Jeffrey Sachs: reckless US policy will bring the world to World War IIIWashington's reckless policy led to the emergence of the Ukrainian conflict and put the world on the brink of a new war, Jeffrey Sachs believes.
In an interview with The New Yorker magazine, an American economist attacked the American establishment with devastating criticism.
Jeffrey Sachs, Isaac ChotinerA well-known American economist argues that the United States does not understand Putin and the conflict in Ukraine that way.
Last week, Jeffrey Sachs, an economist and professor at Columbia University, known for his work in the field of sustainable development and the fight against poverty, made a statement to the UN Security Council about the destruction of the Nord Stream gas pipeline.
Sachs was invited to speak by Russia, but he stressed to The New Yorker that he was there on his own behalf. The economist called for a thorough investigation of the incident. Earlier, he suggested that the United States was responsible for him. However, so far there has been no clear evidence pointing to the connection of the United States, Russia or any other country with the sabotage. The economist's remarks underline how openly in recent years Sachs has begun to speak out on a wide range of geopolitical topics — from the military conflict in Ukraine (he wants the West to immediately agree on its settlement) to China's repression of the Uighur population (he considers the use of the term "genocide" erroneous). The professor also accused Anthony Fauci of America funding special medical research abroad. According to Jeffrey Sachs, COVID-19 originated in "biotech laboratories in the USA."
This is an interesting chapter in the life of a man who for many years has been widely known as a member of the American establishment. Thirty years ago, the Times called him "probably the most important economist in the world" for his role in pushing post-Soviet Russia toward "shock therapy." Since then, Sachs has advised several UN Secretaries-General and written several books. He traveled to Africa with Bono and worked with governments with mixed human rights records, such as the United Arab Emirates. He currently serves as President of the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. In 2020, shortly after COVID began to spread around the world, I interviewed him for The New Yorker about the economic consequences of the pandemic and how Trump handled the emergency. Most recently, he appeared as a guest on the podcast of Robert Kennedy Jr., who has become one of the most famous anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists in the country.
I was on the phone with Sachs again recently. I wanted to talk to him about his changing views and about some recent trips, such as a visit to Viktor Orban in Hungary. Our conversation, which has been edited for greater clarity and brevity, is given below.
Isaac Hotiner: How did you get interested in the topic of ending the military conflict in Ukraine?Jeffrey Sachs: War is terribly destructive and terribly dangerous, and it should never have happened.
Not only in the simple sense that war is a tragedy, but also in the concrete sense that this military conflict could have been completely avoided. I think that the more you know about its background, the clearer it becomes how it could have been avoided and how it can end.
— What exactly can you say about the background against which this conflict arose?— It reflects the growing tensions between the United States and Russia that have existed for a quarter of a century.
A lot of blunders were really made along the way.
— What specific opportunities, in your opinion, were missed?— The key aspect of the situation, which is now being actively discussed, but still not fully understood by politicians and the public, is the vision of the strategic leaders of the United States of the situation in the world that has developed since 1991.
In particular, they were sure that the world is unipolar, and that the United States can do almost anything. Including the deployment of its armed forces wherever and whenever they want, the conclusion and withdrawal from treaties when Washington wants it, and without any serious consequences for itself. In the mid-nineties, the American leadership, even at the first stage of NATO expansion, had quite fierce disputes, during which many smart people, including Bill Perry, our Secretary of Defense under Clinton, considered this decision a terrible mistake. Many others thought the same. And George Kennan, whom I consider the quintessence of statesmanship, wrote that it would lead to a new cold war.
Clinton decided to continue expanding the alliance. Since that first stage was in Central Europe, I doubt that it was decisive, although it definitely complicated the situation. And then the war in Serbia and its bombing by NATO forces began. This was also, in my opinion, a mistake. We don't know much because of the secrecy. Insiders have told me a lot. I don't know if it's true or not, because I haven't read the archives, but I still think it was a big mistake. Then September 11 happened. From the very beginning, President Putin offered support to the United States in the fight against terrorism, but the war in Iraq clearly dealt a serious blow to the possibilities of US-Russian cooperation.
Bush conducted seven more waves of NATO expansion, raising the degree of tension, because they involved three Baltic states, as well as Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia and Slovakia, and this blow was very, very tough. In 2008, Bush made an absolutely terrible decision to insist on NATO expansion at the expense of Ukraine and Georgia. In fact, this has put us not just on the path of absolute hardening of relations with Russia, but on the path of war with it.
