Robert Parry: When Henry Kissinger Makes Sense

[eridani]

Remember, Kissinger is and was an amoral Cold Warrior.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/26939-focus-when-henry-kissinger-makes-sense

Curiously, one of the few prominent Westerners who has dared question the prevailing wisdom on Ukraine is former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who said, in an interview with the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, that the West was exaggerating the significance of the Crimean annexation given the peninsula’s long historic ties to Russia.

“The annexation of the Crimea was no bid for world domination,” the 91-year-old Kissinger said. “It is not to be compared with Hitler’s invasion in Czechoslovakia” – as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others have done.

Kissinger noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin had no intention of instigating a crisis in Ukraine: “Putin had [spent] tens of billions of dollars for the Olympic Winter Games … in Sochi. Russia wanted to present [itself] as a progressive nation. … It does not make sense that Putin, a week later, [launches] the Crimea attacks and a war for Ukraine begins.”

Instead Kissinger argued that the West – with its strategy of pulling Ukraine into the orbit of the European Union – was responsible for the crisis by failing to understand Russian sensitivity over Ukraine and making the “fatal” mistake of quickly pushing the confrontation beyond dialogue.

But Kissinger also faulted Putin for his reaction to the crisis. “I do not want to say that Russia’s response was appropriate,” Kissinger said.

Still, Kissinger told Der Spiegel that “a new edition of the Cold War would be a tragedy. … We must keep in view, that we need Russia to solve other crises, such as the nuclear conflict with Iran or Syria’s civil war.”

When Henry Kissinger starts to sound like the voice of reason, it says a lot about how crazy the New York Times and the rest of the MSM have become.

[Blue_Tires]

1. When Parry starts pimping Kissinger, I know he's gone completely insane

Last edited Tue Nov 18, 2014, 11:45 AM - Edit history (1)

either that or he's just bought off, one or the other...

Robert Parry has been a very useful leftist idiot for Moscow in the past, so he's just continuing his tune of writing Putin apologia...

[starroute]

3. Do you also consider Hillary Clinton completely insane?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/hillary-clinton-henry-kissinger-world-order

[nationalize the fed]

4. .

John Kerry insane?

Kerry To Host Henry Kissinger, Foreign Affairs Experts As Syria Deal Looms

Kerry is scheduled to meet one-on-one with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger Wednesday afternoon, and address a meeting of the 25-member Foreign Affairs Policy Board Wednesday morning.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/11/kerry-syria_n_3903888.html




Henry Kissinger, pondering where to pull off the next Coup d'etat

[Electric Monk]

5. I think I have to disagree with Monty Python on one detail

The part about being insane

[Blue_Tires]

6. I'm addressing Parry's assertions here

If you want to discuss Hillary, we can do it in another thread...

[Eridenus]

27. Yes I do.

This is the #1 reason I won't vote for Hillary Clinton.

Anyone who are friends with that war criminal lost me.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

2. There you have it. Proof positive that Robert Parry has jumped the shark as a journalist.

To those who have refused to admit it up to this point based on Parry's reputation garnered from his work a couple decades back.

The man's lauding Kissinger, for crissakes.

He's gone, people. Long, long gone.

[eridani]

7. He's discussing an ISSUE raised by Kissinger

If more of us paid attention to issues and ideas, more of us might clamber out of the swamp of personality pimping.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

13. Those who have attempted to use Parry as a voice of authority on Ukraine....

....based solely on his past credentials, despite his complete lack of adherence to the facts and his willingness to grossly distort the situation in that country, are the ones who are indeed engaging in "personality pimping."

[eridani]

31. Let's have an example of Parry being factually wrong n/t

[Tommy_Carcetti]

32. Hell, you don't have to go beyond the piece you just posted to find examples of that.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/26939-focus-when-henry-kissinger-makes-sense

On Wednesday, Herszenhorn also compared the alleged new Russian incursion with the “invasion” of Crimea, although there really was no “invasion” of Crimea since the Russian troops that were involved in supporting Crimea’s popular referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia were already in Crimea under an agreement with the Ukrainian government regarding the Russian naval base at Sebastopol.

