What do you think?
Rate this book
Ukraine: Zbig's Grand Chessboard & How the West Was Checkmated
Zbigniew Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives has long been the operative canon for State Department Hawks, Neoconservatives and Russophobes. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the implementation of Zbig’s Grand strategy has moved at a feverish pace, gobbling up former Soviet satellites and then converting them into NATO forward bases. The endgame for the West, via these moves, has always been to quash Russian and, ostensibly, Chinese independence, economic viability and, thus, their ability to project power in Eurasia.
Ukraine: ZBIG’s Grand Chessboard & How the West Was Checkmated speaks to the historical and geostrategic moves by the West to control the Eurasian landmass: the broken promises and treaties, the geostrategic missteps and, finally, how Grand Chessboard fundamentalism actually catalyzed Russia’s re-emergence as a global power, shifted geostrategic power eastward and, proverbially, snatched defeat from the jaws of a U.S./NATO victory.
Ukraine: ZBIG’s Grand Chessboard & How the West Was Checkmated speaks to the historical and geostrategic moves by the West to control the Eurasian landmass: the broken promises and treaties, the geostrategic missteps and, finally, how Grand Chessboard fundamentalism actually catalyzed Russia’s re-emergence as a global power, shifted geostrategic power eastward and, proverbially, snatched defeat from the jaws of a U.S./NATO victory.
375 pages, Hardcover
First published January 15, 2015
12 people are currently reading
108 people want to read
About the author
Natylie Baldwin
2 books44 followersNatylie Baldwin lives in Portland, Oregon. Her fiction and nonfiction have appeared in various publications including Consortium News, OpEd News, Santa Fe Sun Monthly, Dissident Voice, Energy Bulletin, Newtopia Magazine, The Common Line, New York Journal of Books, and The Lakeshore, She is a graduate of Cal State East Bay where she majored in Liberal Arts and minored in Political Science.
She has traveled throughout western Russia since 2015 and has written numerous articles on her impressions and discussions with the Russian people.
She has traveled throughout western Russia since 2015 and has written numerous articles on her impressions and discussions with the Russian people.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
January 3, 2017
What's the difference between The Truth and unreconstructed Russia propaganda?
Baldwin and Heartsong decry Western strategy in Eastern Europe from a generic anti-globalization perspective. The basic argument is that a cadre of corrupt strategists, headed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, and hopelessly locked in a Cold War mindset and/or planning to asset strip everything for mega-corporations like Exxon. By combining Nazi-influenced Straussian Neo-Conservative Ideology with Israeli psychological warfare tactics, Zbig and the Clinton-Bush-Obama conspiracy plot to override national sovereignty with false flag color revolutions in utter violation of international law.
Poor plucky Russia just can't help but get sucked into invading, um, sorry, *peacekeeping operations in defense of local dissidents* in Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine. But thanks to the strong and ethical leadership of President Vladimir Putin, Russia has avoided the worst of these traps, and is setting up a financial alternative to the evil Washington establishment.
So yeah, the level of _~woke~_ that this whole thing is on is pretty high. I'm not saying that the CIA doesn't do some hinky shit, or that neoliberalism is a terrible ideology, but this book is rife with conspiracy theories: MH-17 was probably shot down by a Ukrainian Su-25. The Tienanmen Square protests were part of a CIA-backed coup attempt, and no one died. The Bosnian Genocide was entirely fictional. Apparently these are things that are also important to believe, along with the main thesis of Western aggression and checkmate.
While this book looks like scholarly work, citing professors and experts, it draws deeply from the alternative universe of GlobalResearch.ca amnd RussiaToday.com. And as matter of personal "wtf", Baldwin cites Wikipedia several times. I tell my undergrads to cite one layer deeper, and I expect the same from books I've spent actual money on.
Baldwin and Heartsong decry Western strategy in Eastern Europe from a generic anti-globalization perspective. The basic argument is that a cadre of corrupt strategists, headed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, and hopelessly locked in a Cold War mindset and/or planning to asset strip everything for mega-corporations like Exxon. By combining Nazi-influenced Straussian Neo-Conservative Ideology with Israeli psychological warfare tactics, Zbig and the Clinton-Bush-Obama conspiracy plot to override national sovereignty with false flag color revolutions in utter violation of international law.
