Angela Merkel’s calm steadied a wounded nation — but it also put it to sleep. For sixteen years, Germany mistook caution for competence and comfort for courage. This essay dissects how the myth of …
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.
Somehow, the first part about “benignly shaping a truly cooperative global community” is never quoted - or even considered? - in the numerous times you refer to it.
Furthermore, that this is a book written by a political scientist almost twenty years after his retirement from active politics in which he formulates his personal ideal of a geopolitical strategy for the US - and neither a factual description nor some spicy inside information being revealed, also apparently isn’t known.
Now, this article is about Merkel and Europe. Yet, you feel the urge again to quote this US book about the US again. Why? Are you insinuating Merkel is part of the “Grand Chessboard plan”, conducted by clandestine elites from the US?
If that were really the case, how come Merkel has like probably no other European leader in the last 30 years tied our continent to both Russia and China, the mortal Eurasian challengers of the US, especially if Brzezinskis personal “Grand Chessboard plan” were true? Why did the US allow this then? Why did the US allow Russia and China to become so strong (again) anyway? When Brzezinski wrote this, Russia was a bankrupt corpse and China far from the rival it is today. Now, more than 25 years later, Russia is as aggressive as ever since its existence and China is economically giving the US a good run for their money. Somehow, although Brzezinski clearly said it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, there are an awful lot of Eurasian challengers to a crumbling US. Strange, isn’t it?
So how this quote, because lets be honest, this is all its about for you considering this book, can be considered so “important”, is really beyond me.
Somehow, the first part about “benignly shaping a truly cooperative global community” is never quoted - or even considered?
It is considered, in the same way that all political promises are considered. It’s empty words until it is backed up with action. Doing bad things for the greater good is basic manipulation. Which actions of the US give you the confidence that this are not empty words that make the reader accept the rest?
formulates his personal ideal of a geopolitical strategy
The German Wikipedia page quotes an author named Chris Luenen as saying that that ideal is the orientation for the US. There is also the statement that Russia sees it as the foundation of US foreign policy. Finally some of the people whose reviews of the book are quoted, are high ranking enough that the book cannot be seen as fringe opinion.
some spicy inside information
As I wrote elsewhere, I take away the mental concepts that are used for analysis. The ambition to be the hegemon is not some spicy detail.
Are you insinuating Merkel is part of the “Grand Chessboard plan”, conducted by clandestine elites from the US?
Yes. Merkel visited Bush to assure German support despite Schröder’s rejection of participating in the illegal Iraq war.
Why … ?
China was bribed with prosperity to split from USSR. Tian’anmen, Tibet, Uyghurs and others failed, so did Nawalny and others in Russia.
It almost looks like the US followed the blueprint of this book instead of listening to further advice.
Which actions of the US give you the confidence that this are not empty words
None. Because they are empty words. But both parts of Brzezinski’s theory are empty words, because both cannot be found in reality! There is no benign vision, there are strong Eurasian challengers.
The German Wikipedia page quotes an author named Chris Luenen as saying that that ideal is the orientation for the US.
It also quotes him saying that, despite popular belief, Europe and especially Germany don’t just have the choice between aligning themselves with either the US or China/Russia but that they should pursue their foreign relations based on interests instead of emotions. And he’s right! Why is it that criticising the US also comes with simping for Russia/China for some people? Are these countries interested in a strong and independent Europe next to them? Of course not. So someone that’s actually interested in us Europeans should rather promote a European perspective independent of these rivals of ours. A Russia waging a war of aggression based on expansionism and imperialism is an enemy to our interests. A China that floods our markets with goods while restraining our access to their market is an economic rival. Their interests are not ours.
There is also the statement that Russia sees it as the foundation of US foreign policy.
Why should we care? Russia also considers Ukraine not a sovereign country. They say whatever they want to justify their actions.
Finally some of the people whose reviews of the book are quoted, are high ranking enough that the book cannot be seen as fringe opinion.
…and there’s also a lot of critical voices in the reviews. The opinions on the importance of the book are not as monolithic as you make them seem.
The ambition to be the hegemon is not some spicy detail.
You do realise that every country with an ambition to be a leading global power also has the ambition to control a certain sphere of influence? Be it the US, the ‘Russian World’ or China’s influence in Africa. We don’t need Brzezinski’s book for that.
Yes.
Awesome. Thanks for being so honest! Although to say that Merkel is part of a ‘Grand Chessboard Plan’ by the US smells very much like conspiracy theories, given the mentioned actions by Merkel:
enabling the industrial rise of China by forging extremely strong economic bonds between Germany and China, leading to vast amounts of know-how flowing into the country, allowing them to catch up as fast as they could;
making Germany dependent on Russian gas, leading to a soft and appeasing response to Russian aggression in Ukraine from 2014 onwards, hindering the continent to answer in necessary intensity and hence maybe encouraging Putin’s full scale invasion in 2022.
If there was be a ‘Grand Chessboard Plan’ and she was be a part of it, none of this would make sense, as it only benefits Eurasian challengers of the US, which are to be prevented by all costs according to this plan.
