Zbigniew K. Brzezinski: The Grand Chessboard

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Review
Theoretical Fallacies
Conclusion
Bibliography

Introduction

Ever since it was being published in 1997, Zbigniew K. Brzezinski’s book “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives” never ceased to draw the attention of politically-minded Americans and America’s policy-makers alike. This can be explained by the fact that in his book, Brzezinski strived to provide readers with the insight onto operative principles, upon which America’s geopolitical dominance must be based in the future. In this paper, we will aim at outlining the main ideas, contained in “The Grand Chessboard”, and also at evaluating them critically.

Review

The foremost ideological thesis, which defines Brzezinski book’s practical implications, can be summarized as follows: ever since 75% of world’s population and ¾ of world’s natural resources are located in Eurasia, and ever since Eurasia generates 60% of world’s GNP, America’s ability to continue enjoying an undisputed geopolitical dominance in the world directly corresponds to this country’s ability to insure that no Eurasian nation and no Eurasian organizational entity would ever find itself in position of exercising a unilateral control over world’s biggest continent: “The issue of how a globally engaged America copes with the complex Eurasian power relationships — and particularly whether it prevents the emergence of a dominant and antagonistic Eurasian power—remains central to America’s capacity to exercise global primacy” (Brzezinski 1997, xiv). Thus, the structural particularities of Brzezinski’s book relate to author’s intention to validate such his thesis on most thoroughful manner.

In Chapter 1 “Hegemony of a New Type”, author discusses what had resulted in the emergence of a new geopolitical reality, when non-European nation (America) began not to only influence European politics, but to play a decisive role in how these politics are being formed. Even though Brzezinski does not suggest it openly, the context of this Chapter implies that it was namely due to the fact that, throughout the first part of twentieth century, European major powers had twice found themselves being indulged in bloody war against each other, which accounted for both: the decline of Europe’s global eminence and America’s rise to position of world’s first economic and military power.

In Chapter 2 “The Eurasian Chessboard”, Brzezinski suggests that geopolitical dynamics on “Eurasian chessboard” are being defined by how “geostrategic powers” (France, Germany, China, Russia, India) affect politics within what author refers to as “geopolitical pivots” (Ukraine, Azeybardjan, Turkey, South Korea). In this Chapter, Brzezinski also points out to the fact that Britain and Japan can no longer be thought of as “geostrategic powers” (capable of exerting well-planned geological influence on neighboring countries), simply because these countries’ foreign policy is being premeditated in U.S. According to Brzezinski, it is in America’s best interests to assure that neither of “geostrategic powers” begins to exercise unilateral control over “geopolitical pivots”: “The three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together” (Brzezinski 48).

In Chapter 3 “The Democratic Bridgehead”, author points out to the fact that it would be a mistake to think that all Western European countries pursue the same geopolitical agenda, simply because of their membership in EU. Brzezinski suggests that political and economics developments within EU are being defined by namely France and Germany’s stance on the issue of socio-political importance. However; whereas, France’s geopolitical ambitions are being largely concerned with this country’s possession of nuclear weapons and with French people’s belief in their “cultural mission”, Germany’s position in Europe is being defined by its economic potential, which overexceeds that of France by at least three times. Also, ever since the end of WW2, Germany has been America’s much closer ally, as compared to France. Therefore, when it comes to outlining the principles upon which America’s involvement in European affairs should be based; U.S. policy-makers must strive for simultaneously both: a) providing support for Germany b) making sure that Germany does not attain too much of geostrategic prominence: “In the short run, tactical opposition to French policy and support for German leadership is justified; in the longer run, European unity will have to involve a more distinctive European political and military identity if a genuine Europe is actually to become reality” (Brzezinski 80).

