The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski – More Quotes

"...The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world's paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power...” (p. xiii)

"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)

"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” (pp 24-5)

"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” (p.30)

"America's withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival - would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy." (p. 30)

"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

“It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)

"Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above..." (p. 40)

"...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)

"Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55)

"Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states, and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures." (p. 121)

[Referring to an area he calls the "Eurasian Balkans" and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict - describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance] "Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124)

"The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)

"Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia." (p.130)

"Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan's truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for the country's people.” (p.132)

"In fact, an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133).

"For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan - and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan - and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." (p.139)

"Turkmenistan... has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea..." (p.145)

"It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)

"China's growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the area's independence are also congruent with America's interests." (p.149)

"America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194)

"Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today's Eurasia but of the world more generally." (p.194)

"With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design." (p.197)

"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy..." (p. 198)

"The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)


http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard

so much for the "I am not going to smear Jimmy Carter" vow you made to me many moons ago.

Note- this article does not even mention Jimmy Carter, so putting Carter's name in the title is wrong.
His only mention is the one notation on Brzezinski's resume and its a dubious one.

One that does NOT warrant highlighting Jimmy's name and putting it in the title.

another smear...Bush and AIPAC hate Jimmy Carter because he stands for everything they don't.
It's as simple as up and down. Jimmy at the end of his life will be going UP...the BushClinton's and their AIPAC loving crone's will be taking a one way trip straight down.

Why stop with Jimmy Carter? How much of today's ills can we blame on Woodrow Wilson?

Brzezinski's voice is not where US attention needs to be. Playing chess with the world's peoples
from Washington, D.C. is no longer the name of the game. All of our past assumptions about maintaining a, "Balance-of-power" must be questioned. Our foreign Policy can not depend on 5-year
strategic plans. We must start thinking in terms of 50-year plans with zero secrecy.

I agree that we need 50-year plans, with the proviso that such plans will need to revised a lot during those 50 years. And there will be some secrecy required! Plus we will need some 5-year plans as well.

All kinds of assumptions should be questioned, even if they have the "right" ideological flavor. But there will still be a game, some sort of chess will have to be played, and "balance of power" will be with us for quite a while, for at least a few decades, IMO. We also need to realize two things (that neocons resist) that the nature of the game is fundamentally changing, and we need to look at our purposes in playing the game.

Speaking as one who served in the military back then I'd hate to see Brzezinski back in any policy making role. The democrats cut the budget then Brzezinski expected miracles out of us, I really considered getting out of the Marines under Carter.

Well Marine I agree that we cannot expect miracles out of the military. That is why we need to employ more assets than just the military, although the military will be a very important asset for quite a while.

I wish you'd served in the military back in the Carter years Arne. I can remember driving into base and trying to imagine what it would look like to see a mushroom cloud over mainside on numerous occassions. Brzezinski's policy making sucked, he made Pol Pot possible, rejoiced when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and misread just about everything about the overthrow of the Shah in Iran. Maybe he learned these skills from his Papa who was Poland's diplomat to the Third Reich in the 1930s.

Well I agree that he got Iran wrong, but how did he make Pol Pot possible? How would we have prevented that, send troops into Cambodia? (Like that was going to happen in the late 70's!) And can you supply his quote rejoicing over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

Brzezinski encourage Red China to support the Pol Pot regime. It might not a made hm responsible but he sure prolonged the agony.

Brzezinski had directed the establishment of the Muhajadeen a year before the Soviet invasion to be a thorn in the side of the pro Moscow government in Afghanistan. When the Soviets invaded he was all grins when he went to Carter and said here was our chance to give the Soviets their Vietnam.

Well this, if true, makes him look cynical, but hardly a chump for the Soviets as you implied when you said that he rejoiced about the invasion.

I am really going to need a source on that one! Of course people were making all kinds of difficult choices then. William F. Buckley and George McGovern both favored a Vietnamese invasion to depose Pol Pot, which of course is what actually happened. But even if that was the best possible outcome considering how horrible Pol Pot was, the whole idea of Vietnam, then a Soviet ally, increasing its power in the region was not something that any serious U.S. policy maker could have liked.

You may get to find out if we continue to follow Bush / McCain / NJeo-con policies.

Right now I wish they'd both STFU and quit trying to posture. Somebody needs to tell them that we're not in a position to go preaching to Russia and that our military is already stretched to its limit... since they don't realize it while the rest of the world does.

Sorry... going slightly OT here.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?e...niew_brzezinski

Do you think that this is a reliable source? And if you do, do you agree that the CIA lured the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan? If you don't agree, then why don't you?

Marine and I rarely agree, but this time he is spot on. In the late 70s, the CIA produced a report indicating that the Russian oilfields were at or near peak. Turns out they were right on the money.

Zbig wanted to sucker the Russians into their own Vietnam quagmire, knowing that their sources of hard currency would be in decline.

Bush 41 finished the job as VP by having his Saudi buddies turn up the spigots, dropping the world price of oil. The Russians were f*cked.

Too bad that spook (41) never got credit for bankrupting the USSR.