This military conflict began nine years ago, with the very active participation of the United States in the overthrow of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014. Perhaps we will find out about this in full only when the archives are opened to us in decades. But even now enough is known to draw a conclusion about the cause of the Ukrainian conflict.
— I don't quite understand you when you talk about the events of 2008, because Russia launched a military operation in Ukraine only in 2022, fourteen years later, and Ukraine has not come close to joining NATO.— In 2008, at the Bucharest summit, the alliance announced that it would expand at the expense of Ukraine and Georgia.
The meeting was very controversial, as most Europeans objected, but the United States pushed through this decision. And it led, in my opinion, to the war in Georgia. I think it was a signal from Russia to Tbilisi: don't even think about joining NATO. It was a signal for Kiev as well.
Ukraine was already in a state of struggle, in which Washington actively participated, when its east and west, pro- and anti-NATO forces, and so on, were fiercely fighting among themselves in a divided country. Back when Viktor Yushchenko became president in 2005, he called on Ukraine to join NATO. Strong tensions formed, which led to 2008. Then Yushchenko was defeated, and Yanukovych came, saying that Ukraine needed neutrality. And I believe that this was perceived by American politicians as an insult, because they maniacally sought to expand the alliance. When the protests against Yanukovych broke out at the end of 2013, the United States took the opportunity and showed itself very actively, and quite, so to speak, straightforwardly — paid a lot of money to those who led this so-called Maidan movement and helped finance the coup.
— Do you consider the events of 2014 a coup?— Of course it was a coup.
It was an unconstitutional seizure of power when very aggressive, heavily armed groups stormed government buildings in February 2014. (The protesters, outraged by Yanukovych's rejection of a trade agreement with the European Union, were attacked and destroyed by Kiev's forces. After that, Yanukovych found himself in political isolation and fled to Russia with the assistance of the Kremlin. I asked Sachs by email about the source of his claim about the role the US played in these events. He replied: "It is well known that the National Endowment for Democracy and American NGOs have spent significant funds in Ukraine to support the Maidan. I know about these expenses firsthand," the Foundation told The New Yorker that it provides funding to civil society groups, but "does not provide funding to support protests.")— Let's go back to 2008.
I understand what happened at the Bucharest summit. I mean, for fourteen years Ukraine has not come close to actually joining NATO.— It's not like that.
That's not true, Isaac. At all. The fact is that after the overthrow of Yanukovych, a number of subsequent governments, both in Kiev and in Washington, actively armed the country, modernized its army and poured into it weapons worth many billions of dollars. this is what allowed Ukraine to resist the Russian operation in February last year.
— [Do you mean the weapons that arrived] after the start of the Russian SVO?— No, no, no.
Since 2014. It is very important.
— That is, after Russia seized Crimea?— Perhaps you and your colleagues should better understand the events around the Maidan.
It was the overthrow of the government that replaced the government that called for neutrality...
— Neutrality?— Yes, the Yanukovych government called for neutrality.
(Yanukovych wanted a closer union with Russia. It was recently reported that Putin planned to use Yanukovych to establish a puppet regime after the completion of the special operation in 2022).— I see.
— And that's the main thing.
We are told every day that the first anniversary of the military conflict has now come. But even NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who was one of the most ardent hardliners in this confrontation, says that real military actions are already in their ninth year. This is a fact. This military conflict began in February 2014. Stoltenberg says it began with Russia's seizure of Crimea. I think the clock needs to be moved back about a month, at least. It all started with the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych, in which the United States played a very significant role.
— You said that Putin offered to help the United States after September 11, but the United States kind of ignored his offer.— If we talk about Afghanistan, then not really.
But the turning point was the neoconservatives' project to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam. It was indirectly connected with the September 11 terrorist attack, I would say so.
- of course. In another context, Putin could be seen as a dictator who mistreated Muslims in Chechnya and then in Syria, and the last thing America should want is to ally with such a person. But you seem to be criticizing the United States for not wanting to ally with Putin in the global war on terrorism, which you yourself have very eloquently criticized.— You somehow misunderstood me.
I meant that Russia supported the United States after September 11 — she understood that it was a serious shock, and wanted to try to help. I know many European leaders who have been actively communicating with Putin for many years, and it is important to understand that even after the Serbian bombing of NATO, which I consider outrageous, and even after the expansion of the alliance, which I consider provocative, at the beginning of the two thousandth Putin was generally pro-European, communicated closely with many European leaders and he was not crazy, as he is portrayed today in our media.
