In case this situation in Russia persists, the country may be protected against such overseas directives only if the directive-makers commit mistakes that would make these directives unviable or bring results opposite to expected.
A question may arise: «How does the legend’s plot, by which we begin the present analytical note, correlate with all this and, in particular, with Z. Brzezinski’s book»? The fact is that if not all of Russia then its overwhelming majority is used to view Z. Brzezinski as one of the most powerful political analysts of the world whose role in the ending of the Cold War by American victory and by collapse of the USSR as a state was far from being minor.[8] At the same time, however, the majority is not familiar with what constitutes the substance of views advocated by Z. Brzezinski but just admires his authority boosted by mass-media. Meanwhile, the publication of his book in our country has changed the situation in core: the opportunity has emerged for the Russian reader to observe, – naked as they are, – the morals of Z. Brzezinski, – essentially, a typical representative of the American political «elite» – and his corresponding world outlook and intellectual culture. Thus, the way has been opened to see and touch «the intellectual muscles» of one of the «strategists-winners» in the Cold War. What we have seen could not but evoke in our memory the legend that had reached us from the far antique ages, this legend reciting about the failure of the ancient – Persian claims for world primacy and for the right to shape the future world.
Z. Brzezinski writes:
“The ultimate objective of American policy should be benign and visionary: to shape a truly cooperative global community, in keeping with long-range trends and with the fundamental interests of humankind. But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book” (italicized by Z. Brzezinski) («The Grand Chessboard», p.12, dated: April 1997).
This last paragraph in the book’s «Introduction» provides all necessary grounds to conclude that America is under great menace and that it is unlikely to avoid calamities just by its own if its present and future policy-makers continue to trust so senselessly to such authoritative analysts and university professors as Z. Brzezinski, because their works do not contain ideas that, if they come true, would guarantee the security of American development. As said by the Apostle James: «he is a double-minded man, unsteady in all his ways» (The General Epistle, 1:8). The same is applicable to societies and states. In order to make sure that the remark made by the Apostle James is quite fair with respect to the present American political establishment, we need to consider in details what is written by Z. Brzezinski.
We shall start with analysing the meaning of the first phrase cited. First, the «ultimate objective» of the policy of any state, in order to be pursued, should be recognized in this state as an objective of paramount significance and, in essence, should be truly benign and visionary to keep with the fundamental interests of humankind. Here Z. Brzezinski is absolutely right.
All other objectives in global, foreign and internal policies of state should be subordinated to this «ultimate objective» of the highest priority of significance. As for conformity of the policy to the «long-range trends»,it must be said that some trends out of the full spectrum run counter the interests of humankind; others conform them absolutely and in all times, but there are also trends that either conform the long-range interests of humankind or contradict them, depending on prevailing historical circumstances. It follows that it was Z. Brzezinski’s mistake to refer to indefinite «long-range trends» in general when speaking about visionary objectives (see the first phrase cited above), because the visionary (ultimate) objectives-mean one thing, while «long-range trends» in general and not defined in essence – mean another thing, this last not always being positive for the former.
The case is not better, if we take the second phrase. It tacitly implies that America is irreproachable, – if not as a historical entity, standing firmly by the present time, then at least in the sense of supremacy therein of steady trends in social and personal development insofar as the «fundamental interests of humankind», mentioned in the first phrase, are expressed by these trends. If this is really so, then it is meaningful to support the “blameless” line of American global policy as dominating globally, so that the bearers of other trends which contradict the «fundamental interests of humankind», whether in Eurasia, South America, Africa or elsewhere, do not strengthen their positions to be able to hinder the progress of the whole humankind under American leadership.
But if America is not irreproachable, mainly in the sense of supremacy therein of steady trends of social development, then the meaning of the second phrase of the cited paragraph is evidently incompatible with the meaning of the former phrase on the highest priority of «fundamental interests of humankind» in the American policy. If another society, beyond the US government jurisdiction, turns to be free of trends which run counter the «fundamental interests of humankind» but which are inherent to present America, then, as the general and indefinite meaning of the second phrase implies, the interests of the whole humankind are to be suppressed by American primacy – which is far from being irreproachable – over Eurasia and other regions of the planet.
Having said this, we are not slandering Z. Brzezinski insofar as his book in general does not contain answers to interconnected questions such as:
What the fundamental interests of humankind are?
How in particular the historical entity as it stands and the trends of social development, inherent to America, prevent the exercise of fundamental interests of the humankind?
The same set of questions is relevant with regard to any society in any state; meanwhile the way they are answered enables to define all capacities for cooperation in the cause of exercise of fundamental interests of humankind in everyday life of societies and in the foreign policy of states; all other sorts of cooperation do not represent any interest to humankind.
Without answering these questions in essence, the formulation of a comprehensive and integrated global political strategy (and not Eurasian geostrategy, as Z. Brzezinski envisages in the third phrase) is impossible.
In addition, as follows from the cited paragraph and the remaining text of the book, Z. Brzezinski does not realize the evident difference between terms and corresponding life phenomena, such as global policy in general and state global policy, state foreign policy, state internal policy. But if, however, he does realize the difference between them – then not only he is one of the USSR grave-diggers but he is condemned to be included in the aftermath in the list of anti-American agents of influence and gravediggers of the USA as a presently standing historical entity.
Meanwhile the difference between all mentioned kinds of policy does exist:
global policy – is the activity aimed to implement objectives with respect to the wholehumankind and to the planet of Earth. In its core, this is mostly the management of a spectrum of long-range trends, what in many cases excludes the conformity of current policy to the trends which already exist. When formulating this policy, the Earth, of course, may be regarded as «the Grand Chessboard» but this «board», then, is to be used to dislocate all countries, including your own; and the player should involve every country[9], moreover – in such a way as to avoid that anyone looses, except those who will have desire to loose. The fact that Z. Brzezinski has stressed the necessity to «keep with long-range trends» while the «chessboard», according to him, is only Eurasia, means that his worldview is not adequate for global policy-making and for being political adviser in this field, though he has committed himself to this cause. The same is true for those who resort to his advises;