I used to protest this guy back in the 80s, and next to Edward Teller, thought he was the most evil man on the planet. I did a lot of research on Kissinger during this time and found myself having to rethink where he has been for 30 years. Here is what I pieced together:
About 1992, he joined a diplomatic team that wanted to lead the way to abolish all nuclear weapons worldwide. Kennan, Shultz, Nunn, Parry were part of that group. To them, the peace dividend was possible, they really believed the end of the Cold War meant the end to nuclear weapons. They really were not prepared for what would come or how much they had become irrelevant to the New World Order that Bush promoted. By 1997, the PNAC and announcements that NATO would expand was set. Then, there was the Wolfowitz Doctrine, that would inform the next Bush, and become GW's blueprint.
Fast forward, GW tried to appoint Kissinger some position in Mid East, he refused and let GW know he did not approve. 2004 Orange Revolution, not a happy camper. c 2007 he let GW know that a peace plan with Russia was necessary and what it would look like. I believe that was the year that the next Ukrainian president was put in office, who was more Russian friendly, as the Orange Revolution did not hold for long, which is why the 2014 one was deemed necessary.
Hillary tried to smooze Henry, big time, eventually he had to let her know he did not approve of any of her military decisions, and would not even endorse her in 2016, try as she may. It was odd, in retrospect, how she tried to make it appear that Henry was advising her. If it was true, she was not following his advice. In 2014 he wrote a piece you can read online from Hoover Institute site. He makes it clear he again did not approve of meddling in Ukraine, and repeated his simple no-brainer peace plan.
He has a piece at that site from a couple years ago, about his concerns over AI
Once the line into this realm is crossed and hi-tech becomes standard weaponry – and computers become the principal executors of strategy – the world will find itself in a condition for which as yet it has no established concept. How can leaders exercise control when computers prescribe strategic instructions on a scale and in a manner that inherently limits and threatens human input? How can civilisation be preserved amid such a maelstrom of conflicting information, perceptions and destructive capabilities?
If the pre-war dividing line between Ukraine and Russia cannot be achieved by combat or by negotiation, recourse to the principle of self-determination could be explored. Internationally supervised referendums concerning self-determination could be applied to particularly divisive territories which have changed hands repeatedly over the centuries.
I used to protest this guy back in the 80s, and next to Edward Teller, thought he was the most evil man on the planet. I did a lot of research on Kissinger during this time and found myself having to rethink where he has been for 30 years. Here is what I pieced together:
About 1992, he joined a diplomatic team that wanted to lead the way to abolish all nuclear weapons worldwide. Kennan, Shultz, Nunn, Parry were part of that group. To them, the peace dividend was possible, they really believed the end of the Cold War meant the end to nuclear weapons. They really were not prepared for what would come or how much they had become irrelevant to the New World Order that Bush promoted. By 1997, the PNAC and announcements that NATO would expand was set. Then, there was the Wolfowitz Doctrine, that would inform the next Bush, and become GW's blueprint.
Fast forward, GW tried to appoint Kissinger some position in Mid East, he refused and let GW know he did not approve. 2004 Orange Revolution, not a happy camper. c 2007 he let GW know that a peace plan with Russia was necessary and what it would look like. I believe that was the year that the next Ukrainian president was put in office, who was more Russian friendly, as the Orange Revolution did not hold for long, which is why the 2014 one was deemed necessary.
Hillary tried to smooze Henry, big time, eventually he had to let her know he did not approve of any of her military decisions, and would not even endorse her in 2016, try as she may. It was odd, in retrospect, how she tried to make it appear that Henry was advising her. If it was true, she was not following his advice. In 2014 he wrote a piece you can read online from Hoover Institute site. He makes it clear he again did not approve of meddling in Ukraine, and repeated his simple no-brainer peace plan.
He has a piece at that site from a couple years ago, about his concerns over AI
Once the line into this realm is crossed and hi-tech becomes standard weaponry – and computers become the principal executors of strategy – the world will find itself in a condition for which as yet it has no established concept. How can leaders exercise control when computers prescribe strategic instructions on a scale and in a manner that inherently limits and threatens human input? How can civilisation be preserved amid such a maelstrom of conflicting information, perceptions and destructive capabilities?
Here is where Kissinger and Musk agreed
If the pre-war dividing line between Ukraine and Russia cannot be achieved by combat or by negotiation, recourse to the principle of self-determination could be explored. Internationally supervised referendums concerning self-determination could be applied to particularly divisive territories which have changed hands repeatedly over the centuries.
This new revelation with the Spectator seems to contradict anything he has said before. Sigh. He is also, like 100 years old now.
At this same site, you can also read some of his pieces on Shultz, etc.
https://www.henryakissinger.com/articles/how-the-ukraine-crisis-ends/