The leading anti-Russian figure of the Anglo-American establishment and geopolitical chess player, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has recently declared in an op-ed for the Financial Times that the United States should “retaliate” against Russia for its actions in Syria, even going so far as military action to do so.
Brzezinski argues that the recent Russian involvement in Syria puts American credibility and global reputation at stake and suggests that such a situation is intolerable. Brzezinski wrote that Russian attacks against what he and the U.S. State Department have labeled as the “non-ISIS” targets and “rebels backed by the United States” at best reflects “Russian military incompetence” and at worst signals “evidence of a dangerous desire to highlight American political impotence.”
“In these rapidly unfolding circumstances the U.S. has only one real option if it is to protect its wider stakes in the region: to convey to Moscow the demand that it cease and desist from military actions that directly affect American assets,” he wrote.
“But, better still, Russia might be persuaded to act with the U.S. in seeking a wider accommodation to a regional problem that transcends the interests of a single state,” he added later.
Brzezinski hinted that Russia was engaged in a “new form of neocolonial domination” and offered up his assessment of the geopolitical situation when he stated
China would doubtless prefer to stay on the sidelines. It might calculate that it will then be in a better position to pick up the pieces. But the regional chaos could easily spread northeastward, eventually engulfing central and northeastern Asia. Both Russia and then China could be adversely affected. But American interests and America’s friends — not to mention regional stability — would also suffer. It is time, therefore, for strategic boldness.
It is, indeed, a strange kind of “neocolonial domination” that sees the “dominated” country invite the “dominator” in for support with the “dominator” incredibly resistant to doing so for years. It is also incredibly hypocritical to suggest that Russia is the state actor representing a “neocolonial domination” when the United States has marched its blood-drenched boots all across the globe for decades, slaughtering, draining, and oppressing the hapless civilians that have been unfortunate enough to have been born in a country with natural wealth or strategic positioning.
Of course, the idea that U.S. credibility is on the line as a result of the Russian involvement is without question. Unfortunately for the United States, however, that ship has already sailed a long time ago and what little shred of American credibility that was left is being eaten up by every sortie flown against ISIS by the Russian military.
Indeed, it is quite amazing what one can accomplish when one bombs the actual terrorist organization it claims is the enemy. The Russians have clearly demonstrated that either the United States military is not capable of fighting itself out of a wet paper bag, or the U.S. government never wanted to fight ISIS to begin with. Considering the trail of destruction the United States has left behind in its wake, it is safe to say that the latter is the logical conclusion.