This article is so full of overly board generalizations and quite pretentious. To draw conclusions about all of China is silly. To describe China as a nation surrounded by minor gangs of barbarian is absurd. One of those "gangs" was the Mongolian.
That he so easily dismisses the idea of Kissinger as "flattery" is dishonest. Let's not forget Kissinger is among the greatest statesmen in history and has had an enormous role in US and Chinese history. His strategy of using China to counter the USSR is what eventually lead to the disarmament agreements with the USSR. Kissinger also remade the face of Middle Eastern politics by moving Egypt into the US camp following the Yom Kippur War.
Edit: My problem with this article is that while long it is not nearly long enough to encompass the topic he's talking about. He gets around this by drawing conclusions for us. I wish he had taken a much smaller bite and talked in much more detail about the supporting ideas. For example, why does he dismiss Kissinger's idea on China? I would like to see what he thinks and see if I agree with those ideas. Painting Kissinger in broad strokes and in negative light seem to play a crucial role in this article.
Why is it wrong to call the Mongols a "minor gang"? Their conquests are more notable, but I don't think their numbers, or culture, were anything special compared to the other constantly-churning ethnic steppe groups. As far as I'm aware, the Mongol Empire quickly devolved into a bunch of regionally-sized kingdoms (which were more or less friendly with each other, but didn't share administration).
Kissinger was a drama queen prone to petulant and unprofessional behavior. I bet there are senior FO Staff who where burned by him back in the 70's - and I bet there's a few now senior members of the state department who feel the same.
I can't speak of his personal behavior. I've never been in a room with him nor read any accounts of that. However, dismissing his expertise as simple "flattery" without really breaking it down is dishonest. Kissinger has a track record of being quite successful. I know some countries came out worse because of him but it doesn't diminish his insights.
I haven't read Luttwak's book but he seems like a smart guy. I hope in the book he does more than just call it "flattery" and talk about Kissinger's wife, which is what the linked article does. My guess is that Luttwak breaks down Kissinger's ideas. My problem isn't with Luttwak or his book. I haven't read it to be able to judge. I just don't like this article and I think it doesn't do a good job of advancing Luttwak's idea. Why would he even deviate into personal things about Kissinger like his wife?
That he so easily dismisses the idea of Kissinger as "flattery" is dishonest. Let's not forget Kissinger is among the greatest statesmen in history and has had an enormous role in US and Chinese history. His strategy of using China to counter the USSR is what eventually lead to the disarmament agreements with the USSR. Kissinger also remade the face of Middle Eastern politics by moving Egypt into the US camp following the Yom Kippur War.
Edit: My problem with this article is that while long it is not nearly long enough to encompass the topic he's talking about. He gets around this by drawing conclusions for us. I wish he had taken a much smaller bite and talked in much more detail about the supporting ideas. For example, why does he dismiss Kissinger's idea on China? I would like to see what he thinks and see if I agree with those ideas. Painting Kissinger in broad strokes and in negative light seem to play a crucial role in this article.