Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
294,884
edits
Changes
→Mackinder
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 [[East Turkestan (Country)|Xinjiang]] in the east; and the southeastern [[Balkans]] in the west.<ref>Brzezinski 53, 124.</ref> At the center of this "oblong" is a
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 [[East Turkestan (Country)|Xinjiang]] in the east; and the southeastern [[Balkans]] in the west.<ref>Brzezinski 53, 124.</ref> At the center of this "oblong" is a
"power void" consisting of the following countries: [[Afghanistan]], [[Armenia]], [[Azerbaijan]], [[Republic of Georgia|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 [[Russia|Russian]] [[Caucasus]].<ref>Brzezinski 124-25.</ref> 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]].<ref>Brzezinski 124, 134-35.</ref>
"power void" consisting of the following countries: [[Afghanistan]], [[Armenia]], [[Azerbaijan]], [[Republic of Georgia|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 [[Russia|Russian]] [[Caucasus]].<ref>Brzezinski 124-25.</ref> 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]].<ref>Brzezinski 124, 134-35.</ref>
[[File:Brzezinski Taliban.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Brzezinski meets with the [[Mujahideen]] [[Taliban]], 1979.<ref>https://youtu.be/kYvO3qAlyTg</ref>]]
Out of those seven potential "competitor" countries, Brzezinski identifies China, Iran, and Russia as being the most dangerous possible "anti-hegemonic" alliance combination.<ref>Brzezinski 55.</ref> 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 [[Sino-Russian Entente|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."<ref>[https://www.sott.net/article/404941-Americas-nightmare-The-Sino-Russian-entente America's nightmare: The Sino-Russian entente], John S. Van Oudenaren, Center for National Interest, 12 Jan 2019. www.sott.net</ref><ref>[https://strategic-culture.su/news/2023/01/29/other-america-or-three-missed-chances-to-avoid-world-war-iii/ The Other America (Or the Three Missed Chances to Avoid World War III)], Matthew Ehret, January 29, 2023. strategic-culture.su</ref>
Brzezinski also resorts to blatantly [[Racism|racist]] rhetoric when describing potential geopolitical opponents within the region within or surrounding the "Eurasian Balkans":
Brzezinski also resorts to blatantly [[Racism|racist]] rhetoric when describing potential geopolitical opponents within the region within or surrounding the "Eurasian Balkans":
:''"In brief, for the [[United States]], [[Eurasia]]n 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 [[empire]]s, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent [[collusion]] and maintain security dependence among the [[vassal]]s, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the [[barbarian]]s from coming together."''<ref>Brzezinski 40.</ref>
:''"In brief, for the [[United States]], [[Eurasia]]n 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 [[empire]]s, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent [[collusion]] and maintain security dependence among the [[vassal]]s, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the [[barbarian]]s from coming together."''<ref>Brzezinski 40.</ref>