Henry Kissinger world order. World order

Current page: 1 (book has 31 pages in total) [available reading passage: 21 pages]

Henry Kissinger
World order

Dedicated to Nancy

© Henry A. Kissinger, 2014

© Translation. V. Zhelninov, 2015

© Translation. A. Milyukov, 2015

© Russian edition AST Publishers, 2015

Introduction
What is “world order”?

In 1961, as a young scientist, I remembered President Harry S. Truman while speaking at a conference in Kansas City. When asked what accomplishments of his presidency he was most proud of, Truman replied: “That we utterly defeated our enemies and then brought them back into the community of nations. I like to think that only America has managed something like this.” Recognizing America's enormous power, Truman was primarily proud of American humanism and commitment to democratic values. He wanted to be remembered not so much as the president of a victorious country, but as the head of state who reconciled enemies.

All of Truman's successors, to varying degrees, followed his beliefs as reflected in this story, and similarly took pride in the above-mentioned components of the American idea. I note that for many years the community of nations, which they fully supported, existed within the framework of the “American Consensus” - states cooperated, steadily expanding the ranks of this world order, observing common rules and norms, developing a liberal economy, abandoning territorial conquests in favor of respect national sovereignties and adopting a representative democratic system of government. American presidents, regardless of their party affiliation, have strongly called on other governments, often with great passion and eloquence, to ensure respect for human rights and the progressive development of civil society. In many cases, support for these values ​​by the United States and its allies has led to significant changes in the status of the population of a particular state.

However, today this “rules-based” system has problems. Frequent exhortations addressed to other countries, calls to “make their contribution,” to play “by the rules of the twenty-first century” and to be “responsible participants in the process” within the framework of common system coordinates clearly show that there is no common understanding of this system for all, no common understanding of “feasible contribution” or “fairness”. Outside the Western world, those regions that were minimally involved in the formulation of the current rules are questioning the effectiveness of the rules as currently formulated and have clearly demonstrated a willingness to make every effort to change the rules in question. Thus, the “international community” that is appealed to today, perhaps more insistently than in any other era, is unable to agree - or even agree - on an unambiguous and consistent set of goals, methods and restrictions.

We live in a historical period when there is a persistent, at times almost desperate pursuit of a concept of world order that eludes general understanding. Chaos threatens us, and at the same time, unprecedented interdependence is being formed: the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the disintegration of former states, the consequences of a predatory attitude towards environment, the persistence, unfortunately, of the practice of genocide and the rapid introduction of new technologies threaten to aggravate habitual conflicts, aggravate them to a degree exceeding human capabilities and the boundaries of reason. New ways of processing and transmitting information unite regions like never before, project local events onto the global level - but in a way that prevents them from being fully understood, while at the same time requiring government leaders to respond instantly, at least in the form of slogans. Are we really entering into new period When will the future be determined by forces that recognize neither restrictions nor any order at all?

Varieties of world order

Let's not lie: a truly global “world order” has never existed. What is now recognized as such has developed in Western Europe Almost four centuries ago, its foundations were formulated at peace negotiations in the German region of Westphalia, without the participation - or even the attention - of most countries on other continents and most other civilizations. A century of religious strife and political upheaval in Central Europe culminated in Thirty Years' War 1618–1648; it was a “world” fire in which political and religious contradictions were mixed; During the war, the combatants resorted to "total war" 1
The Treaty of Westphalia was signed in mid-17th century century, and the concept of total war was developed by German military theorists at the beginning of the 20th century; This concept was based on the fact that modern war has ceased to be a battle of armies and has become a battle of nations - one state, mobilizing all available resources, defeats another, crushing its “spirit”. ( Note translation)

Against key settlements, and as a result, Central Europe lost almost a quarter of its population due to fighting, disease and famine. Exhausted opponents met in Westphalia to agree on a set of measures designed to stop the bloodshed. Religious unity began to crack due to the establishment and spread of Protestantism; political diversity was a logical consequence of the multiplicity of independent political units that participated in the war. As a result, it turned out that Europe was the first to accept the familiar conditions of the modern world: a variety of political units, none of which is powerful enough to defeat all the others; adherence to conflicting principles, ideological views and internal practices, and everyone strives to find some “neutral” rules that regulate behavior and mitigate conflicts.

