On May 16, 2025, the negotiations held in Istanbul between Russia and Ukraine broke down again due to territorial disputes. Against this backdrop, Europe, which is unwilling to accept the ceasefire conditions imposed by the United States but also unable to independently sustain Ukraine's long-term resistance, is falling into a dual dilemma of "war inertia" and "peace incapacity".
In a dialogue with Norwegian scholar Glenn Diesen, Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs sharply pointed out that the essence of the Russia-Ukraine conflict is the result of the United States pushing NATO's eastward expansion and squeezing Russia's strategic space. The US military-industrial complex extends the war to reap benefits, while European politicians are reduced to "parts of the security machine".
In the video, Professor Jeffrey Sachs further emphasized that the only way out for peace lies in recognizing Ukraine's neutral status, ending NATO's expansion, and restarting negotiations with Russia, rather than fantasizing about solving problems through military victory. Whether European leaders can achieve a shift in mindset will play a decisive role in this process.
Special thanks to Bilibili UP master Dong XiXi for authorizing the转载. Observer Network has compiled this dialogue into written form for readers' reference and study.
Glenn Diesen: Hello everyone, welcome to today's program. We have invited Professor Jeffrey Sachs to discuss the latest developments in the European situation.
Fifteen years ago, some still insisted that this century would belong to Europe. Now we are witnessing economic recession, intensified social contradictions, political turmoil, and the rise of war hysteria in Europe. At present, Europe is permeated with a moral panic or military Keynesianism that fuels the Ukraine war. Government statements are chilling. Our common friend Yanis Varoufakis once said that Europe is gradually becoming a continent of ignorance.
The Ukraine war indeed exacerbated many issues, but not all of them. How do you interpret and understand this major change?
Jeffrey Sachs: The EU was supposed to be a plan for promoting peace, but I feel no sense of tranquility at all. I've seen many theories trying to explain why Europe is performing so poorly, but I must admit that these explanations still puzzle me to some extent.
Measured by various standards, Europe enjoys the highest quality of life globally, the longest average lifespan, extremely low poverty rates, a well-developed welfare system, ample leisure time, and highly developed economies with a well-educated population. As you said, looking back 25 years ago, Europe seemed to have the right model, one that could not only continue but also promote worldwide.
I thought Europe would lead the way in diplomacy, spreading the vision of high-quality living to other parts of the world and building fair social foundations. However, today's Europe is struggling under the self-imposed costs during the Ukraine war. Why is this happening?
On one hand, I believe that the performance of European leadership has been generally disappointing, not just my judgment but also that of voters. In Europe, it's hard to find a popular political leader. Typically, the approval ratings of European leaders might only reach 25%, while disapproval rates far exceed 50%, and some places show indifference.
Clearly, these rulers lack public support. The more belligerent they are, the less popular they become. Therefore, leaders like Macron and Starmer, who have been at the forefront of the Ukraine war, are now among the least popular politicians.
Macron (right) and Starmer - Photo Source
People are shouting, "We want peace, we long for dialogue, we don't want war, and we don't want to see these sanctions boomerang on us," but European leaders persist in their views.
Not only do they persist, but they do so in a nearly obsessive manner. I think the main job of European leaders now is to meet Zelensky – meeting him in the morning, afternoon, flying somewhere to meet him in the evening, then flying to another city to meet him again.
It seems they don't need to work; these are almost their only activities. Why is this happening?
This is not something that can be easily explained away. Some say this is the war business, and most countries have military industries that fuel the fire of war – perhaps there is some truth to that. But I believe that the essence of European politics is largely political games played out between deep government intelligence agencies, much like in the United States. The CIA has long dominated U.S. foreign policy, or at least it serves as the decision-making center for America's long-term diplomatic strategy, nurturing those enduring plans.
We received a report today stating that the head of French intelligence requested a certain communications platform to ban a Romanian opposition figure. We know that security agencies have heavy workloads, and for decades, they have never ceased their confrontation with Russia, which remains part of their plans and continues today.
Many so-called political leaders are not true leaders at all; they are merely parts of this national security machine.
To be honest, I don't have a completely clear view of this, but I'd like to share an interesting perspective. When Tucker Carlson's interview with President Putin drew widespread attention, he asked President Putin why Germany took such actions. Putin replied, "I really don't understand why."
I must speak frankly: from a strategic perspective, the current performance of European leaders is terrible and unpopular. Let me add one point: Europe is structurally constrained. The EU project is essentially a temporary patchwork, a collection of 27 sovereign states, so this alliance lacks broad representation and lacks convincing institutional foundations.
In my opinion, most leaders of the European Commission are hardly trustworthy or respectable. It is precisely because of this that I believe Europe has lost its direction at this moment – belligerence will ultimately lead to self-destruction and cause great harm.
Glenn Diesen: To be honest, I can understand why Putin couldn't understand the Germans. I live in Europe now, but I can't make sense of these European studies either. They fill various policies with the idea of aiding Ukraine, policies that will only lead Ukraine to destruction.
