Jeffrey Sachs: U.S. Policy & “West’s False Narrative” Stoking Tensions with Russia, China

No arms , no war . Peace

This gentleman could not be more wrong. He has an anti-US/European/freedom predisposition. He could not be more wrong and biased. How he could have been in positions he held at the UN is beyond me. He definitely does not understand autocrats. Autocrats do not play in the sandbox peacefully. Autocrats simply play peacefully when it works for their agenda and are violent when it works for their agenda. They don't have a value system that would encourage them to negotiate honestly. Russia is known to all peace-loving countries for their dangerous dissembling and lying.

Jeffrey Sachs is an idiot! My native language is Russian and I know what Russia's pundits, politicians and a commentators are saying and have been saying for decades, and I can say with a certainty that Sachs is an moron pushing the Kremlin narrative!

Fully aware. Thanks for telling it as it is.

I prefer the mindset of the US being in charge instead of China being in charge. Think about it for a while. US is far from perfect but without them and without relentless capitalism we wouldn't have invented the transistor so. Or the internet. The biggest innovation since hunter gatherer – people started to settle permanently…

China has historically been a great empire numerous times. However, in so much greatness they failed to foresee the rise of the US.
And now again the US in so much greatness failed to foresee a resurgent China… China does have a chance at greatness again. Unfortunately it thus seems to me conflict is pretty much inevitable. I could be wrong. I hope so. The US are pretty warlike also so..

Prof Sachs, is an angry naive/Jurassic intellectual of the past. He thinks that money is the answer to all and the motivation of dictators. His "economic dynamics" has been proven wrong and that is why this has been rejected by the White House. This video has shown his pro- Russia, pro communist and anti- america stance. If not for the pax Americana that created globalization the rise of China, Europe, Russia (esp the oligarchs), liberation of eastern Warsaw countries would not have been possible. His idea that since America is a minority shld not lead the world. This is another anachronistic idea- for if that is true then China, India shld be the leaders of the world. Leaders are always the minority- that's why they are leaders. He is still living in the communistic world- where supposed leadership is the party but in truth it's a one man rule. And just becoz one President accepted his " economic dynamism" once does not mean that it's right all the time. A solution nowadays is a mixture of economic, political, military solution. It seems to me that he is reading only himself. An intellectual is one who is honest that he does not have all the solutions- so, he has to update himself. I suggest he reads at least the ff: peter Zeihan-, stephen Kotkin, joe Vlogs, China update, China uncensored, Serpentza and Vince Flynn.

I didn't have to go to C.U. or work at the U.N. to glean that Putin says he wants to talk, then he doesn't or won't. He sets limits he knows can't or won't be met by the west, then he moves, takes, bombs, kills, invades, or steals, and then issues more threats if anyone comments on or counters anything he does. China on the other hand never talks and copies selected part of the Putin plan in slower motion. Likewise makes threats against any objection. People tried to stop Bush in in his wars in Afghanistan / Iraq. H.W. Bush in Desert Storm. Nixon is Vietnam. (Yeoman, Syria, Ukraine not so much) Putin agreed to Ukraine grain shipments with the UN until they started moving, but stopped them as a military tactic to harm Ukraine and the rest of the world. You can't appease a madman on either side of the pond. Putin has shown all the traits of one and one that needs NATO around him; otherwise he takes counties next to the once distance NATO, then says NATO needs to go. Just look at what the Trump administration was willing to do to hurt everyone in order to gift Putin his wishes. In close: get a real job sweeping floors, then you'll figure it out..,sooner or later.

And Democracy Now has also to have a new fresh Face. Amy who is very articulate is clearly "anti- american" and pro Russia/China and communism ( whc is already a bankrupt ideology).

i think Professor Sachs is probably right; fewer bullets and more talking but what he doesn't address is what would happen if we hadnt armed ukraine or weren't sending arms to Taiwan – do we just let russia or china do what they want in their spheres of influence. If so, will we (democracies) be happy with a resurgent Soviet Union or East and South Asia "owned" by China. Tough one I think.

ive travelled and worked in most parts of the world and Dr Sachs makes some great points. it would be wonderful if everyone stayed in their own lane, 'play nicely in the sandbox" (as he says), or could recognise shared interests and be able to negotiate mutually acceptable outcomes to every tension or challenge. The problem i have is; had the US (and the wider Western world) played nicely in sandbox, it is highly likely that Russia or China or both or another actor would have taken over and he probably wouldnt have the microphone to state his views or be paid for being a professor with the freedom of speech these positions enjoy. So, on the one hand US have been bullies and wanted to shape the world in their image – no doubt about it. But the alternative would have been (and may yet be) atrocious – ask the former Warsaw Pakt countries and Tibet

This Clown is proof that even if your a professor can be a complete fool, or so lets just sit back and let the world fester with dictators is his stupid answer, maybe tell his story to the Uyghurs and so on. You could debate nearly all of what this fool has stated as he to me proves to be very tractorist to any the western democracy.