Kissinger's framework for understanding the world is still rooted in an outdated cold war mentality and this article seems like he is naively trying to shove the cat back in the bag and return to a paradigm that he felt he understood.
But I don't think we can return to the way things were. Russia's hegemony over its neighbours was not because of its nuclear power, but because of its military power, which it has demonstrated is considerably weaker than we had previously understood. I think this conflict has actually weakened the power of a nuclear arsenal considerably compared to conventional military strength, because it really has no strategic use beyond nuclear deterrence.
End of war. Removal of the army from Ukraine except for Crimea, at first and international oversight of referenda for the regions. Potential threat of cost of reparations and what it would mean for Russia to lose is probably what keeps Russia fighting, and away from the negotiation table.
With hindsight ww2 could have been avoided if it wasn't for the prolonged punishment for ww1.
Russia has too many ways to ruin the world for it to be worth not trying out best to bring them into the fold tightly and fast.
Sadly this will upset Ukrainians but that's unfortunately not as important as avoiding another world war.
Heck as I spell out below, what would happen if Russia simply continues to use its own fossil fuel supply? That's bad enough.
Arguably dependence on Russian oil & gas was as or more important. Basically countries in the region had a choice either pay the market price (or more if you don’t have access to the global market to buy natural gas) or submit to Russia politically and get massive discounts. Not an easy choice to make for poor post-soviet countries with no natural resources.
e.g. I don’t think the Belarusian regime would survive long without energy subsidies from Russia. The situation in Ukraine prior to 2014/2004 was not that different.
“War monger suggests peace”
Look at his track record! He’s wrong we need more war!
Western nations can influence the war - sending Ukraine more arms, or cutting off supply would certainly influence its chances. But fundamentally Ukraine is a sovereign nation and will decide peace on its own terms. Eastern European nations threatened by a world order where their sovereignty is subordinate to Russia's will support Ukraine on their terms. This is just fundamentally not a Russia v. NATO war as much as it might be more convenient if it were.
EDIT: fixed the multiple wording mistakes that made the statement nonsense from start to finish.
Perhaps you mean that it seems unlikely Ukraine will invade Russia due to Russian nuclear capability? What do you mean when you say "without Russia's nukes" (do you mean "with")?
Or did you mean they would invade real Russian territory, like Moscow? Why would they do that?
I'd be the first to deride Russia's military effectiveness. But consider that the vast majority of the world is against them largely on every single front. And you see why they've earned their reputation as a super power.
Russia is big with plenty of fossils. They could ruin the world simply by continuing to use their fossil fuels without regard to climate change.
They could nuke themselves.
They could conduct a few missile tests in space and precipitate a Kessler syndrome situation.
They could trade nuclear secrets for more kamikazi drones.
Do you see where I'm going?
If you want Russia destroyed they you are asking for a world war. Peace requires we put up with them and encourage all governments to work for global health.
«I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.»
This is incredibly depressing, but the faster we pass the phases of denial, anger, bargaining, and depression, turn towards acceptance, and prepare for more and harder fighting, the higher are our chances to win.
Perhaps it's well meaning but by asking for the end of Russia you're just another war hawk voice asking for world war.
Once you set aside the magic thinking idea that laughing will make Russia fight better you can see the funny side of the "Russia 'bout to find out why the US can't afford universal healthcare" memes.
How is that helpful for them? But yeah, I agree in general
The fact that Russian nuclear weapons used within Russian territory could destroy modern society tells you that MAD requires no such thing.
The deal he proposes is that Russia returns to the pre-2022 borders, and Ukraine joins NATO. That second point is critical, because without that protection by Western powers, Russia would surely rearm and reinvade Ukraine in a few years.
The alternative is that the war continues for several years, until Putin finally loses the will to fight, or is overthrown. That latter prospect, while initially appealing, would almost certainly result in a new leader who is just as aggressive, but more effective and less isolated.
Or, potentially, Russia itself might break up under the strain of prolonged war. We've never had a civil war in a nuclear power, but if you think that has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention so far.
And, after what's happened to Ukraine, none of the new states will give up their nukes. We'll have a nuclear armed Dagestan, run by whoever was aggressive enough to seize power.
tells the guy not known for avoiding wars.
..a stupendous liar with a remarkable memory [2]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/25/milosevictrial...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger
