Not sure, why do you find it so surprising? Kissinger is well known for thinking the Vienna Congress of 1815 and the world order [in Europe] it installed was the best thing since sliced bread. He wrote a whole book about it.
"Balance of power" is the ultimate goal, screw everything else , if it requires throwing midlle and small sized countries and their legitimate rights under the bus, so be it.
...https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/com ... n-mistaken
Interesting. You have the title of the book?
During the cold war capitalism was 200 years and socialism hardly 50 years old. Achieving a balance of power and waiting for more experience looks like a wise thing to do. As always in world politics, that doesn't help the small countries who become victims in whatever struggle is going on.
I said "Kissinger of all people" because he was the classical cold warrior. The West won. So why would he still stick to old doctrine?
From your name I expect you are Czech.
I disagree with the second part of your post. Both your sources are think tanks. What to expect beside brainwash? Especially the Carnegie article I disliked. Was it Russia that started the trouble in Syria?
Russia and Iran are some players in world politics for the US. For us at least Russia is a people in the neighborhood. Our energy security depends on Russian gas. It's possible to break this dependence, but why should we do this? We depend on Russian gas, Russia depends on the income of it. We are both interested in good relations.
Russia may be weak at the moment. Who is to say they will be weak in 50 years?
Ukraine had an pro-Russian elected president. Protests developed which led to a situation in which snipers shot from roofs on both protesters as well as police forces. I can't proof that, but it looks like an engineered regime change to me.
Considering that Russia's access to the Mediterranean sea depends on the port of Sevastopol, Russia didn't have an alternative to occupation. The population is Russian anyway.
Why would the West incorporate Ukraine into NATO?
"After Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo in 1815, the major victorious powers (Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia) agreed at the Congress of Vienna on uniting the former Belgium Austriacum and the former Seven United Provinces, creating the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, which was to serve as a buffer state against any future French invasions. "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... etherlands
What about Austria during the Cold War? Having committed to independence, it was economically fully integrated into the West. Indeed Austrian shops/ restaurants mostly accepted if one needed to pay in German currency. Was it a problem that it wasn't NATO?
The comparison has one mistake. Austria didn't have a large proportion of Russian speaking people.
The situation is complicated. Please see just two minutes of this video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4&t=357s
I believe the West should be satisfied if Ukraine is a buffer state as Austria used to be.
Would pro Western Ukrainians as well as Russian speaking Ukrainians be satisfied with an EU free trade agreement?
In exchange for Russia to agree to such an arrangement Europe should slightly increase energy dependency on Russian gas. That's moreover great for integration of fluctuating renewable energies. Moreover NATO has to stop military manoeuvres in the Baltic states. I would actually prefer the Austrian model for Baltic states.
I believe Macron agrees with my view and therefore reaches a hand towards Russia, even if the polemic picture in the article is meant to show him as a grumpy fellow.