Jeffrey Sachs: Trump is a weak president unable to resist the deep state

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.

What can you tell us about the activities of CIA, MI6 and other Western intelligence agencies in connection with the war in Ukraine?

Since its founding in 1947, the CIA’s mission was to topple the Soviet regime and then after 1991 to weaken or divide Russia.  This aim therefore goes back more than 75 years.  The role of the CIA and MI6 in Ukraine has been pervasive.  There is little secret about this, other than in the operational details.  Even the New York Times, which is basically a mouthpiece of the US deep state, has written about the extensive CIA role.

How do you see this war ultimately ending? Is there still any hope for a negotiated settlement any time soon?

The war will end either with a peace agreement or with Russia’s capture of most of Ukraine (including Odessa).  The sooner the war ends at the negotiating table, the better for Ukraine.  That has been true since the Minsk II agreement.  Unfortunately, the security agencies of the US and Europe have wanted war to weaken Russia (in their imagination) more than they have wanted to help Ukraine.

Assuming the best-case scenario – that the war ends soon and some sort of long-term peace is secured – what does Ukraine’s economic future look like, in your opinion? What does the worst-case scenario look like?

If Ukraine ends the war on Istanbul-plus terms – meaning neutrality and the transfer of Crimea, the Donbas, and perhaps a bit more territory to Russia – then Ukraine will begin to recover based on trade and investment both with Russia and with the EU.  That is the best-case scenario for Ukraine. If Ukraine continues to reject concessions, then it will continue to lose territory and people.

What course of action would you advise for Slovakia in the current circumstances – a small NATO country bordering on Ukraine, trying to cultivate good relations with Russia but under Western pressure to fall in line?

I would suggest that Slovakia, Hungary, and other like-minded governments speak the truth: the war should end now at the negotiating table; Ukraine must be neutral; and a peace agreement is needed, not just a ceasefire.  Slovakia should insist on direct EU diplomacy with Russia, to seek a broader new security arrangement for Europe.

When it comes to US support for Israel, you have often decried the “blank check” sort of approach which has allowed Israeli leaders not only to involve the US in wars against their neighbours, but even to conduct genocide and assassinations with impunity. Why such unconditional support? We hear a lot about the Israeli lobby and links between CIA and Mossad, but there are other foreign lobbies and intelligence agencies. What is it about Israel?

The US has long been dominated or at least heavily influenced by Christian Protestant Evangelical ideology, which views Israel according to the Bible, not according to modern geopolitics.  Tens of millions of Christian evangelicals believe that Israel is part of God’s plan.  Amazingly, US foreign policy is heavily influenced by narratives from 2,500 years ago that neglect 20^th and 21^st century realities.  The result is tragedy.  Just as the Book of Joshua from the Old Testament is a book of genocide by the Israelites over the native Canaanites (ostensibly at God’s command, according to the text), many Evangelical Christian Protestants in the US believe that Israel has the God-given right to commit genocide today, as part of God’s plan.  It’s very strange.  It’s good to remember that modern Zionism, which started in the early 19^th century, was the handiwork of British Christian Protestant evangelicals.  Jewish Zionism only began at the end of the 19^th century.

Of course, I don’t want to overlook the more traditional explanations as well, including the direct lobbying by Israel and by US wealthy Jewish campaign donors, and the strong-arm tactics of Mossad, for example, the alleged blackmail schemes.  It’s a mix of factors, but the largest voter base for pro-Israel policies is the Christian evangelical voter base.

Was Israel’s security improved by its surprise attack on Iran? Or by the US bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities?

The so-called “12-day war” worsened Israel’s security.  The International Atomic Energy Agency was badly compromised.  Israel’s ardent desire for regime change in Iran was put on global display.  Mossad’s murderous ways were also displayed.  Nor did the attack on the nuclear sites end Iran’s ability to make an atomic bomb – if Iran so chooses.  Moreover, Iran’s ballistic missiles repeatedly penetrated Israel’s air defenses and displayed Israel’s vulnerability to missile attack.

Why is China in the crosshairs of US foreign policy? Is China a military threat – does it really have plans to invade Taiwan?

China threatens – indeed, China ends – US hegemony.  It thus “violates” the US Grand Strategy.  China, for that reason alone, raises the US animus.  The US security state thinks in win-lose terms – “who is on top” – rather than in win-win terms that can be achieved through US-China trade, diplomacy, and cooperation.

President Trump periodically makes threatening statements towards BRICS countries – why is the US so concerned about BRICS? How do you see the bloc developing over time?

Just as China is a threat to US hegemony, the BRICS are an affront to “Western” hegemony, where the “West” means the US, UK, EU, and Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.  Yet the BRICS will not be dissuaded.  Their aim is to create a true multilateralism in which the West no longer presumes to boss the rest of the world around, including the BRICS nations.

I believe in the past you’ve been invited to advise the Vatican on economic matters. What is your take on the new Pope, including his emphasis on peace, and his choice of the name Leo XIV – which clearly suggests an affinity with Leo XIII, the great formulator of Catholic social teaching?

One great bishop has described Pope Leo XIV as Pope Francis’s last great gift to humanity.  Clearly, Pope Francis saw in Pope Leo XIV a wise and committed pastoral leader who would continue the Church’s mission of peace, justice, and care for the “least among us.”  And yes, by choosing to follow in the footsteps of Leo XIII, the new Pope is clearly underscoring his commitment to the Church’s great social teachings, which draw so powerfully on the Beatitudes and the wisdom of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Transcript of interview in Slovak was published here.