"“Biden and previous administrations have been too much influenced by the domestic aspects of the view of China,” Kissinger, 99, said in an interview Tuesday in New York with Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait. “It is, of course, important to prevent Chinese or any other country’s hegemony.”

But “that is not something that can be achieved by endless confrontations,” he added in the interview produced by Intelligence Squared US and How To Academy. He’s previously said the increasingly adversarial relations between the US and China risk a global “catastrophe comparable to World War I.”"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/kissinger-warns-biden-against-endless-confrontation-with-china/ar-AAZL2VS

Kissinger, nevertheless, agrees that it is important to prevent Chinese or any other country's hegemony. US hegemony good. Chinese hegemony bad. But why?

When is hegemony hegemony?

ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "“Biden and previous administrations have been too much influenced by
> the domestic aspects of the view of China,” Kissinger, 99, said in an
> interview Tuesday in New York with Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John
> Micklethwait. “It is, of course, important to prevent Chinese or any
> other country’s hegemony.”
>
> But “that is not something that can be achieved by endless
> confrontations,” he added in the interview produced by Intelligence
> Squared US and How To Academy. He’s previously said the increasingly
> adversarial relations between the US and China risk a global
> “catastrophe comparable to World War I.”"
>
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/kissinger-warns-biden-against-endless-confrontation-with-china/ar-AAZL2VS
>
> Kissinger, nevertheless, agrees that it is important to prevent
> Chinese or any other country's hegemony. US hegemony good. Chinese
> hegemony bad. But why? […[

A short _cynical_ version: Because he is usanesse? :-)

--
A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
| All the taxes paid over a lifetime by the average American are
| spent by the government in less than a second. (Jim Fiebig)

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 2:38:30 AM UTC+8, ltlee1 wrote:
> "“Biden and previous administrations have been too much influenced by the domestic aspects of the view of China,” Kissinger, 99, said in an interview Tuesday in New York with Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait. “It is, of course, important to prevent Chinese or any other country’s hegemony.”
>
> But “that is not something that can be achieved by endless confrontations,” he added in the interview produced by Intelligence Squared US and How To Academy. He’s previously said the increasingly adversarial relations between the US and China risk a global “catastrophe comparable to World War I.”"
>
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/kissinger-warns-biden-against-endless-confrontation-with-china/ar-AAZL2VS
>
> Kissinger, nevertheless, agrees that it is important to prevent Chinese or any other country's hegemony. US hegemony good. Chinese hegemony bad. But why?
>
> When is hegemony hegemony?

From Kissinger's book:

Kissinger said Singapore’s Lee would be the best of the six to serve as US president, if such a thing were possible, and also the best at dealing with the long-term challenge of climate change.

And on the turmoil of Brexit, Kissinger said de Gaulle’s view -- that Great Britain “would never be a wholehearted member of the European community” -- has proven justified.

Geopolitics and great-power relations are a central theme of Kissinger’s new book, “Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy,” that focuses on six key leaders: Germany’s Konrad Adenauer, France’s Charles de Gaulle, Nixon, Egypt’s Anwar Sadat, UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Singapore’s influential first Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.

In his near-century of life, Kissinger has known all six of the leaders whose examples he cites, and through his advisory firm he continues to be a sought-out voice on global affairs from Beijing to Washington.

Asked how the leaders portrayed in his book would fare in today’s world, Kissinger said Singapore’s Lee would be the best of the six to serve as US president, if such a thing were possible, and also the best at dealing with the long-term challenge of climate change.

Former President Richard Nixon campaigned in the 1960s as a vehement anti-Communist, yet surprised many of his supporters by deciding to engage Mao Zedong’s China and visit Beijing in 1972 on a trip that became a historic turning point for both nations.

Pressed on who would be the strongest negotiator with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Kissinger opted for France’s de Gaulle, then added “Nixon would be quite good.”

Nixon was “a very good foreign-policy president. He destroyed himself domestically,” Kissinger said.

