The Grand Chessboard

Mackinder theory.

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives is a geopolitical manifesto published in 1997 by former National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter Zbigniew Brzezinski. The manifesto was intended to serve as a guide for American geostrategists who seek to keep the post-Cold War global order unipolar (in other words, have the US remain the sole superpower indefinitely). The manifesto is deemed to be highly influential in both neoliberal and neoconservative circles.

The rhetoric can easily be used to describe neoliberal and neoconservative foreign policy "in a nutshell." It should also be noted that this rhetoric, which is the likely pretext for the present-day Russophobia coming from neoliberal and neoconservative activists and politicians, bears a comparable resemblance to Nazi-era propaganda demonizing the peoples of that region as "subhumans".

Eurasian Balkans

Mackinder

The manifesto is most notable for introducing Zbigniew Brzezinski's "Eurasian Balkans" theory, an updated version of the earlier "Eurasian Heartland" theory introduced by British geostrategist Halford Mackinder in his 1904 essay The Geographical Pivot of History. Mackinder's version of this theory in turn played a significant role in the development of the foreign policies of the Third Reich, Cold War-era America, and post-Cold War Russia.

The "Eurasian Balkans" theory is elaborated upon primarily in the manifesto's second and fifth chapters. It emphasizes the existence of an "oblong" of instability stretching from northern Kazakhstan in the north; the Horn of Africa in the south; western Xinjiang in the east; and the southeastern Balkans in the west. The central thesis can be stated as such:

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.

At the center of this "oblong" is a "power void" consisting of the following countries: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. In addition, Iran and Turkey are listed as possible additional countries belonging in this "power void," and the map detailing the extent of this "power void" also includes parts of Xinjiang and most of the Russian Caucasus. Furthermore, Brzezinski identifies seven countries as potential competitors to American geostrategy in the region; the primary ones being Iran, Russia, and Turkey and the secondary ones being China, India, Pakistan, and Ukraine.

Brzezinski meets with the Mujahideen Taliban, 1979.

Out of those seven potential "competitor" countries, Brzezinski identifies China, Iran, and Russia as being the most dangerous possible "anti-hegemonic" alliance combination. It is likely that this particular statement is a central reason why those three countries are often cited together as being collectively responsible for the world's problems by both neoliberal and neoconservative media today. Brezinski forewarned, "A grand coalition of China and Russia united not by ideology but by complementary grievances would pose the most dangerous scenario as far as threats to United States hegemony are concerned."

Brzezinski also resorts to blatantly racist rhetoric when describing potential geopolitical opponents within the region within or surrounding the "Eurasian Balkans":

"In brief, for the United States, Eurasian geostrategy involves the purposeful management of geostrategically dynamic states and the careful handling of geopolitically catalytic states, in keeping with the twin interests of America in the short-term preservation of its unique global power and in the long-run transformation of it into an increasingly institutionalized global cooperation. To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together."

Brzezinski voiced his concern about the major obstacle to the United States pursuing an aggressive drive for global hegemony: the hostility of the vast majority of the American people to war. He wrote:

America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy.

But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being.

The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifices (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.

Criticism

It is also possible to argue that The Grand Chessboard directly influenced the "Eurasianism" of geostrategists such as Andrew Korybko and Alexander Dugin, the latter whom can be seen as a Russian equivalent to Brzezinski (right down to the publishing of his own influential manifesto, Foundations of Geopolitics; and his own racist and fascist rhetoric issued against those whom he deems to be Russia's enemies).

See also

• Nuclear primacy

External link

• ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, THE GRAND CHESSBOARD American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, A Member of the Perseus Books Group, 1997. www.cia.gov
• Andrew Korybko, The Stage Is Set For A US-Instigated Security Dilemma Between The Eurasian Rimland & Heartland, Oct 30 2025.