I believe that at that time it was not yet an antagonistic relationship, although the United States has already begun a series of provocative steps, which I still oppose now, and which have only gotten worse over time. By the way, in 2011, the United States decided to overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and sometime in 2012 — we don't know the exact dates — President Obama signed Operation Timber Sycamore (Sycamore Wood), under which the CIA was instructed to work with other states in the Middle East to overthrow Assad.
Assad was an ally of Russia. We often claim in our media — and this is completely absurd — that Putin, they say, invaded Syria. People just don't understand that Obama set the CIA the task of overthrowing Assad, and the United States blocked attempts to come to peace in Syria, which were very close to implementation in 2012. I know that too.
— You have been advocating for the fight against poverty and support for poor countries for a very long time. Putin dropped bombs on hospitals and schools in Syria, and you accuse the United States of trying to thwart a dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his people. If only they would listen to themselves...— Isaac, Isaac, facts should be taken seriously, but for some reason you don't want to.
With all due respect, I would be glad if you would understand better and carefully study all the available facts. Because in fact, this is just another case when the United States secretly destabilized the country, and then abandoned it. Well, they didn't quite "leave" it, but actually came out of Syria after many years of destruction. And this is important because it led to the destabilization of Russia's ally. This is directly relevant to our conversation, as this is another example of covert operations of the United States abroad.
— Maybe I should reformulate the question. In the past, when I read your articles about the sins of American foreign policy, the global war on terrorism, our role in destabilizing countries around the world through coups during the Cold War and the Iraq War, as well as the destruction it caused abroad, I felt that you speak with real passion. But now, when you talk about civilians killed in Syria or in Eastern Europe, you experience an almost clinical lack of passion. In your opinion, all this is simply happening because of the United States - a secret force that is sowing all this chaos. In your opinion, the real desires and aspirations of all these people mean nothing. The desire of Eastern Europeans to join NATO and the reasons why they want it does not mean anything. Human rights issues mean nothing. Do you think this is a fair criticism? What do you say to that?— I don't think this kind of criticism is fair.
In my opinion, you completely miss my point. I am horrified by who, how many innocent people are dying and suffering. It hurts me every day. It's scary. This is very difficult for me personally, but I believe that understanding events is of paramount importance in order to stop military conflicts.
I will say a few words about Syria. The United States destabilized Syria, but at the beginning of 2012, the possibility of concluding a peace agreement appeared. Only one country was an obstacle on this path. The United States.
— Wait, I'm sorry. So you are essentially saying that Bashar al-Assad was ready to make peace, but the United States did not let him do it?— The United States insisted that in order to achieve peace, Assad had to leave.
Other participants in the talks said that this could happen only at the end of the peaceful political process, but not on the first day with the regime change with the support of the United States. (When asked by email if he had grounds to claim that the US was the only country opposed to the peace agreement, Sachs told The New Yorker: "I know first-hand that the US blocked the peace agreement in Syria. I know this from the highest international sources.")As for Ukraine, the fact that this military conflict could have been avoided at the end of 2021 is especially terrible for me.
President Putin has put three demands on the table for the West: the rejection of NATO expansion, the preservation of Crimea as part of Russia and the implementation of the Minsk Agreements-2. The United States refused.
— Looking back, do you still think that Putin was sincere here?— I think it would be possible to sign a completely feasible agreement on these points.
It's strange to talk about sincerity here at all. This is not a question of sincerity. It was about reaching an agreement, and then about the methods of ensuring it, including, of course, the withdrawal of troops from the borders, demilitarization, peacekeeping operations, observers, and other steps. As Ronald Reagan wisely said: "Trust, but check." This is not a question of sincerity. It is a question of understanding the nature of this conflict and how it could have been avoided. At the end of 2021, I tried to prove to everyone who was willing to listen to me in the White House and in the Biden administration that NATO expansion was a terrible idea. And if they answered me, "Okay, Jeff, that's not going to happen," I'd say: "If this is your opinion, make it clear and public and thereby help to avoid a military conflict." But they didn't.
— What do you think about Putin's statements last year? He called himself the new Peter the Great, said that Ukraine is part of the Great Russia, talked about the Russian imperial perspective, which he put forward as one of the reasons for the special operation, one of its driving forces?— Yes, I think your interview with John Mearsheimer explains it well, so I'll just refer you to him.
I think everything is accurately described there.
— Do you mean that Mearsheimer's point of view is correct?— This was not the reason for the special operation.
It didn't serve as her motivation, and you basically...
