the same emotions, emotions of the heart, soul, emotions of the eyes, because again this meeting. with the present , this film is somehow fundamental for me, is it such a moody one that it gives something more than just about the motherland than just about the fate of a scout. and i think that stirlitz will be around for a long time. forgive me for paphos for us guiding stars in this chaos of materialism and selfishness. stirlitz, i'll ask you to stay.

on the air, a special analytical issue of the big game, we have a conversation with jeffrey sachs, a professor at columbia university a renowned political economist and indeed one of the few people in america who has both competence and independent judgment. and geoffrey are very happy to see you great. thanks for taking the time. thank you, it is very nice to be with you literally in a week it will turn a year and a half. how the russian special military operation in ukraine began well, everything connected with this, uh, which we have already talked about many times. uh, we imagine what happened. we imagine, although not

completely. but more or less, where are we we are. but where are we going white house representatives john carby, uh, said, the next thing is about the prospects for negotiations. and relible , the idea is being discussed that ukraine can become a nato member only within those borders that will be liberated precisely at the time of signing the agreement. and after that, ukraine will begin to fight for the rest of the territory through diplomatic, not military means. i appreciate the administration's position that ukraine decides for itself how to end this war. but what do you think? can the administration support the idea of ​​taking only part of ukraine in order to so that she has a guarantee of security and in order to end the war, and only then fight for the rest of the territory occupied by russia will be excluded from this, nothing of the kind is being discussed. this is erroneous information. we've already talked about how

we're trying to help find a path to membership. we have publicly stated that ukraine will join this one in the future and we are at the vilnius event. the alliance supported this idea and supported the idea that a path for eventual membership could be developed. that is, if i correctly raised admiral karbi, this still in opposition to the administration, that ukraine is going to nato, that russian concerns and demands, and collective security in europe, that this will continue to be ignored, and that russia should return to ukraine all the territory that kiev considers its own, and moscow considers that at least part of these territories today is an organic part of russia , if, uh, so the positions diverge, does this mean that we should still rely not on the negotiating table, but on the battlefield. i'm afraid

this is reality, because whose politics under it all lies behind this conflict. it's a political conflict. it is that the right in the us has always insisted on expanding it with the exception of ukraine, russia has always said that this is a red line. we will never allow this. and this is actually the essence of the conflicts since 2008. for 15 years, the situation has been going on, when the side is entrenched in its position. and, of course, the victim here ukraine ukraine is being destroyed every day every week continues to insist that it is

the expansion over the exclusion of ukraine ukraine was security it was a safe space between two zones of power and that is how it should have remained in the case of ukraine ukraine forgot to remain a neutral country. this is what inukovych wanted, and the united states of america either toppled him or helped him out of power in 2014. precisely because yanukovych wanted neutrality and, in fact, a war over expansion, yes, russia says that there will be no expansion. i believe that this is so the point of view, which is quite. yeah it's an existential threat, united states of america for various reasons political political political reasons will be

continued. of course, you know better than many, if they are the majority in the world, that president biden is afraid to say anything else, because then he will be attacked, from the right wing, united in america in connection with the upcoming elections. and so they continue to lose, or something, and now there is a terrible war on the battlefield, hundreds are dying, sometimes thousands of people every day ukraine is in the middle of it all that there will be no compromise. even though we know that a year ago.

which, in my opinion, means never, that is, the war will always continue until ukraine is completely destroyed and none of this reflects. this is the true policy, the true solution, and the true solution is neutral ukraine and stopping the war. and, of course, other complex issues need to be discussed, but ukraine rejects neutrality, the united states of america absolutely rejects neutrality russia rejects nato, and now we are in this ongoing war. here is an interesting situation. as you rightly said, jeffs, ukraine is being destroyed. i can tell you that russian soldiers are dying, according to the data that we hear, much more ukrainians are dying

than russians, but a lot of russians are also dying. and uh, that's not the end. it is clear that washington's position is, uh, fighting, the ukrainian offensive has bogged down. in general, if the ukrainians do not make significant progress over the next few weeks, then, apparently, their the next offensive will be delayed until spring. and this means that we should be fully prepared for the russian offensive, because the russian military industry is expanding and developing and i absolutely see no signs in moscow, not from the side of the authorities, not from the side of the people. make some unilateral concessions. so i want to understand 55% of americans on the latest issues.

