The US media are actively discussing Kissinger’s so-called strategy for China and Russia which was recently revealed. The 95-year-old former Secretary of State would have made it a key element of Trump’s foreign policy.
Five sources have confirmed to the press that the “patriarch of US diplomacy” plan is to use Russia as an aggressive country against China, which is threatening the global hegemony of the United States.
In this scheme, Russia has a role as a tool, analyzes Ivan Danilov. That is, the Kremlin is expected to agree to participate actively in the process that US analysts have called “locking China into a box,” in which the Asian giant could no longer escape.
Indeed, it is assumed that Russia performs the same function in relation to China, which Ukraine has played in relation to Russia, that is, to become a source of tensions, risks and an active participant of a possible blockade, economic or logistic.
Danilov emphasizes that neither the White House nor Henry Kissinger’s office denied the American news story, thus making this information even more reliable.
We will hardly know the truth about Henry Kissinger’s alleged proposals, but the idea that there is a certain anti-Chinese agenda perfectly explains all the steps Americans have taken towards Russia, including new sanctions, and the summit between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump in Helsinki, believes the Russian analyst.
“Trump is not an ordinary negotiator and his style of closing financial or political deals goes beyond conventional diplomacy,” he notes.
According to Danilov, many former Trump partners argue that their typical method corresponds, first of all, to the most rigid threats possible, followed by a very small, generally insignificant, but in the context of threats seems important.
In this way the situation was negotiated around North Korea and the commercial war with China. In the case of Russia, it is even more evident: sanctions are first imposed as punishment, then there is a threat of additional sanctions and, like a carrot, comes the hypothetical cancellation of sanctions and even the receipt of US investments.
The problem with this approach is that even in the negotiations, despite their huge political ties, elite backgrounds and large financial resources, Trump faced opponents or partners who did not want to tolerate their methods, and after the first threats ended up abandoning negotiations, recalled the analyst.
In addition, Trump suffered six corporate bankruptcies. In the business environment, the future US president could afford to look for not very firm counterparts, but geopolitics does not work like this: the club of great powers is very small, which makes it impossible to eliminate the consequences of bankrupt relationships, said Danilov.
For him, it is hard to imagine a more unproductive tactic of interaction with Vladimir Putin than Trump’s threats. The Russian leader has repeatedly stressed that it is impossible to achieve cooperation with Russia through threats or pressures.
“No matter how sweet the promises of ‘friendship’ with Washington against Beijing, accepting the ‘Kissinger plan’ would be a big mistake. Just look at Ukraine to see the transformation of a country being used as ‘battering ram’ against a great neighboring power,” Danilov said.
In addition, the expert warned that every agreement with the US is a major risk associated with the fact that any “historic agreement” within the modern American political reality can be easily broken if the presidential administration changes.
Judging by the actions of the Trump administration, his team is still focusing on the idea of using Russia against China through a sanctions whip and a diplomatic carrot. However, the possibilities of putting this scheme into practice are nil, assured the analyst.
“A really productive dialogue in Russian-American relations can only begin when the White House understands that Russia is not a ‘geopolitical hammer’ to break the Great Wall of China, but it is one of the poles of global force with its rights and interests,” he stressed.