Jeffrey Sachs on Nato

[ajay0]

American economist, academic and public policy analyst Jeffrey Sachs on Nato...

US-led NATO brings disastrous 'wars of choice' — Jeffrey D. Sachs

April 4, 2024, marks the 75th anniversary of the founding of NATO. As a product of the Cold War, NATO should have been disbanded, but over the years, it has served as a war machine and facilitated US hegemony. The Global Times talked to a number of experts and scholars to reveal how the US exploits

www.jeffsachs.org

The big mistake, thereafter, is that the US regarded the new peace as a unilateral victory of the US over Russia, not as a victory of peace together with Russia. When the Soviet Union disbanded in December 1991, and with Russia as the successor state of the Soviet Union among 15 new independent nations, the US decided to go back on its word and begin to expand NATO eastward. By now, there are 32 member states in NATO.

Indeed, American policymakers decided that the US was now the world's sole superpower in a unipolar world. Thus, an age of extraordinary US arrogance arose in 1992 that has taken us to many unnecessary and costly wars up to now. The US arrogance is still at the base of US foreign policy, even though it is now very clear that we live in a multipolar, not a unipolar, world.

Specifically, in the 1990s, the US decided that it would keep expanding NATO eastward to partially or entirely surround Russia, and thereby weaken Russia. NATO enlargement up to Ukraine and Georgia aimed to surround Russia's naval fleet in the Black Sea, weakening Russia's military power and geopolitical role. This was the same approach as Britain took in the Crimean War in 1853. It is the fundamental cause of the Ukraine War.

NATO is a military alliance led by the US. Since the US is not a defensive power, but an offensive one, so too is NATO. NATO has taken many offensive actions, such as in Serbia-Kosovo, the NATO occupation of Afghanistan, NATO's bombing of Libya, and also the NATO arming of Ukraine in the US-Russia proxy war in Ukraine.

In short, NATO should have been disbanded in 1990, and history would have been very different, far more peaceful, cooperative and productive, and with far fewer wars. NATO should have been replaced by the OSCE, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which includes countries of Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union. With NATO disbanded, and a strengthened UN, we probably would have avoided the disastrous US "wars of choice" since then.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Quick question: if NATO expansion was all part of a US-backed plan to weaken and surround Russia, then why was Ukraine denied NATO membership in 2008 (despite US support)?

I am always irritated when these kinds of analysts talk about NATO like an expansionist force rather than a voluntary treaty organisation. Never once asking WHY these countries choose to join, and refusing to analyse how Russia's CONSTANT MILITARY AGGRESSION, ELECTION MEDDLING AND OUTRIGHT ANNEXATION OF THEIR NEIGHBOURS might be a significant contributing factor.

Nah, it's all part of America deliberately undermining Russia, who are nothing but an innocent victim of international politics who never do anything wrong, ever. And again the old lie of "they totally promised not to expand eastwards!" despite no such thing being in any treaty, ever. Meanwhile, the treaties and mandates that Russia has broken by INVADING AND ANNEXING SOVEREIGN TERRITORY ON ITS BORDERS is somehow a lesser concern. Apparently, one thing said in a meeting once but never agreed upon as a conditional requirement in any treaty means more than both international law and actual, written agreements Russia itself signed and agreed to abide by. But when they break those agreements, nobody has any right to do anything about it, apparently.

Get this propaganda out of here.

 

[Koldo]

American economist, academic and public policy analyst Jeffrey Sachs on Nato...

US-led NATO brings disastrous 'wars of choice' — Jeffrey D. Sachs

April 4, 2024, marks the 75th anniversary of the founding of NATO. As a product of the Cold War, NATO should have been disbanded, but over the years, it has served as a war machine and facilitated US hegemony. The Global Times talked to a number of experts and scholars to reveal how the US exploits

www.jeffsachs.org

The fundamental cause of the Ukraine war was Russia losing control over Ukraine and deciding to no longer play the subtle political battle (between the USA and Russia) that was taking place in Ukraine.

 

[Stevicus]

American economist, academic and public policy analyst Jeffrey Sachs on Nato...

US-led NATO brings disastrous 'wars of choice' — Jeffrey D. Sachs

April 4, 2024, marks the 75th anniversary of the founding of NATO. As a product of the Cold War, NATO should have been disbanded, but over the years, it has served as a war machine and facilitated US hegemony. The Global Times talked to a number of experts and scholars to reveal how the US exploits

www.jeffsachs.org

Interesting article. I agree with his view that NATO should have been disbanded in 1990.

 

[F1fan]

Quick question: if NATO expansion was all part of a US-backed plan to weaken and surround Russia, then why was Ukraine denied NATO membership in 2008 (despite US support)?

Because Ukraine had a very corrupt, pro-Russia government. Obama famously required Ukraine to clean up their politics before they got military aid, especially financial aid. Biden was instrumental in this interaction and progress of the Ukraine government. These actions were the basis of Guliani's accusations of Biden's corruption during the 2020 election cycle. In reality it was Guliani and corrupt Ukraine officials that tried to get Trump back in, and help Russia take over Ukraine.

As we know Zelenskyy was elected in 2016 as a populaist reform candidate, and Trump tried to extort him when he took office in 2017, as we all remember as a basis for his first impechment. Ukraine becoming a member of NATO has been hampered by the invasion of Russia.

I am always irritated when these kinds of analysts talk about NATO like an expansionist force rather than a voluntary treaty organisation. Never once asking WHY these countries choose to join, and refusing to analyse how Russia's CONSTANT MILITARY AGGRESSION, ELECTION MEDDLING AND OUTRIGHT ANNEXATION OF THEIR NEIGHBOURS might be a significant contributing factor.

It's odd that Russia is so fearful of being next to a NATO country that it invades Ukraine so it can be right next to a NATO country. You'd think putin would be happy to have a non-NATO member in Ukraine as a buffer. So putin is full of it, and uses NATO as an excuse to be an aggressor.

Nah, it's all part of America deliberately undermining Russia, who are nothing but an innocent victim of international politics who never do anything wrong, ever. And again the old lie of "they totally promised not to expand eastwards!" despite no such thing being in any treaty, ever. Meanwhile, the treaties and mandates that Russia has broken by INVADING AND ANNEXING SOVEREIGN TERRITORY ON ITS BORDERS is somehow a lesser concern. Apparently, one thing said in a meeting once but never agreed upon as a conditional requirement in any treaty means more than both international law and actual, written agreements Russia itself signed and agreed to abide by. But when they break those agreements, nobody has any right to do anything about it, apparently.

Get this propaganda out of here.

You'd think putin would want NATO to take Ukraine as a memebr because that means it would have to follow strick rules set by NAYO, that is being non-aggressive. But putin is an aggressor, and full of crap.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because Ukraine had a very corrupt, pro-Russia government. Obama famously required Ukraine to clean up their politics before they got military aid, especially financial aid. Biden was instrumental in this interaction and progress of the Ukraine government. These actions were the basis of Guliani's accusations of Biden's corruption during the 2020 election cycle. In reality it was Guliani and corrupt Ukraine officials that tried to get Trump back in, and help Russia take over Ukraine.

As we know Zelenskyy was elected in 2016 as a populaist reform candidate, and Trump tried to extort him when he took office in 2017, as we all remember as a basis for his first impechment. Ukraine becoming a member of NATO has been hampered by the invasion of Russia.

It's odd that Russia is so fearful of being next to a NATO country that it invades Ukraine so it can be right next to a NATO country. You'd think putin would be happy to have a non-NATO member in Ukraine as a buffer. So putin is full of it, and uses NATO as an excuse to be an aggressor.

You'd think putin would want NATO to take Ukraine as a memebr because that means it would have to follow strick rules set by NAYO, that is being non-aggressive. But putin is an aggressor, and full of crap.

Just to add to this, I've found an open letter in response to Jeffrey Sachs - signed by over 300 economists and economics professors - originally published by the University of Berkeley, that contains the following observations:

"You repeatedly emphasize that the expansion of NATO provoked Russia (e.g., “NATO should not enlarge, because that threatens the security of Russia,” from your interview to Isaac Chotiner at the New Yorker from February 27, 2023).​

We want to alert you to a few facts. In 1939, it was the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany that invaded Poland. In 1940, it was the Soviet Union that invaded the Baltic countries. In 1940, it was the Soviet Union that annexed parts of Romania. In 1956, it was the Soviet Union that invaded Hungary. In 1968, it was the Soviet Union that invaded Czechoslovakia. Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Hungary or Czechoslovakia did not invade Russia or the Soviet Union. No threat emanated from these countries. But these countries were attacked by the USSR/Russia. This is why these countries wanted to join NATO. Since joining NATO, none of these countries have been attacked by Russia again.​

Just like these countries, Ukraine (whose military budget was a mere $2.9 bn in 2013, prior to Russia’s military aggression against it) wants to have security and peace. It does not want to be attacked again by Russia (whose military budget in 2013 stood at $68 bn). Given that Ukraine’s agreement to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994 in exchange for security “assurances” from the US, UK and Russia (!) did nothing to prevent Russian aggression, currently the only credible guarantee is NATO membership.​

We also want to draw your attention to the fact that Finland and Sweden applied for NATO membership in response to Russian aggression, and yet Russia did not complain about these two countries joining NATO. You do not seem to be particularly concerned about these two countries joining NATO either. This differential treatment of Ukraine vs. Finland/Sweden legitimizes “spheres of influence,” a notion that seems appropriate for the age of empires and not for the modern era.​

​

In your interview to Democracy Now! on December 6, 2022, you said: “So, my view is that […] Crimea has been historically, and will be in the future, effectively, at least de facto Russian.”​

We wish to remind you that Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 has violated the Budapest memorandum (in which it promised to respect and protect Ukrainian borders, including Crimea), the Treaty on Friendship, Partnership and Cooperation (which Russia signed with Ukraine in 1997 with the same promises), and, according to the order of the UN International Court of Justice, it violated international law. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia was supposed to protect peace, but instead Russia violated the foundational principle of the UN (Article 2 of the UN Charter: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”). Indeed, the entire world security architecture after WWII is based on the assumption that country borders (regardless of historical background) cannot be changed by force in order to preserve peace, as Kenya UN ambassador highlighted in his famous speech. If a nuclear power is allowed to annex territories of another country as it wishes, then no country in the world can feel safe.​

By insisting that Russia can keep Crimea, you are making an implicit assumption that if Russia is allowed to do that, it will leave the rest of Ukraine in peace. However, this is demonstrably not true, as Russia’s “de facto” ownership of Crimea over 2014–2022 did nothing to preclude its current aggression. The aim of Putin is to “ultimately solve the Ukrainian question,” i.e. to completely destroy Ukraine and annex its entire territory. Thus, by annexing Crimea he did not “restore the historical justice” — he just prepared a springboard for further military attacks on Ukraine. Therefore, restoring Ukraine’s control over its entire territory is crucial not only for the security of Ukraine but also for the security of all other nations (by reinforcing the lesson that aggressors should not get away with land grabs!).​

Also, you state that “Russia certainly will never accept NATO in Ukraine.” For your information, the UN Charter emphasizes the self-determination of peoples as a key principle. It’s not for Russia to decide what alliances or unions Ukraine will or will not join. Ukraine has its own democratically-elected government (not a dictatorship, like in Russia), and this government, after consultation with Ukrainian people, will decide whether Ukraine will or will not join NATO. Likewise, NATO countries have every right to decide for themselves whom they would like to welcome in their alliance."​

​

The whole letter can be read in full here, and is worth a read:

Open letter to Jeffrey Sachs on his position regarding Russian war on Ukraine

Dear Dr. Sachs, We are a group of economists, including many Ukrainians, who were appalled by your statements on the...

voxukraine.org

 

[Estro Felino]

Because the goal of the NATO has always been to surround and conquer Russia.

So the phoniness of certain Russophobic politicians from the Democratic Party makes me have such a reaction:

so it's impossible to admit a country that they want to conquer first.

 

[F1fan]

Because the goal of the NATO has always been to surround and conquer Russia.

So the phoniness of certain Russophobic politicians from the Democratic Party makes me have such a reaction:

so it's impossible to admit a country that they want to conquer first.

Not even close to being the truth. Not unusual.

 

[Estro Felino]

Not even close to being the truth. Not unusual.

Can we be honest for once?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Interesting article. I agree with his view that NATO should have been disbanded in 1990.

I don't. Would we really expect Russia, and what it is/was composed of as to the leadership to suddenly become the epitome of democracy and espousing freedom and equality for all - not that many democrats do such either. Russia had to show it could be trusted.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Interesting perspective. I suspect future historians will concur that many opportunities to advance the cause of peace and democracy were missed by all protagonists in the 90s. Boris Yeltsin is one of many characters who bears responsibility for the course Russia subsequently took, from one tyranny to another - not for the first time in her history, and probably not for the last either.

How October 1993 led to President Putin

 

[F1fan]

Can we be honest for once?

Based on your posts you can’t.

 

[Estro Felino]

Based on your posts you can’t.

I live in Europe.
I know what goes on here.
My country has always pushed the NATO to welcome Russia into the organization...

But a gang of bankers has always prevented that. Because they hate Putin.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't. Would we really expect Russia, and what it is/was composed of as to the leadership to suddenly become the epitome of democracy and espousing freedom and equality for all - not that many democrats do such either. Russia had to show it could be trusted.

I think they did at first. I think when they disbanded the Warsaw Pact and the USSR, they did so in good faith. Otherwise, why would they do that? There was no pressure on them or anyone putting a gun to their head. I think that action, in and of itself, showed they could be trusted. Indeed, it was the U.S. leadership who showed that they could not be trusted. U.S. militarism expanded, while theirs contracted. It wasn't until more than 20 years later that Russia did anything even remotely aggressive, when they took Crimea in 2014.

 

[soulsurvivor]

American economist, academic and public policy analyst Jeffrey Sachs on Nato...

US-led NATO brings disastrous 'wars of choice' — Jeffrey D. Sachs

April 4, 2024, marks the 75th anniversary of the founding of NATO. As a product of the Cold War, NATO should have been disbanded, but over the years, it has served as a war machine and facilitated US hegemony. The Global Times talked to a number of experts and scholars to reveal how the US exploits

www.jeffsachs.org

Sachs is right that the Bush administration was arrogant to propose in 2008 that Georgia and Ukraine would eventually join NATO. However, given Russia aggression, it is stupid to suggest NATO should have been disbanded in 1990. Jeffrey Sachs really talks like the Kremlin's mouthpiece. He seems to have no idea what kind of thug and gangster Putin is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My country has always pushed the NATO to welcome Russia into the organization...

That doesn't even make sense, if you have the slightest clue of how nato operates

 

[Augustus]

think they did at first. I think when they disbanded the Warsaw Pact and the USSR, they did so in good faith. Otherwise, why would they do that? There was no pressure on them or anyone putting a gun to their head.

Just to clarify, you are arguing that there was no pressure to disband the USSR and Warsaw Pact?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think they did at first. I think when they disbanded the Warsaw Pact and the USSR, they did so in good faith. Otherwise, why would they do that? There was no pressure on them or anyone putting a gun to their head. I think that action, in and of itself, showed they could be trusted. Indeed, it was the U.S. leadership who showed that they could not be trusted. U.S. militarism expanded, while theirs contracted. It wasn't until more than 20 years later that Russia did anything even remotely aggressive, when they took Crimea in 2014.

The revisionism of history is astounding.

"no pressure" to disband the USSR?
2014 was first time they did anything "remotely aggressive" since then?

Are you high?

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think they did at first. I think when they disbanded the Warsaw Pact and the USSR, they did so in good faith. Otherwise, why would they do that? There was no pressure on them or anyone putting a gun to their head. I think that action, in and of itself, showed they could be trusted. Indeed, it was the U.S. leadership who showed that they could not be trusted. U.S. militarism expanded, while theirs contracted. It wasn't until more than 20 years later that Russia did anything even remotely aggressive, when they took Crimea in 2014.

I think one problem, from my perspective at least, and as to which we might not know all for some time, is what exactly happened during the Gorbachev/Yeltsin years, and as to what forces lay behind any changes. I just don't know.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The revisionism of history is astounding.

"no pressure" to disband the USSR?
2014 was first time they did anything "remotely aggressive" since then?

Are you high?

Here are some links to some "not remotely aggressive" things Russia engaged in during that period:

Transnistria War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

War in Abkhazia (1992–1993) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

First Chechen War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Second Chechen War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Russo-Georgian War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, the period of 1990 - 2014 was a time of unparalleled peace emanating from the Russian Federation.