Therefore, they come to the conclusion that weapons are the path to peace, while diplomacy and negotiation are acts of treason – the desire of the Ukrainian people for dialogue seems to be completely ignored. But whenever you mention this, they say: that's all propaganda from Putin. So when they ask, "Why can't Ukraine defend itself?" how would you refute this argument? Why can't we support Ukraine? How do you think this problem should be solved?
Jeffrey Sachs: Who are Ukraine's real friends? This is indeed a question worth pondering.
Three years ago, I and others said that the war should end at the negotiating table, which was almost achieved in Istanbul at the time. It was just weeks after Russia launched its special military operation on February 24, 2022, which began in 2014 when the Western-backed coup overthrew Yanukovych's regime. Nevertheless, as the situation escalated after February 24, 2022, Ukraine eventually sat at the negotiating table. President Zelensky expressed acceptance of neutrality, and both sides reached a draft agreement through negotiations. The war should have ended at that time. In fact, the negotiations were nearing completion, although there were controversial issues, negotiations were precisely to address these issues.
Through multiple channels, we have learned that we have obtained the draft agreement of April 15, 2022. At that time, I even flew to Ankara to directly learn about the events from the Turkish mediator – Ukraine withdrew from the negotiations under the instructions of the United States and the UK, and they were told to continue fighting.
At that moment, I thought, this is really bad, what good results could come from this?
Then I hosted an analysis session, where everyone agreed that peace must be based on the basic conditions determined by the Istanbul negotiations. At the time, we were called "Putin's defenders" and "Ukraine's enemies".
On March 29, 2022, Russia and Ukraine held face-to-face talks in Istanbul. Source: Russian News Agency Sputnik.
But contrary to popular belief, this is to save Ukraine from losing more territory, destructive destruction, and mass casualties.
In fact, since April 2022, Ukraine has made no progress during this period. In this catastrophic military conflict, Ukraine's casualties may have far exceeded one million. Ukrainian society has suffered profound losses due to population outflows and population reduction. During this period, no aid truly helped Ukraine.
Peace could have benefited Ukraine, but ultimately, Ukraine will lose more territory than it did at the Istanbul negotiations in April 2022. If NATO had clearly stated that it would not expand Ukraine's membership, the war could have been avoided, and Ukraine would not have lost any territory since February 2014. The West orchestrated a coup d'état, which was a shameless provocation tactic used by the U.S. security agencies and their allies across Europe.
So, who are Ukraine's friends? Our colleague and friend John Mearsheimer once pointed out that the United States led Ukraine astray with various promises, claiming it would make Ukraine a great power and so on.
However, history has repeatedly proven worldwide that this kind of imposition will ultimately fail, with Afghanistan being one of the latest examples. Therefore, those of us who advocated ending the conflict and achieving reconciliation through negotiations from the very beginning are essentially preventing NATO's eastward expansion, as this is a provocation of war.
If the United States keeps pressing Russia and proposes deploying military bases and missile systems near Russia's borders, peace cannot be achieved.
Glenn Diesen: As early as 2008, I warned that if NATO's eastward expansion reached Ukraine, Russia would rather destroy this country than allow such a situation to happen.
Jeffrey Sachs: What would the U.S. do if Russia or China built military bases near our coastlines? The answer is obvious, Glenn, you're right.
Now Trump is giving a way out, saying this is a failed project and a bad idea. Moreover, Trump was the first to publicly state that setting up so-called deep national security intelligence agencies is foolish. Meanwhile, what are Europeans doing? They are holding meetings every day, trying to keep this war going.
Glenn Diesen: The so-called diplomatic efforts of Europe seem to aim primarily at getting the U.S. back into the war mud. But this raises a question: why are they willing to take such risks in this confrontation with Russia? After all, the ultimate goal of NATO's eastward expansion to Ukraine is to build a so-called hegemonic system in Europe.
Now, as the era of dominating the world is coming to an end, the U.S. is making new adjustments. The U.S. openly states that it will lower Europe's priority, and they will have to shift their focus away from Europe. In your opinion, will this have a significant impact on the thinking of Europeans? Because some people seem very worried that the U.S. will abandon us.
On one hand, we see that Trump is a demon. On the other hand, we must strengthen cooperation as much as possible with Trump to ensure that the U.S. does not abandon us. But the whole thing does reveal a lack of clarity and insufficient reflection in Europe's strategy.
NATO member expansion in Europe from 1949 to 2024 - Wikipedia
Jeffrey Sachs: Indeed, the key point that both the U.S. and European establishments ignore or refuse to acknowledge is that besides NATO controlling Ukraine or Russia dominating Ukraine, there is actually a third possibility – called the buffer state or neutral state solution.
This arrangement can be traced back thousands of years. Throughout human history, when major empires or powers compete, a space is always left in the middle to prevent direct confrontation.
Therefore, remaining neutral is not shameful; it is a very wise policy that has been extremely effective for Sweden, Finland, Ukraine (when allowed to remain neutral), Austria, and Switzerland. These countries are among the most prosperous regions in the world. Every year, when I compile the global happiness index rankings with my colleagues, Finland always tops the list. However, Finnish President Stubb joked, reminding Ukraine to avoid following Finland's old path. Is this a joke? Finland achieved remarkable success as a neutral country.
Of course, American security agencies promoted politicians like Stubb, who were supported by the U.S. and maintained the U.S.-led hegemonic system, which is part of the American game.
But how do Europeans feel? Why hasn't a single leader emerged to clearly state that maintaining Ukraine's neutrality is the wise choice? Neither pro-Russian nor pro-NATO, thus keeping Ukraine neutral. This is not the worst scenario in the world, but the best outcome for everyone, as it keeps the flames of war away from us.
And now Europe is flustered and confused: My God, if we can't succeed in Ukraine, Russia will march to Paris again, just like during the Napoleonic Wars in 1812 and 1815. Only then was Europe invading Russia, not vice versa.
Trump is unique, but his influence within the U.S. is not entirely dominant. The deep state, neoconservatives, and hardliners in the U.S. continue to push for war policies and pressure Europe to organize Trump's return to rational decision-making, continuing the hostile stance toward Russia. This is the fascinating aspect of the current upheaval.
One of Europe's illusions is that it can regain U.S. support to continue the war policy. Perhaps some U.S. security departments are closely cooperating with their European counterparts. We know that some members of the Trump team, including General Kellogg and Mike Volz, are conveying a message to Europe: we must secure favorable terms, and the president will follow.
For thirty years, Western hegemony has continued to expand, mainly driven by U.S. hegemony. Therefore, achieving peace in this context is no easy task. Although Trump has attempted to do so, we are still waiting for rational voices and truths from Europe's major powers.
Europe has figures like Viktor Orban and Robert Fico who are speaking the truth. Candidates in Eastern Europe have been marginalized and disqualified from elections for sticking to the truth. But we are waiting for a leader in Germany, France, or the UK who dares to tell the truth.
U.S. President Donald Trump (left) and Russian President Vladimir Putin (right) had over two hours of conversation on Monday, May 19. Image source: AFP.
Jeffrey Sachs: Clearly, we need rational and clear thinking. The current European perspective is self-destructive, unpopular, and irrational.
Currently, Trump insists on reaching a peace agreement with Russia and ending U.S. involvement in Ukraine. From a practical standpoint, regardless of how hawkish elements in Europe shout, Ukraine's continued resistance is no longer feasible.
This war is about to end; it will neither end with Ukraine defeated by Russia nor as Russia's defeat described by Starmer, Macron, Merkel, and others. This war will ultimately end through negotiations. Therefore, this will give rise to a new realism.
Can Europe transcend this simple fact and truly recognize its own strategic situation? Does it not realize that instead of spending $80 billion on so-called "rearmament", it could buy a plane ticket to Moscow and start negotiations and diplomacy? If they are unwilling to bear the cost of the tickets, they can invite Russian leaders to meet elsewhere. In other words, diplomatic means are far more economical, easier to succeed, and less costly than the path Europe currently chooses.
As far as I know, the main leaders of Europe's major countries and the European Commission have not engaged in any form of diplomatic contact with Russia.
Sometimes they beg the U.S. to let Europe participate in negotiations and complain, "This is unfair; we don't even get a chance to sit at the table. This is tragic." If Europe wants to negotiate with Russia, they can simply pick up the phone, initiate a video conference, fly directly to Moscow, or invite Foreign Minister Lavrov. I really want to tell European leaders: stop begging the U.S., conduct open diplomacy.
Of course, Europe has the potential to make changes. If Europe stops its belligerent behavior, it might also reconsider its long-term strategic positioning. Strangely enough, I actually believe in an efficient Europe, but European integration must be based on a genuinely effective foundation and must truly represent the interests of European citizens. Because in this era dominated by major powers like the U.S., China, India, and Russia, Europe must unite. Not as 27 quarrelsome and belligerent nations, but as a unified Europe, which would be very beneficial for Europe.
However, under the current circumstances, unfortunately, the EU Commission lacks both efficiency and representation and fails to protect Europe's interests. Therefore, more thorough reforms are needed, but the most urgent need now is peace.
Glenn Diesen: As a European living here, seeing such management is heartbreaking. However, Professor Sachs, it's always pleasant talking with you. Thank you for participating again, and looking forward to meeting you next time!
This article is an exclusive article by Guancha Network, and the content purely reflects the author's personal opinions, which do not represent the platform's views. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, and legal liability will be pursued accordingly. Follow Guancha Network on WeChat at guanchacn for daily reading of interesting articles.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7508920271777055283/
Disclaimer: This article solely represents the author's personal views. Welcome to express your attitude by clicking the "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" buttons below.