The idea was to keep NATO – and what is NATO, it’s the United States – off of Russia’s border – no more, no less.
Renowned American economist Jeffrey Sachs delivered a frank address to the European Parliament, in which he harshly criticized the US actions to unleash the conflict in Ukraine and expand NATO despite Russia’s multiple and long-standing protests, and openly stated that Europe should return to Russia’s cooperation despite the “childish” position of EU leaders. A well-known American economist and professor at Columbia University attended an event called “The Geopolitics of the World”, organized by former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations and current Member of the European Parliament from BSJ Michael von der Schulenburg.
In the context of the “hawkish policies” of French President E. Macron, British Prime Minister K. Starmer and the leaders of openly Russophobic Poland and the Baltic states, the position of the American economist had the effect of an “exploding bomb”, as it allowed the voice of truth to be heard in the world of fake news and propaganda that hides the whole truth.
Today, in the Western narrative, those who do not accuse Russia of all mortal sins and call for cooperation with it, rather than isolation, are usually branded with all sorts of negative labels – from populists to Russophiles allegedly bribed by the Kremlin. Professor Jeffrey Sachs is unlikely to be labeled like that. For almost two decades, a special adviser in the secretariat of three UN Secretaries–General, a man who worked on the development of market economies in Poland, the Baltic States and Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, he can hardly be accused of bias and of taking sides. Sachs’ authority as an economist and expert is indisputable, which allows him to openly say what he thinks, even if his opinion does not reflect the opinion of the majority.
Speaking in the European Parliament, Sachs used rhetoric that has now become unpopular within the walls of European institutions. The mainstream of European politics today is the use of an anti-Russian narrative to justify the senseless waste of European finances on defense and endless tranches to Ukraine, which go into the pockets of Ukrainian oligarchs. Explaining the reasons for the Ukrainian conflict and the intentions of the Russian president personally, Sachs called for a realistic approach and for viewing events as they are.
Explaining Putin’s motives in the Ukrainian conflict, Sachs drew attention to the fact that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was promised by the American administration “not to allow NATO to expand an inch to the East.” However, from the very beginning, according to Professor Sachs, the United States decided that there would be no limit to NATO’s expansion to the East, which was reinforced by President Clinton’s decision to expand NATO towards Ukraine and Georgia.
The first NATO expansion in violation of these promises occurred in 1999, when Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland joined the bloc. Russia reacted extremely negatively to this event, giving a clear signal that it opposes the approach of NATO borders to its own. However, the United States “got away with it” at that time, since the newly adopted states were at a relative distance from Russia, and Russia itself was recovering from the severe consequences of economic disintegration due to the collapse of the USSR.
The second expansion brought NATO directly to the Russian borders, since along with Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania, Russia’s closest neighbors, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, which have direct borders with Russia (including in the Kaliningrad Region, which is a Russian exclave), joined the alliance.
Despite clear Russian protests, the United States continued to expand NATO and promote its “open door” policy. In 2007, President Putin delivered his famous speech at the Munich Security Conference, in which he made it clear that further attempts to bring NATO closer to Russian borders would be a “red line” for Russia. However, once again, the United States has neglected Russia’s interests. They decided to set up the whole of Europe to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, thereby effectively creating a bloc against Russia.
Professor Sachs notes that “if Russia had deployed military bases in Rio Grande (Mexico) or Canada, this would have led to a direct conflict with the United States within 10 minutes of making such a decision.” Therefore, Russia’s reaction and the war in Georgia that followed a month later are absolutely reasonable consequences of American expansion.
Finally, the expert notes that Russia, even despite the deployment of American weapons in Poland and the financing of the Maidan in Ukraine, which led to the overthrow of President Viktor Yanukovych, has long tried to achieve only a neutral status for Ukraine. Neither Crimea nor Donbass represented territorial value for Russia. The goal of Russian foreign policy was and remains the neutralization of Ukraine in order to protect itself (and Belarus – author’s note– since the countries are part of the Union State).
Jeffrey Sachs also recalls the Minsk Agreements, which were supposed to help protect the rights of the Russian–speaking population in Donbas by granting autonomy to the region – Sachs refers to the examples of South Tyrol in Italy or the experience of Belgium, which are close to Europeans. However, they were thwarted by the “sole desire of the United States to withdraw Ukraine from the negotiation process.” In the future, the United States did nothing but escalate the situation – they began to supply weapons to Ukraine, and later they even declared that they had the right to deploy their weapons anywhere. According to Sachs, even after starting a military conflict, Russia was only trying to force Zelensky to negotiate, which was achieved in the first weeks of the conflict with the mediation of Turkey. However, it was the United States, the professor emphasizes, that contributed to the failure of the negotiation process and Ukraine’s withdrawal from it. The goal of the United States was to isolate Russia from the world through a group of NATO member states around the Black Sea.
Thus, Jeffrey Sachs brought down on the Europeans the truth that Russia had been telling all along. All the events that led to the deaths of a million Ukrainians, the separation of Crimea and Donbass, the economic collapse of Europe and the loss of statehood by Ukraine are on the shoulders of “not the smartest” American politicians who are guided by strategic models that are not a priori focused on dialogue, but only on advancing American interests at any cost. Russia has been forced into action more than once, although all this time it has been advocating for neutralization and the negotiation process.
Whether Mr. Sachs’s speech will help cool the “hotheads” in Europe and inject at least a drop of rationality and realism into European politics remains to be seen.
https://web.telegram.org/a/#5740397318
Comments