Ukraine, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Condoleezza Rice: A new outpost of Cold War

306

Islamabad: By Agha Iqrar Haroon – Three top US brains this week wrote about crises in Ukraine. These “Big Three” are can be considered as architects of foreign affairs of United States in 20th century. The can be considered as architect of future of United States and they can also be considered as “warmongers”.

Some writers consider these personalities as “Designer of a New World Order in which world is not as safer as it could have been”. Blood shed from Afghanistan to Middle East and in Africa. The rising of radical Islam that we are facing today is directly and indirectly linked with these three personalities.  Who they are?

We are talking about Henry A. Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Condoleezza Rice. These are three consider in their writing that United States must act “Strongly” against Russia, particularly against Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Prophetic Henry A. Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977 and he successfully designed a new Middle East. Awesome Zbigniew Brzezinski who was national security adviser from 1977 to 1981 designed Afghan War, Mujahideen, Jihad and radical Islam. Remember that till 1981 there was no full time Secretary of State so Brzezinski was practically the Secretary of State during the time he was working as National Security Advisor. Edmund S. Muskie, Alexander M. Haig, Jr.  Walter J. Stoessel survived for some months and USA Secretary of State office was deserted till the time George P. Shultz was placed there and then office of Secretary of State became operational and active. Condoleezza Rice was secretary of state from 2005 to 2009. She took the charge from Colin Powell and successfully kept working for War on Terror.

We should read what they are thinking about Ukrainian crises to understand what can be the last scene political drama being staged at the Eastern European theater.

In Washington Post, Kissinger writes:

1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.

2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.

3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. That nation (Ukraine) leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.

4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.

Brzezinski in his writing is very harsh over Putin and Russian and even using language that is not suitable for a senior former diplomat. He writes in In Washington Post as: 

“Putin’s thuggish tactics in seizing Crimea offer some hints regarding his planning. He was not sure how the thin and light Ukrainian military units stationed there would react, so he went in masked like a Mafia gangster. Much depends on how clearly the West conveys to the dictator in the Kremlin — a partially comical imitation of Mussolini and a more menacing reminder of Hitler — that NATO cannot be passive if war erupts in Europe. If Ukraine is crushed while the West is simply watching, the new freedom and security in bordering Romania, Poland and the three Baltic republics would also be threatened.

This does not mean that the West, or the United States, should threaten war. But Russia’s unilateral and menacing acts mean the West should promptly recognize the current government of Ukraine as legitimate. Uncertainty regarding its legal status could tempt Putin to repeat his Crimean charade. The West also should convey — privately at this stage, so as not to humiliate Russia — that the Ukrainian army can count on immediate and direct Western aid so as to enhance its defensive capabilities. There should be no doubt left in Putin’s mind that an attack on Ukraine would precipitate a prolonged and costly engagement, and Ukrainians should not fear that they would be left in the lurch”.

Condoleezza Rice writes in Washington Post:

“The immediate concern must be to show Russia that further moves will not be tolerated and that Ukraine’s territorial integrity is sacrosanct. Diplomatic isolation, asset freezes and travel bans against oligarchs are appropriate. The announcement of air defense exercises with the Baltic states and the movement of a U.S. destroyer to the Black Sea bolster our allies, as does economic help for Ukraine’s embattled leaders, who must put aside their internal divisions and govern their country”.

Such articles are independent views of people who matter in foreign affairs of United States. These three articles can also be a part or chapters of a series of articles or a book that is being written in Pentagon for starting a new Cold War. Every reader is taking these articles according to his perspective. However these writing tell all readers that “Film is yet to be started and Maidan Euro was just a trailer”

SHARE