The 1994 Budapest Memorandum--which not only involved Russia and Ukraine but also the US and the UK--allowed Russia to maintain previously existing naval bases on the Crimean peninsula. But it did not allow troops stationed on those bases to go beyond the territory on the bases and onto civilian land in Crimea, which was exclusively Ukrainian. And that's exactly what they did in late February 2014, constituting an invasion in every sense of the word.

Since the start of the crisis in February, the New York Times’ coverage has been remarkable in its refusal to present the Ukraine story in anything like an objective fashion. For example, the Times has largely ignored the substantial public evidence that U.S. government officials and agents helped orchestrate the Feb. 22 coup which overthrew the elected President Viktor Yanukovych. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Whys Behind the Ukraine Crisis.”]

As I've shown time and time again, there was no "coup" on February 22nd, let alone one that was sponsored by the US. Yanukovych took three days to carefully pack up literally truckloads of his most luxurious belongings from his mansion. When he was done packing, he got into his own fleet of helicopters under his own willpower and flew off to the location of his own choosing. None of these events suggests that there was ever a "coup" against Yanukovych. Instead, it was his own calculated decision to leave the country. The idea that there was a "coup"--Western sponsored or not--clearly indicates a willingness to push a false narrative amongst those who have an agenda, which apparently Parry seems to have for whatever reason.

[eridani]

33. It would never have happened without the fascist thugs

(Everyone else was perfectly willing to wait for elections.) Same folks providing the militias doing the ground fighting in the east.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

39. Yanukovych himself had no interest in waiting for elections.

By the time he signed the brokered deal that would have allowed for early elections but kept him in power for the time being, he had already been packing for over two days.

It was a calculated, voluntary decision on his part to leave. Not a coup.

Also, how much of the Maidan protests are you willing to attribute to "fascist thugs"? Because those protests were huge.

The word "coup" has a very specific meaning. A respectable journalist wouldn't throw around a loaded term like that willy-nilly when clearly it's not a fitting description.

[eridani]

50. The violent parts of the Maidan protest were due to the fascist thugs.

They could have waited for the election.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

54. Actually, Yanukovych was the first to use violence against the protesters.

Back on November 30, 2013, months before Yanukovych left power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_December_2013_Euromaidan_riots

On the night of 30 November 2013 at 04:00, armed with batons, stun grenades, and tear gas, Berkut special police units attacked and dispersed all protesters from Maidan Nezalezhnosti while suppressing mobile phone communications.[1][2] The police attacked not only the protesters (most of whom didn't or failed to put up resistance) but also other civilians in the vicinity of Maidan Nezalezhnosti, when the Berkut forces chased unarmed people several hundreds of meters and continued to beat them with batons and feet.[3] Initially, 35 people were injured as a result of the militia raid, including a Reuters cameraman and a photographer.[4][5] Other protesters were detained.[2] Most of protesters were students.[5] At 09:20 Berkut besieged the St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery where approximately 50 Euromaidan activists, including the injured, found sanctuary.[2][6] Police spokeswoman Olha Bilyk justified the police raid by saying that protesters were interfering with preparations to decorate the square for the Christmas and New Year's holidays, and accused them of throwing stones and burning logs.[7] Minister of Internal Affairs Vitaliy Zakharchenko later apologized and claimed "riot police abused their power" and promised a thorough investigation.[8] Via state television he added "if there are calls for mass disturbances, then we will react to this harshly".[8]

In an official statement, Ukrainian Deputy Prosecutor General Anatoliy Pryshko confirmed that 79 people were injured during the raid, including 6 students, 4 reporters, and 2 foreigners; 10 people were hospitalized. In addition, 7 policemen were also injured.[9]

Unless you want to say that Yanukovych and Berkut were the "fascist thugs".

[eridani]

55. The violence that actually overthrew the government was perpetrated by fascist thugs

And what has changed? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

56. Again, the violence started with Yanukovych.

It's tough to say what "overthrew" Yanukovych given that he left in such a calm, orderly and most importantly voluntary manner.