In Chapter 4 “The Black Hole”, Brzezinski discusses geopolitical implications of fall of Soviet Union. Ever since 1991, 2/3 of Eurasia experiences what author defines as a “power void”: “The collapse of the Russian Empire created a power void in the very heart of Eurasia. Not only was there weakness and confusion in the newly independent states, but in Russia itself, the upheaval produced a massive systemic crisis” (Brzezinski 97). Ever since the existence of “geopolitical void” cannot be prolonged for too long, as it would contradict the laws of physics, it is only the matter of time, before one of Eurasia’s “geostrategic powers” begins exerting control over the territories that used to be a part of former Soviet Union. If Russia becomes a fully democratic country, it will not strive to subject these territories to its control. In this case scenario, U.S. should continue to provide Russia with economic aid. However, if Russians become instilled with “imperial pride” and begin rebuilding the Russian Empire, then U.S. should embark on the following course of action: a) withdrawing support from Russia b) establishing its strong economic and military presence in as many former Soviet republics as possible.

In Chapter 5 “The Eurasian Balkans”, Brzezinski comes up with suggestion that, since certain countries and “territories of influence” in Europe, Central Asia, South Asia, Persian Gulf area and Middle East have traditionally been associated with geopolitical instability, these countries can be discussed in terms of representing “Eurasian Balkans” – that is, the WW3 might very well be sparked by escalation of ethno-political violence in this particular area. According to author, “Eurasian Balkans” include: Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia, with Turkey and Afghanistan being considered as potential candidates for the inclusion. The reason why “Eurasian Balkans” pose danger to geopolitical stability in the whole world, is being defined by Brzezinski in clear and straightforward manner – the national integrity of mentioned earlier countries is being undermined by the existence of “ethnic cauldron” within these countries: “The Eurasian Balkans are an ethnic mosaic” (Brzezinski 128). Given the fact that “Eurasian Balkans” are being geographically associated with vast mineral resources, Eurasian “geostrategic powers” will inevitably try to subject this area to their control: “Today’s competition within the Eurasian Balkans also directly involves three neighboring powers: Russia, Turkey, and Iran, though China may eventually become a major protagonist as well” (Brzezinski 135). Thus, America’s geopolitical goal in this region can be defined as follows: America must strive to prevent either of mentioned earlier “geostrategic powers” from beginning to exercise too much of an influence over the area, while keeping a close eye on politically-economic developments in “Eurasian Balkans”, for as long as these developments concern the proper functioning of region’s oil and gas transporting systems (pipelines).

In Chapter 6 “The Far Eastern Anchor”, Brzezinski assesses the geostrategic power of two most powerful countries in the Asia proper – Japan and China. He suggests that, so far, China cannot be considered as “world power”, in traditional sense of this word, because this country’s immediate geopolitical influence does not encompass the whole world, even though China can certainly be referred to as one of world’s strongest economic powers. Also, author seems to seriously believe that China does not pose danger to America’s geopolitical interests in the area, due to such interests’ absence: “For China, America across the Pacific should be a natural ally since America has no designs on the Asian mainland and has historically opposed both Japanese and Russian encroachments on a weaker China” (Brzezinski 151). For as long as Japan is being concerned, it appears that author does not even consider it being a country, in full sense of this word, because since the end of WW2, Japan has been deprived of any means to aggressively defend its interests in the area: “For Japan, America continues to be the vital partner in Japan’s emergence as an international leader. But America is also the main reason for Japan’s continued lack of national self-reliance in the security area” (Brzezinski 152). Thus, according to Brzezinski, America’s response to the “Asian challenge”, should account for: a) assuring that Japan never attains too much of geopolitical independence b) creating objective preconditions for China to be primarily interested in expanding the sphere of its interests northwards, at the expense of Russia, rather then at the expense of America’s Asian allies, such as Japan, South Korea and Thailand.

