Military Review

Brzezinski condemns the military invasion of Syria

88
Brzezinski condemns the military invasion of SyriaIn an interview with Deutsche Welle (DW), former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski condemned what appeared to be an inevitable military attack against Syria, saying that the US administration lacked a coherent strategy for this region.


Zbigniew Brzezinski served as national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981 a year, and is considered one of the outstanding professionals of American foreign policy.

DW: After an alleged large-scale chemical attack against civilians, it seems that certain military actions against the Assad regime are now inevitable. Do you support military actions, and what is your attitude to them?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: I believe that these measures, if they are taken, should be part of a broader strategy. Otherwise, this may be a punitive answer, but will it solve the problem? Is there a strategy to solve it? Who is part of this strategy and who is not? These are questions that, I believe, should be seriously considered before plunging into military actions - which, perhaps, are morally justified, but, nevertheless, will certainly have undesirable consequences.

DW: Do you think the Obama administration has a broader strategy for Syria for the period after the cessation of hostilities?

ZB: If there is, then it is kept in a very deep secret.

DW: What kind of plans would you like to see?

ZB: It seems to me that the problem in the case of Syria is part of a wider dilemma related to shocks in the Middle East. The solution of these problems cannot be based solely on military force, and should not depend solely on the Western powers. It amazes me how readily Britain and France seem to vote in favor of military action. But I also remember that both of these countries are former imperialist colonial powers in this region.

Given the current reality of what I call in my books “global political awakening”, the policy of force, based primarily on Western (and in some cases, former colonial empires), does not seem to me a promising direction to the final solution of a regional problem .

DW: You mentioned the need for an expanded coalition, which should be part of any kind of military action. What did you mean by that?

ZB: I think that at a minimum, Turkey should take part in these military actions, if they really take place. And I think that the endorsement of this decision should be voiced in some way - especially by those countries which, in their economic well-being, are highly dependent on stability in the Middle East. I mean some of the Asian powers that are so dependent on energy originating in the Middle East.

DW: You did not mention Russia in your list of countries. What role do you think it should play?

ZB: A reasonable role for Russia would be to join the international community in jointly defining common standards in: A.) Solving the Syrian problem, B.) A broader approach to Iran and its nuclear program, and of course B.) Actively supporting the Israeli-Palestinian solution problems that creates certain friction.

In my opinion, all this should be dealt with in a wider context, and not only confined to a military response from a small number of Western countries, some of which are not the most constructive historical experience.

DW: How do you explain the fact that the Obama administration is not particularly trying to include the UN in its attempts to solve the problem, and, in fact, is trying to enlist the support of NATO instead?

ZB: I'm not sure that you are right in this case in the description of the Obama administration. I think she would be glad to get UN sanctions, but she is concerned that such efforts will be blocked by the Russians, and possibly the Chinese. For me, this means that a substantial part of a serious discussion must be conducted with countries that believe that one way or another may be affected by the consequences of the rapid escalation of violence in this region.

In a nutshell, the problem is that the issue itself is much wider than Syria, and you should not treat it as a purely Syrian issue. This is in the first place, and secondly - the response to serious moral crimes such as chemical attack, should be part of something bigger, keep strategic tasks in mind, and not just be punitive operations.

DW: What consequences do you expect or fear after a possible military attack on the Syrian regime? President Assad has already threatened that Syria will become the second Vietnam for the United States. How do you think - how serious is it?

ZB: Each analogy has a certain degree of expediency, but it can also be misleading. I think that in the case of the Syrian problem there are many aspects that are different from Vietnam - for example, in Syria there is a rather substantial opposition to Assad.

DW: To summarize: Are you not sure right now that military action against Syria is the right step?

ZB: I do not see a broader strategic context for this. And I am concerned that the parties to the conflict also have too narrow a base - especially America and the former colonial powers. In my opinion, this will immediately create a political problem.
Originator:
http://www.dw.de/brzezinski-syria-strategy-is-a-well-kept-secret/a-17045802?maca=en-rss-en-world-4025-rdf
88 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Lech from ZATULINKI
    Lech from ZATULINKI 28 August 2013 11: 34
    30
    Epsel-mopsel- I can’t believe that Brzezinski said that.
    1. fisherman
      fisherman 28 August 2013 11: 37
      16
      the same thoughts :)

      but here you can "recognize" the old fox:

      ZB: A reasonable role for Russia would be to join the international community in jointly defining common standards in: A.) Solving the Syrian problem, B.) Wider approach to Iran and its nuclear program
      1. Very old
        Very old 28 August 2013 13: 51
        +3
        This is his most important thought. You and Lyokha +
    2. Hudo
      Hudo 28 August 2013 11: 39
      27
      Quote: Lech from ZATULINKI
      Epsel-mopsel- I can’t believe that Brzezinski said that.

      Reread again. He didn’t say anything. He simply pointed out the mistakes of the Phasington hawks, without condemning them at all.
      1. My address
        My address 28 August 2013 12: 11
        10
        You're right. He only warns about the possibility of sitting in a puddle, or even standing wet. He does not like the lack of moral support for the position of the States.
        1. Dimented
          Dimented 28 August 2013 14: 20
          +8
          Yes, he does not care about the morality and support of other countries! by and large, it seems to me that Brzezinski believes that this will not give America anything. Well fit, well, bombed, replaced by the government, and then what? Doubts, regrets? Hell no! Cold calculation, and all.
          I would rephrase his entire policy regarding Syria - the game is not worth the candle.
      2. yan
        yan 28 August 2013 12: 43
        +1
        Fashington !!!!! Class!
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Krsk
        Krsk 28 August 2013 14: 53
        +1
        Quote: Hudo
        phasington hawks



        good
    3. klimpopov
      klimpopov 28 August 2013 11: 39
      18
      Have you read the article? Or just a headline?
      It can be said that yes the thought is completely different.
      I think that, at a minimum, Turkey should take part in these hostilities, if they really take place. And I think that the approval of this decision should be voiced in some way - especially by those countries that in their economic well-being are highly dependent on stability in the Middle East. I mean some of the Asian powers that are so dependent on energy originating in the Middle East.

