Zbigniew Brzezinski Quotes

Most Famous Zbigniew Brzezinski Quotes of All Time!

We have created a collection of some of the best zbigniew-brzezinski quotes so you can read and share anytime with your friends and family. Share our Top 10 Zbigniew Brzezinski Quotes on Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest.

Popular Quotes Topics for You.

Eurasia is the world's axial supercontinent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world's three most economically productive regions: Western Europe and East Asia.

We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.

We should seek to cooperate with Europe, not to divide Europe to a fictitious new and a fictitious old.

We should be therefore supporting a larger Europe, and in so doing we should strive to expand the zone of peace and prosperity in the world which is the necessary foundation for a stable international system in which our leadership could be fruitfully exercised.

We need to ask who is the enemy, and the enemies are terrorists.

We have actually experienced in recent months a dramatic demonstration of an unprecedented intelligence failure, perhaps the most significant intelligence failure in the history of the United States.

We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

We cannot have that relationship if we only dictate or threaten and condemn those who disagree.

War on terrorism defines the central preoccupation of the United States in the world today, and it does reflect in my view a rather narrow and extremist vision of foreign policy of the world's first superpower, of a great democracy, with genuinely idealistic traditions.

To increase the zone of peace is to build the inner core of a stable international zone.

The first and most important is to emphasize the enduring nature of the alliance relationship particularly with Europe which does share our values and interests even if it disagrees with us on specific policies.

Sovereignty is a word that is used often but it has really no specific meaning. Sovereignty today is nominal. Any number of countries that are sovereign are sovereign only nominally and relatively.

Palestinian terrorism has to be rejected and condemned, yes. But it should not be translated defacto into a policy of support for a really increasingly brutal repression, colonial settlements and a new wall.

Not to mention the fact that of course terrorists hate freedom. I think they do hate. But believe me, I don't think they sit there abstractly hating freedom.

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.

Let's cooperate and challenge the administration to cooperate with us because within the administration there are also moderates and people who are not fully comfortable with the tendencies that have prevailed in recent times.

It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam.

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.

In Iraq we must succeed. Failure is not an option.

I think it is important to ask ourselves as citizens, not as Democrats attacking the administration, but as citizens, whether a world power can really provide global leadership on the basis of fear and anxiety?

I cite these events because I think they underline two very disturbing phenomena - the loss of U.S. international credibility, the growing U.S. international isolation.

But if Russia is to be part of this larger zone of peace it cannot bring into it its imperial baggage. It cannot bring into it a policy of genocide against the Chechens, and cannot kill journalists, and it cannot repress the mass media.

Bipartisanship helps to avoid extremes and imbalances. It causes compromises and accommodations. So let's cooperate.

American power worldwide is at its historic zenith.

According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979.

The 'war on terror' has created a culture of fear in America.

Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions, and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue.

Constant reference to a 'war on terror' did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear.

The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

There's something troubling about a condition in which one country alone, which has roughly 5 percent of the world's population, spends more than 50 percent of the world's defense budgets. There's something weird about it.

I have been struck by the pervasive frequency of pompously patriotic ads for the defense industry, usually accompanied by deferential salutations to our men and women who are heroically sacrificing their lives in our defense. Do we really need all of that for our security?

There's no point considering something which is very unrealistic.

The legitimacy of the leadership depends on what that country thinks of its leaders.

Hard power makes sense under some circumstances. But there's not a universal solution to global problems.

Yes, ISIS is a threat. It's more than a nuisance. It's also in many respects criminal violence. But it isn't, in my view, a central strategic issue facing humanity.

I don't feel I was 'born American,' but my homeland was denied to me after the end of World War II, and I craved something I could identify with. When I became a student at Harvard in the 1950s, America very quickly filled the vacuum. I felt I was American, but I think it's more revealing of America how quickly others here accepted me.

We all have the right to comment about each other.

Foreign policy should not be justified through making oneself feel good, but through results that have tangible consequences.

There may be circumstances in which damaging our relationship with countries over human rights is counterproductive and the benefits to human rights may be very small because of our limited capacity to enforce our stance. That was the dilemma the United States faced after Tiananmen Square.

I'm all in favour of grand important speeches, but the president then has to link his sermons to a strategy.

If we slide into a pattern of just thinking about today, we'll end up reacting to yesterday instead of shaping something more constructive in the world.

Americans don't learn about the world; they don't study world history, other than American history in a very one-sided fashion, and they don't study geography.

The Chinese are really good at diplomacy - and even at making their interlocutors feel very uncomfortable.

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?

I realise that in an electoral campaign, you don't want to antagonise large groups which are highly motivated.

If we end up with war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran at the same time, can anyone see a more damaging prospect for America's world role than that?

Neither the United States nor Israel has the capacity to impose a unilateral solution in the Middle East.

Sometimes in international politics, the better part of wisdom is to defer dangers rather than try to eliminate them altogether instantly.

The mullahs are part of the past in Iran, not its future. But change in Iran will come through engagement, not through confrontation.

The Soviet Union's termination, which brought to an end the bipolar world, ushered in an era of U.S. hegemony. Hegemony, however, should not be confused with omnipotence. Hegemony is not omnipotence but is certainly preponderance.

The Sino-American competition involves two significant realities that distinguish it from the Cold War: neither party is excessively ideological in its orientation; and both parties recognize that they really need mutual accommodation.

I do think America has made it quite clear that it is in the interest both of America and China to avoid situations in which they will be pushed toward a collision.

A Russia that gradually begins to gravitate toward the West will also be a Russia that ceases to disrupt the international system.

I draw a very clear distinction between populism and democracy.

I think we have to pay attention to the Arab masses not just in the Gulf States, but also in the hinterlands.

The fact of the matter is the Arab elites are more inclined to accommodate our wishes because of certain overlapping interests that are often financial. That is not the case with the Arab masses.

Look: I don't want to live with a nuclear Iran. I would like to make it uncomfortable for them to seek it.

I would like to promote internal change in Iran - which is more likely if we don't fuse Iranian nationalism with Iranian fundamentalism.

We can't have an intelligent foreign policy unless we have an intelligent public, because we're a democracy.

We don't have a public that really understands the world anymore, and in the age of complexity, that problem becomes much more difficult.

We defended our allies in Europe for 40 years during the worst days of the Cold War - very threatening days of the Cold War - and nothing happened. So deterrence does work.

You know who's messianic? Netanyahu, because he talks that way. And that's a very risky position.

Guys, we are trying to share Unique Zbigniew Brzezinski Quotes, so you will not get to read the same things again and again on our website. You can also share your favorites on Facebook or send them to a friend who loves to reading quotes.