Why Did Kissinger Change His Mind?
During an interview with him on German channel ZDF, and in response to one of the questions, Kissinger said: “giving up Ukrainian territory should not be one of the conditions we can accept”.
On May 23, two months before the above statement, and while attending the Davos conference, Kissinger said: “Ukraine should give up part of its territory to Russia to help end the invasion”. So, what happened and why did was there a shift from one extreme to the other?
Pondering and analyzing Kissinger’s statements and how they shifted, is not of little importance at all, and in the current circumstances, his relatively few statements probably seem more important even than those of the American President himself. It is no secret that the man was and still is part of the US’ deep state, which continues to operate regardless of the successive fronts of power, not to mention his well-known and strong relationship with both the oil and arms moguls, as well as with global Zionism. This means that, and to a significant extent, he plays the role of one of the ideological theorists for the global elite’s interests, and at times he plays the role of its unofficial spokesperson.
Before going further in explaining Kissinger’s 180-degree shift in his position on the Ukrainian situation, we should note that Kassioun has devoted two extensive articles to discussing his previous statements. The first is entitled: “Kissinger’s ‘Shocking’ Remarks, and the Comedic Tragedy”, published on May 25, and the second is entitled: “The Peaceful BRICS Hydrogen Bomb! What Happened Between Kissinger-Davos and Putin-Petersburg?”, published on June 23.
The two aforementioned articles form the necessary basis upon which this article is built. Since it would be tedious to summarize all the ideas mentioned therein (and it would be better to go back and read them in their entirety), it suffices here to summarize the most important of those ideas:
- Kissinger’s statements at the end of May created a “shock” in the media and political circles. In them, he called for a quick dialogue with the Russians within two months, and implicitly proposed the possibility of ceding territory from Ukraine in order to reach a deal.
- At the time, we essentially said that the man is proposing with his words a deal to the Russians, in the name of the global elite, the purpose of which was to lure Russia with some of Ukraine’s territory, with a reasonable position within the current world system. However, that was with one main condition: Russia stops its joint war with China, not on Ukraine, but on the global financial system.
- It quickly became clear that he indeed spoke for the global elite and, regardless of the “shock”, European leaders and even Biden were quick to publicly repeat the essence of Kissinger’s own words (all shown in the preceding two articles).
- We have observed that a state of media calm extended for less than a month: from May 23 with Kissinger’s statements, until June 17, when the calm ended and the escalation returned to a higher level than before, and it continues to escalate. On June 17, Putin announced at the Petersburg Conference that: “Work is underway to create an international reserve currency on the basis of the BRICS basket of currencies”, which is what we called in the previous article “the peaceful BRICS hydrogen bomb”.
- With this statement, it became clear to the global elite that the deal offered under the table had been rejected.
- The logic behind the deal is, in essence, a variant of the old notebook of bankrupt old merchant, Kissinger. What is meant by the deal is an attempt to absorb and contain Russia, albeit by making important concessions, to keep it away from the major international battle over the world order, and in this case, to distance it from China. We say a variation of the old notebook, because this is what happened, even if it is from the second chapter; that is, through China and against the Soviet Union in the 20th century and at Kissinger’s hands himself.
What is new?
Kissinger did not need to come out again to express the 180-degree shifted position from two months ago, because the order that operations go towards a comprehensive escalation had reached the concerned officials (European presidents and EU institutions’ employees, as well as the top American employee, i.e., Biden, etc.). The order that operations escalate and the deal fails had arrived since June 17. So, what prompted Kissinger to appear again to confirm it?
- The escalation by employees at the level of presidents in Europe and the US is not the final word in any way, as those may change their words or be changed themselves whenever the need arises. However, Kissinger’s statement means exactly that the deal / offer, has been permanently withdrawn off the table.
- Between June 17 (i.e., the announcement of the peaceful BRICS hydrogen bomb and the subsequent escalation) and the final withdrawal of the deal, many major things occurred.
- The catastrophic American failure of Biden’s visit, with the great risks this entails for the future of the petrodollar preliminarily, and for the future of the Zionist entity secondarily.
- The success of the tripartite summit in Astana not only in strengthening bilateral relations, but also in jumping over the American mine that tried to portray Astana as a pole opposite Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Arab countries in general. There is no better evidence of that than the Saudi-Iranian negotiations soon becoming public, and also direct. It is no secret that the Russians and Chinese are playing an important role in pushing the two countries to reach a common ground, and there has been work on this not for months, but for many years.
- Moreover, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey are preparing to join BRICS.
- No less important or symbolic than all of the above is the issue of the Jewish Agency, about which Kassioun published two extensive articles: “Russia and the Jewish Agency: Far from Ukraine, Closer to Moscow!” (in Arabic) and “What Does Western Media Say about the Jewish Agency Crisis? In What Context does this Crisis Emerge? What Meanings Does it Carry?” (in Arabic)
- The essence of the matter is that the Jewish Agency is a symbolic and practical representation not of the state of the Zionist entity, as the media disseminates, but of global Zionism, that is, the parent company of the Zionist entity in occupied Palestine. Global Zionism is, in essence, a block of finance capital with wide global influence, and is closely and existentially linked to the dollar. Russia’s initiation of the battle against the Jewish Agency means that the battle with the global financial system has entered the “Holy of Holies”, has cut off any possibility of retreat, and the battle has turned into an existential battle for the global financial system, and for Zionism implicitly, as well as for Russia.
All this means that the possibilities of reaching any kind of deal have become immeasurably weaker than it was two months ago. The battle will continue at the global level, and it is also not excluded that it will include China in parallel with including Russia, because postponing the battle with one of them ensured the possibility that the other would be neutralized. However, with the current state of unity, solidarity, and cooperation between Russia and China, the global elite has no choice but to fight its own doomsday war on all fronts at the same time.
Nevertheless, the prospects for reaching a major global settlement still exist, but its only available form would be more of a surrender treaty than a peace treaty.