The NATO cannot replace the United Nations.
Zbigneva Bzhezinsky I know from Leonid Brezhnev and Jimmy Carter’s Viennese meeting in June, 1979. Then he participated as the assistant to the president on national safety. Repeatedly met, it is possible to tell, not bad we know each other.
With each meeting became stronger in opinion: it is necessary to listen and read Bzhezinsky closely for much of on what he argues, then diligently is executed by the American presidents and armed forces. In a word, its ideas become a core of policy of Washington.
Today I notice, Zbignev has a little begun to panic. Has loudly spoken geopolitical dream of America of eternal world sovereignty, has declared the claim of the NATO for global military-power domination, and, say, the United Nations at all has not mentioned, as if it as the world tool does not exist. Probably, it is not casual? What for is necessary to the United Nations, its Security Council with «hated» veto if, by your words, «the NATO has enough experience, mechanisms and means to become epicentre of a global web of various regional undertakings»?
Judgements concerning the NATO and the international safety, published in The New York Times newspaper are interesting one of these days. First of all Zbignev ascertains that the NATO for the 60 years has solved three historical problems:
— Has finished with century «civil war» between the West countries for transatlantic and European domination;
— The United States after the Second World War have incurred the obligation to protect Europe from the Soviet sovereignty;
— The alliance has achieved the peace termination of cold war that has created preconditions for expansion of the «democratic» European union.
Thanks to Zbignev for the first ascertaining , and that after all now, in 70-year-old anniversary of the beginning of the Second World War, many in Europe and the USA bring down all to the USSR: it supposedly he, the villain, has untied a world slaughter-house. And Bzhezinsky places all in the places.
As to the second conclusion, its historicity consists that America which before is not especially supposed to the European affairs, in 1945 became the empress in Europe (in many respects thanks to a good fellowship between Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin) and that remains to this day.
And as to the Soviet sovereignty there is no document, any fact which would prove that the USSR planned conquest of the Western Europe. It simply supervised that has got to it as a result of arrangements in Yalta and Potsdam, and, naturally, protected this space from the USA and the NATO.
You will not tell it about Washington and London. I will remind the known formula of the first secretary general of an alliance, the British lord Ismeja, expressing NATO appointment: «to Hold Russian outside, Americans — inside, and Germans — below».
And here on the third position Zbignev dissembles, speaking about democratic expansion of EU. The first the NATO, as it is known, extends.
Bzhezinsky’s sights at the future are not less interesting. Here, for example, passages that » today the NATO collides with unprecedented threats of world safety » that » for struggle against the growing threat of the chaos resulting from a political awakening which has begun recently of mankind, there is no effective mechanism of maintenance of global safety «.
Bzhezinsky’s passages give rise also to other questions. What interests are at the NATO in Asia and how rapid development of the countries of this region can be connected with global threats to an alliance about what he so worries? Item 5 of the Washington contract, as it is known, fixes defensive essence of the NATO and limits geography of its responsibility to the euro-Atlantic space and no more that. On all leaves that for atlantists it is close in the frameworks outlined in 1949. Yes who else would doubt it, observing of intervention of NATO in events is far outside of Northern Atlantic.
As appears from Zbignev’s words, it is not necessary to limit ourself for the sake of preservation of authority of an alliance.
There was a place and for Russia in reasonings. It, appears, «not the enemy, but it still looks at the NATO with animosities». How to find a way out? «+ to strengthen safety in Europe by involving of Russia in closer cooperation with the euro-Atlantic community, and also to adjust with it interaction within the limits of more scale network of global safety that will promote fading of remaining imperial ambitions of Russia».
And thank goodness for that, and that in the early nineties last century Bzhezinsky divided Russia into parts, predicted fast death and with pathos broadcast: Russia supposedly not the partner, but the client of the USA.
The resulted opinions sign only because belong to one of advisers of Barrack Obama.