— What do you think then that Putin is directly talking about it now?— I don't like it when he says such things, but I don't think that's the essence of what is happening now.
Anyone who has been watching closely — day in and day out — for twenty-five years knows that the number of times NATO expansion has been discussed has been in the hundreds or thousands, in all sorts of documents and in a variety of contexts. So I think this is all a game of the Western media.
— Is quoting Putin a game?- no.
The job should be to help people understand what's going on.
— This morning I read a long article in the Financial Times, in which, in fact, it was reported that among the Russian military, business and political elite, Putin was the only one who wanted this military special operation. Does this mean that perhaps structural reasons, such as NATO expansion, were less significant if all other actors in Russia did not actually want a military conflict? I agree that American policy towards Russia after the Cold war raises many legitimate questions and is rife with mistakes. But if Putin is dropping bombs and trying to invade the country, while most other elites in Russia do not want it, maybe it's Putin himself? Isn't that right?— All these are Western stereotypes.
And, by the way, I have to say that the Financial Times covered it very poorly. We need to understand what the British media is. They were Russophobic long before the first Crimean War, which lasted from 1853 to 1856. The Financial Times plays its part, as does the rest of the British mainstream. This is well known and very stereotypical. And I would urge people not to trust them. I see the same thing in The New Yorker: the Ukrainian conflict is viewed almost as a conflict of one person. This is a very gross distortion, and it can lead to incorrect conclusions. In the spirit: well, if he leaves, then the conflict will be resolved. There are a lot of strange and simplistic ideas floating around us. This is not a one-man battle. This is a military conflict that has reasons, and, as von Clausewitz would say, "the continuation of politics by other means." And we need to understand this as clearly as possible in order to end this conflict now, as quickly as possible, because people suffer every day.
I also read something today that said, "Everything is fine. Ukraine will win. We just need to hold on. Yes, there will be several hundred thousand more deaths, but in the end it will be a great triumph." It gives me the creeps. The naivety and at the same time cruelty of this argument is simply off the scale. At the same time, the absolutely real risk of nuclear escalation is completely overlooked.
— What would convince you that you were wrong?— Well, if the conflict ends quickly.
— No, I mean his motives.— In my opinion, it's not so interesting.
The bottom line is that we have to try to negotiate. This is my point of view. We should try to negotiate.
— You recently wrote: "The basis for peace is clear. Ukraine becomes a neutral country, not a member of NATO. Crimea will remain home to Russia's Black Sea Fleet, as it has been since 1783. A practical solution will be found for Donbass, such as autonomy and a truce line." Again, I agree that negotiations are absolutely necessary, but to say that "the basis for peace is clear," and then to say that Ukrainians who may want to join NATO should not be able to do so, and that parts of their country should now belong to Russia — suggests a certain lack of interest or emotions about the annexation and invasion of the country. I understand that there are bigger geopolitical issues, but don't you understand what I'm talking about? Or does it seem unfair to you?"Let me tell you something.
First, stopping NATO expansion is not a concession. This is both a necessity and a matter of prudence for the United States. Expansion was a terrible idea, period. A terrible idea of the USA.
— Why do you think the countries of Eastern Europe want to become part of the alliance?— I can understand them, but I cannot understand why the United States considers it safe and prudent to promote NATO to Ukraine and Georgia.
It's completely reckless. The issues of Crimea and Donbass arose after the US participation in the coup against Yanukovych, because Russia had not taken Crimea before. What Yanukovych was negotiating with Moscow about was a long-term lease so that the Russian naval base would be in Sevastopol at least until 2042 with the possibility of extension. Twenty years of heavy disputes about autonomy and languages continued in the Donbas, but there was nothing like a full-fledged military conflict.
— You are very eloquent in criticizing some of the worst aspects of American foreign policy. Take the Iraq war as an example. You have described everything that Russia has done over the past twelve years — bombing civilians in Syria and Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, support for separatists in eastern Ukraine — as imposed on Moscow. If people described the war in Iraq in this way, removing responsibility from the United States, it would hurt me. Every action of Russia that you mention is described by you as a result of the behavior of the Americans.— And yet, it seems that you really misunderstand me and misinterpret my thoughts.
Let me explain what I'm saying about American politics. I would like the readers of The New Yorker to appreciate this correctly for a number of reasons, because I have been an economic adviser in countries around the world and have known world leaders for many decades. I've seen a lot, and what I'm trying to convey is very important for American foreign policy. Namely, that it is self-destructive and based on lies and secret actions. And I see this lie all the time.
