If you've read "The Grand Chessboard" and can "read between the lines", pretty much you will understand from his comments the US/NATO and allies' geopolitical plans for Russia, Ukraine and Georgia. Of course it's not about "democracy" is about preventing "the vassals" (Eurasia) from rising as a superpower and challenge US imperial hegemony.

he described clearly the relation between internal and external geopolitical forces that shape the destiny of any country! that is his great lesson from history. take the experience of Poland, this country did not ask to be European member, not NATO member, until Poland has consolidated its internal political position

World class analyst.

Almost 5 yrs. ago, he predicted Ukrainian loss of territory...

Good man! Ukrainian friend!

if someone or good political leader want to understand the tragic events now happening in eastern Europe and especially the war on Ukraine, he must listen and listen again to this important interview with an historical diplomatic figure as Zbigniew Brzezinski

Hate is self-destructive in the long term, isn´t it, Zbig? You knew that.

Meanwhile even a lot of polish people have realized that Nato, EU and the US have no friends but only interests...And by the way, how do you want to eleminate a country like Russia? No matter if you like them or not. And by the way, were does most of the uranium come from to support US Nuklear Programs? Hipocracy of its best...

А чому без перекладу?

Now it’s 5 to 10 years later.

Excellent analysis.

2024...

Prophet RIP

I think most Ukrainian knows which country I’m talking about… well it’s 2024 and now we know, the USA and nuland 🍪

what a man...this guy i tell ya .......smart smart smart man....gets the big picture all the time!

Bravo, Mr. Brzezinski!

@andyhello23 it is much easier to count those who don't hate Russia :)

As usual, Brzezinski is spot on. Excellent advice for Ukraine!

Listening to him, one gets the idea that the more Westward you are, the more exceptional you are.

Demon.

- To isolate Ukraine internationally, Russian policymakers have also skillfully exploited the Clinton administration’s preoccupation with Ukraine's nuclear status. Playing on American fears (and the administration's evident preference for Russian control over Ukraine's nuclear weapons), Moscow was quite successful in portraying the new leaders in Kiev as a menace to international stability. Ukraine's ineptitude in conveying its concerns to the West also intensified its isolation and therefore its sense of vulnerability. -Zbigniew Brzezinski (Foreign Affairs, April 1994)

Now there trying to make Putin seem crazy

If i could have a chance to pick a US president, i would have pick this guy. He is smart and talk in high level. What he talks is not only about the present, he is also talk about the future.

Brzezinski is 100% Correct! Much Respect! We need more men like him! Today Russia is an evil Empire, and needs to be treated accordingly. Ukraine needs young western educated politicians to take leadership, and march the Russian occupation force out of Georgia!

Maybe this can help you see why the USA started war in Ukraine ? For America the chief geopolitical prize is Russia - Zbignew Brzezinski

If Russia has hegemonial ambitions and undermines Georgian or Ukranian politics: "EVIL RUSSIA!" If the United States have hegemonial ambitions and openly invades Iraq: "Ok. that's something different." It's not that I like Putin very much and I am very well aware of Russia's lack of democracy. But Brzezinski's blind hatred of Russia (and his blind love for islamic extremists) make me feely angry.

Brzezinski wanted Ukraine to be part of the Rockefeller EU, EU Flag is blue with yellow stars,While Betsy Ross was blue with white stars

*Divide and rule.* Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and *divide and "gain an advantage"* if others struggle, fight, and then lose, is closer to what happened. The word "rule" also constitutes a "trigger", or natural aversion, which would mean psychologically oposing a theory, simply based on the words used. At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness). Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please, lol. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today *still* carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact). One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. *Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.* From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy." Elements of this technique involve: - creating or encouraging divisions ... - to prevent alliances that could challenge ... - distributing forces that they overpower the other - aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate - fostering distrust and enmity Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories." [editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things] *"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.* There is an entire palate of examples of "dividing Europe" on multiple levels, and gain an advantage (see below comments thread for a few). These multiple examples are not "anecdotal", or "cherry picked", but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of "others", because unity = strength). Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it. *"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene* And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump ("Trump Doctrine") and others... All of these terms can be googled for more context. Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily. What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London? *London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.* Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars. *A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).* The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians. A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine. *It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.* The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..." A declaration which would not last long. LOL, no. They were *not* satiated. After a period of strategic consolidation, leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence". The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895. To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied... *How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?* Answer: favoratism. "Favor" one "empire" (in this case France and GB) above others...temporarily. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well. *It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.* Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Some of the rare historical anomalies are Chamberlain (Munich 1938) or Boris Jonson (Finland/Sweden 2022) because try as one might, one cannot find any other strategic incentive for these missions, other than the noble cause and an effort keep the peace, in the face of previous total failure. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism. Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, *and* at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today. *A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.* Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else. Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.

Russia to get security security for they have nuclear weapons

Forgets to mention that Poland in the early 1920s to 1939 was not a democracy and just wanted to appoint dictatorships ,

Hitler & Stalin built rival funeral businesses and staffed them with ambulance chasers. Putin is a former ambulance chaser. Drumming up some business for the boss during a down market was always uppermost in his mind.

USA started war in Ukraina to separate Ukraina from Russia why ? RUSSIA with Ukraina is global power RUSSIA without Ukraina is regional power - Zbignew Brzezinski

hilarious US hegemony propogandista

Slava Russia....

Please name a country that is oligarchs free 😂😂 It seems Russia just play the US game, by having a leach on less powerful country with interest (eg: US-Venezuela) Blame the game, not the player