The Peace of Westphalia should be interpreted as a practical approximation of reality; it does not at all demonstrate any unique moral awareness. This peace rests on the coexistence of independent states that refrain from interfering in each other's internal affairs and balance their own ambitions and the ambitions of others with the principle of a general balance of power. No individual claim to the possession of truth, no universal rule, could reign in Europe. Instead, each state acquired sovereign power over its territory. Each agreed to recognize the internal structures and religious beliefs of its neighbors as realities of life and refrained from challenging their status. Such a balance of power was now seen as natural and desirable, and therefore the ambitions of the rulers acted as a counterbalance to each other, at least in theory limiting the scope of conflicts. Separation and diversity (largely by accident in the development of European history) became distinctive features a new system of international order - with its own worldview, its own philosophy. In this sense, the efforts of Europeans to extinguish their “world” fire helped shape and served as a prototype for the modern approach, when absolute judgments renounce in favor of practicality and ecumenism 2
Ecumenism – unity in diversity, the principle of coexistence of different Christian churches. In this case, instead of the author’s term, it would be more logical to use the definition of “multiculturalism”. ( Note translation.)

; it is an attempt to build order on diversity and containment.

The seventeenth-century negotiators who drew up the terms of the Peace of Westphalia did not, of course, imagine that they were laying the foundations of a global system that would extend far beyond the borders of Europe. They did not even try to involve neighboring Russia in this process, which at that time was establishing its own new order after the hardships of the Time of Troubles, and enshrined into law principles that were radically different from the Westphalian balance of power: absolute monarchy, a single state religion - Orthodoxy and territorial expansion in all directions. However, others major centers the forces did not perceive the Westphalian agreements (so far as they were at all aware of these agreements) as relevant to their territories and possessions.

The idea of ​​world order was realized in a geographical space known to the statesmen of the time; a similar approach is regularly implemented in many regions. This is largely explained by the fact that the dominant technologies of that time did not in any way contribute to the creation of a unified global system - the very thought of the latter seemed unacceptable. Without the means to interact with each other on an ongoing basis, without the ability to adequately assess the “temperature of power” of European regions, each sovereign unit interpreted its own order as unique, and regarded all others as “barbarians” - governed in a manner unacceptable to the existing order and therefore considered as a potential threat. Each sovereign unit considered its order to be an ideal template for the social organization of humanity as a whole, imagining that it was ordering the world through its way of governing.

At the opposite end of the Eurasian continent, China has created its own, hierarchical and theoretically universal, concept of order - with itself at its center. The Chinese system developed over thousands of years, already existing when the Roman Empire ruled Europe as a single whole, relying not on the equality of sovereign states, but on the supposed limitlessness of the emperor’s claims. In the Chinese concept, the concept of sovereignty in the European sense was absent, since the emperor ruled over “the entire Celestial Empire.” He was the pinnacle of a political and cultural hierarchy, streamlined and universal, which extended from the center of the world, which was the Chinese capital, outward to the rest of humanity. The peoples surrounding China were classified according to their degree of barbarism, including their dependence on Chinese writing and cultural achievements (this cosmography has survived well into the modern era). China, from the Chinese point of view, must rule the world, first of all, by awe-inspiring other societies with its cultural splendor and economic abundance, and drawing these other societies into relationships that, if properly managed, can lead to the goal of achieving “celestial harmony.”

