Kissinger's article is evidence that the United States is considering the admissibility of the existence of Russia

14:52 21 December Kyiv, Ukraine

Offering to give Putin a breather and guarantee Russia a place in the international security system, the former US Secretary of State proved that Ukraine is winning this war.

More than half a year ago, I already wrote about the role of Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State of the United States of America and a well-known Putinersteeer, in today's international relations. On December 17, The Spectator published his next text under the heading "How to Avoid Another World War". This publication caused a strong reaction in Russia. Dozens of Russian telegram channels, political commentators, and even Russian presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov confirmed that the Kremlin treats Kissinger's article with great attention.. One of the Kremlin's key propaganda mouthpieces, RIA Novosti, quoted Peskov as saying that the Kremlin was studying the article.

Most likely, such massive and captious attention to the article by the old geopolitical pimp may indicate that Henry Kissinger's article was indeed ordered from the Kremlin - as a reaction to rumors about possible future scenarios that are being considered in the US State Department.

Over the past two weeks, many of the world's media have made a fuss about forcing Ukraine into negotiations that should give the Russian military a much-needed breather and once again portray Putin as a peacemaker seeking peace on his own terms.

For example, on December 13, the Washington Post published an article by journalist Francesca Ebel, who spent part of her career in Moscow. Francesca writes that Ukraine's persistent desire to liberate occupied Crimea removes the possibility of ending the war. At the same time, the context of the article is structured in such a way that, due to the principled position on the liberation of the occupied Crimea, it is Ukraine that is responsible for the impossibility of stopping the war.

The key message of Kissinger's probably commissioned article is also the issue of negotiations. He even defines his vision of the desired compromise. It is unlikely that the potential customers of the article wanted to propose just such formulations of this compromise, because the majority of Russian telegram channels subjected Kissinger's proposals to crushing criticism.

Probably, in this matter, Kissinger used his own fantasy, this time telling him that the Russian army should move back at the turn of February 23, 2022. Then Ukraine will have the opportunity to join NATO, and if Russia is against giving up the occupied territories, then referendums will need to be held on them under the supervision of international organizations.

A number of Russian observers raised a question to Kissinger: why can't the same referenda be held in the western regions of Ukraine with the question of the desire of Ukrainian citizens who live there to annex these territories to Poland or Hungary?

Especially funny Kissinger explains the benefits of the peace process. According to him, negotiations and consensus could confirm the freedom of Ukraine and define a new international structure, especially for Central and Eastern Europe. I would like to remind Mr. Kissinger and all his supporters that the freedom of Ukraine has long been confirmed by the Ukrainian army and the Ukrainian people, whose sons and daughters gave their lives and blood to assert this freedom. This means that the proposal to "reaffirm freedom" through negotiations with Russia, as Kissinger suggests, is an attempt to humiliate and desecrate the memory of the dead. Ukraine does not need any diplomatic process to confirm its freedom and independence. Ukraine needs only that diplomatic process that will confirm its territorial integrity.

Further, the fantasy of the geopolitical "grandfather" took him to the world of the Hollywood film "Terminator 2", as he began to talk about the threat of artificial intelligence, which decides on military strikes without human intervention.. However, in all this "stream of consciousness" there were still two or three paragraphs in which the "grandfather" consciously, or perhaps accidentally, voiced the truth hovering in the corridors of the White House.

First, he wrote that the negotiations, which are supposed to define the structure of international security for the states of Central and Eastern Europe, should, among other things, determine the place of Russia in this order. This is incredibly disgusting cynicism and substitution of concepts. Instead of giving Ukraine more weapons to ensure Ukraine's victory over the aggressor, the states of Europe should sit down at the negotiating table with the subject that destroyed the international security system in order to rebuild this system and find a place for the aggressor in it.

Imagine you are playing football. A man with a knife runs out onto the field, makes a hole in the ball, pulls the goal out of the ground, sets fire to the grass and slashes several more players from different teams with a knife. And then all the players, including the cut ones, gather in the center circle and appoint a man with a knife as a midfielder of one of the teams. Approximately such nonsense is offered to us by "ambalny grandfather".

Secondly, Kissinger confirmed that there are experts and politicians who are interested in Russia losing its strength due to the war with the Ukrainians.. Thus, thanks to Kissinger, we have received one more fact to confirm that the Ukrainians are being used to weaken Russia.

Kissinger enters into a remote discussion with people who prefer the weakening of Russia with the usual set of arguments that we have heard a hundred times already:

- the role of Russia in history;

- nuclear weapons that can be used against Ukraine;

- intimidation of those who want to weaken Russia, the emergence of a vacuum of power, which could lead to an uncontrolled spread of conflict in different regions of Russia.

That is, in other words, Henry Kissinger himself confirmed in his article the same theses that Valery Pekar, Roman Bessmertny, Vadim Denisenko and, in the end, I voiced in different ways in their materials.. The question of the existence of Russia after the victory of Ukraine is on the agenda, and it has not yet been resolved. Moreover: according to Kissinger, there are individuals who prefer the maximum weakening of Russia. And it is precisely them that Kissinger is trying to intimidate with the great turmoil that Russia will plunge into in the event of a Ukrainian victory.

In other words, if we discard all the empty talk that Kissinger added to his text, we can be sure that we partially succeeded in conveying an understanding of our strategy to the American political establishment.. The discussion on the admissibility of the existence of Russia after the aggression against Ukraine is underway. It is in this discussion that Henry Kissinger sees himself as one of the opponents, arguing that not only the very existence of Russia has value, but that in response to the destruction of the old system of international security, the West should allow Russia to take part in building a new one.

The international audience is being frightened with the same “scarecrows” as in 1991, when the American establishment opposed the disintegration of the Soviet Union into parts: nuclear weapons, unrest in Russia, the traditionally exaggerated greatness of Russia in the historical aspect of international relations.

The huge response to Kissinger's article in the Russian information space indicates that Russian political commentators also clearly understand that the outbreak of war has nullified Russia's international political subjectivity.. Now Russia is desperately looking for a place in the long-term vision of the international security system. And even this is not the most devastating for Russia.

Since only Russia entered the war between NATO and Russia, and NATO basically fights only with the weapons of its member states, the North Atlantic Alliance has only increased its importance as an island of stability under a security umbrella. That is why the leaders of NATO member states do everything possible and impossible to turn a blind eye to obvious threats and stay out of the conflict.. The fall of missiles on the territory of Poland clearly demonstrated this.

Thus, the conservative and unyielding position of NATO makes time its ally. They can maintain this status indefinitely, while Russia is derailing faster every day and needs the respite that negotiations can provide.

Consciously or not consciously, for free or for money, with or without the initiative of the Kremlin, Henry Kissinger proved with his article that Ukraine is winning this war. After feigned sentimental sympathy and the assumption that it will withstand no more than 72 hours of enemy invasion, American political elites are openly and openly considering the very possibility of Russia's existence.

Our task for working with Western audiences remains unchanged. We must write the script ourselves: what will happen to Russian-owned nuclear weapons and who will take power in the regions after Moscow and the Kremlin lose their legitimacy as the center of the empire. We ourselves must create new meanings for the existence of people and peoples living on the territory of Russia.