division was temporary. Is this what you had in mind with your recent statement at the World Economic Forum in Davos, when you suggested that Ukraine accept a temporary division of the country, developing one part into a pro-Western, democratic and economically strong nation while waiting for history to reunite the country as a whole?
Kissinger: What I said is this: To end this war, the best dividing line would be the status quo ante, which means 93 percent of the country. That’s quite a different thing. If one identifies the status quo ante as the objective, that would mean that aggression has not succeeded. The issue, then, is a ceasefire along the February 24 line of contact. The territory still controlled by Russia, which makes up about 2.5 percent of Ukrainian territory in the Donbas as well as the Crimean Peninsula, would then be part of a general negotiation.
DER SPIEGEL: You added, however, that pursuing the conflict beyond the February 24 line of contact "would turn it into a war not about the freedom of Ukraine … but a new war against Russia itself.”
Kissinger: At no point did I say that Ukraine should give up any territory. I said the logical dividing line for a ceasefire is the status quo ante....
....MUCH MORE
From Asia Times, July 18:
What Kissinger didn’t answer: What if Russia wins?Former top US envoy and foreign policy sage’s interview in Germany’s Der Spiegel warns of a new Thirty Years’ War
The 99-year-old former US secretary of state spoke at length—but guardedly—to Germany’s leading newsweekly Der Spiegel about the Ukraine war and its consequences.
Kissinger defended the position he had advanced in May at a teleconference of the World Economic Forum, namely peace negotiations based on the status quo prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last February 24.
But Russia has won extensive territory since then and appears poised to win the whole of the Donbas, with a quarter of Ukraine’s land and three-quarters of its industrial capacity. What if Russia won’t return to the February 24 Line of Contact? Der Spiegel didn’t ask, and Kissinger didn’t say, not directly, in any case.
Spiegel might have asked Kissinger what he thought of a warning from Serbian President Aleksandar Vuvic reported on July 14 in Russian media: “I know what awaits us. As soon as Vladimir Putin has done his work in Seversk, Bakhmut and Soledar, after reaching the second line of Slaviansk-Kramatorsk-Avdeevka, he will come up with a proposal. And if they [the West] don’t accept it, – and they won’t – all hell will break loose.”....
....MUCH MORE
And from me:
If anyone wants to bet large money against Russia bombing Kyiv I will entertain 3:1 odds, or bigger.
In light of the fact the U.S. just gave the official okey-dokey to Ukraine to use the HIMARS Missile system on Crimea: "US Implies Ukraine Can Use HIMARS Against Russian Targets in Crimea" and the way Kyiv heard what was said. "Ukrainian Intelligence assumes HIMARS can be used on Russian facilities in occupied Crimea" and knowing how desperately President Zelensky wants NATO to get more involved, it is a pretty good bet that the U.S. missiles will be used to attack Crimea.
And should that happen, we have a couple different translations of what Medvedev said:
