There's a simple explanation for Zbigniew "Zbig" Brzezinski's rabid anti-Russian hatred in the current Ukraine crisis (and others involving Russia). His forebears (and family name) are Poles from what is now Ukraine. His ideal would be to reduce Russia to a small Slavic state.
His family were members of the nobility (szlachta), from Berezhany (aka Brzeżany, Berzeżany, Бережани), in modern-day Ukraine. Berezhany is located in the Ternopil Oblast (province) of western Ukraine. Before WWII it was part of the much larger Poland. Zbig himself was born in Warsaw, Poland, where his parents had moved. Then, of course, in 1939 the USSR and Nazi Germany signed the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and divided up Poland between them, embittering the Brzezinskis for life.
If you think Zbig doesn't harbor a personal grudge about Russia, a grudge that grossly distorts his perception of what is in the USA's national interest, you would be greatly mistaken.
His forebears bore the Trąby coat of arms; the town of Brzeżany is the source of the family name. Zbig's father, Tadeusz Brzeziński, was a Polish diplomat who was posted to Germany from 1931 to 1935; and from 1936 to 1938 to the Soviet Union during Stalin's purge. The Second World War had a profound effect on Brzezinski: "The extraordinary violence that was perpetrated against Poland did affect my perception of the world, and made me much more sensitive to the fact that a great deal of world politics is a fundamental struggle."
This is the reason Zbig is so stridently in favor military action against Russia, including arming Ukraine and every other brinksmanship measure that increases the risk of a catastrophic war. (Many wars are not intentional nor sought by either side; which is why prudent diplomats generally try to put out the flames of war, not fan them as Brzezinski does.) This is why he was pushing so hard the past few years for the US to peel Ukraine away from Russia.
The US pushed too hard and too fast in Ukraine the past few years, we overstepped what a prudent statesman would have advocated for Ukraine. But Zbig is not prudent, when it comes to Russia. The transcript of the leaked phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland (wife of "the chief neoconservative foreign-policy theorist," Robert Kagan) and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, makes this clear.
This is not 'news'; I'm only surprised that his has not been made more clear by US news media, and even here on DailyKos. Ukraine is in Russia's 'sphere of influence.' Sevastopol in the Crimea is a major Russian Navy port. Russia would no more tolerate American arming Ukraine than we would tolerate Russia arming Mexico if there was violent armed struggle between the US and Mexico over Texas.
Just to be clear, this in no way justifies or supports Vladimir Putin's policies in Ukraine, Russia, or elsewhere. Putin is an evil man, a despicable tyrant, a form KGB chief (with all that conjures up -- polonium murders, etc.). He abolished elections for Russia's governors, choosing to appoint them instead. He has an 85% approval rating in part because he has crushed dissent, ordered the murder of journalists who critique him, etc. But there are better ways to defeat him than a war in Ukraine.
More, below the orange rogalik.
Recall Brzezinski's comments about arming Osama bin Laden and other Afghan mujahadeen (as part of Operation Cyclone), in order to embarrass the Russians in Afghanistan? Here he is, in 1979 in Afghanistan:
In the following 1998 interview, notice how he doesn't care about the Afghan people at all, and he rejoices in 'giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.' (A war that killed 2-3 million people.)
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: 'We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.' Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
Similarly, at the same time (c. 1977-1981), Zbigniew Brzezinski led the US to
vote three times to uphold the right of the deposed Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge regime to represent Cambodia in the United Nations, instead of the Vietnamese-backed Heng Samrin regime (which had overthrown Pol Pot). Because, y'see, the USSR backed Vietnam, whereas China backed Pol Pot, and Zbig was trying to cozy up with China to oppose the USSR. Zbig is very defensive about this, it's funny to watch him lose his temper when confronted about it. But it's a fact. The same "killing fields" Khmer Rouge whose policies killed between 1 million and 2 million Cambodians, out of a total population of only 6-7 million people. And Zbig supported them in the UN, because of his irrational hatred of the USSR/Russia.
If you're happy with Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, 9/11, ISIS, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, etc., and genocide in Cambodia, then by all means listen to what Zbizniew Brzezinski has to say about Ukraine.
If not, you might want to ignore Brzezinski and those he has influenced.
Btw, likewise, Madelaine Albright's parents felt forced to flee Czechoslovakia, twice (1938 and 1948), under threat from Russia. So she, too, harbors a personal anti-Russian grudge. She was also a student of Brzezinski at Columbia, and he was her boss on the NSC. She has spoken out stridently in favor of arming Ukraine.
Although Zbig has not been in government in many years, he has been playing an influential role behind-the-scenes in shaping US policy towards Ukrainian crisis.
Could the US somehow make it a rule, that government officials cannot be involved in any foreign policy issues in which they have a personal interest or axe to grind? This seems like a bare minimum for a realistic, Realist, civilized, rational, and wise foreign policy.
Update: Some of the comments lead me to conclude that younger Kossacks don't understand how US foreign policy is made. Although there are exceptions (e.g. Bush's response to 9/11), in general it is a slow, conflictual but consensus-building process led by 'grand names' (Kissinger, Brzezinski, their proteges, etc.) backed by billionaires.
I was not exaggerating above when I wrote that Brzezinski would like to see Russia reduced to a small Slavic state. He has proposed this himself (e.g. in his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives, p.202), dividing Russia into three or more parts: "A loosely confederated Russia—composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic..."
