On the death of Brzezinski
You need to love your real enemies, otherwise you will not be able to understand them, - sounds like an implication in the biblical preaching of love, even to your enemies. You need to keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer, otherwise you will not be able to control them, another ancient wisdom teaches. All this fully applies to Zbigniew Brzezinski, the best enemy of the USSR and Russia. This is about the question of why he was invited to Yaroslavl to some international forum, and in general, Moscow outwardly with restraint refers to his enemies, even to the "downed pilots" McCain. Compare with the fact that all sorts of different McCains are about Russia and its president.
Brzezinski is considered one of the architects of America’s domination strategy in the world, however, he stands out with what he cynically said in his “Great Chessboard”: “The New World Order will be built against Russia, on the ruins of Russia and at the expense of Russia”. On the Russian bones, so to speak. This allows us to put Zbigniew Brzezinski on a par with Adolf Hitler. This is our enemy who died recently in a hospital in America, in old age.
His greatest success in the fight against the USSR Brzezinski considered the introduction of Soviet troops into Afghanistan, he allegedly was able to lure the USSR into an Afghan trap, preparing there a “regime change” to be pro-Western. Or put a hand to it. How true is this? - hard to say. However, the scenario of the Ukrainian events of February 2014 on the “regime change”, the avant-garde of which were the ardent Russophobes of Bandera, which pushed Russia to send troops into Eastern Ukraine to protect the Russian-speaking population from Bandera, very much resembles the Afghan scenario. Many wrote about this then, including myself.
The introduction of Russian troops to Ukraine was considered by Moscow, but did not take place, events began to evolve according to a different scenario, and today, from a height of more than three years, we can appreciate the strategic genius of Brzezinski, if after all the coup in Kiev in February 2014, authoritative recommendations to the US State Department. By analogy with the events in Afghanistan, for which he allegedly stood, by his own admission.
Vladimir Putin at a press conference in Sochi, where the Winter Olympics were held that February, a significant phrase came up about the events in Kiev: “They started earlier ...” Who started it is clear, but why did you start earlier? Perhaps, on the advice of Brzezinski? Who couldn’t wait for the “new Afghanistan” of Russia? Still, his age was already pressing, but did he really want to see Russia being drawn into the “new Afghanistan”?
The decision about the Maidan coup in Kiev turned into a strategic mistake by Washington when Moscow did not come to war in Ukraine, confining itself to taking Crimea under protection and assisting Donbas. Perhaps this setup of Washington lies on the conscience of Brzezinski. He hurried to grab what was badly lying - Ukraine.
By and large, the Maidan in Kiev was generally a weak move of Washington, a stronger move would be on Maidan in Moscow, Ukraine would then serve as a rear base for the Moscow Maidan, even under the rule of the oligarch Yanukovych, and fell to overripe fruit at the feet of the Moscow winner .
Moscow, of course, would have been looking for some kind of counterplay, it was much more difficult to arrange the Maidan in Moscow, how events in Russia would have developed - it’s impossible to say, but it was a stronger move, like in chess, than the coup d'état in Kiev equals no matter what. He could wait.
Perhaps Moscow should say “thank you” for the Kiev false start precisely to Brzezinski, maybe it was not for nothing that he was received in Yaroslavl? Or did his Polish fanabia tell?
Another well-known American foreign policy architect, Henry Kissinger 02, in February 2014, in an interview with political analyst Farid Zakaria, in connection with the events in Kiev, said: “I think he (Putin - author) sees this as a dress rehearsal for what we would like to do in Moscow ". This is not quite true: Moscow saw this much earlier, but now all Russia saw it with its own eyes. Therefore, Putin's ratings immediately rushed up and froze in the highest points. And the probability of Maidan in Moscow has become a negligible value.
Obviously, Kissinger is not involved in the Kiev Department of State decision, he did not give any recommendations on Ukraine in the future. Kissinger is now an adviser to President Donald Trump. But Brzezinski, when the Minsk agreements began to freeze the conflict in the Donbas, publicly insisted on deliveries weapons Bandera Kiev, that is, trying to still bring the situation to "Afghanistan" - an open military clash of Bandera and Russia, in order to connect later to the NATO hostilities.
However, a significant supply of weapons to Bandera did not go; the risk of a “big war in Europe”, according to the French President Hollande, outweighed the plans of the “war party” in Washington and in Europe. In Minsk, well-known agreements were concluded, in fact, a separate agreement between Moscow and Europe without the participation of the Americans. Moreover, the text of the Agreement was dictated by Moscow, so Bandera is still unable to fulfill them.
