At first glance, it may seem that there is a consensus in the West on what exactly led to the armed conflict in Ukraine and how to end it. Arms supplies to Ukraine are expanding with new types of military equipment, and the United States and its allies are categorical: now is not the time for negotiations. Only a few votes are knocked out of the common chorus, including Jeffrey Sachs, a professor at Columbia University, author of popular books on international issues and adviser to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN). The economist is convinced that the Ukrainian crisis could have been avoided if the United States and its allies behaved differently. And despite the categorical nature of the American side, now is the time to sit down at the negotiating table. Jeffrey Sachs probably knows about Russia better than most colleagues: he was an economic adviser first to the Secretary General of the CPSU Central Committee Mikhail Gorbachev, and then to Russian President Boris Yeltsin. Lenta.ru asked an American professor how the conflict in Ukraine could be avoided, what should form the basis of a future peace settlement and why no one in the world really needs U.S. hegemony.

Lenta.ru: How convincing are the statements of the United States and its allies that no one provoked Russia to launch a military operation in Ukraine?

Jeffrey Sachs: Unfortunately, the war (hereinafter we are talking about Russia's special military operation in Ukraine)* in Ukraine was largely the result of geopolitical competition between the United States and Russia, including the desire of the United States to expand the NATO and the political struggle for influence in Ukraine.

U.S. NATO expansion campaign launched in 2008, as well as the participation of the United States in the events of Euromaidan in 2014, were serious and unsuccessful provocations.

It would be much better for Ukraine if the U.S. and Russia agreed on Ukraine's military neutrality after 2014 and if the U.S. and European countries contributed to the implementation of the Minsk agreements

Ukraine could and should have avoided a devastating war* and achieve real sovereignty and security.

In addition, Ukrainian politicians would have done much wiser if they recognized ethnic diversity within the country and acted on the basis of mutual respect between different ethnic groups and geographical regions.

Did the United States realize that their policies could provoke an armed conflict in Ukraine?

American neoconservatives have definitely sought - and continue to strive - for further expansion of NATO and were convinced that they could achieve this without war*. That was their real idea, but they seriously miscalculated.

How can this conflict be stopped?

The war* should end with NATO's statement that it will not expand to Ukraine, Russia's withdrawal of its army from Ukraine, demilitarization and pragmatic agreements on Crimea and Donbass, including the freezing of the conflict along the negotiated demarcation lines.

The guarantors of the agreement should be the UN Security Council and a group of neutral states friendly to both Russia and Ukraine, such as India, Brazil, Argentina and others.

What happens if the situation cannot be resolved at the negotiating table? Does the conflict have the potential to escalate into a nuclear war between Russia and the United States?

Both sides have a reserve for further escalation.

Currently, the advantage is probably on the side of Russia, but I am concerned about the further round of escalation by Western countries

If Russia really now has a significant advantage on the battlefield - and this is possible - I hope that Russia will use it to ensure adequate conditions for a peaceful settlement, such as Ukraine's neutrality, the lifting of economic sanctions and other measures that would eliminate the heavy costs of this war*.

If Russia too aggressively seeks an advantage only in the military plane, it can lead to further serious escalation. We need to stop the upward escalation cycle.

The West continues to impose new sanctions against Russia. But is it possible to completely isolate a country like Russia from the rest of the world - economically and politically?

Russia is not isolated because most developing countries want to maintain good relations with it, both diplomatic and economic.

Sanctions were imposed by the United States, Great Britain, the European Union and several Asian states.

However, most countries want to remain neutral and continue to trade with Russia. For this reason, the impact of sanctions is limited

You surprised many by saying live that the U.S. is behind the explosions of Nord Stream gas pipelines. Do you still think so?

There is growing indirect evidence indicating that either the U.S. or one of its allies with the active support of Americans, such as the United Kingdom, did it. It's quite logical.

Even [U.S. President Joe] Biden warned that the gas pipeline would come to an end in the event of Russia's invasion of Ukraine

Sweden saw a lot of evidence of this at the bottom of the ocean, but instead of revealing it, it hid the evidence. This suggests that Sweden and its ally, the United States, did not want the public to see this evidence. The Washington Post recently published an article in which Russia was openly involved in the explosions, but did not indicate who was really behind them.

In your opinion, how will the investigation of the incident be completed by the authorities of Sweden, Denmark and Germany?

I think that the investigation, of course, has already been quietly "com completed." Sweden must disclose all the data of its investigation in the UN Security Council and honestly tell the world what it has discovered. She has to do it no matter what she's learned. However, I doubt that Sweden will take such a step.

Tensions are also growing in another part of the world - in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. Is the Ukrainian scenario likely in Taiwan in the coming years?

The U.S. is fueling a cold war with China, and Taiwan is part of this war.

The U.S. is afraid of China's economic success and sees it as a threat to American leadership - that is, the unipolarity and hegemony of the United States

Of course, China poses a threat to U.S. dominance, but we do not need it, and we should not strive for it.

We need to strive for multipolarity that meets the provisions of the UN Charter and in which all countries respect international law.

Do you agree with the opinion that current events indicate a transition from a unipolar world order to multipolarity?

Yes, the unipolar world came to an end, and perhaps 20 years ago.

After all, how and why a country with only 4.1 percent of the world's population can believe that it is the only superpower and strive to maintain this status in every possible way

This makes no sense from an ethical, practical or historical point of view.

What role will developing countries play in the new world order? How will the role of the G7 countries change?

I want to point out one very interesting fact: at the moment BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) are roughly equal to the G7 countries (USA, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan) in terms of gross domestic product calculated by purchasing power parity.

The newest reality is coming. Multipolar world

And this is great news for the whole world, unless, of course, we overextell each other in the process. But we must continue to make determined efforts to create a multipolar world in accordance with the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Why are more and more countries moving away from using US dollars?

Three factors affect de-dollarization. The first is a gradual decline in the U.S. share in the world economy. The second is the politicization of the dollar by the U.S. government. The dollar should serve as a currency, not a geopolitical instrument of Washington. However, now the U.S. quite often tries to prevent the use of the dollar by countries it does not like - Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Afghanistan and others. The third is the transition to digital currencies of central banks, such as digital renminbi, as a result of which settlements will not have to pass through the U.S. banking system.

Today, the world is facing many serious crises - economic, climate, food and energy. How can we resist them?

The first necessary condition is peace. We need to end the war* in Ukraine and avoid the war in Taiwan. The second condition is dialogue. We need direct and constant negotiations between the United States, the European Union, Russia, China, India and other countries. The G20 is a very useful format for this. The third is the work on common goals for all countries, in particular the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Climate Agreement. The fourth is global solidarity to share the technological and financial burden of transition to a sustainable economy. The fifth is justice for poor countries to have the opportunity to develop.

All our pressing problems - climate change, the energy crisis, disease, poverty and so on - can be solved. But this will require goodwill, strong science and global cooperation

Read the article here: https://lenta.ru/articles/2023/01/24/sachs/