But he did.

It's all about money.

Always was.

This needs to be said loud and often.

This is pretty much as I remember it, also.

I've read this from numerous sources Arne, I just picked the first one which popped up on a google.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc...2b%22pol+pot%22

Were these sources no more reliable than this one? Would it not have been better to cite a reliable and trusted source?

Or can you answer my original questions?

?????

He set the Russians up Arne. Do you wonder how many tens of thousands of Afghanis died to satisfy Brzezinski's ego? Have you ever wondered who fertilized the roots and made sure it grew the modern Islamic fanaticism movement which is to this day the greatest peril the civilized world has ever faced? This guy makes Henry Kissinger look like the worst thing Kissinger ever did was as a choir boy caught drinking sacramental wine.

Brzezinski is no chump, h's a master at manipulation and instigation.

Well, I know PBS is a pretty horrible place to look for reliable information but liberals tend to swear it is. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features...bodia_5-09.html

It was sort of difficult considering the google pulled up over 43,000 source supporting the statement. The one from PBS was buried about ten pages in. I wasn't going to mention it but since you justkeep after it a bunch of them just dealt with what a lame brain Obama is for using this guy as his advisor on foreign affairs.

It's not hard to see why Russians want striking distance from central Georgian territory because of the pipelines from Caucuses to Europe.

It ain't about break-away provinces for the Russians, it's about overseeing Europe's energy.

In your first statement about him you hardly made this view of yours clear.

Do you think that we would all have been better off had the Soviets stayed in Afghanistan, dominating that country? Sure we made mistakes there in supporting the wrong sorts against the enemy of the moment. You don't worry that we do that now?

And he and Kissenger and Madeline Albright still have too much influence which is why I didn't support Hillary for President.

Well, the Soviets wouldn't a been in the country if the Muhajadeen hadn't been making it so hot for the government the Soviets installed to be their clients.

The Cold War would a gone on maybe a year or so longer but the results would ended up the same, less the problem of a corps of trained Islamic fanatics who thought they had defeated a super power. Trying to keep up with the Jone's bankrupted the USSR, their fiasco in Afghanistan contributed but it wasn't what caused the Soviet's final collapse.

Marine, I would say that PBS is a considerably better source than many of the wackjob sites out there, many of which are cited here. I would not take them as absolutely reliable, but reasonably reliable on matters of fact. So I grant that this quote does appear reliable, and makes Brzezinski look rather cynical. But we might want to keep things in perspective. Who besides George McGovern and William F. Buckley were speaking out in favor of the Vietnamese invasion as the best way of eliminating that ogre? I cannot recall anyone else who was, can you?

And I believe Brzezinski is one of several unoffical and occasional advisors to Obama, certainly not his advisor, as though he were the only one or the key one.

Easy to say in hindsight, isn't it? Not all of the Muhajadeen became our enemies either. I do agree that we foolishly supported some bad actors there.

What will we be saying in 20 years if someone we supported in the "Global War on Terror" turns out be a thorn in our side then?

Obama said that Brzezinski was “one of our most outstanding scholars and thinkers,” and that he was “someone I have learned an immense amount from.”

Brzezinski Backs Obama
Saturday, August 25, 2007; Page A03


Barack Obama, combating the perception that he is too young and inexperienced to handle a dangerous world, got a boost yesterday from a paragon of foreign policy eminence, Zbigniew Brzezinski. The former national security adviser announced on Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital With Al Hunt" that he is supporting the junior senator from Illinois for president.


Zbigniew Brzezinski says he is supporting Barack Obama for president. (By Carol T. Powers -- Bloomberg News)

Obama "recognizes that the challenge is a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America's role in the world," said Brzezinski, who keeps an office at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Obama is clearly more effective and has the upper hand. He has a sense of what is historically relevant and what is needed from the United States in relationship to the world."

Brzezinski, who had a relatively hawkish reputation in the Carter administration but has been an outspoken critic of President Bush and the Iraq war, rejected the notion that Obama's Senate colleague Hillary Clinton is more experienced in foreign affairs. "Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president," he said. "Clinton's foreign policy approach is "very conventional," he added. "I don't think the country needs to go back to what we had eight years ago."

He also defended Obama's position in his recent foreign policy tiff with Clinton, in which she called him "naive" for saying he would be willing to meet with the leaders of U.S. antagonists such as Iran and Venezuela. "What's the hang-up about negotiating with the Syrians or with the Iranians?" Brzezinski said. "What it in effect means," he said, is "that you only talk to people who agree with you."


-- Alec MacGillis

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7082402127.html

What the Washington Post writer doesn't tell you is Brzezinski has found a useful idiot in Barrack Obama.

We keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. We should try something different and shock the World, like declaring a unilateral cease fire throughout the World. My guess is that we have less than 10 years to take this bull by the horns. We won't be in a position to lead very much longer.

and every one of these "endorsements" makes it all the more apparent that Obama is being assimilated into the "establishment".

I may be an Obama supporter, and I still see him as the lesser of two evils, I am concerned that anyone can ever be independent of the system that is endangering America and our liberties.

