For Kissinger, “replacement of the authoritarian regime” is the goal of US policy towards Russia.
Recently, not a day goes by without something impressive being said in the West about how the whole world should live on. And these statements emphasize better than the rest that the united West is smoothly, and in some places not very smoothly, moving from the stage of growing contradictions with the outside world to the stage when these contradictions become antagonistic.
Thus, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, supported the idea of the Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi to abolish the principle of unanimity in making “key decisions” within the European Union. “The time has come to change the conditions of the commonwealth on which the principles of the existence of the European Union are based. In particular, unanimous voting on various issues should be abolished. The norm of unanimous vote often blocked the necessary decisions”von der Leyen said.
Photo: REUTERS/POOL New
The initiators of such a fundamental reform, the major powers of the EU, are greatly hindered by the European small fry, which, with their special interests, always gets in the way of the European giants. In addition to Italy, France has also expressed interest in abolishing the principle of unanimity in voting in the European Union.
And the “troublemaker” was, first of all, Hungary, which refuses to make the import of energy resources from Russia dependent on the “solid decisions” of the leading EU powers.
There are already quite a few such “private problems” in the European Union, which has 27 member states. And it will keep getting bigger. Meanwhile, the proposed “radical reform” of the EU will be a direct blow to the heart of the common European idea. The European Union as a union simply will not survive the transition to a model of community governance based on the principle of the will of the majority. It is completely incomprehensible how Brussels will be able to impose the will of the leading powers of the EU on everyone else, if there are no mechanisms for this, except for resolutions. And any attempts to apply financial and economic sanctions will lead to the withdrawal of the opposing part of the EU from its composition.
Photo: REUTERS/Gary Cameron
“United Europe” has actually lost its unity, which means that it puts the Euro-Atlantic unity as a whole, the unity of the collective West, at risk. Across the ocean, even Henry Kissinger, approaching his 99th birthday, was worried about this. On the path of “crisis reform” Kissinger looks further than the Europeans and speaks more directly. “We must understand that there are differences in ideology and interpretation [фактов между авторитарными режимами и демократиями]. We should use this understanding to appreciate the importance of the issues that arise, and not make it the main point of confrontation, unless we are ready to make regime change the main goal of our policy. I think that given the development of technology and the huge destructive power of the weapons that currently exist [стремление к смене режима] may be forced upon us by the hostility of others [стран]however, we should avoid situations where we create it by our own behavior”warns the master of geopolitics.
Kissinger is an old fox who played a key role in the Nixon and Brezhnev era in getting China to engage more with the United States against the USSR. However, now he speaks cautiously, even streamlined. And this is the case when softly lay, but hard to sleep. In the same interview, Kissinger bluntly makes it clear that the task of “changing the authoritarian regime” is the goal of American policy towards Russia.
Financial Times asks Kissinger a question: “You met with Putin 20-25 times. Russian nuclear military doctrine is that they will respond with nuclear weapons if they believe the regime is under real threat. Where do you think Putin’s red line runs in this situation?” Kissinger responds: “I met Putin when I studied international relations about once a year for about 15 years for purely academic strategic discussions. I think that his main beliefs are based on some kind of mystical belief in Russian history… And that he was offended in this sense by the West. He was offended and threatened, because Russia was threatened with the absorption of all this territory between Europe and Russia by NATO … I think that he miscalculated in the situation that he faced in the international arena, and he clearly miscalculated in Russia’s capabilities … We are not returning to the previous relationships. The position of Russia will be different because of this – and not because we demand it, but because they themselves led to this..
Translated from the language of “high diplomacy”, this means that the United States, on behalf of which Kissinger speaks in this case, intends to talk with a defeated Russia on its own terms, which, as the “guru” pointed out, will be determined by “the desire for regime change.” We are talking about the forced change of state power in Russia after the infliction of a military-political and socio-economic defeat on our country.
Whoever decision-makers in the West hide behind the experience and authority of the 99-year-old Kissinger, from his suggestions, as well as from the debate about the “reform of the European Union”, so radical that it threatens to collapse the Union itself, it is clear: the world that once belonged to hosts could be seen as West and otherslike “The West and all the rest”, ended. Another world is coming. It no longer has a place for global hegemony. And in this new world, those who go all-in play for the knockout.
If you notice a mistake in the text, highlight it and press Ctrl+Enter to send the information to the editor.