Brzezinski lost faith in American power
The article by Zbigniew Brzezinski, “Towards a global restructuring,” demonstrates the disbelief of some influential people of the American establishment in strengthening US hegemony in the Middle East and in the Asia-Pacific region. But earlier it was Brzezinski, this prophet of “geostrategic imperatives,” who believed that the Middle East and Asia are almost the patrimony of Washington.
New views Brzezinski comments Mike Whitney on the site "The Unz Review".
The “chief architect” of Washington’s plans to “manage the world” has now abandoned his previous “schemes” and even called for the establishment of relations with Russia and China.
Although Zbigniew Brzezinski’s article in “American Interest”, entitled “Towards Global Restructuring”, was largely ignored by the media, yet it clearly shows that the US establishment no longer believes that Washington will continue to try to adhere to the principle of its hegemony in the Middle East and Asia.
Earlier, Brzezinski was a leading proponent of this idea and drew up a whole plan for the upcoming "imperial expansion" (it was outlined in the book "The Great Chessboard: America's domination and geostrategic imperatives" (1997). Now the strategist made a turn on 180 degrees and "dramatically" called for a revision of the former strategy.
Through “American Interest,” he declared that the era of global dominance is “ending.” Moreover, in rebuilding the “global architecture”, the main role should be assumed ... The United States! The time has come to understand that the redistribution of global political power and the political awakening in the Middle East signal the “new global restructuring” stage. The United States is still powerful - politically, economically and militarily - however, given the complex geopolitical shifts and changes in regional balance sheets, Washington can no longer encroach on “imperial power”, i.e. power “all over the world ".
But this “chess player”, triumphing over the collapse of the USSR, not so long ago assured the entire planet that the United States is “the paramount force in the world.”
And where did the former aplomb go?
Until the United States, there never was a truly dominant global power in the world. A new global reality arose precisely with the advent of America on the world stage - at the same time the richest and most militarily powerful country. In the second half of the 20 century, no other power, even approaching the USA, simply existed. But “this era is now ending,” Brzezinski noted in a journal article.
Why does the era end? What has changed since 1997?
Brzezinski writes about the growth of Russia and China, the weakness of Europe, about the "violent political awakening of postcolonial Muslims." All this gave the immediate reasons for the unexpected reversal.
Most of all, Brzezinski is worried about the strengthening of economic, political and military ties between Russia, China, Iran, Turkey and other Central Asian countries.
The reckless foreign policy of the Obama administration, commented by Mike Whitney, in particular, the idea of overthrowing the government in Libya and Ukraine significantly accelerated the growth of anti-American coalitions in the world. “In other words, Washington’s opponents appeared in response to Washington’s behavior. Obama can only blame himself, ”the author mocks.
According to Whitney, Russian President Vladimir Putin responded to the growing threat of regional instability and the deployment of NATO forces on Russia's borders by strengthening alliances with countries around the "perimeter" of Russia and the entire Middle East. At the same time, Putin and his BRICS colleagues (Brazil, Russia, Iran, China and South Africa) created an alternative banking system (BRICS Bank and Chinese AIIB), which ultimately gave rise to a powerful challenge to the dollar system. “That's why Brzezinski made a quick turn of 180 degrees and abandoned the plan of American hegemony, because he is concerned about the danger of a system of non-dollar calculations arising between developing and developed countries that can replace the Western oligopolists in the form of their central banks,” indicates analyst. And if this happens, the US will lose its “grip on the global economy.” The "kingdom of extortionists" will end.
Unfortunately, the author continues, the rather ambitious Hillary Clinton, who “firmly believes in imperial expansion by force”, most likely will not follow Brzezinski’s cautious approach. weapons».
It was Clinton who was the first to introduce the concept of a strategic “core” in her speech in 2010. She reported on the "Pacific Century of America." Her speech was published by the Foreign Policy magazine. In particular, she pointed out that in the coming 10 years, the United States should be “smart” and systematically think about where to apply the forces and means to “preserve our leadership, secure our interests and promote our values”. One of the "most important tasks of American statehood over the next decade," Clinton called investment (diplomatic, economic, strategic) in the Asia-Pacific region. "Curbing" the growth and dynamism of Asia is central to American economic and strategic interests and is a key priority for President Obama, Clinton wrote.
If we compare Clinton’s speech with Brzezinski’s comments made by 14 years ago, we will see a lot in common: “For America, the main geopolitical“ prize ”is Eurasia ... The state that dominates Eurasia will control two of the world's three most developed and economically productive regions ... 75 percent of the world's population lives in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is in the same place, both in its enterprises and under the ground ... Eurasia accounts for 60 percent of world GNP and about three quarters nd the world's known energy resources ... "
The strategic goals of Clinton and the “chess player” are identical, the only difference is that Brzezinski corrected the course to account for changing circumstances, as well as “growing resistance to bullying, domination and sanctions,” the author notes.
Nevertheless, we add, Brzezinski’s advisor to Madame Clinton is not, and she is unlikely to hire him to work in the White House if she wins the election and becomes the first woman president.
Clinton has repeatedly stated that she is determined to continue spreading American hegemony, including in the Asia-Pacific region. She is hardly aware of the danger that such an expansion and the desire to “slow down” the development of China can turn into. If Brzezinski seems to have become afraid of a world catastrophe, which may be caused by the confrontation between China, Russia and the United States, then Clinton, confidently striving for victory in the elections, does not perceive geopolitical risks.
