The book of Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives, was written in late 1990s and is worse studied. In this book, American political thinker and geostrategists discusses the main issues and the main strategic goals for the United States. The main territory, the main area where all these goals are concentrated is Eurasia, which is not surprised because this concept comes from the very first and very early geopolitical concepts and theories. In his book, he makes several statements. Eurasia is the chief geopolitical price after the United States worn the Cold War, and Eurasia is the grand chessboard, where historically and then in 1990s, the main politics, the main political competition between the great powers took place. Brzezinski believed that all potential political and economic challenges to the US supremacy in the world were Eurasian, they were located it in Eurasia. He also believed that fortunately through the United States, Eurasia was too big to produce the only single power to challenge the American supremacy. However, there were a lot of powers in this continent, and the United States should always look at these powers and should always keep in mind their geostrategy in order to control the most important key points. So according to geostrategy of Zbigniew Brzezinski, in his book, he tried to answer several questions. Who, meaning what states to balance to identify the dynamic Eurasian states capable to cause politically important shift in the international distribution of power, where, not only who, but where, to identify duration states whose location and existence was geopolitically critical for the US supremacy, and finally, to formulate geostrategy for the United States, what to do with these potential challenges or the key or powers important for geopolitical supremacy of the United States in Eurasia. In his book, Brzezinski divided Eurasian countries into several groups. The first was active geostrategic players, states with capacity and national will to exercise power or influence beyond the initial borders. These states potentially could challenge the US power. Among these key geostrategic players, Brzezinski named France, Germany, Russia, China, and India. He also identified such a group as geopolitical pivots, states whose importance came not from their power and motivation, but rather from their sensitive location. Among these countries, Brzezinski named Ukraine, Azerbaijan, South Korea, Turkey, and Iran, which is actually very close to something that we discussed in the previous lectures. They were states in Eurasia that are potentially strong and can use their location and power to become geopolitically stronger and to challenge the US supremacy or at least influence in Eurasia. There are states that are important in terms of bounds of power between different states in Eurasia. The final group was important countries: Great Britain, Japan, and Indonesia. As we know, these countries are very close to the United States, they don't have, probably according to Zbigniew Brzezinski, their own geostrategy, but in the very same time, they contribute significantly to the US power in the continent and its influence. Brzezinski asked a number of questions that are geopolitically relevant even in contemporary international relations. For example, what kind of Europe should America prefer and promote? In our previous analysis, we showed that contemporary Europe, meaning the European Union, is not an active geopolitical player in terms of the worldwide competition, which means that the United States has a different ally currently in the European continent. What kind of Russia is in American interests? In 1990s, Russia was much closer to the United States. Currently, as we know, there are too many contradictions between two countries, and Russia is frequently even called a new competitor for the United States in Eurasia. The Russian issue was many times discussed by Zbigniew Brzezinski in terms of balancing another potential challenge, and now maybe clear challenge to the US supremacy in Eurasia. China, and he asked question, what roles should China play in the Eurasian balance of power gain? Finally, what new Eurasian coalition is possible, which might be most dangerous to the US interests? This issue currently can be seen in relations between Russia, China, India, BRICS cooperation, and its Eurasian part. It is the very same issue that Brzezinski told in his book that the biggest challenge to the United States in Eurasia is the possibility of any alliance or union between several great powers against the American influence in the continent. The one thing that makes geostrategy of Zbigniew Brzezinski very distinct from the early geopolitical writings is his statement that geopolitics was not any more about competition between a sea power and a land power. These ideas could be found in books of Harvard McIndoe and Nicholas Spykman, as we remember the competition between Heartland and some Rimland states. According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, it does not matter whether you are a land power or sea power. The only important thing is that geopolitics has already become the worldwide phenomenon and geopolitical competition takes place in Eurasia. Maybe this statement can be called as drawback of his concept because focusing too much on the Eurasian continent, he did not pay enough attention to Africa or Latin America, which are still in geopolitical game between the United States and some other powers. But he was right when he said that historically, the main competition took place in Eurasia and Eurasia is still the concentration of many geopolitical competitions. The book of Zbigniew Brzezinski was the final point in our journey through history of the American geopolitical thinking. Now as we know this evolution and the main geopolitical and geo-economic issues, let's summarize everything that we have learned. First, from the very beginning, American geopolitics was very focused on trade issues and on securitization of trade. Later, security issues came to the military sphere when the United States became globally engaged into competition with the Soviet Union. The evolution of American geopolitical thinking therefore came not from the goals, but from different structure of international relations where the United States lived in. It was very based on structural conditions, and as we know, it became very flexible with the changes of structure of international relations, geostrategy of the United States also changed. It started with the strategy of isolationism and now we know the American geostrategy as very active and globally engaged. The United States became as a colony and rising power, and now it is the leader of the free world and one of the tradition makers in the practical geopolitics. In the United States, thinkers, scientists, and academics continue to think about geopolitics, they continue to create some new concepts and to rethink the previous concepts. On the other hand, geopolitics historically was something that appeared not only in the academic community, but also among practical politicians, practical statesmen, and this is a very unique characteristic of the American politics, that it emerged from connection between the academic sphere and practical political sphere.
