Global Courant 2023-05-25 18:42:27
Western press coverage missed the point of Kissinger’s support for Ukraine’s NATO membership. Here’s what he told the Economist:
Henry Kissinger: For Putin, Ukraine’s NATO membership was an obsession. So now I’m in the weird position of people saying, ‘He’s changed his mind, now he’s for Ukraine’s full membership in NATO.’ And my reason for that is twofold. First, Russia is no longer the conventional threat it used to be. Russia’s challenges must therefore be viewed in a different context. And secondly, we have now armed Ukraine in such a way that it will be the best armed country and with the least strategically experienced leadership in Europe. If the war ends as it probably will, with Russia losing many of its gains but keeping Sevastopol, we may have a disgruntled Russia, but also a disgruntled Ukraine – in other words, a balance of dissatisfaction.
So it is better for Europe’s security to have Ukraine in NATO, where it cannot make national decisions about territorial claims.
The Economist: So your argument for having Ukraine in NATO is more an argument for mitigating Ukraine’s risks to Europe than an argument for defending Ukraine?
Henry Kissinger: We have now proved that we can defend Ukraine. What the Europeans are saying now is, in my opinion, insanely dangerous. Because the Europeans say: “We don’t want them in nato, because they are too risky. And that’s why we’ll be fucking arming them and giving them the most advanced weapons. And how can that work? We shouldn’t end it the wrong way. Assuming the outcome is the likely outcome, that would be somewhere along the lines of the status quo ante that existed (before February 24, 2022). The result should be one in which Ukraine remains protected by Europe and does not become a lone state looking after itself.
Similar:
Loading…