China was bribed with prosperity to split from USSR. Tian’anmen, Tibet, Uyghurs and others failed, so did Nawalny and others in Russia.
Please elaborate further. What were the reasons for the Sino-Soviet split. What do you mean by Tian’anmen, Tibet, Uyghurs and Navalny?
I am not sure how to answer this. If the goal is to prevent a challenger and there is none, then it’s not proof of the contrary.
The US decided to integrate China into WTO. Sweden sold the car company, Canada the mobile phone technology. It was the goal to integrate China economically. Thinking that China’s development is Merkel’s fault needs some proof to convince me.
As I said, Merkel went to Bush, and if you don’t know, the rift between Merkel and Merz is about Merz wanting more independence from America.
Minsk II and the gas kept Russia believing that there was a future. Minsk II was deception. Why not the gas? As shown by reality, there was no real dependency.
Merkel even gave her phone to the NSA for inspections.
If the goal is to prevent a challenger and there is none, then it’s not proof of the contrary.
But there is a challenger. One that grew incredibly fast even after Brzezinski published his book.
Thinking that China’s development is Merkel’s fault needs some proof to convince me.
That’s not the point. The point is that under Merkel, trade between Germany and China intensified, leading to a strong influx of technology into China and hence strengthening their growth. This would not be plausible if Merkel was actually part of a US ‘Grand Chessboard Plan/Conspiracy’.
Also, Merkel deepened the reliance of Germany on Russian gas. That’s weakening the US position and, if she was actually part of a ‘Grand Chessboard Plan/Conspiracy’ would not be plausible. Yet it happened.
So we can conclude: we both agree there is likely no benign vision in the US’ strategy. And we both agree there a strong Eurasian competitors. Therefore, both parts of Brzezinski’s idea are not given. Hence, I think it is fiction at best and don’t understand the obsession with the book nor what it can ‘prove’ in reality.
But let’s not forget the really interesting bits from your response:
What were the reasons for the Sino-Soviet split. What do you mean by Tian’anmen, Tibet, Uyghurs and Navalny?
Russia alone is no challenger. The combination with Germany would have been. It’s worth having a look why that didn’t take place.
China is a challenger made by the US. The reviews point out that the book is missing that risk and focusses too much on Russia. In that sense the development of China confirms the mindset of the book.
Why don’t you see the key role of the US in the development of China?
I will answer your last question in another comment.
Russia meddled with US elections and currently try to annex one of Europe’s largest countries that wants to align itself with the ‘West’. A US under the strategy of Brzezinski would not allow these challenges to their power.
China is a challenger made by the US.
…which is a grave violation of Brzezinski’s strategy.
In that sense the development of China confirms the mindset of the book.
How does the US allowing China to emerge as their biggest rival since a long time confirm a book that states it is imperial for the US for exactly that not to happen?
A US under the strategy of Brzezinski would not allow these challenges to their power.
You could see the war as a tool to prevent Europe from working with Russia and China. Then the US is doing exactly that, preventing the challenger.
How does the US allowing China to emerge as their biggest rival
Momentum and ignorance. They allowed China to trade with the West to allow China to separate from the USSR. Afterwards China played their cards right and the US hasn’t managed to incide a revolution that would make China democratic and part of the western framework.
It confirms the book because the criticism was that China wasn’t considered enough. If that omission happens in reality then the book seems to reflect the focus of those who do the strategic thinking for the US.
Feel free to quote it and explain how it invalidates the second sentence.
This is the full quote:
Somehow, the first part about “benignly shaping a truly cooperative global community” is never quoted - or even considered? - in the numerous times you refer to it.
Furthermore, that this is a book written by a political scientist almost twenty years after his retirement from active politics in which he formulates his personal ideal of a geopolitical strategy for the US - and neither a factual description nor some spicy inside information being revealed, also apparently isn’t known.
Now, this article is about Merkel and Europe. Yet, you feel the urge again to quote this US book about the US again. Why? Are you insinuating Merkel is part of the “Grand Chessboard plan”, conducted by clandestine elites from the US?
If that were really the case, how come Merkel has like probably no other European leader in the last 30 years tied our continent to both Russia and China, the mortal Eurasian challengers of the US, especially if Brzezinskis personal “Grand Chessboard plan” were true? Why did the US allow this then? Why did the US allow Russia and China to become so strong (again) anyway? When Brzezinski wrote this, Russia was a bankrupt corpse and China far from the rival it is today. Now, more than 25 years later, Russia is as aggressive as ever since its existence and China is economically giving the US a good run for their money. Somehow, although Brzezinski clearly said it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, there are an awful lot of Eurasian challengers to a crumbling US. Strange, isn’t it?
So how this quote, because lets be honest, this is all its about for you considering this book, can be considered so “important”, is really beyond me.
It is considered, in the same way that all political promises are considered. It’s empty words until it is backed up with action. Doing bad things for the greater good is basic manipulation. Which actions of the US give you the confidence that this are not empty words that make the reader accept the rest?