[eridani]

57. The only Maidan protesters who were violent were the fascists

And they are the militias on the ground attacking eastern cities.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

58. That's a rather broad statement, don't you think?

Although it does appear that you'd admit then that the vast majority of the protesters in Maidan were not what you would call "fascists".

But when you say "violent", do you mean unprovokably violent? And was there any situation where the protesters in Maidan were not provoked? Also, keep in mind that the numbers of dead and injured protesters were 10 times the numbers of the riot police.

Not sure exactly where you are going here, but if you could explain or show me where you are getting your information.

[KoKo]

19. Well said...issues and ideas...

[truth2power]

44. eridani -

Yes, Parry is discussing an issue raised by Kissinger. That concept is, perhaps, too complex for some here on DU. You don't have to like someone (and I despise Kissinger as much as you do) to acknowledge when they are right.

Actually, it's not that some DUers don't understand; it's that they are being deliberately obtuse, because to not do so would be to open the door to the TRUTH of what's going on in Ukraine.

It goes without saying that just about 100% of what DUers are being told, here, about the Ukraine situation is false.

Robert Parry has been spot-on about Ukraine and about Mr. Putin. But there are others, also, who refuse to be silenced and continue to counter the lies we're being told:

Ray McGovern
Stephen Cohen - scholar of Russian studies
Pepe Escobar
Finian Cunningham
Michael Parenti
Jeremy Scahill
John Pilger
Dmitri Orlov
John Mearsheimer - author of "How the West Caused the Ukranian Crisis
Gilbert Doctorow - Political analyst of international affairs with concentration on Russia
Nicoli Petro
Dave Lindorff
.....and others

Oh, yeah, Peter Lavelle, Moderator of Crosstalk, who said: "The U.S. and its allies have a hard time with a Russia who can say 'no'."

Here's an interview with Stephen Cohen where he explains the Ukraine issue, from the very beginning:

24 minutes. Anyone can spare that.

Now, wait for it...someone will come along to complain about RT, instead of responding to the merits of the discussion. *sigh*

[Tommy_Carcetti]

45. You can drop all the names you like, but if what they're saying doesn't jive with the actual facts..

....what does it matter?

[truth2power]

46. You've already used that excuse, Tommy. Try again..

[Tommy_Carcetti]

47. How's it an excuse? You're appealing to authority....

....without addressing the substance of what those individuals are claiming and demonstrating their validity.

[truth2power]

48. I'm not doing your work for you...

Start with Stephen Cohen's video. What is incorrect and why.

Thanks. Bye.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

49. It's your conspiracy theory to prove.

If you are asserting that nearly 100% of the information that's been reported on Ukraine is factually incorrect, you've got to tell me what you claim is incorrect.

[karynnj]

15. Agree, but it is funny that Parry, who always spoke in absolute morality terms, is for Realpolitik

That is what he is doing here. I doubt that anyone serious about understanding Russia (USSR too) post WWII did not realize that Russia has put enormous importance on having a buffer of satellite countries surrounding it. Kissinger's realpolitik view is let them have it - even if it means actually rebuffing those countries if they prefer to have links to both their neighbor, Russia, and their western neighbors in the EU.

One surprising thing to me on DU, is that many of the people who actually agree that EU and the US should not have had any outreach are the first to argue that long established American policy (the Monroe doctrine) has done really bad things in Latin America. (Oddly, most of these critics ignored when the Obama administration said the Monroe doctrine was NOT their policy.)

I can understand why various foreign policy people speak to Kissinger. He has a wealth of experience and knowledge of many past factors that could inform the current positions of people like Putin. However, in additional to the wealth of knowledge and diplomatic skill which he undeniably has, he is essentially amoral. This is why I have no problem when a statesman, who I know to have integrity and has shown himself (or herself) to be moral consults with Kissinger on his ideas on dealing with some adversary. They will, of course, use their own acumen and diplomatic skills -- and importantly, apply their own moral values.

I realize that some here would rather that Democrats never speak to a man that many consider a war criminal. However, if the result is that the statesman considers something ahead of time that helps him (her) craft a better plan for negotiations, how does that in any way compromise the statesman.

