"Kissinger's Principles"... Will They Save What's Left of Ukraine?

A great debate and various speculations abounded in Washington regarding the future of Ukraine after it was subjected to the Russian invasion more than two months ago.

At a time when no one knows how the war will end amid the attempts of the Russian and Ukrainian sides to improve their military situation on the ground due to the importance of this in any serious negotiations to stop the fighting and agree on future settlements, there is no certainty in any assessment of the timing or conditions of the cessation of hostilities.

The fighting continues with the aim of improving the negotiating position of each party, which was expressed frankly and clearly by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, telling Interfax a few days ago that "of course everything will end with the signing of an agreement, but the terms of this agreement will depend on the combat situation on the ground."

To be sure, the United States will have to accept compromises that the American elite will find unfair, albeit realistic, on the Ukrainian side.

The US position on the war in Ukraine has not changed, with the administration of Joe Biden adopting a realistic position that excludes any risk of direct confrontation with Russia, and calculating the degrees of military support provided to Ukraine so as not to prompt a direct military conflict with Moscow, with the risks of escalation towards a nuclear confrontation that he does not seek. nobody.

To be sure, the United States will have to make compromises that the American elite will find unfair, if realistic, to the Ukrainian side.

The decisive US rejection of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's demands and pressures to impose a no-fly zone over his country's skies or to supply his army with attack fighter planes represented a prelude to Washington's realism towards scenarios to stop the war, despite its continued support for Ukraine militarily and economically to inflict Russia's largest possible losses.

Any agreement that results from the peace talks between Ukraine and Russia will reflect a realistic approach to US policy, which was expressed by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 2014, disappointing Ukraine's supporters inside and outside the United States at the time, and ignored by the American elite in the context of the ongoing conflict.

At a time when Washington puts all the blame for the war on one person, Russian President Putin, it can be recalled that Henry Kissinger, the former US Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, warned against slipping into an unhelpful confrontation with Russia and the possibility of avoiding any conflict over or in Ukraine.

Kissinger wrote following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, calling on the administration of President Barack Obama to exercise restraint, stressing that direct confrontation with Russia is not in the interest of the United States, and that the strategic value of Ukraine is limited.

None of these facts have changed in Washington over recent years or due to current developments, as the risks of escalation against Russia remain very high despite Ukraine's strategic irrelevance to US interests.

Without the United States and NATO militarily involved in the war, Ukraine will likely have to make concessions and accept some of the terms Russia wants in any peace deal.

This may include Ukraine with different territorial borders and a security relationship with Russia that the Ukrainians do not want, which will not differ much from what Kissinger proposed in general principles to control Ukraine's relations with Russia in the future.

Kissinger acknowledged that real policy skills appear in how to end wars, not in igniting them, and Kissinger said that "if Ukraine is to survive and prosper, it must not be an outpost of either side against the other, the West or Russia, but must act as a bridge between them." "The West must realize that Ukraine, in the eyes of Russia, can never be just an ordinary foreign country," he added.

Kissinger believed that Russia would not be able to impose a military solution on Ukraine without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders were already precarious.

Kissinger criticized the demonization of America and the West of President Vladimir Putin, and considered it a non-political act. Rather, he saw it as evidence of the absence of politics.

Kissinger presented a four-dimensional vision for preserving Ukraine, and saving face for Russia and the West at the same time, as follows:

First: Ukraine should have the right to freely choose its economic and political orientation, including the pursuit of membership in the European Union.

Second, Ukraine should not join NATO at all.

Third: Ukraine should follow the neutral Finland model, in which it approaches the West in all fields, but carefully avoids antagonizing Russia.

Fourth: Russia recognizes Ukraine's sovereignty over the Crimea, with its fleet and its enjoying a special status at the Sivatspol naval base.

Kissinger admitted that his vision is only a set of general principles that will not satisfy any of the parties to the crisis, but it may reflect a balanced satisfaction between them.

Prior to the 2014 war, Ukraine had a crucial choice, either to choose to join NATO, or to pursue a policy of neutrality.

The new elite in Kyiv chose NATO, and today Ukraine is paying a heavy price for the wrong choice of its elite, facing great destruction and possibly losing more of its territory.

It seems that the unfolding Ukrainian tragedy could have been avoided if Kyiv and its fancy Western elites had followed the advice of someone with the expertise and realism of Henry Kissinger.