they say that they are against further e-assistance to ukraine and the president is biden. congress will be re-elected next year. they don't care what might happen a significant escalation of the conflict, just when america will be in the midst of an election campaign, do not worry about this in the white house. probably, they are worried about this, but they are trapped in a trap , in fact, the lack of logic, the tragedy that is happening today. it's a game of who gets scared first one side thinks the next move will cause the other side

to stop us parties in 2008. they thought that they could expand the opposition from russia could get involved. a gathering to support the russophobic nationalist governments that support them without consequences for russia or action on the part of russia but russia responded to this by incorporating crimea into the russian federation and this also affected the two republics that seceded from ukraine united states america believed that they could arm ukraine enough and

russia would not react to this in any way. russia considered at the end of 2021 that it could agree to end any negotiations. in that he believes that the expansion of nato song is something to interfere with such a state, like russia that russia has no right to say anything here, this is a stupid idea, a catastrophically stupid idea, but such is the position of the united states and its government. i think that russia thought that the chief of

the stages of the war was a specially negotiated operation. indeed, for several days, zelensky said, we are ready to her. let's negotiate. actually the idea of ​​russia was like a materialization, but then america you should not negotiate on the principles of america's neutrality and other weapons systems in ukraine that as a result russia will retreat, but russia has mobilized its efforts, so this is a game of who will be the first to be afraid to retreat. i don't think the leadership in the united states of america or in ukraine had any realistic vision or responsible

vision of how this should develop. it is very important to understand this the war could have been prevented nato expansion into ukraine is a dangerous terrible provocative idea and as long as the usa if you have ideas this war will continue, and ukraine will be more and more destroyed. this is the basis, this is the base, but we look at the news, we look at what our presses are publishing for what is happening in politics, all this is practically not allowed to be said aloud. it seems to me that one thing in washington is right. looking at moscow’s intention, the russian leadership really does not want an escalation and does not see it today necessary, because the russian army continues to defend its position, despite ukrainian pressure, despite all the new

types of weapons that have been supplied to ukraine and the russian army is studying in moscow openly admit that when this campaign began, let's just say, uh, the russian armed forces not everyone knew not everyone knew how then it usually happens at the beginning of the war with practically with love. well, now it's a different army. she fights differently and, uh , it still feels like moscow. is this really not the right place to talk about shaving? nuclear weapons and when it is necessary to consider the possibility of some kind of military strikes outside of ukraine in this regard , the white house in washington is really right, but it seems to me that they do not see and do not understand. this is what, and the russian unwillingness to go to further aggravate

the situation. what does it mean inability or unwillingness to take such actions if the need arises, and this means from my point of view jeffle that, if suddenly, as no one hopes in them, the next ukrainian offensive, but it would have turned out to be more successful, you did not lead to the victory of ukraine, but to some very decisive russian retaliatory actions, including tactical nuclear weapons, because, and moscow remembers that at the time of the cold war, tactical nuclear weapons were considered quite useful, as a result of containment. well, moscow is well aware of transatlantic submarine cables. knows how vulnerable tankers are, they know very well that there are vulnerable bridges not

only in russia but in the united states and that's what i wonder how they managed to to convince the biden administration that, by refusing to seriously negotiate, how did they manage to convince themselves that they were taking a very serious political risk, i would say, but in general, not completely, it is clear in the name of what? explain in part, it also reflects the inability of those who determine us foreign policy to strategically determine their priorities. they overestimated, uh, the power and influence of the us and greatly underestimated the strength of their opponents by their determination. this

happens quite often even when opponents are much weaker than russia. united states of america adversaries that is why american foreign policy has repeatedly and failed foreign policy one of the two nuclear superpowers that are close to what is happening and intervene in what is happening there. this is a very reckless policy and in 2015 obama said during a famous interview that uh, russia is dominating and escalating which means that if things go, uh, bad, then russia will escalate and

increase further. i believe that this is so, this is not a trifle for the russian federation from its point of view from the point of view of the united states of america, this is happening right on its border, and for the united states of america to ignore this reality, from the point of view of the united states, this is reckless, and this is not discussed in the american media . he said that there is a risk of a nuclear conflict. and as soon as he said that, he was immediately attacked. what is the media for the fact that he slipped into nuclear blackmail? and yah would like to say that in this case he was a realist and was just trying to explain the situation. let me put this situation a little more positively. believe it or not, there are positive aspects as well. in this regard, from the point of view of discussing this issue, on december 17 , 2021, the russian federation proposed to the west

a draft security agreement between russia and the united states, and this draft can be found on the internet. this is a very reasonable document, of course, the americans were not ready to agree at all with what was stated there, but it seems to me that this is the basis for reasonable negotiations, nevertheless, the main issue of nato expansion for the united states from here arose the idea of ​​a war on the other hand, the presence of this document is a valuable fact, as a factor that russia can use when it will explain to the leaders of africa the leaders of china and other countries of the world that russia was trying to negotiate, and this is a very important practical aspect, this is not only a moral position - this is an explanation that this is not uh, not a forced war, but in fact it is the result of the failure

