it can be arranged, number 3, the for ross of the of it and how fast it's it, it occurs without anybody asking any questions. i mean, just, i would venture to say that if there was a lot of the said, you cannot mention on western media, anything about mr. devonte. unless you're able to say who he is or what he was and what he stood for, what he did, i don't think you should be able to comment. but that's not going to stop anybody because at the, at, as you know, when a name or a troll becomes popular, nothing can stop us to offer now, but stay tuned for great programming. we'll see you at the top of the hour the, [000:00:00;00]

the welcome to was a part the 19th century. one was considering the continuation of politics by other means. but in today's world that sentiment, it was even more to the economy you're supposed to, makers are pretty open about seeing americans from germany and dominance as means to economic prosperity and development. but do they approach it in a sustainable manner? well, to discuss that, i'm now enjoying by jeffrey sachs, director of the center for sustainable development as columbia university, professor sikes and the 2nd grade on a great pleasure for me to talk to. thank you very much for your time. my pleasure . thank you. now, and been pretty outspoken about the influence of vested interest on the years, domestic and foreign policy, particularly the funding of all the military campaigns abroad. but it looks like the number i'm in town sent to you of all the conflicts and seems to be out

stripping the capacity of even the behemoths, such as the us military industrial complex. how did is come to this? well, it's very interesting. you started with the volume plows which so who said that war is the continuation of politics with other means. and i think he was right. he wrote that in 1832. and here we are 2022 and it still makes a lot of sense. he had a real understanding that these words don't just come out of any word they. they actually top out of politics, but you raise a very good question. what is the nature of the politics? so at one level, the war and ukraine, for example, in my view, was a war of nato enlargement. it's the united states decided a way back way. and i already, at least i 27 years ago when we have one account of it, that nato within large to ukraine,

rushes from then until this small would have said no way. but then comes the question, why does the us do this? i and i think that there are i in 2 different categories of answers. one is that the united states just wants to be the global head. your mind. it wants to be the biggest power and it wants to habits pieces on every place on the world. chessboard i the other is that it's business. i that a, somehow there's good business that comes out of that approach. now they could be related, i because what is the business? so partly it's the war business itself. i, that's a trillion dollar your business, at least even bigger. and 2nd, by having military base is all over the world. the us things that it controls the flows of resources. it gets more oil. uh it uh,

is able to determine where pipelines go and so on. so there's another view which says that it's politics in the service of the world, the investment profile. let's focus on that investment profile in the business side of things because one would thing that enrichment or basic greed wouldn't be concerned with prolonging itself. they would want their own version of sustainable development to make sure that you know, the machine keeps operating and turning out the process. why them with all the budget, the responding on ukraine, the yours warm machine doesn't seem to be sort of fully effectively availing itself of the law. such an opportunity is the one you're calling because we know full well that the ukrainian to so perilously short the munitions on weapons on everything else. if it's just business, why when they batter about making money? well, the interesting thing is the public is sick, a piss with the american people. don't want our government just spending the money

on these wars which have been trillions of dollars a. they see that the budget deficit is huge. the debt to keep it's rising. they keep being told we can't have health care or dental care, or i care or your children can't get help for school because the budget is in crisis and then bite and comes along and says, no, no, no, no, there's 61000000000 here. and 14000000000 for israel and this much for this. so the public's against it yet, it's still passes the 7th and it passes the 7th despite the public opposition. because the senators, by and large are agents of the military industrial complex i and they do, it's bidding, the american people do not think this is a good investment as they're ready to as, as an economic advisor to them. but of course, self appointed, i will say to them, it's not a good investment. this is allows the investment for the united states. we're not

getting rich out of this, you're not benefiting from this. this is a waste of money and a waste of time and a waste of lives. but it is quite persistent. and one reason why a process is that when the soviet union ended in december 1991, the people in charge and those who came to be in power felt, you know, there's really no obstacle we can do what we want. so part of it is an incredible arrogance, that everything anyway, isn't going to be very expensive. these people are not very clever. i, in my opinion, that are in power in the united states. they spent 7 trillion dollars in afghanistan in a rock, ukraine, syria, libya. what have we gotten for nothing? let me ask you about the people because uh, the united states,