If we consider the space between Europe and China, it is necessary to note the primacy in this territory of the universal concept of world order that Islam proposed - with the dream of a one-man, God-sanctioned rule that unites and reconciles the world. In the seventh century, Islam established itself on three continents through an unprecedented "wave" of religious exaltation and imperial expansion. After the unification of the Arab world, the capture of the remnants of the Roman Empire and the subjugation of the Persian Empire 3
This refers to the Sassanid state on the territory of modern Iraq and Iran (in its heyday it occupied the territory from Alexandria in Egypt to Peshawar in Pakistan), which existed until the middle of the 7th century and was destroyed by the Arab Caliphate. ( Note translation)

Islam has become the dominant religion in the Middle East, in North Africa, in many areas of Asia and parts of Europe. The Islamic version of universal order provided for the spread of the true faith throughout the “territory of war” 4
“Territory of war” (Dar al-harb) - in Islamic theology, a land where the majority of the population is infidels who do not profess Islam and are hostile to it. “Territory of war” is contrasted with Dar al-Islam - “territory of Islam”; between them is Dar al-Sulh - “territory of truce”, where they do not believe in Allah, but Muslims are not persecuted. Neither the Koran nor the hadiths (sayings) of the Prophet mention such a division of the world; It is believed that this concept was introduced by theologians of the 13th–14th centuries. ( Note translation)

What did Muslims call the lands inhabited by infidels? the world is destined to become united and find harmony, heeding the word of the prophet Muhammad. While Europe was building its multistate order, the Ottoman Empire, with its metropolis in Turkey, revived this claim to sole “divinely inspired” rule and extended its power to the Arab lands, the Basin Mediterranean Sea, Balkans and Eastern Europe. She, of course, paid attention to the emerging interstate Europe, but did not at all believe that she was observing a model to follow: in the European agreements the Ottomans saw an incentive for further Ottoman expansion to the west. As Sultan Mehmed II the Conqueror put it, admonishing the Italian city-states, that early example of multipolarity in the fifteenth century: “You are twenty cities... You are always bickering among yourself... There must be one empire, one faith, one power in the whole world.”

Meanwhile, on the coast of the Atlantic Ocean opposite from Europe, in the New World, the foundations of a different idea of ​​the world order were being laid. Seventeenth-century Europe was engulfed in political and religious conflict, and Puritan settlers expressed a determined intention to “carry out God's plan” and implement it in a “distant wilderness” in order to free themselves from the regulations of the existing (and, in their opinion, “unfit”) power structure. There they intended to build, to quote Governor John Winthrop, who preached in 1630 aboard a ship bound for the Massachusetts settlement, a “city on a hill,” inspiring the world with the justice of his principles and the power of his example. In the American vision of world order, peace and balance of power are achieved naturally, ancient divisions and enmities must be left in the past until other nations have adopted the same principles of government as the Americans. The task of foreign policy, therefore, is not so much to defend purely American interests as to spread general principles. Over time, the United States emerged as the main defender of the order that Europe had formulated. However, even though the United States lends its authority to European efforts, there is a certain ambivalence in perception - after all, the American vision is based not on the adoption of a European system of balanced power, but on achieving peace through the spread of democratic principles.

Among all the above-mentioned concepts, the principles of the Peace of Westphalia are considered - within the framework of this book - as the only generally accepted basis for what can be defined as the existing world order. The Westphalian system spread throughout the world as a “framework” of interstate and international order, spanning various civilizations and regions, as Europeans, expanding the boundaries of their possessions, imposed their own ideas of international relations everywhere. They often “forgot” about the concept of sovereignty in relation to colonies and colonized peoples, but when these peoples began to demand independence, their demands were based precisely on the Westphalian concept. National independence, sovereign statehood, national interests and non-interference in the affairs of others - all these principles turned out to be effective arguments in disputes with the colonialists, both during the struggle for liberation and in the defense of newly formed states.

The modern, now global Westphalian system - which today is commonly called the world community - seeks to “ennoble” the anarchic essence of the world with the help of an extensive network of international legal and organizational structures, designed to promote open trade and the functioning of a stable international financial system, establish common principles for the settlement of international disputes and limit the scale of wars when they do occur. This interstate system now covers all cultures and regions. Its institutions provide a neutral framework for the interaction of different societies - largely independent of the values ​​professed in particular societies.

At the same time, Westphalian principles are challenged from all sides, sometimes, surprisingly, in the name of world order. Europe intends to move away from the system of interstate relations that it itself designed and to continue to adhere to the concept of united sovereignty 5
This refers to the transfer of a significant part of the powers state power in a sovereign nation-state to a supranational structure, in this case the European Union. ( Note translation)

Ironically, Europe, which invented the concept of the balance of power, is now consciously and significantly limiting the power of its new institutions. Having reduced its own military power, it has practically lost the ability to adequately respond to the violation of these universalist norms.