      He only said that the United States does not have a clear strategy. He did not say that he condemns the military invasion in principle, he condemns him in this form ...
      1. Ruslan_F38
        Ruslan_F38 28 August 2013 12: 06
        14
        Brzezinski fiercely hates Russia. He sleeps and sees how to destroy Russia and its allies, in particular Syria - in the article he proved it once again. If he condemns anything, it is the lack of a clear strategy in his opinion, and not the operation itself.
        1. Su24
          Su24 28 August 2013 13: 22
          +3
          Quote: Ruslan_F38
          Brzezinski fiercely hates Russia. He sleeps and sees how to destroy Russia and its allies, in particular Syria - in the article he proved it once again. If he condemns anything, it is the lack of a clear strategy in his opinion, and not the operation itself.


          It's not about hate. Brzezinski Atlanticist geopolitics, rational and realistic for its part.
        2. Corsair
          Corsair 28 August 2013 15: 00
          +5
          Quote: Ruslan_F38
          Brzezinski fiercely hates Russia. He sleeps and sees how to destroy Russia and its allies, in particular Syria - in the article he proved it once again. If he condemns anything, it is the lack of a clear strategy in his opinion, and not the operation itself.


          What else to expect from the "fiend of Hell"? ...
      2. FATEMOGAN
        FATEMOGAN 28 August 2013 12: 19
        +3
        Quote: klimpopov
        He only said that the United States does not have a clear strategy. He did not say that he condemns the military invasion in principle, he condemns him in this form ...


        He is against the possible current invasion, this is the main postulate, and the fact that he is in principle not opposed to the invasion of Syria, so he probably is not against the principle of attacking Russia and destroying the whole world. And now we do not have any plans in principle, FIG knows when feasible, but a concrete, very possible quick attack.
      3. Very old
        Very old 28 August 2013 13: 54
        0
        That's right, Klim. But in my opinion - a call to Russia to reconsider the attitude to Bl. Vostok in the same series of his considerations
      4. Yarbay
        Yarbay 28 August 2013 14: 19
        +2
        Quote: klimpopov
        He only said that the United States does not have a clear strategy. He did not say that he condemns the military invasion in principle, he condemns him in this form ...

        Very smart guy!
    4. FATEMOGAN
      FATEMOGAN 28 August 2013 12: 05
      +4
      Quote: Lech s ZATULINKI
      Epsel-mopsel- I can’t believe that Brzezinski said that.


      Brzezinski against the war, sounds like if, bees against honey.
      1. Dober
        Dober 28 August 2013 12: 50
        +2
        Quote: FATEMOGAN
        Brzezinski against the war

        This is normal. The old snake thought about the afterlife. Where in hell he will be forever kicked by Russian peasants and young drug addicts from endangered villages who giggled from a burnt "piano".

        Or a cunningly scammed scoundrel wants to be deposed somewhere in Sarapul or Khanty-Mansiysk for state support. Snowden's example is contagious ...
        1. FATEMOGAN
          FATEMOGAN 28 August 2013 13: 00
          +1
          Quote: Dober
          Where in hell he will be forever kicked by Russian peasants and young drug addicts from endangered villages who giggled from a burnt "piano".


          Who knows, these Western perverts, maybe he only dreams about it.
      2. Very old
        Very old 28 August 2013 13: 59
        +1
        Pavel, Z. Bzh. certainly not against war. He is against Obama’s ways and methods. And then, did you understand Lyokha correctly? - He does not admire Brzezinski
        1. FATEMOGAN
          FATEMOGAN 28 August 2013 15: 11
          +1
          Quote: Very old
          Pavel, Z. Bzh. certainly not against war. He is against Obama’s ways and methods. And then, did you understand Lyokha correctly? - He does not admire Brzezinski


          Valentin, and I agree with the conclusion that Bzezhinsky is against Obama's policy, while not against the intervention itself, someday. At the moment, it is more important that he is against the intervention now, and what will happen later, so then we still have to survive, maybe by that time the mattress mats will fall apart into small states. Time is working both for Syria, to finish off the terrorists, and on us, to have time to rearm before the militants attack us. So that. in my opinion, his disagreement is more important now. And it is clear that not a single member of our forum, except for the obvious trolls. Bzezhinsky cannot like it, just as we do not communicate on the "echo of Moscow".
    5. bootlegger
      bootlegger 28 August 2013 12: 27
      15
      There is a calculated strategic interest.
      Brzezinski thinks in accordance with his latest concept and does not want the unification of Russia and China into a strategic hub against the United States. The US war in Syria will make this unification even more real. Iran is also pushing into this alliance.
      Naturally, he does not approve, even the alleged tactical gain, to the detriment of the future strategic goals of the United States.
      1. Su24
        Su24 28 August 2013 13: 28
        +1
        Quote: bootlegger
        There is a calculated strategic interest.
        Brzezinski thinks in accordance with his latest concept and does not want the unification of Russia and China into a strategic hub against the United States. The US war in Syria will make this unification even more real. Iran is also pushing into this alliance.
        Naturally, he does not approve, even the alleged tactical gain, to the detriment of the future strategic goals of the United States.


        His position is the position, in comparison, of a lion with the position of a jackal. One fell enough, the other a more delicious jackpot. Brzezinski would be satisfied not just with the destruction of Syria, but with its destruction as part of a major plan to destroy Russia, for example. He is saddened by the small goals of the United States.


