Kissinger Is Crazy To Imply That Ukraine Might Invade NATO If It Doesn’t Become A Member

By Andrew Korybko

The scenario of Ukraine invading neighbouring Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and/or Romania is a political fantasy, especially since it would trigger Article 5’s mutual defence clause. Candidly speaking, this sequence of events is something that one would expect to hear from an anti-Ukrainian propagandist and not a guru of global affairs like Henry Kissinger.

Former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger gave an extended interview to The Economist about global affairs that was published earlier this week. Among the many issues that he discussed with them was Ukraine, which he implied might invade NATO if it doesn’t become a member. There’s no reason to expect that it would do this for the reasons that’ll be explained in this analysis, but before doing so, it’s important to cite Kissinger’s own words for everyone to read themselves:

“We have now armed Ukraine to a point where it will be the best-armed country and with the least strategically experienced leadership in Europe.

If the war ends like it probably will, with Russia losing many of its gains, but retaining Sevastopol, we may have a dissatisfied Russia, but also a dissatisfied Ukraine—in other words, a balance of dissatisfaction.

So, for the safety of Europe, it is better to have Ukraine in NATO, where it cannot make national decisions on territorial claims.”

To be sure, he’s correct about Ukraine being “the best-armed country and with the least strategically experienced leadership in Europe” after receiving over $165 billion in military aid over the past 15 months, but that doesn’t mean that it might invade NATO if it became “dissatisfied”. This country is being exploited as a proxy by NATO to wage Hybrid War on Russia and is even poised to possibly invade parts of that targeted Great Power’s pre-2014 universally recognized territory at their behest.

It’s not a subject of International Relations capable of making independent decisions but an object in the NATO-Russian proxy war that’ll go along with whatever its patrons demand. This includes agreeing to a ceasefire after the end of its upcoming counteroffensive if the West becomes financially, militarily, and/or politically fatigued by that point, albeit one that isn’t mediated by China. Politico and other outlets are already talking about precisely this scenario citing unnamed US officials.

Regardless of however “dissatisfied” Ukraine might be with that outcome, it isn’t going to turn its guns against NATO afterwards. The scenario of it invading neighbouring Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and/or Romania is a political fantasy, especially since it would trigger Article 5’s mutual defence clause. Candidly speaking, this sequence of events is something that one would expect to hear from an anti-Ukrainian propagandist and not a guru of global affairs like Kissinger.

As was assessed last December when he flipped from his prior stance of being against Ukraine’s NATO membership to all of a sudden supporting it, he seems to be thinking only about his own legacy ahead of his 100^th birthday next week and is thus saying whatever he feels he should in order to be appreciated. His earlier position of being opposed to that bloc’s eastward expansion last spring saw him provoke Western perception managers into furiously condemning him, which seems to have left an impression.

Kissinger now knows better than to go against the narrative grain and has instead sought to lead their information warfare operations in this conflict by abusing his so-called “authority” in International Relations to argue for the same scenario that he used to be against. In pursuit of that end, he’s now resorting to shameless fearmongering to scare average Westerners into supporting this after many of them have become increasingly critical of their governments’ role in waging Hybrid War on Russia.

The reality is that NATO will continue backing Ukraine until it gets too exhausted from this conflict, after which it’ll order its proxy to agree to a ceasefire that’ll probably be mediated by anyone other than China such as the African Union and/or India. Once that happens, it’ll probably extend security guarantees to that country as a so-called “deterrent”, but that bloc is unlikely to invite it to join. In the far-fetched chance that it does, however, it won’t be out of fear that Kiev will invade existing members.

Categories: Analysis, Geopolitics, International Affairs

Tags: Geopolitics, NATO, Russia, Ukraine