Brzezinski Urges US to ‘Retaliate’ Against Russian Forces in Syria

In a newly published op-ed for the Financial Times, former official in the Johnson and Carter Administrations Zbigniew Brzezinski urged that US to use “strategic boldness” in confronting Russia, potentially militarily, over their involvement in Syria.

Brzezinski presented Russian airstrikes against Syrian rebel factions as at best a display of “Russian military incompetence” and at worst a “dangerous desire to highlight American political impotence,” saying America’s credibility is at stake from allowing Russia to strike the rebels the US previously armed, terming them “American assets.”

He called for the US to openly demand Russia unconditionally halt all such moves, saying Russian warplanes in Syria are “vulnerable, isolated geographically from their homeland” and could be “disarmed” by force if the Russians don’t comply with US demands.

Perhaps most bizarrely, Brzezinski closes with talk of calling for Russia to coordinate with the US in the war against ISIS, even though Russia has been openly offering this for weeks over US objections. He further suggests coaxing China into joining the war against ISIS as well, saying China would likely be interested in “increasing its own regional influence.”

Ultimately, the long-time policy adviser’s position seems, like so many of his recent missives, to center around deliberately antagonizing Russia. He advocates taking enormous risks of a large military confrontation with Russia, and his end-game goal is something Russia is already offering at any rate, and which the Obama Administration keeps spurning.

43 thoughts on “Brzezinski Urges US to ‘Retaliate’ Against Russian Forces in Syria”

  1. Russia may be far from its homeland in Syria
    But it’s a hell of a lot closer than the American are to theirz. Only a moron could claim otherwize.

    1. I suppose the difference is that the US has a multitude of military bases near by in the region, I think Russia only has two outside of their "homeland" ? thats why Brz thinks they're vulnerable.

      it's still a crazy proposition to even consider a confrontation with Russia.

  2. Is this a sign of creeping senility that comes with old age? One may ask, how would the US propose fighting Russia in their fight against terrorism in Syria?

    The world is going to see this as it really is. Russia and China both have stood up and told the US that the wars in the ME must be stopped. Russia and China have interests there too. The US's PNAC agenda will just have to be permanently put on hold.

    Unless Brzezinski has something like a nuclear standoff in mind?

    And the one thing the US can take to the bank if it decides to go that route. Putin won't buckle!

    1. Once he was a very astute and knowledgeable advisor, but I think he is senile and dangers now. I hope to god no one is paying his babbling any mind.

  3. Of particular interest from a Canadian outsider's perspective: Obama seems to have snookered the war party, or both parties in fact, by joining with Putin on his initiative to defuse a US led war on Syria. Assad quickly gave up his chem/bio weapons arsenal and that was that. Hence the screaming and gnashing of American teeth for Obama being too 'soft on terror' etc., etc.

    And the with Iran, who needs an explanation of the obvious fact that Obama has been instrumental in preventing the PNAC planned war with Iran? How does "snookered by a black president" sit with Americans now?

  4. And finally, one more shot across the American bow: Congratulations antiwar.com on your very noticeable approach of being honestly antiwar and finally leaving out the favouritism of one war party over the other in America's domestic political scene. I would suggest this could bring a rise in readership and an increase in donation from a more appreciative public! We'll see, but in the meantime, the best of luck Justin and company!

    1. You should be more specific with your charges. Please point out where there was favor of one war party over the other at antiwar.

      1. In all articles concerning Putin, he is praised and and those he is opposed to are attacked. Now your turn: could you link us to an article on this website in which Putin is attacked?

        1. What would he need to be attacked for? He isn't the one who turned the middle east into a cauldron of violence, no? No! that would be the two lunatic political parties in Washington DC.

  5. He is the man behind Russian cleansing in Ukraine, that's naturally makes him an Russian hating politicians, ,after all, such politicians are made for and are from the war party. they cannot live without a destructive idea, creation of devastations and smel of deaths is what makes their days to be a special very day.

  6. He also said that the Russians “allegedly launched air attacks at Syrian elements that are sponsored, trained and equipped by the Americans”. Since there is no “good guy” opposition to Assad, it means he just admitted US complicity in supporting al-Qaeda and al-Nusra… and he didn’t even bat an eyelash.