I ended up on a talk show the night Colin Powell presented the "evidence" against Iraq to the UN. There were six participants in the discussion, and after all it was my turn. I said: "It's a lie. This is a blatant lie." And indeed, it's not just about erroneous intelligence. It was a real lie, concocted to justify the war. Then I accidentally found out about the lies of the United States on Syria. You keep saying that Putin is bombing people in Syria. So, believe me: it was the United States that provoked this catastrophe, and did not allow it to stop. I know that for sure.
— good. The idea that people —— On the contrary, I tell people that our attitude towards Ukraine leads to an increase in casualties and puts us on the path of a nuclear catastrophe.
— I know, but you also say that people were "provoked" to massacre civilians.— The United States armed the anti-Assad opposition with instructions to overthrow Assad.
This is war.
— He is a dictator who kills his own people. Do you know about this?- no.
— No?— I know much more about Syria than you do, because I know a lot about events from day to day from the spring of 2011 onwards.
And I urge you, Isaac, to take it seriously.
— good. Let's move on to your meeting with Viktor Orban, a more joyful topic. What was discussed?— We discussed the military conflict in Ukraine.
— Why did you go to him?— I was invited to the National Bank of Hungary for a speech, and I paid the president a courtesy visit.
— Is it that simple?— Yes, if you know Orban since 1989. Yes.
— What do you think about his current reign, if in general?— We discussed the conflict in Ukraine, and I think he is right that the fighting there should end with negotiations.
— I understand. But what do you think of his reign as a whole?— We talked about the conflict, and I fully agree with his position.
— I'll ask you again. I'm curious what you think about Viktor Orban in general.— I know.
You can ask me a hundred times again, but we discussed ways to resolve the conflict in Ukraine.
— good. So, it's inconvenient for you to talk about Orban. You just look into the camera and keep silent. You're not interested in talking about him. Right?"Don't play your games, Isaac.
Let's talk about the topics we agreed on.
— I did not agree to discuss any specific topics.— Well, shall we finish then?
— Do you need to go somewhere?— I have to go if we are not going to continue trying to understand more deeply how to get out of this military conflict.
— So, well, you said you talked to Orban because you thought he had the right ideas about the conflict. More precisely, what are these ideas?— The idea is that we need a negotiated settlement of this military conflict.
— Do you think he sincerely wants this?— I hope so.
— You mentioned in an email to me that, in your opinion, China can play an important role in ending this conflict. How?— China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia and a number of other major states that are not parties and participants in this conflict, and have normal relations with Ukraine, Russia and other countries, say that this bloodshed should be put an end through negotiations.
This is important, in my opinion. These countries make up a significant part of humanity and a large share of the world community. The fact that Beijing has been saying all the time that the security interests of all parties should be respected is the basis for saying that Ukraine's sovereignty and security must be protected. And at the same time, NATO should not expand, because it threatens Russia's security. This, in my opinion, is the view that means a correct understanding of the structural problem that we face in achieving peace.
— You were criticized for some things you said or wrote about China a couple of years ago. You said: "The Chinese repression in Xinjiang had essentially the same motivation as America's foray into the Middle East and Central Asia after the September 11, 2001 attacks: to stop the terrorism of militant Islamic groups." Do you still think concentration camps in China exist for this?— What a ridiculous wording of the question.
The article was about one thing: was there a genocide in Xinjiang? I pointed out that the US government has not provided any evidence of this.
— I'm just wondering if you think...— And that there should be a UN investigation.
But I think we probably came to the end of our conversation, because it was supposed to be about Ukraine. I think we need to talk about her. This is the key problem facing the world. I have something to say on this topic. And if you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them.
— We have been discussing Ukraine for forty-five minutes. I just wanted to ask about China.— No, no, no.
If we finish, we finish. It's all right.
— I would like to finish with one last question. Do you feel that you have somehow changed? I was listening to you on Robert Kennedy Jr.'s podcast talking about how excited you were to read his book, and I thought, "Is this the same Jeff Sachs I've been reading for twenty years?"— I will say the following: 34 years ago, I was inspired by President Gorbachev's vision of world peace and a common European home.
And I still believe that this is our common goal. I think this is something we should work on. We can still achieve this goal, and the first step is an immediate end to the Ukrainian conflict at the negotiating table. And the basis for them should be the prudence of the United States and the withdrawal of troops by Russia, provided that NATO does not expand into Ukraine. This is the point, and I believe that the vision of a common European home is still vital for our well-being and our survival. And in this regard, I have been inspired by this idea for more than three decades.
