mass obesity. so many problems. it's because the social fabric is not the only thing together. even though there's well the that's how the news low to this. we cannot see money speak to scott on the bought with another look at the top of the hour the the welcome to was

a part the 19th century. what was considered 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 economic 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 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 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 seems to be out stripping the capacity of even the behemoth, such as the us military industrial complex. how did is come to this?

well, it's very interesting. you started with the volume flowers, 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 words 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 view, was a war of nato enlargement. it's the united states decided a way back the 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 wait. but then comes to 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 hedge amount. it wants to be the biggest power and it wants to habits, pieces on every place side, 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 on 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 war in ukraine because we know full well the, the ukranian troops perilously short, the munitions on the weapons on everything else. if it's just business, why when they bat are about making money? well, the interesting thing is the public is sick of this. so the american people don't want our government just spending the money on these wars which are big 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, 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 already got, 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 uh, 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 in direct outlays or around for to $1000.00 per household,

there are many indirect expenses as well, like the supports for the veterans, the crime statistics, the 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 a, 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 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 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 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 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 rafia know, 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, it's the war as business, not war, even as policy by 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 and 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 ition 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 is 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 guy. we still can't figure him out. i,

i'm buying is a very main stream i part of the supporter of the, of the military industrial complex in 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 we are in moscow standing in front of one of russia's most iconic symbols in bodies,

greece, elegance, and articles on a grandiose scale theater, the welcome back towards the par smith and jeffrey sachs, director of the center for sustainable development that the columbia university professor sacks 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. so

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 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 most of 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 means 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 the boot you said it, 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 from this just like the, 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, 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 it's a capital elizabeth to 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. so 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 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 game when you push this aside just as 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 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 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. put that 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 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. any, any did. 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. 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 bush 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, we're a democracy. we're now we want to cooperate the united states at the way. you're still the 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 driving, 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 ensure. and without it, i don't understand how this people imagine 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 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 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 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. be us will help over throw you on a co which no consequence. no, there were consequences. don't boss broke away your crime? me. i was a re taken into russia. then i got a 2021 president police 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 work?

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. it's, 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 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 old friend. 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 sad 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 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 do you, is that present and by new president bowden, 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 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 the 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 or was a part of the,

[000:00:00;00] the, [000:00:00;00] the hi, i'm accepted and i'm here to plan with you whatever you do. you do not watch my new show. it seriously. why watch something that's so different. whitelisted opinions that he won't get anywhere else. welcome to please or do i have the state department, the c i a weapons makers, multi 1000000000 dollar corporations. choose your fax for you. go ahead. change and

whatever you do. don't want my show stay main street because i'm probably going to make you uncomfortable. my show is called stretching time. but again, you probably don't wanna watch it because it might just change the way the person takes full control of the done yet republic, city of, of the following months of this fighting. the, so you're printing to, to drawing off to suffering. significant loss is also had the when you get to know the week of the deadly idea strikes on the palestinian enclave, including a devastating, ready to kill more than 50 local people. the legend sake of saving 2 is very hostages. the sort of the name of goods by furious process, the good for nothing. yahoo governments of thousands always rarely demand know that

these fire and prison