private cellphone being a democracy in the model one. and as you wrote, all those failed war, since 2000 have caused the american people around 5 trillion dollars, indirect outlays, or around $4.00 to $1000.00 per household. there are many indirect expenses as well, like the supports for the veterans, the crime statistics, you know, the health care crisis, prescription drugs, crisis, etc. what allows the american society a to be so resilient and to take a song, many expenses without clear returns and without much of a policy change. because i have to tell you that, i think in russia it will not pass the russians would not have been so lived in. well, it's interesting, you know, 1st america, it's an extremely rich countries. it really is a rich country average of uh, average income, $70000.00 per person. so a lot of money after all it's, it's a very uh, it's been very productive, very lucky in many ways

a great resource base. so there, squandering a lot of it right now. can you imagine a country this rich i and it's like in the soviet union and the in the last year is the life expectancy has been going down. basically for the last 10 years and the united states, we have addictions, we have a rise of the depression, i mass obesity, so many problems. it's because the social fabric is not holding together, even though there's well so the political system does not function properly. it's in the hands of individual lobbies. the congress is especially corrupt because every congressman spends most of the time i making phone calls for money for re election campaign. so it's non stop going to rich people. a few days ago, i was walking home from my office in manhattan on the upper west side and the

broadway. i was completely closed on one side. when i got home, i found out, well, president bide, was in town now. why was he in town? and he was in and to talk to rich donors not to talk to the public, not to have an event, not to meet with the people, to raise money. because that's what the political class does. now that ties in with these wars because people do make money on divorce, not the public, the public loses, but raytheon or, or general dynamics, or boeing or northrop grumman. they make a lot of money and they fund the politicians and we're told it just as it did, couldn't be clearer and more crude. the white house puts out maps to the congressman showing look, look at the arms of factories in your district. be careful. those are jobs in your district, you know, with the war as business, not war,

even as politics. the section we don't hear respects, i understand that the politicians are doing that. i mean, they've been doing that for decades and it hasn't been that apparent to the people, but you know, i'm surprised that the americans would take and saw much, and i say so that the, the as somebody who knows in your country pretty well. and i remember the even even 20 years ago when i started there. sure it was a very prosperous country, but ordering other folks people working at our university one the 3 inch and they had to save on, on gas and on food and everything else. and i'm sure they're in the majority, and i, i agree with you. so by, you know, the public is, is quite unhappy. the universities are a bit of a surprise to me because when i went to the university was a long time ago. but i started, i undergraduate 50 years ago. so it's really a long time i, the universities were against the establishment. that was the student rebellions against the vietnam war. now, i,

the universities are more and more in the hands actually, of government contracts. i the foreign policy center, as of the universities are paid for by the military companies, they're paid for by the us government. so i'm surrounded by former government officials or one of the future government officials who told the us line i have a different perspective because you know what i worked at rusher from but more than 30 years ago. i spend most of my time working around the world, so i look at the united states from outside look again, rather than from the inside. i'm not on the team of the us government, but a lot of people are and that has definitely re shaped the critical thinking. now when it comes to the public, the public's discussed it. donald trump won the presidency in 2016 as a, as a protest vote. he said he would clean up the swap. well,

he made more swamps in some places, did other things. he was a very unstable character. i. we still cant figure him out. i the i'm is a very main stream i part of the supporter of the, of the military industrial complex and deep state. so we return kind of to normal i and that has been at the political level, the public is very unhappy. if you ask the american people who do you want trump or by may say, neither please can we have another choice. so the politics is not working right now . the political system is really in a crisis process that's we have to take a very short break right down the table. be back in just a few moments station,

the the, [000:00:00;00] the welcome back to one's a par smith and jeffrey sachs, director of the center for sustainable development that the columbia university

professor sucks. i'm sure you watched vladimir put in risk in this interview with tucker carlson and not just to you. i mean, judging by the number off of use, a lot of americans are paying attention to that as well. and before we discuss the substance of it, i, i want to ask you a different question because because a couple of days later, mister colson showed up into, by where a journalist asked him what i thought was a very interesting question here, ask whether president biden understands the law of action and reaction that moves a country like russia and i want to ask you the same question, but with regards to the american society, do the american, the leads understand what moves the american people, the lives, the red lines. beyond which they better not to push because as with all the resilience of the american society, i'm sure there are certain, you know, basic human needs that need to be mapped. i don't think

a washington listens at all, either internally or internationally. so washington could not hear the russian red lines. in fact, as a matter of principle, if uh you said it must not be true will, will bluff our way, we'll do whatever. but internally, also there is a certain, a sense i that, well, we will create our own narrative, we will create our own reality. and the job of politics is narrative creation. it's making the new cycle and so forth. so it's not listening. it's not thinking, it's not trying to find the solution. so it says, i'm sorry for interrupting, but it's almost unbelievable to me because i remember, well, like when bill clinton was running for the white house. he said it's very um, you know, publicly it's is the economy stupid. and the american people are known for that

