(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



A Conflict-Averse Speech in the European Parliament [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']

Date: 2025-03-10

Jeffery Sachs, described as “The person in the world to speak out for peace,” calls Zelenskyy a “loser.”

The European Parliament is not always a place of reason and civility. On February 19 the Parliament heard from American economist Jeffrey Sachs whose speech seemed a primer for Trump’s attack on Zelenskyy at the White House meeting of February 27. Sachs’ audience and the media were delighted by his speech calling it “courageous,” “explosive,” “blistering,” “tak[ing] it to warmongers,” “send[ing] shockwaves across Europe.” Sachs did not preface his 100 minute-long presentation (including the Q&A session) with an outline of his intended points, but a reasonable person can surmise them:

NATO expansionism caused the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Ukraine is not Europe.

Europe must negotiate with Russia.

Neither Ukraine nor the United States are welcome in the negotiations.

Europe must have its own foreign policy and strategic autonomy.

Europe must bend towards peaceful coexistence with Russia.

Europe must purge itself of Russia-phobia.

This story relies on the audio transcript at

singjupost.com/transcript-jeffrey-sachs-on-the-geopolitics-of-peace-in-the-european-parliament/.

This story’s links omits the standard opening part of an URL, https://www

As the speech proceeds Sachs’ goals emerge: Persuade Europe to step away from major rearmament, the likely response to America’s betrayal and withdrawal of its nuclear umbrella. Persuade Europe that it is separate from Ukraine, perhaps because he sees Europe as not cooperating with the “peace” arrangements between Putin and Trump. He suggests that Trump and Putin have ended the war, “The war is over… if Europe does all its great warmongering, it doesn’t matter.”[minute 43:00-45:00]

Sachs was introduced by MEP Michael von der Schulenburg, an erstwhile German diplomat. He described Sachs as an adviser to “three UN General Secretaries… well- connected internationally…independent… he is the person in the world to speak out for peace, everywhere for peace.” [minute 1:00 to 2:15].

Sachs told Parliament:

Europe does not need to have Ukraine in the room when Europe talks with Russia. You have a lot of issues, direct issues. Do not hand over your foreign policy to anybody, not to the United States not to Ukraine, not to Israel. Keep a European foreign policy.” [minute 1:11:00 to 1:12:00].

He seemed unaware that his separation of Europe and Ukraine contradicted Schulenburg’s opening remarks: “The Ukraine war… this is a war on European soil …we are in a very difficult situation.” [minute 2:30- 2.45].

Sachs praises “Finlandization” [minute 1:32:00] as a good way to keep the big powers apart but does not acknowledge that Sweden and Finland dropped neutrality and joined NATO. He did not mention Putin’s dream of re-establishing a Russian empire. Had Sachs acknowledged these conditions, his speech would look less like agitprop and more like a well-considered opinion from an independent mind. However, without prompting he said “Trump doesn't want to carry a loser(Zelenskyy).” [minute 43:00-45:00]

Nothing forced Sachs to use “loser” to express his opinion of Ukraine and Zelenskyy. Surely there were other words available to him. His reflexive word-choice of “loser” shows he has deeply internalized the Putin-Trump view of Ukraine.

There is endless debate over “NATO expansion” as the cause of the war, but Sachs returns to it. He displays a bit of fuzzy thinking on the expansion theory, so it’s worth a few paragraphs to explain where the theory breaks down.

The first round of NATO expansion in central and Eastern Europe included Poland, Hungry, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. A member of the audience pointed out that these nations had no voice in the 1991 agreement which, supposedly obliged NATO not to enlarge. The same condition applies to those independent nations which arose after the fall of the Soviet Union. The audience member wanted to know how this issue could be “countered.”

Sachs gave a lengthy reply.

