the hey, how do i do this to do in the, off to month, the trenches in dugouts were piled with the bodies of ukrainian nationalist. and for my son is the bottle went on for 72 hours, doing very well, but the day you feel drained and don't, especially when the fight against during combat you feel shopping away. but when it ends, you feel like you haven't slept for days. lease battle is being myriad. across the front lines, russian forces have begun the wind to push and key of which promised to take crime me a bite with them. now funds its own lines, shaking and buckling. were i guess the of the, from the guns region and will reports most senior correspondent motor i guess the

online at all to call me is also one across telegram as well. for the meantime, thanks for joining us. we are back the the, [000:00:00;00] the hello and welcome to cross stock were all things are considered on peter lavelle.

the quintessential foreign policy genius or one of the greatest mass murderers in history. kissinger might have been both and much more. his death was not untimely, but his legacy still hans us in many ways he initiated some of the worst aspects of american foreign policy. the to discuss these issues and more, i'm joined by my guess, george w. l. e. in budapest, he is a pod cast or at the goggle, which can be found on youtube and locals and, and their cash. we have martin j e. as an award, winning journalist and commentator, or a gentleman cross up rules and effect. that means you can jump me anytime you want, and i always appreciate it. all right, george. let's start out with you. in budapest, as i said in my interaction, it wasn't untimely. he did make it to 100 years. i think the is last major trip was last year to beijing, so he was he had a vote,

a very up of filled life to the very, very end. but he also has a legacy. it's an under stipend to say it's mixed. but i would contend that it's not much different than a lot of other secretaries of state sense, but we'll get into that. go ahead. george. as well as the know question, it's a i'm a mix legacy. however, i think if one thinks about kissinger's, he is in power as opposed to his stick of frantic obsequious he is out of power. most of his life was really out of. wow. they're all the leading and a carrying favors. little, well, the 50 years. but during his, he is a power um, even those we years of diplomatic accomplishments, some of those we years of major arms control treaties signed is in which the united

states managed to extricate himself from the war in vietnam. any look for a while as of the united states would not be able to ever accomplish that. um, but it was with a use of a uh, a house, a productive relationship with the soviet union. a game we're seeing on likely in the decades before, during the 19 fifties and early 96 is and then of course it, you know, disappeared. you know, within a few years of the end of the mix. some kissinger. yes. so when you contrast that with the accomplishments of the successes, i think it starts up quite favorably. um, you know, it's hard to think of the last couple of decades. what diplomatic accomplishments the united states has a cheese. no, i mean i can think of any major treat is of the united states, assign any major diplomatic initiatives. the come for a, i mean what the recent years of being characterized by the forever was,

was that just go on and on forever. and no one can actually even explain what they're about with a garage, syria, libya i've got a style, and then you know, you can just go through the list. what are they about and know the president will say, just a seems intense. i'm bringing any of them to an end. yeah. martin, it's, it's very interesting is that when you look at the obituaries and even before he died, obviously, i mean, they had 50 years stuck about his legacy as a while. i was in power, a mass murderer, a gross, a violator of international human rights laws, etc. etc, madeline albright, when asked about iraqi children, you know, she said it was something worth the, you know, but they accept it. i mean, but my point is, you can, you can say a lot of things about henry kissinger. but, you know, a, he didn't take the job because he was a st. okay. he was a, a very talented and geopolitical thinker. now we can disagree with some of the things that he did,

but to put him in mass murder category like that without and being standing alone. come on, go ahead, mark us. yeah, i think i think it was quite hold on that. my daughter keep necessary to the growling. so good. i mean, i can't think of any states. one of them is since the end of the 2nd level that still held the importance on the credos on the, on the, on the gravitas that he had. i'm used to visiting all sorts of the world leaders. you know that in the last time it's in martin. he worked very hard at it. okay. i mean, it is what it, it was interesting things that he called debated the, the midst of about himself. no, but better than any one else. go ahead be okay. let me put it in different way. can you imagine i just need the income of to isn't it ministration? is everybody in a tour in the world for decades later on? so that will lead to is, you know, cool thing is opinion, you know, he was an extraordinary carter and he's hated because of the was because of

