Difference between security political intellectualism and ignorance

Jan Oberg:

Most people who conducted security politics decades ago were well-educated and experienced compared with most of today’s security political decision-makers.

This overall intellectual disarmament coupled to ever-higher levels of military armament and the recent talk about the use of nuclear weapons creates a new and extremely dangerous reality for us all.

Ω Ω Ω

Given what they stand for, neither Kissinger nor Burns is – so to speak – my cup of tea. However, in an era in which every discourse of peace has disappeared – or, been disappeared – perhaps some people might listen to people like Kissinger and Burns whose profession has always been more war than peace – but on a solid intellectual foundation?

Their cohesive way of reasoning in a low voice – Kissinger in particular with his world perspective and geo-political professionalism and both with a larger perspective – contrasts most of those who make security political decisions today who often display a frightening lack of knowledge, conceptual foundation and ability to look at things in a larger perspective – time as well as space.

There is a clarity of mind growing out of a reservoir of comprehensive knowledge and personal experience.

Ω Ω Ω

Interesting is also Kissinger’s emphasis on how counterproductive it would be – actually, is – for the United States to behave in a way that makes Russia and China come more strongly together against the US. One does not get the impression that there are any NATO or EU decision-makers who have looked that far in time and space while meting out the punishment of Russia right after its invasion of Ukraine.