Ich hab heute mal den Brzezinski Text von 1997 ausgegraben den Jeffrey D. Sachs immer referenziert:
Hier im Volltext: click
Er liest sich in der Tat so als würden in der US Administration Leute sitzen, die sich auf dessen Basis die zukünftige Geostrategie zurechtzimmern wollten. Das Highlight ist der Schluss, aber bevor wir dazu kommen:
*HUST*
Vor 18 Stunden via al Jazeera:
Leaders of US, South Korea and Japan hail summit as ‘turning point’
Countries pledge to deepen partnership at historic Camp David talks, while condemning actions of China and North Korea.
src: click
Hier der angeteaste Schluss des über 25 Jahre alten Brzezinski Texts:
In the long term, Eurasia’s stability would be enhanced by the emergence, perhaps early in the next century, of a trans-Eurasian security system. Such a transcontinental security arrangement might involve an expanded nato, linked by cooperative security agreements with Russia, China, and Japan. But to get there, Americans and Japanese must first set in motion a triangular political-security dialogue that engages China. Such three-way American-Japanese-Chinese security talks could eventually involve more Asian participants, and later lead to a dialogue with the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe. That, in turn, could eventually pave the way for a series of conferences by European and Asian states on security issues. A transcontinental security system would thus begin to take shape.
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. The emergence of such a transcontinental system could gradually relieve America of some of its burdens, while perpetuating beyond a generation its decisive role as Eurasia’s arbitrator. Geostrategic success in that venture would be a fitting legacy to America’s role as the first and only global superpower.
*pfeif*
*hust*
Japan should not be America’s unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Far East, nor should it be America’s principal Asian military partner. Efforts to promote these Japanese roles would cut America off from the Asian mainland, vitiate the prospects for reaching a strategic consensus with China, and frustrate America’s ability to consolidate stability in Eurasia.
Japan does not have a major political role to play in Asia, given the regional aversion it continues to evoke because of its behavior before and during World War II. Japan has not sought the kind of reconciliation with China and Korea that Germany sought with France and is seeking with Poland. Like insular Britain in the case of Europe, Japan is politically irrelevant to the Asian mainland. However, Tokyo can carve out a globally influential role by cooperating closely with the United States on the new agenda of global concerns pertaining to development and peacekeeping while avoiding any counterproductive efforts to become an Asian regional power. American statesmanship should steer Japan in that direction.
*HUSTENANFALL*
Although currently a passive player, India has an important role in the Eurasian scene. Without the political support it received from the Soviet Union, India is contained geopolitically by Chinese-Pakistani cooperation. The survival of Indian democracy is in itself important, in that it refutes better than volumes of academic debate the notion that human rights and democracy are exclusively Western. India proves that antidemocratic “Asian values,” propagated by spokesmen from Singapore to China, are simply antidemocratic and not necessarily Asian. India’s failure would be a blow to democracy’s prospects in Asia and would remove a power that contributes to Asia’s balance, especially given China’s rise. India should be engaged in discussions pertaining to regional stability, not to mention the promotion of more bilateral connections between the American and Indian defense communities.
Erneuter *Hustenanfall*
Auch Russland hat in dem Paper eine tolle Position, die Anne Applebaum bereits vor einem Jahr der russischen Exilelite in Podcastform verkauft:
Aber das eben bereits seit 1997, …
In these circumstances, Russia’s first priority should be to modernize itself rather than to engage in a futile effort to regain its status as a global power. Given the country’s size and diversity, a decentralized political system and free-market economics would be most likely to unleash the creative potential of the Russian people and Russia’s vast natural resources. A loosely confederated Russia—composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic—would also find it easier to cultivate closer economic relations with its neighbors. Each of the confederated entities would be able to tap its local creative potential, stifled for centuries by Moscow’s heavy bureaucratic hand. In turn, a decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization.
Was erlaube Putin, dass er sein Land eigentlich nicht wie von den US vorgesehen in drei “confederated entities” splittet, die dann ihr “local creative potential” entfalten können und damit somit kompatibler zu unseren geopolitischen Vorstellungen wären.
Ich suche noch den passende O-Ton heraus, aber die Entwicklung in ein kulturell definiertes, regionaleres Russland wird von ihr hier angepitched:
edit: Not in this interview as I remembered, I’m re-screening more I’ve seen with Applebaum.
The only related section in this interview is this one:
I don’t want any chaos I don’t want some kind of disaster, you know I - I just want russia to cease to to think of itself as an empire, you know i want russia to be in that sense a post-imperial um country where the main goals of the russian leadership are the prosperity and happiness of russians you know I want the, I want I don’t want it to be the accumulation of money for a small elite or the ability to project military power into ukraine, or the Baltic states or Kazakhstan or anybody else -um I want, Iwant russian leaders to think about how do they develop their own country how do they make russia safer happier, richer, cleaner um how do they make it a better place I want them to think differently about what it means to be the leader of - because i feel that russians have been um have been, you know have really been badly treated by their leadership um and you know they they deserve something better, they deserve a they deserve leaders who want them to be prosperous and who aren’t you know stealing and invading other countries and so that’s what i would like to see whether you know everything else is secondary to that, you know, whether russia you know hazard doesn’t have some kind of weapon or whether it has or doesn’t have um some kind of you know one leader, another leader, I care less about that um, I would but I would i would simply like it to become the I would like the purpose of leadership inside russia to be different, um - what i don’t know is how you get there um yeah it is true it is true that in russian history all of the most important major changes have come after the loss of a military conflict or after some kind of military defeat so whether it’s 1905, 1917 you know 1989 after afghanistan um - it’s often military defeat that leads russian leadership to change or at least it causes some kind of change and I can only hope that that will be the case here and I hope it’s that kind of change I hope that it leads the russian elite to ask themselves is this the kind of country that we want to be, or do we want to be a different kind of country.
Schon sehr - ehm - schön aber noch nicht der gesuchte “Russland muss sich wieder mehr regional ausrichten” Aspekt den ich gesucht habe… 🙂
edit2: Ah, schau mal einer an, es war nicht Applebaum die im brzezinskischen Sinne, bei der russischen Expat Elite, ein regionalisiertes, weniger zentralisiertes, und daher sehr viel kreativeres Russland geankert hat, es war der verfickte Timothy Snyder.
( Siehe auch:
https://harlekin.me/allgemein/diese-verfickte-verlogene-scheiss-hurengesellschaft/ )
Und ich habs damals bereits aufgearbeitet, dh. ich hätte gar nicht wieder rescreenen müssen:
Snyder verkauft dabei folgende Konzepte:
Russland benötige eine neue Ausrichtung, eine vor allem antiimperialistische Ausrichtung, bei der sie uns in Afrika nicht mehr in die Quere kommen, das zu “entwerfen” wird die Aufgabe der russischen Exilelite sein, an die wir uns (Applebaum und Snyder) bereits heute wenden.
Snyder ankert vor elf Monaten auch bereits wie dieses neues Russland auszusehen hat -- nämlich sich nicht mehr als geeinte Weltmacht verstehend, sondern mit viel mehr “regionalen Zentren”, die alle eine “regionale Geschichte als die Bevölkerung einendes Konzept benötigen” -- westliche Historiker würden gerade daran arbeiten, das sei gerade ein spannendes und interessantes Feld. [Historischer Revisionismus?]
Wer kann aber denn jetzt belegen, dass der verficke Snyder Brzezinski auch gelesen hat und ihn beispielsweise auf der Yes Conference widerholt selbst referenziert?
Hmm.… Click.
Diese Gesellschaft ist das absolut abgrundtief grotesk Allerletzte.
