Jeffrey Sachs
BLAMES THE US FOR THE PRESENT WAR.
US EXPANDED NATO EASTWARD CONTRARY TO ASSURANCES TO RUSSIA.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Menu There is no diplomatic solutionIsrael should declare three nos;
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
@peloni
Thanks for your positive response to my comments.
@Reader
Quite true and it is an important point to make.
@Michael S.
I want to make one point – it was actually Russia who asked to be included into NATO and the request was refused.
At the time, in Russia, converting to market economy was thought to be akin to the ultimate prescription for world peace, there was a dream of “Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok”.
They made the same error that both China and Israel made – they assumed that broad and intensive economic ties would ensure peaceful coexistence.
BTW, Russia has been trying to become part of “the West” for about 400 years and got kicked in the face every time – I think now they have finally realized that it is impossible because all the so-called West wants is to destroy Russia and rule over its land and resources.
American mentality is that everyone is their rival and rivals have to be destroyed or, at least, kept down and made to fight each other, so they will never fight the US.
This is the old British colonial policy which needs to be abandoned, otherwise the world will be destroyed.
Hi, Reader. The article you cited is interesting:
I supported Sachs in my last post, once I got past the outrageous headline and looked at what he actually said; but from what you say, I see that even Sachs has had to take a U-turn in his thinking. I remember the Clinton days, and NATO’s “Partnership for Peace” delusion of turning the Western Alliance into a variation of the “Holy Alliance” of Russia, Austria and Prussia (with the UK in a supporting role).
Thinking like this must have been the darling of ultra-globalists like George H. W. Bush; and seeing Sachs chiming in on it is telling. The push to include Ukraine into NATO is similar to the former push (which Kissinger seems to still advocate) to include Russia: It ignores the fact that Putin does not want to become a junior member in the New World Order.
I don’t want to speculate how this all will turn out. Spouting out extremist “prophesies” like “The US is Finished” or “Russia is Finished” will certainly do no good for anyone. Turning into jellyfish, as important actors like Germany seems to be doing, will also only exacerbate the misery of the countries involved. The Germans need to put up or shut up, in a war that is actually being fought for their long-term interest more than anyone else’s so the Russians realize that they are actually dealing with men. Otherwise, they will continue to destroy the Ukraine until they run out of artillery shells. The Germans need to see that this is largely a war between them and the Russians, or I’m afraid Biden’s only alternative will be to treat them to an Afghanistan 12.0
@Reader
Actually, my error was greater than the reference you shared notes. Sachs was indeed quite in the thick of this entire scheme to turn Russia into a market economy and he played a significant role in advocating for both the shock therapy and the funds needed for such a scheme to succeed, but he was not the head of the HIID until 1995 when he was brought in to most likely help run damage control for the economic upheval which was already set in place due to the gross mismangement and corruption of the organization for which he was made director. Prior to this he was actually the Galen L. Stone Professor of International Trade (a position he still holds) and acted as a direct advisor to Boris Yeltsin. It was more than likely his advice which led Gaidar and Chubais to call for the circuit breakers to be put in place which the HIID rejected. Sachs watched as a run on Asia resulted from a similar undertaking was not properly funded in 1997, so he was perfectly knowledgeable of what was going to occur without the proper funding in place to support the required short term debt which Russia needed – every bank was going to demand their money and no one would, without some entity such as the IMF or other financial institution interceding – provide new loans to temporarily cover the previous notes.
Consequently, the role which Sachs played in this affair, as you correctly raise, was that of a harbinger of what was to come, and sadly did come.
Thank you for bringing this error to my attention.
This however makes the point that Sachs stands as a vitally well informed individual of the era even more profoundly significant.
@peloni
I think you are not entirely correct about the role Sachs played in Russia at the time:
I read an article a few years ago by a man who was familiar with the situation, and he wrote that both Sachs and the men he was dealing with in Russia assumed that there will be financing (loans) to help reform the Russian economy, and that Sachs searched far and wide to obtain these loans but was met with a refusal absolutely everywhere.
@Michael Unipolar, multi-polar, bi-polar. Why not just call a spade a spade and call it manic-depression.
