How do you assess the election outcome? And to what extent do you see peace being good politics?

Yeah.

So, of course.

There's a an electoral issue, a public opinion issue and a deep state issue in the United States.

My whole life has been in periods of unpopular wars.

United States fights a lot of wars, most of them.

are unpopular.

I mean, do you see something different this time or am I a hopeless optimist here?

Do you think Trump wants a diplomatic solution in Ukraine? And if you do, why hasn't he restrained the CIA?

I think he probably does.

This is a war that the US and Europe are not going to win.

Certainly, Ukraine is going to be destroyed as escalation continues.

I think Trump came into office thinking this was Biden's war and not to be burdened with it.

Trump did face very strong pressure inside the US military industrial complex, who for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the war profiteering and the AI companies testing their AI battlefield drone systems and information systems and the normal, if I could call it that, Russophobia and long term CIA anti-Russia strategies and a strong European push to continue the war.

Trump didn't follow through.

I guess this is why Netanyahu called Trump over the weekend and begged for an immediate resumption of the war, his theory being that if Israel is actively at war and is being retaliated against by Iran, uh this is no time to throw the government out at least that would probably be his his thinking his sales pitch to uh president herzog and to gadi eisenkot and the arab uh parties

What do you think it changes geopolitically that the Pope is an American, given everything you've said? I

think it's absolutely the most fascinating, remarkable event and point.

And I'm very thrilled by it.

Pope Leo arrives at a time of... huge geopolitical change.

This is one of the most complicated periods of history of the last centuries, because in my view, and again, many people don't like to hear my view, but in my view, this is the end of the Western dominance, which was a dominance that began an ascendancy around 1500 with the great voyages of discovery and then the beginning of European colonization, both of the Americas and of Asia, and really became ascendant in the 19th and 20th centuries.

And I think that phase of history is over for understandable reasons.

And the rise of China and the rise of Asia is a kind of natural, in my view, and understandable and analyzable.

Do you see that parallel?

Am I imagining this? Has the general attitude in Israel toward religious extremism changed?

It's, as you know, a very complicated story and a complicated history.

But Zionism in its original form was a secular movement.

It was mainly Russian secular figures, not religious people.

Or Theodor Herzl.

He knew nothing about it.

He knew nothing about rabbinic Judaism.

love that so one last question jeff you mentioned maya kahana and it's who's an american i think from new york um murdered in the end in new york but it it's just another reminder that everything that is happening in israel has been abetted paid for um populated by supporters of israel united states a lot of settlers are from the united states kahana was from the united states the money comes from the united states america as a nation as a political system is clearly going to withdraw is going to change its relationship distance itself from israel what next for israel i mean that that has profound consequences for israel so like what does israel do as that happens

Is that politically possible?

That's where the real obstacle appears.

Opposition leaders had pledged not to cooperate with Arab parties, even as those parties became pivotal.

So the question I'd pose is stark.

What takes precedence in Israel? Anti-Arab racism or the chance for the country to stabilize itself? I'd argue Netanyahu's leadership has been disastrous, not just for Israel and the United States, but for the entire region.

Look at the devastation in Gaza, the failure to protect Israeli citizens, the international criminal court warrant against him.

Do you think American support for Israel can survive this?

I believe a presidential candidate who promises not to support Israeli criminality will have a real advantage.

Yes, and then the most

important point, he went from majority to below a majority.

So he does not have a basis for governing.

That's the key.

The issue is, which makes this very interesting, is that the Palestinian Arab population, the citizens of Israel constitute two million people against the eight million Israeli Jews in a population overall of 10 million people.

So the Palestinians account for about 20 percent of the citizenship of Israel.

Incidentally, let's remember that if you take Israel and all of the Palestinian territories, Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, then it's not 20%, it's 50%.

Chris assures me it's not AI.

They've been articulated very eloquently by yourself, but perhaps you can help us by setting them out again in this program.

Well, thanks.

It's so great to be with you.

And I view our discussion, as always, but especially now, as brainstorming, actually, because I think ideas can make a difference right now.