In a word, in our time, Brzezinski as a counselor would have approached Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton.
New views Brzezinski comments Mike Whitney on the site "The Unz Review".
The “chief architect” of Washington’s plans to “manage the world” has now abandoned his previous “schemes” and even called for the establishment of relations with Russia and China.
Although Zbigniew Brzezinski’s article in “American Interest”, entitled “Towards Global Restructuring”, was largely ignored by the media, yet it clearly shows that the US establishment no longer believes that Washington will continue to try to adhere to the principle of its hegemony in the Middle East and Asia.
Earlier, Brzezinski was a leading proponent of this idea and drew up a whole plan for the upcoming "imperial expansion" (it was outlined in the book "The Great Chessboard: America's domination and geostrategic imperatives" (1997). Now the strategist made a turn on 180 degrees and "dramatically" called for a revision of the former strategy.
Through “American Interest,” he declared that the era of global dominance is “ending.” Moreover, in rebuilding the “global architecture”, the main role should be assumed ... The United States! The time has come to understand that the redistribution of global political power and the political awakening in the Middle East signal the “new global restructuring” stage. The United States is still powerful - politically, economically and militarily - however, given the complex geopolitical shifts and changes in regional balance sheets, Washington can no longer encroach on “imperial power”, i.e. power “all over the world ".
But this “chess player”, triumphing over the collapse of the USSR, not so long ago assured the entire planet that the United States is “the paramount force in the world.”
And where did the former aplomb go?
Until the United States, there never was a truly dominant global power in the world. A new global reality arose precisely with the advent of America on the world stage - at the same time the richest and most militarily powerful country. In the second half of the 20 century, no other power, even approaching the USA, simply existed. But “this era is now ending,” Brzezinski noted in a journal article.
Why does the era end? What has changed since 1997?
Brzezinski writes about the growth of Russia and China, the weakness of Europe, about the "violent political awakening of postcolonial Muslims." All this gave the immediate reasons for the unexpected reversal.
Most of all, Brzezinski is worried about the strengthening of economic, political and military ties between Russia, China, Iran, Turkey and other Central Asian countries.
The reckless foreign policy of the Obama administration, commented by Mike Whitney, in particular, the idea of overthrowing the government in Libya and Ukraine significantly accelerated the growth of anti-American coalitions in the world. “In other words, Washington’s opponents appeared in response to Washington’s behavior. Obama can only blame himself, ”the author mocks.
According to Whitney, Russian President Vladimir Putin responded to the growing threat of regional instability and the deployment of NATO forces on Russia's borders by strengthening alliances with countries around the "perimeter" of Russia and the entire Middle East. At the same time, Putin and his BRICS colleagues (Brazil, Russia, Iran, China and South Africa) created an alternative banking system (BRICS Bank and Chinese AIIB), which ultimately gave rise to a powerful challenge to the dollar system. “That's why Brzezinski made a quick turn of 180 degrees and abandoned the plan of American hegemony, because he is concerned about the danger of a system of non-dollar calculations arising between developing and developed countries that can replace the Western oligopolists in the form of their central banks,” indicates analyst. And if this happens, the US will lose its “grip on the global economy.” The "kingdom of extortionists" will end.
Unfortunately, the author continues, the rather ambitious Hillary Clinton, who “firmly believes in imperial expansion by force”, most likely will not follow Brzezinski’s cautious approach. weapons».
It was Clinton who was the first to introduce the concept of a strategic “core” in her speech in 2010. She reported on the "Pacific Century of America." Her speech was published by the Foreign Policy magazine. In particular, she pointed out that in the coming 10 years, the United States should be “smart” and systematically think about where to apply the forces and means to “preserve our leadership, secure our interests and promote our values”. One of the "most important tasks of American statehood over the next decade," Clinton called investment (diplomatic, economic, strategic) in the Asia-Pacific region. "Curbing" the growth and dynamism of Asia is central to American economic and strategic interests and is a key priority for President Obama, Clinton wrote.
If we compare Clinton’s speech with Brzezinski’s comments made by 14 years ago, we will see a lot in common: “For America, the main geopolitical“ prize ”is Eurasia ... The state that dominates Eurasia will control two of the world's three most developed and economically productive regions ... 75 percent of the world's population lives in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is in the same place, both in its enterprises and under the ground ... Eurasia accounts for 60 percent of world GNP and about three quarters nd the world's known energy resources ... "
The strategic goals of Clinton and the “chess player” are identical, the only difference is that Brzezinski corrected the course to account for changing circumstances, as well as “growing resistance to bullying, domination and sanctions,” the author notes.
Nevertheless, we add, Brzezinski’s advisor to Madame Clinton is not, and she is unlikely to hire him to work in the White House if she wins the election and becomes the first woman president.
Clinton has repeatedly stated that she is determined to continue spreading American hegemony, including in the Asia-Pacific region. She is hardly aware of the danger that such an expansion and the desire to “slow down” the development of China can turn into. If Brzezinski seems to have become afraid of a world catastrophe, which may be caused by the confrontation between China, Russia and the United States, then Clinton, confidently striving for victory in the elections, does not perceive geopolitical risks.
In a word, in our time, Brzezinski as a counselor would have approached Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton.
Observed and commented on Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
- especially for topwar.ru
Information