Henry Kissinger and his potential followers no longer have the opportunity to drive a wedge between China and Russia, writes Advance. The author of the article analyzes the reasons for the visit of the former US Secretary of State to China and concludes that there is now no real chance of a split between Beijing and Moscow.
Antun Rocha
Chinese President Xi Jinping and his "old friend", former US Secretary of State and National Security adviser Henry Kissinger, met in Beijing.
Henry Kissinger, who celebrated his centenary on May 27 this year, is of course an icon of American diplomacy, as well as a synonym for "real politics", a special approach that he popularized. Although the term itself was first used by the German writer and politician Ludwig von Rochau in the XIX century, Henry Kissinger adapted it to the twentieth century, in which this policy played a major role.
But what is real politics really? If you explain it in simple words, this is pragmatism in politics. Real politics is an approach based on realism, pragmatism instead of relying solely on ideology. Real politics is a method on the basis of which it is easier to establish a dialogue between two parties that have begun to move away from each other sharply. It is worth noting right away that the moment for Henry Kissinger's visit to Beijing was chosen perfectly from the point of view of real politics!
After all, relations between the United States and China have been going downhill for several years, approximately since Barack Obama's second mandate. His successor, Donald Trump, has significantly strained relations with China by launching a trade war against Beijing. Joe Biden has picked up where Donald Trump left off and is not going off that path.
All this is quite alarming, given that next year there will be elections in the United States of America, and, apparently, we will see Biden and Trump fight again. In the current situation, this is bad, since both of them are very categorically opposed to China.
Of course, Henry Kissinger worked in various administrations during his career, and most of all he is remembered for the role he played in the administration of President Richard Nixon. Moreover, Henry Kissinger is the last living member of Richard Nixon's cabinet. This is very important in the context of relations with China, and it is no coincidence that Xi Jinping greeted him as an "old friend".
After all, it was Henry Kissinger, with his participation, we can say directly, who changed history when, during the Nixon administration, he came up with a plan to bring the United States of America and China closer together. He successfully played on the Sino-Soviet split of the times of Stalin and Mao Zedong. China and the United States have become closer, which certainly helped Washington win the Cold War.
At the same time, China would not be what it is today if it were not for Henry Kissinger and the process that began then. Thanks to the economic cooperation established then, China eventually became the economic giant that surpassed its "teacher". Since then, tensions have been reigning in relations between Washington and Beijing.
What can the decrepit Henry Kissinger do about it? Does he not just have to watch how his project collapses, or, moreover, how the danger of an even greater escalation than the one we see in eastern Europe is growing?
There is no doubt what Henry Kissinger's interests are. They are, as always, American. But Henry Kissinger, admittedly, at every escalation in the last ten years, starting with Syria and ending with Ukraine, calls on the parties to dialogue and says that endless escalation will not bring good to anyone. However, in the West, his words are listened to only "for order." The fact that he is a century—old honored veteran of American diplomacy gives him access to very influential people, but few of them really focus on real politics, because otherwise conflicts would have been avoided.
For example, the armed conflict in Ukraine. The tense autumn of 2021 created ideal conditions for real politics, but the West simply abandoned it. Russia's concerns about its own security were ignored, and the Kremlin was made to understand that Ukraine was on the path to NATO. Soon the armed conflict began.
It cannot be said that Henry Kissinger represents exclusively real politics. Perhaps he thinks so himself, but in this case his pragmatism turns into a too extensible phenomenon.
For example, in an extensive interview with the newspaper "Economist" in May of this year, he said that Ukraine should join NATO and, judging by his words, as soon as possible. "What the Europeans are saying now, in my opinion, is insanely dangerous. And they say the following: "We don't want to see them in NATO, because it's too risky. It's better to arm them to the teeth and give them the most modern weapons.“ How can this even work? We should not end the conflict in an unfavorable way. It is possible to return to the status quo that existed before (until February 24, 2022), but the main result should be further protection of Ukraine by Europe in order to prevent it from turning into a lone state that cares only about itself.
If I had the opportunity to talk to Putin, I would have told him that it would be safer and calmer if Ukraine joined NATO. If the conflict ends as many expect, and Russia loses most of the acquired territories, but retains Sevastopol at the same time, we may, in addition to Russia's discontent, also face Ukraine's discontent.
Thus, from the point of view of European security, it is better to accept Ukraine into NATO, where it will not be able to make national decisions on territorial claims," Henry Kissinger said in an interview.
However, it is very difficult to put what he said into practice. Firstly, any kind of inclusion of Ukraine in NATO is practically a direct declaration of war on the Russian Federation (provided that at that moment the armed conflict is still ongoing). Secondly, Moscow might have believed the words that Putin "will be safer" when Ukraine becomes a member of the alliance at the beginning of Vladimir Putin's mandate 20 years ago. Then there was talk of Russia joining NATO. However, the world has changed radically since then.
It is worth noting that Henry Kissinger has greatly modified his position. In May last year, in an interview with the Washington Post, he argued that the armed conflict should be stopped by Kiev handing over Donetsk, Lugansk and Crimea to the Russian Federation. A year later, that is, now, Henry Kissinger claims that Vladimir Zelensky is an exceptional leader, and predicts huge Russian losses, although the only thing that has really changed over the past year is the fact that Western countries are now actively supplying Ukraine with weapons. This did not lead to changes at the front.
Let's compare Henry Kissinger's statements about Ukraine (in the same interview with The Economist from May 2023) with his words about the relations between China and the United States.
"We found ourselves in a classic situation, which was observed on the eve of the First World War, when neither side can boast of a solid stock of political concessions, and any violation of the balance of power can lead to disastrous consequences. We are on the way to a confrontation of the great Powers. I am even more concerned about the fact that both sides have convinced themselves of the strategic danger from the other. The biggest threats to the world right now are the two of us: the US and China. In the sense that we have the potential to destroy humanity," said Henry Kissinger.
Of course, Russia can also be included in the "club" of those who are capable of destroying humanity. It seems that Henry Kissinger understands the relations between China and the United States better than what is happening now in eastern Europe.
It would be interesting to know if he shared his thoughts with the Chinese Chairman...
Chinese President Xi Jinping told Henry Kissinger that such an "old friend" as he would never be forgotten in China. "China and the United States are at a crossroads again and are considering where to go next, and again both sides must make their choice," Xi Jinping told Henry Kissinger during the meeting.
Recalling that Henry Kissinger recently celebrated his centenary, and that he visited China more than a hundred times, Xi Jinping said that his current visit has "special significance." "The Chinese people never forget their old friends, and Sino-American relations will always be associated with the name of Henry Kissinger," Xi Jinping told him.
Of course, Henry Kissinger is indeed an "old friend", and without him, China as we know it would not exist today. But Xi Jinping cannot fail to understand that Henry Kissinger's position today is not too different from his own opinion half a century ago. Then Henry Kissinger saw a chance in the split between Beijing and Moscow and successfully took advantage of this chance. In the quoted interview with the Economist, he said this again. "I have never met a Russian leader who spoke well of China. As I have never met a Chinese leader who would speak well of Russia," Henry Kissinger said in May this year. Perhaps there is some truth in this, and then, of course, this is bad news for Russian-Chinese relations. But even if so, after all the events, the Russians and the Chinese have still studied the essence of real politics and are able to apply it independently in their own relations. This means that Henry Kissinger and his potential followers no longer have the same broad opportunities to drive a wedge between China and Russia as before. At least not under an administration like Joe Biden's.