America as we knew it may be history...

So? How exactly do you think this contradicts what I just said?

I have been a critic of Henry Kissinger, but I would say the same about him, and would hope that any candidate would make use of his advice and insights as well (if not necessarily follow all of them). Someone certainly could learn "an immense amount" from Kissinger, and from Brzezinski too, whatever their flaws.

But a candidate saying that clearly does not establish such an advisor as their, or even one of their principal advisors.

We have neither the moral authority or the might to lead and the sooner America gets that into its collective head the better.

Bush and this fiasco / debacle in the Middle East has harmed America to a degree and in ways that will not be realized for years.

Of course we won't be in a position to lead indefinitely, at least not as the paramount leader of the world. I still think we have a few decades before we are surpassed by India and/or China. But that day is coming, very likely in the lifetimes of some of the younger members of this forum.

I think we have years... a few... at best and even that can be shortened based on alliances of our adversaries.

No, what you don't tell us is that Brzezinski's stated reasons in this article for supporting Obama, however dubious some of his actions of the past may have been, are absolutely spot on.

IMHO.

In terms of Obama's being a "useful idiot", of course you have nothing more to support that than Graham has about all of the supposedly evil and racist things Hillary has said and did.

Well of course it can be shortened. The danger is that it will be shortened by more bone-headed policy making, leading to a less than optimal transition. That is why this election ought to transcend the ample silliness that we constantly see, and the choice should be Barack Obama. IMHO.

We don't need to wait 20 years for that. We can see plenty of ecidence for that already.

Yes, there is no time left for making errors at this point. The clock is running out and you are exactly right imho.

One or two more terms of neo-con testosterone-based warmonger-based leadership and it will all be over.

Let us be careful not to overstate the argument. (I am trying to be so restrained, but if I am not I am open to serious attempts at correction.)

Who are we supporting now who is a thorn in our side? I am not asking who is wrong to support, or who could be a potential thorn in our side. Those are certainly important questions, but right now I would like you to support your specific statement above, if you could.

I agree in as much as it is also important to learn what not to do. The important consideration here, in my opinion is that Obama not pick up the world view of either of these gentlemen.

What in particular are you worried about? I am assuming you are not worried about the specifics of Brzezinski's positions on China supporting Pol Pot or being glad that the Soviet Union was getting involved in a quagmire in Afghanistan (to the extent that Marine is accurate on that one).

But we certainly can neither afford the error of assuming that whatever X advisor or President did or said must be wrong, and that our imperative is to do something else. In the current Newsweek Fareed Zakaria makes this point superbly. (He noted a certain President who made just this mistake with disastrous results. The name of that President is George W. Bush.)

Niether Kissinger nor Brzezinski are wrong on everything, and it would be most foolish to proceed from that assumption, while also avoiding taking their word uncritically.

Our contribution to world peace in Iraq and Afganistan has been to arm just about every sub-group in sight and let them kill each other off. This doesn't work because they reproduce too fast. It would have been a lot cheaper to pay cash for their oil and drugs.

Oh really? Have we been arming the Mahdi Army in Iraq? Who else have we been arming, other than the government, those involved in the Awakening Movement, and the Kurdish Peshmerga militias? Now one can criticize arming those groups, and I can see all kinds of problems with our Iraqi policies, but I don't really see your claim here as well-supported, if you mean it seriously.

And we are paying cash for Iraqi oil, and for Afghan drugs, have been for years, but that doesn't seem to have solved the problem.

I'm worried about power politics and coercive diplomacy. I'm worried that another democratic
administration could possibly stay in office 8 years and not change our sick foreign policy any more
than the last democratic administration did. Both Kissinger and Brzezinski are brilliant and very well educated persons and were, during their day, well versed on the mechanics of foreign policy and diplomacy. The fact still remains that they were instrumental in leading us to where we are today.
Some people still think that's a good place to be. I simply don't agree.

While I don't know if you have ever really clarified precisely what you mean by "coercive diplomacy", I certainly see no realistic hope that we can completely dispense with applying tough diplomacy. Some people are simply not going to be dissuaded from harmful actions without the prospect of negative consequences. Now should we offer a different face to the world, a face of cooperation over things of mutual benefit as opposed to a face of do it my way or else? I say yes we should. But there are going to be cases when it will be best to deter someone from doing something by playing hardball. Look at the current case of Zimbabwe. Several African leaders have seen that policy up to now of simply trying to persuade Robert Mugabe to be decent is not working, and are calling for tougher measures. Some unions there have refused to unload arms shipments for Zimbabwe.

Anyway, I think we can change our policies, but we have to recognize limits to how much we can effectively change them.



We need to do more than decry where we are, and start specifying where to go and how it will be better. Look at the top of my signature lines.

The first thing on my program is to stop shooting.

Can't say much about your program until you say what the next thing is too, and I might need a few more things down the line.

And where would you stop shooting? Iraq, Afghanistan, both, everywhere, including the cop in Chicago (hypothetical situation, but I am sure it has happened sometime) who is being shot at by gang members he is trying to arrest for murder?