Poor plucky Russia just can't help but get sucked into invading, um, sorry, *peacekeeping operations in defense of local dissidents* in Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine. But thanks to the strong and ethical leadership of President Vladimir Putin, Russia has avoided the worst of these traps, and is setting up a financial alternative to the evil Washington establishment.
So yeah, the level of _~woke~_ that this whole thing is on is pretty high. I'm not saying that the CIA doesn't do some hinky shit, or that neoliberalism is a terrible ideology, but this book is rife with conspiracy theories: MH-17 was probably shot down by a Ukrainian Su-25. The Tienanmen Square protests were part of a CIA-backed coup attempt, and no one died. The Bosnian Genocide was entirely fictional. Apparently these are things that are also important to believe, along with the main thesis of Western aggression and checkmate.
While this book looks like scholarly work, citing professors and experts, it draws deeply from the alternative universe of GlobalResearch.ca amnd RussiaToday.com. And as matter of personal "wtf", Baldwin cites Wikipedia several times. I tell my undergrads to cite one layer deeper, and I expect the same from books I've spent actual money on.
December 27, 2016
Is a good book. It shows you another point of view of Russia, since the west has demonized so hard Russia. I don't want to take sides, in my personal opinion Both, Russia and the West are evil as it gets, (Russia being the lesser evil). From my point of view, I wouldn't use the term "checkmated", I much rather say "Stalemate". Neither Russia nor the West won or lost with the Crimea referendum for Russia integration, or the Ukraine crisis. it is clearly not a winner or loser scenario, only innocent victims with the Ukrainians civilians. In reference in how the West was checkmated, the authors provided solid arguments and evidence, for example the sanctions, which is more that clear they never worked for the intended purpose. The Crimea separation or integration to Russia is another example, given for his important geostrategic position because of the Sevastopol port. Most of the Russia’s new energy deals, they would probably happen regardless of the Ukraine situation, it would’ve happen anyway because of the West constant demonization of Russia. The world trades and deals are too complex to narrow it down into a causal argument. Besides, with the Trump’s future presidency and Rex Tillerson as nominated secretary of State, Russia and the US will get a “reset” in many of their diplomacy channels or economic relations. In conclusion is a good book.
June 23, 2019
I had been in Kiev for three years, I have some Ukraine friends then. Also I have two Russian friends ( ( one is who majored Japanese literature in Japan and live in Moscow and another one is who live in Voronezh and majored a mathematic(Cryptanalysis). What I would like to say here is that I can hear from living opinions from both sides ( Of course it is limited but at least independent from Western media)
The readers who think themselves to belong to Western bloc , if they read this book, may think this book biased to Russian logic. But I wish to point out that simultaneously Western mass media is biased and those are manipulated easily. (Of course Eastern media either)
I don't agree all points of author but I agree Russia think Ukrainian participation in NATO should be aggression against Russia. Here we need to consider the meaning of NATO again. Because NATO is still in essence the organization of collective defense against Russia, it should have dissolved just after the end of Cold War like Warsaw Pact Organization. This is my personal opinion, currently in Ukraine NATO is merely the reason to provoke conflict not for security .
Most Ukrainians are tired of conflict, and the government can not get popularity by arguing anti Russia sentiment. This was the reason that Mr. Poroshenko lost the presidential election.
The readers who think themselves to belong to Western bloc , if they read this book, may think this book biased to Russian logic. But I wish to point out that simultaneously Western mass media is biased and those are manipulated easily. (Of course Eastern media either)
I don't agree all points of author but I agree Russia think Ukrainian participation in NATO should be aggression against Russia. Here we need to consider the meaning of NATO again. Because NATO is still in essence the organization of collective defense against Russia, it should have dissolved just after the end of Cold War like Warsaw Pact Organization. This is my personal opinion, currently in Ukraine NATO is merely the reason to provoke conflict not for security .
