Realist Stirrings?

By Michael F. Duggan

Could it be that realism and therefore the basis for a peace process may be in the offing in regard to the war in Ukraine? Remotely addressing the World Economic Forum at Davos on May 23, Henry Kissinger said that the United States should push for peace in Ukraine, even if it meant pressuring its government to cede territory to Russia.¹

I have long had mixed feelings about Kissinger; on the one hand, he is a frequently brilliant interpreter of history, and I like some of his ideas on spheres of influence and the geopolitical balancing of powers. On the other hand, he is a theorist and former practitioner of realpolitik—perhaps even crackpot realism—rather than of the moderate Kennan variety. What Nixon and Kissinger did to Cambodia is unforgivable.

The Editorial Board of The New York Times has also shifted toward a de-esclatory position.² My hope is that they might be coming to its senses, either because of Kissinger or independently. Call me an optimist, but I can’t help wonder if a realistic understanding of the of the war and its historical context might be percolating upward at The Times and elsewhere. You don’t have to dig deep to find that the Russian-Ukrainian situation of the past few decades is a lot messier than the mainstream would have us believe. Perhaps the dangers of waging a vicious proxy war against another nuclear power are also starting to sink in. If The Times bolts from the standard narrative, then a peeling off of support in favor of the proxy war might be possible. Of course the real question is whether anybody in Biden administration or in the foreign policy Blob are listening.

We realists are a frustrated lot these days, but we can hope.

Notes