Sachs’s striking speech at the EU Parliament is a way to understand the Russia-Ukraine war

This February marked the three years since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the war that ensued between the two countries—a conflict that has defined the past three years with its global impact. Reports on the death toll vary. One estimate suggests over a million Russians and Ukranians have died. Another claim is approximately 1.5 million. The range of these estimates underscores the devastating scale of the conflict — calling for immediate negotiations and a lasting peace.

Since Trump’s presidency, a lot has happened in the course of global order. One is peace negotiation gaining momentum between Russia and Ukraine. But so has the confusion since Trump’s approach is instinctive, unconventional, ever-changing and often extortive tactics, making it challenging to keep track of the events and shifting dynamics at play. 

This has resulted in global powers framing the benefactor, victim and aggressor differently. Negotiations are ongoing but remain highly fluid. However, Ukraine’s resolve to work with the current US administration’s proposed deal—one where Russia has shown little resistance — the war as many see is nearing its end.

Following the Riyadh negotiation, Jeffery D. Sachs, a prominent American economist recognised for his work in economic and sustainable development, gave a striking speech at the EU Parliament at an event titled ‘Geopolitics of Peace’. Sachs delved into the historical context of the war, offering a sharp critique of the Western military expansion and European foreign policy questioning their role in the escalating conflict.

Sachs’ perspective on the war draws from his experience as an advisor to post-cold war Eastern European governments, including both Russia and Ukraine’s economic team under Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma.

However, his previous comments on different occasions on the Russia-Ukraine war, accusations against the US on bombing of the Nord stream pipeline and claims about the COVID-19 origins are criticised for their lack of evidence. In 2023, Economists for Ukraine, a global collective of economists and academics, penned an open letter [unavailable in the UC Berkeley blog] condemning Sachs’s position on the Russian-Ukraine war, after observing recurring patterns in his opinions. 

Sachs presented Ukraine as a divided country, undermined its sovereign integrity and agency, pushed forward Kremlin’s peace plans and the idea that NATO instigated Russia, said the letter which had over 300 signatories.

Regardless of the criticism, Sachs’s EU address lambasting the US hegemony — is a way to understand the ongoing war as he discusses historical events that have shaped the relations between Russia and the West and the current peace deal landscape, providing suggestions to Europe on its way forward.

Sachs warns, “Europe needs a foreign policy that is realistic, understands Russia’s situation, understands Europe’s situation, understands what America is and what it stands for.”

The past that shaped the present war

Sachs traces the roots of this war back to the post Cold War period — where the US emerged victorious while the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. The world then entered a West-led and West-dominated era championed by the US. 

In the post Cold War worldview of the US, it could do anything it wanted disregarding its opponents' concerns or best interests of its allies. The US foreign policy experts follow a non-cooperative game theory approach wherein they strategize based on one-sided assumptions, often overlooking the other side’s strategy. This approach has resulted in wrong foreign policy decisions in the US, says Sachs.

This unipolar worldview combined with the US’s military expansion are the major causes behind the Russia-Ukraine war, according to Sachs.

When the cold war ended, leaders of the West had assured Mikhail Gorbachev, Soviet’s last leader, that NATO would not expand an ‘inch Eastward’. Sachs views that the US backed NATO expansion, supported by its European allies, to Eastern European countries with close borders with Russia as a breach of this assurance.

Recalling his experience, Sachs explains that NATO’s expansion has been a three decade long bipartisan US project — passed from one administration to another — to reduce Russia’s global influence. As a part of this project, NATO expanded to countries like Estonia, Latvia, and Finland — all Russia’s border neighbors.

The U.S. strategy aimed to bring Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Georgia into NATO to block Russia's access to the Black Sea, diminishing its international influence and reducing it to a regional power.

As per Sachs, the US’S key countries of interest were Ukraine and Georgia — both pushing for NATO membership since early 2010. Both country’s NATO membership is in a geopolitical stalemate due to Russian opposition to NATO expansion in Eastern Europe.

In Ukraine’s case, its NATO membership was the major point of contention — eventually leading to its invasion in 2022. However, different geopolitical experts highlight other reasons — such as Russia’s Soviet Union nostalgia and strategic interest in Ukraine’s natural resources — among others. For instance, just before Russia began its invasion in 2022, Vladimir Putin released an essay titled ‘On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians’, framing Ukraine as an extension of Russia, referring to it as “historically Russian lands.”

When the war broke out in February 2022, Sachs recalled advising Ukraine to opt for immediate negotiations as it risked losing the war — cautioning ‘nothing good would come out of it’. With approximately a million lives lost and close to 20% of its territory occupied by Russia and its national sovereignty in question, Sachs’s advice to Ukraine remains critically relevant today, but there are also some crucial shortcomings in his arguments considering Russia’s stance on annexation..

