• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Jeffrey Sachs and the Geopolitics of Peace

Thoughts on the Future of Ukraine and Europe

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Me to ChatGPT:

• Summarize the article "Jeffrey Sachs: The Geopolitics of Peace" published in Consortium News.
• Is Jeffrey Sachs a credible, if contrarian voice in this debate?
• Which geopolitical experts have criticized his views in detail?
• Please extensively focus on his views on Ukraine and the causes of the war.
• Since his views resonate with the Kremlin, would not "peace" in this context mean surrender?
• Trumps latest trashing of Zelensky an pausing support of Ukraine, and his open alignment with Putin's demands too can hardly be called a fair "deal".
• In contrast, what would a really fair "deal" between Ukraine and Russia look like?
• I can already hear the "Njet!" coming from the Kremlin, so is this a realistic proposal?
• However, Sach's recommendation to Europe to become less dependent on the US seems long overdue.
• Both the US, Russia and China need Europe as a huge market for their exports.

Summarize the article "Jeffrey Sachs: The Geopolitics of Peace" published in Consortium News.

In his February 19, 2025, address to the European Parliament titled "The Geopolitics of Peace," Professor Jeffrey Sachs critiqued U.S. foreign policy over the past three decades, attributing numerous global conflicts to America's unipolar ambitions. Drawing from his extensive advisory roles in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, Sachs emphasized firsthand experiences to support his assertions.

Sachs argued that the U.S., particularly after the Soviet Union's dissolution, adopted a stance of global dominance, often disregarding international norms and the security concerns of other nations. He highlighted several conflicts—such as those in Serbia (1999), Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, and Libya—as outcomes of misguided U.S. interventions. He also referenced the 1996 policy paper "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," suggesting it influenced U.S. strategies aimed at reshaping the Middle East.

Regarding Ukraine, Sachs contended that the ongoing crisis is partly due to the U.S. pushing NATO's eastward expansion, neglecting Russia's explicit objections and security considerations. He criticized the U.S. for dismissing opportunities for peaceful resolutions, asserting that this approach has led to unnecessary and hazardous conflicts.

Sachs urged Europe to pursue an independent and realistic foreign policy, one that comprehends Russia's position and Europe's own interests, rather than aligning unquestioningly with U.S. directives. He warned that being a close ally of the U.S. can be perilous, implying that Europe's subordination to U.S. policies might not serve its best interests.

In summary, Sachs called for a reevaluation of global power dynamics, advocating for diplomacy, mutual respect, and a multipolar world order to achieve lasting peace.

Is Jeffrey Sachs a credible, if contrarian voice in this debate?

Jeffrey Sachs is a highly credible yet contrarian voice in the geopolitical debate. His credentials are extensive: he is a distinguished economist, a former advisor to governments worldwide, and a professor with decades of experience in global development and policy. His tenure at institutions like Harvard and Columbia, along with his advisory roles at the UN, give him significant authority on international affairs.

However, Sachs often challenges mainstream Western narratives, particularly U.S. foreign policy. While his critiques of American interventions and NATO expansion align with perspectives from some scholars, diplomats, and policymakers, they diverge sharply from the dominant narratives in Washington and Brussels. His arguments—such as blaming the U.S. for escalating the Ukraine war or suggesting a multipolar world order—resonate in non-Western circles but are often dismissed as overly sympathetic to adversaries like Russia and China.

That said, Sachs bases his arguments on historical context, documented policy decisions, and firsthand experience, making him difficult to dismiss outright. He is neither a fringe voice nor a propagandist but rather a well-informed critic advocating diplomacy over militarism. His perspective adds depth to debates often dominated by pro-Western consensus, making him a valuable, if controversial, commentator.

Which geopolitical experts have criticized his views in detail?

Jeffrey Sachs, a prominent economist and policy advisor, has faced detailed critiques from several geopolitical experts and commentators regarding his views:

William Easterly: In his book "The White Man's Burden," Easterly challenges Sachs's advocacy for large-scale foreign aid as a solution to global poverty. He argues that such top-down approaches often overlook the complexities of local contexts and can lead to ineffective outcomes. Instead, Easterly promotes "searchers"—those who identify and implement bottom-up solutions tailored to specific needs—over "planners" who impose broad, uniform strategies.

