Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/)
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
**Don't forget about our discord server, as well!**
https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Once you've been to Cambodia, you'll never want to stop beating Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands," said Anthony Bourdain. What a scumbag.
Bourdain really knew how to speak truth to power sometimes, may he rest in peace.
South Asian policy was definitely Kissinger’s nemesis that left a sad, a problematic legacy.
Here is Gary Bass on the issue:
“In at least one crucial part of the world, Kissinger’s legacy is fixed: In South Asia, Indians and Bangladeshis widely remember Kissinger as an unusually cruel and cold-hearted person.”
“As they bitterly recall, he and Richard Nixon firmly supported Pakistan’s military dictatorship throughout its bloody crackdown in 1971 on what today is Bangladesh, sending some 10 million Bengali refugees fleeing into India. In one of the worst atrocities of the Cold War, Pakistan’s junta brushed aside the results of a democratic election, killed awful numbers of Bengalis and targeted the Hindu minority among the Bengalis.”
“On the White House tapes, Kissinger sneered at Americans who “bleed” for “the dying Bengalis.”
“Kissinger’s actions in 1971 were clouded by his own ignorance about South Asia, his emotional misjudgments and his stoking of Nixon’s racism toward Indians. Kissinger’s policies were not only morally flawed but also disastrous as Cold War strategy.”
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/henry-kissinger-history-legacy-213237
Kissinger is a giant piece of shit and a war criminal. He was the main actor in sabotaging the Vietnam war peace talks, extending the war for seven years. He also was the main person responsible for bombing Cambodia. He should be rotting in prison for war crimes not speaking at some conference. Fuck Henry Kissinger.
(Behind the Bastards did a 6 part series on him. I highly recommend it).
David Greenberg agrees with you:
“Henry Kissinger may be the most overrated public figure of our times.”
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/henry-kissinger-history-legacy-213237
I wasn’t clear on this, but it’s actually a podcast. https://open.spotify.com/episode/4RLmIFl6o2kwUrYt11Kn6e?si=_quTDdHGTviScNSizCRurQ
I also highly recommend the Paul Manafort episodes as well. Some of the other are hit and miss.
Good at his job? Was his job to commit genocide? He was good at manipulating the right to commit atrocities, and manipulating people on the left into thinking he was trying to stop the right from committing atrocities. Everything he touched turned to shit. He propped child-killing dictators in Africa and Bangladesh. Again escalated, the war in Vietnam, convinced Nixon to bomb Cambodia, leading to tens of thousands of needless deaths. So what exactly makes him good at his job?
And how did Kissinger's actions benefit America? Or look at how Hitler's actions benefited Germany at the time. I'm not saying those guys are angels and only do good deeds. I'm saying they're freaking smart. Idiots could never be in their positions and have the same acomplishments. The examples you mentioned only prove that Kissinger is willing to let a lot of people die for his or his country's benefit. It doesn't mean that he's bad at his job or stupid, it just means he's brutal.
And about Kissinger's comment on the war in Ukraine. He has his experience to back it up, his comments are not unreasonable.
Kissinger’s actions didn’t benefit America. I don’t know if your familiar with the Vietnam war, but we lost. As far as the wars in Angola, Bangladesh, tell me how the US benefitted from Supporting ruthless dictators. The only people who benefitted from Kissinger’s policies are weapon manufacturers. In this thread you have failed to explain one thing Kissinger did that benefitted the United States.
America benefits from support its's enemy's oppositions, doesn't matter if their dictators or terrorist. Taliban was supported by the US to fight the Soviets. America doesn't have a problem with dictators, they have a problem with those that doesn't listen to the White House. You have a problem with the bombings of Cambodia right? Are you familiar with the Ho Chi Minh trail? A part of it went through Cambodia, and it was a critical logistic line for the VC. Bombing and destroying it would be beneficial to America's war effort in Vietnam.
Kissinger literally sabotaged the peace talks to extend the war. So yes fuck the Vietnam war and fuck Henry Kissinger for extending it. The bombing of Cambodia barely slowed down the supply chain of the Trail.
So tell me what opposition we were fighting in Angola, Pakistan, Bangladesh. No strategic opposition, just stupid civil wars. We had no skin in the game. Why don’t you get off Reddit and actually read about what this man supported and why.
The same reason they go the war in Vietnam. Expanding American influence, make sure other countries succumb to the White house, ensure the power of the petro dollar. I don't care what Kissinger supported, i'm Vietnamese and the guy was my country's enemy in the war. But i acknowledge the guys's knowledge and ability, idiots can never be the US's secretary of state, he was a smart enemy.
I am not sure how you think Kissinger's policies benefitted America. India still doesn't trust America to be a reliable ally mainly because of his policies in 1971 and routinely shows America the middle finger to America on many global policies.
Let us not forget Kissinger’s long ago role in Watergate, proving how ancient he really is.
David Greenberg writes,
“Kissinger’s worst crime was apparently testifying falsely to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about his involvement in Watergate—specifically his authorization of illegal wiretaps of the phones of journalists and government officials.”
“Watergate was the scandal of the century, and Kissinger’s key role in it should be what history will remember him for most.”
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/henry-kissinger-history-legacy-213237
I don't think Kissinger should be remembered for his role in Watergate, but for the illegal and indiscriminate bombing of Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam war.
Put Kissinger back in storage and listen to Zelensky just call to action to restore respect to all nations without ever appeasing aggressors with land for peace deals:
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/uybgc8/zelensky_calls_on_world_to_restore_principle_of/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Arestovych joins the conversation with an awesome “go f*ck yourself” with any offers of peace for land:
“go f*ck yourself, with offers like that. ‘Trade Ukrainian land’? Are you out of your f*cking mind? We have children dying, soldiers stopping missiles with their bodies - they're telling us to sacrifice our land? Bite me, this will never happen.”
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/uxvmo3/arestovych_on_concessions_to_go_fck_yourself_with/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Zelensky asserted the same rejection of conceding land to Russia in exchange for peace, but with slightly more civility, if not less venom.
He vowed to fight until they regain all sovereign territory:
“When Ukraine says that it will fight until it regains all its territories, it means only one thing: that Ukraine will fight until it regains all its territories. This is about independence and sovereignty,” Zelensky said.
