Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
Henry Kissinger’s narrative is not coherent at this point.
He was seemingly siding with Russia, then he switched it up and said the Ukraine has to join NATO. Now he’s mixing the seemingly conflicting narratives together.
I guess we need to remember, regardless of what we think of Kissinger (I’m generally positive about his record, or at least not as negative as a lot of people on the right), that he is 100 years old, and you can’t expect him to be 100% on the ball.
RT:
Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has explained how his views on prospective NATO membership for Ukraine changed between 2008, when the bloc first acknowledged Kiev’s “aspirations” to join, and today, after the stream of Western military aid transformed it into the “best-armed country” in the region.
“I’m in the ironical position that I was alone when I opposed membership, and I’m nearly alone when I advocate NATO membership,” the veteran politician told a Wall Street Journal contributor in an interview recorded days before his 100th birthday.
“I think the offer to put Ukraine into NATO was a grave mistake and led to this war,” he explained, yet claimed that the scale of the conflict, and “its nature, is a Russian peculiarity, and we were absolutely right to resist it.”
Yes, that doesn’t make sense.
The West caused the war, but the West was also right to fight the war? Maybe the West should learn from its mistakes and stop creating war all over the world.
Isn’t Kissinger the one who said all of this after Vietnam, and then again after the end of the Cold War? And then repeatedly during the attempt to isolate Russia (which began in earnest under Obama)?
But after Washington and its allies turned Ukraine into the “best-armed country in Europe,” it clearly belongs to the US-led military bloc, the former official stated, reiterating his firm belief that peace in Europe cannot be achieved without Ukraine in NATO.
…
Kissinger drew the ire of Kiev last year when he suggested that Ukraine should accept a return to the “status quo ante,” or relinquish its territorial claims to Crimea and grant autonomy to the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, in the name of peace. In an interview with the WSJ he went as far as to claim that “the Ukraine war is won,” but said any peace terms are unlikely to include Crimea.
“For Russia, the loss of Sevastopol, which was always not Ukrainian in history, would be such a comedown that the cohesion of the state would be in danger. And I think that’s not desirable for the world after Ukraine,” he said.
Clearly, Putin has said he’ll start firing off nukes before he surrenders Crimea. All normal people of any seriousness agree that any plan to “take back” Crimea, which was not even “Ukrainian” when it was a part of the Ukraine, is just outrageous and effectively a declaration of World War III.
The only people who support attacking Crimea to try to take that port for the US are people like Victoria Nuland – just totally unhinged Jews.
Putin said in a 2018 interview, on the issue of nuclear war, that if Russia is threatened with destruction, he’s ready to take the whole world down with him.
He said there was no point to a world without Russia, so he would just destroy the entire world.
The West framed this as “chilling” and “crazy,” but it’s obviously just what you have to say when threatened with an existential crisis.
It’s like that scene in “Nobody” where he brings the claymore to dinner.
You have to be ready to take everyone down with you. There is no other valid position when your existence is threatened.
Well, some of the Jews appear to believe in an inversion of this – i.e., they would rather be destroyed than allow Russia to continue to exist. That’s where Victoria Nuland seems to fall.
However, even the Jew Antony Blinken won’t say outright that he wants to take back Crimea. Save for the fat retard cheerleading squad that wants to destroy Russia in the name of gay anal fisting for little kids, everyone understands what this would mean if it went beyond rhetoric.
This is to say: I’m not going to give Kissinger too much credit for saying “he’s not going to give Crimea.”
I have no idea why he switched from neutrality to NATO. But it doesn’t even matter. Whatever.
He’s an authority because he’s a relic from when there were “adults in the room,” but he’s also 100 years old and therefore should not really be taken seriously.
It is funny, however, that the Russians and the Chinese consider him one of the only voices in the West worth taking seriously. They just laugh off statements from the Biden people, but when Kissinger speaks, top authorities from both countries feel a need to make an official statement in response.
Ukraine is already a “rump state,” and the only options now are a frozen conflict, a la Korea, or neutrality. The frozen conflict option has been floated around by the media recently, but there is no real chance Russia would accept this under the current circumstances, unless there was some assurance of neutrality. It’s not clear if “frozen conflict” and “neutrality” are 100% mutually exclusive, but they are unlikely to come together.
In theory, you could freeze the conflict and agree to demilitarize on both sides, and that would allow the West to say they haven’t given up yet, and they still consider the lost territories a part of the Ukraine which will be returned at some future date. Putin might agree to that in order to allow the West to save face and also end the conflict. But it’s unlikely the West would honor such an agreement even if they signed it.
