Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, aged 99, has released a new book recently titled “Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy” and as a result has been on the interview circuit. A review of his life can be found on Wikipedia. An interesting interview was reported on Spiegel International recently. I was alive when Kissinger was doing shuttle diplomacy in Viet Nam and when he and Nixon went to China for the summit with Zhou Enlai and Mao Zedong in 1972. Nixon’s trip to China was a very big event then.

Right at the start of the interview, Spiegel asked Kissinger about a comment he is alleged to have said at the recent Davos conference. Kissinger was quick to correct the report.

Der Spiegel: “… Is this what you had in mind with your recent statement at the World Economic Forum in Davos, when you suggested that Ukraine accept a temporary division of the country, developing one part into a pro-Western, democratic and economically strong nation while waiting for history to reunite the country as a whole?”

Kissinger: “What I said is this: To end this war, the best dividing line would be the status quo ante, which means 93 percent of the country. That’s quite a different thing. If one identifies the status quo ante as the objective, that would mean that aggression has not succeeded. The issue, then, is a ceasefire along the February 24 line of contact. The territory still controlled by Russia, which makes up about 2.5 percent of Ukrainian territory in the Donbas as well as the Crimean Peninsula, would then be part of a general negotiation.”

Kissinger goes on the comment on China and Taiwan. He suggests that while the US is involved with Russian aggression indirectly, a Chinese attack on Taiwan would be full scale and put the US and China in direct conflict.

Kissinger believes in the support given to Ukraine by NATO to defeat Russian aggression. He goes on to emphasize that Europe needs to find a working relationship with Russia irrespective of the outcome of the Russian-Ukrainian war. He says-

 “… the relationship of Russia to Europe needs to be addressed, namely the question as to whether it is a part of European history, or a permanent opponent based on other territories. That will become a main issue. And it is one that is independent of the conclusion of the war in Ukraine …”.

This kind of strategic thinking is in the realm of statesmanship.