Behind Kissinger's "capitulation" voice: Why did Western public opinion lose patience with the Russian-Ukrainian war?

On May 23, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger talked about the conflict between Russia and Ukraine at the Davos Forum in Switzerland, triggering an uproar of "capitulation".

Kissinger said that the peace talks between Russia and Ukraine need to be restarted within the next two months to avoid insurmountable instability and tension. Kissinger stressed that the outcome of the negotiations will determine Europe's new relations with Russia and Ukraine. "Ideally, the (Russian-Ukrainian) dividing line should be restored. If the war is pushed beyond this dividing point, it is not about freedom in Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself."

Although Kissinger did not make it clear whether the so-called "return to the status quo" is whether the border between Russia and Ukraine returned to the fuzzy state before the outbreak of the war in 2022, or whether it was clear before the Crimea crisis in 2014 and the independence of the armed forces of East Ukraine, because of this. At the same time, he appealed, "I hope that the wisdom of the Ukrainians matches the heroism they show" and that "Ukraine's correct role is to be a neutral buffer country, not the forefront of European conflicts." It means "to persuade to surrender".

On May 24, The Washington Post headlined "Kissinger says Ukraine should cede territory to Russia to end the war", saying that Kissinger's so-called "status quo" means restoring Russia's "state of affairs". "Formal control" of Crimea and "informal control" of Udon Luhansk and Donetsk districts; the US "Newsweek" (Newsweek) directly interpreted that Kissinger suggested that Ukrainian President Zelens Volodymyr Zelensky cedes territory to Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war between the two countries that began in February: The Daily Telegraph also ends with "Kissinger: Ukraine must give Russia Cessation of Territory", reporting his speech at the Davos Forum.

In this regard, Zelensky responded with color in his public speech on the 25th, "In Davos, Mr. Kissinger came from a deep past and said that Russia should give Russia a piece of Ukraine, so that Russia will not be alienated from Europe. "Mr Kissinger's calendar doesn't seem to be 2022, but 1938, and he thinks he's not in Davos, but in Munich at the time talking to his audience."

However, such "contemporary Neville Chamberlain" mockery seems to have little impact on Kissinger himself, but instead draws attention to another trend in the West facing the conflict between Russia and Ukraine: the emergence of the so-called "capitulation faction".

Kissinger is not the only

As far as the Western public opinion is concerned, voices sympathetic to Ukraine are still the majority in the media, social platforms, and academic fields. However, with the changes in the battlefield and international situation, the discourse of "relatively not the main battle" has gradually gained the stage of performance. Singh's moderate proposal calling for Russia and Ukraine to step back is also harshly criticized for accusing the United States of hyping up the war. Although the starting points of the above-mentioned propositions are different and the basis for their discussion is also different, because their support for Ukraine is "not pure enough", they are all labeled as "capitulationists" by Ukraine's "resolute supporters".

For example, long before Kissinger, Noam Chomsky gave an exclusive interview to The Intercept, an American investigative news website, in early April, raising similar views on the Russian-Ukrainian war. Chomsky pointed out that the best way to save Ukraine from large-scale destruction and tragic fate is to urge Russia and Ukraine to negotiate. "There are only two ways to end this war: one is the mutual destruction of you and me, but Russia will not fall into that, so that means Ukraine will be destroyed; the other way, is a negotiated solution."

Chomsky further criticized, "If the United States is willing to consider a political solution, this invasion may not happen at all." Chomsky pointed out that before the Russian invasion, the United States basically had two options: one is to pursue an official position. , which will make negotiations impossible and increase the probability of war; the second is to seek existing political options to reduce the possibility of war. Chomsky believes that Russia's so-called "neutralization" and "demilitarization" means that Ukraine will become another Mexico, that is, it is still a sovereign state, but it cannot join a military alliance that is not run by the United States, placing advanced technology on the US border. weapons etc. "It's an option that can be pursued, but what the U.S. would prefer to do is something unthinkable for Mexico."

Such remarks aroused criticism from the American intellectual community. For example, on May 23, four Ukrainian economists in the United States jointly issued an open letter , citing Chomsky's "several major crimes", including the belief that Crimea has the right to self-determination , Seeing Ukraine as an American pawn on the geopolitical chessboard, implying that Russia is threatened by NATO, saying that the United States "has nothing to do with Russia" on war crimes, whitewashing Putin's goal of invading Ukraine, assuming Putin's willingness to negotiate a solution to the Ukraine issue, advocating submission Russia's demands to avoid nuclear war, etc.

But even so, Chomsky is not alone. "Washington Post" columnist, Davos forum regular David Ignatius (David Ignatius) also expressed similar thoughts in an article on May 12. It pointed out that in the next period of time, Ukraine may become a separatist country, and the Russian army will frequently cross the line of contact that is difficult to complete a ceasefire. "This stalemate and separation is brutal, but if the Ukrainians want to plan for the future, they should consider the South Korean or West German options."

Ignatius analyzed that Ukraine could, in the event of a split, turn the remaining unoccupied territories into a "successful democracy in the shadow of Russia's autocracy", while the West should refuse to formally recognize Russia's sovereignty over the occupied territories, just as the United States Generations have refused to recognize Soviet control over the Baltic states. And as long as Ukraine and the West show strategic patience, they will eventually win. "In the long run, the division of Ukraine will benefit Kyiv in the same way that at the end of the Cold War, it was West Germany, not East Germany, that benefited."

Coincidentally, a May 19 editorial in The New York Times made a similar suggestion that Ukraine needed to consider "difficult decisions" related to territorial losses. The New York Times pointed out that Americans are indeed "inspired by the suffering of Ukraine", but with rising inflation and global food and energy problems, popular support for the distant war will not continue indefinitely.