In the Middle East, jihadists of both Sunni and Shia persuasion continue to divide societies and dismantle nation states in pursuit of global revolution based on fundamentalist versions of the Muslim religion. The very concept of the state, along with the regional system of relations based on it, is now in danger, it is attacked by ideologies that reject the restrictions imposed by the state as illegal, and by terrorist groups, which in a number of countries are stronger than the armed forces of the government.

Asia, some of the most surprising successes among regions that have embraced the concept of sovereign statehood, is still nostalgic for alternative principles and shows the world numerous examples of regional rivalries and historical claims like those that undermined the European order a century ago. Almost every country considers itself a “young dragon,” provoking disagreements to the point of open confrontation.

The United States alternates between defending the Westphalian system and criticizing its underlying principles of the balance of power and non-interference in domestic affairs as immoral and outdated—sometimes doing both at the same time. The United States continues to consider its values ​​to be universally in demand, which should be the basis of the world order, and reserves the right to support them on a global scale. Yet after three wars in two generations—each beginning with idealistic aspirations and widespread public approval and ending with national trauma—America today is struggling to balance its (still evident) power with nation-building principles.

All the major centers of power on the planet use elements of the Westphalian order to one degree or another, but none considers itself a “natural” champion of this system. All of these centers are undergoing significant internal changes. Are regions with such different cultures, history and traditional theories of world order, accept some kind of global system as a law?

Success in achieving such a goal requires an approach that respects both the diversity of human traditions and the roots of human nature desire for freedom. Exactly at in this sense You can talk about a world order, but it cannot be imposed. This is especially true in the era of instant communication and revolutionary political changes. Any world order, to be viable, must be perceived as fair - not only by leaders, but also by ordinary citizens. It must reflect two truths: order without freedom, even approved at first, in a fit of exaltation, ultimately generates its own opposite; however, freedom cannot be secured and secured without a “framework” of order to help maintain peace. Order and freedom, sometimes viewed as opposite poles of the scale of human experience, should be seen as interdependent entities. Can today's leaders rise above the immediate concerns of today to achieve this balance?

Legitimacy and power

The answer to these questions must take into account three levels of concept public order. World order refers to the state of a particular region or civilization within which a set of fair arrangements operates and there is a distribution of power that is considered applicable to the world as a whole. There is an international order practical use of the said system of views to a significant part globe, and the area covered must be large enough to affect the global balance of power. Finally, regional order is based on the same principles applied in a specific geographical area.

Any of the above levels of order is based on two components - a set of generally accepted rules that define the limits of permissible actions, and on the balance of power necessary to deter violation of the rules, which does not allow one political unit to subjugate all others. Consensus on the legitimacy of existing arrangements—now as in the past—does not completely rule out competition or confrontation, but it does help ensure that competition will only take the form of adjustments to the existing order and will not result in a fundamental challenge to that order. The balance of power by itself cannot ensure peace, but if it is carefully worked out and strictly observed, this balance can limit the scale and frequency of fundamental confrontations and prevent them from turning into a global catastrophe.

No book can contain all the historical traditions of the international order, without exception, even within the framework of one country that is now actively participating in shaping the political landscape. In my work, I focus on those regions whose concepts of order have had the greatest influence on modern thinking.

The balance between legitimacy and power is extremely complex and fragile; The smaller the geographical area in which it is applied, the more harmonious the cultural principles within its boundaries, the easier it is to achieve a viable agreement. But modern world a global world order is needed. The diversity of entities, political units, in no way connected with each other historically or value-wise (except for those located at arm's length), defining themselves primarily according to the boundaries of their capabilities, most likely generates conflict, not order.

