As the situation in Ukraine goes from bad to worse – militarily, economically and politically – and as US support slowly dries up, European leaders who have staked their reputations on ensuring a Ukrainian victory are scrambling for options that might conceivably prevent a worst-case outcome. By now it is well known that neither the US nor Europe has the military production capacity to give Ukraine what it needs to defend itself against continued Russian progress on the battlefield and in the air. And it has long been known that Ukraine faces a manpower crisis, with gangs of recruiters dragging unwilling men off the street before sending them off with little training to the front line. By contrast, since February 2022 Russia has placed its economy on a war-footing and ramped up its military production to levels not seen since the Cold War, while its incentive-based recruitment efforts – among a population four times that of Ukraine – have gradually built up its forces with sufficiently trained men.

Economically and politically the contrast is similar. Russian leaders themselves have been surprised by how well their economy is doing under an avalanche of Western sanctions, while Ukraine in turn has become increasingly dependent on Western aid, not only militarily but also financially. And Western aid is growing weary. Politically, President Zelensky – once seen as a Churchillian figure – is becoming increasingly unpopular at home and abroad, while President Putin – despite endless predictions to the contrary – continues to enjoy unprecedented approval ratings at home and good relations with most non-Western leaders abroad. Against this background it’s not hard to see why President Trump’s efforts to manoeuvre Putin into a ceasefire have failed, nor why US leaders are keen to disengage from the situation, nor why European leaders – despite the bluster – are reportedly despairing behind the scenes.

World-renowned economics professor Jeffrey Sachs is well placed to bring clarity and insight to this increasingly fragile and dangerous situation. He has personally known and advised many European leaders – including the presidents of Ukraine, Russia, Poland and other former Eastern-bloc countries as they tried to rebuild their economies in the 1990s after the Cold War. Since that time he has authored numerous books and served in various high-profile posts, a number of which he still holds today – including Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, and academician of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences at the Vatican. Before joining Columbia University he was an economics professor at Harvard University for over twenty years. From 2001-18 he served as Special Advisor to three consecutive UN Secretaries-General: Kofi Annan, Ban Ki-moon, and António Guterres. He continues to maintain personal contact with many current world leaders, and was himself twice on the list of Time magazine’s 100 most influential world leaders. You can read more about him here.

As Professor Sachs has been a consistent and outspoken critic of US foreign policy – particularly in regard to target areas of US interventionism such as Ukraine, China and the Middle East – I wanted to hear what he had to say about the current volatile situation in Ukraine and how he thinks it will end. As he’s personally acquainted with many European leaders I also wanted to hear from him why so many of them have been willing to subordinate Europe’s own interests to the aims of the US foreign policy establishment. Before ending I also asked him about America’s seemingly unlimited support for Israel’s wars, why China is seen as an enemy, and his take on the new Pope. The interview was conducted via email.

What do you make of President Trump’s recent announcement that the US will now be sending some of its most powerful and sophisticated weaponry to Ukraine via purchase by Europe?

The bad news is that the US is ready to continue to supply instruments of death rather than to intensify diplomacy as is truly needed.  The good news is that Europe has little purchasing power for these weapons, many countries have already opted out, and the US has little spare capacity in the arsenal.  In short, I think that Trump likes to sell arms – that’s a major (idiotic) job of any US president – but it probably won’t make much difference in practice. 

Trump also threatened 100% secondary tariffs on countries doing business with Russia if no deal is made within 50 days. How do you foresee this actually playing out? Will India, for example, really stop buying Russian oil? Will it deter Russia?

I don’t believe that these so-called secondary tariffs are enforceable or practicable.  It’s bluster, not policy, as far as I can see. 

In your talk at the European Parliament in February you emphasised the need for Europe as a whole to have its own foreign policy – particularly one that is independent of US foreign policy. You made the further point that European leaders should be talking to their Russian counterparts, and that Europe should be the main economic trading partner of Russia. Why is it in Europe’s interest to distance itself from US foreign policy and make every effort to normalise relations with Russia?

The first rule of good economics is to get along with one’s neighbors.  The divisions of the Cold War hurt everybody on both sides of the Iron Curtain.  In fact, the entire Cold War could probably have been avoided – at least according to many historians and diplomats with whom I agree – if the US had accepted German neutrality and demilitarization rather than the remilitarization of Germany at the core of NATO.  It is absurd, tragic and dangerous to rebuild a new Iron Curtain, this time by the warmongering, diplomatic failings, and exaggerated fears of the European Union. 

The EU refuses to recognize Russia’s legitimate security interest to insist on the neutrality of Ukraine and the South Caucasus countries, rather than their membership in NATO.  This is Europe’s blind spot.  The EU rails against Russia, without recognizing its own reckless and provocative behavior – using NATO in 1999 to break Serbia in two, and then establishing a giant NATO base in Kosovo; supporting a violent coup in Ukraine in 2014; failing to enforce Minsk II; insisting (until today!) on NATO enlargement to Ukraine; and siding with the US neocons at every turn, even when the US destabilizes Europe’s security by abandoning the nuclear arms control framework. 

In short, EU so-called diplomacy is an awful failure.  It is just warmongering, not real diplomacy.  The result is a new Cold War, in which Europe itself is now suffering both economic decline and rising insecurity. 

Why has the US, for decades it seems, consistently opposed any close economic relationship between Russia and Germany, or between Russia and Europe more generally?

The US Grand Strategy is global hegemony.  This quest for hegemony (or “full-spectrum dominance”) is repeatedly asserted in all major US foreign policy and military documents.  Europe is utterly foolish to back US hegemony.  That delusional quest for hegemony begs for trouble. 

One of the US stratagems is to keep Europe subservient to the US military-industrial complex.  That means the US taking steps to prevent a close economic relationship of the EU and Russia.  Alas, the EU (including Germany, which is hardest hit) has long played along, even remaining silent about the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline.   

Why can’t Trump – the peace candidate – say plainly what the role of the United States has been in instigating and continuing the war in Ukraine?

Trump is a weak president, and he doesn’t have the clarity of purpose, the eloquence of leadership, and strength of vision to resist the deep state, which pushes for more war, or at least against a true peace agreement.

Why did countries like France and Germany, which for a long time made some effort to oppose American adventurism in Ukraine, ultimately sign on to it so enthusiastically? And this, even when it was clearly harmful to their own interests – as in the example you just mentioned, Germany’s silence in response to the Nord Stream destruction. You know many European leaders personally – what do you sense is behind this?

I think that in the end of the day, most European politicians think they won’t last in power if they are openly opposed to the US.  The US works very hard to promote pro-US politicians, and to bring down politicians who take an independent line.