In Chapter 7 “Conclusion”, Brzezinski summarizes the points he had made earlier in his book. The summary of these points can be outlined as follows:

America’s short-term geopolitical priority is concerned with preservation of “geopolitical pluralism” in Eurasia. In other words, America’s role on geopolitical map of Eurasia should be similar to the role Britain used to play on geopolitical map of Europe, during the course of 19^th-20^th centuries – identifying Eurasian “geostrategic powers”, in order to insure that social and economic tensions never cease to affect the way in which these powers relate to each other. America’s middle-term priority is being concerned with identifying Eurasian “geocentric powers” that are most likely to become the agents of American interests in Eurasia. America’s long-term priority is being concerned with eventual creation of “Eurasian Security System”, in which U.S. will be entitled with powers of an “arbiter”.

Theoretical Fallacies

Ever since Brzezinski’s book has been published in 1997, world’s geopolitical realities have been radically transformed. For example, Russia can longer be considered as semi-democratic state – ever since KGB mafia had taken over the power in Russia in 1999, this country has been firmly set on the path of aggressive totalitarianism. Nowadays, the existence of democracy in Russia has attained purely formal subtleties, with today’s acting Russian President Medvedev being nothing but Putin’s puppet. This is the reason why it is not only that Brzezinski’s suggestions, as to what should account for American policy towards Russia, have become grossly outdated, in the light of recent geopolitical developments, but they have also been deprived of their overall conceptual validity. According to Brzezinski, Russia’s geopolitical aggressiveness should have automatically triggered America’s strong response. Yet, after Russia had attacked independent country of Georgia on August 8, 2008, America did not only fail to provide military aid to Georgia, as it should have been the case, but it even failed to strongly oppose Russia’s blatant violation of international law on the level of international diplomacy. The reason for this is too obvious not to be noticed – as time goes by; America continues to grow ever-weaker from within, as the result of American citizens’ biological value being rapidly reduced due to institutialization of “celebration of diversity” policy in this country.

In its turn, this brings us to the discussion of most obvious theoretical fallacies, contained in “The Grand Chessboard”:

While agreeing with suggestions that today’s America is nothing but a modern equivalent of Roman Empire, Brzezinski denies a possibility that America might ever end up facing the same problem as corrupted Roman Empire, in time of its decline – namely, the displacement of “original” Romans with non-White barbarians, who were deprived of spiritual and intellectual qualities, the possession of which allowed “original” Romans to build and to maintain a civilization, in the first place. Apparently, Brzezinski had read Edward Gibbon’s famous book “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, which is why he rightly indentifies Roman elites’ “existential impotence” as the ultimate cause for the fall of Roman Empire: “The prolonged period of imperial hubris generated a cultural hedonism that gradually sapped the political elite’s will to greatness… Sustained inflation also undermined the capacity of the system to sustain itself without social sacrifice, which the citizens were no longer prepared to make” (Brzezinski 12). Author tactfully avoids explaining why degenerate Romans “were no longer prepared to make sacrifices”, simply because the answer to this question could hardly be considered politically correct – by 5^th century A.D. Romans had ceased to be Romans, in racially-biological sense of this word. Thus, Brzezinski is not being intellectually honest with his readers – while suggesting that multiculturalism (interracial mixing) actually makes America stronger, author simultaneously refers to multiculturalism in other countries in strongly negative terms of “ethnic cauldron”.
In his book, Brzezinski grossly exaggerates America’s ability to promptly react to geopolitical challenges, which can be partially explained by the fact that “The Grand Chessboard” was written prior to the events of 9/11. After all – it has only taken U.S. four years, to defeat highly industrialized Germany and Japan, during the course of WW2; whereas, America’s war on single individual Osama bin Laden (!) continues on for eight years now, with no end in sight. It is a truth that a single American aircraft carrier, such as USS “Ronald Reagan”, is capable of reducing any middle-sized country into a Stone Age, within the matter of half an hour. At the same time, as recent history indicates, it might only take one electric blackout in one of America’s large cities, to trigger the process of this country being plunged into the state of social chaos, when “ethnically unique” citizens would become solely preoccupied with looting, as it was the case in New Orleans, in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Thus, Brzezinski’s insistence that “American Empire” is being qualitatively different from Roman Empire can be best referred to as utterly unsubstantiated. Just as it was the case with Roman Empire in time of its decline – America can no longer afford the luxury of actively combating barbarians, due to: a) scattering of American military forces throughout the world b) the unwillingness of native-born Americans to serve in U.S. Army (this is the reason why illegal immigrants in U.S. are now being given a chance to apply for American citizenship, after having served for 3 years in U.S. Army).
In “The Grand Chessboard”, Brzezinski misleads readers, while suggesting that political developments within EU are being primarily defined by nationalistic aspirations, on the part of France and Germany. This is because, slowly but surely, EU is being turned into the quasi-state of its own, in which only the self-appointed Euro-bureaucrats enjoy the solemn power of making executive decisions, on behalf of Europeans. These bureaucrats cannot be identified as “German” or “French” in apriori – they are nothing but cosmopolitic promoters of Globalization, who cannot possibly profess national values of any sort, simply because in their eyes, one’s willingness to identify itself as “German” or “French” serves as an indication of such individual’s “lack of tolerance”. Today’s Europe is nothing but miniature model of USSR (ideological dictatorship), in which people can be sentenced to 5-7 years in jail for utilizing their constitutional right of freedom of speech (the crime of “hate speech”) and also for examining the history of WW2 (the crime of “historical revisionism”). Paul Belien’s article “Former Soviet Dissident Warns for EU Dictatorship”, which is available on web site of The Brussels Journal, contains excerpts from the interview with former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy, who provides us with the insight on true state of affairs within EU. While referring to such EU’s institution as Europol, Bukovsky states: “This organization (Europol) will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes – two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, and another is called xenophobia. No criminal court on Earth defines anything like this as a crime” (Belien 2006). Thus, Brzezinski’s suggestion that German and French governmental officials are being endowed with strongly defined sense of national belonging, cannot be considered seriously. Had this been the case, people would not be referring to today’s Germany as “Northern Turkey” and to France as “Northern Algeria”.
In “The Grand Chessboard”, Brzezinski clearly underestimates: a) the extent of America’s economic dependency upon China b) danger posed to U.S. by China’s geopolitical aspirations. For example, in order for China to put an end to America, as we know it, it will not even have to resort to military action of any sort – all Chinese government would have to do is to demand from America to exchange 3.5 trillions of U.S. dollars (which are currently in China’s possession) for gold. If this happens, American Government will have no choice but to demonetize U.S. Dollar as domestic and international currency, which will automatically initiate the beginning of “war or everybody against everybody” within this country. It is important to understand that, just as any military force consisting of mercenaries; U.S. Army can only be effective while operating abroad. However, as soon as U.S. soldiers would realize that they can no longer be adequately paid for providing their government with military