Egoist is like one sitting for long in a well[1]

Global sociology as it is seen from the heights of the US «high» political analytics: on Z. Brzezinski’s book «The Grand Chessboard. American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives». (Russian edition – M. International Relations.1998. Original edition Brzezinski Z. The Grand Chessboard. American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives».Basic Books.)

There is a legend coming from the antiques times of Greek-Persian wars. The numerous armies and fleet of Persia which by that time already conquered many peoples and established its presence on the Mediterranean Sea, were overhanging the Hellenistic Civilization, the latter, at the first sight, being much less powerful and controlled less «human» and material resources than its potential conqueror. The war began and one sage suggested showing to the Greek warriors their future enemies as they really were.

A group of captured Persians appeared naked in the field where the battle-ranks were drawn up. It is known, even from antique sculpture, that the Greeks of those times paid special attention to body-building exercises to prepare themselves for military service. When this people who were used to purposeful physical training from their childhood saw the Persians naked they almost fell with laugh as they could not imagine that such feeble men even though grouped in numerous armies would be a dangerous enemy on the battle-field. The ensuing military actions brought decisive victory of Greeks over feeble ones who at that time pretended to establish the unrivalled world primacy of their state and subsequently, to shape the outlook of the whole world.

Now, we suggest dwelling on the main subject of the present note. The author of the book is the former National Security Adviser of the American President in 1977-1981, consultant of the Center for Strategic and International Studies[2], professor of foreign affairs in Paul H. Nitze School of Contemporary International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, Washington D.C. (as given in the Abstract).The following dedication precedes the book: «For my students-to help them shape tomorrow’s world».

As one may conclude from the above, Z. Brzezinski has, in essence, formulated his parting wishes to those future successors who are expected to occupy positions in the American state establishment only after a period of time to come.

Russian reader as well is not left without «parting wishes», since there is a foreword by Y.G. Kobaladze, Major-General of the EIS (External Intelligence Service).Yuri Kobaladze was reported («Pravda», 21.12.96) to hold the post (at least during this period) of EIS press-bureau chief. «In one of his interviews he was explicit in saying that he did not believe in any conspiracies, judo-mason centres, or agents of influence». He is claiming that «the Soviet Union had been pulled down not by the CIA. We did it ourselves»[3] (ibid.) So, Y.G. Kobaladze’s assessment of Z. Brzezinski’s book should be taken too in this context.

Y.G. Kobaladze goes along:

«This is a useful book for all who deal with the foreign policy or devote their passion or interest to this subject. Because still no one has told us about America as the «only superpower» using so simple, rigid and frankly words and still no one has disclosed in such a revealing way, how its exceptional position is to be preserved and consolidated.<…>

Perhaps, one may be shocked by how the question is put about US policy with respect to Russia: «What kind of Russia is in America’s interest, and what and how much can America do about it»? To answer this question the author devotes a special chapter. He refers to «the black hole».And this is strange, strictly speaking, and inconsistent with the foregoing. In fact, «the black hole «in astrophysics means a certain body which absorbs irreversibly the surrounding substance. Russia, in contrast, is loosing parts of its «body».Meanwhile Z. Brzezinski, speaking about Russia in his book, formulates the twofold problem of the American policy: how to encourage Russia’s democratic transformation and economic recovery while «avoiding the re-emergence of a Eurasian empire that could obstruct the American geostrategic goal of shaping a larger Euro-Atlantic system to which Russia can then be stably and safely related».

At the end of his foreword Y.G. Kobaladze says:

«It‘s evident, multipolar world concepts are alien to Brzezinski because of his very nature. And it is all the more interesting that the final part of his book is named: «Beyond the Last Global Superpower».Yes, the author admits that the USA are the first and the last global superpower, also that the time will come when «global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state». And what if this time is coming already?

The end of the «Cold War» has significantly complicated America’s status of «free world’s» leader.

This book, written by Z. Brzezinski – one of the forgers of American foreign policy – is a search for a new strategy of American world’s primacy. Elephant in a store is trying to break as less plates as possible».

Is Russia a «black hole», as its role is defined by Z. Brzezinski, or Y.G. Kobaladze, surprised by such assessment from the overseas, was right? – This question, when elucidated, will allow answering another question tackled by both Z. Brzezinski and Y.G. Kobaladze: «What will be beyond the last global superpower»? Or more precisely: «Will it be the American global policy that will shape the future world’s framework «beyond the last global superpower» or it will be the future world’s framework that will make impossible for America to further exist in its present shape framed historically?

To answer these questions, no matter whatever irritation the views expressed by Z. Brzezinski in his book may provoke, one should reject, at first, that dependant-hypocritical standpoint which has been selected by the external intelligence Major-General, demoralized by the Cold War. His words: «no one has told us about America as the «only superpower» using so simple, rigid and frankly words and still no one has disclosed in such a revealing way, how its exceptional position is to be preserved and consolidated»-is a testimony of either his full professional inconsistency or his open hypocrisy.

Given his professional position, he ought to know about the content of many papers where the attitudes of American rulers and their advisers towards the USSR and Russia were clearly stated. In particular, the USA NSC-20/1 Directive of August 18, 1948 was clearly entitled: «Our goals with respect to Russia». Compared with Z. Brzezinski’s book, it sounds even more open because its target was not good-will idealists of student youth kind, those who have never been familiar with real political practice, but ready American state leaders who have been scrupulously screened both in public politics and within the system of inter-nazi mason lodges – this internal frame of democratic – but in Western manner-state structure, although this fact permanently falls in oblivion.

Extracts from this Directive are quoted below as cited in N.N. Yakovlev’s[4] book “The CIA against the USSR” (Moscow, Politizdat, 1985, p.p. 38-40, as selected):

«Our main goals with respect to Russia are essentially twofold:

a) To minimize Moscow's might;

b) To introduce fundamental changes in the theory and practices of the foreign policy pursued by the government in power in Russia

... We are not committed to any time limit to achieve our goals in peaceful time.

...We have grounds decisively not to feel any guilty when striving for ruling out of concepts incompatible with international peace and stability and for their replacement with concepts of tolerance and international cooperation. It is not our concern to think about internal consequences that such concepts, if adopted, would entail in other country; equally, we should not think that we bear any responsibility for these events (we use italics when citing: the United States are guilty since they refused to take care and responsibility)... If the Soviet leaders assume that the increasing significance of more enlightened concepts in international relations is incompatible with the preservation of their power in Russia it will be their concern, not our. Our concern is to work and ensure that internal events occur there...As government we are not responsible for internal conditions in Russia...