He's dead Jim
American Committee for Peace in Chechnya (ACPC).
Founded in 1999, the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya is the only private, non-governmental organization in North America exclusively dedicated to promoting the peaceful resolution of the Russo-Chechen war. Chaired by former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig, Jr. and former Congressman Stephen J. Solarz, the committee is composed of more than one hundred distinguished Americans representing both major political parties and nearly every walk of life. Former Ambassador Max M. Kampelman is the co-chair emeritus.
bttt for later read.
Note: Zigi was Carter's man about the globe.
Nothing good comes from him or his student - Mad Albright!
I suppose that Brzezinski still does his geopolitics as a Pole.:)
Ziggy and Maddie, two of the biggest loons on the face of planet earth.
We should stop funding China's accension. We should hold a summit with Russia, and develop a unified policy regarding terrorism, and mean it. Any talk of Chechnyan self-determination should cease from our State Department.
Throwing a modest amount of trade towards Russia would be a good thing. So would cutting off China at the knees.
Dang, I was shocked to see some of the names on this list.
Sounds like something Brzezinski would say--like an extrapolation from his plan for spreading socialism in Latin America under Carter.
He's dead Jim
Zbig bump!
What a dangerous fool...be thankful he is an aging fool.
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I give Brzezinski points for seeing at the height of the Cold War that the Soviet Union's muslim south was its vulnerability.
I think, however, that Brzezinski has proven that he is rather shallow and dangerous aside from that one insight. The idea that an Islamist Iran would better a more effective barrier to the communists than a modernizing Shah has turned out to be the greatest disaster of the last thirty years.
He is correct in seeing that China is a necessary counterbalance to Russia, but he fails to see that Russia is itself a very necessary counterbalance to Chinese ambition.
He sees China's role in protecting Pakistan from Indian domination as a necessary one, which ignores that fact that India is generally a humane and modernist state, whereas Pakistan continues to be a source of hatred and instability in the region. Our engagement of Pakistan makes sense as a part of our good-cop-bad-cop routine with India; China's role as Pakistan's guarantor undermines us and strengthens muslim radicalism.
He favors a eurocentric Russia, but misses the fact that we need Russia as our counterbalance to the EU. And his notion of a Russia broken down into pieces is juvenile. First, it isn't going to happen. Second, Russia in pieces would not liberalize any more quickly than the united whole, but be easier pickings for the state mafias than it now is. Has an independent Belarus been a net positive for anyone? Sadly, although I have had higher hopes, has an independent Ukraine been a net positive for anyone, including the Ukraine?
While he is looking to separate Russia into pieces, he failed to mention the ethnic patchwork that is China, the turkic provinces which long for independence, and the Tibetans who face slow-motion extinction. Why would we separate the Russians into separate states, even if we had the power, which we do not, and leave China to dominate entire peoples against their will?
From the guy who helped create Islamic Iran.