services, they will simply refuse to fight, especially while being asked to “bring democracy” to people that are being genetically incapable of understanding what the concept of democracy stands for, such as Iraqis. Even Brzezinski admits that it is only the matter of time, before the objective laws of history would cause America and China to clash:”America is seen by China as the world’s current hegemon, whose very presence in the region, based on its dominant position in Japan, works to contain China’s influence. Simply by being what it is and where it is, America becomes China’s unintentional adversary rather than its natural ally” (Brzezinski 177). However, author does not mention the sheer extent of contempt towards America, which defines the existential mode of overwhelming majority of ordinary Chinese citizens and Chinese governmental officials alike. In Chinese eyes – America is nothing but a nation of degenerates, which simply does not have the right to enjoy its current prosperity, while exploiting China’s cheep labor. China thinks of America as country that had long ago been deprived of its former national unity, due to demographic wholesomeness of American society being destroyed by “multiculturalism”. And, yet, it takes the advantage of American “multiculturalism” to establish Chinese “fifth column” in every large American city (“Chinatowns”). As recent events indicate, China no longer experiences the fear of neither U.S. Army nor America’s economic potential. The most recent incident with Chinese Navy ships harassing US Navy Surveillance ship in international waters on March 7, 2009, fully substantiates the validity of this statement. In his article “Chinese Navy Harasses US Navy Ship in International Waters”, Michael Squires tells us about the details of this accident: “Five Chinese Naval vessels have maneuvered recklessly to within 8 meters (26 feet) of a US Navy Surveillance ship operating in the South China Sea. The incident occurred on Sunday in the South China Sea about 120Km south of Hainan Island, well within international waters” (Squires 2009). Even as recent as 10 years ago, Chinese would never dare to do anything like this. But, ever since Americans had confirmed their willingness to follow the footsteps of corrupted Romans by electing mongrelized politician as their President, Chinese have realized that from now on, they can proceed with applying a direct military pressure upon U.S., without risking the chance of China’s population being reduced in size by America’s nuclear retaliation.
Despite the fact that in his book Brzezinski has gone a great length while analyzing the factors that have accounted for formation of America’s foreign policy in nineties, he nevertheless failed to even make mentioning of the influence that America’s powerful Jewish lobby exerted on this policy. Regardless of whether we want to admit it or not – for the duration of last 20 years, the most powerful country in the world has been playing the role of Israeli’s puppet, which turns the whole concept of geopolitics upside down, because the existence of such state of affairs contradicts the rules of logic. In 2004, U.S. Congress had passed a so-called “The Global Anti-Semitism Awareness/Review Act”, according to which, even a mild criticism of Israeli genocidal policies in Palestine (Israel continues to occupy Palestine, contrary to U.N. numerous resolutions), on the part of just about anyone, accounts for the “act of anti-Semitism”. In his article “Jewish Dominance of State Department Unmasked”, John Goth makes a perfectly good point when he states: “The Global Anti-Semitism Awareness/Review Act, a reaction to the recent anger against Jewish corruption and violence worldwide, passed the House of Representatives five months after the bill was cleared by the Senate. It mandates the creation of a new office at the State Department dedicated solely to attack free speech on Jewish crime and atrocities around the world” (Goth 2004). The continuous existence if Israel, which keeps the whole area of Middle East is the state of constant geopolitical tension, is being enabled by the fact that, ever since being created in 1949, Israel had never experienced the shortage of American financial and military aid. Such situation appears being especially bizarre, given Israeli’s attack on USS “Liberty” in 1967 and also the fact that, as we all know, not a year goes by, without at least few Israeli nationals being caught spying on America’s state secrets. Yet, in his book, Brzezinski had chosen in favor of “playing dumb”, for as long as the discussion of an illogical but unbreakable bond between America and Israel is being concerned. Of course, such Brzezinski’s stance is quite explainable – had he acted contrary to Israeli’s interests, he would never be able to rise to the position of States National Security Advisor under Jimmy Carter.

Conclusion

The overall conclusion of this critical review can be summarized as follows: Brzezinski’s book can no longer be considered as such that contains valid suggestions as to how America should deal with international challenges, due to the fact that, ever since it was being written, world had ceased to be unipolar, in geopolitical sense of this word. Moreover, we can no longer refer to U.S. as a country that truly cares about protecting its national interests on international arena – nowadays; this country is being primarily concerned with protecting the interests of Israel, as opposed to protecting its own interests. The reign of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in the White House, had removed remaining doubts as to validity of this suggestion.

Bibliography

Belien, Paul “Former Soviet Dissident Warns for EU Dictatorship”. 2006.

Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. NY: Basic Books, 1997. Print.

Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire. London: Everyman’s Library, 1993. Print.

Goth, John “Jewish Dominance of State Department Unmasked”. 2004.

Squires, Michael “Chinese Navy Harasses US Navy Ship in International Waters”. 2009. Digital Journal.

Click Here To Order Now!

Zbigniew K. Brzezinski: The Grand Chessboard

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)