[Recursion]

37. I don't know. His books on diplomacy are really good

If I can be convinced he doesn't have money tied up somewhere in an issue, I'd probably at least read what HK has to say about an international relations issue.

[geek tragedy]

8. Kissinger is saying the strong state should get to dominate the weak one.

And that the wishes of the weak to control their own destiny is a problem, not the solution.

You see, a majority of Ukrainians wanted closer relations with Europe.

Under the Kissinger/Parry/DU pootlicker theory, Europe should have told Ukraine "sorry, but you belong to Russia. You don't get to make that decision, because it might upset the Russians' delicate little egos."

This is one imperialist chiming in his defense of another. An American warmonger siding with a fascist.


And the indecent left gobbling it all up.

[eridani]

9. All Middle Eastern countries that the US is bombing prefer that that not be the case

So yes--the US is the lead actor with this approach, and Russian imitation is actually rather second rate. This is Kissinger's reality, which lines up pretty well with what is happening.

[geek tragedy]

10. Iraq and Yemen would disagree with your assertion.

As would the recognized government in Somalia, such as it exists.

The only government in the region that's expressed displeasure is Syria, but even that was mild as we're doing them a favor by bombing ISIS.

Kissinger thinks Ukraine belongs to Russia, that it is the property of Vladimir Putin.

He is correct that Putin has his nose out of joint because Ukraine is acting like an independent country. But, being Henry Kissinger he thinks that the problem was the weak state failing to obey the strong state.

That is the logic of imperialism. And that's what Russia's apologists think like.

[eridani]

11. Which is exactly the same as what US imperialist apologists think like

Russia is pretty chickenshit as an imperial power--please point their 900+ military bases all over the world, if you can.

[Xolodno]

34. Chickenshit sir? Chickenshit?

How dare you!!!!


Russia may actually have two....count them...two aircraft carriers in 20 years...which are only needed to project power and protect long distance assets!


And there Bombers!!!! They are sending their easily tracked bombers into international waters near western borders!!! Something we do on a regular basis with more sophisticated aircraft!!!!


Don't give chickenshit a bad name!!! Shame on you!!!

[Wella]

12. Not quite: it sounds like Kissinger is saying that American officials misunderstood Putin

"Instead Kissinger argued that the West – with its strategy of pulling Ukraine into the orbit of the European Union – was responsible for the crisis by failing to understand Russian sensitivity over Ukraine and making the “fatal” mistake of quickly pushing the confrontation beyond dialogue."

One wonders if a master diplomat could have avoided the crisis. The Ambassador to the Ukraine is an extremely experienced Foreign Service guy, who worked on the India/Pakistan issue. But the diplomatic lead had to come from the state department and some mistakes may have been made there early on. A certain diplomat calling the Ambassador on an unsecured phone line certainly didn't help either.

[geek tragedy]

26. Putin had abundant opportunities to save face and

back away. His goal is and was to dominate and control Ukraine. And to punish and weaken Ukraine for defying him.

Such behavior cannot be reasoned away. It can only be punished.

[Wella]

30. We're not talking about reason: we're talking about diplomacy

Which is trickery and coersion with a pretty face.

[Xolodno]

35. A well stated under statement.

Everyone assumes there is "reason" in all this. There isn't. Aside from Crimea (which they already seized), Russia doesn't need Ukraine....it's a corrupt nation with no end in sight of the corruption and would cost Russia some bank to keep afloat as a client state.

This is all about appearances. Ukraine gravitating to the west and even the notion of it becoming a NATO member was unthinkable in Russia's eyes. If that happened...they may as well have put nuclear missiles in Cuba. Too many here don't understand the gravity of the situation. Ukraine going to the west is the nuclear armed Cuba to us....

[Wella]

38. I think you're onto something.

A lot depends on whether or not there is something of true value--like an oil field--in the area.

[pampango]

21. A fascist principle and not surprising coming from someone like Kissinger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Veneration of the state (Mother Russia)
devotion to a strong leader
emphasis on ultranationalism and militarism
political violence, war and imperialism
strong nations (Russia) have a right to expand their territory by displacing weaker nations (Ukraine) - check
focus on conflict between nations (Russia vs. US/EU) and races (ethnic Russian in Ukraine)
protectionist and interventionist economic policies
homosexuality is forbidden by the state

Kissinger and Putin can probably agree on most of these principles of fascism.

