Diplomacy
A short portrait of Kissinger: Smart, realistic, ruthless
“In September 1974, Mário Soares, foreign minister of the interim government and leader of the Portuguese Socialist Party, met with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in Washington. Kissinger rebuked Soares and other moderates for not acting more decisively to prevent a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship.
‘You are a Kerensky,’ Kissinger told Soares, ‘I believe your sincerity, but you are naive.’
To which Soares replied: ‘I certainly don’t want to be a Kerensky.’
And Kissinger shot back: ‘Neither did Kerensky.'”
The conversation between Henry Kissinger, now turned 100, and Mário Soares, who after the Carnation Revolution in 1974 feared that his country would fall into the hands of revolutionaries led by the Portuguese Communist Party and officers sympathetic to communism, is narrated by Samuel Huntington, author of the infamous ‘clash of civilizations’ thesis. Europe looked set for another October 1917, not only in Portugal, but also in Greece and Italy in those years. Outside Europe, in the ‘third world’, especially in Vietnam, the US, the leading power of the world capitalist system, was being defeated; imperialism as a whole seemed to be in the process of collapse. On top of that, the economic depression shook all the developed countries in the 70s. Not only the optimistic and rational revolutionaries, but also the administrators and ideologues in charge of the system’s functioning thought that the end was imminent.
Huntington says with a sigh of relief that in 1974 the revolutionary crises all along the Southern European line ended with the ‘victory of the Kerenskys’. With this period, the ‘third wave of democratization’ had begun. At the intermediate stop, the world socialist system, headed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was also dissolving.
Henry Kissinger certainly had the lion’s share in this ‘liberation’ of imperialism. Kissinger’s name should be inscribed among the likes of George Kennan, the sharp ideologue and practitioner of the Cold War, and perhaps even higher. Kissinger was a brilliant imperialist administrator and ideologue who managed to be both realistic, calculating and cold-blooded, and at the same time sneaky, ruthless and above all anticommunist. In any case, without the combination of all these things, it would have been much more difficult for imperialism in crisis in the 1970s and seemingly doomed to collapse to emerge victorious from a new period of aggression, even though it is not possible for individuals to change the course of history on their own.
Kissinger, known today, and rightly so, as the architect of China’s integration into the world system, was also one of the architects of the atrocities in Cambodia and Vietnam. And these were not mutually exclusive: Anyone who has read Kissinger’s Diplomacy cannot conceal the imperialist arrogance of an eternal belief in the intertwining of American national interests and ‘global’ domination. Realism is the complementary element of this arrogance.
In fact, this ‘realism’ explains how the imperialist doctrine of ‘manifest destiny’, as passed down from the American founding fathers, has also turned into a support for fascist dictatorships. Chilean documents from the US National Security Archive provide us with evidence we do not really need: In a meeting in Santiago in June 1976, Kissinger praised the head of the military dictatorship, Augusto Pinochet, saying exactly the following: “We want to help, not undermine you. We are sympathetic with what you are trying to do here. You did a great service to the West in overthrowing Allende. My evaluation is that you are a victim of all left-wing groups around the world, and that your greatest sin was that you overthrew a government which was going Communist.”
Later, however, he informed the general that he had postponed a speech he was to deliver at a meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS) in Chile, in which he was to address ‘human rights violations’ under Pinochet. Kissinger explained that he had to do this to prevent the US Congress, which had ‘problems’ with human rights, from approving sanctions against Chile, saying: “I wanted you to understand my position. We want to deal in moral persuasion, not by legal sanctions.” Kissinger adds that ‘announcing’ the measures taken on human rights would indeed ‘help’, and Pinochet replies that Chile is ‘returning to institutionalization step by step’. And that’s it.
There is no need to recall the role played by the same Kissinger in the covert operations and acts of violence launched to overthrow Allende. It is only necessary to know this to illustrate the moral standards of the American foreign policy gurus who believe that they have been given the right to remake the world in their image. Kissinger also deserves attention for his mastery of the ‘diplomatic virtuosity’ and ‘global values’ of protecting the imperialist hierarchy through military means and defending American interests by going on the offensive at a time when US hegemony was showing signs of decline.
Indeed, this shrewd administrator himself frankly admits this in his book cited above:
“Had America not organized resistance when a self-confident communist empire was acting as if it represented the wave of the future and was causing the peoples and leaders of the world to believe that this might be so, the Communist Parties, which were then already the largest single parties in postwar Europe, might well have prevailed. The series of crises over Berlin could not have been sustained, and there would have been more of them. Exploiting America’s post-Vietnam trauma, the Kremlin sent proxy forces to Africa and its own troops into Afghanistan. It would have become far more assertive had America not protected the global balance of power and helped to rebuild democratic societies. That America did not perceive its role in terms of the balance of power compounded its pain and complicated the process, but it also served to bring about unprecedented dedication and creativity. Nor did it change the reality that it was America which had preserved the global equilibrium and therefore the peace of the world.”