BTW, Ted, before this topic scrolls away, I don’t think “multipolarism” has much future. The great hegemons of today, namely, China, Russia and Iran are all on very shaky ground. On the other hand, I believe Putin, Xi and the Ayatollah have tainted understandings of the position of the US.
US foreign policy at present is a conflict between two secular mindsets:
1. the Westphalian sovereignty promoted by Donald Trump and his MAGA allies, and
2. the One World Government promoted by DAVOS and associated globalists.
Westphalianism is the concensus that arose from the ashes of WWII, embodied by the largely US-created United Nations. It retained the “Great Power” aspect of Counciliar Europe (the veto powers of the Security Council), and the Westphalian concept of individual sovereignty represented by the General Assembly. Within this framework, there was the “polarity” caused by Communists and known as the “Cold War” — which divided the world, accordingly, between the “Communist” and “Free” blocs. These two blocs were led by the two great surviving armies of the war, namely, the US and the Soviet Union.
During the Cold War era, the “Free World” powers, other than the US, went through a period of “managed decline”, as the formerly great powers like the UK, France and the Netherlands dismantled themselves to produce independent countries like India, Vietnam and Indonesia. Most of these found expression in the “nonaligned” movement, led by India. A few others, notably Israel, South Africa and Taiwan, maintained independence as “pariahs” — joined by other shunned regimes that arose in places like Uganda, Iran and Iraq.
The collapse of the Soviet Union, of course, led to a massive rearrangement. At first, the American leader, George H. W. Bush, proclaimed a “New World Order”, assembling the largest military coaliton in history (in terms of numbers) in the Gulf War. Relations with Communist China were incrementally normalized, as the West turned a blind eye to events like the Tienamen Square Massacre; and the former Warsaw Pact nations were invited to join Bush’s “new order” as “Partners for Peace”.
With the apparent fall of the Communist Empire, a new rival to American dominance arose. This was not BRICS, as some here seem to believe, but the Common Market of Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany, which became the nucleus of a plethora of treaties. Notable among them were the Rome Treaty of 1957, which birthed the EU, and the Rome Treaty of 1998 — which attempted to establish standards set by the now-expanded EU to the entire world through the International Court.
The US elected not to join the IC; so the “New World Order” has ever since been split into two opposing camps: one centered in Rome and Brussels, and another in Washington, DC. Russia and China, of course, sought to revive a form of the old Communist Empire through groupings such as the SCC and BRICS; but these have been side shows: The real tension has been between Rome Brussels and DAVOS, on the one hand, and a resurgent MAGA America with Donald Trump as its standard bearer.
That’s where we stand today.
Thank you for the clarification, Ted
I would never have guessed that. The only time I’ve personally used words with “polar” in them, were when talking about “Polar” regions, polar bears and bipolar syndrome. The only place I’ve seen the term “unipolar powar” has been Russian propaganda. In fact, I think Putin coined the expression.
I just looked the term up in Wikipedia. The purveyors of that service (“Wikkans”?) seem to be kosmic kreations themselves, so of course they had an article on the subject. Interestingly, their most prominent example of a MULTI-polar world was the golden age of IMPERIALISM:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/World_empires_and_colonies_around_World_War_I.png
The Russians and Chinese certainly seem to be trying to revive that phenomenon. The “unipolar” world, on the other hand, appears to be what used to be called “One World Government”.
Curiouser and curiouser…
@Michael.
Apology accepted.
As for the bad guy, the US is blaming Russia for the Ukraine War. I merely pointed out that I reject their pointing their finger at Russia. The US in my opinion is worse.
What is meant by the title is that the US, as a uni-polar power, is over.
Ted,
1. Sachs is probably correct, and reasonably even-handed; but the headline was outlandish. Peloni and I went over this.
2. I just read “The pot is calling the kettle, black”, It’s a difficult read, because you keep switchingthe subject from “she” (meaning the US) to “its” (prob. also referring to the same), back to “she”, then using “she” to refer twice to Israel, then back to referring to the US as “she”, specifically during 2009 to present, then referring twice to Obama as “he” (wherein “the US” switches from being the oppressor to being the victim), then accusing “Obama of corrupting the FBI, DOJ, DOD, CIA, Judiciary and IRS”, and accusing all these of ganging up on President Trump.