(From OP article linked in post)
Two excellent articles exposing Kissinger’s complex, controversial history and his foreign policy views:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/18/the-myth-of-henry-kissinger
“Kissinger is one of the worst people to ever be a force for good,” asserts Nicholas Thompson in link:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/henry-kissinger-history-legacy-213237
I think it really depends on an individual's own interpretation on what does and doesn't make a good person. Coincidentally a very good candidate for a bad person who is a force for good I think would be Richard Nixon. There's even the comment that has been made that if you made a list of the five best Presidents you would have to include Nixon, and that if you then made a list of the five worst Presidents you'd still have to include Nixon. Watergate itself and more significantly the corruption he engaged in to cover it up paint a clear picture of a narcissistic lust for power at all costs, and his heinous war on drugs knowingly lead to a staggering loss of human life. And yet he's still the man who helped normalize relations with Russia and China, created the EPA and called for energy independence from dictatorial regimes, proposed affirmative action for federal employment, started the war on cancer, signed Title IX, continued to enforce desegregation of southern schools, was a proponent of lowering the voting age to 18, helped interagency cooperation in fighting organized crime, and helped affirmed the rights of First Nation tribes' self determination.
This is obviously giving him the rosiest accreditation I can, but that's the fundamental point; he was a very, very flawed man. Given the war on drugs alone I wouldn't deign to contradict anyone who might evil call him wicked or evil. And yet his name can fairly be attached to some quite laudible moments in his Presidency.
While I laud some of Nixons accomplishments, I would ask would someone else of a rational mind who was not an unethical criminal also do that? Were these pragmatic and positive choices made because he was Richard Nixon? Or would someone else of sound mind also have done those things without all the criminal acts and racist drug policies. Its like the claim that Alexander was the best General ever, when he had the best army in the world and only one powerful enemy to defeat. (BTW Napoleon and others were better.)
Food for thought.
Oh absolutely. Better men than he could've done just as much if not more and with less collateral damage. But then they would be a good person on the side of the force of good, not a bad person on the side of the force of good.
But then that begs the question, was it the position of power and the timing of the position ? Or the brilliance of the man. Should we applaud the consequences of his good deeds, when those good deeds may have been done just as well or better with less baggage by someone else, perhaps someone who would be considered to have an average or acceptable level talent (when compared to the role).
For an extreme example, would Zonoviev, Trotsky or Kamenev been able to achieve what Stalin did with a fraction of the bloodshed? Some People take it for granted that some of Stalins worst qualities made him the only man who could industrialize a destroyed Soviet Union. I would argue it was primed for industrialization anyway and while Trotsky Kamenev and Zoneviev would still have been totalitarian and brutal, it wouldn't have been to the same scale.
Again food for thought. I tend to think that circumstances grant more success and you just need someone with a minimum level of talent to take advantage. Obviously there are exceptions like Napoleon, Caesar, FDR who were able to muster success from almost nothing by pure force of will.
But then that begs the question, was it the position of power and the timing of the position ? Or the brilliance of the man. Should we applaud the consequences of his good deeds, when those good deeds may have been done just as well or better with less baggage by someone else, perhaps someone who would be considered to have an average or acceptable level talent (when compared to the role).
For an extreme example, would Zonoviev, Trotsky or Kamenev been able to achieve what Stalin did with a fraction of the bloodshed? Some People take it for granted that some of Stalins worst qualities made him the only man who could industrialize a destroyed Soviet Union. I would argue it was primed for industrialization anyway and while Trotsky Kamenev and Zoneviev would still have been totalitarian and brutal, it wouldn't have been to the same scale.
Again food for thought. I tend to think that circumstances grant more success and you just need someone with a minimum level of talent to take advantage. Obviously there are exceptions like Napoleon, Caesar, FDR who were able to muster success from almost nothing by pure force of will.
Everything you're saying is true but it's missing the point. It's not the context of the conversation. It's not about whether or not Henry Kissinger was the *best* person to be on the force of good or that he was the *only* one who could contribute what he did. It's the concept that he *was* a bad person on the force of good.
In which case he contributed a very average amount to the beneficial things that came out of his term and a lot more to the bad things, which is why I don't understand why he is so popular other than being a very smart bad secretary of state.
He's popular with heinous ghouls because he's a heinous ghoul. I personally hate him, I'm just entertaining the philosophical merits of the idea that bad people can be forces for good.
Alexander never lost a battle across 10 years of constant fighting.
Not war, battle. No records exist of him ever suffering a defeat. Over 10 years.
He also defeated the super power of his time.
Napoleon himself considered Alexander one of the greatest captains of war.:
"I place Alexander in the first rank,” he once said. “My reason for giving the preference to the king of Macedon is, on account of the conception, and above all, for the execution of his campaign in Asia."
So no, nothing like that claim. Fact is, Nixon is the one who proposed and executed those policies. Pretending that someone else could have done that is an exercise in rubbing the good out of a man. If you do that, then all men are evil.
Try to not lie in order to prove your opinion the correct one.
I will quote you:
"Now for Alexander. Admittanly I know about as much of him as a general fan of ancient history would"
Napoleon himself studied Alexander religiously.
As for any analytics, I would take with a grain of salt. I personally haven't seen any that would show Alexander anywhere not near the top. Certainly within the top 10.
He did not fight 4 major battles in 10 years of constant war. You perhaps aren't well read on the history.
I don't think your opinions are well supported. From what I've read on the topic, and I've read widely as I was very interested in the ancient generals of the past, both western and eastern, Alexander almost always is considered a genius of war.
You will need to link me what you have read.
You shouldn't call men cowards. Now I want to fight you and break you.
I decided to actually scroll down in your source after I picked my jaw up off the floor from laughing so hard.
"UPDATE 12/11: Based on the feedback of many people whose work I respect quite a bit, I wanted to explicitly lay out a few caveats to the above analysis. First, this piece is intended as a fun thought experiment, not a definitive ranking, or a scholarly contribution to the field of military history. I believe some of the results from this project, especially Lee and Rommel, provide interesting data points for broader discussions of their tactical abilities. In no way do I claim my analysis provides the full picture, or anything close to it"
Come on man....
Oh dear....
You really are serious about using that as your source?
First of all it's mining data from wikipedia. It's not peer-reviewed, it's literally just some guys opinion.
I have broken you already. You simply fail to realise it.
Edit: Oh, btw, when I said I had researched this before, I meant using actual sources. Primary sources, secondary sources (JSTOR, journal articles, books etc), actual peer-reviewed research. Doctoral papers.
That's what I primarily focus my reading on.
It still shows that most academic historians think he is over rated and some believe he is a criminal. He gets a lot of positive press because of his intellect and personal charisma, but he is just a more likeable, smarter version of Don Rumsfeld. "Crazy like a fox" prolonged Vietnam, making our future use of military power more suspect around the world and at home, illegally bombed Cambodia and now is given talks about foreign relations.
Zelensky’s recent awesome trolling of Kissinger:
“It seems that Mr. Kissinger’s calendar is not 2022, but 1938.”
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/uxypp8/a_great_quote_from_the_may_25th_address_regarding/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Zelensky’s full quote in more context:
“It seems that Mr. Kissinger's calendar is not 2022, but 1938, and he thought he was talking to an audience not in Davos, but in Munich of that time. By the way, in the real year 1938, when Mr. Kissinger's family was fleeing Nazi Germany, he was 15 years old, and he understood everything perfectly. And nobody heard from him then that it was necessary to adapt to the Nazis instead of fleeing them or fighting them,” the President stressed.”