It is all the more significant that the two countries that this brilliant and brutal imperialist administrator never concealed his disgust, contempt, fear and, surprisingly, his crush when describing their representatives were the Soviet Union and Vietnam. ‘Good bargaining’, which should be one of the most important qualities of a diplomat, is ‘tiresome’, ‘retail bargaining’ (whereas the Chinese ‘want to reassure their counterparts’) in the case of Molotov and Gromyko; when it comes to Xuan Thuy and Le Duc Tho, speaking on behalf of the Vietnamese during the negotiations, they either explain the Vietnamese position in ‘a long speech that everyone knows’ or ‘with impeccable politeness, cold demeanor to show moral superiority, and words taken from a Marxist lexicon incomprehensible to ignorant imperialists,’ while it is a blessing for the Vietnamese to even negotiate with the US for their country.
There is no need to recount Kissinger’s entire career, which is now well documented. The reader who wishes and has the time to search the archives in English can access the declassified documents here. Moreover, this brilliant and conversely ‘class-conscious’ executive has more to say to his enemies than to his friends. “He confuses politics with intrigue,” a biographer wrote some thirty years ago, quoting Napoleon as saying of Metternich: “Kissinger was a master of both.” He was a child of the imperialist epoch, when capitalist politics became intrigue. It is not therefore unfair to this master diplomat to characterize him in the same biography as a tactician who planned the necessary steps to fulfill a mission rather than a strategist who formulated grand goals. In an age when economics is shrinking into international relations, politics and military preparations, it corresponds to his lack of understanding of the international economy. “This is a minor economic issue,” Kissinger said in a debate with Nixon’s Secretary of Commerce, Peter Peterson, to which his interlocutor had to reply, “Henry, that’s verbiage for you because you despise any economic assessment.” Nixon himself admits that he never thought Kissinger could fill that role because they were planning to put someone with economic expertise in the State Department.
Thus, eternal and unconditional commitment to the national and world domination of his class is the clay from which this resourceful man is formed. Those who know him and those who have negotiated with him (including his enemies) acknowledge his intellectual capacity. If saving the world from communism and doing it in a way that suited American interests is the greatest achievement of a US diplomat in the 20th century, Kissinger should be at the top of the ‘honor list’.
According to customs and shipping records, an extraordinary flow of antimony—a metal used in batteries, chips, and flame retardants—began entering the US from Thailand and Mexico after China banned shipments to the US last year. Records obtained by Reuters indicate that at least one Chinese company is involved in this trade, revealing how US buyers of critical minerals are circumventing China’s export ban.
China dominates the supply of antimony, as well as gallium and germanium, which are crucial for telecommunications, semiconductors, and military technology. On December 3, Beijing banned the export of these minerals to the US following pressure from Washington on China’s chip sector.
Trade data suggests that US shipments are being rerouted through third countries, a situation that Chinese officials have acknowledged. This assessment was confirmed by executives from two US companies, who told Reuters they have sourced restricted minerals from China in recent months.
According to US customs data, the US imported 3,834 metric tons of antimony oxide from Thailand and Mexico between December and April. This volume is nearly greater than the total from the previous three years combined. Meanwhile, Chinese customs data shows that Thailand and Mexico have become top-three destinations for China’s antimony exports this year. Neither country ranked in the top 10 in 2023, the last full year before Beijing imposed the restrictions.
According to the consulting firm RFC Ambrian, there is only one antimony smelter across both Thailand and Mexico, with the Mexican facility having reopened in April. Neither country mines significant quantities of the metal. Despite higher prices, US imports of antimony, gallium, and germanium this year are on pace to meet or exceed pre-ban levels.
Ram Ben Tzion, co-founder and CEO of the digital shipment inspection platform Publican, stated that while there is clear evidence of transshipment, the trade data does not allow for the identification of the specific companies involved. “This is a pattern we’ve seen, and it’s consistent,” he told Reuters, adding that Chinese companies are “extremely creative in circumventing regulations.”
