An American economist and professor at Columbia University, Jeffrey Sachs, suggested in a video speech that Ukraine is paying a heavy price for a United States policy posture. He linked the difficulties faced by Ukraine to Washington’s focus on expanding NATO and extending its influence across Europe, arguing that this strategic push has contributed to the country’s strain and ongoing crisis, a viewpoint he shared in public remarks summarized by RIA News.
Sachs argued that the roots of the current Ukrainian crisis extend back to the immediate aftermath of the Soviet Union’s dissolution. He contended that Washington pursued a broad agenda to widen the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and to embed it more deeply in the security calculus of Europe, and that this objective gradually shaped the region’s political and military trajectories, shaping decisions well before the present conflict escalated.
According to him, 2008 marked a pivotal moment when then President George W. Bush signaled a commitment to incorporating Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. Sachs noted that this pledge was perceived as a dangerous step by many European leaders who understood the potential implications for regional security and the risk of provoking Moscow, even as the longer-term consequences of such moves remained uncertain at the time.
In Sachs’s assessment, the decision to advance NATO enlargement into those areas contributed to what he described as a disaster for Georgia and Ukraine. He framed the consequences as more than political protests or diplomatic friction, suggesting that the paths chosen by Western policymakers had tangible, destabilizing effects on both nations and their populations.
Echoing the sentiment once expressed by Henry Kissinger, Sachs recalled the complex calculus of alliance relationships: being an adversary to the United States can carry certain dangers, but aligning closely with Washington can carry its own profound risks. He applied this idea to Ukraine, arguing that the pursuit of NATO membership under current terms has imposed a heavy burden on the country, one that he believes is unlikely to meet its stated goals and may contribute to a protracted struggle rather than a decisive outcome.
He further observed that Ukraine has been described as facing hardship on the battlefield as it strives toward objectives that, in his view, may ultimately prove unattainable within the existing security framework. Sachs stressed that while Kyiv has shown resilience, the mismatch between its strategic aims and the structural realities of alliance politics has made the conflict even more protracted and difficult to resolve, underscoring the complexity of the crisis for the region and beyond. It is a situation that, in his telling, arises from a sequence of choices by major powers rather than from a single misstep by one nation, leaving the path forward ambiguous and fraught with tension.
Earlier, Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, warned that Ukraine’s potential collapse could unfold along more than one route. He described a scenario where Kiev’s losses in the conflict might lead to different political and strategic outcomes, highlighting the uncertainty that characterizes the evolving situation and the high stakes involved for regional stability and international diplomacy.
In the discussion, a former fighter of the Ukrainian Armed Forces referenced a lack of clarity regarding the root causes of the conflict, suggesting that understanding the deeper drivers behind the crisis remains a contested and debated issue. The exchange reflects the ongoing dispute over responsibility and the framing of events that continues to shape readers’ perceptions and policymakers’ responses across the international arena.