a number of, um, uh, interventions some which were carried out more directly hands on others where by america just stood by it and gave them the link michigan's yeah. yeah. like a strong useful bangladesh. you know? oh, he's team or you know, so we're living in different times and not only will see an enormous car, so incredibly car as much. it was also an intellect, which was something that makes a pretty badly needs. it's. oh, my free time. time out all the time out. i'm sorry you, you hit a red line and the door to the yard. well, now, one of the things, well, and i feel very adamant about this. so much of the focus on henry kissinger for the success is the george mentioned. it's given the kissinger never given to nixon, and that's on purpose, george. knowing the question, i think peter,

you and i have discussed this many times before it's um, it's a completely a dishonest exercise that was practice during the next 10 years because much of the media, the tests nicks always had it. and when they saw all these uh, diplomatic accomplishments, they were not able to credit mix simple them so they have to cultivate the made. but it was kissinger, those brilean, german jewish professor who was have all these fantastic ideas. and in a mix of those, just simple wow, you know, do you, you go ahead and do what you want, henry, but it was simply, it wasn't true. and you can see from the, the transcripts of the conversation, we've all been publish it, which is next. and that who is the guiding force of a foreign policy? kissinger was a man who implemented that was a nixon who came up with the idea of uh, the opening to china. it was nixon who actually sold it to bring the war to an end by trying to get the soviet union to influence. um, uh, north vietnam. maybe these little nickelodeon policy objectives,

but simply to media, then all the way up to now of never a given the next to the quarter a. so either way, in the midst of kissinger is a kind of a, you know, the other side of the point was they could continue disparagement of, uh, a mix. a was, i think, one of the, one of the clever as the most fast, like the president's. but maybe in us history. yeah. because martin, almost all the histories of written the nixon, arrow written by liberals. so what would you expect go ahead martin. all right, well i, i still incorrect to the i n s. um i, i was believed that i'm guessing to was a, i'm in a normal state, charismatic current to my point. i was trying to make that for you. company all set the was the little knowledge, apologies. i just haven't had to be speaking as joy. it's george pointed out, it's just something that we have talked about so many times. so i apologize. gotta

give back the floor to you. or i'm talking about characters. that was my point, the characters. so you know, how, how many characters can you, can you think of it a lot us 506070 is you know, the pounds thought i'd that gravitas, that kissinger hobby was able to quote john, but as a well newton's until i part of it to you about it will do so this i wasn't aware that it was nixon who was behind the very spot moves in the seventy's to, to bring china in from the cold and to, to sideline russia. but he, you know, he also did a huge so it was one of these great leaders, great statesman, the boot. that was a great believer in the other. jenny folks never change their mind because in 2019 he advised trump to do exactly this. the same thing was to get close to russia to a met china. but i think um, i think the point is that we haven't had anybody like him, and that's why he's so hated and loved this way. so i polemic so controversial. i don't think he's ever really going to ever get over the legacy. the reputation of

the carpet bombing for years in cambodia with made estimates for vary between 80400000 tests. and also the, the input result of that which is to actually, you know, simple to come arrows you can sort of, i guess, most supporters and regionally. i think, i think that was one of his greatest blunders possibly ever. and um, you know, i think that's, that's, that's, that's how he's, he's written his legacy. but you know, making the task for him to today. you know, um, i can't help feeling that we really badly need somebody, highly articulate. i'm really raised to shop with an intellect in the white house. now as a result of some of these huge um, instructional problems that america and the west has brought upon itself. you know, you claim as well, for example. and because of, you know, what i wonder if um, if, if, if somebody like kissinger, what about the edge would have had the, the, the impact on this decision making to cut off what button come pronounced. i think