During my first visit to Beijing, in 1971, to re-establish contacts with China after two decades of hostility, I mentioned that for the American delegation China was “a land of mysteries and secrets.” Prime Minister Zhou Enlai replied: “You will see for yourself that there is nothing mysterious in China. When you get to know us better, we will no longer seem so mysterious to you.” There are 900 million people living in China, he added, and they see nothing unusual in their country. In our time, the desire to establish world order requires taking into account the opinions of societies whose views, until recently, remained largely self-sufficient. The secret that needs to be revealed is the same for all peoples: how the best way combine different historical experiences and traditions into a common world order.

The role of statesman Henry Kissinger in American politics and world politics in general is very great. Not only supporters of his ideas agree with this, but also opponents. In the book "World Order" he examines the state of world politics, expressing his opinion and trying to convey important information to the people, especially to those in power.

The author of this book begins from afar, allowing readers to understand how the global politics. It takes us back to the past, to those events that took place more than three centuries ago. He writes about the Peace of Westphalia, french revolution, the Vienna Congress, the general state of Europe, Russia, the USA, and eastern countries.

In the book, Henry Kissinger talks about positive and negative aspects certain actions. He compares the past with what is happening now. And although it seems that all countries are aimed at development, this is often what becomes the cause of conflicts. In a world where everything is globalized, it is difficult for countries to preserve their traditions and nationality. Some of them can't find the right way to enter world system, but at the same time retain its characteristics. It is very difficult to maintain a balance of power. This can lead to wars when some do not want to understand others. The author of this book examines some of the most pressing problems and says that world politics is now in a difficult situation. It must be subject to changes without fail, otherwise it will not lead to anything good.

On our website you can download the book “World Order” by Henry Kissinger for free and without registration in fb2, rtf, epub, pdf, txt format, read the book online or buy the book in the online store.

World order Henry Kissinger

(No ratings yet)

Title: World Order
Author: Henry Kissinger
Year: 2014
Genre: Foreign educational literature, Foreign journalism, Politics, political science, Journalism: other

About the book "World Order" by Henry Kissinger

The famous world-class politician Henry Kissinger published the book “World Order”, in which he sets out the concept of the political structure of the world, and also comes to the conclusion that the existing system needs to be reconstructed.

Henry Kissinger leads to the main idea of ​​the book gradually, starting with historical information about the formation of the world political system. The author begins the story with Europe: the French Revolution, the Peace of Westphalia, continues to talk about the European balance, mentioning Russia, the Congress of Vienna, Bismarck and Metternich, and asks the question of the legitimacy of power.

Further chapters of the book “World Order” are devoted to the political picture of the Middle East, the United States of America, and Asia. Thus, the author touches on five hundred years of human history from the point of view of the formation and development of politics and diplomacy, as well as the resulting global balance of power.

The last chapters of the book “World Order” are devoted to the role of the United States in the alignment of political forces on the world stage. The author talks about the overwhelming burden of responsibilities she took upon herself politic system America, what difficult and unpopular decisions have to be made, what levers are available in the hands of American diplomacy and the establishment.

In the last chapters, Henry Kissinger comes to the conclusion that the modern world order has suffered a deafening collapse and the old system, which was formed over hundreds of years, no longer works and requires immediate reform.

The book is written tough and complex language A pragmatist and a realist, she provides a comprehensive understanding of international relations and the political ideology of many countries. The reader will learn the advantages and disadvantages of the world order in different parts light, and will also receive information about where the world is moving.

The book “World Order” will be of interest to people interested in history, geopolitics, political structure peace and balance of power.

On our website about books you can download the site for free without registration or read online book"World Order" by Henry Kissinger in epub, fb2, txt, rtf, pdf formats for iPad, iPhone, Android and Kindle. The book will give you a lot of pleasant moments and real pleasure from reading. Buy full version you can from our partner. Also, here you will find last news from the literary world, learn the biography of your favorite authors. For beginning writers, there is a separate section with useful tips and tricks, interesting articles, thanks to which you yourself can try your hand at literary crafts.

Quotes from the book "World Order" by Henry Kissinger

From about 1948 until the end of the century, a short period took shape in the history of mankind when it was possible to talk about an emerging global world order, combining in its framework American idealism with traditional ideas about the balance of power.

