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?
Let's pretend that an article similar to this was written in Russia about the US.
A dominant North America would exert influence throughout the region. It is therefore better to break up the United States into several smaller entities which then would move closer to the Russian model.
I am sure Americans would not take kindly to that, and I am certain Russians take a dim view of this article.
And while I am on the topic, why is it that the democrats say that they are better at diplomacy, when all they do is go around the world insulting everyone with bossy advice and contempt for other countries' contribution? The democrats are amateurs and lunatics when it comes to foreign affairs.