        Here are some very sensible comments, thanks.
      2. Very old
        Very old 28 August 2013 14: 02
        0
        It’s possible interest Zb.Bzh. He always considered the interests of the USA with an eye to the future.
    6. riding
      riding 28 August 2013 12: 37
      +5
      His position is the position, in comparison, of a lion with the position of a jackal. One fell enough, the other a more delicious jackpot. Brzezinski would be satisfied not just with the destruction of Syria, but with its destruction as part of a major plan to destroy Russia, for example. He is saddened by the small goals of the United States.
    7. stroporez
      stroporez 28 August 2013 12: 45
      +1
      he simply, as a liver, senses that after the invasion from America the last disguise will fall off and it will be completely obvious "hu from hu"
    8. cdrt
      cdrt 28 August 2013 12: 55
      +2
      Epsel-pug-I can’t believe that Brzezinski said that

      So what did he say that?
      Translated into Russian: guys, it’s impossible to climb into Syria with a group from the USA, the World Bank and France (which they inherited on the BV in colonial times). Need a broader coalition.
      Everything is logical, but not against the war, but for its competent preparation
      1. Very old
        Very old 28 August 2013 14: 04
        0
        And Yegor says the same thing. And I support your opinion.
    9. Su24
      Su24 28 August 2013 13: 17
      +1
      Quote: Lech from ZATULINKI
      Epsel-mopsel- I can’t believe that Brzezinski said that.


      And Brzezinski never supported the thoughtless use of force. He was opposed to Bush’s policies and the neocons.
    10. Very old
      Very old 28 August 2013 13: 48
      0
      Pan-Mr. Zbigniew has not changed one iota. As it was, it remained so. Although in recent years it seems to be expressed in a sober mind. But nevermind in a pocket always held. And this interview teaches the silly Obamushka what to do, how not to rush, how not to repeat the mistakes of Vietnam, Kabul, Iraq. He was always tricky.
    11. waisson
      waisson 28 August 2013 14: 07
      0
      I can not believe Brzezinski cheated on the foundations of Amer’s democracy
    12. Gurza
      Gurza 28 August 2013 14: 07
      0
      A game for the public, here it says one thing, but for Barak it says another.
    13. Manager
      Manager 28 August 2013 14: 26
      0
      PPC !!! In Africa, it’s probably snowing!
    14. d_trader
      d_trader 28 August 2013 16: 16
      0
      Quote: Lech from ZATULINKI
      Epsel-mopsel- I can’t believe that Brzezinski said that.

      Do you think the Obama administration has a broader strategy for Syria after the cessation of hostilities?

      ZB: If there is, then it is kept in a very deep secret.

      Here is the main message: the goal was and will be - Russia. Everything is as it is, nothing has changed and will not change in geopolitics, at least as long as the United States exists. The old fox in his repertoire, only began to dodge something, why would it?
    15. Orel
      Orel 28 August 2013 19: 59
      +2
      When Zbigniew says that America is behaving "a little differently" and he is "worried", it means that America wants to plunge into d ... mo again. It's just that Zbigniew cannot say this openly, it is not patriotic and not American ...
  2. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 28 August 2013 11: 35
    11
    "ZB: A reasonable role for Russia would be to join the international community in jointly defining common standards in: A.) Solving the Syrian problem, B.) A broader approach to Iran and its nuclear program, and of course C.) Actively supporting the solution of the Israeli the Palestinian problem, which creates some friction. "

    It’s simply amazing, but doesn’t Russia want and do not advocate just that? Zbig has recently been astounding. It seems that this once again suggests that the old conservative elites of the United States are being removed from power and something truly terrible is creeping out to replace it.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  3. Stiletto
    Stiletto 28 August 2013 11: 36
    10
    Bzdezhinsky has grown old ... This is good. You see, it will soon squint and Russia will have one less enemy.
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 28 August 2013 11: 42
      +5
      What enemy is he? He’s out of work already, and he writes articles, well, what's the use of them? Although I always read it with interest, if you understand.
      1. Stiletto
        Stiletto 28 August 2013 11: 52
        +8
        An old viper does not stop being an adder just because it is old.
        1. klimpopov
          klimpopov 28 August 2013 11: 53
          +3
          The teeth are not the same. And so there are enough advisers without him now.
          1. FATEMOGAN
            FATEMOGAN 28 August 2013 12: 26
            +4
            Quote: klimpopov
            The teeth are not the same. And so there are enough advisers without him now.


            Which he at one time prepared, selected Russophobia, and now probably continues.
  4. Kipish
    Kipish 28 August 2013 11: 36
    0
    In fact, there’s still a good way to discourage, in a private conversation, explain to the Americans that you supposedly put a nuclear weapon as a Jew, because this contradicts the agreements, therefore we also decided to put nuclear weapons in Syria, and let them fly there or not, but it’s a fact outbursts will appear immediately.
    1. scientist cat
      scientist cat 28 August 2013 12: 39
      -14 qualifying.
      Quote: Kipish
      you put a nuclear weapon by a Jew, because this contradicts the agreements, therefore we also decided to put nuclear weapons in Syria, and let it fly there or not, but the fact of a bang will appear immediately.


      For your information, the United States did not transfer nuclear weapons to Israel, the United States did not transfer it to any country at all.
      A The Soviet Union, for political purposes, transferred nuclear technology to its allies. The Soviet Union transferred them to China, North Korea and India.
      And already China transferred nuclear technology to Pakistan, as opposed to India.
      What this policy has led to is already clear, sobering from S. Korea and Pakistan is not observed.

      Deliver to everyone only conventional weapons - ammunition, ammunition, air defense, electronic warfare equipment, etc.
      Help defense enterprises and save the Earth.
      1. Kipish
        Kipish 28 August 2013 14: 02
        +6
        THOSE. Israel itself took nuclear weapons from the United States without their knowledge?))
      2. smile
        smile 28 August 2013 16: 23
        +1
        scientist cat
        You’re right, most likely only in one thing - the USA didn’t give you nuclear weapons ... or maybe they did ... but do you know whether the technology was transferred, your honest government will not tell you about it, just as honestly not recognized in the presence of nuclear weapons ....
        But this does not give you the right to brazenly lie about us ... in particular, the Chinese were very dissatisfied with the fact that we did not give them nuclear weapons production technology ... and about India and, especially, North Korea, you mentioned foolishly, yes ? It's funny that you immediately identified the motives of non-existent actions ... political :)))

        By the way, if you try to get out and say that you didn’t mean technologies for the production of nuclear weapons, but peaceful technologies, the question is:
        who built nuclear reactors in Iraq, Japan, in your beloved Iran, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Germany, Spain, Canada, Mexico, the Netherlands, Taiwan, Switzerland, Sweden, South Korea? We all? Or are Americans with Europeans?