the contrast is in the old days and the days of kissinger where america was extremely bold. it was the soup about, it had the cloud. you know, america was judge by very much what it did. in fact, it was today, you know, where we're living in a completely different without, in a, in a monkey by the world. way americans no longer the suit that we tend to judge america by what it doesn't do. if i'm mobile, that's what it says. and if the contrast is, you know, today we have an american president who can only cool for seats, fraud and gaza. and that's really only can do. and you know, and hope to the rest of our listeners and, and he's, but of course, that's not the case. until and george, it is, i think it's a remarkable leadership in the west right now is it's, it's an outcome of and i, the ology, the reproduces itself. i mean, you know, instantly blinking is no accident and he is representative of the professional

managerial class. there are no nothings there, just accredited george? yes, i think so. um. there's also other aspect of it i think that, um, in the case of um, the mix and kissinger was a world in which the united states have to accommodate itself to a serious rival power. and that tends to focus american minds. yep. and they have to move towards um, making peace because they, the, the, the possibility of the disruption and american defeat was it was something that was real comfortable. if we get a, what is happens is the human to pull a moment just the victory of the be a business the united states interpretation of the cold? well, we want, we are the of the top dog. no one can arrive of us as a thing, and i said you can do whatever it wants. and that's why so there's, there's no measure. there's no check on anything with the united states. as i said,

it can sent you the dispute policies of destruction, destruction because them hate. this is a, this is k of we're going to just dump everything on somebody else on this now have to pay for it. you know, we do libya. okay, well we have with real good update. okay, well, we go the mess, the state's not our problem that the europeans deal with a war in uh, syria. okay, no, no problem. let me like yours 2020 years in afghanistan. not the exact, it's when he is, how many people are we in talk about vietnam, but i mean, the united states was enough. get us on the longer then he was a, in pain in vietnam, in mc discounts on the moment of john lyndon johnson's escalation, light is 65. it's basically a, is an, as good as i was 20 is a rock. it honestly just building there and then when once they doing it just basically preventing any other power emerging on the desktop or do i say i have to go to a hard break and after that hard break, we'll continue our discussion on the legacy of henry kissinger stay with archie

the when i would show the wrong just don't safe house because the application and engagement equals the trails. when so many find themselves will support, we choose to look for common ground the. i look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings except we're so shorter is that conflict with the 1st law show alignment of the patient. we should be very careful about our personal intelligence at the point, obviously is to trace a trust,

rather than fit the various jobs. i mean with the artificial intelligence we have some of the theme in the a robot must protect this phone. existence was alexis, the welcome act, across stuff were all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle. this is the home addition to remind you. we're discussing the legacy of henry kissinger. the let's go back to martin america has already brought up the subject in, in the, the, what's going on right now is we speak of thinking about the legacy of henry kissinger. and let me the, the shuttle diplomacy that he conducted. and it,

during the night after the $197073.00 war it's very interesting. you have people like blinking the want to repeat it. and henry kissinger pulled something up, blinking never will cause no one takes them seriously. doesn't take the, the administration seriously much the detriment or the reputation of united states, but no one else go can make the claim. and i think maybe it's open debate, but it was under um kissinger's tenure, a secretary of state where the united states started the tilt no longer. it's some kind of a mediator. but on the, on the became a israel's international lawyer. and that is a trend, obviously that has continued much to the detriment of palestinians, and in gals of the west bank and the reputation of the united states. and actually the security of israel, you of the, i think you can make the argument a lot of that. but then that the significant trend started under gives you a, it pre dates, kissinger and the relationship with israel,

but the intensity of it. and it has remained to the present thoughts. so i suppose, i mean, the idea of that particular time in that particular juncture was that we need israel more vanessa. you know, israel needs to be taught in the middle east. what was that was there in the cold that was during the cold war? yeah. essentially that mixed up with us pledge of this. what do you, what do we get out of this special relationship with as well? and he said is, well, we didn't know no, really, that much. i mean, is it the reason why we have that relationship is, is re largely because of a hold of course, which is an extraordinary thing to say. i wonder if, if um, if, if, because it was in the room when you said that, you know, but, but i think we were living at different times. and um, we, we either the, we don't house that the america doesn't have that cloud. and even though the edge anymore to, to the leverage that it was had when, during cause and just as, and i made the point full of that, you know, in the, in the old days of kissinger, america foreign policy, did it actually impact it? and now we're living in