Most Ukrainians are tired of conflict, and the government can not get popularity by arguing anti Russia sentiment. This was the reason that Mr. Poroshenko lost the presidential election.
August 31, 2021
Удерживаясь от предвзятости, читал примерно до 3\5-5\7; однако различия в обращение к российскому президенту и представителям прочих правящих кабинетов уж слишком отчётливы становятся по приближении к заключительным словам и провозвестию неминуемой Третьей Мировой в случае дальнейшей эскалации на Востоке Украины. Очевидно, книга составлялась с намерением не столько представить "истинное положение вещей", сколько как противопоставление доминирующему в подотчётных Штатной демократии медиа дискурсу.
Не слишком ли часто стало встречаться словечко "дискурс" в рецензиях, а?
В общем, с точки зрения противопоставления данный опус мог бы оказаться полезным, если бы не пытался местами быть ещё ("живым") юмористическим\художественным\литературным. Для примера:
"Go east bad bear!" said the recalcitrant, oblivious, intellect-starved, and heavily indebted West. And so the resource-rich, heavily-armed, technologically sophisticated, flush bear turned eastward and into the hug of a friendly, welcoming resource-starved, heavily-armed, increasingly technologically savvy, and very well-to-do dragon. On their way to the "Rising Eaurasian Pole" they encountered a stately Bengal Tiger (India), a savvy Honey Badger (South Africa), and a powerful Jaguar (Brazil).
...
Am i mistaken but it seems that Natylie Baldwin is brazilian?
С одной стороны - сообщения о договорах между Китаем и Россией (в частности, о любопытной "валютной взаимозаменяемости" - в случае падения рубля китайцы обязуются поддержать стабильность юанем, и наоборот; противовес доллару - дело похвальное!), для того, чтобы узнать о каковых рецензенту потребовалось бы провести very specific anti-google-research, что нередко скучно.
Конечно, предлагаемую информацию следовало бы проверить, учитывая "уклон" (внимание, феминитив!) авторки с подозрительно-нотариальным именем - однако степени скуки будут значительно ниже.
Не лишний пример, возмутительного характера - договоренность о конфиденциальности (Non-Disclosure Agreement) расследования падения MH17, заключённая между Украиной, Нидерландами, Бельгией и Австралией. Спрашивается, почему среди участников нет Люксембурга и Малайзии?
О том, что в начале 2014 в Киеве в "своїх" стреляли "свої" - не новость ни для какого; нет лишь достаточно решительных лиц, способных взять на себя ответственность после того, как преступления были совершены (вернее, тех, чья решительность выше отдававших указания о стрельбе и стрелявших - для оных же решительности не требовалось вовсе, чтобы быть до конца понятым). Во-вторых, конечно, в Киеве "всі свої" - а стрельба или то, что либеральная демократия позволяет себе считать сомнительным суррогатом, проводится раз в сезон и с разным уровнем летальности для законопослушных и человеколюбивых представителей народонаселения.
Когда пытаешься удержаться от грубости, используемые слова непроизвольно удлиняются. А от грубости удерживаешься, потому что нынче её сферой влияния является общественное телевидение - и ты, как минимум, не хочешь именно такого рода "машиной Гваттари".
Цитируя собственную заметку, сделанную около половины книги: "Суть сдержанной политики ЕС в отношении конфликтной ситуации на Востоке Украины - осведомлённость властных (экономических и политических) кругов в действительных причинах развернувшейся операции. Реакция должна поступить со стороны не про-европейской силы" - позволю себе предложить той же авторке (как указывается в конце книги- и в жанре fiction) написать альтернативный вариант, когда на возникновение длящегося и поныне конфликта реагирует Китай.
Любое "про-" - провокация либо реакция на аналогию. Столь кратким и нейтральным может быть заключение.
...
Ах, да, персонажей вроде Збигнева следует травить кришнаитами.
Не слишком ли часто стало встречаться словечко "дискурс" в рецензиях, а?