  7. Sigh. I still suspect that all these serial publications come from some neocon outfit and then they just pay these "big" names to provide their signature.

  8. Zbig has his theories and advice for everybody but does not want to own the al qaida as a result of his mujahedeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The sad thing is someone still seems to listen to this guy.

  9. I do not think Russia listens to what Zbig has to say. It is amazing though, that his wisdom is still being sold at universities, such as The Grand Chessboard, The Second Chance, etc. He is now looking at his Second Chance evaporating. But do not discount neocons. They have deep pockets behind them, no matter how ridiculous they are.

    Well, as I said, I do not think Russia pays much attention to his senile fury. But clearly by coincidence, Russia fired 28 cruise missiles at Syrian targets at the distance of about 1,000 miles from its ships in Caspian Sea. A few miles here or there, how safe does Israel feel? How about the geography lessons here?

  10. So according to Brzezinski’s well thought out logic the great super power(U.S.) should, how should we say, strong arm Russia and let them know who’s boss and who will write and stay in command of the international political script and the U.S. will not be challenged or disputed? Either Brzezinski is sliding towards senility or muddled illogical thinking it he has become one big dangerous fool.

  11. As a longtime resident of the state of Georgia, it's all I can do to resist balking at all the accolades people want to give Jimmy Carter, because he knew full well, on Brzezinski's advice, that he was provoking a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by arming the rebels six months prior. What no one seems to notice is that Brzezinski's always put his grievances as a descendant of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth nobility first, even ahead of his duties as national security adviser.

    1. Thank you for this. It's the first time I have seen someone point out how Zbig "always put his grievances as a descendant of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth nobility first, even ahead of his duties as national security adviser." Why else be so idiotically anti-Russian? Of course we have differences with Russia. We have differences with all countries! But that's no reason at all to monger wars with them!!
      Thanks again!

  12. We learned the hard way not to kill people for "credibility." It just leaves us looking foolish. See the hospital, and so many more we can't count them all.

  13. He is still supporting the mujaheddin after all these years: http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-

    If the Nulands and Brzezinskis of the world wanted to start World War III, this is how they should do it. The US lost credibility because it cannot win a war against a 4th generation military and it then made an alliance with it in Syria and Libya. I don't think starting a nuclear war will bring that credibility back. Russia is in a quagmire now. The war is larger than Syria but Russia like the cowardly US will not deal with the ones in the region who instigated and funded it. Of course the US did a lot of that itself.

    1. You are a moron. There is no stalemate. Russia has decided it will not keep trying to negotiate with the US backed Sunni head choppers. They have chosen to go full in with the Iraqi Sunnis, Iran, Syrian nationalists, and Hezbollah. It is a bold move for sure but the US is a teetering empire. It is weak, pathetic, and ruled by fools and thieves.

      1. You are a delightful individual who doesn't seem to be aware that the mujaheddin already defeated Russia before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afgha

        I think you mean Iraqi Shia. What is Russia going to do to Turkey, Qatar, Israel, Saudi Arabia? Nothing. What are they going to do to Russia by proxy. Everything. Possibly get their American puppets to go to war on their behalf. Even teetering Empires like the US and Britain like to go out with a bang. This is a crisis that they very well may not let go to waste.

        Now I wish that Al Qaeda and ISIS were properly annihilated but when you have countries supporting and creating these entities I don't see that happening until they are dealt with. Also bombing people supposed to create more of these people, or did the non-interventionist get it wrong?

  14. The truth is that Vladimir Putin is the only one who actually understands what is going on in the Middle East, and has decided to do something sensible about it, rather than what we have done, trying to destroy anyone and everyone who will not submit to the Israel Uber Alles agenda of the anti-American neocons,
    Thank God for Vladimir Putin.

  15. Zbig is a long time member of the US – Azerbaijan chamber of commerce.
    He's after the oil and gas despite Azerbaijan's being a dictatorship.

  16. Pingback: War Culture

Comments are closed.