Kissinger’s right – punishing Putin won’t help Ukraine

In the UK and the US, the invasion of Ukraine has led to a dispute about geopolitics, and the wrong side might be winning. The contenders are Henry Kissinger and the Skibbereen Eagle. In 1898, the editor of that newspaper, one Frederick Potter, warned the Czar of all the Russias that the Eagle had its eye on him. Potter enjoyed wagging his finger at emperors: a harmless pursuit, in those days when his freedom of speech was guaranteed by the British Empire and the Royal Navy.

Now, however, it is no longer a matter of a stage Irishman pronouncing on international affairs. A lot of people in the West who will never have heard of the Skibbereen Eagle are its political heirs. They too believe in finger-wagging. In that spirit, they are calling for Russia to be humiliated: to be driven out of Crimea and to lose the territories in the Donbass which it has over-run since 2014. It is easy to understand why people react in that way. Ukrainian forces have given a magnificent display of courage and gallantry. As for the sufferings inflicted upon their civilians – those are too horrible to contemplate. Russia deserves to be punished for its brutality, while the heroes of Ukraine ought to enjoy an earthly Valhalla.

Thus speak many who are thinking with their emotions. As a result, their conclusions are irrelevant. It is time to switch from feelings to reality and take counsel from that great contemporary master of realism, Henry Kissinger. 

His conclusions are easy to summarise. It is almost impossible for Ukraine to defeat Russia, which is just as well. A humiliated Russia would still possess tactical nuclear weapons, the use of which is part of Russian military doctrine. A nuclear exchange is unlikely. The probable outcome is a grinding conflict: the focal point of a new Cold War. The disruption of food supplies would lead to starvation and instability in the planet’s poorer regions. Inter alia, that would assist Islamic militants. There would also be inflation in the West, encouraging malign political forces. 

In Ukraine, casualty lists would grow, not that the volunteers would be deterred. If there is a Ukrainian translation of dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, Ukraine’s young men would be intoning it as they moved up to the front. But it would be better if their youthful energies were spared to help with the rebuilding of their country, while their parents were spared the need to grieve while hoping that there is a Valhalla, beyond the skies. Those in the West who are defying caution and cheering on the Ukrainian army ought to realise that they are ready to fight until the last Ukrainian. 

Moreover, not all of them are idealists. Boris Johnson hopes that Ukraine will help him to hang on as Prime Minister. Liz Truss hopes that Ukraine could help her to become PM. Dr Kissinger has often been accused of cynicism, because his opponents cannot tell the difference between that quality and tough-mindedness. No-one has ever accused Boris Johnson of being tough-minded.

The Kissingerians want a cease-fire as soon as possible, followed by attempts to negotiate a new system of collective security in Europe, a task which should have been undertaken from the early 90s onwards. It will not be easy. It is urgent.

With a bit of luck, Putin himself will be overthrown. We would be advised to avoid excessive due diligence on his successor. It may well be that not all the perfumes of Arabia would clean his hands. But we need not worry too much about that, as long as the new leadership will have learned a lesson from recent events. It is not wise to invade neighbouring countries. It may even be that this message has been received in Beijing and that Taiwan is now safer than it was three months ago.

Henry Kissinger is 99. His has been a life devoted to the search for wisdom in perilous times, and to statesmanship. Like all sensible Tories, he is a eupeptic pessimist who believes in enjoying life without succumbing to liberal illusions. A refugee from pre-War Central Europe, he witnessed the culmination of the Second Dark Age from 1914-45. Early on in the period, the emperors did all fall, without any help from the Skibbereen Eagle. By the end, old Europe had almost joined them on the rubbish-heap. He was also aware that after 1945, all the ingredients for a third war just needed a blue touch-paper. That did not materialise, not because men had grown better or wiser, but because of the bomb. Atomic and nuclear destruction saved Europe from conventional destruction.

Given half a chance, Lefties will still proclaim a belief in perfectionism. Like Kant, Henry Kissinger knows that out of the crooked timber of humanity, nothing straight is ever made. Patient incremental progress is the most that can be attained. It may be that history will conclude that Henry Kissinger deserves to be ranked with Aristotle, Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Burke: those great intellects who wrestled with the problem of making societies work. 

Anyone who wishes to assist the Ukrainians – as well as diminishing tension – should pay attention to Kissinger’s analysis.