        It is especially pleasant that your mighty intellect did not allow the thought that the appearance of nuclear weapons in S. Korea would have become possible for their host, China ... and about moralizing about deliveries ... we’ll figure it out without foreign liars ....- teach better the United States and their allies, who have built factories for the production of chemical and biological weapons around the world, including in BV ....
        1. scientist cat
          scientist cat 28 August 2013 17: 41
          -1
          smile
          The United States did not provide Israel with nuclear weapons or technology, moreover, at the time Israel received nuclear weapons, the countries were not allies.
          Israel never signed an agreement on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, therefore, unlike other countries, Israel does not violate the agreement, moreover, at the time of signing the non-proliferation pact between the USSR and the USA in 68, Israel already owned nuclear weapons.
          Regarding the transfer of nuclear technology from the USSR, I think that India, China and S. Korea would not be able to develop nuclear weapons on their own, the level of science and technology would not allow, since these countries were allies of the USSR, it is clear which country transferred nuclear technology to them.
          Even today, India itself is the largest importer of weapons, and China is forced to purchase Russian aircraft engines, since it itself is not able to build.
          We didn’t talk about biological and chemical weapons, these are your speculations, but Assad just doesn’t need it, for your information, the arsenal of chemical weapons in Syria is the fourth largest in the world.
          1. smile
            smile 28 August 2013 18: 57
            +4
            scientist cat
            1. Can you name the date of adoption of Ischrail nuclear weapons? And confirm? Isn't that a military secret anymore? If you do not have official data on the presence of nuclear weapons in Israel, you are hiding it, do you think that technology transfer would not be hiding? :)))
            Regarding the fact that you and the USA were not allies then ... did you create and test nuclear weapons in the 50s? :))) By the way, but have you tested where? But what do you think, is it possible to adopt weapons created from scratch, especially such as nuclear weapons, which have never been tested? What do you think? So who provided you their landfills, eh? And I don’t point a finger at YOUR ALLIES of the Americans, I just don’t know ... and you? :)))
            Further. I did not blame Israel for anything, did you notice this? But you accused us of violating international treaties. The reasons for you are very significant:
            1. You think so.
            2. The level of technology in India and China.
            Well. with the first, everything is clear, this is the only honest argument. Second ... The resources of such huge countries are simply not comparable with yours. We taught scientists to Hindus and Chinese (your scientific base is also created by immigrants trained in other countries :)))) But prove it. that we supplied them with nuclear weapons production technologies. By the way, did you notice. that aircraft engines are building much fewer countries than developing their nuclear energy ... will you continue to think yourself, or tell me?
            I repeat, if you blamed us, proofs on a barrel .... :)))

            About the technologies and factories built by Americans and Europeans for the production of WMDs, I told you to show you who is the proven distributor of WMDs. You might think you didn’t understand me ... :)))
            And where does Assad, by the way .... who did not hide the presence of poison and did not spread it, unlike the United States? Why report data on his chemical weapons, you think. enlightened me. illiterate? Or boasted that you know this? Yes, I believe, I believe that you are not a stupid person ... then why are you spreading lies about us? Intentionally, or what? :)))
            1. scientist cat
              scientist cat 28 August 2013 19: 50
              -3
              smile
              Here is the evidence for the transfer of nuclear technology to China.
              This is what it is, don’t secretly ask for documents with the stamp :)
              You can read the attached article, there are many others on the web with the same information.
              http://kackad.com/kackad/?p=16111
              Excerpts from the article:
              In 1954, deposits of uranium ore were discovered in China.
              On January 17, 1955, the Council of Ministers of the USSR issued a statement stating that the USSR government decided to help China in the development of a peaceful study of atomic energy. A number of agreements were signed under which the USSR and China will conduct joint development to support the operation of the reactor, on the extraction of uranium ore. Part of it will be sold to the Soviet Union.
              It is clear that everyone understood that this was not about using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but, first of all, about creating nuclear weapons, without which, according to the statements of the Chinese leaders, the Chinese army would be weaker than its opponents.
              Soviet specialists arrived at the Physics Institute of the Academy of Sciences. With their help, not only an experimental nuclear reactor and cyclotron were built, but even the first plutonium was obtained. At the end of 1954, the number of employees at this institute was 170 people, and by the beginning of 1960 - 4345!

              Israel’s presence of nuclear weapons in the amount of about 200 warheads and a nuclear triad are indeed the Secret of the General.
              I read once, in a source in Hebrew, that in the 50s France provided Israel with a reactor.
              Israel never conducted open nuclear tests, only computer simulations.
              1. smile
                smile 28 August 2013 21: 48
                +2
                scientist cat
                overlooked the article, it is absolutely unconvincing on the basis of such texts to denounce us in the transfer of technology for the production of nuclear weapons. The bulk of the evidence is the "everyone knows argument", which is not proof. If we wanted to transfer them the production technology of nuclear weapons, we would have built factories, of which they have built hundreds. We helped create nuclear power for them, just like the French or the Americans and nothing more. But (I'm plagiarizing :)))) everyone really knows, the refusal of our Khrushch to transfer the MAO NW has become one of the points. along which they parted like ships at sea ... :)))

