It's hard to name in modern America other equally striking figures of politicians and ideologues of foreign policy, Henry Kissinger, associated with Republicans, and Zbignev Bzhezinsky, who worked in the administration under the Democrats. Their mark in the US policy of the past decades is noticeable, and intellectual longevity envy younger colleagues. It is especially interesting, given their vast experience, pay attention to their assessment of the current state of US-Russian relations.
As for the Polish (by birth) Brzezinski, his implacable gaze on Russia has not changed, but Brzezinski well aware that the changing balance of power in the world. And America, rather, should seek common ground with Moscow than to continue the endless enmity. Kissinger speaks in the same spirit, but even more definitely. Recently added to this fear that the chances offered by history, may be missed. Both are veteran America, only makes it more judiciously than many of their younger colleagues, to hold public office.
So, at the moment of the February (2014) coup in Kiev, Brzezinski said that Washington should promise to Moscow to get the "true independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine" of the neutral rate, similar to the one done in Finland (Article Russia needs a 'Finland option 'for Ukraine in the Financial Times 23 February 2014 years). According to Brzezinski, such a model would mean "mutually respectful neighborhood, a wide range of economic relations [Ukraine] with Russia and the EU; non-adherence to any military alliance, which Moscow considers against it. " It is quite pragmatic reasons not saved, however, Brzezinski from its old phobias, and in June of the same year 2014, speaking at the conference "mutual security in question? Russia, the European security architecture and the West "in the Wilson Center in Washington, he called for a confrontation with the" kvazimisticheskim Russian chauvinism. " Nevertheless, the line proposed by him was to "discuss with the Russians the final formula of compromise." In this formula, as seen Brzezinski, Kiev rapprochement with the European Union should be long, "according to the type of Turkey" not to create any particular problems of Russia. US, says a former adviser to President Carter's national security, must convince Russia that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO; that Ukraine will not be a member of the EU, but it can enter into a separate trade agreement with Russia, taking into account that "some forms of exchange and trade between the two are mutually beneficial."
Kissinger sees further. The West must understand, he says, that "for Russia Ukraine will never be just a foreign country" (in the West, in fact, have little understanding of this fundamental fact). At the same time, Kissinger did not want to see the United States, so to speak, gave way to the Ukraine Moscow: compromise, it seems to him to consist in the fact that Ukraine will become a "bridge between East and West, not an outpost of one of the opponents in the confrontation with the other" . And Kissinger quite soberly remarked: "Any attempt one" wing "of Ukraine to dominate over the other in the end will result in a civil war, or disintegration of the country."
Recipe "final solution" of the Ukrainian issue, according to Kissinger, coincides with what Brzezinski offers: Ukraine should be able to develop relations with Europe and Russia, but NATO will not enter. "To cooperate with the West, but not to quarrel with Russia."
Many experts believe that Kissinger plays a significant role in the dialogue between Moscow and Washington, having a good personal relationship with D. Trump, and with Putin. Perhaps, these experts do not make mistakes. According to the correspondent of the Italian La Stampa in New York Paolo Mastrolilli, Kissinger would be happy to enter into the history of man, "to prevent a new Cold War."
In late March of this year, Genri Kissindzher spoke in Washington at the annual meeting of the Trilateral Commission (sometimes perceive it as the "world shadow government") and said that there is a profound lack of understanding of Russia in the world. "Putin is not Hitler's double, he does not intend to pursue a policy of conquest. Its aim is to restore the dignity of the country, from St. Petersburg to Vladivostok, in the form in which it has always been ... to depict Putin global supervillain - this is a bug in the long term, and on the merits. "
The alternative to dialogue with Russia, says Kissinger, would have been disastrous for the emergence of conflict. True, the "bargain" in this case, it offers a peculiar way: insisting on the "neutrality" of Ukraine, Kissinger admits that "Crimea fate may be the subject of discussion," but after that, he said, Moscow "need very clearly to understand that Russia is not It has the right to remain in the Middle East. " Easily recognizable corporate American style - get something tangible, promising "in exchange for" something you've never had any. However, the train of thought in itself remarkable, and connoisseurs of the art of diplomacy is to celebrate.
After the arrival of Donald Trump in the White House Zbignev Bzhezinsky did not join those who have condemned the new president flashed attitude to improve relations with Russia. In an interview with his daughter Mika Brzezinski said that "in general, it is highly desirable": say, Russia is no longer a communist state. "However, - he said - there is still uncertainty. And a lot of grievances, including us [Americans]. " Russia, says Brzezinski, in a transition stage, so if America will behave wisely, it might help Russia "to make the transition and become a constructive member of the international community important." Such talk is heard from America and 90-ies, but it is interesting that Brzezinski is not only repeated, for example, he clearly supported the possibility of establishing a good personal relationship between Putin and Trump. Moreover, quite unexpectedly, Brzezinski suggested the idea of forming a kind of "triumvirate" - a broad international coalition to address global challenges, the leading role in which "could play America, China - and changing Russia!".
On the "triple format" reflects and Kissinger. This was to guess the main point on which the two luminary of American foreign policy thinking, talking about normalization of relations with Russia, coincided: the fear of close Sino-Russian rapprochement, which would make the new alignment of forces in the world unprofitable for America. "The triple partnership" is seen (not just two veterans) way to avoid such a scenario. However, this topic deserves special consideration.
In general, the views of Brzezinski and Kissinger on major international problems often diverge. And when their approach somewhat the same, it's a symptom. Or, if you prefer, a diagnosis. Do listen to the diagnosis "patients"?