Henry Kissinger's March 5 op-ed in the Washington Post was an attempt to influence policy regarding the current crisis in Ukraine. The former secretary of state and decorated academic offered poignant insights and observations about the crisis and the people involved. At a time when many opinion makers and influencers are brandishing their guns, calling for confrontation with Russia, Kissinger has taken an opposing view, arguing instead for cooperation. The argument he makes is well served by the argumentation techniques introduced by Chaim Perelman. Kissinger uses facts and presumptions to support the truths that form the basis of his argument. He draws on historical precedents of U.S. military failures to suggest that results are the most important consideration in crafting policy. Once Kissinger had this truth to ground his argument, he presented his main claim: that the crisis is an opportunity to achieve an outcome. greater cooperation between the West and Russia. This is not only his thesis, but it also establishes a locus of preferability in which greater cooperation between world powers is seen as more valuable than confrontation. Kissinger uses Perelman's modes of emphasis to strengthen his argument. It reviews the policies of each of the countries involved to establish that all are, in one way or another, responsible for their current predicament. He gives presence to the competition between the United States and Russia in the geopolitical world by juxtaposing them in paragraphs eight and nine. He also spreads his criticisms of the conduct of these countries throughout the debate, using them in his connections. These connections link Kissinger's starting point (politics should focus on results) to his thesis (results should encourage greater cooperation.... ... middle of paper ...... failures of these nations as well as their responsibility to influence the resolution of this conflict by adopting a more intelligent policy The final link allows Kissinger to propose principles which should guide the management of the crisis aimed at producing an outcome acceptable to all parties involved. Kissinger calls this "balanced dissatisfaction" which could slow everyone's momentum towards confrontation, an outcome he does not want at all. Kissinger departs from Perelman's model at the end of his argument where it seems. suggesting that confrontation with Russia is inevitable It is difficult to understand why Kissinger ends his article this way, as the tone previously seemed anti-confrontational. Perelman's model would allow an arguer to defeat the point of view. opposite. Taking the opposite view seems to weaken Kissinger's argument.