a period of american following storm policy being very much something, you know, the narrative narrative which isn't really taking that seriously. and the, you know, the consequences is the way a very confused about what our role is now in the west and what we should be doing around the world. interestingly, you talked about, i've got a son country, very close to my heart. you know, when america pulled out, i think a general as ask isn't just about what went wrong and you said look simply this, you know, we, we had no real clear idea, but what we're trying to achieve and it's kind of stuff, you know? and i think come back to the that that was quite to the a person and, and poignant moment. you know, for a lot of people to, to, to, to, to heat the point that probably the west shouldn't be meddling in things. it doesn't understand him. do we really understand the complexities of the middle east on what the israelis are trying to do and is rep? probably not. you know, but a and is argument actually was interesting because by contrast the america didn't have a very clear policy. it is policy very,

very obviously it was to make sure that no one country in the region ever followed suit and became an example like kind of what the name was trying to do to, to be an autonomous. what was the most common estate? it was just autonomy, you know that there was a paranoia by kissinger. nixon and others are that times that you know, the countries it's done up to us and just say we don't need to trade. we don't need a need to audiology. just leave us alone. that was enough spot in schroeder or a reaction of paranoid which really led to them of it and i'm more it was all about you know, stumping out this one example is one country that stood up to have it, but it was also within the context of the rivalry with the soviet union and, and, and the address of it was one of the main drivers. george, um, you know, again, you know, you, you can take you, henry kissinger stamp on the middle. least i think it gets indelible. and, you know, i, you know, i don't know what he said in the last years of his life, about american foreign policy, visa be israel, but just the,

it was martin is mentioned. i mean, what does the us get out of it? because in many ways, i mean if you live with my kids in your road, many books, he wrote a book called diplomacy, which i'm a very sharp critic of guessing germany ways. but it's an absolutely brilliant book . it's a premier for geo politics. and but you know, he wasn't always a geo political thinker as he was a neo con, that we would say probably today. thoughts on that? i think so. yeah. i think if, if one thinks about the um, the middle east and you know, there was clearly a rivalry within the, the mix of administration between the, the state department led by william rogers and then, and henry kissinger and the state department still maintains the what more traditional at that time, us approach to them at least,

which was even handedness. the arabs of friends, it was, i mean the united states have been involved in the arab well, since and i think said when to damascus, for goodness, say exactly mix and went to damascus. and they just didn't really have that view. um it doesn't, it was much more pro is right. and you're absolutely right. i mean, you did begin to see that the, the role of the united states, us to act as a kind of a, a diplomatic, a representative of the united states. but that was the pressure of the soviet union. that was the fear um, within the next administration, that if this goes on, this conflict goes on, then the soviet union will get a beach in the, in the middle of use. the arrows are going to turn to the soviet union. the say, hey, you know, we, we need your help, you know, with the arrow. so we're going to deal with this problem is, right? so there was a pressure on washington to bring these conflicts to an end. and that's why there's, this pressure is now gone. i mean, the motor just don't care. and i think this is really the problem with these

differential was because they make us just don't care. there isn't a sufficient pressure on the only united states to do anything to bring these conflicts done in. so if you imagine what's going on now, israel and gaza, you know, the buys and people say, well, you really have to be careful about the civilian casualties. we, i just, just, you know, when we're not happy with you killing so many children and that's it. but nothing else, the more i think you've had this been the in taken place in the next and kissinger you or are they able to do much better? there was much tougher pressure on this. uh, this ronald reagan. i'm a called the begging and said knock it off. is there anything left on your knock it off? exact happened exactly. advise you to do it by the absolutely do it any, those are the, this has been the glue case, was the reason presidents, you know, they could easily bring it over here. would easily pressure as well to, to come to a conference stable and work something out,

