In your latest book "Strategic foresight" You say that the West should "take Russia." Do you believe that the sincere cooperation between Russia and the Western countries could be achieved in the coming if not, then in a split run?
Zbigniew Brzezinski: The answer to this question in my book, and it consists in the fact that our homeland has become a member of the Euro-Atlantic community. Our homeland — is a European country and should be a part of it. But, of course, such a society is a society in the middle of democratic cooperation partners. I'm just saying in the book that, in my opinion, civilian society, motivated by democratic principles and democratic convictions, in truth there is in Russia. Will this be the dominant political reality is an open question.
As you perhaps know, many Russians believe that, in general Our homeland is part of the West in terms of mentality, culture, and so on. For you can make the objection that the circumstances on the move West in Russia is not, as we are an organic part of it.
Brzezinski: I think that there is a discrepancy over whether we're talking about. Germany has also always been a part of the West, but in Germany for a couple of years of the twentieth century moved very far away from the democratic principles and ceased to be a part of the West during this period. I point out in my book, that our homeland in the cultural and historical sense, indeed, Western society. But that does not mean automatically that it is a democratic society. A Euro-Atlantic democratic society should be, and I have the highest degree of conviction that the young generation of Russians and the young middle class truly shared democratic principles. The critical question of principle is whether the Russian political institutions, political processes and democratic political traditions?
Given the fact that your book is devoted to geopolitics, can not help but ask about your eyes on the Russian-Chinese business. A number of professionals believe that the China factor will play the role of sprouting in Russian foreign policy, especially in the case of deteriorating relations with the West. Do you think that is a question of tactical convergence of interests between Russia and China, or the strategic approach?
Brzezinski: At first, I do not think that the case of Russia and the West have to get worse. I'm not ready to confidently predict that this might be so. In general, if our homeland decide to focus on their own relationship with China and make their own primary source of global importance — namely, a special case with Beijing, then the majority of Russians, in my opinion, should be aware of: in those partnerships Our homeland would become a junior partner even more vibrant and rapidly growing and modernizing China. If the connection of the Russian Federation and China will become strategic, the consequences must be understood in advance. And I'm not sure what the Russians consider themselves as an integral part of the West, as you have correctly seen to be satisfied with this state of affairs.
I hope that the case of the Russian Federation with the Western countries do not deteriorate, but for example in the same United States, where there is a pre-election campaign, a number of Republican candidates have expressed a very tough anti-Russian eyes. If Republican candidate in the November election will overcome in America, is it true talk about the fact that the Russian-American affairs will be thrown back?
Brzezinski: I think that is true read that pre-election debate Republicans are not severe and should not be taken seriously. To a certain extent, they are mental confusion. As these debates are shallow, ignoring the present state of things, and quite out of touch with all possible severe political decisions, even if one of the Republican candidates would be defeated at the polls. But the fact that a huge number of applications for foreign policy topics are literally laughable, is also an indicator of the low probability of winning the 1 st of them on the U.S. presidential election.
In his own last book you point out that in Afghanistan, the United States was in the strategic alone. As an advisor on national security in the administration of President Carter, you do everything to squeeze the Russian Alliance in Afghanistan. But after more than 30 years, our home support U.S. and NATO forces in the country and help in the success of their own abilities mission. Do you believe that this partnership is a sincere disposition and, if so, why?
Brzezinski: I think it is genuine, as follows from the optimal and farsighted own enthusiasm. Our homeland understands that if the forces of fundamentalism and extremism prevail in Afghanistan, the results may have spread to Central Asia and, perhaps, a 30-million Muslim population inside Russia itself. Also, the Russians understand that the South American goals in Afghanistan have been revised and reduced since the prophecy promising President Bush that the country could become a moderate democratic state. Now expectations are related to the fact that when America goes out of the country, a more conventional setting for Afghanistan, can be supported by a regional safeguards will ensure the stability and recovery. In particular, if the foreign country and the first United States will continue to provide economic assistance to post-conflict Afghanistan.
Moscow and Washington have differences over the role of the UN in the modern world, and the story around Syria says for itself. What role in your strategic vision of the future international order be played by international organizations and, of course, the UN?
Brzezinski: This is dependent on whether realized my views expressed in the book. I believe that international cooperation is more possible if we provide great stability in relations between the basic and more fundamental parts of the world that are more rich and developed. If the Euro-Atlantic community will be able to reach a reasonable balance in its relations with China, and with Japan and India, and if our home is in this context will act as a very influential voice in the West, we will be more likely to reach a consensus. And not only on individual dilemmas like Syria, we are facing now, and with more neuvvyazkami that will withstand public land in this century. In my awareness, today's century is not poured out into the hegemony of a single power, as it came in the twentieth century. This will be the century, which is very hurt by the massive global mess if the principal regions of the world will not achieve constructive cooperation, and in this case, our ability to address global problems will be greatly reduced. Selection for the twenty-first century is not between hegemony and the world, and between chaos and cooperation.