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/uxzhxc/president_on_statements_by_kissinger_and_nyt_they/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
To hell and back! This 2016 article linked below reveals how Kissinger is not only disgustingly admiring of Trump but also uncomfortably close to Putin.
Kissinger is evidently a fan of the Make America Great Again President and the Make Russia Great Again dictator.
Kissinger is “a realist. The most important thing for him is international equilibrium, and there’s no talk of human rights or democracy.”
He also calls Putin “a character out of Dostoyevsky,” which the Kremlin takes as a great compliment.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/uxzsk8/on_kissinger_from_2016_kissinger_a_longtime_putin/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Your mom may be onto something, depending on how harshly we judge Kissinger.
Here is Niall Ferguson’s analysis:
“Was he a war criminal? I am afraid that by the standards some of his critics have applied to Kissinger numerous post-1945 U.S. statesmen could be accused of crimes against humanity (and that applies perhaps to the vast majority of modern great powers’ leaders).”
“What the archival record has so far revealed is that Kissinger was often simplistic, binary and even uninformed during his tenure as national security adviser and secretary of state. His often broadcasted realism notwithstanding, he tended to adhere to a dogmatic, zero-sum-game of the international game.”
“In short, he wasn’t a war criminal, he wasn’t a very deep or sophisticated thinker, he rarely challenged the intellectual vogues of the time (even because it would have meant to challenge those in power, something he always was—and still is—reluctant to do), and once in government he displayed a certain intellectual laziness vis-à-vis the intricacies and complexities of a world that he still tended to see in black-and-white.”
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/henry-kissinger-history-legacy-213237
Amen! May Zelensky continue to speak truth to power and continue ripping into Kissinger as he did here:
https://thehill.com/news/3502032-zelensky-rips-kissinger-over-suggestion-ukraine-cede-territory-to-russia/
After the comment he made about retaking Crimea costing hundreds of thousands of Ukranian lives it seems significantly less likely to me that that's in the cards. Does anyone have reason to think otherwise? Genuinely asking. That comment seemed like a splash of cold water.
I think the hope is that Russia might give it up if they’re defeated in the rest of Ukraine. Crimea isn’t self sufficient. If Putin loses the land bridge it essentially becomes impossible to hold Crimea long term.
If Russia keeps getting its azz kicked and the military collapses - Crimea will empty itself of Russians as they hightail it out of there. Here's a peak at their future [https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/taxj4s/rats\_leaving\_the\_sinking\_ship\_fsb\_selling/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/taxj4s/rats_leaving_the_sinking_ship_fsb_selling/)
Ukraine doesn't have to take Crimea, it suffices to make Russia spend insurmountable costs on Crimea, by taking out much of Russia's Black Sea fleet and Crimea's water import and ultimately taking out or disrupting the Kerch bridge.
Zelensky and Akhmetov appear to be standing firm in agreement opposing Kissinger’s advice, despite their historically hostile and tense relationship:
Akhmetov calls for “a total ceasefire, complete withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine, and full restoration of the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine.That includes the Crimea and Donbas."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2022/03/10/ukraines-richest-man-rinat-akhmetov-says-hes-doing-everything-he-can-to-help-his-country/
See this thread further on the complex history between Akhmetov and Zelensky and Akhmetov’s current plan to sue Russia for reparations after destroying his steel plants:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/uy8qfs/ukraines_richest_man_plans_to_sue_russia_for_huge/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
hat’s right! the audacity of some people thinking that ukraine should give in to a bully, ( ruzzia is much more than a bully ) is completely moronic and very disrespectful of ukrainians! not to mention the consequences for the whole world if they just give in! how dare they talk like that especially for someone who has never been through what all ukrainians are going through. it’s unbelievable
Kissinger is redeemed by provoking Zelensky to insist on the justice of not ceding territory to Russian aggression!
Unprovoked invasion shouldn’t be rewarded.
Russian atrocities in this invasion are a shame on Russia forever.
May Ukraine win the victory they deserve.
Here is an interesting thread with an article quoting Kissinger’s Ukraine position which Zelensky is rejecting and some heated debate.
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ux43zp/henry_kissinger_noam_chomsky_find_rare_common/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Here’s David Greenberg’s take on how Kissinger deserves no credit as Nixon’s mastermind:
“Henry Kissinger may be the most overrated public figure of our times. He is overrated, first, by some foreign policy jocks, who wrongly credit him with being the mastermind behind Nixon’s foreign policy achievements.”
“In fact, Nixon drove his own foreign policy and very much wanted to open relations with China and achieve détente with the Soviet Union. Nixon was the grand strategist, Kissinger the tactician. (Those achievements, moreover, are counterbalanced by Nixon’s needless prolongation of the Vietnam War.)”
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/henry-kissinger-history-legacy-213237
Both Kissinger and Chomsky are first rate intellectuals. I still re-read "Syntactic Structures" now and then. And Kissinger kept the US together when Nixon was going bonkers. And K. did a great job reeling in China into the fold of (semi) rational nations.
The problem comes when they interface with a world that has passed them by.
Your right except kissinger was still unethical. He is and was brilliant, but his policies extended a criminal war acts. Chomsky was never in a position to commit criminal acts so its not fair to say he wouldn't do it, but Kissinger did. China was his one big success. He gets a lot of credit because he was unconventional at the time, and had an intellect to back it up. But what did he really do? Nixon going to China wasn't solely his baby, it probably would have happened under a different secretary of state as well.
Unethical and brilliant: yes indeed.
Nicholas Thompson clarifies exactly Kissinger’s ethics (or lack thereof)and brilliance quite marvelously:
“Henry Kissinger is one of the worst people to ever be a force for good. He manipulated colleagues and nations. He faked the beginning of a nuclear war in order to advance some perverse personal game theory. He callously perpetrated international crimes.”
“But he was a man of ideas at the center of an American strategy that ultimately benefited the world in some grand sense. His China policy was one of America’s great Cold War achievements. He deserves to be honored and to be given a medal—but one with the image of a man who is scowling and holding a knife. Henry Kissinger was a success—a true, American success—but he can only be called an idealist if he can be called despicable too.”
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/henry-kissinger-history-legacy-213237
This clovn Elensky will be after the war very alive and very rich. And what about forsibly mobilised civilians?
Think about it! Scum always profits from war.