The German Wikipedia page quotes an author named Chris Luenen as saying that that ideal is the orientation for the US. There is also the statement that Russia sees it as the foundation of US foreign policy. Finally some of the people whose reviews of the book are quoted, are high ranking enough that the book cannot be seen as fringe opinion.
As I wrote elsewhere, I take away the mental concepts that are used for analysis. The ambition to be the hegemon is not some spicy detail.
Yes. Merkel visited Bush to assure German support despite Schröder’s rejection of participating in the illegal Iraq war.
China was bribed with prosperity to split from USSR. Tian’anmen, Tibet, Uyghurs and others failed, so did Nawalny and others in Russia.
It almost looks like the US followed the blueprint of this book instead of listening to further advice.
None. Because they are empty words. But both parts of Brzezinski’s theory are empty words, because both cannot be found in reality! There is no benign vision, there are strong Eurasian challengers.
It also quotes him saying that, despite popular belief, Europe and especially Germany don’t just have the choice between aligning themselves with either the US or China/Russia but that they should pursue their foreign relations based on interests instead of emotions. And he’s right! Why is it that criticising the US also comes with simping for Russia/China for some people? Are these countries interested in a strong and independent Europe next to them? Of course not. So someone that’s actually interested in us Europeans should rather promote a European perspective independent of these rivals of ours. A Russia waging a war of aggression based on expansionism and imperialism is an enemy to our interests. A China that floods our markets with goods while restraining our access to their market is an economic rival. Their interests are not ours.
Why should we care? Russia also considers Ukraine not a sovereign country. They say whatever they want to justify their actions.
…and there’s also a lot of critical voices in the reviews. The opinions on the importance of the book are not as monolithic as you make them seem.
You do realise that every country with an ambition to be a leading global power also has the ambition to control a certain sphere of influence? Be it the US, the ‘Russian World’ or China’s influence in Africa. We don’t need Brzezinski’s book for that.
Awesome. Thanks for being so honest! Although to say that Merkel is part of a ‘Grand Chessboard Plan’ by the US smells very much like conspiracy theories, given the mentioned actions by Merkel:
If there was be a ‘Grand Chessboard Plan’ and she was be a part of it, none of this would make sense, as it only benefits Eurasian challengers of the US, which are to be prevented by all costs according to this plan.
Please elaborate further. What were the reasons for the Sino-Soviet split. What do you mean by Tian’anmen, Tibet, Uyghurs and Navalny?
I am not sure how to answer this. If the goal is to prevent a challenger and there is none, then it’s not proof of the contrary.
The US decided to integrate China into WTO. Sweden sold the car company, Canada the mobile phone technology. It was the goal to integrate China economically. Thinking that China’s development is Merkel’s fault needs some proof to convince me.
As I said, Merkel went to Bush, and if you don’t know, the rift between Merkel and Merz is about Merz wanting more independence from America.
Minsk II and the gas kept Russia believing that there was a future. Minsk II was deception. Why not the gas? As shown by reality, there was no real dependency.
Merkel even gave her phone to the NSA for inspections.
But there is a challenger. One that grew incredibly fast even after Brzezinski published his book.
That’s not the point. The point is that under Merkel, trade between Germany and China intensified, leading to a strong influx of technology into China and hence strengthening their growth. This would not be plausible if Merkel was actually part of a US ‘Grand Chessboard Plan/Conspiracy’.
Also, Merkel deepened the reliance of Germany on Russian gas. That’s weakening the US position and, if she was actually part of a ‘Grand Chessboard Plan/Conspiracy’ would not be plausible. Yet it happened.
So we can conclude: we both agree there is likely no benign vision in the US’ strategy. And we both agree there a strong Eurasian competitors. Therefore, both parts of Brzezinski’s idea are not given. Hence, I think it is fiction at best and don’t understand the obsession with the book nor what it can ‘prove’ in reality.
But let’s not forget the really interesting bits from your response:
What were the reasons for the Sino-Soviet split. What do you mean by Tian’anmen, Tibet, Uyghurs and Navalny?
I am sorry, I totally messed up what I read.
Russia alone is no challenger. The combination with Germany would have been. It’s worth having a look why that didn’t take place.
China is a challenger made by the US. The reviews point out that the book is missing that risk and focusses too much on Russia. In that sense the development of China confirms the mindset of the book.
Why don’t you see the key role of the US in the development of China?
I will answer your last question in another comment.
Russia meddled with US elections and currently try to annex one of Europe’s largest countries that wants to align itself with the ‘West’. A US under the strategy of Brzezinski would not allow these challenges to their power.
…which is a grave violation of Brzezinski’s strategy.
How does the US allowing China to emerge as their biggest rival since a long time confirm a book that states it is imperial for the US for exactly that not to happen?
You could see the war as a tool to prevent Europe from working with Russia and China. Then the US is doing exactly that, preventing the challenger.
Momentum and ignorance. They allowed China to trade with the West to allow China to separate from the USSR. Afterwards China played their cards right and the US hasn’t managed to incide a revolution that would make China democratic and part of the western framework.
It confirms the book because the criticism was that China wasn’t considered enough. If that omission happens in reality then the book seems to reflect the focus of those who do the strategic thinking for the US.