В общем, с точки зрения противопоставления данный опус мог бы оказаться полезным, если бы не пытался местами быть ещё ("живым") юмористическим\художественным\литературным. Для примера:
"Go east bad bear!" said the recalcitrant, oblivious, intellect-starved, and heavily indebted West. And so the resource-rich, heavily-armed, technologically sophisticated, flush bear turned eastward and into the hug of a friendly, welcoming resource-starved, heavily-armed, increasingly technologically savvy, and very well-to-do dragon. On their way to the "Rising Eaurasian Pole" they encountered a stately Bengal Tiger (India), a savvy Honey Badger (South Africa), and a powerful Jaguar (Brazil).
...
Am i mistaken but it seems that Natylie Baldwin is brazilian?
С одной стороны - сообщения о договорах между Китаем и Россией (в частности, о любопытной "валютной взаимозаменяемости" - в случае падения рубля китайцы обязуются поддержать стабильность юанем, и наоборот; противовес доллару - дело похвальное!), для того, чтобы узнать о каковых рецензенту потребовалось бы провести very specific anti-google-research, что нередко скучно.
Конечно, предлагаемую информацию следовало бы проверить, учитывая "уклон" (внимание, феминитив!) авторки с подозрительно-нотариальным именем - однако степени скуки будут значительно ниже.
Не лишний пример, возмутительного характера - договоренность о конфиденциальности (Non-Disclosure Agreement) расследования падения MH17, заключённая между Украиной, Нидерландами, Бельгией и Австралией. Спрашивается, почему среди участников нет Люксембурга и Малайзии?
О том, что в начале 2014 в Киеве в "своїх" стреляли "свої" - не новость ни для какого; нет лишь достаточно решительных лиц, способных взять на себя ответственность после того, как преступления были совершены (вернее, тех, чья решительность выше отдававших указания о стрельбе и стрелявших - для оных же решительности не требовалось вовсе, чтобы быть до конца понятым). Во-вторых, конечно, в Киеве "всі свої" - а стрельба или то, что либеральная демократия позволяет себе считать сомнительным суррогатом, проводится раз в сезон и с разным уровнем летальности для законопослушных и человеколюбивых представителей народонаселения.
Когда пытаешься удержаться от грубости, используемые слова непроизвольно удлиняются. А от грубости удерживаешься, потому что нынче её сферой влияния является общественное телевидение - и ты, как минимум, не хочешь именно такого рода "машиной Гваттари".
Цитируя собственную заметку, сделанную около половины книги: "Суть сдержанной политики ЕС в отношении конфликтной ситуации на Востоке Украины - осведомлённость властных (экономических и политических) кругов в действительных причинах развернувшейся операции. Реакция должна поступить со стороны не про-европейской силы" - позволю себе предложить той же авторке (как указывается в конце книги- и в жанре fiction) написать альтернативный вариант, когда на возникновение длящегося и поныне конфликта реагирует Китай.
Любое "про-" - провокация либо реакция на аналогию. Столь кратким и нейтральным может быть заключение.
...
Ах, да, персонажей вроде Збигнева следует травить кришнаитами.
April 25, 2023
This small-press, Obama-era report was published a year after the Maidan coup, one of the first to reconstruct the narrative of NATO expansion and Ukrainian insurgency and trace both back to Zbigniew Brzezinski's "Grand Chessboard" theory. The notorious "Nuland tape" is reproduced in full as an appendix. While it still makes fascinating reading, it has been surpassed of course by the developments of 2022 and the West's (and Russia's) refusal to be checkmated.
The salient question since is how Brzezinski's original formulation has changed, and why. The authors cite "Zbig's" repeated advocacy of NATO pressure, to deter Russia from the use of force. But something changed around 2019: the goading of Russia into *using* force, amplified again after Biden resumed charge of Ukrainian policy and ramped up yet again in 2021. The policy has reverted to Zbig's Afghanistan model of 1979, drawing Moscow into a bloody quagmire fueled by Western "assistance." Why?
