Words matter. These are the best Zbigniew Brzezinski Quotes, and they’re great for sharing with your friends.
All the historical pretenders to global power originated in Eurasia.
Constant reference to a ‘war on terror’ did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear.
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 should seek to cooperate with Europe, not to divide Europe to a fictitious new and a fictitious old.
Can we really mobilize support, even of friends, when we tell them that if you are not with us you are against us?
I’m all in favour of grand important speeches, but the president then has to link his sermons to a strategy.
During the nineteenth century, men died believing in the cause of royalty or republicanism. In reality, much of their sacrifice was rendered on the altar of the new nationalism.
We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
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.
Anniversaries are like birthdays: occasions to celebrate and to think ahead, usually among friends with whom one shares not only the past but also the future.
It is important to ask ourselves, as citizens, whether a world power can provide global leadership on the basis of fear and anxiety.
If the United States and China can accommodate each other on a broad range of issues, the prospects for stability in Asia will be greatly increased.
Americans must place greater emphasis on the more subtle dimensions of national power, such as innovation, education, the balance of force and diplomacy, and the quality of political leadership.
We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.
We can’t have an intelligent foreign policy unless we have an intelligent public, because we’re a democracy.
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.
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.
Peace between Israel and Palestine would be a giant step toward greater regional stability, and it would finally let both Israelis and Palestinians benefit from the Middle East’s growing wealth.
I was deeply involved in the decision that President Jimmy Carter made to boycott the Olympics in Moscow in 1980.
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 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.
It is in the U.S. interest to engage Iran in serious negotiations – on both regional security and the nuclear challenge it poses.
The culture of self-gratification and deregulation that began during the Clinton years and continued under President George W. Bush led to the bursting of one stock market bubble at the turn of the century and a full-scale financial crash less than a decade later.
Commitment and credibility go hand in hand.
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.
Being a former first lady doesn’t prepare you to be president.
Human affairs require some combination of moral commitment with disciplined political action. And that is what keeps me intrigued and challenged and wanting to influence events.
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 think we have to pay attention to the Arab masses not just in the Gulf States, but also in the hinterlands.
We all have the right to comment about each other.
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?
I don’t approve of the notion that we should be announcing who should step down from the position of a head of a state unless we are seriously prepared to remove that person. But if we are not, if we are being prudent and careful, then let’s also be careful with how we talk.
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.
The congressional role in declaring war is especially important not when the United States is the victim of an attack, but when the United States is planning to wage war abroad.
Eurasia is home to most of the world’s politically assertive and dynamic states.
America’s victory in the Cold War was not without painful social costs.
A waning United States would likely be more nationalistic, more defensive about its national identity, more paranoid about its homeland security, and less willing to sacrifice resources for the sake of others’ development.
Moderation and bipartisan consensus go hand in hand.
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.