[Odin2005]

29. As someone who grew up seeing stories of the atrocities in Bosnia and Rwanda...

...the increasingly shrill Isolationism that has become dominant in the American Left post-9/11 disgusts me. They sound like the right-wing Isolationists of 80 years ago who wanted to leave Europe to Hitler and East Asia to the Japanese.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

14. Kissinger's position (and by extension, Parry's) is completely non-sensical.

Basically, he's saying Putin had no burning motivation to go into Crimea because......because......I don't know.

The fact is that Putin did go into Crimea, and he went into Crimea unprovoked, without any attack on Russian interests or even imminent threat of attack on Russian interests. No, the timeline to go in was not completely of his choosing, but his invasion of Crimea was a "now or never" moment for Putin and he carped the diem out of it.

Contrary to what some might think, Putin did not start the Euromaidan protests in Ukraine. Nor is there any indication that he was behind Yanukovych cracking down on the protests, thus escalating them in their intensity. Euromaidan was indeed a legitimate protest started by Ukrainians about issues concerning Ukrainians. It was not Russia nor the US who caused them to happen.

But they did happen. And it also happened that events came to a head at the same time the Olympics were being held several hundred miles away in Sochi, Russia. At that point, however, the crisis in Ukraine was essentially an internal matter. Even when Yanukovych packed up and left the country--leaving Ukrainians to scramble to put together an interim government until elections could be held--it was still more or less an internal Ukrainian matter.

But because there was something of a power vacuum in that immediate time period after Yanukovych choppered out, and because the Ukrainian military at that point was in such powerless shape to fight back any type of invasion, Putin knew he had an unbelievably unparalleled chance to claim Crimea for Mother Russia without a bloody fight. So literally days after Yanukovych had fled, he moved in. And there was little that the severely weakened Ukrainian government could do other than to verbally denounce the invasion.

Had Russia invaded Crimea at a time where the Ukrainian government was far better equipped to respond, it wouldn't have been the bloodless takeover that it was.

So Kissinger wishes to minimize Putin's actions over Crimea. And Parry wishes to minimize Putin's actions over Crimea. This puts Parry in a bit of a spot, given that he made his name eons ago by reporting on subversive neo-conservative machinations in Iran Contra, and yet Kissinger is essentially the archetype for modern day neo-conservatives.

So embarrassingly, they are on the same page, and this is Parry's attempt at damage control by trying to frame it as if this is some sort of isolated moment of clarity for Kissinger while in fact this is Kissinger being Kissinger, always apologizing for the ruthless strongman. Even worse for Parry is that it's not as much Parry repeating what Kissinger's said just recently, but Kissinger embracing what Parry's already said long before.

From Parry's column dated August 18th of this year:

http://www.rogerannis.com/robert-parry-the-powerful-group-think-on-ukraine/

As the crisis deepened early this year, Putin was focused on the Sochi Winter Olympics, particularly the threat of terrorist attacks on the games. No evidence has been presented that Putin was secretly trying to foment the Ukraine crisis. Indeed, all the evidence is that Putin was trying to protect the status quo, support the elected president and avert a worse crisis.

There was no Russian “invasion,” as the New York Times and other mainstream U.S. news outlets claimed. The Russian troops were already in Crimea assigned to Russia’s historic naval base at Sebastopol. Putin agreed to Crimea’s annexation partly out of fear that the naval base would otherwise fall into NATO’s hands and pose a strategic threat to Russia.

Congratulations, Robert Parry. You've now become material for Henry Kissinger to use as talking points.

To famously quote another R. Parry, "Oops."

[karynnj]

16. Great summary

My only question is whether Putin might have had something to do with Yanukovych first rejecting the EU agreement, that he had said when running he was for and then with his leaving unexpectedly after the agreement with EU done after the protests.