pragmatism that known for the, you know, material considerations after all your a country that capitalism into the global level. so there are certain national traits to your country that have to be known and respected by the leaders if they want to keep the country together. what are those red lines? the thing that the americans should, the american leaders rather should be aware and capital about just to tell you, i do know, i have argued with this white house, so as much as they want to listen to me are, do i about the ukraine war? and i told them, it's terrible. the whole idea of nato enlargement is ridiculous. but beyond that, it's bad politics for you. so that's what i was telling them exactly that line, aside from everything else, this is lousy politics. i say the same thing with the way that these politicians are backing israel without any constraint is real,

creates this massacre in, in gaza. it's lousy politics. in addition to allows the policy. they're not very good at this buttons, approval rating is 30. so by, hey, guess already the what may happen to that old society and because i mean america has interviewed and many for in countries that knows what mass process a process can turn into is, can be pretty ugly. i mean, it's a, it's a pretty dangerous again, when you please, the societies are the limit. i'm not saying the america, the american society is there, but it seems to be moving into that direction. if we look at just, you know, basic statistics. it's been about 30 years since the united states political system has been able to really address any single issue i. this is my adult life watching this. we are paralyzed on almost anything on basic issues. a climate

change your energy or health care reform, or in a quality your tax system. it's been basically paralysis for a few decades. it's not even by the way, the polarization, that's the common phrase that americans, red and blue are so divided. that's actually not the problem. the problem is that washington is paralyzed. they've got corrupted by money. it got corrupted by lobbying, it got corrupted by political advisors who think that the idea is been not thinking . you know, when, when the president put in is a interview with tucker, carlson came out. the dominant reaction was too long. it's rambling, you know, because their attention span is down to 10 seconds or 30 seconds. it's like watching people who cannot think. you look at the major newspapers new york times, are washington post,

how they covered the interview. it was all on the most superficial questions. oh, did. tucker carlson, intervene should've done this was the, the opening history, rambling and so forth. not what was said. what was analyzed? is it true? how should the west respond? none of that, because there's no thinking going on. it's a game and you were among the people who advised the russian government on how to reform the crumbling slowly of the economy. and this is a parent that is known and rushes, the shock therapy, i know that you advocated against that. you know, punishing a, as a stereotype of this happens on the non, the less, if the, you know, this term, the society in the, in a very profound way. i mean, the rates of suicide, the rates of crime, the rain so far, you know, abortion, what have you, people were, you know, to some extent losing that humanity in a very, very fast and sometimes very cool way. i wonder if in

a way of russia or perhaps boots in personally returning the united states, this historical favor of exposing that now the american view of the world, the way its economy is prioritized as structures is divorced from reality. that'd be a sort of a shock therapy if not, hopefully for the american society then is least for its leaders. yeah, just it's, it's worth the understanding this very quickly. which is why was i asked to help 1st by president gorbachev. and then by president yeltsin, because when i help poland, i said to the united states and europe in the item, ask cancel their debts, gives them something to help create a stabilisation fund, a 10 to the social crises. my recommendation was $30000000000.00. emergency help to stabilize things in the united states. that lab. no. are you kidding? we're not going to help the soviet union. then. when the soviet union ended in

december, i 1991 and i was literally in the room. when did it happen to the kremlin? because president yeltsin came across the room and said, gentlemen, because was all man i the soviet union has ended. i and i said, you know, the united states is going to help you. it's going to help you, mister president. i and yelton's the president yeltsin said we want to be a normal cooperative country. any any do. and that was russia's view, and that's what president bush is said as well. i watched this close up the united states could not accept. yes. and that's, you know, my, that's was my role trying to help. but the united states was against it. that's why i couldn't do any help. but, but my point, my point is that what we really learned was that the deeper issue was

a communism or democracy or anything else. it was the united states wants to be the world's power. and if you're another big country like china or like russia, as the united states does not want you there in that way, and that is really the deeper motivation. i'm sorry to say that's what president booth says the interview in essence, which is but 1991 didn't change all that much because uh, russia said okay we're, we're not, i'm, it is the word a democracy. we're now we want to cooperate the united states at the way. you're still yeah. to be dominance as an agenda. i mean, if we look at it objectively, if i also have to have some business planned to it, if you want to share with, you need to calculate the names of the goals and to make sure that you know your, your balance to these is in order from what you're saying and from what you've been writing, it appears that the united states just claims dominance,