Of course, not only are we in war, but we are just trapped in the stupidest platitudes imaginable, as everybody knows.

We are we stand with Ukraine.

We are with Ukraine as long as it takes.

say.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tim.

I love being at LSE.

This has been always a high point for me throughout my whole career, and I was just reflecting with Professor Richard Laird, one of my heroes in our profession, that this is the 35th anniversary of the Robbins lectures that I gave about Poland's transformation back in 1991.

So that was a grand event for me and I feel the same this evening.

I'm just thrilled to be here and congratulations on this new series and for including me in this new series.

And as Professor Besley just said, this is the 250th anniversary of The Wealth of Nations.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tim.

I love being at LSE.

This has been always a high point for me throughout my whole career, and I was just reflecting with Professor Richard Laird, one of my heroes in our profession, that this is the 35th anniversary of the Robbins lectures that I gave about Poland's transformation back in 1991.

So that was a grand event for me and I feel the same this evening.

I'm just thrilled to be here and congratulations on this new series and for including me in this new series.

And as Professor Besley just said, this is the 250th anniversary of the Wealth of Nations.

Great.

But what do you argue should be the pro-Ukrainian position?

Well, just to say, it is so interesting and bizarre how words are used.

You mentioned one of the prominent words, provoked, which has become part of the lexicon of this war.

When Russia...

It launched the invasion on February 24th, 2022, the special military operation, which followed 30 years of war.

very heavy debate and contention and eight years of open war.

It wasn't the beginning of the Ukraine war.

Even as we're losing a war, we can't address the Russian security concerns, which means there can't be an end to the war.

Okay.

There's another side of American politics that which Trump is the cartoonish representative of, but there's a deeper, more evil and less cartoonish part, which just says, we are America, we run the show.

That's all.

And for that part of America, which is the hegemony vision of America, which is very strong.

It's very strong in Washington.

It's very strong in the CIA.

It's very strong in the Pentagon.

I want to hear, I don't believe it, but I wanted to hear what's your thoughts on this argument that we shouldn't let, as Europeans, Russia win because we can't cock it.

Where and how would you draw that line?

Well, this is one of the harder issues, but I don't think it is the hardest issue, though it is the one that is endlessly talked about.

There are two issues here.

One is you draw a line and the fighting stops.

The second issue about territory is, is that line a de facto line, meaning that that is how those territories are going to be governed? Or is that a de jure line, meaning that that is how that border will be officially recognized by each other and by the rest of the world? My feeling, Judge, is that at this stage, it is not possible.

To draw any line and to have both sides say we renounce all claims other except as that line is drawn.

In other words, you could draw the line on the current combat contact line.

What does your gut tell you, that the war will end by a negotiated agreement or the war will end when the Ukrainian military collapses?

Cyprus as well.

And in Cyprus, imperial genocides.

This was not a world of values except values that we wanted to proclaim for ourselves.

But one of the main implications of this is that in 1820, at the eve of the Western hegemony, Asia constituted about 60% of world output, as best we can measure it.

And by 1950, it constituted 20% of world output, with the same share of population being about 60%.

So Asia experienced a calamitous 150 years, roughly from the beginning of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century.

And this was Britain's control of India, this was the Western effective control over much of China.

But isn't it that it will resolve itself because it will become irrelevant towards the real economic forces of the big world, big countries?

You have to adjust-

And, and by the way, this is great.

I, I remember that line, which is wonderful.

Um, this is not so hard to look ahead.

Uh, and I think this is something that is completely missed in almost all geopolitics.

You can make a pretty good projection of where world population will be in a quarter century from now.

Uh, if you ask for 75 years from now, it's a little bit harder, but you can make a, a good projection, of course barring the ultimate calamities that we're trying to, uh, prohibit.

It's-

I mean, apart from threats of mass killing from Trump and Netanyahu at the UN General Assembly, which we might talk about, what did you detect 12 years on since the coup in Ukraine at the UN General Assembly in New York? Well, these wars continue to

rage because it seems nobody wants to speak the truth and nobody wants to acknowledge ground realities.