The last word of Brzezinski in Ukraine was the proposal of its “Finlandization” and the deployment of NATO military contingents in the Baltic States to contain Russia. The first proposal - from a series of fantastic, apparently, the mind of our old man began to pass, the second proposal of NATO has already implemented, it is simple, but its military value is doubtful, experts say. The political chill between Berlin and Washington makes it completely pointless.
As a political scientist, Brzezinski often makes statements from the ceiling in favor of the West, Poland and Ukraine, in such a sequence. In the West, people generally believe in the power of self-fulfilling forecasts, but they forget that this creates for themselves a false reality, and then smash their heads on real walls. And they wonder why the West makes a mistake after a mistake, and Moscow catches him on this. In Syria, Libya, Iraq and Ukraine.
For example, Brzezinski argues that “Russia is ruled by an irrational leader with delusions of grandeur. Many Russians are worried.” This is about Putin, although the situation is exactly the opposite. Many Western analysts said that, having annexed Crimea, Russia lost Ukraine, too, was taken from our mighty Russophobia: “Suppose that Putin will be able to separate the Crimea from Ukraine forever: he will get the Crimea, but will lose Ukraine for many decades, as it will cause a powerful nationalist reaction against Moscow!”
This is a complete lie that is already costing the West dearly, and it is hard to say how it will end. Brzezinski, as a Pole, should know that Bandera’s who came to power in Ukraine are for Moscow historical enemies, in this sense, she lost Ukraine in February 2014, so it is impossible to lose her again because of Crimea, and Russia reunited Crimea, and helps the Donbass.
Brzezinski, in the interests of the West, ignores the Bandera Nazi nature of power in Kiev, creating a false "democratic" reality. He juggles, wants to endow Bandera's power with a "powerful nationalist reaction against Moscow" as a result of the annexation of Crimea to Russia. However, Bandera appeared in Ukraine in the 40s of the last century with the Nazi troops, and began the construction of his Ukraine from the Volyn massacre of the Poles. This historical reality is well known in Poland.
Moscow fenced off today from Bandera, the Crimea and the Donbas, but Europe was euro-associated with it, so Bandera will certainly undermine the stability of both Poland and Europe. In Poland, there is already a split over Bandera, thanks to the false Kiev reality created by Brzezinski and the company. No, to be his “Putin's agent”, posthumously ...
Thus, escorting Z. Brzezinski to the best world, we can rightfully put on him the responsibility for the Kiev Maidan, which resulted in a civil war in Ukraine. The blood spilled over the years in Ukraine is on his conscience. As a political strategist, Brzezinski lost his last battle to Vladimir Putin, which, on the other hand, can be called a revenge for Afghanistan.
Brzezinski is considered one of the architects of America’s domination strategy in the world, however, he stands out with what he cynically said in his “Great Chessboard”: “The New World Order will be built against Russia, on the ruins of Russia and at the expense of Russia”. On the Russian bones, so to speak. This allows us to put Zbigniew Brzezinski on a par with Adolf Hitler. This is our enemy who died recently in a hospital in America, in old age.
His greatest success in the fight against the USSR Brzezinski considered the introduction of Soviet troops into Afghanistan, he allegedly was able to lure the USSR into an Afghan trap, preparing there a “regime change” to be pro-Western. Or put a hand to it. How true is this? - hard to say. However, the scenario of the Ukrainian events of February 2014 on the “regime change”, the avant-garde of which were the ardent Russophobes of Bandera, which pushed Russia to send troops into Eastern Ukraine to protect the Russian-speaking population from Bandera, very much resembles the Afghan scenario. Many wrote about this then, including myself.
The introduction of Russian troops to Ukraine was considered by Moscow, but did not take place, events began to evolve according to a different scenario, and today, from a height of more than three years, we can appreciate the strategic genius of Brzezinski, if after all the coup in Kiev in February 2014, authoritative recommendations to the US State Department. By analogy with the events in Afghanistan, for which he allegedly stood, by his own admission.
Vladimir Putin at a press conference in Sochi, where the Winter Olympics were held that February, a significant phrase came up about the events in Kiev: “They started earlier ...” Who started it is clear, but why did you start earlier? Perhaps, on the advice of Brzezinski? Who couldn’t wait for the “new Afghanistan” of Russia? Still, his age was already pressing, but did he really want to see Russia being drawn into the “new Afghanistan”?
The decision about the Maidan coup in Kiev turned into a strategic mistake by Washington when Moscow did not come to war in Ukraine, confining itself to taking Crimea under protection and assisting Donbas. Perhaps this setup of Washington lies on the conscience of Brzezinski. He hurried to grab what was badly lying - Ukraine.
