
The mixed legacy of Zbigniew Brzezinski, strategist of the Cold War
From the first, Zbigniew Brzezinski (pronounced 'ZbigNieff BreshinSki', as Carter helpfully informed his team) sat in Kissinger's shadow, always a step or two behind the great Bavarian. Their first encounter was at Harvard in 1950 when Zbig's first-year lecturer handed the reins to his protégé, described by Zbig as a 'youngish, somewhat rotund… scholar with a strong German accent'. The Pole disliked the sub's penchant for 'Germanic philosophers'. 'Not my meat,' he recalled. 'I rather impolitely rose and left.'
The two circled one another for decades. Alternately respectful, cordial, even playful, they also briefed against each other with the spite only arrogant, erudite rivals can exhibit. To Kissinger, Zbig was a 'total whore who has been on every side of every argument'. Brzezinski saw in his senior 'an unprincipled politician, and a political chameleon who only cares about staying visible in US public life and returning to power'. As Harry S. Truman once said: 'If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.'
That Kissinger is more remembered is partly due to his being an 'Olympic gold medal-winning flatterer', according to Luce. 'Even with me he would say things I knew to be patently untrue about how he always read my column first thing every morning.' For his part, Zbig favoured abrasive argument. He would 'specialise in decapitating people he thought were fools'. And he chose to leave the greater part of his story to be told by Luce, who has had unrestricted access to a voluminous corpus of diaries, letters and papers. The result of this bequest is a landmark study unlikely to be equalled.
This is a high-definition account of one of the great – and most neglected – postwar statesmen and strategists, who helped to shape the end of the Soviet Union. From 1950 on, when he was a mere Masters student, Zbig could see that the simmering nationalisms within the USSR were its Achilles' heel. As a proud Pole, he knew only too well that non-Russian peoples in the Soviet Union retained deep national feelings that would not tolerate Moscow's imperialism indefinitely. His rivals and colleagues, Kissinger included, pursued détente, thinking the Reds would inevitably catch up and overtake the US. But Zbig saw clearly how the massive Soviet hulk was vulnerable to degeneration.
His 'systematic bent of mind' pushed Carter to weaponise human rights against the USSR, normalise relations with the Chinese – leading to the opening of listening posts on the Sino-Russian border – and to provide support to Afghan rebel groups following the 1979 Soviet invasion, leaving the Russians bogged down in an unwinnable war. But nowhere was his historic calling more apparent than in Polish affairs. Zbig saw the profound potential of Lech Walesa's Solidarity trade union and used American might to protect and nurture it. In this he was aided by a countryman, one Karol Jozef Wojtyla (aka Pope John Paul II), who became a lifelong ally (Brzezinski had 'P' for 'Pope' added to his White House phone).
So it was that in 1980, with the Soviets poised to invade Poland, the two powerful Poles conspired to defend the homeland: Zbig by having Carter issue public and private threats to Leonid Brezhnev; John Paul II by quietly beseeching Solidarity to avoid any action that might give the Soviets an excuse to advance. Years later, the CIA director Robert Gates would conclude that it had been the 'fragile seeds' sowed by Brzezinski that had done for the USSR.
If Zbig was responsible for Carter's greatest foreign policy legacy, he was also central to its greatest failure. Having mistaken the Iranian Ayatollah for a 'non-violent Shiite version of Mohandas Gandhi', he advocated successfully for the US to admit the ailing and displaced Shah. It was a decision which precipitated the storming of the US embassy in Tehran and an awful hostage crisis which ultimately destroyed the credibility of Carter's administration.
That there have been such very long tails to the Carter presidency's calculations and miscalculations – in eastern Europe, Iran and Afghanistan – speaks loudly of a time when big brains played big dice on the Cold War Risk board of the world. Luce's exceptional study vividly revives the memory, strategies, tactics and foibles of one of the greatest players of that lethal game.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scotsman
5 hours ago
- Scotsman
Why being truly Jewish means standing with Palestinians in Gaza – and not their Israeli oppressors
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Nightly on the news, in front of our eyes, an atrocity is unfolding. The pictures of children starved in Gaza are almost unwatchable. The daily statistics of death and destruction are numbing. Even an ex-Israeli Prime Minister claims Israel is planning to build a giant concentration camp in Gaza. Even Israeli human rights organisations now acknowledge what those on the receiving end have been saying all along: what is happening is a genocide. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The aim of the war, they explain, is not just to defeat Hamas but to make Gaza into an uninhabitable wasteland so that the Palestinians walk out and the Israelis can then walk in. So why is so little being done about it? Why are we still talking and trading and even arming Israel? Why do Palestinians feel utterly abandoned by the world? Why, as so many times before, do we simply shrug and turn aside? READ MORE: Why Palestinians in Gaza are protesting with photos of Israeli children killed by Hamas Yazan, a malnourished two-year-old Palestinian boy, pictured in the Al-Shati refugee camp, west of Gaza City, earlier this month (Picture: Omar Al-Qattaa) | AFP via Getty Images Suppression of pro-Palestinian speech There are many answers. But in this case, there is one distinctive factor. There is a systematic attempt to outlaw criticism of Israeli actions. This is enshrined in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad More specifically, two of its illustrations suggest that criticism of the Israeli state could be a form of hatred of Jewish people. This has been weaponised in order to suggest that any criticism of the Israeli state is antisemitic. Universities in particular have used it to suppress critical voices and it has had a chilling effect on scholarship and research. Even the original author of the declaration, Kenneth Stern, wrote bemoaning the fact that the IHRA definition 'has been primarily used (and I argue, grossly abused) to suppress and chill pro-Palestinian speech'. That is why he recently urged Columbia University not to adopt it. One defence of the IHRA definition is to say that Jewish people support it and feel threatened by attacks on Israel. Some certainly do. But many don't. Indeed, one of the important consequences of Israeli action in Gaza is that they have led many Jews to come together and speak out against the genocide. That includes Jewish staff at Edinburgh University and across Scottish universities. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Not in our name There have always been multiple Jewish traditions, some rooted in nationalism and self-defence, others rooted in internationalism and solidarity, and many variants of each. We in the Scottish Universities Jewish Staff Network (SUJSN) don't agree on everything. But we broadly side with Marek Edelman, the great leader of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, who declared: 'To be a Jew means always being with the oppressed, never with the oppressors.' We feel as outraged by the suffering of a Palestinian child as by that of our own child. Marek Edelman, who lived until 2009, lays flowers on the ruins of the Warsaw Ghetto in 1945 (Picture: Laski Diffusion) | Getty Images Particularly because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has the audacity to claim he acts in the name of all Jews, we in SUJSN are compelled to speak out against Israeli atrocities – and to contest the IHRA definition which seeks to silence us. We declare for the world to hear that we, and an ever-growing number of Jews, stand with the Palestinians being oppressed in Gaza, never with their IDF oppressors. For if we stay silent, we are complicit and we besmirch what it truly means to be Jewish.


