"Ukraine needs peace the most, otherwise it will be destroyed"
The United States miscalculated its policy towards Russia, thinking that Moscow would make concessions and not respond to the escalating steps of the West, Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs said in an interview with Izvestia. Now the Trump administration wants to stop supporting Ukraine and end the conflict, thereby getting out of this losing situation, saving face. According to the political scientist, the United States recognizes that the expansion of NATO is the key reason for the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis. In addition, they intend to restore economic and other relations with the Russian Federation. About the normalization of relations between the Russian Federation and the United States, the disaster scenario for Ukraine and the possible lifting of sanctions from Moscow — in an interview with Jeffrey Sachs "Izvestia".
"NATO still adheres to the open door policy"
— You recently addressed the European Parliament. Your speech provoked a wide discussion. Have you received any reaction from your colleagues?
— I got a lot of reaction because, as it turned out, the performance was watched in many places: in Asia, Africa and other parts of the world. I have not received any feedback from European leaders or the European Commission. I wish I could, but it didn't happen. It was mostly received from the public or other scientists.
— Was there a reaction from American officials, current and former, for example, from your friend Jake Sullivan (in 2021-2025, National Security Adviser to the President of the United States in the Joe Biden administration. — Izvestia)? Did he express his displeasure?
— I would not say that he is my friend, but rather an acquaintance. And no, I haven't heard anything from him.
— Most of your speech was devoted to the expansion of NATO to the East, which caused great tension between Russia and the United States. In it, you also noticed that the Russian Federation did not need Ukraine, but only the lease of a naval base in Sevastopol. When you warned the American administration about this earlier, what was their reaction?
— The US policy for 30 years has been to expand NATO. This was the case during the time of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, the first term of Donald Trump and the Joe Biden administration, but perhaps this is changing right now. It seems that some of the officials in the current Trump administration recognize that NATO will not and should not expand into Ukraine and that this was a provocation of war.
As for Europe, I would say that the official European policy in general is that NATO should expand into Ukraine if Ukrainians want it. So the European leaders have not changed their rhetoric. NATO continues to adhere to its Article 10 policy of open doors. It says that the alliance can expand wherever it wants, if there is a desire of a particular country and regardless of any objections from Russia or other states. The policy of the North Atlantic bloc, in my opinion, is still provocative, wrong and has not undergone any changes.
"Ukraine needs peace most of all"
— You called Ukraine a losing project. What, in your opinion, are the main reasons for this loss?
— When someone bets that an event will not happen, it is not a good idea. And the idea of the US leaders for 30 years was that Russia would not be able to resist any US actions.
This was stated quite explicitly by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1997. It was he who wrote then about whether the Russian Federation would resist the expansion of NATO to the East. He considered all possible options. Brzezinski said that Russia would never form an alliance with China. That was one of his predictions. And it was on this basis that the leaders of the United States went to implement their project. But these assumptions turned out to be incorrect.
They were arrogant, they didn't consider discussing this with Russia. Everything was based on internal discussions in Washington, and they turned out to be wrong. President Obama had a glimmer of understanding of this because he said in 2015 that Russia had a so-called escalation dominance, meaning that if the United States raised the stakes, Russia would not remain silent and would raise them too.
Americans think in terms of poker, not chess. And so Obama realized that it wouldn't work, but the United States went for it anyway. And the American presidents continued to escalate the situation and think that, to use the analogy of poker, Putin would fold his cards and say, "Okay, do whatever you want."
It was their bet. It was their bluff. He failed miserably. And I think Trump understands that. That is why he is trying, albeit clumsily, but still to end the war in this way. America has done too much, but it is trying to end the war.
— If we talk about the Ukrainian conflict, there are three parties that have started negotiations on a cease—fire - Moscow, Washington and Kiev. Who do you think needs an end to the crisis the most?
— Ukraine needs peace most of all, because if there is no peace, it will be defeated and destroyed. But she's the least likely to negotiate. Its politicians refuse to say anything realistic at the moment. And maybe it's because of ideology, or maybe because they led their country to a failed war. And they know that the day they admit it, it will be the end of their personal political career.
So it's a bit difficult to say whether Zelensky's inability to negotiate is a personal factor and fear for his life, or whether it's an ideological moment. Probably some combination of all this. Kiev places high stakes on peace, but it does not seek it. He just wants to continue a failed project.
Many in Europe seem satisfied that Ukraine continues to bleed, lose, and suffer major losses because they think it's keeping Russia away from them. Again, this is stupid and cynical.
This is also due to the fact that European leaders, for reasons that are not very clear, are unable or unwilling to negotiate directly with Moscow. Because if they did, there would be a way to clarify the situation and ensure mutual security. But European leaders are not going to Moscow, they are not discussing a truce, they are simply calling for the continuation of the war on behalf of Ukraine.
