Jeffrey Sachs: Ukraine escalation could go nuclear
Cancel culture, we’re assured, either
never existed or has been effectively eliminated. But try telling this to Jeffrey Sachs, a globally respected economist who faced cancellation simply for telling the truth. To this day, he is treated as a pariah by the very outlets that once sought his commentary. Once he veered from the preapproved talking points, he faced immediate exile. Banned, never to return.
To understand exactly why, we must revisit September 26, 2022, when a brazen act of war occurred.
‘The mainstream media have dissembled, hidden the truth, denied basic history, and promoted the false narrative that the Ukraine war was “unprovoked.”‘
On this day, the world was rattled by the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, a crucial conduit for natural gas supplies from Russia to Europe. Speculations were rampant, but amid the litany of accusations and counter-accusations, one voice cut through the noise with a simple, albeit controversial, take.
Shortly after the attack, Sachs appeared on Bloomberg Live. When asked who was responsible for the attack, the academic had the audacity to state the obvious:
the United States.
Biden’s boast
This assertion, grounded in a series of well-documented threats and policy statements, should have sparked a serious debate. Instead, it led to Sachs being effectively ostracized from the mainstream media. His sin was not spreading falsehoods but rather refusing to parrot the sanctioned narrative.
Sachs was simply joining the dots. In a much-discussed
exchange on February 7, 2022, a reporter asked President Biden what would happen to Nord Stream 2 in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Biden responded, “If Russia invades, then Nord Stream 2 will cease to exist. We will bring an end to it.” When the reporter inquired how this would be achieved, the president assured, “I promise you, we’ll be able to do it.”
It seems this was one promise Joe Biden actually kept.
“This was not the first time that a senior U.S. politician promised to end Nord Stream,” Sachs told me. “Many leading U.S. politicians had vowed to block Nord Stream 2 from operating. Of course, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, with his sources in the U.S. intelligence agencies, explained later the precise mechanics of how the U.S. blew up the pipeline.”
“Not surprisingly,” added the outspoken pundit, “European countries have played stupid, refusing to say anything sensible on the topic. Their silence speaks volumes. It is actually pathetic how they avoid the truth or the search for the truth.”
Exile on mainstream
Sachs’ truth-telling led to his alienation from the mainstream media. Once a frequent commentator on outlets such as MSNBC and CNN, he swiftly fell out of favor. Rather incredibly, CNN refuses to have Sachs on but is more than willing to have
Jeffrey Toobin, a man known for his vigorous, hands-on approach during Zoom calls, back on.
“Basically, the mainstream media fell into line with the official narratives not only about Nord Stream 2 but about the war in Ukraine more generally. They don’t want to hear from me or others who challenge the official narrative,” said Sachs. “The mainstream media have dissembled, hidden the truth, denied basic history, and promoted the false narrative that the Ukraine war was ‘unprovoked.’”
Sachs is not a Russian apologist. Rather, he argues that the Ukraine war originated with U.S. involvement in the violent overthrow of Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014. Yanukovych, who favored neutrality for Ukraine over NATO membership, was opposed by the U.S. and major European nations, who would not tolerate such a stance. Consequently, a coup was instigated. Petro Poroshenko, a strong advocate for Ukraine’s integration into NATO, was installed.
Digging deeper
For those skeptical of U.S. involvement in Yanukovych’s overthrow, it’s essential to remember that over the past six decades, the U.S., often through the CIA, has been involved in numerous coups and regime changes worldwide, particularly during the Cold War era. These actions were usually justified under the guise of protecting American interests, promoting democracy, or countering the spread of communism.
In 1953, the CIA orchestrated a coup to overthrow Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh after he nationalized the British-controlled oil industry. The coup reinstated the shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who ruled as an autocrat until the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Similarly, in 1954, the CIA led Operation PBSUCCESS to oust Guatemala’s democratically elected President Jacobo Árbenz, who had initiated land reforms threatening the interests of the American-owned United Fruit Company. The coup led to decades of military rule and civil war.
Following Congo’s independence from Belgium in 1960, the CIA played a significant role in the overthrow and eventual assassination of Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, perceived as a potential ally of the Soviet Union. This led to the rise of Mobutu Sese Seko, who established a dictatorial regime.
In 1973, the CIA supported the military coup that overthrew Chile’s democratically elected President Salvador Allende, whose socialist policies and alignment with the Soviet bloc alarmed the U.S. The coup installed General Augusto Pinochet, who led a brutal dictatorship.
In Indonesia, the CIA provided support and intelligence to the Indonesian military during the anti-communist purge that led to the overthrow of President Sukarno in 1965. This purge, resulting in the massacre of up to a million suspected communists, brought General Suharto to power. The U.S. also backed the coup that led to the assassination of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963. Diem’s oppressive regime and failure to garner broad support complicated U.S. efforts in the Vietnam War. His removal was intended to stabilize the government, though it resulted in further chaos.
During the 1980s, the CIA funded and trained the Contras, a rebel group fighting against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, which had overthrown the U.S.-backed Somoza dictatorship. This was part of the larger strategy to counter Soviet influence in Latin America. The list is extensive
Naturally, no mainstream media outlet will entertain the idea of the U.S. government’s involvement in the events of February 2014. The intertwining of mainstream media and branches of government is no secret. “The media outlets are deeply aligned with the U.S. military-industrial complex, and especially the U.S. intelligence community. This is all very well documented over the course of many decades,” said Sachs.
Of course, he’s right. The New York Times, for instance, played a pivotal role in justifying the invasion of Iraq post-9/11 by propagating false narratives about weapons of mass destruction, narratives fed to outlet by government sources. This symbiotic relationship ensures that dissenting voices like Sachs’ are systematically silenced.
Sachs and violence
It’s important to note that Sachs is not some disgruntled madman. His credentials are impeccable, and his CV speaks volumes. He has worked with governments around the world for decades. He understands the intricacies of governance and the motives behind prolonged conflicts more than most. A seasoned macroeconomist, the Harvard graduate previously advised national governments in Latin America, Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union on transitioning from Marxism-Leninism to market economies.
Despite his exile from mainstream media, Sachs continues his work undeterred. “I study and promote economic development, environmental sustainability, social inclusion (e.g., ensuring that all children can get a good education), and practical solutions to end and prevent wars.” To carry out this work, he travels extensively. When he answered my questions, he was in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. When he isn’t advising governments in Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe, the 69-year-old can be found teaching at Columbia University.
On the future of the Ukraine conflict, Sachs remains clear-eyed and pragmatic. “The war will end either with negotiations based on Ukrainian neutrality, or it will end with Ukraine’s defeat on the battlefield, or it will end in nuclear war if the U.S. continues to escalate and in turn provokes Russia to escalate. Ukrainian neutrality is the only way to peace and security for Ukraine,” he contends.
Will the establishment heed his warning? The chances border on nonexistent.
Sachs’ cancellation serves as a sobering reminder that, in the land of the free, telling the truth can exact a significant personal and professional toll. Even in 2024, the United States is a nation where narratives are tightly controlled and dissent is swiftly punished.
The word “courage” is often recklessly tossed around, like confetti at a Pride parade. But Sachs is courageous. Remember, he works at Columbia. Like many other elite universities, Columbia has been gripped by a sort of pathological progressivism. Here, dissenting opinions are neither sought nor tolerated. Those who deviate from a very specific script are met with vocal opposition. Sachs’ exile from the mainstream media is not merely a personal loss but a societal one, depriving the public of informed and critical perspectives at a time when they are desperately needed.
