Devout optimist

Zbigniew Brzezinski, currently Robert E. Osgood Professor of American Foreign Policy at John Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and a member of various boards and councils, frequently appearing as an expert on the PBS program The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor (1977-81), author of The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (October 1997), Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower (March 2007), is well known throughout the world. This man offers accurate assessments of what’s happening on the international scene. He foresaw the Soviet Union’s final collapse and wrote in The Grand Chessboard: “Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn into debilitating conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who would then be supported by their fellow Islamic states to the south.”

In his article, “The Premature Partnership,” carried by Foreign Affairs (March/April 1994), he added that Russia could be either a democracy or an empire, but not both at the same time; without Ukraine, Russia would cease to be an empire; with a corrupt and subjugated Ukraine, it would automatically become an empire.

On October 2, the Institute of World Politics organized a Washington-Kyiv teleconference between Brzezinski and Ukrainian experts and journalists.

OPTIMISTIC ABOUT UKRAINE

In his introductory address Brzezinski says that Ukraine has been an independent country for the past 20 years; time enough for it to establish itself in terms of the Ukrainian national spirit and identity. He believes that Ukraine is going through the painful phase of adjustment, as a byproduct of certain troubles and disillusionments over the past couple of years.

Ukraine stands the singular chance of positively developing itself in every way, being in stable contact with Russia and capable of moving forth in the direction of an extended democratic Europe. In his opinion, Ukraine has passed up this opportunity and there is the risk of damage to Ukrainian democracy and national state-building interest.

Brzezinski is worried about Ukraine’s nearest future, although he remains true to his optimistic view on this country.

When asked by experts to share his view on the current Ukrainian government and its contacts with Russia, he said one shouldn’t query a foreigner, however friendly, about the domestic situation; there are questions that only those on the ground can answer. He said that Ukraine has enough manpower potential to produce new political leaders, and added that he felt disappointed about the situation after the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, especially the younger generation’s passive attitude.

Brzezinski believes that Ukraine’s political trajectory has been made absolutely clear and that this will bring Ukraine every success, because Ukraine must become a modern European democratic country, as part of European culture, the way Kyivan Rus’ ranked with the founders of Europe. Ukraine has great long-lasting historical traditions; the independent Ukrainian state has existed for 20 years, demonstrating its democratic stand, with a fourth president already. Those who try to curb Ukraine’s liberties to serve the government or clandestine agencies’ interests should be rebuffed by the younger generation; this is something to be done within Ukraine, without waiting for support from abroad.

It is hard to challenge those statements, the more so that Brzezinski addressed them to the current Ukrainian administration, with the latter’s repeated declarations in European capital cities about Ukraine’s will for European integration. Apparently, people in Ukraine and in the West expect the new government to actually follow the stated political course, despite close contacts with Russia.

RUSSIA: CONFUSED

Brzezinski doesn’t agree with the analysts who believe that Russia can influence Europe’s future. He isn’t sure that Russia can influence its own future, saying that a closer look at what has been stated in the course of inner political debates in Russia shows that it is facing drastic domestic problems, that it doesn’t have a clear picture of its future; there is a longing for its imperialistic past while trying to establish the Western living standard and democracy. In his opinion, Russia is politically unstable and that this situation will last for several years, then one will be able to allow oneself an optimistic view of Russia.

With regard to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s warning that there could be another arms race, Brzezinski believes that Russia will embark on the road of cooperation, for its own good, working out a joint missile defense system. If and when the United States succeeds in convincing its partners, this will offer Russia a good chance of taking part in such cooperation; there will be no losers, for every country will benefit from it. He doesn’t harbor any overstated expectations, but believes that the relations between the US and Russia will normalize; that none would benefit from the worsening of these relations, especially in regard to countries with pressing inner problems, because any dominance on the international arena would serve to worsen their status.

Brzezinski doesn’t believe there will be fresh military threats to Europe in the next five to ten years, considering that the consequences would be too destructive for any aggressor. He stresses that NATO will keep its position, and that any geopolitical threats will most likely come from countries that have failed to settle their own political administrative problems, lacking the political will to protect their national independence and interests. He says this risk appears to be higher for non-NATO countries, given what has happened to Georgia and what could have happened to Belarus. Of course, this is a geopolitical threat, the result of the existing economic and social conditions, the habitual course taken by the political leadership, and a clear-cut nationally independent policy being waged in the context of European cooperation. These are the causes of unwelcome consequences.

AMERICA’S BIG PROBLEM

Brzezinski believes that the WikiLeaks scandal won’t help improve relationships between the heads of state, for no one likes confidential diplomatic correspondence being made public knowledge; that the United States is facing a big diplomatic problem. Come to think of it, nothing in the whistle-blowing WikiLeaks files is news to those who know what’s going on; this problem will be eventually settled. Brzezinski suggested considering Austro-Hungary under the Hapsburg dynasty. Whenever they faced a crisis, their diplomats would say that yes, it was a disaster, but that it wasn’t as bad as met the eye. The same is true of WikiLeaks and Brzezinski said as much in an interview with a US channel, although he said the point was to know who was helping this leak, noting that they were receiving lots of data that turned out to be inconsistent and banal, although there were markedly purposeful trends, with certain Chinese political leaders quoted as saying they would rather have South and North Korea as a single body governed by Seoul. This would mean hardships in US-China relations, just as the repeated references to Arab leaders might undermine their prestige in their countries, for making public their hostile attitude toward Iran would damage their domestic visage.