One thing that suggests there was something to this were Yanukovych's comments after the Russians seized Crimea. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/04/yanukovich-regrets-mistakes-crimea-2014421989300891.html Note that this does not directly say that Russia directed his rejection of connections to EU, but do suggest some Russian involvement.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

17. I agree.

I think Putin probably had influence on Yanukovych in some way to move him away from the EU deal. And I'm certain he offered Yanukovych sanctuary at the height of the Maidan crisis, which is why there is video of him so non-chalantly packing up his belongings over a three day period even though events on Maidan were at their most furious.

And if you recall, as of Feb. 22, Yanukovych did have a right to stay in power for the time being until early elections as per the Polish brokered deal (assuming that the protests would have eventually died down), but I don't think he ever took that deal seriously. He had already made up his mind to leave, and I think it was Putin's offer of sanctuary that did that.

It would be interesting if in Putin's offer of sanctuary, he had bargained away Crimea in the hopes that somehow the Ukrainian people would have been convinced to take Yanukovych back as a leader (for example, if the interim government had fallen apart). But at this point, it's way too speculative to affirmatively say that was the case.

[karynnj]

18. Interesting conjecture that the President of Ukraine could have traded Crimea for sanctuary

It does seem likely that he already planned to leave when he agreed to the deal. I remember that that week was a rollercoaster - the heightened protests and the increased violence, then the deal which seemed a really good turn of events - then the President fleeing and the government essentially without a head for a day of two - then the Parliament's actions in defining an interim government - followed by the Green men in Crimea.

It might be as likely that the offer of sanctuary was given precisely with his running away if there was a deal. After all, the deal was a victory for the protesters and could easily have been seen by Moscow as a loss for them. So, even though he could have stayed in power and I assume most Ukrainians thought he would, the offer could have been just for that immediate time and he may have thought he would be more welcomed than he was by Russia.

While there are alternative commentaries on almost anyone else as to their role, I suspect no one is regarded poorly by as high a percent of the Ukrainians than him - exposed as corrupt and exposed as selling out his country to Russia.

[Recursion]

36. Isn't he saying Putin has every incentive to go into Crimea, but no farther?

As I read him, Kissinger is saying "we can't ultimately stop him from taking Crimea; he doesn't want anything else; let him have it."

[Tommy_Carcetti]

40. If that's his analysis, events in Eastern Ukraine would currently be proving him wrong. nt

[Recursion]

41. I never said the man was infallible, just smart (nt)

[Tommy_Carcetti]

42. Definitely not stupid. Just amoral. nt

[Recursion]

43. Right. That's why his book is worth reading

As Tolkien said, "If there is a hornet in the room, I should like to know where it is." Etc.

[hifiguy]

20. He may be right about the Crimea

but Kissinger should have been hanged as a war criminal and instigator of crimes against humanity 30 years ago.

[pampango]

22. Actually, when you think that Kissinger starts to sound like the voice of reason, you should start

to worry about your own sense of reason. He's a neocon, war criminal if there ever was one. If I ever agreed with him on anything (so far I have not had to experience that circumstance), I sure would not publicize that fact in a public article and would never refer to him as a "voice of reason" for why my point of view is right.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

23. It was a lame attempt by Parry to explain away why Kissinger is adopting Parry's stances on Ukraine

The fact that they see eye to eye should be an immediate red flag to people who somehow think Parry's word is automatically gospel simply because long ago he used to be a respectable journalist.

[stevenleser]

24. Encyclopedic references to the term "Any port in a storm" should refer to this article. nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

25. On a very meta level, it's very Realpolitik, wouldn't you agree?

Oh, the Iron E.

[stevenleser]

51. Yep. None of us should be surprised when Kissinger minimizes an unprovoked war of aggression

that's for sure.

The question is, why would Parry promote Kissinger's opinion on this kind of subject.

It's very embarrassing.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

53. Mainly because Kissinger's saying what Parry had already said.

Strange bedfellows indeed.

[Odin2005]

28. Henry the War Criminal can kiss my Liberal Internationalist ass.

[rafeh1]

52. well one war criminal knows well another war criminal

Old Dr. K. favorite alleged quote

1. War crimes are for losers
2. Only losers commit war crimes
3. Ergo losing is a war crime