The Herald Scotland
8 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Why Starmer missed the mark with Palestine recognition
Starmer's conditions include a ceasefire from both sides, while Israel must commit to long-term peace that delivers a two-state solution and no annexation in the West Bank. Conditions on Hamas include immediately releasing Israeli hostages and an acceptance that they will play no part in governing Gaza. This is progress and a major shift in the UK's foreign policy. Previously, the UK Government's stance was that a long-term peace plan had to be in place before recognition could be on the table. Starmer now says that the plan is to work towards a 'two-state solution', where an independent state of Palestine is established alongside Israel. Read more: Realistically, this is not a genuine attempt to recognise the state of Palestine. This, simply, is politics. It is an attempt to appease both sides while attempting to force Israel's hand to put an end to the suffering in Gaza. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is amongst the highest profile voices arguing that doing so would reward Hamas for the devastating October 7 attacks in 2023. Hamas are also unlikely to back a deal that diminishes their political power. This is a conflict that has been raging in the Middle East since the early 20th century. There is, clearly, no easy solution to the Israel and Palestine tensions. Britain's imperialist role in Palestine undoubtably influenced the conflict. It had control over the region between 1917 and 1948 before withdrawing and leaving a bitter and lasting war. The Balfour declaration helped create the Jewish homeland of Israel, but the UK equally promised Palestinians the right to their own land and peace. So what could be behind Starmer's change of policy, and why now? Read more: The internal pressure is growing on Starmer to act on the Gaza crisis. More than 250 MPs – over a third of the House of Commons - have signed a cross-party letter to pressure the Prime Minister into the move. These conditions are unlikely to be agreed by either the Israeli government or Hamas and any internal win Starmer gets from this move could be short-lived. By placing conditions on Palestine's recognition, Starmer looks weak. On Tuesday, a UN-backed organisation warned there was mounting evidence of famine in Gaza. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) said: "Latest data indicates that famine thresholds have been reached for food consumption in most of the Gaza Strip and for acute malnutrition in Gaza City." That tells us that there are innocent children in Gaza who do not have until September for Starmer to make up his mind. Starmer is giving decision makers around 60 days to act on his conditions - if they don't, where will we be then? The recognition of Gaza cannot become a political game and Starmer must be decisive in his action. But for now, he missed the mark.


Reuters
11 hours ago
- Reuters
US government alleges UCLA violated federal civil rights law
WASHINGTON, July 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department alleged on Tuesday that the University of California, Los Angeles has failed to prevent a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students since campus protests erupted after the start of Israel's war in Gaza. The Justice Department alleged UCLA violated federal civil rights law. The university had no immediate comment. The U.S. government has been probing multiple universities, including UCLA, for their handling of last year's pro-Palestinian protests against Israel's military assault in Gaza, which followed an October 2023 Hamas attack. President Donald Trump's administration has threatened to freeze federal funding for U.S. universities over the demonstrations. Rights advocates have raised concerns about free speech, academic freedom and due process. The government alleges that universities, including UCLA, did not control antisemitism during the demonstrations. Trump has repeatedly labeled pro-Palestinian protesters as antisemitic and as supporters of extremism. Protesters say the government wrongly equates criticism of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories with antisemitism and advocacy for Palestinian rights with support for extremism. Campus protesters demanded an end to U.S. support for Israel and a commitment that their universities will cease investing in weapons makers and companies that support Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories. Rights advocates have noted a rise in antisemitism, Islamophobia and anti-Arab bias in the U.S. due to Washington ally Israel's war in Gaza. Earlier on Tuesday, UCLA agreed to pay over $6 million to settle a lawsuit by some students and a professor who alleged antisemitism. Concerns of anti-Palestinian incidents were also raised at UCLA in the spring of 2024, when a pro-Israeli mob stormed and attacked the tent camp of pro-Palestinian protesters with clubs and poles in one of the most violent incidents from the protests. On Monday, prosecutors said a man charged with hate crime for his role in that attack entered a plea deal for a diversionary program to avoid jail time, marking the end of the only felony case connected with that attack. Dozens of people were arrested during the UCLA encampment protests. Then-UCLA police chief John Thomas left the campus police department last year. The Justice Department said, opens new tab it now seeks to enter into a voluntary resolution agreement with UCLA "to ensure that the hostile environment is eliminated and reasonable steps are taken to prevent its recurrence." Last week, Columbia University in New York City said it will pay over $200 million to the U.S. government in a settlement with the Trump administration to resolve federal probes and have most of its suspended federal funding restored.