This article can considered as one of the pointers for understanding what is happening in Eastern Europe. Written in 1997, it sets the scene for the geopolitical policies of the EU, US and NATO.
See also the Grand Chessboard:HERE .Pour des commentaires en français: http://www.internationalnews.fr/article-13008946.html
- Europe is a bridgehead for the US;
- The US seen as the sole global superpower;
- The key European players are France and German;
- A powerful Eurasia would wield strong influence over Western Europe & East Asia;
- The medium term for geopolitical strategy is 20 years ( roughly 1997 - 2017);
- China is deemed to be a pivotal player and a greater military power;
- Need for a Sino-American consensus;
- Britain is insular and deemed irrelevant, likewise Japan;
- An expanded NATO;
- Don't alienate Turkey; (US support for EU admission)
- US interest in Iran and not to continue with hostilities;
- A loosely confederated Russia!
"[...] and if that Europe is to remain part of the "Euro-Atlantic" space, the expansion of NATO is essential."
"Ukraine, provided it has made significant domestic reforms and has become identified as a Central European country, should also be ready for initial negotiations with the EU and NATO."
" In turn, a decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization."Final quote:
Defining the substance and institutionalizing the form of a trans-Eurasian security system could become the major architectural initiative of the next century. The core of the new transcontinental security framework could be a standing committee composed of the major Eurasian powers, with America, Europe, China, Japan, a confederated Russia, and India collectively addressing critical issues for Eurasia's stability.
To read the complete article:
A Geostrategy for Eurasia
Citation: Zbigniew Brzezinski, "A Geostrategy for Eurasia," Foreign Affairs, 76:5, September/October 1997.
by Zbigniew Brzezinski
October, 1977 "Foreign Affairs" -- Seventy-five years ago, when the first issue of Foreign Affairs saw the light of day, the United States was a self-isolated Western hemispheric power, sporadically involved in the affairs of Europe and Asia. World War II and the ensuing Cold War compelled the United States to develop a sustained commitment to Western Europe and the Far East. America's emergence as the sole global superpower now makes an integrated and comprehensive strategy for Eurasia imperative.
Eurasia is home to most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states. All the historical pretenders to global power originated in Eurasia. The world's most populous aspirants to regional hegemony, China and India, are in Eurasia, as are all the potential political or economic challengers to American primacy. After the United States, the next six largest economies and military spenders are there, as are all but one of the world's overt nuclear powers, and all but one of the covert ones. Eurasia accounts for 75 percent of the world's population, 60 percent of its GNP, and 75 percent of its energy resources. Collectively, Eurasia's potential power overshadows even America's.
Eurasia is the world's axial supercontinent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world's three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another for Asia. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and historical legacy.