On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 2:54:36 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > "“Biden and previous administrations have been too much influenced by
> > the domestic aspects of the view of China,” Kissinger, 99, said in an
> > interview Tuesday in New York with Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John
> > Micklethwait. “It is, of course, important to prevent Chinese or any
> > other country’s hegemony.”
> >
> > But “that is not something that can be achieved by endless
> > confrontations,” he added in the interview produced by Intelligence
> > Squared US and How To Academy. He’s previously said the increasingly
> > adversarial relations between the US and China risk a global
> > “catastrophe comparable to World War I.”"
> >
> > https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/kissinger-warns-biden-against-endless-confrontation-with-china/ar-AAZL2VS
> >
> > Kissinger, nevertheless, agrees that it is important to prevent
> > Chinese or any other country's hegemony. US hegemony good. Chinese
> > hegemony bad. But why? […[
>
> A short _cynical_ version: Because he is usanesse? :-)

If this kind of answer is considered legitimate, then Sino-US was is inevitable.
>
> --
> A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
> | All the taxes paid over a lifetime by the average American are
> | spent by the government in less than a second. (Jim Fiebig)

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 5:29:27 AM UTC-4, borie wrote:
> On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 2:38:30 AM UTC+8, ltlee1 wrote:
> > "“Biden and previous administrations have been too much influenced by the domestic aspects of the view of China,” Kissinger, 99, said in an interview Tuesday in New York with Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait. “It is, of course, important to prevent Chinese or any other country’s hegemony.”
> >
> > But “that is not something that can be achieved by endless confrontations,” he added in the interview produced by Intelligence Squared US and How To Academy. He’s previously said the increasingly adversarial relations between the US and China risk a global “catastrophe comparable to World War I.”"
> >
> > https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/kissinger-warns-biden-against-endless-confrontation-with-china/ar-AAZL2VS
> >
> > Kissinger, nevertheless, agrees that it is important to prevent Chinese or any other country's hegemony. US hegemony good. Chinese hegemony bad. But why?
> >
> > When is hegemony hegemony?
> From Kissinger's book:
>
> Kissinger said Singapore’s Lee would be the best of the six to serve as US president, if such a thing were possible, and also the best at dealing with the long-term challenge of climate change.
>
> And on the turmoil of Brexit, Kissinger said de Gaulle’s view -- that Great Britain “would never be a wholehearted member of the European community” -- has proven justified.
>
> Geopolitics and great-power relations are a central theme of Kissinger’s new book, “Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy,” that focuses on six key leaders: Germany’s Konrad Adenauer, France’s Charles de Gaulle, Nixon, Egypt’s Anwar Sadat, UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Singapore’s influential first Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.
>
> In his near-century of life, Kissinger has known all six of the leaders whose examples he cites, and through his advisory firm he continues to be a sought-out voice on global affairs from Beijing to Washington.
>
> Asked how the leaders portrayed in his book would fare in today’s world, Kissinger said Singapore’s Lee would be the best of the six to serve as US president, if such a thing were possible, and also the best at dealing with the long-term challenge of climate change.
>
> Former President Richard Nixon campaigned in the 1960s as a vehement anti-Communist, yet surprised many of his supporters by deciding to engage Mao Zedong’s China and visit Beijing in 1972 on a trip that became a historic turning point for both nations.
>
> Pressed on who would be the strongest negotiator with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Kissinger opted for France’s de Gaulle, then added “Nixon would be quite good.”
>
> Nixon was “a very good foreign-policy president. He destroyed himself domestically,” Kissinger said.

Not sure the chasm between China and the US could be bridged through skillful negotiation.
It is more a matter of double standard. For example, China's BRI is supposed to do good. This is
exactly why
the US comes out with infrastructure projects following China's example. However, Western elites
mostly portray the initiative negatively. The following is how the Chatam House introduces the
BRI:

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/09/what-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-bri

"China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)
The BRI is an ambitious plan to develop two new trade routes connecting China with the rest
of the world. But the initiative is about far more than infrastructure.

It is an effort to develop an expanded, interdependent market for China, grow China’s economic
and political power, and create the right conditions for China to build a high technology economy.

Why create the Belt and Road?
There are three main motivations for the BRI. The first, and most discussed internationally, is China’s
rivalry with the US. The vast majority of Chinese international trade passes by sea through the Malacca
strait off the coast of Singapore which is a major US ally. The initiative is integral to China’s efforts to
create its own more secure trade routes."

ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 2:54:36 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
>> ltlee1 wrote:
>> > "“Biden and previous administrations have been too much influenced by
>> > the domestic aspects of the view of China,” Kissinger, 99, said in an
>> > interview Tuesday in New York with Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John
>> > Micklethwait. “It is, of course, important to prevent Chinese or any
>> > other country’s hegemony.”
>> >
>> > But “that is not something that can be achieved by endless
>> > confrontations,” he added in the interview produced by Intelligence
>> > Squared US and How To Academy. He’s previously said the increasingly
>> > adversarial relations between the US and China risk a global
>> > “catastrophe comparable to World War I.”"
>> >
>> > https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/kissinger-warns-biden-against-endless-confrontation-with-china/ar-AAZL2VS
>> >
>> > Kissinger, nevertheless, agrees that it is important to prevent
>> > Chinese or any other country's hegemony. US hegemony good. Chinese
>> > hegemony bad. But why? […[
>>
>> A short _cynical_ version: Because he is usanesse? :-)
>
> If this kind of answer is considered legitimate, then Sino-US was is inevitable.

