Guest Post by Paul Craig Roberts
Henry Kissinger at 100 years of age left the world he temporarily altered for the better after watching the neoconservatives in the Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden regimes wipe out his accomplishments.
Kissinger and President Nixon were men of peace. They inherited a disastrous war–Vietnam–that they had no hand in making. President John F. Kennedy intended to stop the war before it could get started, which was one of the reasons he was assassinated by the CIA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secret Service. The Soviet Threat had to be resisted even at the cost of President Kennedy’s life and the trauma inflicted on what was still in those days a free nation.
President Nixon and Kissinger also had to restart the efforts of President Kennedy to defuse the dangerous tensions of the Cold War that both the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Vietnam war brought to the surface. The pursuit of detente by the Nixon administration produced the Strategic Arms Limitations Agreement and created a working relationship between Washington and Moscow. Nixon’s opening to China might have prevented another war. Nixon and Kissinger’s achievements in defusing the Cold War were unrivaled until President Reagan and Soviet leader Gorbachev ended the Cold war.
The Clinton regime violated the word of the George H.W. Bush administration that in exchange for the Soviet Union permitting the reunification of Germany, the US would not move NATO one inch toward the East. All subsequent US regimes exited from all of the arms agreements that had reduced tensions and created a bond of trust between the nuclear superpowers. This bond is especially important, because of the numerous false warnings from warning systems.
The consequence of unraveling the work of Nixon, Kissinger, and Reagan is the total lack of trust today between the US and Russia. The situation today is far worse than it was in the darkest days of the Cold War.
As an insider I well know that the problem of conservative presidents, such as Nixon and Reagan, in easing tensions with Russia is that their conservative base is suspicious of the effort. I well remember that Reagan’s efforts at detente with the Soviet Union were suspected by Reagan’s conservative base. Conservatives worried that a former movie star was not a match for cunning communists, and that America would come out the loser.
Nixon faced a worse problem. He was trapped by President Johnson’s regime in a gratuitous war that could not be won. But if he left without winning he would endanger his base of support. The problem of the conservative base is the reason both Reagan and Nixon spoke aggressively, thus causing the leftwing to see them as warmongers.
The dilemma Nixon and Kissinger faced is the reason for the Cambodian bombings. They were desperate to get a situation from which they could exit the war without it being interpreted as a defeat by their political base. They were trying to use force to achieve an honorable exit, but the enemy would not give it to them.
The leftwing, of course, unable to comprehend the conundrum, interpreted Nixon and Kissinger as war criminals. This erroneous interpretation has held to the present day. See: https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/11/30/kissingers-bombing-campaign-likely-killed-hundreds-of-thousands-of-cambodians-and-set-the-path-for-the-ravages-of-the-khmer-rouge/
Today I still encounter American conservatives who claim that Reagan won the Cold War. This is nonsense. Reagan told those of us involved that the purpose was to end, not win, the Cold War.
Conservatives justify Reagan as the winner of the Cold War, as the man who collapsed the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union collapsed three years after Reagan left office. No one, including the CIA, expected the collapse of the Soviet Union. It caught the US government off guard. The Soviet collapse occurred because hardline members of the Politburo, who feared Gorbachev was liberalizing too rapidly, placed Soviet President Gorbachev under house arrest. It was Gorbachev’s arrest that led to Yeltsin and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Henry Kissinger was not a neoconservative who believed in US hegemony over the world. He believed in stability. American power was to be used to maintain stability. In those days there were still Marxist movements or alleged Marxist elements which were often only national movements. In pursuit of stability, Kissinger often overthrew regimes he regarded as destabilizing. But his reason was to maintain stability in a dangerous world.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
I don’t know what to make of this.
Spin, spin, spin. Nixon prolonged the war to win reelection.
It’s PCR. He suffers from political arrested development. Senility and dementia will do that to a person. IOW, he’s been livin in the past for quite some time now.
This is the farthest PCR’s ever been off, and that’s saying something. And he’s good – very good – on many things. Not this time.
You got that right. I think he wrote this out of personal guilt.
Give it a break, Paul “Ball Polisher” Craig Robert.
One of the snake’s heads was cut off and we’re glad for that. FHK, FJB and FPCR too.
Nixon was a goddamn child rapist and Kiss”my ass”inger too.
Nixon touched kids? Links?
Who is writing PCR’s essays lately because it definitely isn’t him.
Kissinger a man of peace? He’s responsible for more dead Cambodians than Pol Pot.
I felt the same way about VDH’s “Unhinged” article.
Dementia doesn’t fall on you like a piano from a 4th story window. It sneaks up on you like a thief in the night.
My friend’s father worked for The Allen Group in the 1960s to the 80s . The company was run by Walter Kissenger . He ran a factory in Fajardo , Puerto Rico . I always felt it had a strong connection to the CIA. I had a few vacay to The Rio Mar resort where they owned condos used as residences for the big wigs . My friend’s mother and brother both attended Harvard for post graduate degrees . They also traveled to Moscow during the cold war . Many strange things .
Hey Paul, kissinger is in He’ll, his sympathizers and tranny lover will be there with him. Good day!
Oh, so Kissinger had all those bombs dropped and all those people killed and all those regimes violently overthrown because he believed in stability.
Roberts must really think his readers are stupid.
