In his 2012 book Strategic Vision Brzezinski reflects on many of his forecasts from The Grand Chessboard. In particular he criticizes heavily how the US pretty much wasted the first decade of the new millenium with an undifferentiated crusade against Islam (rather than a nuanced, effective approach against Islamism) and thus neglected adapting to the central requirements of the modern global order with it's center of power shifting towards the east. According to Brzezinski, the wasted opportunity of being the sole true global power for a short time leads to a changed situation, where the US can probably still direct the world in a good direction, though with much more effort. Maybe that's an important point to consider when judging on The Grand Chessboard. Probably it's not the predictions being bad, but rather practical failure on taking the necessary steps to make it likely for them to come true.
That may be true in part (without a doubt Bush Jr. ruined a lot American power potential in the Middle East) but that does not change the fact that Brzezinski falsely predicted a bunch of wars in Asia that never happened, especially in Central Asia. He overemphasized also the importance of Japan and was naive with his idea that China could be an American ally that would soon democratize (which ignored that China's Jiang Zemin was already becoming slowly antagonistic to the United States in the nineties over issues like the South China Sea and Taiwan).
Did Brzezinski want the dissolution of ussr and Russia as an independent nation for his chessboard game? Or does he mean something else by Russia? Thank you!
He definitely wanted the dissolution of the USSR. But he did not want the dissolution of Russia. Instead, he wanted it to embrace western institutions and values and become part of Europe. So in Brzezinski’s view Russia would remain as an independent power, but importantly not as an imperialistic one.
@@TheAvidReaderBookReviews meanning a OPEN DOOR POLICY to AmeriKKKan commercial interests - like former Yugoslavia... the wholw book is a recepy to MAINTAIN USA EGEMONY and CONTROL... how to supress the rise of another economic power.... reading comprehesion? Mr Brzezinski is an unreliable narrator....
Geographically technically yes, but culturally and in practice no. Egypt has far more in common with parts of Eurasia than it has with the rest of Africa.
The US-backed alliance of NATO is fully voluntary. When France quasi-left NATO the United States did not militarily intervene like the USSR did when Hungary tried to leave in 1956. The US uses trade and sanctions to get its way more than war (unlike a country like Russia). One of the prerequisites for countries like Spain and Czechia to join the EU was to democratize. The EU is one of the main reasons democracy is consolidated in most of Europe.
@@TheAvidReaderBookReviews yes thats what the politicians say indeed. I know it as well. You should read a bit about how eastern enlargment felt for local population. Also as if trade and sanctions were "less coercive". Ask venezualians and irakis in the 90s what they think about the "bénevolent usa" that sanctionned them to death and hunger. Did china or russia sanction a country to famine once ? You should really read books from non western authors. I saw your good reads. Its only western authors. Then ofc you think the west is so great and pro democracy etc. Well, every global south country says its fake. Wonder why?
@@TheAvidReaderBookReviews also nato creation was not so benevolent if you read a bit about cold war. Usa did the same thing as ussr in terms of intervention in elections and pushing to join their bloc.
In his 2012 book Strategic Vision Brzezinski reflects on many of his forecasts from The Grand Chessboard. In particular he criticizes heavily how the US pretty much wasted the first decade of the new millenium with an undifferentiated crusade against Islam (rather than a nuanced, effective approach against Islamism) and thus neglected adapting to the central requirements of the modern global order with it's center of power shifting towards the east. According to Brzezinski, the wasted opportunity of being the sole true global power for a short time leads to a changed situation, where the US can probably still direct the world in a good direction, though with much more effort.
Maybe that's an important point to consider when judging on The Grand Chessboard. Probably it's not the predictions being bad, but rather practical failure on taking the necessary steps to make it likely for them to come true.
That may be true in part (without a doubt Bush Jr. ruined a lot American power potential in the Middle East) but that does not change the fact that Brzezinski falsely predicted a bunch of wars in Asia that never happened, especially in Central Asia. He overemphasized also the importance of Japan and was naive with his idea that China could be an American ally that would soon democratize (which ignored that China's Jiang Zemin was already becoming slowly antagonistic to the United States in the nineties over issues like the South China Sea and Taiwan).
Did Brzezinski want the dissolution of ussr and Russia as an independent nation for his chessboard game? Or does he mean something else by Russia? Thank you!
He definitely wanted the dissolution of the USSR. But he did not want the dissolution of Russia. Instead, he wanted it to embrace western institutions and values and become part of Europe. So in Brzezinski’s view Russia would remain as an independent power, but importantly not as an imperialistic one.
@@TheAvidReaderBookReviews meanning a OPEN DOOR POLICY to AmeriKKKan commercial interests - like former Yugoslavia... the wholw book is a recepy to MAINTAIN USA EGEMONY and CONTROL... how to supress the rise of another economic power.... reading comprehesion? Mr Brzezinski is an unreliable narrator....
Interesting insights. I love hearing from the people who were high up in power and what they know/think. Thanks for sharing!
Indeed! Several former American national security advisors have written interesting geopolitics/history books, including Henry Kissinger.
Would you consider ancient Egypt as a non eurasian great power in Eurasia?
Geographically technically yes, but culturally and in practice no. Egypt has far more in common with parts of Eurasia than it has with the rest of Africa.
the US is "far less coercive than other great powers". Come on bro... The european Union strengtens democracy ? Come on bro...
The US-backed alliance of NATO is fully voluntary. When France quasi-left NATO the United States did not militarily intervene like the USSR did when Hungary tried to leave in 1956. The US uses trade and sanctions to get its way more than war (unlike a country like Russia).
One of the prerequisites for countries like Spain and Czechia to join the EU was to democratize. The EU is one of the main reasons democracy is consolidated in most of Europe.
@@TheAvidReaderBookReviews yes thats what the politicians say indeed. I know it as well. You should read a bit about how eastern enlargment felt for local population.
Also as if trade and sanctions were "less coercive". Ask venezualians and irakis in the 90s what they think about the "bénevolent usa" that sanctionned them to death and hunger. Did china or russia sanction a country to famine once ?
You should really read books from non western authors. I saw your good reads. Its only western authors. Then ofc you think the west is so great and pro democracy etc. Well, every global south country says its fake. Wonder why?
@@TheAvidReaderBookReviews also nato creation was not so benevolent if you read a bit about cold war. Usa did the same thing as ussr in terms of intervention in elections and pushing to join their bloc.
@@TheAvidReaderBookReviews you should read non western books really
@@TheAvidReaderBookReviews wow nice yt deleting my posts again. Amazing free speech platform