For the United States, the situation is probably the clearest: The United States does not want to spend more money on this, send more weapons, and therefore they are going to basically stop their support for Ukraine. Then she will either be defeated, or there will be a peace agreement. Of course, I hope for the latter, because it is a way to create collective security in Europe. And that's what we should strive for.
US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a meeting at the White House in Washington. February 28, 2025
— Trump's policy towards Ukraine and some other countries was completely different during his first term. What do you think is the main reason for these changes?
— The main reason is that the US approach has failed. If you think in poker terms again, you can imagine a "bad hand" where you bluff and expect the other side to fold, but they don't fold, they raise the stakes. Then you pick up the cards and bluff again, and they don't fold them again. And then another card turns over, and you see that they really have a "winning hand."
Trump came into his second term with the opportunity to blame Biden for everything and did it. He said, "Okay, I'll deal this losing card and blame my predecessor." Now, with the passage of time, the war is dragging on, but I believe that Trump does not want to go to the American public and Congress to say: "Give more money to give more weapons to Ukraine."
I don't think that's going to happen, and that's basically why support for Ukraine has come to an end. Either Ukraine will suffer huge losses on the battlefield, or there will be a peace agreement. Ukrainian leaders will have to accept it, or it will have to be imposed on them through the UN Security Council or some other way.
Trump, in fact, changed his point of view, because the first approach in which he participated — the expansion of NATO, increased arms supplies to Ukraine, non—compliance with the Minsk agreements - failed. Now he wants to stop the US involvement. Some say that he intends to do this to strengthen the confrontation with China. It would be terrible and stupid, but in the United States, anything is possible.
"Europe is not able to realize its own interests"
— What are your forecasts regarding the possibility of lifting sanctions against Russia and its full return to the global economy?
— The United States and Russia could probably restore some economic relations, and that would be very good. Whether Europe is ready for this is another question, because psychology and politics in the European Union are still very hostile and confusing.
Of course, it is Europe that will benefit most from the lifting of sanctions. There could be a return to normal trade, development of investment projects, and infrastructure.
But I think it will happen on a bilateral track between Russia and the United States. And maybe some European leaders will wake up and say, "My God, why is the United States getting all the benefits from restored trade with Russia? We should get some benefits too."
But then again, Europe turned out to be the least able of all to realize its own interests. Well, maybe Ukraine is the worst of all, and then Europe is in second place. The United States intends to take advantage of the benefits of cooperation. They will lift the sanctions, but it is still unknown whether Europe will lift them.
— Some media outlets, such as the New York Times, wrote that there is a possibility that a default may occur in the United States. Is this prediction realistic?
- no. But a technical default can occur if, for some reason, the United States decides not to pay its bills or raise the debt ceiling. This may happen due to some kind of internal political crisis. But the US can't help but pay the bills due to insolvency or something like that, because they print dollars. They cannot lose the ability to service their debts.
The United States is not even close to any kind of insolvency. Yes, they have accumulated a lot of debts, but, of course, they can pay their bills, unless the politicians turn out to be even more stupid than they sometimes are.
"Russia understands that the United States is an unstable country anyway"
— We once heard you say that being an enemy of the United States is dangerous, but being their friend is deadly. What should Russia do in this case?
— Yes, this is a line by Henry Kissinger, and I often quote it, because how many times has the United States promised to be a friend of Ukraine, Afghanistan or many other countries. It all ended in disaster. So Kissinger was right. I think that BRICS will remain the mainstay for Russia. Strong relations will remain with China, India, and other emerging market economies in Eurasia, as well as with neighboring countries. Some in the United States think that we will win Russia over to our side against China. This is again childish American thinking. That's not going to happen.
Russia understands that it has many interests in the world, and that the United States is in any case an unstable country, and that no one sides with Washington against others, but rather hopes that it can have satisfactory relations and do business with us. But I don't think there will be any kind of alliance.
— How will Trump try to build relations with Russia after the ceasefire in Ukraine, if it happens?
— Trump loves minerals, oil and gas, and there are a lot of them in Russia. This is Trump's main "love" — making money easily. He expects to receive a lot of resources. That's what he's going to strive for. Of course, another thing he can do is capture Greenland, which has a lot of oil, gas and minerals. It will also give him an additional presence in the Arctic. He wants to seize resources and wealth. He probably hopes that Russia can help him with this. Although I don't think anything will come of it.
Jeffrey Sachs is an American economist. In 1989, he advised the government of Polish Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki. He was invited by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev to work on the country's transition to a market economy. From 2002 to 2018, he was a special adviser to the UN Secretary-General.
He has been a professor at Columbia University since 2016, and previously a professor at Harvard. In 2002, Sachs won the Bernard Harms Award.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