Institute for Policy Studies (IPS): In a 2012 article, the IPS opposed Sachs's candidacy for World Bank president, criticizing his past support for "shock therapy" economic reforms in countries like Bolivia and Russia during the 1980s and 1990s. These reforms, characterized by rapid market liberalization and austerity measures, were seen as having detrimental social impacts. The IPS also questioned the sustainability of Sachs's Millennium Villages Project in Africa, suggesting that its reliance on external funding and chemical-dependent agriculture might not be viable long-term solutions.

The Times: A recent article in The Times highlights Sachs's alignment with Russian narratives, particularly his stance that NATO's eastward expansion provoked Russia's actions in Ukraine. The piece notes that Sachs's views often dismiss the agency of Eastern European nations in choosing NATO membership and that his positions have led to appearances on Russian state media. Additionally, the article points out Sachs's influence within the Vatican as an advisor to Pope Francis, suggesting that his perspectives have shaped the Vatican's geopolitical stances, including those toward China.

These critiques underscore a pattern in Sachs's career: his advocacy for bold, systemic solutions—whether in economic reform, foreign aid, or geopolitical strategy—has often been met with skepticism from experts who caution against potential oversimplifications and unintended consequences.

Please extensively focus on his views on Ukraine and the causes of the war.

Jeffrey Sachs, a prominent American economist and policy advisor, attributes the origins of the Ukraine conflict to specific actions by the United States and NATO. His analysis focuses on several key points:

NATO Expansion: Sachs contends that the U.S. and Germany assured Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would not expand eastward if the Soviet Union permitted German reunification. Despite this, NATO expanded into Eastern Europe after the Soviet Union's dissolution, a move Sachs views as a breach of that assurance. He believes this expansion heightened tensions with Russia, particularly when NATO declared in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually become members.

2014 Ukrainian Political Shift: Sachs argues that the U.S. played a role in the 2014 ousting of Ukraine's pro-Russian President, Viktor Yanukovych, which he describes as a "violent overthrow." He asserts that this event led to increased instability in the region and contributed to the ensuing conflict in Eastern Ukraine and Russia's annexation of Crimea.

Neoconservative Influence: Sachs points to the influence of U.S. neoconservative thinkers who advocate for American global military dominance. He believes their support for NATO's eastward expansion and a confrontational stance toward Russia have been significant factors leading to the current crisis.

Path to Peace: Sachs advocates for immediate negotiations to end the conflict, emphasizing the importance of Ukraine's neutrality and the cessation of NATO's eastward expansion. He warns that continued military escalation risks broader confrontation and potentially nuclear conflict.

In summary, Sachs attributes the Ukraine war to U.S. and NATO policies that, in his view, provoked Russia. He calls for diplomatic efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution, focusing on Ukraine's neutrality and addressing Russia's security concerns.

Since his views resonate with the Kremlin, would not "peace" in this context mean surrender?

That's the core critique of Sachs's position—his emphasis on diplomacy and NATO's alleged provocations aligns closely with Russian justifications for the war. His proposed solution—Ukrainian neutrality, NATO halting expansion, and negotiations recognizing Russian security concerns—implicitly asks Ukraine to concede key issues that Moscow demands. Critics argue that this effectively translates to surrender because:

Russia's Stated War Aims Are Maximalist – The Kremlin has repeatedly framed Ukraine not just as a neutral buffer state but as an artificial entity that should be under Russian control. If Ukraine were to accept neutrality on Moscow's terms, it might still face continued territorial dismemberment and subjugation.

Russia Has Rejected Diplomatic Offers – While Sachs emphasizes missed opportunities for peace, critics point out that Russia itself walked away from negotiations, such as in Istanbul (March 2022). Moreover, Moscow annexed four Ukrainian regions in late 2022, signaling it is not merely seeking NATO concessions but territorial conquest.

