In a 2009 interview with Voice of America’s Ukrainian Service, conducted by Myroslava Gongadze, Zbigniew Brzezinski ( 1928-2017) offered a penetrating assessment of United States policy towards Eastern Europe and Ukraine at a moment of strategic uncertainty that continues to resonate today. Speaking as a former US national security adviser and as a long-standing observer of Eurasian geopolitics, Brzezinski was openly sceptical of the Obama administration’s attempt to “reset” relations with Russia, describing the concept as superficially appealing but intellectually inadequate. “I think the Obama administration has a good slogan, reset, but it’s also very vague and a little childish,” he remarked bluntly. “You don’t reset a serious relationship. You try strategically to shape it.” For Brzezinski, the challenge was not to symbolically restart relations with Moscow, but to pursue a coherent and carefully balanced strategy that recognised the complexity of America’s interests in the post-Soviet space.
At the heart of his argument was the claim that the United States faced two objectives that appeared contradictory but were, in reality, deeply interlinked. On the one hand, Brzezinski acknowledged the necessity of a cooperative relationship with Russia, emphasising that Russia remained “an important country” with which Washington shared vital interests. He pointed to specific areas where cooperation was not only desirable but essential, including stability in South Central Asia, addressing the Iranian nuclear programme, and advancing disarmament and nuclear stability more broadly. These, he stressed, were “legitimate and important objectives” that could not be dismissed by ideological antagonism or historical mistrust. However, he insisted that cooperation with Russia could not come at the expense of democratic development and sovereignty in Eastern Europe.
Alongside engagement with Moscow, Brzezinski argued, the United States had an equally important responsibility to support “the consolidation of political pluralism in the space of the former Soviet Union and of the former Soviet bloc”. He spoke with particular urgency about the need to ensure “that Georgia is not undermined, that Ukraine is not turned into a satellite”. While critics often portrayed these goals as mutually exclusive, Brzezinski rejected that framing entirely. He maintained that the survival and success of independent states such as Georgia and Ukraine would actually increase the likelihood that Russia itself would evolve into “a post-imperial democratic state”. Conversely, he warned that if these countries were allowed to fail or fall back under Russian dominance, Russia would “become again an empire with growing ambitions”, making any durable cooperation far more difficult. The supposed contradiction, he argued, was “in fact superficial”, and could only be resolved through intelligent, long-term strategy rather than simplistic slogans.
When asked whether he agreed with Senator Richard Lugar’s call for a more proactive American policy towards Ukraine, Brzezinski answered unequivocally in the affirmative, noting that he had been making similar arguments for many years. Yet he used the question as an opportunity to deliver a stark message to a Ukrainian audience. “Quite honestly,” he said, “the ultimate responsibility for preserving Ukrainian independence rests on the shoulders of the Ukrainian people and of the Ukrainian elite.” His tone became sharply critical as he described what he saw as the corrosive impact of internal divisions within Ukraine’s democratic camp. He spoke of “top-level divisions”, “internal feuding”, and “intrigues” that created opportunities for foreign powers to manipulate Ukraine’s domestic politics.
Drawing on his own Polish heritage, Brzezinski offered a historical analogy that was both sobering and provocative. He observed that Ukraine’s predicament bore an unsettling resemblance to Poland’s situation in the eighteenth century, when an entrenched and self-interested aristocratic elite allowed the country to be manipulated by neighbouring powers, ultimately resulting in the loss of independence. “Today,” he warned, “we have an oligarchic elite in Ukraine that is in the pay of foreign interests, that is manipulating the wealth of the country for its own benefit, and is not genuinely committed to the shaping of a nationally based Ukrainian democracy.” His criticism was not aimed solely at external actors; rather, it underscored his belief that no amount of Western support could substitute for domestic political responsibility. “You cannot expect the Europeans west of Ukraine, or people here in America, to be more pro-Ukrainian than the Ukrainians,” he stated emphatically.
Brzezinski expressed particular concern about the forthcoming presidential elections, warning that they were likely to be “manipulated from the outside for the purpose of reducing Ukrainian independence”. He suggested that the consequences could be severe, potentially including Ukraine’s transformation into a satellite state or even “part of a larger imperial system”, with the possibility of territorial losses. When pressed on which country he believed was responsible for such interference, he replied pointedly, “I think most Ukrainians know what I’m talking about.” He added that if they did not, then after two decades of independence they were “so politically uneducated… that it would be almost despairing”, a remark that captured both his frustration and his sense of urgency.
Looking ahead to the election of a new president, Brzezinski argued that Ukraine’s domestic and foreign policy priorities were inseparable. The central task, he said, was “to really consolidate a genuinely respectable democracy in Ukraine”, one that would make the country “an attractive object of interest for the rest of Europe”. He stressed that Ukraine’s cultural European identity needed to be translated into “political, socioeconomic realities”, rather than remaining a rhetorical aspiration. Once again, he invoked Poland’s experience, noting that no one had begged Warsaw to join the European Union. Instead, Poland’s accession had been the result of its own determination to become European “in every respect”. Ukraine, he argued, could follow a similar path within “five to ten years” if it had the right leadership and national orientation.
On the sensitive issue of NATO membership, Brzezinski cautioned against viewing the alliance as a shortcut to security or better relations with Russia. He insisted that any move towards NATO had to be grounded in broad domestic consensus. If Ukraine were to pursue membership while deeply divided, with only limited public support, NATO itself could become “a source of division which other powers can exploit”. He contrasted this with Poland’s accession, which had been driven by overwhelming public support and had reassured NATO that Poland’s membership would enhance, rather than undermine, regional stability. Without such unity, he warned, Ukraine risked finding itself in a position similar to Georgia’s, a scenario he described as unacceptable.
Throughout the interview, Brzezinski emphasised that Ukraine’s strategic choices did not require hostility towards Russia. Constructing a secure and independent Ukraine did not mean joining NATO “in order to be anti-Russian”, but rather contributing to “a wider system of European stability and cooperation”. In this vision, Ukraine, with its population of 45 million and significant economic potential, could play a constructive role not only for Europe but also for Russia itself. Brzezinski argued that a stable, prosperous Ukraine could help “encourage Russia to move more to the West” and provide Moscow with greater security and purpose in a rapidly changing geopolitical environment.
Brzezinski offered a striking geopolitical perspective on Russia’s long-term position, noting that without constructive integration with its neighbours, Russia risked becoming “an empty space with a declining population”, wedged between “a billion and a half Chinese” and “550 million Europeans, much wealthier than the Russians”. In this context, he suggested, Ukraine’s successful evolution could help assure Russia “a much more promising future”. Far from being a peripheral issue, Ukraine’s fate, in Brzezinski’s analysis, was central to the stability of Europe and the post-imperial transformation of Russia, a message that has only gained relevance in the years since the interview was recorded.