This kind of answer is illegitimate but it is based on "interests of the speaker".
It is easier to see what you want to see.
It is a theater played (also) for *third* parties.

Do you expect me to treat *also* your posts not like statements of
*interested* party? You may dream.

--
A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
| I must get out of these wet clothes and into a dry Martini.
| (Alexander Woolcott)

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 11:28:50 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 2:54:36 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> >> ltlee1 wrote:
> >> > "“Biden and previous administrations have been too much influenced by
> >> > the domestic aspects of the view of China,” Kissinger, 99, said in an
> >> > interview Tuesday in New York with Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John
> >> > Micklethwait. “It is, of course, important to prevent Chinese or any
> >> > other country’s hegemony.”
> >> >
> >> > But “that is not something that can be achieved by endless
> >> > confrontations,” he added in the interview produced by Intelligence
> >> > Squared US and How To Academy. He’s previously said the increasingly
> >> > adversarial relations between the US and China risk a global
> >> > “catastrophe comparable to World War I.”"
> >> >
> >> > https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/kissinger-warns-biden-against-endless-confrontation-with-china/ar-AAZL2VS
> >> >
> >> > Kissinger, nevertheless, agrees that it is important to prevent
> >> > Chinese or any other country's hegemony. US hegemony good. Chinese
> >> > hegemony bad. But why? […[
> >>
> >> A short _cynical_ version: Because he is usanesse? :-)
> >
> > If this kind of answer is considered legitimate, then Sino-US was is inevitable.
> This kind of answer is illegitimate but it is based on "interests of the speaker".

> It is easier to see what you want to see.
> It is a theater played (also) for *third* parties.
>
> Do you expect me to treat *also* your posts not like statements of
> *interested* party? You may dream.

Of course everyone, Kissinger, you or me, has he or her opinion based on interest.
It is Kissinger's interest to think and suggest "US hegemony good. Chinese hegemony bad"
because he is American.

But is this reality based thinking or just wishful thinking?

ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 11:28:50 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
>> ltlee1 wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 2:54:36 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
>> >> ltlee1 wrote:
>> >> > "“Biden and previous administrations have been too much influenced by
>> >> > the domestic aspects of the view of China,” Kissinger, 99, said in an
>> >> > interview Tuesday in New York with Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John
>> >> > Micklethwait. “It is, of course, important to prevent Chinese or any
>> >> > other country’s hegemony.”
>> >> >
>> >> > But “that is not something that can be achieved by endless
>> >> > confrontations,” he added in the interview produced by Intelligence
>> >> > Squared US and How To Academy. He’s previously said the increasingly
>> >> > adversarial relations between the US and China risk a global
>> >> > “catastrophe comparable to World War I.”"
>> >> >
>> >> > https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/kissinger-warns-biden-against-endless-confrontation-with-china/ar-AAZL2VS
>> >> >
>> >> > Kissinger, nevertheless, agrees that it is important to prevent
>> >> > Chinese or any other country's hegemony. US hegemony good. Chinese
>> >> > hegemony bad. But why? […[
>> >>
>> >> A short _cynical_ version: Because he is usanesse? :-)
>> >
>> > If this kind of answer is considered legitimate, then Sino-US was is inevitable.
>> This kind of answer is illegitimate but it is based on "interests of the speaker".
>
>
>> It is easier to see what you want to see.
>> It is a theater played (also) for *third* parties.
>>
>> Do you expect me to treat *also* your posts not like statements of
>> *interested* party? You may dream.
>
> Of course everyone, Kissinger, you or me, has he or her opinion based on interest.
> It is Kissinger's interest to think and suggest "US hegemony good. Chinese hegemony bad"
> because he is American.
>
> But is this reality based thinking or just wishful thinking?

As in most cases it is a mix of both. We are unlikely+ to agree on
_exact_ proportions because it is for many people (personal) opinion based.
"Good" is so "imprecise", ask Good for WHOM, based on WHAT criteria,
WHEN and HOW MUCH. Isn't it in US interest to "over emphasize" good
consequences of US hegemony?
Was US co-hegemony good for China when US military "visited" Beijing in 1900?
Has it stayed in the same position for over a century?