Ukrainians Themselves Reject Neutrality Under Force – Sachs's argument often downplays Ukrainian agency. Polls and wartime actions show that Ukrainians overwhelmingly reject neutrality and favor closer ties with the West. Given Russia's past actions in Crimea and Donbas, many Ukrainians believe neutrality would leave them vulnerable to future invasions rather than ensure peace.

The Precedent It Sets – If Ukraine is forced to accept neutrality due to military pressure, this would validate Russia's use of force as a diplomatic tool. It could embolden Moscow to push further or inspire similar territorial grabs elsewhere.

From this perspective, "peace" in Sachs's framework could indeed resemble surrender—ceding to Russian demands without guarantees of long-term security for Ukraine. The alternative, in the eyes of his critics, is continued military resistance, even if costly, as the only way to secure a just and lasting peace.

Trumps latest trashing of Zelensky an pausing support of Ukraine, and his open alignment with Putin's demands too can hardly be called a fair “deal”.

Your concerns about former President Trump's recent stance on Ukraine are indeed shared by many experts and officials. His recent actions, including pausing U.S. military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine, have been perceived as aligning closely with Russian interests. Critics argue that such moves could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty and security.

Former National Security Adviser John Bolton has warned that Trump's proposed peace deal "comes pretty close to surrender" to Russian objectives. Bolton suggests that such an agreement could weaken both Ukraine and Europe's security, potentially leading to the U.S. exiting NATO.

Furthermore, Trump's comments defending President Putin's actions in Ukraine and suggesting that dealing with Russia is "easier" than with Ukraine have raised concerns. These statements are seen as justifying Russian aggression and pressuring Ukraine into concessions that could compromise its sovereignty.

In summary, Trump's recent actions and statements regarding Ukraine have been criticized for aligning with Russian demands, potentially compromising Ukraine's sovereignty, and undermining NATO's unity. Such a stance is viewed by many as favoring Russia and pressuring Ukraine into unfavorable concessions.

In contrast, what would a really fair “deal” between Ukraine and Russia look like?

A fair deal between Ukraine and Russia would need to balance Ukraine's sovereignty and security with a realistic framework for ending the war. Unlike Trump's proposal—widely seen as favoring Russia—it would require concessions from both sides without rewarding aggression or setting dangerous precedents. Here's what such a deal could include:

1. Territorial Integrity vs. Political Reality

Ukraine maintains control over the territories it currently holds and retains the right to reclaim occupied regions through diplomatic means.

Russia withdraws from newly occupied territories but retains Crimea under a long-term international agreement (e.g., a 50-year lease to Russia, subject to renewal or referendum).

Special autonomy is granted to Donetsk and Luhansk within Ukraine, with international oversight.

2. Security Guarantees

Ukraine remains militarily independent but receives formal security guarantees (similar to the U.S.-South Korea model) from NATO or specific countries like the U.S., U.K., and France.

NATO commits to a temporary pause in Ukraine's membership process but keeps the door open for future consideration.

A demilitarized zone is created along the Ukraine-Russia border, with UN or OSCE peacekeepers stationed there.

3. Economic and Political Agreements

Russia lifts its blockade of Ukrainian ports and agrees to normalized trade relations.

Ukraine regains access to Russian energy supplies but with diversified energy partnerships to prevent dependence.

Western sanctions on Russia are partially lifted but reinstated if Moscow violates the agreement.

4. War Crimes and Accountability

An independent tribunal investigates war crimes committed by both sides.

Russia formally recognizes Ukrainian sovereignty and pledges non-interference in its internal affairs.

5. Referendums Under International Supervision

In Crimea and possibly Donetsk/Luhansk, internationally supervised referendums are held in 10-15 years to determine their long-term status, ensuring a peaceful resolution.

This kind of deal would require painful compromises from both sides but could provide a path to lasting peace without undermining Ukraine's sovereignty or rewarding Russia's invasion. The challenge is whether either side—especially Putin—would accept such terms, given their current war objectives.

I can already hear the “Njet!” coming from the Kremlin, so is this a realistic proposal?