Since it is physically impossible to read all the books on a particular topic, much less all the books in the world, or to fully absorb everything read, learning from books stimulates conceptual thinking, that is, the ability to recognize comparable facts and events and build models for the future. And the style, as it were, “links” the reader with the author, or with the topic, “weaving” together the essence and aesthetics.

Revolutionaries win when their achievements are taken for granted and the price paid for them is taken for granted.

In theory, Dar al-Islam is at war with Dar al-harb because ultimate goal Islam is the whole world. If the boundaries of Dar al-harb can be reduced, the social order of Pax Islamia will supplant all others, and non-Muslim societies will either become part of the Islamic community, or recognize its authority and acquire the status of religious communities that are allowed to exist, or autonomous entities maintaining contractual relations with Islam. .

We live in a wonderful time when the strong are weak because of their doubts, and the weak become stronger because they dare.”

“Where is the Life that we lost in life?
Where is the wisdom that we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge that we have lost in the information?

Customization is only a partial manifestation of the global desire to learn how to manage human choice.

Nixon responded in the sense that if America is shirking its responsibilities internationally, then all is certainly not well at home. He declared that “only if we act nobly on our commitments abroad will we remain a great nation, and only if we remain a great nation will we face challenges nobly at home.” At the same time, he sought to curb “our instinctive feeling that we know what is best for others,” which in turn led to “the temptation for them to rely on our recommendations.”

“Americans, being a moral people, want their foreign policy to reflect moral values that we support as a nation. But Americans, being practical people, also want their foreign policy to be effective.”

What are we trying to prevent, no matter how, and if necessary, then alone? The answer determines the minimum conditions for the survival of society.
What do we want to achieve even if no multilateral efforts support us? This answer defines the minimum objectives of the national strategy.
What do we seek to achieve or prevent only if we are supported by some kind of alliance? This defines the outer limits of a country's strategic aspirations within the global system.
What should we not participate in, even if we are forced to do so by a multilateral group or alliance? This defines the ultimate conditions for American participation in the world order.
First of all, what is the nature of the values ​​we seek to uphold? Which statements depend in part on the circumstances?
In principle, these same questions can be posed to other communities.

Download the book “World Order” by Henry Kissinger for free

(Fragment)

In World Order, published two weeks ago, Henry Kissinger, who served as US Secretary of State with such American presidents as Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, sheds light on many complex Topics. Among them is ISIS (“ Islamic State Iraq and the Levant"), Ukrainian crisis, Syria, relations with Iran. Kissinger, who served not only the above two presidents but virtually every recent leader as national security adviser, is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate (1973) and a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Kissinger has visited our country many times; he is well aware of issues of international relations and especially the Middle East. He not only knows, but also determines foreign policy USA. Regarding the issue of the “new world order”, which has been actively discussed in recent years, Kissinger has very transparent and clear comments on this matter.

Order is created by the strongest

Each major civilization tried to develop a concept of world order in accordance with its own ideas. In the first centuries of its emergence, Islam created a “world order” that at that moment could be considered unprecedented in terms of justice and trust. Until its decline, the Ottoman Empire was the successor to this system. It was assumed that the order created by Islam would forever remain in this form and unite all existing religions.

The phenomenon of “democracy,” which developed along with capitalism, put on the agenda the question of the need for a new world order, which would be created with the leading role of the West. Form a new world order after Ottoman Empire Europe tried, but today it looks like a power stuck between past and future, unable to decide what to do next. Meanwhile, the new economic, social and political environment shows that the only country capable of creating a new order is the United States.

The new order of our days

Globalization and democracy sooner or later should have led to the Soviet Union ceasing to be a single force and turning into a group of separate nation states. After this, the United States enthusiastically began to implement the idea of ​​a “new world order.”

Two important factors play a decisive role in the process of formation of a new world order. The first of these is for other states of the world to consider new system"fair" and "reliable". However, over time, concepts such as fairness and reliability undergo certain changes. At the same time, leading countries must be able to keep up with these changes.

The second factor is that the world's leading countries can maintain a new balance of power. Even if the former strength of the Soviet Union is not restored, one cannot ignore the phenomenon of the rise of China, under whose auspices a new one will take place century The rules of the game will be set by the fair and strong.

