In 2023, Kissinger sent a "birthday prediction" on the occasion of his centenary, which shocked the entire international public opinion. He said that if the Third World War really breaks out, there will be only three countries in the world that really dare to directly attack the United States.
This is not a big piece of Hollywood speech, but a long-time diplomat who has experienced the Second World War, the Cold War, the Vietnam War and even the entire process of China-U.S.-building, throwing a cold and realistic judgment to the world.
The question is, who are these three countries, why are they, and whom is Kissinger’s words reminding?
North Korea was forced to put all its eggs in one basket
To understand why North Korea would be named by Kissinger, we must first go back to 1950. The Korean War became a historical meltdown, and the hostility between the United States and Pyongyang has set the tone since then, and has not really ceased fire.
For decades, U.S. sanctions on North Korea have been rounded up, and the United Nations has followed nine sanctions, especially against nuclear programs, which have almost pushed North Korea to the corner of the international community.
In 2023, North Korea has continuously test-fired intercontinental missiles, and the highest range can already cover the west coast of the United States. This is not a show of skills, but an expression of "I don't want to fight, but don't force me to have no choice" in North Korea.
Why does North Korea have to hold on to nuclear weapons?In essence, it is afraid of being “limited”.In North Korea’s view, only having enough deterrence can be exchanged for a minimum of security.And this sense of security, in its eyes, is never given by the United Nations, nor is it exchanged by diplomatic negotiations, but by holding a nuclear warhead in its hands.
Kissinger believes that if North Korea is really exempt, it will not exclude the missile directly targeting the U.S. mainland.This is not to say that North Korea is not afraid of the U.S. counterattack, but it may have made the idea: it is blocked, excluded, isolated, no way back, then a big bet.
Of course, North Korea’s nuclear technology is far from “precise strike,” but its “nearly desperate” strategic thinking is exactly the most worrying. The more the international community treats it with force, the more likely it is to go to extremes.
Russia is holding its last table.
Russia is the second country to be ignited, and this is not surprising, after all, it is one of the countries with the most active nuclear warheads in the world, about 1,700.
Moreover, it has a complete "Trinity" nuclear strike capability, covering all areas of land, sea, and air.It's like playing poker, holding the king in the hand and not necessarily out of the card, but you know he can turn the table at any time.
Since the end of the Cold War, Russia's international status has been declining. NATO is expanding eastward step by step, and the United States withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019, which has sharply reduced Russia's sense of security.
So it began to counteract, from the fighting in Ukraine to the development of the intercontinental missile Salmat, and a series of moves revealed a signal: I am no longer a superpower, but you don’t want to see me as a small country.
Russia's strategic culture has always had a core concept: strength must speak for itself. Kissinger has also analyzed this for a long time. He believes that Russia's security anxiety is not a matter of one or two days, but the result of the combined action of history and reality.
If a marginalized big country still holds the trump card of "nuclear weapons", its response will often not be to back down, but to "fight hard against hard".
After the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, many analysts have argued that Russia will not use nuclear weapons easily, but the problem is that once the situation goes to the extreme, no one can guarantee it will not use the “last resort”.
Kissinger's inclusion in the "three countries that dare to attack the United States" is actually a reminder: Don't push a nuclear power into a corner, otherwise no one can afford the consequences.
Japan's idea is becoming more and more "independent"
Speaking of the third country, Japan is probably the most unexpected one. it has neither openly held nuclear weapons nor hostile to the United States, how can it be included in this list?
If North Korea is pressured, Russia is harassed, then Japan is "your own move".
Moreover, its reliance on the United States is weakening.Once America's global influence declines, Japan is likely to choose "strategic independence" and not even rule out a threat to the United States in some extreme circumstances.
Kissinger believes that the US-Japanese alliance looks very stable on the surface, in fact, the dark flow flows.The presence of US troops in Japan is not a "welcome" thing in Japan.
Once the political situation changes and national sentiment rises, this internal contradiction may be magnified. Once Japan really embarks on the road of "military normalization", its strategic goal is no longer to "cooperate with the United States", but to "strive for a place for itself".
Don't forget, Japan dared to attack the United States head-on during World War II, and the Pearl Harbor incident is living evidence. Although today's Japan is no longer the empire of that year, the historical memory of "daring to shoot" has never been completely erased. This may be the underlying logic of Kissinger's judgment.
Who isn't on the list
China was not included in this list of "nations that dare to fight the U.S. mainland", which in itself explains a lot of problems.Kissinger has always emphasized that the U.S. and China have the ability to dominate the world pattern and should therefore avoid conflict.
He once said, "Maintaining a stable relationship between the United States and China is related to world peace." This is not only diplomatic rhetoric, but also a continuation of his consistent advocacy of "diplomacy overwhelming confrontation".
China is not on this list because its strategic path has always been toward peaceful development. Whether it’s a policy of not using nuclear weapons first, or its practices of being deeply tied to the world through economic globalization, it shows that China is more inclined to solve problems through cooperation than confrontation.
In his last years, Kissinger repeatedly called for open communication channels between China and the United States. What he is worried about is not who does it first, but "misjudgment". Once misunderstandings superimpose and emotions escalate between major powers, conflicts may break out inadvertently. He wrote in World Order: "Peace depends on the balance of power and the wisdom of diplomacy, not the number of weapons."
From this perspective, his predictions are not creating anxiety, but a reminder that the world is becoming more and more complex, that traditional deterrent logic is no longer valid, and that diplomacy is the ultimate assurance to avoid disasters.
A hundred-year-old man is worth thinking.
Kissinger's remarks are not bluffing, let alone alarmist. He just used the calmness of a centenarian to single out the most likely dangerous spots in the world. North Korea is a blow in despair, Russia is a counterattack under status anxiety, and Japan is an independent impulse under the cloak of allies.
The real concern is not that these countries are going to take action, but that when dialogue and understanding between the great powers are lost, things that seem “impossible” are often the most dangerous.
Peace is not taken for granted, it is more like a sophisticated balancing skill. Perhaps the biggest legacy left by Kissinger is not how many crises he mediated, but his always belief that as long as there is diplomacy, there are still choices.