I have no doubt of why Hungry, Poland, Czech Rep, Slovakia wanted to Join NATO. The question is what is the US doing to make peace? NATO is not a choice of a Hungry, Poland…NATO is a US lead military alliance. And the question is, how we are going to establish peace in a reliable way. If I were making those decisions I would have ended NATO altogether in 1991. [minute 1:15:00] If they [the new members] had asked me, I would have said ‘we understand your feelings but it’s not a good idea because it could provoke a new cold war ….. ‘ The point that I would really make is that Georgia and Ukraine were too far. This is right up against Russia. [minute 1:16:12]

Sachs added that the situation should be understood within the context of US putting in missile systems on Russian borders.

This is the point where Sachs’ argument breaks down. Ukraine, a non-NATO country armed with long-distance drones, is imposing tremendous costs on Russia in a conventional war, not a nuclear one. The missiles in Poland, Estonia and Rumania are the ones that long ago prompted fear and anger in Moscow. There are no such missiles in Ukraine. Being right up against Russia is a disqualifying condition for Ukraine’s NATO membership but not for the Baltic nations. Sachs is making the argument that the war will lead to WWIII unless Ukraine (or some other party) negotiates with Russia.

Sachs further said:

So let me now finalize, a few words about Trump. Trump does not want the losing hand. This is why it is more likely than not this war will end because Trump and President Putin will agree to end the war. If Europe does all its great warmongering, it doesn’t matter. The war is ending. So get it out of your system. Please tell your colleagues. It’s over. And it’s over because Trump doesn’t want to carry a loser. That’s it. It’s not some great morality he doesn’t want to carry a loser. This is a loser. The one that will be saved by the negotiations taking place right now is Ukraine. Second is Europe. [minute 43:00-45:00]

Thus Sachs continues separating Europe from Ukraine, but what are they being saved from, a Russian nuclear strike or a Russian ground attack? A few minutes later Sachs deflates his point that Europe needs saving.

Russia is not going to invade Europe. It may get up to the Dnieper River. It’s not going to invade Europe. [minute 54.25]

On February 19 Sachs was on message with Trump and JD Vance’s attack on Zelenskyy during the White House meeting of February 27.

JD Vance to Zelenskyy:

What makes America a good country is America engaging in diplomacy, that’s what President Trump’s doing. …I’m talking about the kind of diplomacy that’s going to end the destruction of your country [bbc.com/news/videos/cdel2npwe50o minute 0.43]

Trump to Zelenskyy:

You’re gambling with World War Three. [bbc.com/news/videos/cdel2npwe50o minute 2.27]

Sachs said, “I have tried to reach out to some of the European leaders. Most don’t want to hear anything at all from me.” [minute 45:00] Perhaps the Trump administration took good notes on the speech. Sachs believes what he is saying. “My view is not second hand, not ideology. It’s what I have seen with my own eyes.”[minute 5:45]

He believes there is a risk of nuclear escalation. His sense of things, buying into Russia’s nuclear threat, coupled with the United States no longer being an ally of Europe, will lead to a clamor for nuclear weapons. Despite his sincerity Sachs offers no way for Europe to re-establish its security, other than “negotiating” with Russia.

Does he mean Europe should negotiate with Russia just like Trump’s people are negotiating with Russia? Michael McFaul wrote:

Over the years, I have negotiated with the Russians many times and learned that if you give concessions to Putin’s Kremlin without asking for anything in return, they pocket those concessions and ask for more. I can tell you that our president is going about this the wrong way; he is giving away his “cards,” to use Trump’s favored metaphor, up front.[usnews.com/opinion/articles/2025-03-03/trump-ukraine-russia-war-putin-zelenskyy]

After negotiating with Trump the Russians will expect the same from Europe. Sach’s recommendation looks like a dead end.

Sachs got some laughs when he referred to an adage by Henry Kissinger, “To be an enemy of the United States is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.” [minute 43:00-45:00]

Perhaps the ray of sunshine is Europe’s escape from America’s fatal hug, now that the United States’ only friend is Putin.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/3/10/2309232/-A-Conflict-Averse-Speech-in-the-European-Parliament?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/