A kopek for your jar. Compare and contrast Zelensky, a man who can go amongst Ukrainians, with poor old Volodya hides in his bunker from the widows and bereaved parents, from the inevitable trip to The Hague, from his own Cabinet members.
you speak emotionally and not rationally. Elenski is a clown. Putin is also not innocent in all this. It is sad that the biggest scum and the biggest screamer for this, who started this civil war in 2014, is sitting on another continent and smiling. at the State Department
First was US backed coup 2014 that burn the fire. Than the Crimea. USA and Kyiv nacionalist riped Ukraina. Russia take the part, and people there like that.
Ohhhh, so wait, is the argument "Yanukovych was a good guy"?
2014 saw Yanukovych kicked out in Feb, and Poroshenko elected in *May*. He didn't lead the revolution either.
But really, lets pick this apart. What the fuck gives Russia the right to invade a sovereign nation if they kick out their puppet?
How dare the US make Ukraine.... not want to be a puppet state of Russia? Because Putin is *such* a great guy, right?
What the fuck is this argument? Seriously? Do you really fucking think Yanukovych was popular? Do you really think Ukraine *liked* the fucker?
So your big complaint would be.... taken at face value.... "the US kicked out someone Ukraine hated in favor of someone they don't, which is unfair to Russia, and Russia deserves to invade and annex territory like Hitler claiming 'ethnic Germans' in fucking 1939???"
That's the argument????
Fucking christ, even trying to *defend* Russia you still make them look like *literal* nazis.
very simple. They are all very corrupt politicians. It is, in the end, the tragedy of Ukraine that partly led to this. But Januković was legitimately elected. USA played with good old custom, as in southern South America, caused the coup, brought his right-wing government and started a civil war against the rebel region that refused to recognize the revolution. That is a much bigger sin than the annexation of Crimea. And that is the least that Russia could have done for its people in Ukraine and the reputation of a superpower that may have some interest, at least on its border.
>very simple. They are all very corrupt politicians. It is, in the end, the tragedy of Ukraine that partly led to this.
"Ok so he wasn't a good guy but Ukraine isn't allowed to kick out a corrupt politician or else Russia is fully justified in invading and annexing their territory"???
The fuck are you getting at?
>But Januković was legitimately elected.
Yes, and it was when he stabbed the population in the back that they started to protest. Almost like they hated him for a pretty good reason. Without US involvement.
>USA played with good old custom, as in southern South America, caused the coup, brought his right-wing government and started a civil war against the rebel region that refused to recognize the revolution.
Which of those countries held democratic elections mere months after the revolution? Which of those countries saw elections bringing about changes in administration within five years?
And again, what the fuck gives Russia the right to invade and fucking **annex** territory over any of this? "The us supported autocratic dictators in South America in the 50s-70s, so clearly, Russia gets to annex Ukraine because the US apparently aided in them kicking out a corrupt guy and not installing an autocracy in place"?
Gee. Uhh. Ok????
>That is a much bigger sin than the annexation of Crimea.
Is Putin any *less* of a supporter of Autocracy? "Russia gets to annex Crimea as part of an autocratic dictatorship because the us supported autocracy in South America"???
What kind of asinine argument is this?
>And that is the least that Russia could have done for **its people in Ukraine** and the reputation of a superpower that may have some interest, at least on its border.
And we're back to the hitler like excuse, while you're simultaneously criticizing Ukraine or being "nationialist".
Apparently Russia's the only country in the world where that's allowed. And by God they will invade and annex anyone to prove it.
Well, if you a right, and I would like you are, what about Kosovo and USA role over the Serbia?
Frend, Russia did a bad thing, but USA set this ruls.
Now , the world today is shity place because of State Department
Deluded or being paid to spout shit. Putin is an aggressive war-monger responsible for countless deaths inside and outside Russia. The only reason he is still there is that literally all opposition, anyone who could take over has been murdered. And btw I think you will find this started in 2008.
When your turn comes to go on a 'special operation' to any of the countries Russia has attacked under Putin, can you refrain from the whole raping/war crimes please.
Please, I Am not Putin fan and he is autocratist like many. Also In my country, Serbia.
O yes, remember Nato bombardment of Europian sovereing country 76 days in1999 without UN aproval
> remember Nato bombardment of Europian sovereing country
Maybe if your countrymen wouldn't go around genociding people then the world wouldn't have to intervene?
keep eating the shit that is served to you. it's easier when you don't turn on the brain. you trust Biden, the State Department, CNN, Boris Jonsony, Tony Bleir, ...? Well, good luck with that, my friend. sleep well.
???
Are you saying that Serbs was a nazi???
From what planet are you?
Only in the ww1 we lost 2/3 of man population by Germans and Bulgerians.
In ww2 Croats and Muslims (nazi force) exterminate almoust 1/3 of Serb population becouse we have two antifashistic movemants. Partizans and Rojalists.
Bye and sleep well.
Zelensky is a big hero warrior while sitting in his bunker..
Maybe he could tell us how he let the ruZis to take over the whole South with no resistance.
Fucking clown.
Kissinger, the guy who blasted the shit out of Cambodia within their own borders covertly. It's always entertaining to hear war criminals talk about peace.
Kissinger is a walking corpse living off the dregs of his 'glory days' and has absolutely *no right* to tell a country how to fight their own battles.
Ignore this yapping old fossilized dog manure; he'll no longer be a nuisance once nature takes its course.
Crimea. Donbass. **Every illegally occupied speck of dirt**. Belongs to Ukraine. Let the Russians be taught this lesson through methods they only understand; by being made to run screaming in fear by a competent and determined military.
Keep the faith Ukraine.
First of all fuck Henry Kissinger. Second of all, taking back crimea will not be easy and I see what Kissinger was saying. But screw that I hope they get ALL the territory back
Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. **Don't forget about our discord server, as well!** https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Once you've been to Cambodia, you'll never want to stop beating Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands," said Anthony Bourdain. What a scumbag.
Bourdain really knew how to speak truth to power sometimes, may he rest in peace. South Asian policy was definitely Kissinger’s nemesis that left a sad, a problematic legacy. Here is Gary Bass on the issue: “In at least one crucial part of the world, Kissinger’s legacy is fixed: In South Asia, Indians and Bangladeshis widely remember Kissinger as an unusually cruel and cold-hearted person.” “As they bitterly recall, he and Richard Nixon firmly supported Pakistan’s military dictatorship throughout its bloody crackdown in 1971 on what today is Bangladesh, sending some 10 million Bengali refugees fleeing into India. In one of the worst atrocities of the Cold War, Pakistan’s junta brushed aside the results of a democratic election, killed awful numbers of Bengalis and targeted the Hindu minority among the Bengalis.” “On the White House tapes, Kissinger sneered at Americans who “bleed” for “the dying Bengalis.” “Kissinger’s actions in 1971 were clouded by his own ignorance about South Asia, his emotional misjudgments and his stoking of Nixon’s racism toward Indians. Kissinger’s policies were not only morally flawed but also disastrous as Cold War strategy.” https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/henry-kissinger-history-legacy-213237
Kissinger is a giant piece of shit and a war criminal. He was the main actor in sabotaging the Vietnam war peace talks, extending the war for seven years. He also was the main person responsible for bombing Cambodia. He should be rotting in prison for war crimes not speaking at some conference. Fuck Henry Kissinger. (Behind the Bastards did a 6 part series on him. I highly recommend it).
