in yet, but the conclusions of the west are already here. and you know, like i said before about an official investigation, that's obviously going to be really important in terms of establishing what actually happened. but unfortunately, i think it's very likely that it's going to be ignored in the west like many times before when we seen similar situations like when um, nev only felt ill in 2020 the western press was saying that he was poisoned by the russian guy in russian governments and the medical professionals in russia conducted their own investigation and determined that there was no, there were no chemical substances in the volume. the system that was completely ignored. and unfortunately, it's likely we're going to be seeing a similar situation now. all for now, but be sure to head over to r t dot com for 20 for 7. use and updates and don't go far. my colleague, nicky aaron, will be taking over at the top of the hour the

the, [000:00:00;00] the welcome to was a part in the 19th century. what was considered in 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 america for germany. and dominance as means to cannot make prosperity and development. but do they approach it in a sustainable manner? well, to discuss that, i'm now enjoyed by

a jeffrey sachs director of the center for sustainable development at columbia university. professor sikes in 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 in 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 able to be humorous, such as the us military industrial complex. how did is come to this? well, it's very interesting. you started with the vine clouds, which so who said that war is the continuation of politics with other means and i think he was right. he wrote that in 18. 32. and here we are 2022 and it still makes a lot of sense. he had a real understanding that these wars don't just come out of anywhere. 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 idea, was a war of nato enlargement. it's the united states decided a way back when died already at least 27 years ago. when we have one account of it, that nato would enlarge to ukraine, russia from van until this ball would have said no wait. but then comes the question, why does the us do this? 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 hedge amount. 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 guy 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, well, a lot less focus on that investment profile in the business side of things because one was seeing 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 affecting the, availing itself of the law. such an opportunity is the war in ukraine because we know full well the, the ukrainian troops 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 of this. the american people don't want our government just spending the money on these wars which have been trillions of dollars. 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. it says no, no, no another 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 it 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 and in a rock ukraine, syria, libya. what have we gotten for nothing? let me ask you about the people because the united states prides itself on 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 in direct outlays, or around for $2000.00 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 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 lent 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 a, uh, it's been very productive, very lucky in many ways a great resource base. so they're 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 years the life expectancy has been going down. basically for the last 10 years in the united states, we have addictions, we have a rise of depression, a 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 convers 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 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 when he was in when 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 wards 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, it 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, it's in the war as business, not war, even as politics, the section rebuild their 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 somebody who knows that your country pretty well. and i remember that 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 to 3 inch and they have 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, but 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, so 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 rush or 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 guy. we still can't figure him out. i the i'm is a very main stream i part of the supporter of the, of the military industrial complex, a 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 section. we have to take a very short break right down, but table will be back in just a few moments station the 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 christmas interview with tucker carlson and not just to you. i mean, judging by the number of, 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 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 an 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 most of the american people and the limits, 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 needs 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, it must not be true will, will bluff our way, we'll do whatever, but internally, all. so there is a certain, a sense i that, well, we will create our own narrative. we will create our own reality. 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 solution, say permissions. i, 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 to 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 that the thing that the americans should the american leaders rather should be aware and careful about. but just to tell you, i do know, i have argued with this white house, so as much as they want to listen to me argue i about the ukraine war and i told them it's terrible. the whole idea of nato, enlargements 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 israel 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 i guess already the what may happen to that old society and because i'm in america, has interviewed and many foreign countries, it knows what mass process a process can turn into. is can be pretty ugly. i mean, it's a, it's a pretty dangerous game when you push this aside. if there's a 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, you know, 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 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 appearance that is known in russia's, the shock therapy. i know that you advocated against that, you know, punishing a as a stereotype of this happens on the nonetheless, 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 and 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. could that be a sort of a shock therapy, if not, hopefully for the american society that 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, canceled their debts, gives them something to help create a stabilization fund of 10 to the social crises. my recommendation was

$30000000000.00. emergency help to stabilize things in the united states at flat. know, 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 every every day. and that was russia's view, and that's what president bush 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 wasn't communism or democracy or anything else. who 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 in the interview in essence, which is that 1991 didn't change all that much because uh, russia said okay we're, we're not, we're a democracy. we're now we want to cooperate the united states. the way you're still yeah, to me 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, i'd 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 the strategy, the tactics to insure, and without it, i don't understand how these people imagine the dominance will stay with them. i mean, it's like it's, it's not just wishful thinking. it seems 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 in 1992 by the clearly lives in the past year. how we use it, use a man of the past that a lot of my former colleagues at harvard because now i'm at 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 can go to take over

a rock. it's cheap. don't worry. i've gotten a standards cheap ukraine, it's cheap. we can 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 gemini 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 sequence at 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. the us will help over throw you on a co, which no consequence, no, no work consequences. don't boss broke away your crime,

me. i was re taken into russia. then i got a 2021 president pulled report on a draft security agreement between the us and russia. i talked 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 though 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 and 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's 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 uh, at the very end 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 mat measures. 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 getting russia and surrounding russia 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. 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 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 president 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 bravado 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 sore. 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 say we're again, all the parts the, [000:00:00;00] the,

[000:00:00;00] the, [000:00:00;00] the, the larger take full control of the k don't yet with public city about the following month. the 5th baffles the sol. ukrainian troops retreats off a suffering massive last is another week of deadly ideas. drawn from the