The first round of negotiations were held in Belarus. But Russia demanded Crimea to be recognised as Russian territory and Ukraine’s demilitarisation, both in violation of international law and Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Ukraine and Russia came closest to a peace deal again at Antalya negotiation in March 2022. The deal required Ukraine to withdraw its NATO membership and remain a neutral country. Negotiations ended in May 2022 without any decision. Referring to the unsuccessful Turkey negotiations — Sachs claims that Ukraine ‘unilaterally walked out of the deal’ with backing from the US and the UK. He claims that Russia’s motive of starting the invasion was to force Ukraine to agree to these terms. Contrary to Sachs’s claims the negotiations ended due to the Bucha massacre [Russia’s attack on Ukrainian civilians] and dissatisfaction over security assurances.

Sachs considers British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s visit to Kyiv in April 2022 as one of the reasons behind Ukraine backing out of the Turkey deal. A week later, the prime minister made comments dissuading negotiations with Russia, calling Putin a war criminal. 

There is no concrete evidence on Sachs’s claim. Johnson’s comments, which seem to add some validity to Sach’s claim, actually came after the International Criminal Court declared Putin a war criminal. Furthermore, both Zelenskyy and Johnson have dismissed the claims as Russian propaganda.

The ongoing, shifting, volatile peace talks

A lot has been going on since Trump's presidency with the two Western allies, Europe and the US, seemingly falling apart. This has kept the negotiation volatile. 

The US first initiated talks with Russia in Riyadh without engaging the Ukraine and NATO allies from the European countries.

A week later, the US refused to acknowledge Russia as the aggressor in a war that it has largely financed against. The US along with Russia and other nations voted against a peace resolution at the UN General Assembly (UNGA) that recognised Russia as the aggressor. Rather the US proposed its own resolution which didn’t point to any aggressor in the war. The UK and France abstained from voting after their proposal to amend the resolution was vetoed. 

Then came the minerals deal (25th February) with the US proposing to jointly invest in Ukraine’s rare minerals [graphite, manganese, lithium among others], a deal that would give the US access to Ukraine’s minerals, as a form of payback for the aid provided so far. Trump claimed that Russia has no objections to this deal.

Next, the Zelenskyy’s US visit (28th February) where the two Presidents had a public spat with Trump and his VP Vance publicly humiliating Zelenskky. That Ukraine has not thanked the US enough — was one of the crux of the matter. In the aftermath, the Ukrainian president cut short his visit and left without signing the deal due to lack of US security assurances.

The European leaders were quick to rally around the berated Ukrainian president offering support. British PM Keir Starmer welcomed Zelenskky in London where the starmer pledged over $2 billion loan as military aid to reinforce Ukraine’s defense capabilities. Other European leaders met the president at the London Summit convened to draft a peace plan for Ukraine. But they also understand that the US remains the key player.

Post-summit, the Ukrainian president expressed Ukraine’s readiness to work with the Trump administration for lasting peace, sending a letter to Trump. 

On 11 March, it accepted the U.S. proposal to enact an immediate, interim 30-day ceasefire while the US agreed to resume military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine after the two countries met at Jeddah. 

Putin  also expressed readiness but stressed on the need to consider ‘nuances’ — expressing concerns over Ukraine’s potential military restocking during the ceasefire and Ukrainian soldiers presently deployed in the Kursk region of Russia.

Earlier, Sachs had stated that the current US president is pushing for a deal to avoid being on the losing side. Trump, often considered a transactional president, is interested in maximising self-benefit, often at the expense of allies and opponents alike. 

His other argument is also spot on: that the current US administration is ‘imperialist at heart’ who views the world dominated by big and powerful countries.

President Trump’s transactional foreign policy approach at the expense of US allies and opponents alike is alarming its Western allies. Furthermore, the president’s apathetic views on Gaza, trade wars with allies and rivals and refusal to acknowledge Russia as the aggressor while pressuring Ukraine, reinforce Sachs’s assessment of the current president and his administration.

Meanwhile Europe is acting swiftly and anxiously to reclaim a seat at the negotiation table. French president Macron’s visit to the US, followed by a trip from the British minister signals Europe’s renewed push for influence. The European leaders' summit at London on a peace deal, coming after the Trump-Zelenskyy fallout, shows the continent’s rising activism in shaping the conversation. The European leaders even agreed to provide peacekeeping forces in Ukraine and hinted at conducting negotiations with Russia. 

And just before this recent wave of initiatives, Sachs critiqued Europe’s lack of independent foreign policy and its unwavering support to the US  in the past three decades during the US-led NATO enlargement. 

The EU's absent foreign policy was best highlighted by its split stances during the Iraq war [2003 to 2011]. Germany and France opposed the US-led war while the UK supported it. Other countries sided with either of the two factions with supporters of the war [UK, Spain, Italy among others] even deploying soldiers in Iraq.

Sachs’s firm views and suggestions for the future

Considering the current scenes, Sachs asserted that the war will end as the US and Russia are in agreement to do so. He opines that it will end regardless of whether Europe agrees or not.