By and large, the Maidan in Kiev was generally a weak move of Washington, a stronger move would be on Maidan in Moscow, Ukraine would then serve as a rear base for the Moscow Maidan, even under the rule of the oligarch Yanukovych, and fell to overripe fruit at the feet of the Moscow winner .
Moscow, of course, would have been looking for some kind of counterplay, it was much more difficult to arrange the Maidan in Moscow, how events in Russia would have developed - it’s impossible to say, but it was a stronger move, like in chess, than the coup d'état in Kiev equals no matter what. He could wait.
Perhaps Moscow should say “thank you” for the Kiev false start precisely to Brzezinski, maybe it was not for nothing that he was received in Yaroslavl? Or did his Polish fanabia tell?
Another well-known American foreign policy architect, Henry Kissinger 02, in February 2014, in an interview with political analyst Farid Zakaria, in connection with the events in Kiev, said: “I think he (Putin - author) sees this as a dress rehearsal for what we would like to do in Moscow ". This is not quite true: Moscow saw this much earlier, but now all Russia saw it with its own eyes. Therefore, Putin's ratings immediately rushed up and froze in the highest points. And the probability of Maidan in Moscow has become a negligible value.
Obviously, Kissinger is not involved in the Kiev Department of State decision, he did not give any recommendations on Ukraine in the future. Kissinger is now an adviser to President Donald Trump. But Brzezinski, when the Minsk agreements began to freeze the conflict in the Donbas, publicly insisted on deliveries weapons Bandera Kiev, that is, trying to still bring the situation to "Afghanistan" - an open military clash of Bandera and Russia, in order to connect later to the NATO hostilities.
However, a significant supply of weapons to Bandera did not go; the risk of a “big war in Europe”, according to the French President Hollande, outweighed the plans of the “war party” in Washington and in Europe. In Minsk, well-known agreements were concluded, in fact, a separate agreement between Moscow and Europe without the participation of the Americans. Moreover, the text of the Agreement was dictated by Moscow, so Bandera is still unable to fulfill them.
The last word of Brzezinski in Ukraine was the proposal of its “Finlandization” and the deployment of NATO military contingents in the Baltic States to contain Russia. The first proposal - from a series of fantastic, apparently, the mind of our old man began to pass, the second proposal of NATO has already implemented, it is simple, but its military value is doubtful, experts say. The political chill between Berlin and Washington makes it completely pointless.
As a political scientist, Brzezinski often makes statements from the ceiling in favor of the West, Poland and Ukraine, in such a sequence. In the West, people generally believe in the power of self-fulfilling forecasts, but they forget that this creates for themselves a false reality, and then smash their heads on real walls. And they wonder why the West makes a mistake after a mistake, and Moscow catches him on this. In Syria, Libya, Iraq and Ukraine.
For example, Brzezinski argues that “Russia is ruled by an irrational leader with delusions of grandeur. Many Russians are worried.” This is about Putin, although the situation is exactly the opposite. Many Western analysts said that, having annexed Crimea, Russia lost Ukraine, too, was taken from our mighty Russophobia: “Suppose that Putin will be able to separate the Crimea from Ukraine forever: he will get the Crimea, but will lose Ukraine for many decades, as it will cause a powerful nationalist reaction against Moscow!”
This is a complete lie that is already costing the West dearly, and it is hard to say how it will end. Brzezinski, as a Pole, should know that Bandera’s who came to power in Ukraine are for Moscow historical enemies, in this sense, she lost Ukraine in February 2014, so it is impossible to lose her again because of Crimea, and Russia reunited Crimea, and helps the Donbass.
Brzezinski, in the interests of the West, ignores the Bandera Nazi nature of power in Kiev, creating a false "democratic" reality. He juggles, wants to endow Bandera's power with a "powerful nationalist reaction against Moscow" as a result of the annexation of Crimea to Russia. However, Bandera appeared in Ukraine in the 40s of the last century with the Nazi troops, and began the construction of his Ukraine from the Volyn massacre of the Poles. This historical reality is well known in Poland.
Moscow fenced off today from Bandera, the Crimea and the Donbas, but Europe was euro-associated with it, so Bandera will certainly undermine the stability of both Poland and Europe. In Poland, there is already a split over Bandera, thanks to the false Kiev reality created by Brzezinski and the company. No, to be his “Putin's agent”, posthumously ...
Thus, escorting Z. Brzezinski to the best world, we can rightfully put on him the responsibility for the Kiev Maidan, which resulted in a civil war in Ukraine. The blood spilled over the years in Ukraine is on his conscience. As a political strategist, Brzezinski lost his last battle to Vladimir Putin, which, on the other hand, can be called a revenge for Afghanistan.
Information