                You know, I don’t believe that there were no trials ... such a case is nonsense, I don’t believe that Jews are so irresponsible ... I’m not ironic at all ... and who wrote the software to them, if, in your words, no one they didn’t share anything ... all the information, it’s impossible to steal ... because I believe that either you were given such an opportunity, or they were provided with proven production technologies ... they simply will never be told about this. even when they recognize the presence of the weapon itself ... I would not say ... :)))
                but I also read about France’s participation ...
                1. scientist cat
                  scientist cat 28 August 2013 22: 09
                  0
                  smile
                  You can continue to consider this text inconclusive, but the truth is that without the help of the USSR, nuclear weapons would not have existed in China, S. Korea, Pakistan and India. At a minimum, it would not have appeared so early, and not in all of these countries.
                  Regarding the fact that Israel has never conducted open tests of nuclear weapons, I’m not a nuclear physicist, I don’t know how realistic this is, but another version is that a third country simply provided Israel with its nuclear testing ground.
                  1. smile
                    smile 29 August 2013 01: 35
                    +1
                    scientist cat
                    I, too, am not a nuclear physicist, although I could have become one .... :))) a month before entering, I changed my mind and did not go to the Institute of Nuclear Energy in Obninsk .... women are always to blame .. :))) ). my girlfriend, who studied at the matak faculty of KSU (Kaliningrad), was able to convince me .... :)))) and my fabrications about the nuclear tests, which Israel simply had to carry out, follow from experience .... including specific, as taught ... :)))) And it is with your words about the third country that I completely agree ... this is the most logical option ... and I do not see anything bad in it .... until we are accused of that we are the worst and guilty of all mortal sins ... :))))

                    And I do not dispute that without us, China would not have been able to create nuclear weapons on its own ... and certainly not Pakistan ... the last is a generally frivolous statement ... not even funny ....
                    BUT WE HAVE NOT TRANSFERRED THE TECHNOLOGIES OF PRODUCTION OF Nuclear Forces to the countries you have listed ... and you have not proved the opposite .... but you have given additional food for doubt in your allegations of our guilt in providing anyone with these technologies .... :)) )
                    1. scientist cat
                      scientist cat 29 August 2013 10: 07
                      0
                      smile
                      I provided you with the proof, here is one more for you.
                      http://topwar.ru/1574-aleet-atomnyj-vostok.html
                      Excerpts from the article:
                      Nothing was to stop China in an effort to fill its status of a great power with nuclear content. And Beijing got a bomb. To a great extent thanks to the assistance provided in the 50s by the Soviet Union.
                      This began in 1951 with the signing of a secret agreement between the USSR and the PRC on the provision of scientific and technical assistance to the Chinese in the field of nuclear research in exchange for their supply of uranium ore.
                      An important point here was the agreement signed with the USSR in 1957 on the transfer of a number of Soviet military technologies, including missile technologies, to the Celestial Empire.
                      More than a thousand of our specialists helped the birth and establishment of the atomic industry of the Celestial Empire, a significant number of Chinese students studied the necessary scientific disciplines in this field at USSR universities.


                      To consider that a dilapidated uneducated post-war China, which was saved from destruction only thanks to the USSR and the USA, was able to develop nuclear weapons on its own, is simply ridiculous.

                      Thus, it was thanks to the USSR that nuclear weapons spread in the countries of Southeast Asia.
                      This is an arms race - if China has one, then India must appear, and as a counterbalance to Pakistan, and S. Korea as a counterbalance to South Korea.

                      Worst of all, the leadership of Russia, and you in particular, are not aware that it was the foreign policy of the USSR that led to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
                      And history repeats itself, Iran can get nuclear weapons in many respects thanks to the help of Russia.
                      And do not again about the peaceful atom and technology, this is ridiculous.
                      Iran has huge hydrocarbon reserves, they don’t really need nuclear power plants, and a lot of sanctions and embargoes have already been put on Iran.
                      Because of this, Iran has huge losses and gigantic inflation, but they decided not to refuse to continue nuclear research. So, you can be sure that there is no smell of a peaceful atom here.
                      And nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran’s ayatols will not add peace to the world, on the contrary.
                      With the advent of Iran’s nuclear weapons, for balance, they will want nuclear weapons in the region: in Egypt - the largest Arab country, in Turkey - with its imperial ambitions, in Saudi Arabia - the center of Shiism protesters and unlimited resources.
                  2. chehywed
                    chehywed 29 August 2013 02: 15
                    +1
                    Quote: cat scientist
                    You can continue to consider this text inconclusive, but the truth is that without the help of the USSR, nuclear weapons would not have existed in China, S. Korea, Pakistan and India. At a minimum, it would not have appeared so early, and not in all of these countries.

                    Cat, but it didn’t occur to you that without the appearance of atomic weapons in the USA, they might not have appeared anywhere. Or do you think that these are weapons of the elect, and only the States and Israel can possess them?
        2. scientist cat
          scientist cat 28 August 2013 17: 50
          -4
          smile
          The USSR transferred nuclear technology to China, I don’t remember exactly what it seems in 60 g, and the fact that these technologies were transferred to S. Korea just like in Pakistan, through China, does not change anything. As I argued, during the Cold War era, the USSR, rather than the United States, should be blamed for the spread of nuclear technology.
          1. smile
            smile 28 August 2013 19: 05
            +2
            scientist cat
            We did not transfer nuclear weapons production technology to the Chinese. We helped develop peaceful nuclear energy for them, just like the United States, France developed energy in a much larger number of countries ... here are the Yol-Paly, after all, who built the nuclear bomb you bombed in Iraq, in Iran, and even in a heap countries. Which are serviced by local specialists? Ivan Fedorovich Kruzenshtern?
      3. Cynic
        Cynic 28 August 2013 19: 41
        +5
        Quote: cat scientist
        For your information, the US did not transfer nuclear weapons to Israel,

        In a sense, the USA and the USSR transferred nuclear weapons.
        Explicitly, implicitly, the essence is not important!
        Transmitted and truncated!
        laughing
  5. Hudo
    Hudo 28 August 2013 11: 36
    +6
    DW: To summarize: Are you not sure right now that military action against Syria is the right step?