When Zbig spoke of deterrence, the Nordstream II pipeline had only just begun. By 2021 it was scheduled to open and thus time to fold the Grand Chessboard in Afghanistan to reopen operations in Ukraine. If Russia could be Afghaned - drawn - into Ukraine this would drive Kiev into the arms of NATO (no more sneaking it in the back door) and justify destroying Nordstream as "retaliation." Would Zbig have expanded his theory to fit the policy if he'd lived to see it? We'll never know, but most likely he would have publicly equivocated until the invasion settled the matter for him. Certain it is that the war now in progress owes much to his hard lines of 1979 and on.
One passage at the book's conclusion does puzzle me, when it states the Grand Chessboard "has brought about that which the West has sought to *deter* [sic] with ungodly sums of treasure, countless lives, incessant geopolitical subterfuge, abject hypocrisy, and a universe of lies" (page 321.) Rather it's the reverse: the West has been promoting these results by such methods. We have seen them bear fruit in this young century alone in Iraq and now Ukraine. And if the West continues to "prevail" it might be our last.
The salient question since is how Brzezinski's original formulation has changed, and why. The authors cite "Zbig's" repeated advocacy of NATO pressure, to deter Russia from the use of force. But something changed around 2019: the goading of Russia into *using* force, amplified again after Biden resumed charge of Ukrainian policy and ramped up yet again in 2021. The policy has reverted to Zbig's Afghanistan model of 1979, drawing Moscow into a bloody quagmire fueled by Western "assistance." Why?
When Zbig spoke of deterrence, the Nordstream II pipeline had only just begun. By 2021 it was scheduled to open and thus time to fold the Grand Chessboard in Afghanistan to reopen operations in Ukraine. If Russia could be Afghaned - drawn - into Ukraine this would drive Kiev into the arms of NATO (no more sneaking it in the back door) and justify destroying Nordstream as "retaliation." Would Zbig have expanded his theory to fit the policy if he'd lived to see it? We'll never know, but most likely he would have publicly equivocated until the invasion settled the matter for him. Certain it is that the war now in progress owes much to his hard lines of 1979 and on.
One passage at the book's conclusion does puzzle me, when it states the Grand Chessboard "has brought about that which the West has sought to *deter* [sic] with ungodly sums of treasure, countless lives, incessant geopolitical subterfuge, abject hypocrisy, and a universe of lies" (page 321.) Rather it's the reverse: the West has been promoting these results by such methods. We have seen them bear fruit in this young century alone in Iraq and now Ukraine. And if the West continues to "prevail" it might be our last.
March 12, 2023
Excellent. Solid articulation of the West’s aggressive global behavior, but in particular toward Russia. Having an interest in Ukraine, this book also helps to fill in the holes of the past fews years and provide needed context. Easy to read, factual and logically written from well-sourced material. These two authors are obviously more than just “writers,” but that’s just a haunch. Highly recommended.
September 23, 2016
The book is brilliant authors work as well as summary of speeches and publications of wide range of experts and political freaks. It provides the reader with detailed picture of modern history and also gives the glimpse of future possibilities.
It is only the book I found that has balanced view and is true about recent and unfolding events.
It wasn't easy to read. Truth sometimes is hard to accept. However, I wanted to finish and now feel rewarded. The book is not free of factual errors, that is why 4 stars.
It is only the book I found that has balanced view and is true about recent and unfolding events.
It wasn't easy to read. Truth sometimes is hard to accept. However, I wanted to finish and now feel rewarded. The book is not free of factual errors, that is why 4 stars.
August 8, 2020
Excellent. Solid articulation of the West’s aggressive global behavior, but in particular toward Russia. Having an interest in Ukraine, this book also helps to fill in the holes of the past fews years and provide needed context. Easy to read, factual and logically written from well-sourced material. These two authors are obviously more than just “writers,” but that’s just a haunch. Highly recommended.
February 7, 2018
Impressive research, great writing
Though a bit optimistic about NATO being check-mated the author drives home a very clear picture of the region bare-knuckled geopolitics. A better future is ahead with Asia ascendancy.
Though a bit optimistic about NATO being check-mated the author drives home a very clear picture of the region bare-knuckled geopolitics. A better future is ahead with Asia ascendancy.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews