Judging Freedom - Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: The UN and Russia

Episode Date: February 25, 2025

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: The UN and RussiaSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, February 25th, 2025. Professor Jeffrey Sachs is here with us on the United Nations and Russia. Oh, what strange bedfellows these things can make. But first this. Markets are at an all-time high. Euphoria has set in. The economy seems unstoppable. But the last administration has buried us so deep in debt and deficits, it's going to take a lot of digging to get us out of this hole. Are you prepared? Lear Capital specializes in helping people like me

and you grow and protect our wealth with gold. Did you know that during Trump's last presidency, gold rose 54% to a record high? If that happens again, that puts gold at $4,200 an ounce in his next term. Don't wait. Do what I did. Call Lear at 800-511-4620

or go to learjudgenap.com for your free gold ownership kit and special report, $4,200 gold ahead. When you call, ask how you can also get up to $15,000 in bonus gold with a qualifying purchase. Call 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com and tell them the judge sent you. Professor Sachs, welcome here, my dear friend. Always a pleasure. I had the privilege of watching your talk at the European Parliament. It was nothing short of brilliant and it was captivating. But of course, I'm accustomed to that from your time. Thank you. visits this week to the White House by French President Macron and British Prime Minister Stormer. What leverage, if any, do they have with Donald Trump? They have no leverage at all. None at all. They are confused and a bit shell-shocked.

Basically, the United States was following a wrong policy vis-a-vis Russia for 30 years. Europe signed up to it. It led to war in Ukraine, a completely unnecessary war, as President Trump keeps saying, and he's completely right about that. President Trump ended that 30 years of wrongheaded policy. But the Europeans are like the cartoon characters that have run off the roof of the building. They haven't started falling yet. They don't realize what's happened to them. They look down and they see that there's nothing below.

They don't understand that the U.S. is getting out of a wrong approach. The wrong approach was the idea that the United States could provoke Russia, surround Russia, expand NATO, do anything it wanted. And of course, in the end, it led to this brutal, terrible war in Ukraine that has claimed at least a million casualties on the Ukrainian side, I would estimate, meaning deaths and severely wounded. And Trump's saying, what's the point of all of this? This is a waste of lives, a waste of time, a waste of money, a waste of economy. I want it to end. The Europeans just cannot get organized yet to understand that they need diplomacy with Russia.

And they're not there yet. Do the Europeans think that Russia is going to invade them? Yes, apparently, which Russia is not going to do. And if they wanted to make sure that Russia would not invade them, they would sit down and negotiate collective security with Russia. They would actually talk, which they have not done. President Trump, to his enormous credit, has reopened the lines of communication with Russia. But Europe has not done so. And Europe is running around, we even heard the Prime Minister of Denmark, of all places, running around saying continued war is better

than peace. If I were the Prime Minister of Denmark, I'd worry more about Donald Trump's statements about Greenland than I would about Putin. She's got real issues with the United States, by the way. But what she is doing is continuing to press for war with Russia. It makes no sense from Europe's point of view. The deep irony of all of this is that Europe suffered a terrible economic loss by the U.S. policy, because the U.S. policy included to break the links between Russia and Europe. But those two economies, the European Union economy and the Russian economy, are complementary. Russia's filled with natural resources, including low-cost natural gas, a critical energy source for German industry. The U.S. went out of its way to break that link, even bombing the Nord Stream pipeline, destroying it. And Europe just sat there. Now the European economy is in a shambles. This is why the German government, led by the Social Democrats, suffered the worst imaginable defeat, because the economy has collapsed under the devices of U.S. policy. But Europe has not figured out yet what to do, how to address that.

Right. How do you evaluate this mix or this mess by adding in the likely new German chancellor who's in favor of the war in Ukraine. Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the bay with WGU. With courses available online 24-7 and monthly start dates, WGU offers maximum flexibility so you can focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. The most likely new German coalition is a CDU. That's the party that just won, the center-right, so-called, and most likely chancellors, Merz, the head of that party, together with the outgoing losing party, the SPD, because the two centrist parties, center-right and center-left, so-called, do have a majority according to the vote that just took place. Both of those parties have been basically pro-war parties. Now, Mertz said something very interesting and in a way very surprising just after his election, he said, I will be governing over basically

the end of the transatlantic relationship as we knew it, because with Trump, there's an independent American policy. And so we're going to have to have our own policy. Merz also said even NATO itself is in question. These are correct statements. But whether Merz then takes the implication of that to say that Germany needs diplomacy with Russia, that step has not been taken yet. It's very interesting that over many decades, German politicians, sometimes even against U.S. pressure, understood that Germany needed a direct diplomacy with Soviet Union and with Russia. Willy Brandt, a famous social democrat of Germany, a former chancellor, said that Germany needed an Ostpolitik, an Eastern politics that wasn't just the Cold War. Many German chancellors pursued that approach over the years. But actually, since 2008, when Angela Merkel was chancellor, and then with Olaf Scholz to an incredible extent

during the Biden period, Germany gave up any independent approach to the Russians, allowed their pipeline and their economy essentially to be blown up because the economy was dependent on low-cost energy from Russia. And Germany has not figured out to this moment how to return to diplomacy with Russia. If it does, this would be good for Europe, good for the United States, good for Russia. Actually, there's nothing wrong with peace. This is the most basic point. And Ukraine would be saved, by the way, rather than destroyed, as we talk about each week, because Ukraine is being completely bloodied and picked apart on the battlefield, utterly predictably. So the sooner the war stops, the more Ukraine is saved, the opposite of what we were told for years.

Agreed, agreed, agreed. In all the goods you just articulated, I did not hear a good for NATO. What will become of NATO if Donald Trump says effectively, I don't think he's going to pull all troops out, but whatever, you're on your own? I think it would be fine for Europe and fine for the United States and fine for the world. When the Warsaw Pact military alliance of the Soviet Union, was unilaterally disbanded in 1990 by President Gorbachev of the Soviet Union. That was the opportunity to end NATO as well. Instead, the neocons made NATO an instrument of their delusion of US.S. global hegemony. So instead of disbanding NATO, which would have made sense because NATO was no longer needed to defend against a no longer existent Soviet Union, NATO became an instrument of U.S. power expansion. It finally led to wars in Georgia and Ukraine because the

US pushed so far that the Russians said, no, we're not going to have you, you, the US, on our borders militarily. Something completely sensible and obvious to generations of American diplomats, but they were overridden by the neocons, by the presidents that went along with this, and Europe bought into it in a kind of fatuous way. NATO doesn't need to exist for European security. Yes, by the way, there are real issues for European security that need to be attended. There is the question of the nuclear umbrella because we live in a nuclear weapons. Somehow Europe would need to make that a European-wide deterrent. This is complicated, but feasible in my view. Europe has real issues on its border with Russia. How to stay out of each other's way. This involves the Baltic states, which are, on the one hand, they have significant Russian minority populations, meaning Russian-speaking ethnic Russians in Estonia and Latvia. At the same time, those two countries, because they have the United States behind them, are the most vulgar and russophobic in their rhetoric right now in the hate speech against

Russia. My advice is, if you have a significant Russian minority population, if you're on the border of Russia, drop the hate speech and start the diplomatic speech. Not to be naive, but stop the hate, because the hate puts you in increased vulnerability. And they cannot figure that out, how to live next to their neighbor. It's possible. There's a lot of history about how to do that. One approach, by the way, that Ukraine should have taken, and that was the lesson of history of Austria, was neutrality. When Austria declared its neutrality in 1955 as part of a deal for the Soviet Union to leave Austria and reestablish a sovereign Austria after World War II, the Soviets left and they never bothered

Austria again. Austria became an extraordinarily successful country. Finland is another case on Russia's border. And a term, a derogatory term, entered the lexicon called Finlandization, which means you don't attack verbally or in policy the Soviet Union or Russia because it's a big power on your border. Well, I have a point about Finlandization. Each year, I co-publish something called the World Happiness Report, which reports on worldwide surveys of people's views of their well-being. Which country in the world has ranked at the top of the list for years? Finland. They were neutral. They were not tormented. They had created an enormously prosperous, peaceful society next to Russia, and they landed them at the top of the list. Didn't they join NATO? Yes, of course. They joined NATO for no reason except the United States' fear-mongering and the russophobia and the hate speech. This is so ironic. Sweden and Finland

were neutral. They were stable. They were prosperous. They were happy. But the United States, in an analogy I constantly use, because I think it's the closest that I know of, was playing the game of risk. And if people played that board game ever in their life, it means they want, the U.S. wanted its peace on every part of the board. And peace means military bases. Peace means U.S. presence. I remember rolling the dice for Kamchatka. There you go. We all went to Kamchatka. Yes, I did too all the time. Exactly.

Kamchatka. Let me play President Trump and President Macron yesterday. Watch the body language on both. President Macron does not like what President Trump says. He reaches over and touches him. Trump famously doesn't like to be touched. And Macron gives a retort to what Trump was saying. I may have to read the transcript because his English is heavily accented.

This is yesterday afternoon in the Oval Office. Chris, cut number four. Seven, seven, seven. You understand, Europe is loaning the money to Ukraine. They get their money back. No, in fact, to be frank, we paid. We paid 60% of the total default. And it was through, like the US, loans, guarantee, grants, and we provided real money, to be

clear. We have 230 billion frozen assets in Europe, Russian assets, but this is not as a collateral of a loan because this is not our belonging. So they are frozen. If at the end of the day, in the negotiation we will have with Russia,

they're ready to give it to us, super, it will be loaned at the end of the day and Russia would have paid for that. If you believe that, it's okay with me. I'm going to read the two key sentences. The response, we have 250 billion frozen assets in Europe, Russian assets. But this is not collateral of a loan because this is not our belonging. So they are frozen.