    ZB: I do not see a broader strategic context for this. And I am concerned that the parties to the conflict also have too narrow a base - especially America and the former colonial powers. In my opinion, this will immediately create a political problem.


    And where is the condemnation? It’s just that the cannibal Zbyshek wants the fools to join the ranks against Syria in a number of denser numbers.
  6. serge-68-68
    serge-68-68 28 August 2013 11: 37
    +4
    Nothing unusual. Somehow I quoted his quotes, which show how his attitude to the role of Russia in the world has changed. To consider him an anti-Soviet or Russophobe is fundamentally wrong. He is the USPhil, so to speak. And all his statements are based on this. With all the nuances, Brzezinski really respect as a specialist, analyst and patriot of his homeland.
    1. Pit
      Pit 28 August 2013 11: 46
      +5
      Quote: serge-68-68
      as a specialist, analyst and patriot of his homeland.

      "Wikipedia" - According to the official biography, was born in Warsaw into a noble family [1] of a Polish diplomat. According to other sources, he was born in the Polish consulate of Kharkov [2] [3] on the street. Olminsky, where the parents worked; recorded by them was born in Poland, and not in the USSR, so as not to spoil his biography. [2] Since 1938 he lived in Canada, in the 50s he became a US citizen "
    2. fisherman
      fisherman 28 August 2013 11: 49
      +4
      how his attitude to the role of Russia in the world changed.


      yes, changed

      the essence is the same - the interests of the United States, but the design is already different, under "joining the international community" and under "a broader approach to Iran and its nuclear program" they mean the same result, but with the tacit "complicity" of Russia :)

      the same dish, but with a more modern sauce

      the same old grunt, but not disguised as a hawk, but a peace-loving (to Russia) dove
  7. 31231
    31231 28 August 2013 11: 39
    +3
    Brzezik is already bonfiring small-brit with paddling pools. More recently, I was perplexed about the close ties of the Obama administration with the Saudis and Qatar. Getting old.
  8. fklj
    fklj 28 August 2013 11: 51
    +5
    Brzezinski and Gorbachev need to stick together. Goals alone, common friends and enemies too. Two sary sheds polluting the ecology of the Earth with their presence.
  9. FC SKIF
    FC SKIF 28 August 2013 11: 52
    +8
    I want good health so that he survives the collapse of his beloved dash and his trial.
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 28 August 2013 11: 58
      15
      Yeah, like a war criminal in Nuremberg
      winked
      1. shurup
        shurup 28 August 2013 12: 56
        +1
        Vi, be careful with illustrations, comrade Popov. There are good people there too. And who will build the Baikal-American Highway under your strict guidance?
        Here is Comrade Sakharov already agrees.
      2. Krsk
        Krsk 28 August 2013 14: 58
        +2
        Eh Joseph Vissarionovich had to agree ...
  10. Withoutdream
    Withoutdream 28 August 2013 12: 01
    +4
    Something I did not quite understand: where is the condemnation? It looks more like this: It is necessary to fight more thoughtfully and with the involvement of large forces so that the United States can minimize its losses from both the economic and political sides. The article, it seems to me, is about this, and not about how Brzezinski condemns the US invasion of Syria.
    1. Pit
      Pit 28 August 2013 12: 10
      +1
      Quote: Withoutdream
      Something I did not quite understand: where is the condemnation?

      And what kind of condemnation are you waiting for, it’s to the bone-marrow of USA Phil. He’s even at home (Poland) from a high bell tower.
      Quote: fisherman
      the essence is the same - the interests of the United States, but the design is already different, under "joining the international community" and under "a broader approach to Iran and its nuclear program" they mean the same result, but with the tacit "complicity" of Russia :) the same dish, but with a more modern sauce
    2. Wolf3d
      Wolf3d 28 August 2013 13: 42
      +1
      I’ll add to the above that from my point of view, he would like to see as many Middle Eastern countries as possible in this coalition
  11. ed65b
    ed65b 28 August 2013 12: 11
    +3
    Brzezinski’s wisdom comes with old age. lately it has been more and more adequate. Looks like he’s getting ready to appear before the goddess and the luggage is good deeds empty.
    1. Dober
      Dober 28 August 2013 13: 37
      +4
      To adequately "appear before God", for his words, actions and "advice", this old cobra will not have enough even three lives as a monk-schema-monks in a damp skete.
      In hell, his devils were waiting with red-hot tongs.

      Something is wrong here ...
    2. Uhe
      Uhe 28 August 2013 14: 56
      +2
      I do not agree. Leopard change his spots. But although he is an enemy, he is smartly smart, because he points to the mistakes of the current rush, and after all, any wise person hurries without hurrying.
    3. Karabin
      Karabin 28 August 2013 20: 00
      +2
      Quote: ed65b
      Brzezinski’s wisdom comes with old age.

      He was always an enemy, but never a fool.
  12. nemec55
    nemec55 28 August 2013 12: 21
    +2
    Still ahead, after half a year will ask for forgiveness from the darkest, and after a year, citizenship at all.
  13. falcon
    falcon 28 August 2013 12: 25
    +1
    I recognize an old, wise fox. The correct principle was voiced - "think first, then do!" AND
    current Western politicians shredded, reminiscent of a young bull on a hillock from the famous
    a joke.
    1. nemec55
      nemec55 28 August 2013 12: 53
      +2
      You should not do this
      I recognize the old, wise fox

      He was like a jackal and remained to be him, only his teeth fell out.
    2. Karabin
      Karabin 28 August 2013 20: 01
      +1
      Quote: falcon
      current Western politicians have shredded,

      And not only western ones.
  14. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 28 August 2013 12: 30
    +2
    The fox was a fox and remained .. Obviously something is not negotiating ..
  15. KG_patriot_last
    KG_patriot_last 28 August 2013 12: 35
    0
    One could simply say: our reporters are citizens in Syria. Those who attack them attack Russia. And terrorists from Russia appeared on the territory of Syria - this is a matter of state security - and begin to destroy the terrorists in the land of Syria. From drones, if not by landing. Does the USA do that? Why not? Why is this unrealistic than the ridiculous occasion of the USA?

    Bzzhinsky is right, but one thing - he is old and the world has changed. Now there is no need to play standard politics like Russia does. This is all out of date. The West has set a new standard. Russia needs to quickly learn new rules and head Geopolitics.
  16. yan
    yan 28 August 2013 12: 40
    0
    He is against it, but with such reservations that leave loopholes for almost any decision of the Western Alliance
    1. Kibalchish
      Kibalchish 28 August 2013 14: 00
      0
      By the way, Brzezinski is an old fox - he did not say that he was AGAINST, he said that the plan should be adjusted. And that’s it.
  17. Mr. Truth
    Mr. Truth 28 August 2013 13: 06
    +1
    The most disgusting quality in man is his hypocrisy.
    Attacks against the population, hmm. To die under humanitarian white phosphorus or under humanitarian JDAM is certainly better ...
  18. shurup
    shurup 28 August 2013 13: 08
    0
    Like in hockey.
    In place of the permanent watchmaking of imperialism, pan Brzezinski, who is no longer an adviser, came a younger erudomaniac and virgin, aka Wasserman.
    In the camp of war veterans, the movement and rattling of locks of suitcases were noticed.
    "The Internet is already being phased out!" - Someone from the fifth company told Schweik in secret ...
    I’ll go and stock up another box of stew and a couple of zinc cartridges, especially since winter is coming.
  19. Kibalchish
    Kibalchish 28 August 2013 13: 13
    +2
    Now all hope is for "Bastions". If Assad is not, then the launch complexes are now well hidden somewhere and are waiting in the wings.
  20. Vtel
    Vtel 28 August 2013 13: 26
    0
    Zbigniew Brzezinski: I believe that these measures, if taken, should be part of a broader strategy.

    Shaw, nowhere in the enth article did he find condemnation from the Polish Jewish masson Brzezinski, but only crafty reflections - what if something is wrong (the Russians are afraid and this is good), but he advised - the ax head, so he speaks voluminously - as you like and cool and everywhere he is on a horse - damn chess player.
  21. Arkan
    Arkan 28 August 2013 13: 33
    +1
    Sly, old stump.
  22. silver_roman
    silver_roman 28 August 2013 13: 54
    +2
    no matter how rude it may sound, but it was nice when TETCHER "left", I expect the same from the database!
    1. Uhe
      Uhe 28 August 2013 15: 00
      +3
      What's so rude? Because of this reptile, so many of our people died in that rotten perestroika, later, now it continues to die. And all because of people like this Thatcher. Yes, and the British she was very pissed off, especially to the workers. She was the enemy of hundreds of millions of people, so there is no rudeness to consider her death a blessing. It is a pity that her despicable deeds cannot be corrected and that the victims cannot be returned through her fault.

      The best thing about this vile person is her nickname: Thatcher The Milk Snatcher. And how many of her hungry children did she steal this milk? And before that, she deprived her parents of work. But to deprive a person of his livelihood is a mortal sin! Burn her in a pan.
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman 28 August 2013 15: 50
        +1
        that's what I meant drinks
  23. yastr
    yastr 28 August 2013 14: 34
    +1
    And what to take from him .. Lyakh is Lyakh.
  24. Evgenx
    Evgenx 28 August 2013 14: 41
    0
    Zbigniew Brzezinski is a professional (one of the main enemies of the USSR) with a capital letter! Enemies must be respected! And I tend to believe his words! He's not the kind of person to "say, lick it was said! What to say:" The old school of the Cold War. "
  25. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 28 August 2013 14: 44
    0
    This frenzied Russophobe in this case does not lose a sense of reality, demonstrates some common sense. But we must not forget that this chick from the nest of ardent vultures, nourished by the Cold War, infinitely hates Russia
  26. V. Salama
    V. Salama 28 August 2013 15: 08
    +1
    Brzezinski condemns ...? The title is wrong, he does not condemn anything - he regrets that everything is being done too straightforwardly and not on a large scale, without much dusting the brains of the public. And someone was already in a hurry to write off the Judas, the roof supposedly goes to the dude for a long time. Here is an example of underestimating the enemy
  27. Krsk
    Krsk 28 August 2013 15: 10
    +1
    But what does Bzhik say that there is no need to attack? He only complains that scatics are everywhere for a steam locomotive. I have affected Russia with my filthy language ... Ears from the mouse for you and I to go with your bloodsuckers in the same company. He wants to make Turks now cannon fodder. And the drum, I'm sorry, Erdogan squeals from impatience, well, come on reptile. kiss Uncle Sema in the ass in the hole itself glyadish and fu 35 will give for the merits ...
  28. kenobit
    kenobit 28 August 2013 15: 17
    +2
    Brzezinski's face
  29. Ross
    Ross 28 August 2013 15: 33
    +3
    Quote: Lech from ZATULINKI
    Epsel-mopsel- I can’t believe that Brzezinski said that.


    In order to at least come close to the logic of Bzezhinsky, it is necessary to understand that he is a man of the Rockefeller clan. And Obama, Oland and Cameron are Rothschild proteges. Rothschild is playing his game. And Putin is "friends" with the Rockefellers (remember his protégé Exxon-Mobil)
  30. Old warrant officer
    Old warrant officer 28 August 2013 15: 40
    +2
    I have such a strong feeling that all this preparation for an attack is a farce. Well, who in the modern world warns in advance - they say tomorrow at 00.00 we will launch 40 missiles at you. Wait. All this is strange. Is America and its allies masking some kind of trickery? Although what could be meaner than a war when a stranger comes to your house to kill you.
  31. Arkan
    Arkan 28 August 2013 15: 47
    +1
    That the deceased Thatcher, that Brzezinski, the cogs of one system. With their departure, nothing will change dramatically. The old stump is afflicted, just because of system failures.
  32. Victor-M
    Victor-M 28 August 2013 16: 15
    +2
    Good Brzezinski-cooled Brzezinski.
  33. andru_007
    andru_007 28 August 2013 16: 55
    +1
    Quote: Kibalchish
    Now all hope is for "Bastions". If Assad is not, then the launch complexes are now well hidden somewhere and are waiting in the wings.