smell an insoluble problem. but they've been reluctant to do it. you know, martin, it's, it's really interesting when we think about the kissinger's relationship with, with it israel and us relationship with israel. he was no zionist though. okay. and i think it's, it's, they have to couch it in terms that what would george just said? i mean, he thought about it as a g of political again, but, and, and the problem to solve these would be the cold war. he put all those pieces together. that's what made him quite brilliant in his own way. but ever since then, you know, we, we had that we have that history of from 1973 to the present with israel. but it's much more in a couch than design just a terminology in paradigm because it just certainly wasn't the. it wasn't particularly sympathetic to jews and the soviet union, a body put together a number of piece plans for the israelis and palestinians. so we shouldn't forget that, but again, i come up some other point different times, very,

very different times. you know, when you look at what you get, scandal, and nice and cushioned, just paranoia, of one individual general this public opinion then, i think was probably even more important than it is now. i mean, it was certainly a different attitude towards press, international media. both nixon and kissinger took the press very, very seriously. and i wonder if that would be the same case if nixon was in a position today. no blix kissinger's idea. i think you wrote it one of his books, a part of which one, but he's, i'm paraphrasing you said that your foreign policy is very much something about how you have to have the power behind the policies. and i think he was basically saying the online fist and the on gloves is really what dr. american foreign policy to. so it's not the case today now, you know, and i need the contrast to that is the role of acetic statement that i'm a made in 2015, you know, backing away from the red lines, threat to syria and against us. do you know where, you know, we have this thing which probably kissinger finds actually repulsive,

cold soft policy, you know, which is a sort of you for this and for we no longer impel. no, no, no, according to show us. so different, very, very different days for kissing joe. but just pick up joe, just point, i think probably, kissinger nick, some would have been more sense. some said sensible. i'm thinking of the french was story, since people are sensitive to the outcry from people via the press, then this, today's administration, i mean and, and i think they would have acted on it. so i think under kissinger we may well, lot of cease for coming to the seats for enforced, and that's the key will inform you that every se, every time we had something like this, an american president would demand a ceasefire. that this is not happened now. rapidly run out of time, george, but we, um, we have to give kissinger credit for, for his out of office years. he had the kissinger associates became a very wealthy man. he remained very relevant and germane international politics.

tony blair is imitated him. everybody else h. kissinger created a paradigm. and every one of many, many people fall into this footsteps. george? absolutely. it is a power that i mean he did at the moment he's using office ended. he moved to new york, set himself up in a lavish um apartment and began cultivating a very wealthy people. he also cultivated a close, also socialized. so those are the, the, the, didn't about, is that, and this became the, you know, only a very important ingredients on his life. and he flatted the flap of all kinds of leaders. wherever it is, you know, he was, he was what he liked to be flattered to any loved to be for the 2. and that's why he continued to get invitations. you know, the people that listen to all is great, great states. well, i mean that's where he put his energies into and i think he abused it because i think he could have used these. he is much more productively. he could have been a good adviser to president. so say in the,

instead he wanted to go on being invited to the wi fi right now. i have a question. i have a question to both of you right before we end here. but at the end of the day, george, for as he was sick, he wanted to be, he wanted to represent the quintessential consensus. yes or no? absolutely that's. that's what we was martin. here's the thing. so i'll give you jos or cheese that ended really quick. you've got 20 to go to different studies that can cause the thing that goes through his personality. he never, never wanted to be outside of the main street of a conventional opinion. okay, gentleman, that's all the time we have. i want to think on george and martin, i want to thank our viewers for watching us here are the see you next time? remember,

cross stuck rules. the phone just goose, tiny, little headed is still with me. so can you guys just sent it spaced the printer, which was quite easy to use for mobile and they just sucks. so good. i used to be on the

the the, the southern gods arisen palm to by israel following statements from the idea that a tax that will be equal to the strikes that level to know as be full strongly and solely in northern guns that we're also doing. so now in the southern parts it will be no less friends, and that's the idea of fidelity that the coastal bypass road will be open for civilian setting, solved as the previous car that was put into it was own meantime, one right across the spokesperson says there are no safe places less than a gosh. with a resumption of this fight thing,