Be careful forcing (big) "not a friend" into plain enemy.
Dose "unfriendliness" carefully. Kissinger words may be interpreted this
way too.

<irony? US brings freedom and democracy to the world even if "sometimes"
it is "freedom and democracy" of Saudi Kingdom or Sisi Egypt. </irony>

--
A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
| "Love may fail, but courtesy will previal." (A Kurt Vonnegut fan)

On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 9:19:30 AM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 11:28:50 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> >> ltlee1 wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 2:54:36 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> >> >> ltlee1 wrote:
> >> >> > "“Biden and previous administrations have been too much influenced by
> >> >> > the domestic aspects of the view of China,” Kissinger, 99, said in an
> >> >> > interview Tuesday in New York with Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John
> >> >> > Micklethwait. “It is, of course, important to prevent Chinese or any
> >> >> > other country’s hegemony.”
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But “that is not something that can be achieved by endless
> >> >> > confrontations,” he added in the interview produced by Intelligence
> >> >> > Squared US and How To Academy. He’s previously said the increasingly
> >> >> > adversarial relations between the US and China risk a global
> >> >> > “catastrophe comparable to World War I.”"
> >> >> >
> >> >> > https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/kissinger-warns-biden-against-endless-confrontation-with-china/ar-AAZL2VS
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Kissinger, nevertheless, agrees that it is important to prevent
> >> >> > Chinese or any other country's hegemony. US hegemony good. Chinese
> >> >> > hegemony bad. But why? […[
> >> >>
> >> >> A short _cynical_ version: Because he is usanesse? :-)
> >> >
> >> > If this kind of answer is considered legitimate, then Sino-US was is inevitable.
> >> This kind of answer is illegitimate but it is based on "interests of the speaker".
> >
> >
> >> It is easier to see what you want to see.
> >> It is a theater played (also) for *third* parties.
> >>
> >> Do you expect me to treat *also* your posts not like statements of
> >> *interested* party? You may dream.
> >
> > Of course everyone, Kissinger, you or me, has he or her opinion based on interest.
> > It is Kissinger's interest to think and suggest "US hegemony good. Chinese hegemony bad"
> > because he is American.
> >
> > But is this reality based thinking or just wishful thinking?
> As in most cases it is a mix of both. We are unlikely+ to agree on
> _exact_ proportions because it is for many people (personal) opinion based.
> "Good" is so "imprecise", ask Good for WHOM, based on WHAT criteria,
> WHEN and HOW MUCH. Isn't it in US interest to "over emphasize" good
> consequences of US hegemony?
> Was US co-hegemony good for China when US military "visited" Beijing in 1900?
> Has it stayed in the same position for over a century?
>
> Be careful forcing (big) "not a friend" into plain enemy.
> Dose "unfriendliness" carefully. Kissinger words may be interpreted this
> way too.
>
> <irony? US brings freedom and democracy to the world even if "sometimes"
> it is "freedom and democracy" of Saudi Kingdom or Sisi Egypt. </irony>

If one thinks purely in term of interest, there is no friend or enemy.
For friend or enemy to be meaningful beyond transactional, value must also
be invoked.

America's Middle East policy cannot balance its "freedom and democracy"
value against interest. Hence the the "freedom and democracy" of Saudi
Kingdom or al Sisi Egypt.

Is America's "freedom and democracy" value really universal?
Similarly, is America's "US hegemony good. Chinese hegemony bad"
really universal? If so, why?

ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> […]
> If one thinks purely in term of interest, there is no friend or enemy.
> For friend or enemy to be meaningful beyond transactional, value must also
> be invoked.
>
> America's Middle East policy cannot balance its "freedom and democracy"
> value against interest. Hence the the "freedom and democracy" of Saudi
> Kingdom or al Sisi Egypt.
>
> Is America's "freedom and democracy" value really universal?
> Similarly, is America's "US hegemony good. Chinese hegemony bad"
> really universal? If so, why?

US hegemony is not good *for everyone*. IMHO US hegemony is slightly or
more better than PRC hegemony for not too impressive majority (counting
outside PRC and US).

<full-cynicism> Too eager support for US hegemony "may" make too easy
for US to lower standards even more. </full-cynicism>

--
A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
| Why was I born with such contemporaries? (Oscar Wilde)