In the balance of power that is emerging today, the “order that spreads Western principles” and the “order that justifies radical Islam” collide with each other. Previously, it was believed that the model of “moderate Islam” would weaken the influence of radical Islam, but it did not live up to expectations.

Naturally, a new order cannot be created through the efforts of one country. The global system must receive broad international support. The United States can only be a leader in this matter, Kissinger concludes.

New world order. Russia's role in it. Will Moscow be able to regain its place in the sun? What are you talking about, dear reader? In the new global world that the Americans are trying to build right now, there is no place for Russia. Ideally, there is no such state at all.

In 2014, the last book by former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, World Order, was published. This book is unique.

It was written at a time when the world was approaching another turning point, and it was written by a man who largely predetermined the outcome of the Cold War in favor of the United States and contributed to the destruction of the USSR. What place did this man give to post-Soviet Russia in the new world?

The USA is the basis of the world order

The main leitmotif of the book: “The USA, the basis of the world order.” Their presence in each region of the world gives the system stability and stability. It is about the stability of the US built for last decades order is what the author is most worried about. He sees that recent events have significantly shaken the unipolar world called Pax Americana. In order to maintain world dominance, the United States has neither the resources nor sufficient superiority over its opponents, which have sharply gained weight. And in order to make the system sustainable, Henry Kissinger proposes returning to the concept of balancers, which formed the basis of the Peace of Westphalia following the results of the first pan-European Thirty Years' War.

Peace of Westphalia

“The seventeenth-century negotiators who drew up the terms of the Peace of Westphalia did not, of course, imagine that they were laying the foundations of a global system that would extend far beyond the borders of Europe. They did not even try to involve neighboring Russia in this process, which at that time was establishing its own new order after the hardships of the Time of Troubles, and was enshrining into law principles that were radically different from the Westphalian balance of power: absolute monarchy, a single state religion - Orthodoxy and territorial expansion in all directions" (Henry Kissinger).

New Europe (German Roman Empire), according to the Peace of Westphalia, became a conglomerate of sovereign equal entities and was virtually helpless in relation to external forces. Throughout the existence of its fragmentation, the armies of world powers passed through its territory many times, absolutely disregarding the sovereignty and rights of monarchs. The “Peace of Westphalia” presupposes the absence of a dominant center of power in Europe and the suppression of one if one arises.

This is Kissinger's “offer” for Europe. Should we be surprised by today's problems in Germany? Everything is strictly according to Henry. Germany and France joined forces to become the hegemon of the EU. That is why “terrorists” are shooting civilians in Paris, and hundreds of thousands of refugees from ISIS flocked to wealthy Germany to undermine its economic and political power. The intra-European “balancer” did not work and external soft power introduced a new, all-destructive “variable” into the equation.

How the US won the Cold War

Henry Kissinger considers great Europeans to be people who were very odious for the USSR-Russia:

“Western Europe has found the moral strength to set out on the road to a new world order, and this is due to three great men: Konrad Adenauer in Germany, Robert Schumann in France and Alcide de Gasperi in Italy.” (Henry Kissinger)

It was they who contributed to the consolidation of the Americans in Europe. Under them, NATO and the EU were created (which initially did not claim anything). Konrad Adenauer, moreover, was a fierce opponent of the USSR (and this despite the fact that Germany, which he was restoring, was destroyed by the British and Americans). Who can argue with Kissinger? The “sixes” were good.

It is noteworthy that in the book there is not a single mention of the German Chancellor Willy Brandt (“New Ostpolitik”) and the French leader Charles de Gaulle. The first dared to put forward the idea of ​​a large and peaceful Europe with the inclusion of the USSR in its composition, and the second encroached on the holy of holies of America: the dollar and defiantly withdrew from NATO.

To the East

In general, by the beginning of the 1970s, American diplomacy suffered a lot of painful defeats. By all calculations, this threatened a global defeat in “ cold war"and loss of dominance in the world. The USSR strengthened in eastern Asia(China), in the Middle East (Egypt). If the United States had lost Europe as well, allowing it to become part of Greater Eurasia (it was called differently then, but the essence was the same), the geopolitical defeat of the United States would have been a foregone conclusion.