Between January 2022 and December 2024, the US has provided Ukraine with 119 billion dollars in funding. The US has halted that support, pressurising Ukraine to focus on peace talks. As both Russia and Ukraine are positive about working with the Trump administration to maintain peace, an agreement to end the war indeed seems close.

Additionally, he mentioned that Europe and Ukraine are set to benefit from this.

Both countries have lost their people in the war with casualties heavier on the Ukrainian side — approximately 700,000 lives. The country can take this opportunity to rebuild its economy — a daunting task though for a country which was once the ‘breadbasket of Europe’ and a thriving 200 billion dollar economy, now reduced to $180 billion.

For Europe, there will be economic benefits with reduced inflation and lesser anxiety for investors. Sachs points to Europe’s rising stock market as a sign of impending closure to the war  — and that Europe stands to benefit.

Going forward and referring to Trump’s opportunist approach and disregard for European allies, Sachs urged Europe to make its own ‘realist’ foreign and security policy — independent of the United States. European countries are already reflecting on this—taking stock of their military capabilities in the process.

Sachs’s realist foreign policy refers to Europe dealing independently and directly with Russia on matters related to trade and security with consideration to Russia’s security interests.

He emphasises Europe’s 450 million demographic size and $20 trillion economy, along with its geographical proximity to Russia, as key reasons why the continent should pursue an independent foreign policy and recognise its potential to become Russia’s largest trade and economic partner.

Sachs also hinted at a possible change in the US foreign policy, a shift supported by their recent change in stance at the UNGA, where they refrained from pointing any aggressor in the war.

Additionally, Sachs warned Europe about the looming security threats to the region amidst the US president’s push to buy Greenland and his approach to conflict in the Middle East. Recent comments by Trump on acquiring Greenland ‘one way or the other’ hint at a strategic ambition beneath his casual remarks.

He added that while a drastic increase of 5% military spending as pushed by the US  is not necessary, it would be reasonable for Europe to spend up to 3% of their GDP on security in light of the current situation.

Amidst rising geopolitical tensions and shifting dynamics, EU leaders have agreed to raise their defense spending during the recently conducted Defense Summit at Brussels. Previously, the UK announced to cut its aid budget to increase defense spending to 2.5%.

Without going into details, Sachs considers the accelerated approach to negotiate a peace deal to be beneficial overall. There are supporters and critics of this approach, especially of the US’s transactional approach and stances on the war.

Some view that the US’s current approach to foreign relations is working — contending that it is getting key stakeholders to negotiate and pressuring them to agree to a deal. Some find it difficult to excuse the US president’s dominating, undiplomatic approach to negotiations and his stances on the aggressor in the war, regardless of the rapid progress achieved.

Sachs’s deliverance at the EU parliament provides perspective on the West's role leading up to the war in Ukraine but it does not account for Russia’s oppressive role.

Russia and Ukraine have a shared ancestry along with Belarus dating back to the 9th century at the Kyievan Rus’ region. Since then Ukraine has been a part of the Russian empire and the Soviet Union until its dissolution in 1991. After facing severe hardships during Soviet rule, notably the Holodomor [1930s] famine and Chernobyll [1986] nuclear disaster, Ukraine gained independence in 1991.

Post independence, Ukraine handed over some of the Soviet-built nuclear arsenal to Russia, while dismantling others. In return, Russia, UK and US agreed to not threaten Ukraine economically and martially under the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, an agreement Russia broke in 2014 annexing Crimea citing strategic interests and security threats.

The 2000s also saw Ukraine growing close to the West which irked Russia as it viewed this as a breach of assurances to Gorbachev. In 2021, Ukraine emerged as a top global producer and exporter of agricultural products [sunflower oil, wheat, corn and more]. The country boasted the highest global share in exports of sunflower oil [46%] and sunflower meal [54%] [see more]. During this period, Ukraine increasingly pushed for NATO membership — despite Russia’s repeated warnings to Ukraine and the West against it.

Before the start of the invasion, Ukraine’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Dmytro Kuleba dismissed the idea that Ukraine's neutrality guaranteed its safety from Russia’s aggression. He also pointed out Russia's military aggression in Crimea [2014] and Donbas region [2014] despite Ukraine’s neutrality.  

Russia eventually launched a full scale invasion on 24 February 2022. 

During the Soviet rule and continuing to the present day, Russia has consistently undermined Ukraine’s sovereignty through economic, political and military pressure. 

As peace negotiations continue, Russia’s focus on Ukraine’s occupation of the Kursk region in Russia while not acknowledging its own military occupation of Ukrainian territory highlights its dismissive attitude towards Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty.

Russia undermines Ukraine sovereignty further by pushing for Ukraine’s demilitarisation and reasserting earlier demands of Ukraine accepting Crimea as a part of Russia. This dismissiveness is further fuelled by the US prioritising Russia’s concerns while overshadowing Ukraine in the peace negotiation.  

Considering Russia and Ukraine’s foreign relations — marred by the Soviet Union’s and now modern day Russia’s oppressive treatment of Ukraine — a lasting peace deal may not be lasting after all, despite assurances from global powers.