If at the end of the day in the negotiation we will have with Russia, they're ready to give it to us, super. It will be loaned at the end of the day, and Russia would have to pay for that. Trump, if you believe that, it's okay with me. I thought that President Macron looked petty and came with hat in hand, and I thought Trump looked childish. Look, this was not a fruitful exchange. Macron doesn't have, let's say, what to offer. What was Macron bringing? What will Starmer bring if they

try to bring more war, more anti-Russia approach for the U.S.? Trump, I'm counting on him to say no, because he's been on the right course. He's ending this war. It makes sense for the U.S. It makes sense for Russia. It makes sense for Ukraine. It makes sense for Europe. Europe needs to get a different idea of what to do quickly. And I've spoken with President Macron on many occasions. They could figure this out, honestly. The issue specifically about the frozen Russian assets is such a twisted, tortuous story, except to say that the United States believed that freezing Russian assets and imposing sanctions on Russia economically would bring the economy to its knees. That is the Russian economy. It was a wrong idea, as so many of the American foreign policy ideas during the Biden period and for longer than that. It didn't work. There is Europe in Belgium and something called Euroclear with the frozen Russian assets that belong to Russia. Thank you. So they should end these sanctions, reestablish economic relations. Yes, discuss, determine a collective security framework.

Put things through the UN Security Council, as was done yesterday in a vote in which Russia, the U.S., and China sided together in the Security Council while Britain and France abstained. In other words, there's a chance for a global understanding of the major powers on how to make peace, to have that agreed in the U.N. Security Council, to re-establish economic links that should not have been broken. This is thanks to a much more realistic policy under President Trump. What happened at the Security Council yesterday? There was a remarkable day of votes in the UN General Assembly in the morning and in the Security Council in the afternoon. In the UN General Assembly, the U.S. had put forward on the third anniversary of the start of the Russian so-called special military operation,

the invasion that started on February 22nd, 2022, a resolution that called for a quick end to the war. The Europeans said, no, no, no, you have to condemn Russia. The United States said, no, we need to end the war. The Europeans said, we need to condemn Russia. In the morning, in the General Assembly, there was a vote that essentially followed the European line, where 95 countries voted to condemn Russia's aggression. The United States voted against, together with Russia and some other countries, and about 65 countries abstained.

In the afternoon, the same issue was taken up in the Security Council, the place where war and peace is decided. There, the U.S. version prevailed in a vote 10 to nothing in which the U.S., China and Russia sided together the U.N. Security Council abstained from the vote, but they didn't vote against the U.S. So the U.N. Security Council resolution, the binding resolution, because General Assembly resolutions are not binding the same way, the Security Council resolution just calls for a quick end of the conflict. And on that, Russia, China and the U.S. sided together. And fortunately, France and Britain did not try to veto a quick end to the war. They just abstained on that resolution. friendships. There are no lasting enmities. There are only lasting interests. You recently spoke at the European Parliament. It was a brilliant speech, Professor Sachs. It was very, very well received. Can you give us a one or two minute version on the variance of realism in foreign policy, personified by you and our mutual friend, John Mearsheimer? Well, there are shadings. John, a dear friend and a brilliant scholar,

is the lead proponent of what's called offensive realism. And he takes a pessimistic view that great powers are naturally in conflict because they face what he says is a kind of Antarctic environment in which there is an inevitable struggle for survival. His magnum opus at the beginning of the 21st century is called the tragedy of great power politics, because he has taken the view that tragedy, meaning conflict, is almost inevitable, at least with reasonably high probability, because great powers will end up in a conflict with each other. There are different shadings. There's something called defense realism. There's other variants that say,

you know, the big powers can stay out of each other's lane, stay away from each other, can make treaties, can think about arrangements where they understand for long periods of time, don't break your word because that would undermine the possibilities of cooperation on many things where mutual cooperation is really important. I'm of that view that cooperation is possible, that we need to stay out of each other's lane when it comes to the U.S. and China or the U.S. and Russia. Give each other space. Don't push NATO to Ukraine and Georgia. That's

a direct provocation. Don't massively arm Taiwan. That is a direct red line for China. I don't want China and Russia setting up military bases in Canada or Mexico. Thank you very much. I want space between the major powers so that we don't blow each other up. You know who is also listening and who also understands defensive realism without articulating the phrase, the president of the United States. Thank you, Professor Sachs. Thank you for another brilliant, instructive, challenging, and helpful discussion. Deeply, deeply appreciated. I hope you come back again

next week, as always, no matter where you are on the planet. We'll see you next week. Thank you, Jeff. All the best. Bye-bye. Bye. Truly a brilliant and instructive conversation. Coming up later today at two o'clock, Matt Ho at three o'clock, Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. channel for judging freedom. We'll see you next time. learning. With courses available 24-7 and monthly start dates, you can earn your degree on your schedule. You may even be able to graduate sooner than you think by demonstrating mastery of the material you know. Make 2025 the year you focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu.