The other voice: Ukraine should have been a buffer zone – Jeffrey Sachs

Jeffrey D. Sachs speaks at the ReWired Summit at COP28. Credit- X

"Ukraine should have been a buffer zone—between Europe and Russia, a safety zone between NATO and Russia. This didn't mean the end of Ukrainian sovereignty; in fact, the opposite. Nothing's wrong with neutrality, and neutrality worked just fine for Sweden, Finland, Austria, and Switzerland. The reason it worked is that Russia wanted a buffer the same way the West wanted a buffer. Then the United States got it into its bloody head that we want Ukraine for us, and we want to be on Russia's border. Many hotheads in the United States wanted Russia to further disintegrate. 1991 wasn't enough; ending the Soviet Union—now, let's have Russia fall apart. No doubt, there was a strong CIA component of saying, 'We'll surround Russia, we'll weaken Russia, we'll do regime change.' There are many crazy ideas in Washington. Now, Europe understood most of this. When George W. Bush Jr. was pushing NATO enlargement in 2008 to Ukraine and to Bucharest, European leaders privately were saying to him, 'George, don't do that.' And Europe's and US top diplomats, like our current CIA director William Burns, who in 2008 was the US ambassador to Russia, was writing back cables, 'This is absolutely a red line. Don't push NATO.' But, you know, the US is filled with stupid people in the security state, and they're arrogant. They said, 'We won the Cold War; we can do what we want. We don't have to listen to anyone. We don't have to listen to Europe's leaders. We don't have to listen to Putin. We don't have to listen to anyone. Ukraine will become part of NATO.' This is where we are. This is so obvious, even Jens Stoltenberg admits this. He says it, but then the European leaders are either lying or stupid when they deny this because they say, 'NATO—no, it's not NATO', but Stoltenberg says, 'Yes, this is a war about NATO.' And then they don't have the common sense. If it's a war about NATO, is it really right that we go to the brink of nuclear war to make Ukraine part of NATO, as opposed to making Ukraine safe and neutral? And is it really true, as the propaganda has it right now, 'Oh, you can't be safe and neutral because Putin is either Hitler or Peter the Great', or whatever nonsense is propounded by our propaganda in the West right now. It's sheer nonsense. If people understand the history of any of this, they will understand that the US provoked, provoked, provoked. The Europeans knew it; they kept quiet because they're afraid of their overlord, the United States, their protector, their nuclear shield, whatever it is. So they don't speak honestly. But now, I'm not sure that the current crop of leaders even understands this history. If you work a little bit at it, it's not so hard to understand. For me, I've seen it firsthand, close up, over the last 30 years because I was an adviser to Gorbachev, I was an adviser to Yeltsin, I was an adviser to Kuchma, the second president of independent Ukraine. I know these people. I know what happened. I know what European leaders have told me over the years. So, all of this is to say, what's the answer to this? A neutral Ukraine. And why Macron or Scholz or anyone believes that NATO in Ukraine is either feasible or even the right thing to do, if it were feasible, absolutely bewilders me. And Jens Stoltenberg, whom I've known since he was prime minister of Norway, what the hell is he talking about? With hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians already dead, and he says, 'Ukraine will be part of NATO.' Well, yes, Jens, over all of our dead bodies."

"  zone—between Europe and Russia, a safety zone between NATO and Russia. This didn't mean the end of Ukrainian sovereignty; in fact, the opposite.

Nothing's wrong with neutrality, and neutrality worked just fine for Sweden, Finland, Austria, and Switzerland. The reason it worked is that Russia wanted a buffer the same way the West wanted a buffer.

Then the United States got it into its bloody head that we want Ukraine for us, and we want to be on Russia's border.

Many hotheads in the United States wanted Russia to further disintegrate. 1991 wasn't enough; ending the Soviet Union—now, let's have Russia fall apart.

No doubt, there was a strong CIA component of saying, 'We'll surround Russia, we'll weaken Russia, we'll do regime change.'

There are many crazy ideas in Washington.

Now, Europe understood most of this. When George W. Bush Jr. was pushing NATO enlargement in 2008 to Ukraine and to Bucharest, European leaders privately were saying to him, 'George, don't do that.'

And Europe's and US top diplomats, like our current CIA director William Burns, who in 2008 was the US ambassador to Russia, was writing back cables, 'This is absolutely a red line. Don't push NATO.'

But, you know, the US is filled with stupid people in the security state, and they're arrogant.

They said, 'We won the Cold War; we can do what we want. We don't have to listen to anyone. We don't have to listen to Europe's leaders. We don't have to listen to Putin. We don't have to listen to anyone. Ukraine will become part of NATO.'

This is where we are.

This is so obvious, even Jens Stoltenberg admits this. He says it, but then the European leaders are either lying or stupid when they deny this because they say, 'NATO—no, it's not NATO', but Stoltenberg says, 'Yes, this is a war about NATO.'

And then they don't have the common sense. If it's a war about NATO, is it really right that we go to the brink of nuclear war to make Ukraine part of NATO, as opposed to making Ukraine safe and neutral?

And is it really true, as the propaganda has it right now, 'Oh, you can't be safe and neutral because Putin is either Hitler or Peter the Great', or whatever nonsense is propounded by our propaganda in the West right now.

It's sheer nonsense.

If people understand the history of any of this, they will understand that the US provoked, provoked, provoked.

The Europeans knew it; they kept quiet because they're afraid of their overlord, the United States, their protector, their nuclear shield, whatever it is. So they don't speak honestly.

But now, I'm not sure that the current crop of leaders even understands this history. If you work a little bit at it, it's not so hard to understand.

For me, I've seen it firsthand, close up, over the last 30 years because I was an adviser to Gorbachev, I was an adviser to Yeltsin, I was an adviser to Kuchma, the second president of independent Ukraine.

I know these people. I know what happened. I know what European leaders have told me over the years.

So, all of this is to say, what's the answer to this? A neutral Ukraine.

And why Macron or Scholz or anyone believes that NATO in Ukraine is either feasible or even the right thing to do, if it were feasible, absolutely bewilders me.

And Jens Stoltenberg, whom I've known since he was prime minister of Norway, what the hell is he talking about? With hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians already dead, and he says, 'Ukraine will be part of NATO.'

Well, yes, Jens, over all of our dead bodies." 

- https://youtu.be/Z6SeFUHuN8o