The war in Ukraine is a war that came, as you mentioned, with a coup that overthrew a Ukrainian president so that NATO could enlarge all the way to Russia's border.

When the United States pushed the Europeans to agree to commit to Ukraine's membership in NATO.

Then German Chancellor Merkel wrote in her diary that this was, as she knew, tantamount to a declaration of war.

That's the way that the Russians would see it.

And she was right.

So did you manage to see him in New York and ask him why, as many have around the world, why the UN has not taken a more muscular role and convened some kind of conference in a neutral space? Of course, I mean, we're hoping there'll be a conference here in the

Why is this weak, ragtag group trying to destroy the rich, super rich Saudi Arabia?

It, it's not exactly a ragtag group.

That's, uh, first of all, the reason that they can destroy airports, grab coastlines, and bomb oil fields.

Uh, this is, uh, a, uh, part of a, uh, what is now a complete failed state, uh, Yemen, uh, that, uh, has, uh, hovered between one state, two states, no states, uh, and, uh, incredible, uh, civil, uh, clash for decades, in fact.

I went to Yemen just once myself, uh, in, uh, 2009 and came back rather shocked by what looked like a completely explosive situation.

It was not yet exploded, but the government, uh, was, uh, on its back.

There was a major fiscal crisis, debt crisis, uh, ecological crisis, uh, poverty, uh, and so forth.

What does behavior like this do to the reputation of the United States and its ability to conduct diplomacy? I know you're gonna tell me they don't, that we don't d- conduct diplomacy.

origin.

The world is extremely complicated and disrupted right now, as I think we all know.

I'm Jeffrey Sachs.

I'm a university professor at Columbia University.

I'm an economist, but I had worked in public health issues actually for many, many years and had chaired a commission on public health for the World Health Organization.

2020 was already in an era of huge distrust.

America was divided in almost civil war during the Trump period.

They're afraid of the letter Q, you know? The real domestic terrorist, the fake FBI.

What's interesting for us, Glenn, is...

that because it's our job, we read documents and we read statements and plans.

And in this case, it's just absolutely fascinating to read Brzezinski's account of all of this in 1997.

The grand chessboard has the subtitle, The Strategic Imperatives of American Primacy.

So the idea is spelled out, not in the salami tactics way, but in the definition, the purpose and the results.

And what he spells out is that America will have primacy.

for as far as we can see in eurasia this is interesting because america is not a eurasian power of course america is in america in the americas but america will have primacy in eurasia primacy over europe primacy over russia primacy over china primacy over india That's the goal.

Glenn,

Does it appear that Trump and Netanyahu are preparing a ramp up in the war in Iran for after November 3rd, the midterm elections here in the U.S.?

I think a renewed war is the most likely scenario.

I don't think it has much to do with Netanyahu, actually, in this case.

We have a very basic issue here.

It's really very fundamental.

The United States, under Trump, launched a war that was illegal, unnecessary, reckless, and both tactically and strategically a failure.

The war was launched on February 28th with the very explicit idea that the U.S. and Trump would murder most of the leadership of Iran.

How has Trump diminished the United States of America in the area of trade?

Does this surprise you?

We've been hearing this report from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz for several days.

Netanyahu says he's going to sue the reporters, but the reporters know what happened.

It's not quite right to say Netanyahu did nothing about it.

What he seems to have done is taken off the guard when he heard this.

I think it's becoming increasingly likely that Netanyahu invited an attack so that he could retaliate in the way that Israel did.

This is what is suggested by these reports.

this is almost a direct quote from him the other day, Jeff.

Uh, what is the mood in New York about this? What, what are your thoughts on, on Netanyahu's arrival?

Well, the mood right now is, uh, still shock, uh, at, uh, Trump's remarks yesterday.

Uh, never before at, uh, the podium of the General Assembly has, certainly not a US president or anyone else, said we're going to annihilate another country, or, "It's a, a choice that I'm going to make.

I'm going to make you great or I'm going to annihilate you." Uh, then the Iranian president spoke today saying, um, "Well, I had to put away my speech, uh, after I heard, uh, Trump's, uh, threats," uh, and just to say, "We will never surrender, and we will be as strong as we need to be to protect ourselves." So this was [laughs] quite an, an amazing day from the standards of diplomacy.

Maybe not from the standards of, uh, Trump's, uh, true social post, but standing at the podium of the UN General Assembly in a room of global leaders to say, "I have a, I have a hard choice to make.

Should I, uh, destroy the civilization and send them to hell?" Which is, uh, what he said, or, or, "Should I make them a great country?" It was a most bizarre moment.

I think Netanyahu will add another [laughs] bizarre moment.

Can you be entirely sure that they're not, their intentions are not gonna ultimately be bad or dangerous?

What was your reaction when you heard that, Professor Sachs?

I shuddered then and I shudder now that a President of the United States can stand at the podium of the UN General Assembly speaking to world leaders in a language of annihilation of other countries and of sending them to hell.

It was ghastly, unprecedented, totally disgusting, disgraceful for the United States.

But I would also say a measure of how broken the constitutional order of the United States is something that you know, Judge, you lead on with every opening of every segment of your broadcast about undeclared wars, about breaking our constitutional order, about losing our freedom.

Trump basically said, like a madman, which I think arguably he is, that he and he alone will decide the survival of Iran.

He said that he has a big choice to make.

Maybe Iran will be a great country.

Could have said it more clearly.

Um, however, yeah, my question is therefore how, how do you see BRICS organizing international governance? Because BRICS isn't simply a new America that will, um, you know, kind of, uh, or- organize everything, uh, through, you know, centralized command or s- uh, yeah, structures.

We're seeing obviously, uh, big shifts, uh, historic scale shifts in, uh, the way the world, uh, is organized and the way that, uh, people view the world.

Uh, and I think the, the main, uh, dates, uh, that we should, uh, start with are around 1750 to 1950, uh, and then, uh, around 2000 and today, and let me explain briefly.

Uh, starting around 1750, a very unusual thing happened in history, uh, and that is that, uh, Europe, Europe and European imperial powers, uh, started to gain a, a global ascendancy.

Uh, Europe is not a big part of the world.

Uh, it was, uh, just the western, uh, edge of Eurasia, and it was, uh, always a rather modest part of the world population.

Today, Europe, uh, in the European Union is 450 million people approximately.

Anyway, so I'm sure if you have any final thoughts.

Mm.

And, uh, I fear that any replacement of Netanyahu, uh, is also going to be awful, uh, because, uh, Israeli voters and the Israeli political class, uh, have, uh, turned, uh, uh, genocidally, uh, racist, uh, and murderous in their behavior, and it's, uh, shocking to behold.

But we're not seeing an election, uh, in which, uh, Netanyahu's vile behavior is being contested on the basis of vile behavior.

We're seeing an election in which Netanyahu is being attacked on an individual basis, but from opponents who say they'll do a better job at slaughter or a better job at, uh, repressing, uh, the, uh, Palestinians or a better job at attacking Türkiye, "Who's next?" uh, one of the candidates says, or will finish Iran by the time they come in.

Uh, in other words, uh, it will escalate.

So, uh, the Israeli elections are not going to solve the crisis of Israel.

The way to solve the crisis is very straightforward, by the way, uh, and that is the United States says, "We don't back you, uh, in this, uh, bloody-minded approach you have." All of our problems, I wanna emphasize once again, are self-inflicted problems.

Do you share these fears?

But at what point did you recognize that the Bush administration's response was clearly an overreaction and a serious misstep?

Almost immediately.

The idea of a global war on terror was a category error to begin with.

Terror, so-called violence against civilians, is part of politics and part of war.

And you don't say a war on war, or you could, but you're not going to get very far.

What you can have is a political strategy and insight, a deeper understanding of institutions, of causes, and so forth.

None of that happened after 9-11.

mean, you have to take their argument seriously because it's been four and a half years and their mindset still prevails in Brussels and Washington.