The New York Times further stated that unrealistic expectations could lead to a costly and protracted war between the United States and NATO, Ukrainians must make difficult decisions, and Ukrainian leaders have to consider compromises on territorial issues. The New York Times emphasized that it may be painful to face reality, but this is not a policy of appeasement, but an obligation of the government. The United States should not pursue an illusory "victory". Russia will suffer from political isolation and economic sanctions in the next few years. Putin will also go down in history as a butcher, and America's challenge now is to get out of the excitement, stop the taunts, and focus on defining and getting things done.

Why does the wind change

To sum up, Kissinger's suggestion is not the opinion of one family, but a cruel manifestation of the recent circulation and collision of public opinion in the West.

In short, the reason why this kind of discussion can spark discussion is not because it is too shocking, but because the voices of "persuading to surrender" are not rare. Among them, in addition to Chomsky's criticism of American hegemony, Kissinger, Ignatius, and The New York Times' appeals all center on one main theme: Continuing to be deeply involved in the Russian-Ukrainian war will harm the national interests of the United States.

Kissinger’s main concern is that the continued deterioration of U.S.-Russian relations will affect the European security structure and push Russia toward China. Although Ignatius did not explicitly say the damage of the U.S.’s continued investment, he expressed his concern about Russia’s nuclear weapons adventure in the article. The New York Times editorial clearly pointed out that U.S. public opinion's attention to Ukraine may be replaced by inflation and other livelihood issues.

In the final analysis, the impatience of some Western public opinion towards the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is no different from the reason for their "enthusiasm" in the early days of the war: national interests come first. When the war broke out on February 24, the West took this opportunity to launch economic sanctions against Russia and encircled Moscow with high-intensity public opinion attacks, with the aim of promoting an invisible political agenda: the collapse of the Putin regime. Of course, when Russia shattered such a script with its political and economic strength, the Western camp was forced to reassess its gains and losses.

The first is the question of energy and economics. At the beginning of the war, many Western leaders boasted that they would gradually stop importing oil and natural gas from Russia. The surging backlash of the people's grievances. At the same time, the global South, such as Sri Lanka, has experienced even more severe impacts. They are not enthusiastic about this war, but they are branded by all kinds of suffering, and the storm of food crisis is still brewing.

Second, Ukraine's military disadvantage is clearly visible. Even if the Russian army moved into the Donbass, the speed of advance was quite slow, and even suffered losses when attacking the Azov steel factory and other important places, the Ukrainian army's continuous defeat is still an indisputable fact. Now that Kherson, Mariupol and other places are in the hands of the Russian army, Russia is not as caring as it was when it encircled Kyiv in the first stage. After all, subsequent development has proved that the halo of the "Master of Justice" is helpless Negotiations were reached, so after it was transferred to the Donbass, it also began to bomb civilian facilities indiscriminately during the offensive process, causing heavy losses to the Ukrainian military and civilians.

Under this circumstance, Kyiv stepped up its call for help, asking "Western allies" such as the United States to send more heavy weapons, such as the HIMARS multiple rocket launcher and the MLRS multiple rocket system. However, in the face of Zelensky’s cry, new anxiety arose within the United States: if long-range artillery weapons are provided to Kyiv, once they are used to attack the Russian mainland, it may cause Russia to retaliate against Poland, and finally involve NATO and the United States together. Conflict vortex.

Of course, such problems can also be solved through technical means, that is, the United States refuses to provide key components to limit the maximum range of the rocket, which will prevent Ukraine from "running out of control" to a certain extent, but the above concerns still reveal that some political elites in the United States view the Russia-Ukraine conflict Ukrainian’s true attitude: From the beginning to the end, the game between the United States and Russia is the main theme, and Ukraine’s tragic situation is only a situational tool used to assist the attack. How can “anti-customer-oriented” take precedence over the national interests of the United States?

Third, the American people have gradually become "sensory fatigue" about the passionate discourse of the Russian-Ukrainian war, and have begun to face up to real problems. From May 6th to 16th, the University of Maryland in the United States conducted the second "Key Questions Poll" on the public's perception of the U.S. policy toward Ukraine. The results show that the American public, while still supporting the administration's Ukraine policy, is less willing to pay for it. On the topic of "prepare to see energy prices rise due to conflict," the public's approval rating fell from 73% in the first survey in March to 59% in May; on the topic of "prepare for rising inflation," It also fell from 65% to 52%; and the approval rate for the question "Ready to lose the US military" dropped from 32% to 27%. This public opinion trend should be one of the foundations of the New York Times editorial.

Frozen three feet, not a day's cold. This war was once regarded as the life-threatening symbol of the Putin regime and the countdown to the collapse of Russia, but with the flow of economic, military, and public opinion, the West has gradually fallen into a dilemma: if the war continues, there is a high probability that Russia will end up as a result. The Ukrainian army continued to occupy territory, but the Ukrainian army successfully expelled Russia; and the economic, energy, and food crisis caused by the conflict will pose a severe internal political challenge to the Western camp, and it may not be able to gamble on the day when the Putin regime collapses; Information fatigue will force political elites to "adjust their pace."

In short, Kissinger's speech revealed the formation of a new front in the Russian-Ukrainian war: the internal game of the West. Today, the conflict not only exists between Russia and Ukraine, but also begins to sweep the Western decision-making circle and public opinion field, and has expanded from the previous differences between France and the United States to the same room in the United States. Although guided by political correctness and other structures, it is difficult for the overall policy of the West to change course immediately, but the voices represented by Kissinger and others are bound to continue to ferment along with the progress of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

Original URL:

2022.5.31

Behind Kissinger's "capitulation" voice: Why did Western public opinion lose patience with the Russian-Ukrainian war? | Hong Kong 01 https://www.hk01.com/sns/article/776110