The strategy proposed by Henry Kissinger to separate the countries of the Middle East and China from the USSR worked. The world's first Maidan was organized against de Gaulle, and Willy Brandt was accused of conspiring with the USSR.

“Thank you to the CIA and the State Department for our happy childhood,” the “meat” generation of Americans of the 1990s should say.

In Europe, an arms race began to destroy trust between the eastern and western parts. Now the USSR was surrounded by enemies along the entire length of its borders and lost.

Attempt number two

Forty years have passed. Henry Kissinger, having done his job, long ago moved away from official politics. During this time, the USSR was destroyed, Russia almost disintegrated and... was reborn. The situation in the world is exactly the same as in the 1960s:

The overwhelming military power of the United States is a thing of the past. Russia recovered from the devastation and war on its territory and was able to recreate the power of its armed forces. The country's economy is developing successfully (not as fast as in the 1960s, but still) and is preparing for a big technological breakthrough. China is an ally, there has been progress towards mutual understanding in Europe, Russia has returned to the Middle East (Iran and Syria).

The essence of the American problem

Today, a single country cannot create problems for American dominance in the world. Only political and/or economic union states whose interests are contrary to the interests of the United States. The most dangerous for Washington is the alliance between Russia and China, to which Iran and India have actually already joined. To create a greater Eurasia, all that remains is to include a united Europe.

“The United States has every reason, historical and geopolitical, to support European Union and prevent its “failure” into a geopolitical vacuum; The United States, deprived of contact with Europe in politics, economics and defense, will turn into an “island” off the coast of Eurasia, and Europe itself may become an appendage of Asia and the Middle East.” And as a result, Europe is now in limbo between the past, which it is trying to overcome, and the future, which it has not yet defined for itself.” (Henry Kissinger)

Exactly. There is a struggle for Europe. A Europe whose position can decide everything. Europe as an ally makes any alliance stable, but Europe as an enemy creates a lot of problems. And it works in both directions.

At the same time, Kissinger is using old schemes that have already worked once and offers Beijing to share the world with America:

The United States of America and China are the strongholds of the world order

“The presidents of the main competitors of the twenty-first century - the United States and China - solemnly vowed to avoid a repeat of the European tragedy (two world wars) by establishing " new type relations between great powers." This concept still awaits joint development” (Henry Kissinger).

Divide and conquer, that's it the main point Kissinger's ideas. This has already worked. Russia is the universal bridge of Eurasia. The destruction of this bridge makes it impossible to form any stable and strong alliance on the continent. That is why “Carthage must be destroyed.” "Nothing personal".

Kissinger is absolutely right when he says that there is a struggle between project unions and he is trying to create the ground for the destruction of the most dangerous (for the USA) of them and proposes a specific mechanism in the book.

That is why there is no place for Russia in the new “world order” from Kissinger. If you read his book, you will find only three fundamental references to this country.

First. Russia emerged into European politics in the 18th century and disrupted the balance of power on the continent.

Second. “The character of the international order came into question when the Soviet Union emerged as a challenge to the Westphalian system of states” (Henry Kissinger). That is, the USSR is a misunderstanding that had to be destroyed to stabilize the world order.

Third. Russia is listed on the list of countries that border the Pacific Ocean and therefore have interests in this region.

That's all. Kissinger devotes entire sections to new Europe(in which there is no Russia), China, India, Japan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, even a whole chapter is devoted to the Syrian conflict, where he uttered a remarkable phrase:

“And the armed opposition that eventually formed inside Syria hardly fits the description of a democratic, much less a moderate” (Henry Kissinger).

And there is not even a page, not even a line about how he sees Russia in the new “world order.” When he wrote this book, and it was published in the fall of 2014, he did not see modern and future Russia at all. This is what makes this creation most remarkable.

Therefore, should we be surprised at his frequent visits to Moscow and the polite but cold misunderstanding of the Russian leadership. Vladimir Putin also knows how to read and he also read that the United States has already excluded his country from the future world, which means there is nothing to talk about with them except from a position of strength, which he is very quickly building up.