You're right—the Kremlin would almost certainly reject such a deal today. Russia's war aims remain maximalist, seeking to dismantle Ukrainian sovereignty rather than negotiate a fair settlement. Likewise, Ukraine has little reason to trust Russia after years of aggression, and any territorial concessions would be politically toxic in Kyiv.

So, is this a realistic proposal? Not in the short term. But in the longer term, if battlefield dynamics shift (e.g., if Russia faces military exhaustion or domestic instability) and if Ukraine's Western backers push for negotiations, elements of this framework could become part of real talks.

Right now, neither side is willing to compromise because they both believe they can win more through continued fighting. Any deal would likely come only after a major shift in military or political conditions. Until then, "peace talks" mostly serve as rhetorical tools—Ukraine seeks security guarantees, while Russia seeks a frozen conflict on its terms.

However, Sach's recommendation to Europe to become less dependent on the US seems long overdue.

Yes, Sachs's argument that Europe should pursue greater strategic autonomy from the U.S. is hardly new, but it has become increasingly relevant. For decades, European leaders—most notably Charles de Gaulle and, more recently, Emmanuel Macron—have pushed for a more independent European foreign and defense policy. The war in Ukraine, along with U.S. domestic political instability, has only underscored how vulnerable Europe is to American policy shifts.

Why Europe's Dependence on the U.S. is a Problem

Security Dependence – NATO remains overwhelmingly U.S.-led, with Europe unable to defend itself without American military support. This reliance is risky, especially with figures like Trump questioning U.S. commitments.

Economic Vulnerabilities – Europe has suffered from U.S.-imposed sanctions and trade wars (e.g., with China and Iran), often at odds with European interests.

Diplomatic Subordination – The EU often aligns with Washington's geopolitical stance, even when it clashes with European economic and security priorities (e.g., relations with Russia and China).

How Europe Could Reduce U.S. Dependence

Defense Buildup – A stronger EU military capability, perhaps through an expanded European Defense Union, could lessen NATO reliance.

Energy Independence – Reducing dependence on U.S. LNG by diversifying energy sources (including nuclear and renewables) would give Europe more flexibility.

Independent Diplomacy – The EU could adopt a more balanced approach between the U.S., China, and Russia, rather than following Washington's lead.

That said, true European autonomy remains a challenge. The EU is divided on defense policy, and many Eastern European states still see the U.S. as their primary security guarantor against Russia. While Sachs's call for European independence is logical, its execution remains politically complicated.

Both the US, Russia and China need Europe as a huge market for their exports.

Exactly. Europe is not just a geopolitical pawn—it's a massive economic power in its own right. The EU is the world's second-largest economy (after the U.S.) and a critical trade partner for the U.S., Russia, and China. This economic leverage gives Europe more bargaining power than it often realizes.

Why the U.S., Russia, and China Need Europe

For the U.S.: The EU is America's largest trade and investment partner. European companies are deeply integrated with U.S. markets, and American firms rely on European consumers and supply chains. A truly independent Europe could challenge U.S. dominance in financial and tech sectors.

For Russia: Despite sanctions, Russia still sees Europe as a vital energy market. If Europe fully shifts away from Russian energy, Moscow faces long-term economic losses.

For China: The EU is China's biggest export market, surpassing the U.S. If Europe took a harder stance on Chinese trade practices or restricted key technology transfers, it would significantly impact China's growth.

How Europe Can Leverage This Position

Balanced Diplomacy: Instead of aligning fully with the U.S. (against China) or maintaining hostilities with Russia, Europe could carve out a more independent role, negotiating better trade and security deals.

Strategic Autonomy: If Europe strengthens its military, energy independence, and technology sectors, it could act as a true geopolitical player rather than a dependent ally.

Trade Policy as a Tool: The EU could use its market power to demand fairer trade conditions from all three powers, rather than simply reacting to U.S. or Chinese pressures.

The real question is whether Europe's leaders are willing to act collectively on this potential. Right now, internal divisions and over-reliance on the U.S. (especially for security) keep Europe from asserting itself more forcefully.