but it doesn't do any sort of homework to ensure that it has the resources, the capacity is this strategy, the tactics to ensure and without it, i don't understand how this people imagined the dominance will stay with them. i mean, it's like it's, it's not just wishful thinking. it seem to be a, you know, they say, well, perhaps. yeah, but yeah, so and so the answer is, uh, the answer is 1st they live in the past. i because the us was relatively more powerful and 1992 by the clearly lives in the past. you how we use it, use a man of the past that a lot of my former colleagues at harvard because now i'm a columbia and so forth 0. all right, we're still the most powerful. they all look at the data, right? they don't understand actually, and the american people have been told all along. everything's cheap. you could go to take over a rock. it's cheap. don't worry. i've gotten a standards cheap ukraine,

it's cheap. we could do all of this on the cheap. you don't never have to pay taxes again because all they do is cut taxes and then over extend the military. so the type is no politician asked the american people, do you really want to pay for a germany and are all, i think very naive. i'm not deeply impressed by the analytical power of this security state that i live in. i think they get it wrong, and they are partly bluffing. because if you really low sequence to see what's at the ukraine war, for example, it was a series of bluffs. the 1st block was ok, nato is going to expand. russia said no, then can't be on a cold, but we're going to be neutral. okay. be us will help over throw you on a co which no consequence. no, there were consequences. don't boss broke away. yeah. cry me, i was re taken into russia. then i got

a 2021 president police report on a draft security agreement between the us and russia. i talk to the white house, take it. this is right. stop the nato expansion. avoid the wor, no, no, we don't have to do that. big thought. go never be a mobilization by putting, he won't fight. we can back down our, our sanctions will defeat brochure. you know, it's wishful thinking and gambling. but with our money and our end ukraine's lives up so. so i think the answer is there is a group that profits even when it's a disaster, that's the military industrial complex, that's quite powerful. there is a group of gamblers and there is a lot of value because i have one last question to ask you about that. the interview that puts in gave a, the, very, out of it. he made a very interesting statement. he said that in his view,

the miscalculations and mistakes of the us policy in the ukraine and now apparent. and it is, he's in session that the authors of the, of the policy sort of want an o from. but he made it clear that the russia is not going to be offering any se, saving that measure. so essentially, he said, you know, you created this mass, think about how you're going to extricate yourself from this. do you think that's a smart position and how can the us possibly get itself out of this mass after everything has been said and done? to my mind at the core of this has been uh, a god, a mistake by the united states, which is to have a foreign policy goal of weakening russia and surrounding the brochure with nato. that policy needs to change. if the united states came back to the russian leadership and said, you know, we made, we really made

a mistake made or was not going to enlarge to ukraine and to georgia. i, we should end this war. we should find true security arrangements for your region and for europe more generally. i'm pretty confident that there could be a mutually beneficial i solution that would include a viable ukraine and to i. and that in my view is, is really the case. but in order to get there, actually i, there has to be a discussion and my view is that present and by new president putting you need to talk. i've said that repeatedly publicly and privately in the united states for years going back before 2022. and i will say it again, that you cannot solve this without sitting down, and this is not ukraine and russia sitting down. this is the united states and

russia sitting down and talking about a serious way to have mutual respect. and they have mutual security because that's absolutely what's needed for this world of source. and one thing here with that is that before sitting down, they also have to sit down and, you know, do that balance sheets and calculate how much money they have and how much more money they need for solving all the domestic problems. because it is, this is ultimately what sustainable development is all about, you know, being responsible and thrifty with your national resources and making them serve yourself. when all of this started this provider back in 2000, the us that was 35 percent of g d p, the public debt. now the public debt is a 100 percent of g d p. and the prospects are, it's just going to continue to soar. so this is the unreality just added to the debt. and of course, it's deeply corrosive for the long term for the united states and hip, it's been a great to talk to you for our 1st our sex on base about those issues. thank you

very much for your time. good to be with you. thanks so much. thank you. i'm thank you for watching. i hope to see you again. or was a part of the way are in moscow, standing in front of one of his most iconic symbols in bodies during is elegance

and all the stuff that goes on a grandiose scale. the ball for theater. the, [000:00:00;00] the brush it takes full control of the keith on yet square public city of, of the, of the following months of fierce battles that saw ukrainian troops retreat after suffering massive losses. also this hour, the tel aviv is gripped by furious protests against the net. and yahoo government has thousands of israelis demand in use. these fire and prisoners swaps deal with gaza will also calling for new election. riley's follow yet another week of the deadly idea of