    I think it would be more interesting to hide the "Club-K" complex. By the way, no one knows whether these complexes were delivered to Syria?
  34. AleksUkr
    AleksUkr 28 August 2013 16: 59
    0
    Quote: cat scientist
    For your information, the United States did not transfer nuclear weapons to Israel, the United States did not transfer it to any country at all.
    A The Soviet Union, for political purposes, transferred nuclear technology to its allies. The Soviet Union transferred them to China, North Korea and India.


    Mr. Scientific Cat! You are a very informed person. It is already becoming enviable. Maybe you even took a certain part in the transfer of nuclear technology?

    And Brzezinski is Russia's "best, sworn" friend.
    1. scientist cat
      scientist cat 28 August 2013 18: 34
      0
      AleksUkr
      Dear Alexander, your sarcasm is inappropriate.
      I am sure that if you wish, you can independently find the information you are interested in in open sources.

      Regarding Brzezinski, I agree completely.
  35. Yuri Y.
    Yuri Y. 28 August 2013 17: 28
    0
    I agree with everyone who speaks of the hypocrisy of the BZ, as always, he speaks of you from the United States. In this case, he regrets their weaknesses.
    ZB: Each analogy has a certain degree of expediency, but it can also be misleading. I think that in the case of the Syrian problem there are many aspects that are different from Vietnam - for example, in Syria there is a rather substantial opposition to Assad.

    There may be many aspects, but not this one. The whole army, led by a sub-control government, is not the opposition, in Vietnam, there were communists.
  36. AleksUkr
    AleksUkr 28 August 2013 18: 01
    0
    Zbigniew Brzezinski: “Against Russia, at the expense of Russia and on the wreckage of Russia”
    Friday 09 Sep 2011

    “The Yaroslavl World Political Forum surprised and puzzled by inviting in every way the odious figure of Russia Zbigniew Brzezinski, former US President Carter’s adviser on national security and Russia's sworn enemy,” Valery Paliy, project manager for the New Union Initiative, told REX.

    He recalls the most memorable “pearls” of the American political scientist, who advocated the collapse of the USSR and the further shattering of the positions of our country, to Russia:

    “Russia is a conquered power. She lost the titanic struggle. And to say “it was not Russia, but the Soviet Union” means to flee from reality. It was Russia, called the Soviet Union. She challenged the USA. She was defeated. Now there is no need to fuel illusions about the great power of Russia. It’s necessary to discourage such a way of thinking ... Russia will be fragmented and under guardianship. ”

    "A new world order with US hegemony is being created against Russia, at the expense of Russia and on the ruins of Russia."

    From the book “Choice. World domination or global leadership ”(Moscow, International Relations, 2010, p. 127):

    "Collaboration with Russia should be accompanied by simultaneous efforts to strengthen geopolitical pluralism within its former imperial space, which will put an insurmountable barrier to any attempts to restore the empire."

    From the book “The Great Chessboard (Domination of America and its geostrategic imperatives)”

    (For more on Zbigniew Brzezinski’s statements in the article “The Great Chessboard. The Russian answer is the Sicilian Defense”.)
    Source: http://www.iarex.ru/news/19347.html

    “He who controls the food controls the people; those who control energy control the continents; the one who controls the money controls the world. ” (Henry Kissinger, 1973).
  37. shinobi
    shinobi 28 August 2013 18: 03
    0
    Tomorrow everything will fall into place. It is assumed that strikes will be delivered from Thursday to Sunday. But just what will it give? Let's see if Wang is right.
  38. AleksUkr
    AleksUkr 28 August 2013 18: 32
    +1
    Quote: Su24
    Brzezinski Atlanticist geopolitics, rational and realistic for its part.


    There are some doubts about your assessment of Brzezinski. Mr. Brzezinski is outdated not only physically (Born in 1928), but also simply morally. In his doctrine of US dominance, there are no effective recipes for how to achieve this dominance.

    This is an ardent, genetic Russophobe Zbigniew Brzezinski. It seems that there is nothing in the world that he would have desired more than the death of the Russians in the anthropogenic and state sense. If Brzezinski was not a Pole, but for example a German, then Hitler would seem like a snotty boy with his blitzkrieg. When you listen to or read Brzezinski, it seems that he just didn’t have enough to seize the territory, his hatred of the Russians would go to every village hut, and perhaps from these villages what remained in Belarus from the fascists and collaborators in Khatyn.

    More information at http://voprosik.net/bzhezinskij-mogilshhik-ameriki/ © QUESTION
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 28 August 2013 18: 42
      0
      Brzezinski is not a Pole. He is American. An ardent follower of the idea of ​​US global dominance.
      Do not blame him for Russophobia. He doesn’t give a damn about both Russians and Russia. And to Poland as well.
  39. Cynic
    Cynic 28 August 2013 18: 50
    0
    Got it!
    Brzezinski condemns the military invasion of Syria

    Where does the world go?
  40. Essenger
    Essenger 29 August 2013 01: 29
    +1
    He is just a realist
  41. rokkero
    rokkero 4 September 2013 12: 42
    0
    I do not understand people who say that Brzezinski hates Russia. He is 100% pragmatic, his goal is US dominance, and it is clear that he sees the enemy in any formation or ideology that impedes this.

    It's like talking about the morality of traders.
  42. kelevra
    kelevra 18 December 2013 19: 35
    0
    Very strange, he is usually always FOR, everything that the USA decides to do!