In May, China’s Ministry of Commerce stated that some unspecified foreign entities were “collaborating with domestic smugglers” to bypass export restrictions, declaring that halting such activities was essential for national security. The ministry did not respond to Reuters‘ questions regarding the shift in trade flows since December. The US Department of Commerce, Thailand’s Ministry of Commerce, and Mexico’s Ministry of Economy also did not respond to similar inquiries.
US law does not prohibit American buyers from purchasing antimony, gallium, or germanium of Chinese origin. Chinese firms are permitted to ship these minerals to countries other than the US if they possess the necessary licenses.
Levi Parker, CEO and founder of the US-based company Gallant Metals, told Reuters that he sources approximately 200 kg of gallium from China each month. He declined to identify the parties involved, citing potential repercussions. The process begins with purchasing agents in China who procure the materials from manufacturers. A shipping company then relabels the packages as iron, zinc, or art supplies and routes them through another Asian country.
Parker noted that these workarounds are neither perfect nor cheap. He explained that he would like to import 500 kg regularly, but larger shipments risk scrutiny, prompting Chinese logistics firms to be “very careful” due to the associated risks.
US-based BlackRock, the world’s largest investment company, has reportedly halted its efforts to find investors for a planned reconstruction fund for Ukraine.
According to a report by Bloomberg that cited sources familiar with the matter, the decision is driven by uncertainties surrounding US President Donald Trump’s position on Ukraine.
The fund was scheduled to be unveiled at a conference on Ukraine’s reconstruction on July 10-11, an event attended by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Sources indicated that the initiative was close to securing initial support from entities linked to the governments of Germany, Italy, and Poland.
However, with the possibility of Trump returning to the White House in January, BlackRock has decided to temporarily suspend its discussions with institutional investors, citing uncertainty about future support for Ukraine.
Alternative plan from France
Bloomberg has also learned that France is now developing an alternative plan, which includes creating a new fund to replace the initiative that BlackRock has suspended. The effectiveness of this new plan without US participation, however, remains a significant question.
A BlackRock representative stated that the company completed its pro bono advisory work for the Ukraine project in 2024 and currently has “no active commitments” to the Ukrainian government.
“The only discussions that influence BlackRock’s decisions are those the firm has with its clients,” the representative emphasized.
The fund’s $15 billion target
BlackRock Vice Chairman Philipp Hildebrand, who was previously involved in the negotiations, had announced plans to attract at least $500 million from governments, international development banks, and other public donors, along with approximately $2 billion from private investors.
According to Hildebrand, uniting investors under a single consortium would have enabled the direction of at least $15 billion in equity and debt investments toward Ukraine’s reconstruction.
The World Bank estimates that the total cost for Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction exceeds €500 billion. Rebuilding the country’s port infrastructure alone is projected to require at least €1 billion.
At the 17th BRICS Summit, which began Sunday in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, military attacks against Iran were condemned, and a call was made for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza.
As the summit continued, US President Donald Trump threatened new tariffs on countries supporting BRICS policies.
A joint statement released by the group declared that the military attacks on Iran were a “violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations (UN).”
Trump threatens tariffs on countries supporting BRICS
While the BRICS summit was underway, US President Donald Trump announced on the social media platform Truth Social that a 10% additional tariff would be imposed on countries that decide to support the group’s “anti-American policy.” Trump stated, “There will be no exceptions.”
Previously, Trump had threatened to impose a 100% tariff on the products of BRICS countries if they created an alternative currency to the dollar.
The US President had said, “BRICS has zero chance of replacing the American dollar in international trade. Any country that tries to do so can wave goodbye to America.” After this threat, Trump claimed that BRICS was “dead.”
Attack on Iran a ‘violation of international law’
The BRICS communiqué expressed “deep concern” over the escalating security situation in the Middle East and the deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure and peaceful nuclear facilities.
The group emphasized its support for diplomatic initiatives aimed at resolving regional challenges and called on the UN Security Council (UNSC) to address the issue.
Call for immediate ceasefire in Gaza, compliance in Lebanon
The statement also reiterated concern over the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories as Israel’s attacks on the Gaza Strip continue.
The text condemned all violations of international law, particularly international humanitarian law and human rights law, drawing special attention to the use of starvation as a method of warfare.
The parties were urged to engage in further negotiations in good faith to achieve an immediate, permanent, and unconditional ceasefire. Additionally, “unwavering” support for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) was affirmed.
The communiqué expressed satisfaction with the ceasefire in Lebanon and called on all parties to “strictly adhere to its terms.”
Ongoing violations of the ceasefire and of Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity were condemned.
The statement called on Israel to “respect the terms agreed upon with the Lebanese government and withdraw its occupying forces from all Lebanese territory.”
