KISSINGER : letting the cat out of the bag.


In an FT  interview on 9 May 2022 with Henry Kissinger  ( Note1  )

Kissinger let the cat out of the bag. Eighty per cent of the Russian population lives in the European part and much of the Asian part of Russia was acquired recently he said. Here  Kissinger is taking 1600’s as ‘recent history’. This suggests that he is seeking to get the Russians to see themselves as ‘European’ not Asian. On the basis that Russia is mostly ‘European’, he cannot see the alliance with China being soundly based or long-lasting. In his view, Putin has a mystic faith in Russian history unlike the US view of its own unique role in history.  One commentator reported:

The problem might be that Russia and China have learned from history. I don’t think they like each other, but they know they have to have each other’s back. If they don’t, they know they’re going to be the next one on the list.” (Comments: note 1) 

Most important is: what does ‘European’ mean for Kissinger? We know that Ukraine (West Ukraine) claimed that they were European and  blue-eyed, whereas the Russians and East Ukrainians they claimed were not. What does Kissinger  mean by suggesting that Russians should see themselves as “European’ as opposed to China? This is a clearly coded reference to race. If Kissinger is confessing that identity is crucial to understanding current conflicts and future developments, one has to ask what is the basis of this identity if not race? Has he not let the cat out of the bag that this is the West versus the rest of the world, the White world against all comers?

However, we should also ask how this looks from the Russian perspective. When Germany invaded Russia it did not consider it and its people part of “Europe’. Hitler initiated a war of annihilation against Slav people. A hand of friendship and collaboration was offered to Britain by Germany and the French were treated with considerable care. Certainly, the occupation of France cannot be compared to the German occupation of Eastern Europe. Specifically during the occupation of the Channel Islands slave camps were established where Slav prisoners of war were worked to death whereas the inhabitants of the Channel Islands were largely unharmed. After the war, very little acknowledgement was made by Britain of the slave camps.

According to recent reports, 40,000 slavs and others were murdered on these islands.  In respect of a top-secret site built by prisoners, Kemp and Weigold believe it was designed to launch V1  missile attacks on the UK using Sarin nerve gas.  Once the structure was completed the prisoners were marched to a clifftop and disposed of. As the mafia would say: ‘no witnesses, please’, or as the CIA would say: ‘deniability’. Kemp and Weigold claim over 40,000 prisoners were murdered. Though these reports have been challenged by Trevor Davenport, a local historian,  James Dent, the top Alderney politician, confirmed that both Britain and Germany were withholding many records about this period. It should be borne in mind that after the end of WW2, Germany became a British ally and the release of any such stories would have inflamed British public opinion and would stand in the way of rapprochement with Germany.

If Kemp and Weigold’s story is true, British historian  Davenport would be found guilty of a deliberate cover-up after the war. ( Note 2) 

From the Russian point of view, this would suggest that even its allies like Britain did not consider it ‘European’. Classic Marxism has well known problems coping with race and nation.  There is no Marxist explanation or prediction of the holocaust. These recent events suggest that the history of WW2 needs to be rewritten. For Europeans Nazi’s were anti-semites. For Russia they were simply genocidal. Once we introduce ‘race’ into WW2  as an independent factor, the role of Churchill in seeking to overthrow the Soviet Union with the aid of former Nazis even while the war was ending can be seen in another light. Marxist and Western historians previously understood or presented this as anti-communism. However, I know how shocked Russians have been by the depth of the recent vilification of Russia and its people even after they had abandoned communism. Russia was excluded from recent celebrations of the ending of WW2 but Germany was included. What is behind the depth of hatred for the Russian people?

If Russia begins to see itself as a Eurasian nation this will be a bulwark for the new world order. Kissinger’s hints of Russia being part of the European family will come face to face with the West’s rejection of Russia after the collapse of communism. On what basis were Poland , Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Czech Republic,  Slovakia, Slovenia, North Macedonia acceptable candidates for NATO but not non-communist Russia? For Russia deNazification is getting rid of people who wish to wipe out the whole Russian people whatever flag these racist people live under. Identity is not a precise science as those Protestants who discovered they were Jewish by German law will testify. Nevertheless, hints are powerful.

As a Eurasian nation, Russia does not deny its history or its ancestry but it would on this basis walk away from the entreaties of Western nations from now on. This is a case of being bitten not twice but many times.  Its former pride in its Euro-ancestry is in tatters. The West has seen to that.


  1. ‘We are now living in a totally new era’
  2.  ‘Hitler’s British Death Island’  5 May 2017 )