Nuclear War On The Brink | Jeffrey Sachs 

and they show no understanding and insight whatsoever into our global dangers. Now you raise the question why is this so? And uh of course it’s a puzzle. That’s what we’re trying to understand. Where did even the sense of self-preservation go? Because we are getting closer and closer to nuclear war through this kind of recklessness. And whenever that risk is raised, we’re told, „Don’t worry about it. It’s a bluff. It’s uh nothing to worry about.“ which itself is a form of reckless idiocy because of course we are facing real risks and no politician should be so obtuse as to not understand that. So where does all of this come from? I think probably at the core is the profound arrogance  of the US government and of its allied intelligence agencies  after the end of the Soviet Union. I think in one sense all that we are experiencing of the last uh 34 years since the 1991

demise of the Soviet Union reflects a shocking arrogance of the United

States security state uh and of the CIA which since that moment has felt that it

could act with impunity. uh that it could act unilaterally, that it could abandon all treaty frameworks

and all agreements. And that arrogance of course

uh arose with the US idea that it was now the unchallenged global hegeimon. uh

and now uh it could do as it pleased, whether launching wars, overthrowing

states, uh engaging in coups and assassinations,

or abandoning the nuclear arms framework. Uh this week’s attack was a

kind of abandonment of the nuclear arms framework, but there have been many

since uh the end of the Soviet Union. The United States has essentially

abandoned one treaty commitment after another. starting in 2002 with the

unilateral abandonment by the US of the anti-bballistic missile treaty including

2019 the abandonment of uh the intermediate nuclear force treaty uh of

course in the current phase of the USRussia

conflict in Ukraine the uh effective end of the new start agreement

We don’t have a nuclear arms control framework because the United States has

walked out of it unilaterally and actions this week further amplify the

fact to Russia that um they are under a strategic uh attack by the United

States. It’s extraordinarily dangerous and reckless, but all

compounded by the fact that the risks are not even recognized. They’re not even acknowledged. They’re not even

mentioned. uh our mainstream media are

so obtuse and ignorant or so willfully under the thumb of the CIA that uh we

get no uh inkling of uh any implications

of what’s happened this week. It doesn’t happen in a vacuum either. I

mean the overall path of the world now, not only are we now backing and aiding

at least many of the European countries in the United States a genocide in Gaza, but also this threats of war with Iran,

which could be a world war on its own. talking about war with China which could also end the war the world and now yeah

attacking the nuclear forces of Russia something that would been the a nightmare situation during the cold war

and it’s just as you said it’s brushed off and uh indeed it’s presented as you

know if you’re pro- Ukraine then you have to clap like a seal and if you critical of it then you’re somehow

pro-Russian this is kind of the new intellectual level we have and it’s not just the medias, the politicians, they

they seem like fanatics. This I don’t understand where again where’s the

opposition. Why why are there no peace movements? Indeed, the peace movement seems to be arguing that peace depends

on, you know, defeating Russia. It’s uh I can’t really make sense of this. I

don’t know how how did we become the fanatics here? The only thing I can say about this in

trying to understand is that these uh uh relentless wararm mongers like uh

Starmer like uh Emanuel Mcronone like Mertz uh are

unpopular in their own countries. So we could say that part of this approach

is maintained by the progressive collapse of uh the ethos of uh democracy

in that what is happening does not reflect public opinion by and large and

that is despite the fact that the public is inundated with propaganda in favor of

this ongoing war. It’s not true that the mainstream public in Europe or the

United States wants this war. Uh so not only are the politicians and this

corporate media uh on a relentless uh course of war uh but despite all of the

propaganda they don’t have the public rooting for war. Now what is true is

there is no organized uh opposition to this that has any effect whatsoever. The

politicians uh rate in uh sometimes the the the teens or uh in the 20s in

percent approval ratings. Uh yet they still uh somehow carry out their

functions. their governments don’t fall. opposition uh politicians rarely take

office partly because the ones that would be in opposition are blocked from power still uh either by being

disqualified in uh in uh actual uh elections as happened in Romania uh and

perhaps is happening in France right now or by a coalition of parties the

historic governing parties uh getting together to somehow try to cobble uh

very fragile uh coalitions to block the voices that oppose the war. So I think

it just adds another measure of complexity to your question which is why

are our political institutions so utterly ineffective in

uh bringing some kind of uh control over this situation despite the clear

unpopularity of this. Now, it’s true uh people are not by and large out in the streets. Uh

that raises other questions, though that’s not a very effective form of

control over foreign policy. We basically have lost uh the control of

our political institutions over foreign policy. I think foreign policy has been guided in the United States for decades

by the proverbial deep state which means the uh unaccountable

uh institutions that operate in secrecy and operate by lies. Uh the CIA first

and foremost among them but not not the only one. So the ben numbumbing of our

politics, the uh unaccountability of our foreign policy is part of this

story. Again, it is born in the arrogance that

took over uh American foreign policy and apparently and to my surprise that of

the US vassal states in Europe to an incredible extent after 1991. But there

is a kind of be numbing of this effect, a a deep cynicism and skepticism

throughout the west that uh our institutions are actually working. Our

governments are unpopular and uh justly so. But it doesn’t lead to

self-reflection or self-correction to this point. Trump is a

a puzzling and I could say interesting uh figure in

this. Of course, he’s so unstable in his behavior, in his demeanor, in his

messaging that we can’t make heads or tails of Trump.

But you get the glimmers of an idea that he would like the war in Ukraine to

stop, but he seems incompetent or unable to do so, maybe

simply not in control. uh when you take an event uh as just occurred where uh

Ukraine has taken an action that is profoundly dangerous and destabilizing.

There’s not a a word from the White House, not an expression of concern.

There is uh the inside question who knew what when.

Again, I think it’s the overwhelming uh view of experts that of course this

was a CIA planned and executed operation uh not carried out by 18 months

stealthily by a country 100% dependent

on US intelligence. There are reports that the US Secretary of Defense watched

all of this in real time. Uh whether that’s true or not, again, we don’t know

and we’re not going to know because the government lies and there will be no

definitive proof of this. But all of that would run against the public

narrative of Trump trying to bring parties to the negotiating table. And

then when an event like this occurs, we have no

explanation, no comment, uh not even a question mark raised by these fools at

the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post as if that’s even a question to be asked. So

does Trump play a role in foreign policy? Not clear. Uh but uh this uh

just adds to the mystery. Well, yeah, it seems well I guess

evident that um American and likely British intelligence services uh must

have participated or at least at a minimum known about this and given its approval. But uh is there any chance

that Trump didn’t know because you know either he’s complicit or this is a I

guess a spectacular show of incompetence? Uh you know he keeps making the point that this is not his

war. But uh as you said with his silence, no comments, this is also becoming now his uh this is Trump’s

attack now on Russia’s nuclear forces. This is uh well do do you think there’s

any chance he did know about this? because I’m I’m trying to figure out if they’re, you know,

crazy or disorganized or it’s it’s very hard to understand what is going on

exactly. I’m sorry I can’t give an answer. I’m so far from the inside on

this. I would say that there is a a

quite good chance that Trump personally did not know. He is not an organized

person. he does not systematically uh process intelligence briefings. Um,

even so, uh, if that were the case, uh,

a president with his responsibility, uh, after the fact

would say something to the public, uh, say something to his, uh, CIA, say

something to the Russians, say something to, uh, not have this spiral into

catastrophe. Again, has he said something privately?

I doubt it. Uh not the way this White House works would would this have happened to not uh be known in one way

or another. Uh but the fact plainly on the surface that he has said nothing in

public uh is also uh profoundly uh insidious in its implications for trying

to reach some kind of uh negotiated end to this war. Really, how can Russia

negotiate a peace if complex intelligence operations attacking the

absolute core of its national security are undertaken in this manner in the

same moment that peace negotiations are being pressed by uh the United States?

The answer is it can’t. Uh Russia can have no uh trust of course whatsoever in

the regime in Ukraine. That goes without saying. Uh but Russia cannot have trust

in the United States government uh under circumstances like this either. It makes

it extraordinarily difficult uh to see any prospect other than ongoing war.

That it is widely argued and believed is the deep state intention. Uh again that

raises all sorts of questions. For what reason does the CIA, MI6 and others

want continued war? Is it that it’s just good business? Well, that’s no doubt

part of it. That’s the mindset. That’s the incentives. Could be true for Zalinski and his gang as well. Uh that

this is just the money-making operation. It’s their business operation. Uh it

could be the arrogance and unaccountability and recklessness that we’ve seen repeatedly at play in US

foreign policy over the last 34 years. Um

again, these are puzzles rather than at least on my part any kind of definitive

uh answers because there’s no honest accounting of any of this.

So, how how can Russia respond to this? Or how do you have any I guess informed

predictions? Because I um spoke this morning with um a former Indian

ambassador, brother Kumar who was very usually softspoken uh was calling for

you deescalation but now you know he saw it as being a I guess irresponsible not

to respond. So effectively arguing that Russia should now unleash its ornik

missiles and and again unleash a fury upon its opponent not just the Ukraine

but also on western countries who had attacked its nuclear um nuclear

forces. Now again this is a this isn’t a this came from the logic that you you

can’t have stabil international stability based on nuclear deterrence if

one accepts that this is the new normal that from now on we can attack Russia’s nuclear forces destroy its nuclear

bombers and somehow Russia will not to do anything so it’s uh again this it’s

it’s a nightmare situ scenario to be honest if this happens But uh how how

can Russia respond now? Because this is uh it’s uh if if there is no response,

this could be seen as more irresponsible than an actual response. So how does one maintain the nuclear deterrent if there

is no I guess retaliatory strike?

A fundamental problem in reaching peace is that uh when one side shows

restraint, if the other side interprets that as weakness uh and now you go for

the blood, then obviously uh showing restraint which is a predicate for peace

becomes impossible. And that is the deadly logic uh that the neocons and the

deep state have exercised for more than 30 years. Any show of restraint by one

side has been interpreted by the United States as an invitation for being even

more aggressive. And that is an argument that was immediately raised uh in the

aftermath of this attack on Russia’s strategic bombers. You see, you see how clever Ukraine is. You see how they can

have the fight in them. You see how this can uh must go on and can go on. And we

have uh absolutely uh dreadful fools

like Senator Lindsey Graham who’s uh one of one of the prime idiots of American

politics who chles happily about uh such events. The implication of this indeed

is that hardliners on both sides prevail. And when hardliners on both

sides prevail, that means escalation. When escalation occurs between two

nuclear superpowers, uh that means that we step closer to the risk of uh allout

nuclear war. And that’s indeed what has happened this week. Uh I hope against

hope uh that uh Russia would not attack Germany or Britain or the United States

in retaliation for this. Uh Russia interprets this as an attack by the US

and Britain directly because they assume with uh high plausibility and no denial

uh or no no cogent denial that the west was deeply

implicated in this or should have been because this is their uh this regime is

their creation. Um so Russia’s view is yes there is that responsibility of uh

of the west. If such a direct attack were to occur we

would we we would face easily and obviously a

spiral to nuclear war. Um, what I think is more likely and more plausible is

that Russia interprets this as uh basically the need to militarily defeat

Ukraine. And this is what former President Medved said immediately after

this attack. Well, that this is clear. Uh, it means that the Ukraine regime

needs to end. And I think that that is the plausible reading of all of this. So

I believe that it means an escalation of the war in Ukraine. Uh and uh certainly

it uh knocked down the very foundation of any kind of peace that uh ostensibly

was President Trump’s aim. Well, my final question is well what was

intended to be the first question which is uh the why why we no longer discuss

security concerns of our opponents because uh again the the point of departure in international security is

if you want to enhance peace you need to you know discuss in mutual security concerns finding way of mitigating it

and uh um and in the absence of It’s the only way you can have security is well

defeating your adversaries, well attacking their nuclear forces, you know, destroying them on the

battlefield. But so the whole the whole premise of how to to create peace uh is

isn’t really there though. The diplomacy isn’t there if you cannot actually recognize that your opponent has

legitimate security concerns. And this is not not just Russia. We see this. We don’t discuss Iran. We don’t discuss

China or or the security concerns of anyone else. It’s always um yeah almost

yes a cartoonish view of just simply opponents having bad intentions. Uh

again this is it didn’t always used to be like this. Do you know to have shed some light how we ended up in this

scenario where we just yeah run around ignorant uh unable to discuss our

opponent’s security concerns? I think that there is one uh one uh view

that uh um accounts for this approach and then

there is a deeper argument I would say. Uh one view is that diplomacy is

useless. Uh this is a widely held view. Uh that you can’t have diplomacy. Uh the

other side is evil and uh cheats and so diplomacy is only an exercise in naivee.

Um and uh th this has a a uh widespread um uh a a

widespread echo in all public narratives

and discourse in the west. Uh essentially it recites endlessly

um Munich 1938. Why have diplomacy? The other side will

cheat. Don’t appease. Don’t be an idiot. Don’t be a sap.

Don’t get taken for a ride. Diplomacy is useless. So that’s one view which is uh

diplomats are are naive background noise. The the real

issue is power. uh and uh those who take this view think that conflict is

inevitable uh and that that’s the real state of affairs. So uh anyone talking

about peacemaking is a you know a university professor who doesn’t

understand the real world. So this is a a a view that is extraordinarily

dangerous, extraordinarily ahistorical, extraordinarily reckless, especially in

the nuclear age. But it is a widespread view. Uh it raises a second question.

Where did that view really come from? Um and I think that there are

maybe two parts of the the answer. One is an intellectual part. I I blame game

theory a lot for this actually at an intellectual level because game theory

is uh actually um the way that it’s practiced a very naive way that it’s

practiced is you don’t talk to your opponent. You

calculate based on their moves. And so there’s no need for diplomacy in game

theory. The irony of course in game theory is that you often end up in mutual disaster as game theory shows. So

game theory misses uh in some sense the point uh that that kind of behavior is

mutually reckless. But I think that fundamentally I would come back to a

different view. Most countries in the world uh try to

engage in diplomacy still diplomacy hasn’t disappeared. Uh there was

diplomacy between Iran and Saudi Arabia that was a very important raproma. There

is diplomacy taking place in many parts of the world. It’s in the west uh and

principally in the US alliance where diplomacy disappeared. uh and I believe

that this at the very core is not from game theory or from perceptions of the

evil of the other side but is from the arrogance of power. I I come back to the

basic idea that US leaders came to believe in the course

of many decades that they could do whatever they want and that that view

continues until this day that there are no limits to power. uh and that

ultimately uh the US will prevail uh and therefore should do anything uh

overthrow governments, kill opponents, support genocides, uh give intelligence to destroy

strategic bombers of your opponent and so forth because the US is and remains

the unchallenged uh power of the world. Of course, to my

mind, this is an insanity, not a an accurate description of the state of

power in a nuclear age when the United States is vulnerable to destruction uh

precisely by the kinds of actions that it instigates that is provocations

against other nuclear powers. But I believe that it is that mindset at the

core that led to the destruction of diplomacy over the last 30 years. I

would say that there is a uh precedent for this. To my mind, Britain behaved

with repeated uh almost unrelenting

unrelenting lies and cynicism during its apogee. uh

as a world hegeimon uh and uh Britain uh

never abided by treaties uh always broke them at convenient moments uh always

viewed power as the ultimate issue and that view came from Britain’s

superiority of power not from the logic of conflict uh and the logic of peace

and so I think what we’re seeing is a kind of Anglo Saxon tradition over two

centuries that is not yet brought under uh control of the reality of our time.

The reality is a multipolar world but the mindset still is of a unipolar world. Well, Professor Sachs, like always, thank you so much for being so generous with your time and, it’s  I wish there was a more cheerful topic. This is uh just horrifying. But uh yeah, thanks again.

Well, we’ll continue the discussions. I’m grateful to have them with you.