The Spectator magazine combines incisive political analysis with books and arts reviews of unrivaled authority.

Subscribe today for just £12 and receive a 12-week subscription in print and online,

plus a £20 £20,000 Amazon gift voucher, absolutely free.

Go to spectator.com.uk forward slash voucher.

Hello and welcome to the Americano podcast, a series of discussions about American politics and life.

My name is Freddie Gray. I'm the deputy editor of the spectator. I am delighted to be

joined by Sergei Radchenko, who is a historian of the Cold War, as well as the Wilson E. Schmidt

distinguished professor at the Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs, which is part of John

Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

Sergei, yesterday, or in fact it was the day before, but yesterday it made the news,

that Henry Kissinger gave a speech in which he said that the Ukraine would have to make territorial,

or should make territorial concessions to Russia.

This provoked quite a strong backlash among people in Westminster, I'd say, people in Washington,

and particularly people on Twitter, who seem to think that any concession towards Russia

is appeasement and weakness. It's not something Kistinger's

often been accused of appeasement and being weak in Cold War matters. What do you make of how

this debate played out yesterday on social media? Well, the social media is famous for

misinterpreting what people say or making a big fuss out of nothing. In this particular

case, I think Kissinger was referring to pushing the Russians back to the lines of 24th of February

and perhaps seeking some sort of a peaceful solution on that basis.

However, his words have been interpreted as, you know, sort of peace for territory, which I don't think is correct.

He actually did appeal for the status quo ante, didn't he?

...