Are there any history commenters who have the ability to explain “what happened” as the intentional planned events they are?
Jees louise man, virtually every “historian” speaks of “what happened as if it were weather or a pandemic….
“War broke out in 1914..”
“War broke out in 1939..”
War, is just politics with extreme prejudice.
It is planned.
It doesn’t just happen.
Please find a more accurate way to define the beginning of hot wars.
“In 1914, the world caught the war virus. The pandemic lasted until 1918.”
“In 2023, a war pandemic broke out in the Levant”
In 1914, an assassination was staged to set the stage world war one.
Etc ad nuaseum.
The problem is that most people simply accept whatever narrative is pushed during wartime or in the run up to a conflict because they cannot discern the true purpose. Sometimes the narratives are slightly more plausible than other times, but on average they are thin as tissue paper- they hate us for our freedom, anyone?
The real purpose is simply a pecker show. Ugly men seeking to spread their seed while eliminating as much of the competition as possible. All the rest of it is stage dressing and costumes.
Yeah, but ” they hate us for our freedom” is probably true, just the people telling us that were / are the terrorist.
Considering the Folsom Parade?
I hate us for our freedoms.
WTF? An apologist for Kissinger?? Sorry but, this dog don’t hunt.
Not to worry! Noval Harari and Soros’ son will pick up right where Henry left off…doing the Devil’s work.
Here’s the deal:
I usually don’t care for Greenwald. But this one is a gem. Thanks.
To understand Kissinger (and Armstrong’s article), you can’t view politics through the lens of morality. There is no morality in international politics, there is only the acquisition and maintenance of power. Kissinger’s world view was based on the idea of balancing that power between the United States, China, and the Soviet Union, and the result was exactly what Armstrong described – a reduction in tension between the members of the nuclear club. Kissinger understood that war with either of those powers was and is a losing proposition, and history has validated that idea. You can agree or disagree with Armstrong’s thoughts, but his analysis of Kissinger is spot on.
well.. first, let’s clear up the fact that it is PCR and not Armstrong, although the b.s. and ignorance is quite similar.
(The fact that you seem to be a teacher, makes this all the more sad. Please tell us you teach grammer and English.)
Kissinger’s chess game for the multipolar balance most assuredly collapsed many countries, their governments and their people all in the name of a ‘greater good’. I think you have spent far too much time with revised teachers’ editions and lesson plan answers to think critically any longer.
Was your misspelling of “grammar” intended as irony?
Next tell us that history will validate Nuttyahoo’s ideas.
…the result was exactly what Armstrong described – a reduction in tension between the members of the nuclear club.
But the exact opposite happened.
Are you unaware of that or are you living in an alternative timeline?
Nope. He was a sellout. Then spent decades selling out from the shadows and paying people to sellout America.
He was for, and worked towards, the new world order. Thats all you need to know about Kissinger.
NSSM 200
What a load of Bull crap
Whew, the only thing that makes any sense is the fact the writer admits he was an “insider”, an “in the know” policy maker. Roberts is a die hard Cold Warrior who wants to leave a revised squeaky clean narrative of his time in politics. To call psychopaths like Richard M. Nixon and Henry Kissinger men of peace is so grossly disingenuous it borders on insanity. His belief you can create PEACE by gratuitous aggression and violence (the killing fields or Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Nicaragua for example) is the same consciousness and mendacity being used by the Anglo-American-Zionist Axis of Insanity now.
Robert’s love for Reagan causes him to have amnesia. Reagan was a “Conservative” in name only. The truth is Reagan actually expanded the federal bureaucracy and his trickle down economics was a disaster because he failed to accompany the tax cuts with spending cuts https://www.ushistory.org/us/59b.asp , but that’s another story for another day.
His assertion Reagan ended the “Cold War” does not explain why and how the US Military Industrial Complex still holds so much sway or why the US remains in an All War All the Time mode.
I don’t have time or space to go into the fact Kissinger was an effective globalist agent for the Rockefeller New World Order who helped open China up to direct foreign investment and entry into the World Trade Organization to the point now China is surpassing the US Empire in trade and influence with their Belt and Road Initiative. With out their intervention it is unlikely China would be where it is now!
No amount of Robert’s revisionism will ever change Kissinger’s legacy of crimes against humanity.
Well wrote. Roberts was way off on this one. People often act out of guilt. Was Robert’s justifying his crimes by forgiving Kissinger’s crimes?
Maybe yes. There is a saying that goes: “Where the lion puts its paw, the dog does not tread”.
A fun fact about PCR: His articles are posted on The Unz Review and he is allowed to close comments on them, which he almost always does. Other writers have to suffer criticism in the comment section following their articles.
PCR has really gone off the rails. That old fossil Kissinger is likely right where he belongs albeit years past his use by date. He was a globalist before the term was even a term and was one of the top architects of and responsible for millions of killings in SE Asia, South and Central America and others. I can imagine that all the other political fossils will be lionizing him in DC in 3…2…1…
Told Ya before. Cognitive Dissonance WILL wreak havoc on Your mind.
NEVER too late, to break free.
You have a fine mind, a Prayer for You, Sir.
At a bare minimum, I cannot square PCR’s account of Henry the K vs. the fact that Henry the K was Klaus Schwab’s mentor at Harvard … and, likely, ever since …