‘We are committed to Syria’s territorial integrity’
BRICS also affirmed its commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity, and territorial integrity of Syria. It called for a Syrian-led, peaceful, and inclusive political process based on the principles of UNSC Resolution 2254.
The partial occupation of some parts of Syria was strongly condemned, with a call for Israel to withdraw its forces without delay. The threat posed by the presence of foreign terrorist fighters in Syria was also condemned.
BRICS has a responsibility to defend international law, Araghchi declared
Speaking at the summit, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasized that BRICS has a responsibility to defend international law and multilateralism, and to support the fundamental principles of the UN, from the equality of states to the rejection of the use of force and the peaceful resolution of disputes.
Araghchi stated that the attack on Iran was “a result of the absolute impunity granted by the US and some European countries for the Israeli regime to commit crimes without accountability.”
Stating that both Israel and the US must be held accountable for their violations of international law, Araghchi warned that the consequences of this attack would not be limited to his country but would spread throughout the entire region and even beyond.
The Iranian minister expressed that “the security dilemma in the region will not be resolved as long as Israel’s illegal tendencies are encouraged by its supporters.”
Noting that residential areas and military bases were targeted in the attacks, and that military leaders, soldiers, academics, and scientists were killed, Araghchi stressed Tehran’s determination to document the war crimes committed.
Araghchi added that “Iran will not abandon its demand for justice and compensation” and that his country “will continue to defend itself with all its might against any future attacks.”
The unipolar world is a thing of the past, says Putin
Participating in the summit via video conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the world is witnessing profound changes and that the unipolar system of international relations “is a thing of the past.”
Calling for the strengthening of cooperation among BRICS countries, Putin expressed his hope for expanding the use of national currencies.
Putin stated that all member countries “stand for the principles of equality, good neighborliness, and traditional values,” adding, “The influence and position of BRICS are growing every year, and it has rightfully become one of the main centers of the global system.”
The Russian leader noted that the group “significantly surpasses” other blocs like the G7 in terms of purchasing power parity.
The UNSC must be reformed, says Lula da Silva
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva warned that the UN is in danger of “losing credibility and becoming paralyzed.”
Lula da Silva called for the UNSC to be reformed by “adding new permanent members from the Global South.” He stated that this is not just a matter of justice but also “a guarantee for the survival of the UN.”
The Brazilian leader also warned of a potential nuclear catastrophe and urged world leaders not to ignore the “genocide” committed by Israel in the Gaza Strip.
He emphasized that a solution is only possible “with the end of the occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state.”
Lavrov supports Araghchi
On the sidelines of the summit, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held a meeting with his Iranian counterpart, Araghchi. Lavrov reiterated his country’s position condemning the illegal attacks against Iran, including those on peaceful nuclear facilities.
Emphasizing the importance of taking effective steps to prevent the escalation of tensions in the region, Lavrov stated that Russia is ready to assist, including at the UNSC level.
The global rise of BRICS
BRICS was initially coined as the acronym BRIC by Goldman Sachs chief economist Jim O’Neill to describe the emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China.
These countries formed an informal club in 2009. With the inclusion of South Africa in 2010, the group became known as BRICS. The group expanded in 2023 with the addition of Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the UAE, and Indonesia joined at the beginning of 2025.
Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), stated during the summit in Brazil that the era of the Global South has begun.
Dmitriev noted that BRICS countries account for half of global economic growth, about 45% of the world’s population, and approximately 40% of global GDP, while the G7’s share remains at 29%.
US buyers bypass China’s critical mineral ban via Thailand and Mexico
EU considers new €100 billion support fund for Ukraine
Trump’s envoy Tom Barrack issues warning to Lebanon over Hezbollah disarmament
AI was meant to cut costs, but now it’s creating expensive problems
Netanyahu leaves White House quietly as Gaza ceasefire talks stall
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoBRICS internal trade volume hits the $1 trillion mark
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoGerman arms industry expands presence in India amidst geopolitical shifts
-
Asia2 weeks agoJapan’s prime minister skips NATO summit amid alliance strain
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoXi Jinping to miss BRICS summit in Rio for the first time
-
Asia2 weeks agoChina hosts SCO defense ministers on warship amid regional tensions
-
Interview2 weeks agoRetired Vice Admiral Kadir Sağdıç: ‘Closing Hormuz would benefit the US-Israel’
-
Russia2 weeks agoChina’s energy pivot: Power of Siberia 2 gains traction after Iran-Israel conflict
-
Middle East2 weeks agoUS intelligence contradicts Trump’s claim of destroying Iran’s nuclear program
