professor at harvard
Henry Kissinger, born in Fürth, Germany, on May 27, 1923, remains a controversial figure whose influence on international strategy spans several decades. His bibliography—starting with A Restored World and extending through later works like Liderazgo in its Spanish edition—has shaped risk analysis worldwide. Advocating that durable order requires a careful balance of power, Kissinger argues that dramatic crises can be managed without tipping into catastrophe. The core idea behind his thinking is that strategic equilibrium offers a path to avoiding apocalyptic consequences while navigating the pressures of global competition.
Shortly after reaching the century mark, Kissinger drew renewed attention. A lengthy interview in a major weekly reflected on the evolving nature of trust between adversaries and the ways in which leadership should respond to today’s crises. The discussion touched on the ongoing competition between China and the United States, suggesting that both sides have convinced themselves that the other poses a strategic danger. The interview emphasized that the world is edging toward a confrontation among great powers, even as it explored ways to soften relations and reduce the likelihood of conflict.
In addressing Ukraine and NATO, Kissinger warned against abrupt moves that could destabilize the region. He argued for a measured approach, noting the dangers of rapidly widening alliances and the unintended consequences that can follow. The argument centered on careful calibration—arming capabilities without precipitating a broader war and considering diplomatic avenues that might reduce harm to civilians and regional stability alike.
What alternatives does Kissinger propose for Sino-American relations? He suggests that a decade spent in close proximity between the two powers could lower the risk of a wider conflict if both sides learn to coexist and manage tensions without escalating toward military confrontation. Regarding the war in Ukraine, he wrote in The Spectator last December that a ceasefire line should be established along the existing borders as the fighting began on February 24. In his view, Russia would need to relinquish its conquests but not the lands it held for the past decade, with the possibility of negotiating the fate of Crimea after a ceasefire is in place.
A nuanced view on stability
This approach to conflict resolution was not unfamiliar to European advisory circles in the early 1960s, even as Kissinger emerged as a young professor at Harvard. He argued that stability often stems from broad legitimacy rather than an outright pursuit of peace. Legitimacy, he noted, should not be confused with justice but should be understood as an international agreement on how functional arrangements operate within the system. During his tenure as an advisor to the U.S. government, that distinction informed decisions aimed at reshaping relationships with major powers—efforts that included reopening dialogue with China and engaging in strategic arms discussions with the Soviet Union. The aim was to reduce tension and normalize relations where possible, with a focus on reducing nuclear threats through collaborative accords.
Years later, in a memoir that surveyed the period, Kissinger described a pragmatic path to coexistence among democracies and rival regimes. Critics have pointed to the moral ambiguities in pursuing stability and have highlighted the controversial stance taken toward certain Latin American governments. While supporters credit him with stabilizing international relations, detractors argue that some policies tolerated human rights abuses in the pursuit of broader strategic aims.
The evolution of the neocon discourse
The trajectory of Kissinger’s influence reveals a tension between realist diplomacy and the neoconservative impulse that emerged in the late 20th century. As the Soviet Union collapsed, some in the American political sphere argued that a unipolar world required a different kind of balance. Kissinger warned that imbalances could lead to conflict, even as others claimed that a single dominant order was possible. Prominent voices in the broader ideological spectrum pressed a different narrative, arguing that the strategic balance should adapt to changing circumstances and that history would validate new approaches to security and alliance-building.
In the years that followed, debates about Ukraine and Sino-American relations continued to test Kissinger’s premises. His 2014 work on world order suggested that the balance of power required periodic reevaluation. He proposed that future scholarship should explore how alliances adapt to new technological realities and geopolitical shifts, with particular attention to artificial intelligence and the evolving architecture of international cooperation. The reader is left with two ongoing projects—one centered on updating the concept of balance for a modern era, the other on examining the nature of alliances in a world where technologies redefine power dynamics. These themes remain on the desk, inviting continued exploration as new developments unfold. The discussion invites readers to consider how historical lessons inform contemporary decisions about war and peace, diplomacy and deterrence, and the pursuit of stability without compromising human dignity.
[Citation: Perspectives on Kissinger, various analyses and interviews across major publications, 2020–2024.]