I doubt that Obama is wagging Deep State and not visa versa; but you have done a pretty good job of saying the US is going through political turmoil. Concerning double-dealing Israel and other countries, this is par for the course: Our government does it to them and they do it to us. The Deep State probably conspired with President L.B. Johnson to kill President J. F. Kennedy; and with a bipartisan team of Republican GHW Bush and Democrat Bill Clinton to massacre 126 Christians at Waco. There is nothing new in any of this. Then you say,
“And we are supposed to believe that Russia is the bad guy”
There’s a logical disconnect here. What does Russia have to do with any of the above? And who said anything about THE “bad guy”? I know who THE bad guy is — HaSatan. All of the above, including Putin and many Russians are certainly “bad guys”. Putin has been directing the systematic destruction of infrastructure in the Ukraine, specifically targeting civilians. I call that “bad”, regardless of anything the Americans, British or others are doing elsewhere. The pot is calling the kettle black, and the kettle is calling the pot black.
What does any of this have to do with me? As an American, am I to blame for what Obama, Putin et all have done? Are you responsible for all Soros and Zelenskyy have done, seeing you’re a Jew?
I didn’t say anything about whether Americans are good or bad; I just felt it was over the top to say they were “finished” Maybe they are; God knows. But I don’t need you and others to tell me about it. Black Lives Matter, Antifa and others do this full time.
I apologize for calling Sachs a “jerk”, after reading his headline.
@Michael
You started this thread by writing.
Your first sentence was and is extremely inflammatory and incorrect.
As for the second sentence, I have nothing against Americans in general. My complaint with the American government as set out in my article The Pot is Calling the Kettle Black. It is very short so please read it again.
What is your position on all my complaints?
Now that you have watched the video, is Sachs correct or not? Do you disagree with his recounting of what took place prior to Feb 24, 2022?
Hi again, Peloni
What was that You Tuber thinking? (rhetorical– don’t answer). Thank you for clearing that up. If you’re familiar with today’s media, I think you can appreciate how sick and tired I am, of people running down my country.
Concerning the things Mr. Sachs DID say, he generally agrees with me. He did slant his blaming more against the US government (especially the Clinton Administration) more than I would have; but that is probably because he’s more informed about what was happening behind the scenes. Even so, he made no attempt to justify Putin’s 2022 invasion.
I am not a prophet, so I don’t know what this Biden* vs. Putin war will come to. In January, 2022, when the sabers were rattling, I saw that Sleepy Joe had been taking a beating politically; and I knew he MIGHT be tempted to try to start a war; but I doubted that even that cognitively-impaired man would be so reckless. When he started baiting Putin, again, I thought the bare-chested horseman would be so foolish as to fall into Joe*s trap.
The rest is history. Putin, Biden, the whole cabal, are all in God’s hands If it weren’t for that fact, I don’t think you and I would even be alive now. Here’s the situation, as I see it:
1. Ukraine obviously cannot defeat Russia.
2. Russia cannot defeat the US.
3. Russia can TRY to defeat us with Chinese help — most likely, by getting China to invade Taiwan.
4. If China invades Taiwan, Japan will go to war against her.
5. If ANYONE lets a nuke slip, all bets are off.
Joe and Vlad could’ve headed this all off at the pass, just a year a go; but they didn’t. Is the US finished? Maybe — that’s up to God. But if I were to predict the progression of falling dominoes, I would guess that Russia falls first, the China, then the US; and the rest of the world everywhere in-between.
@Michael
The Youtuber who posted the video. And the title size is as per usual on YouTube.
Like in all things, the substance is not in the title but in the content, and I have to confess to be a bit disappointed that you think Sachs said
as you put it.
Hi, Peloni. Indeed, I did miss the question mark, because it isn’t there! What shows up on my web page is:
“UNITED STATES IS FINISHED…”
i did not watch the video; and it’s obvious why, given that sort of title. OK, I just listened to the whole tape. Sachs said
NOTHING
PS I just saw the ? in fine print
about the fate of the US. Who the hell, then, put that in the title — with or without the question mark? Why did Ted post something so inflammatory?