of negotiations because the us refused to negotiate. as for security issues. i believe, i hope that russia, of course, proceeding from russian, this is how it works negotiation. russia must indicate what, from its point of view, is the basis for ending this war. and if these fundamentals are within the negotiating space. this can become the basis for ending the war, and demonstrates the good will of russia aimed at ending the war. and this goodwill exists in the world, because most of the countries of the world agree with russia that this is not a one-sided issue, that the world should ensure mutual security interests, so the us is unlikely to prepare tame

initiatives and offer them, especially given how politics within the united states develops in quotation marks positive situations, for example , december 2021, at least there was an initiative from russia, there was hope that the positive initiative was resolved, the solution is exactly what we need from the point of view. the issue that needs to be settled it is not resolved on the battlefield and it does not achieve its goals. it is in a reasonable expedient quality of your analysis your pragmatism and yours. uh, courage is highly respected. but here's what worries me about your attitude, and about,

and i have heard similar statements from many of our colleagues in the united states. of course, they are not necessarily in the same terms and in detail , but i have heard similar statements and similar concerns from a number of leading american experts on national security and foreign relations, but for one reason or another, unlike you. they are afraid to voice their position. and so you said that biden, that he is under a lot of pressure from the right wing in the united states of the final part of the right wing, because there is another right wing that supports trump and, uh, they have a different approach to ukraine. well, i saw that now it’s not about conservatives, who are in some way the heirs of the trotskyists, who believed in

a permanent world revolution. i am conservatives unleashing a campaign to put even more pressure on biden on the electorate of their own republican party in order to support zelensky what is called to the last drop of ukrainian blood. well, i don't see anything like that from the left and moderate elements. why is this happening? a very interesting mysterious question for me, i’ll just tell you how i watch it alone , what it leads to, when you openly express your opinions, i quite often get an interview refusal in europe for what reasons, because i spoke on

russian television, we are talking about about maine in the media in europe is that i spoke on russian television. this was just a couple of days ago. what is happening is something i have never experienced in over 40 years of professional career life by any elected representative democratic party, the party that i once belonged to. now i no longer consider myself a democratic party now. no, not a single person who would introduce about the world, they all talk only about the war or the war with china or the continuation.

how much is needed how much war will be needed from ukraine , so the space for such a discussion is closed and the opinion that is now circulating we used to have a progressive part of our community. i naturally come from the circle that opposed the vietnam war, for example, in there is no youth. they think that the so-called liberal democrats. these are the ones who most support the war in ukraine and are in favor of further funding for ukraine, this is true, and i am very sorry that now the left is right. this division no longer means what it used to mean traditionally. and you can, of course, put trump there, but the fact is that the republicans, especially those who

vote for the republic, they say that we do not want additional support and this should be a matter of concern for biden, but american presidents usually worry that they may look weak, we see it, and so they continue to enter wars and the war in vietnam - this is the most striking. an example of such behavior. they knew the war was lost, but they didn't want to. to show this, because they were afraid to appear weak, and it seems to me that this is the syndrome that biden suffers from, he is an old man. he is not a very complete person. and now he has become even more milling; in fact, the team that he has assembled in the field of foreign policy is one of the most average inexpressive in history, and of course, it happens that i do not agree with foreign policy, but the quality of this team is especially weak, especially when it comes

to neoconservatives, because they have always been at the heart of this idea of ​​nato expansion and uh expansion of american behemonia and unfortunately was part of this part of this whole circle and that means nothing. democratic party to go i will uh, nothing. i will not proceed with such a thing from the administration, and er, in fact. this is very sobering thought. it is possible that the results on the battlefield, which so far look very difficult for ukraine, maybe they will shake someone up and even those who are brighter, for example, rent corporations, and who conducts multiple studies publishes them and shows that this the war is not in the interest of the united states

, but this did not change the policy within this little circle. who is on the national security council in the state departments. it is they who are waging this war and all the democrats. this is the president's party. none of them said, not even a whisper against it all so far. as for the republican party, a little. like a traditional ballot uh vote uh armament they won't support cuts in arms spending, but most voters want them to focus on issues at home rather than the escalation of the war in ukraine and the last question. and in america , an election campaign is underway and one of the candidates. uh, naturally, donald trump is, uh,

much more positive about negotiations with russia and about to prevent the escalation of the conflict around ukraine from your point of view, knowing everything that you know, and what is happening with his company with legal prosecutions, as if advised to those who are watching. uh, behind the situation from moscow, perceive the possibility of trump's victory as something real or this. basically, he can win the republicans, but he won't get elected in the national elections. what do you think? forecasting american politics today gratitude on the one hand