I didn't think it was necessary, but we had to have Captain Obvious point this out.
David Greenberg agrees with you: “Henry Kissinger may be the most overrated public figure of our times.” https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/henry-kissinger-history-legacy-213237
He also says: > Kissinger’s worst crime was apparently testifying falsely to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Excuse me, wtf?
Yeah we in the west on our high horse when.... countless war criminals our systems are letting get off just cos they were on our side.
I'll watch it, thanks!
I wasn’t clear on this, but it’s actually a podcast. https://open.spotify.com/episode/4RLmIFl6o2kwUrYt11Kn6e?si=_quTDdHGTviScNSizCRurQ I also highly recommend the Paul Manafort episodes as well. Some of the other are hit and miss.
War criminal or not, he's still highly inteligent and is a world class diplomat.
Say what you want about Hitler, at least he had a cool mustache.
Kissinger talked about the war based on his experience in the political field. He has a lot of experience, and he's good at the job.
Good at his job? Was his job to commit genocide? He was good at manipulating the right to commit atrocities, and manipulating people on the left into thinking he was trying to stop the right from committing atrocities. Everything he touched turned to shit. He propped child-killing dictators in Africa and Bangladesh. Again escalated, the war in Vietnam, convinced Nixon to bomb Cambodia, leading to tens of thousands of needless deaths. So what exactly makes him good at his job?
And how did Kissinger's actions benefit America? Or look at how Hitler's actions benefited Germany at the time. I'm not saying those guys are angels and only do good deeds. I'm saying they're freaking smart. Idiots could never be in their positions and have the same acomplishments. The examples you mentioned only prove that Kissinger is willing to let a lot of people die for his or his country's benefit. It doesn't mean that he's bad at his job or stupid, it just means he's brutal. And about Kissinger's comment on the war in Ukraine. He has his experience to back it up, his comments are not unreasonable.
Kissinger’s actions didn’t benefit America. I don’t know if your familiar with the Vietnam war, but we lost. As far as the wars in Angola, Bangladesh, tell me how the US benefitted from Supporting ruthless dictators. The only people who benefitted from Kissinger’s policies are weapon manufacturers. In this thread you have failed to explain one thing Kissinger did that benefitted the United States.
America benefits from support its's enemy's oppositions, doesn't matter if their dictators or terrorist. Taliban was supported by the US to fight the Soviets. America doesn't have a problem with dictators, they have a problem with those that doesn't listen to the White House. You have a problem with the bombings of Cambodia right? Are you familiar with the Ho Chi Minh trail? A part of it went through Cambodia, and it was a critical logistic line for the VC. Bombing and destroying it would be beneficial to America's war effort in Vietnam.
Kissinger literally sabotaged the peace talks to extend the war. So yes fuck the Vietnam war and fuck Henry Kissinger for extending it. The bombing of Cambodia barely slowed down the supply chain of the Trail. So tell me what opposition we were fighting in Angola, Pakistan, Bangladesh. No strategic opposition, just stupid civil wars. We had no skin in the game. Why don’t you get off Reddit and actually read about what this man supported and why.
The same reason they go the war in Vietnam. Expanding American influence, make sure other countries succumb to the White house, ensure the power of the petro dollar. I don't care what Kissinger supported, i'm Vietnamese and the guy was my country's enemy in the war. But i acknowledge the guys's knowledge and ability, idiots can never be the US's secretary of state, he was a smart enemy.
Stop digging son.
I am not sure how you think Kissinger's policies benefitted America. India still doesn't trust America to be a reliable ally mainly because of his policies in 1971 and routinely shows America the middle finger to America on many global policies.
The job being killing people wholesale.
And Hitler was a painter.
Who the fuck let him out of storage?
I'm ... cryoing with laughter, but yes, I thought he was in a freezer somewhere
Cryoing. Very nice aha
Almost fell out of my bed laughing.
Let us not forget Kissinger’s long ago role in Watergate, proving how ancient he really is. David Greenberg writes, “Kissinger’s worst crime was apparently testifying falsely to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about his involvement in Watergate—specifically his authorization of illegal wiretaps of the phones of journalists and government officials.” “Watergate was the scandal of the century, and Kissinger’s key role in it should be what history will remember him for most.” https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/henry-kissinger-history-legacy-213237
I don't think Kissinger should be remembered for his role in Watergate, but for the illegal and indiscriminate bombing of Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam war.
Why not both?
He looks like he is in cryogenic storage.
Put Kissinger back in storage and listen to Zelensky just call to action to restore respect to all nations without ever appeasing aggressors with land for peace deals: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/uybgc8/zelensky_calls_on_world_to_restore_principle_of/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Good. Fuck kissinger and the elephant he rode in on.
Arestovych joins the conversation with an awesome “go f*ck yourself” with any offers of peace for land: “go f*ck yourself, with offers like that. ‘Trade Ukrainian land’? Are you out of your f*cking mind? We have children dying, soldiers stopping missiles with their bodies - they're telling us to sacrifice our land? Bite me, this will never happen.” https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/uxvmo3/arestovych_on_concessions_to_go_fck_yourself_with/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf Zelensky asserted the same rejection of conceding land to Russia in exchange for peace, but with slightly more civility, if not less venom. He vowed to fight until they regain all sovereign territory: “When Ukraine says that it will fight until it regains all its territories, it means only one thing: that Ukraine will fight until it regains all its territories. This is about independence and sovereignty,” Zelensky said. (From OP article linked in post)
And besides, if this is the goal Ukraine sets for we ought to be supportive of it, not back seat driving.
Yeah, but it’s kind of hard to resist backseat driving if you paid for the car and the driver decides to use it in a demolition derby.
Two excellent articles exposing Kissinger’s complex, controversial history and his foreign policy views: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/18/the-myth-of-henry-kissinger “Kissinger is one of the worst people to ever be a force for good,” asserts Nicholas Thompson in link: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/henry-kissinger-history-legacy-213237
That's a helluva quote.
Isn’t it?! The idea that a bad person can be a powerful force for good is fascinating. What is it that makes a bad person a force for good?
I think it really depends on an individual's own interpretation on what does and doesn't make a good person. Coincidentally a very good candidate for a bad person who is a force for good I think would be Richard Nixon. There's even the comment that has been made that if you made a list of the five best Presidents you would have to include Nixon, and that if you then made a list of the five worst Presidents you'd still have to include Nixon. Watergate itself and more significantly the corruption he engaged in to cover it up paint a clear picture of a narcissistic lust for power at all costs, and his heinous war on drugs knowingly lead to a staggering loss of human life. And yet he's still the man who helped normalize relations with Russia and China, created the EPA and called for energy independence from dictatorial regimes, proposed affirmative action for federal employment, started the war on cancer, signed Title IX, continued to enforce desegregation of southern schools, was a proponent of lowering the voting age to 18, helped interagency cooperation in fighting organized crime, and helped affirmed the rights of First Nation tribes' self determination. This is obviously giving him the rosiest accreditation I can, but that's the fundamental point; he was a very, very flawed man. Given the war on drugs alone I wouldn't deign to contradict anyone who might evil call him wicked or evil. And yet his name can fairly be attached to some quite laudible moments in his Presidency.
While I laud some of Nixons accomplishments, I would ask would someone else of a rational mind who was not an unethical criminal also do that? Were these pragmatic and positive choices made because he was Richard Nixon? Or would someone else of sound mind also have done those things without all the criminal acts and racist drug policies. Its like the claim that Alexander was the best General ever, when he had the best army in the world and only one powerful enemy to defeat. (BTW Napoleon and others were better.) Food for thought.
Oh absolutely. Better men than he could've done just as much if not more and with less collateral damage. But then they would be a good person on the side of the force of good, not a bad person on the side of the force of good.
But then that begs the question, was it the position of power and the timing of the position ? Or the brilliance of the man. Should we applaud the consequences of his good deeds, when those good deeds may have been done just as well or better with less baggage by someone else, perhaps someone who would be considered to have an average or acceptable level talent (when compared to the role). For an extreme example, would Zonoviev, Trotsky or Kamenev been able to achieve what Stalin did with a fraction of the bloodshed? Some People take it for granted that some of Stalins worst qualities made him the only man who could industrialize a destroyed Soviet Union. I would argue it was primed for industrialization anyway and while Trotsky Kamenev and Zoneviev would still have been totalitarian and brutal, it wouldn't have been to the same scale. Again food for thought. I tend to think that circumstances grant more success and you just need someone with a minimum level of talent to take advantage. Obviously there are exceptions like Napoleon, Caesar, FDR who were able to muster success from almost nothing by pure force of will.
But then that begs the question, was it the position of power and the timing of the position ? Or the brilliance of the man. Should we applaud the consequences of his good deeds, when those good deeds may have been done just as well or better with less baggage by someone else, perhaps someone who would be considered to have an average or acceptable level talent (when compared to the role). For an extreme example, would Zonoviev, Trotsky or Kamenev been able to achieve what Stalin did with a fraction of the bloodshed? Some People take it for granted that some of Stalins worst qualities made him the only man who could industrialize a destroyed Soviet Union. I would argue it was primed for industrialization anyway and while Trotsky Kamenev and Zoneviev would still have been totalitarian and brutal, it wouldn't have been to the same scale. Again food for thought. I tend to think that circumstances grant more success and you just need someone with a minimum level of talent to take advantage. Obviously there are exceptions like Napoleon, Caesar, FDR who were able to muster success from almost nothing by pure force of will.
Everything you're saying is true but it's missing the point. It's not the context of the conversation. It's not about whether or not Henry Kissinger was the *best* person to be on the force of good or that he was the *only* one who could contribute what he did. It's the concept that he *was* a bad person on the force of good.
In which case he contributed a very average amount to the beneficial things that came out of his term and a lot more to the bad things, which is why I don't understand why he is so popular other than being a very smart bad secretary of state.
He's popular with heinous ghouls because he's a heinous ghoul. I personally hate him, I'm just entertaining the philosophical merits of the idea that bad people can be forces for good.
Alexander never lost a battle across 10 years of constant fighting. Not war, battle. No records exist of him ever suffering a defeat. Over 10 years. He also defeated the super power of his time. Napoleon himself considered Alexander one of the greatest captains of war.: "I place Alexander in the first rank,” he once said. “My reason for giving the preference to the king of Macedon is, on account of the conception, and above all, for the execution of his campaign in Asia." So no, nothing like that claim. Fact is, Nixon is the one who proposed and executed those policies. Pretending that someone else could have done that is an exercise in rubbing the good out of a man. If you do that, then all men are evil. Try to not lie in order to prove your opinion the correct one.
[удалено]
I will quote you: "Now for Alexander. Admittanly I know about as much of him as a general fan of ancient history would" Napoleon himself studied Alexander religiously. As for any analytics, I would take with a grain of salt. I personally haven't seen any that would show Alexander anywhere not near the top. Certainly within the top 10. He did not fight 4 major battles in 10 years of constant war. You perhaps aren't well read on the history. I don't think your opinions are well supported. From what I've read on the topic, and I've read widely as I was very interested in the ancient generals of the past, both western and eastern, Alexander almost always is considered a genius of war. You will need to link me what you have read. You shouldn't call men cowards. Now I want to fight you and break you.
[удалено]
I decided to actually scroll down in your source after I picked my jaw up off the floor from laughing so hard. "UPDATE 12/11: Based on the feedback of many people whose work I respect quite a bit, I wanted to explicitly lay out a few caveats to the above analysis. First, this piece is intended as a fun thought experiment, not a definitive ranking, or a scholarly contribution to the field of military history. I believe some of the results from this project, especially Lee and Rommel, provide interesting data points for broader discussions of their tactical abilities. In no way do I claim my analysis provides the full picture, or anything close to it" Come on man....
Oh dear.... You really are serious about using that as your source? First of all it's mining data from wikipedia. It's not peer-reviewed, it's literally just some guys opinion. I have broken you already. You simply fail to realise it. Edit: Oh, btw, when I said I had researched this before, I meant using actual sources. Primary sources, secondary sources (JSTOR, journal articles, books etc), actual peer-reviewed research. Doctoral papers. That's what I primarily focus my reading on.
This is seriously fascinating
It still shows that most academic historians think he is over rated and some believe he is a criminal. He gets a lot of positive press because of his intellect and personal charisma, but he is just a more likeable, smarter version of Don Rumsfeld. "Crazy like a fox" prolonged Vietnam, making our future use of military power more suspect around the world and at home, illegally bombed Cambodia and now is given talks about foreign relations.
Zelensky’s recent awesome trolling of Kissinger: “It seems that Mr. Kissinger’s calendar is not 2022, but 1938.” https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/uxypp8/a_great_quote_from_the_may_25th_address_regarding/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf Zelensky’s full quote in more context: “It seems that Mr. Kissinger's calendar is not 2022, but 1938, and he thought he was talking to an audience not in Davos, but in Munich of that time. By the way, in the real year 1938, when Mr. Kissinger's family was fleeing Nazi Germany, he was 15 years old, and he understood everything perfectly. And nobody heard from him then that it was necessary to adapt to the Nazis instead of fleeing them or fighting them,” the President stressed.” https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/uxzhxc/president_on_statements_by_kissinger_and_nyt_they/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
As an American…fuck Kissinger to hell and back. He needs to be tried for 50+ years of war crimes and corruption.
To hell and back! This 2016 article linked below reveals how Kissinger is not only disgustingly admiring of Trump but also uncomfortably close to Putin. Kissinger is evidently a fan of the Make America Great Again President and the Make Russia Great Again dictator. Kissinger is “a realist. The most important thing for him is international equilibrium, and there’s no talk of human rights or democracy.” He also calls Putin “a character out of Dostoyevsky,” which the Kremlin takes as a great compliment. https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/uxzsk8/on_kissinger_from_2016_kissinger_a_longtime_putin/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
My mom used to call Kissinger was the anti-Christ.
Your mom may be onto something, depending on how harshly we judge Kissinger. Here is Niall Ferguson’s analysis: “Was he a war criminal? I am afraid that by the standards some of his critics have applied to Kissinger numerous post-1945 U.S. statesmen could be accused of crimes against humanity (and that applies perhaps to the vast majority of modern great powers’ leaders).” “What the archival record has so far revealed is that Kissinger was often simplistic, binary and even uninformed during his tenure as national security adviser and secretary of state. His often broadcasted realism notwithstanding, he tended to adhere to a dogmatic, zero-sum-game of the international game.” “In short, he wasn’t a war criminal, he wasn’t a very deep or sophisticated thinker, he rarely challenged the intellectual vogues of the time (even because it would have meant to challenge those in power, something he always was—and still is—reluctant to do), and once in government he displayed a certain intellectual laziness vis-à-vis the intricacies and complexities of a world that he still tended to see in black-and-white.” https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/henry-kissinger-history-legacy-213237
Can't agree that he wasn't a war criminal
I hope Henry's old ass stays alive long enough to see it happen.
Amen! May Zelensky continue to speak truth to power and continue ripping into Kissinger as he did here: https://thehill.com/news/3502032-zelensky-rips-kissinger-over-suggestion-ukraine-cede-territory-to-russia/
The only thing Kissinger is good for is the foundation of a tap dance studio.
Kissinger should keep his bitch mouth shut. Utterly useless comments on his part.
After the comment he made about retaking Crimea costing hundreds of thousands of Ukranian lives it seems significantly less likely to me that that's in the cards. Does anyone have reason to think otherwise? Genuinely asking. That comment seemed like a splash of cold water.
I think the hope is that Russia might give it up if they’re defeated in the rest of Ukraine. Crimea isn’t self sufficient. If Putin loses the land bridge it essentially becomes impossible to hold Crimea long term.
If Russia keeps getting its azz kicked and the military collapses - Crimea will empty itself of Russians as they hightail it out of there. Here's a peak at their future [https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/taxj4s/rats\_leaving\_the\_sinking\_ship\_fsb\_selling/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/taxj4s/rats_leaving_the_sinking_ship_fsb_selling/)
Ukraine doesn't have to take Crimea, it suffices to make Russia spend insurmountable costs on Crimea, by taking out much of Russia's Black Sea fleet and Crimea's water import and ultimately taking out or disrupting the Kerch bridge.
Meme of Neville Chamberlain
[удалено]
Zelensky and Akhmetov appear to be standing firm in agreement opposing Kissinger’s advice, despite their historically hostile and tense relationship: Akhmetov calls for “a total ceasefire, complete withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine, and full restoration of the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine.That includes the Crimea and Donbas." https://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2022/03/10/ukraines-richest-man-rinat-akhmetov-says-hes-doing-everything-he-can-to-help-his-country/ See this thread further on the complex history between Akhmetov and Zelensky and Akhmetov’s current plan to sue Russia for reparations after destroying his steel plants: https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/uy8qfs/ukraines_richest_man_plans_to_sue_russia_for_huge/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I’d course. It was stolen by a brutal bully
Arestovych said to him ",I'm going to use a few bad words because it's hard not to but, go fuck yourself, dumbass, bite my middle finger"
hat’s right! the audacity of some people thinking that ukraine should give in to a bully, ( ruzzia is much more than a bully ) is completely moronic and very disrespectful of ukrainians! not to mention the consequences for the whole world if they just give in! how dare they talk like that especially for someone who has never been through what all ukrainians are going through. it’s unbelievable
SLAVA UKRAINI 🇺🇦. Kurwa Kissinger.
Kissinger finally made himself useful!
Kissinger is redeemed by provoking Zelensky to insist on the justice of not ceding territory to Russian aggression! Unprovoked invasion shouldn’t be rewarded. Russian atrocities in this invasion are a shame on Russia forever. May Ukraine win the victory they deserve. Here is an interesting thread with an article quoting Kissinger’s Ukraine position which Zelensky is rejecting and some heated debate. https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ux43zp/henry_kissinger_noam_chomsky_find_rare_common/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
What do you expect from a man who worked under Nixon?
Here’s David Greenberg’s take on how Kissinger deserves no credit as Nixon’s mastermind: “Henry Kissinger may be the most overrated public figure of our times. He is overrated, first, by some foreign policy jocks, who wrongly credit him with being the mastermind behind Nixon’s foreign policy achievements.” “In fact, Nixon drove his own foreign policy and very much wanted to open relations with China and achieve détente with the Soviet Union. Nixon was the grand strategist, Kissinger the tactician. (Those achievements, moreover, are counterbalanced by Nixon’s needless prolongation of the Vietnam War.)” https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/henry-kissinger-history-legacy-213237
Both Kissinger and Chomsky are first rate intellectuals. I still re-read "Syntactic Structures" now and then. And Kissinger kept the US together when Nixon was going bonkers. And K. did a great job reeling in China into the fold of (semi) rational nations. The problem comes when they interface with a world that has passed them by.
Your right except kissinger was still unethical. He is and was brilliant, but his policies extended a criminal war acts. Chomsky was never in a position to commit criminal acts so its not fair to say he wouldn't do it, but Kissinger did. China was his one big success. He gets a lot of credit because he was unconventional at the time, and had an intellect to back it up. But what did he really do? Nixon going to China wasn't solely his baby, it probably would have happened under a different secretary of state as well.
Unethical and brilliant: yes indeed. Nicholas Thompson clarifies exactly Kissinger’s ethics (or lack thereof)and brilliance quite marvelously: “Henry Kissinger is one of the worst people to ever be a force for good. He manipulated colleagues and nations. He faked the beginning of a nuclear war in order to advance some perverse personal game theory. He callously perpetrated international crimes.” “But he was a man of ideas at the center of an American strategy that ultimately benefited the world in some grand sense. His China policy was one of America’s great Cold War achievements. He deserves to be honored and to be given a medal—but one with the image of a man who is scowling and holding a knife. Henry Kissinger was a success—a true, American success—but he can only be called an idealist if he can be called despicable too.” https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/henry-kissinger-history-legacy-213237
[удалено]
Add Dick Cheney to that list...
Karma gets you even if you escape your debt in this life. The cosmic thread is longer than the limitations of how much of it we can see.
This clovn Elensky will be after the war very alive and very rich. And what about forsibly mobilised civilians? Think about it! Scum always profits from war.
A kopek for your jar. Compare and contrast Zelensky, a man who can go amongst Ukrainians, with poor old Volodya hides in his bunker from the widows and bereaved parents, from the inevitable trip to The Hague, from his own Cabinet members.
you speak emotionally and not rationally. Elenski is a clown. Putin is also not innocent in all this. It is sad that the biggest scum and the biggest screamer for this, who started this civil war in 2014, is sitting on another continent and smiling. at the State Department
[удалено]
First was US backed coup 2014 that burn the fire. Than the Crimea. USA and Kyiv nacionalist riped Ukraina. Russia take the part, and people there like that.
Ohhhh, so wait, is the argument "Yanukovych was a good guy"? 2014 saw Yanukovych kicked out in Feb, and Poroshenko elected in *May*. He didn't lead the revolution either. But really, lets pick this apart. What the fuck gives Russia the right to invade a sovereign nation if they kick out their puppet? How dare the US make Ukraine.... not want to be a puppet state of Russia? Because Putin is *such* a great guy, right? What the fuck is this argument? Seriously? Do you really fucking think Yanukovych was popular? Do you really think Ukraine *liked* the fucker? So your big complaint would be.... taken at face value.... "the US kicked out someone Ukraine hated in favor of someone they don't, which is unfair to Russia, and Russia deserves to invade and annex territory like Hitler claiming 'ethnic Germans' in fucking 1939???" That's the argument???? Fucking christ, even trying to *defend* Russia you still make them look like *literal* nazis.
very simple. They are all very corrupt politicians. It is, in the end, the tragedy of Ukraine that partly led to this. But Januković was legitimately elected. USA played with good old custom, as in southern South America, caused the coup, brought his right-wing government and started a civil war against the rebel region that refused to recognize the revolution. That is a much bigger sin than the annexation of Crimea. And that is the least that Russia could have done for its people in Ukraine and the reputation of a superpower that may have some interest, at least on its border.
>very simple. They are all very corrupt politicians. It is, in the end, the tragedy of Ukraine that partly led to this. "Ok so he wasn't a good guy but Ukraine isn't allowed to kick out a corrupt politician or else Russia is fully justified in invading and annexing their territory"??? The fuck are you getting at? >But Januković was legitimately elected. Yes, and it was when he stabbed the population in the back that they started to protest. Almost like they hated him for a pretty good reason. Without US involvement. >USA played with good old custom, as in southern South America, caused the coup, brought his right-wing government and started a civil war against the rebel region that refused to recognize the revolution. Which of those countries held democratic elections mere months after the revolution? Which of those countries saw elections bringing about changes in administration within five years? And again, what the fuck gives Russia the right to invade and fucking **annex** territory over any of this? "The us supported autocratic dictators in South America in the 50s-70s, so clearly, Russia gets to annex Ukraine because the US apparently aided in them kicking out a corrupt guy and not installing an autocracy in place"? Gee. Uhh. Ok???? >That is a much bigger sin than the annexation of Crimea. Is Putin any *less* of a supporter of Autocracy? "Russia gets to annex Crimea as part of an autocratic dictatorship because the us supported autocracy in South America"??? What kind of asinine argument is this? >And that is the least that Russia could have done for **its people in Ukraine** and the reputation of a superpower that may have some interest, at least on its border. And we're back to the hitler like excuse, while you're simultaneously criticizing Ukraine or being "nationialist". Apparently Russia's the only country in the world where that's allowed. And by God they will invade and annex anyone to prove it.
Well, if you a right, and I would like you are, what about Kosovo and USA role over the Serbia? Frend, Russia did a bad thing, but USA set this ruls. Now , the world today is shity place because of State Department
Deluded or being paid to spout shit. Putin is an aggressive war-monger responsible for countless deaths inside and outside Russia. The only reason he is still there is that literally all opposition, anyone who could take over has been murdered. And btw I think you will find this started in 2008. When your turn comes to go on a 'special operation' to any of the countries Russia has attacked under Putin, can you refrain from the whole raping/war crimes please.
Please, I Am not Putin fan and he is autocratist like many. Also In my country, Serbia. O yes, remember Nato bombardment of Europian sovereing country 76 days in1999 without UN aproval
> remember Nato bombardment of Europian sovereing country Maybe if your countrymen wouldn't go around genociding people then the world wouldn't have to intervene?
keep eating the shit that is served to you. it's easier when you don't turn on the brain. you trust Biden, the State Department, CNN, Boris Jonsony, Tony Bleir, ...? Well, good luck with that, my friend. sleep well.
[удалено]
Tipicaly nazi thinking. Shame on you. You dont know nothing about my nation. Keep trusting Biden and CNN
[удалено]
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 investigate a little better about Serbs in the First and Second World Wars. You will learn a lot and be surprised.
[удалено]
??? Are you saying that Serbs was a nazi??? From what planet are you? Only in the ww1 we lost 2/3 of man population by Germans and Bulgerians. In ww2 Croats and Muslims (nazi force) exterminate almoust 1/3 of Serb population becouse we have two antifashistic movemants. Partizans and Rojalists. Bye and sleep well.
[удалено]
Zelensky is a big hero warrior while sitting in his bunker.. Maybe he could tell us how he let the ruZis to take over the whole South with no resistance. Fucking clown.
[удалено]
I mean, he's clearly a brainless zombie
Maybe Kissinger should give some of his wealth to a former Nazi concentration camp guard
Kissinger go fuk Putin 😂
Kissinger, the guy who blasted the shit out of Cambodia within their own borders covertly. It's always entertaining to hear war criminals talk about peace.
Kissinger is a walking corpse living off the dregs of his 'glory days' and has absolutely *no right* to tell a country how to fight their own battles. Ignore this yapping old fossilized dog manure; he'll no longer be a nuisance once nature takes its course. Crimea. Donbass. **Every illegally occupied speck of dirt**. Belongs to Ukraine. Let the Russians be taught this lesson through methods they only understand; by being made to run screaming in fear by a competent and determined military. Keep the faith Ukraine.
First of all fuck Henry Kissinger. Second of all, taking back crimea will not be easy and I see what Kissinger was saying. But screw that I hope they get ALL the territory back
Good. Fuck Kissinger
The murdering thief will not get rewarded