@Michael
Forgive my interruption here, but perhaps you will find the time to watch the video. He never makes the statement “United States is finished” and you might have missed the question mark which was placed at the end of the word finished, but he never said that either. The title comes from the Youtube blogger who uploaded the video and presumably titled it to draw clicks. Whatever the motivation in titling it as such, however, Sachs’ statement is far more revealing than simply suggesting that America is finished, something to which he does not make even a vague reference or allusion. His comments are important, worthy of discussion, and useful to understand the current crisis, so I do hope you will find the 6min which it would take to actually watch, in double time of course, and share your thoughts – not about what some random Youtuber titled the video, but about what Sachs himself actually said.
One thing more, I don’t think Sachs is a jerk. Far from it, I think it is fair to say he is a brilliant economist, a scholar, a patriot, and a criminal. I could be wrong in this, however, but these are my own thoughts on the man, having been aware of him going back to the ’90s, when much that should have been handled with a priceless care was abused with a decided effort.
Ted, you’ve got a lot of cheek. The jerk said,
“United States is finished”. That’s the ultimate ad hominem. If you believe that, you’re full of it. Evidence? Are you being facetious? OK. Here’s my evidence. Come back a year from now, and see if my country is still here.
Nord Stream Sabotage Was CIA, US Navy Covert Op: Seymour Hersh Bombshell Prompts White House Response
They have been itching to reveal their role in carrying out this brazen act of terrorism as being their own invention. The existence of this crime was never enough to satisfy the egos of these criminals. Now everyone will know the depths of treachery to which these ruthless villains will go to achieve their desires. They are quite dangerous and it only serves their purpose to have this known by all.
@Michael
In fact, Sachs was the head of the HIID and later the CID which replaced the HIID after many in Sachs’ management team were caught stealing millions in federal funds and self dealing with the Russian economic reform packages. Leading these organizations who were awarded no-bid contracts to manage the Russian market reforms, Sachs was actually THE economic advisor in both Ukraine and Russia who oversaw the establishment of the oligarch system, where the concentration of state assets and industries in these two nations were placed into the hands of a few oligarchs – the consequences of which has led to our current sitution. In addition to this, during the reforms which Sachs implemented, Russian requests for economic safety measures to prevent the economy running off the tracks were overruled by the HIID. This fact alone was directly responsible for the creation of the 2500% inflation in Russia which oversaw the liquidation of the middle class into the lower class and was also coincident with a rise in the annual death rate by 700K per year. Consequently, this was also intricately related to Yeltsin carrying out a coup on his own govt and him rewriting the Russian constitution, naturally making the president nearly all powerful. Mind you that Yeltsin did all of this simply so that he could continue acting as the American’s man in Moscow that he was. Sachs was witness and complicit to all of this, some aspects more directly than others, but he was there, something of an academic on the walls where history was written, albeit there was not much to write about that did not place the West, and the US in a very poor light.
Indeed, Sachs was privy to much of what was taking place throughout this period, and for far longer a spell of time than nearly anyone else. Additionally, Sachs was not a polititician, and this set him apart from every other fact witness of the events taking place in both Ukraine and Russia.
To be certain, I am no fan of Sachs, but the policy he was implementing was not his own, and the choices which he forced on Russia and Ukraine were not of his choosing. Just another academic pushing paper and folllowing orders. I have long held Sachs as responsible for what took place under him, regardless of which politic-o’s instructions he was acting or how he seems to have remarkably avoided being implicated in the fiancial scandal taking place all around him. Sachs claims that the problem with the reforms was the fact that the West would not put forward the funds needed to support the reforms they required.
Of course, Sachs could have resigned his position in protest of these fact. Yet, then again, if he had done so, we wouldn’t have his rather poignant testimony to record what took place when the West remade the world into something so foreign to the liberal values for which they had been the defenders for so long.
In this monologue Sachs describes his work for the US Government in Ukraine. He is more than qualified.
Stop with your ad hominem attacks. What, if anything did he say that you have evidence to the contrary.
Ted, where do you dig up these creeps? Have you got a bee in your bonnet against Americans?