Por si no estuvieran al tanto, es recomendable leer antes que nada el alucinante intercambio epistolar entre Donald Trump y el Primer Ministro de Noruega, Jonas Gahr Støre.
La primera carta es de Støre, aunque iba firmada también por el ahora menos gallito "Alex", es decir, Alexander Stubb, el mentiroso presidente belicista, atlantista, rusófobo y surófobo de Finlandia; se dirigieron a Trump el domingo 18 de enero a las 15:48:
Dear Mr President, dear Donald – on the contact across the Atlantic – on Greenland, Gaza, Ukraine – and your tariff announcement yesterday. You know our position on these issues. But we believe we all should work to take this down and de-escalate – so much is happening around us where we need to stand together. We are proposing a call with you later today – with both of us or separately – give us a hint of what you prefer! Best – Alex and JonasInserto a continuación la asombrosa respuesta de Al Capone, en versión Narciso Furioso, enviada al parecer también a numerosos embajadores europeos, dado que el exhibicionismo demencial no mata. Data del mismo domingo, minutos después de la misiva anterior, a las 16:15:
Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT
TRANSCRIPCIÓN con aclaraciones, intervenciones tipográficas y enlaces de mi cosecha:
Krystal Ball: All right, guys. We are very fortunate to be joined today by Professor Sachs of Columbia University, who is an economist and world-renowned thinker and best-selling author… scarcely needs an introduction.
Many things to speak with you about today, sir. Thank you for joining us.
Jeffrey Sachs: Great to be with you. Thank you.
Krystal Ball: Yeah, of course. So, let me start with this pretty wild letter that the President of the United States apparently sent to the Prime Minister of Norway. So, here we go. It says,
Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJTWhat do you make of this extraordinary…
11:31 PM – Jan 18, 2026
Jeffrey Sachs: Thank you for your attention to this matter...
Krystal Ball: Yes, exactly. Which was not only sent to, you know, Prime Minister of Norway, but was also sent to apparently a number of European ambassadors.
Jeffrey Sachs: Well, I think it's terrifying, because either he's insane or he's not insane. We don't know which. But either way, it's terrifying.
If this is serious and this is how a president speaks, we have lost our country, our democracy, our system, and our safety.
If he is an old man with the megalomaniacal tendencies already, and he's over the edge, which I think is perfectly possible, though I'm not a psychologist, this is also something that we're seeing, somebody who is decompensating in front of our eyes.
We had a president, last time, who collapsed on the job; maybe it's happening again. Again, I have to say this is so strange, wild, nuts, that it's not something that grown-ups in normal behavior would do under any circumstances, much less someone who holds this office.
If this is taken as clever or cute or normal, I think people should reexamine their thoughts about this.
So, I find it frankly astounding.
Saagar Enjeti: So, zooming out, professor, there is a big, you know, now push by the United States kind of centering its relationship here with the European powers. Krystal, if we could put the Trump Truth Social (sic) up about sanction or, sorry, tariffs that are being put into place here:
Donald Trump [texto completo tal cual]:President Trump saying, We have subsidized all countries of the European Union etc. I will, you know, stick to the important part is that there will be tariffs increased to some 10% on Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the UK, Netherlands and Finland. And the tariff will be increased to 25% beginning on June 1st. It's time for Denmark to give back Greenland.
We have subsidized Denmark, and all of the Countries of the European Union, and others, for many years by not charging them Tariffs , or any other forms of remuneration. Now, after Centuries, it is time for Denmark to give back — World Peace is at stake! China and Russia want Greenland, and there is not a thing that Denmark can do about it. They currently have two dogsleds as protection, one added recently. Only the United States of America, under PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, can play in this game, and very successfully, at that! Nobody will touch this sacred piece of Land, especially since the National Security of the United States, and the World at large, is at stake. On top of everything else, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Finland have journeyed to Greenland, for purposes unknown. This is a very dangerous situation for the Safety, Security, and Survival of our Planet. These Countries, who are playing this very dangerous game, have put a level of risk in play that is not tenable or sustainable. Therefore, it is imperative that, in order to protect Global Peace and Security, strong measures be taken so that this potentially perilous situation end quickly, and without question. Starting on February 1st, 2026, all of the above mentioned Countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Finland), will be charged a 10% Tariff on any and all goods sent to the United States of America. On June 1st, 2026, the Tariff will be increased to 25%. This Tariff will be due and payable until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland. The United States has been trying to do this transaction for over 150 years. Many Presidents have tried, and for good reason, but Denmark has always refused. Now, because of The Golden Dome, and Modern Day Weapons Systems, both Offensive and Defensive, the need to ACQUIRE is especially important. Hundreds of Billions of Dollars are currently being spent on Security Programs having to do with “The Dome,” including for the possible protection of Canada, and this very brilliant, but highly complex system can only work at its maximum potential and efficiency, because of angles, metes, and bounds, if this Land is included in it. The United States of America is immediately open to negotiation with Denmark and/or any of these Countries that have put so much at risk, despite all that we have done for them, including maximum protection, over so many decades. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
DONALD J. TRUMP
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Jan 17, 2026, 5:19 PM
So, when we're talking here a little bit about the relationship with the European powers by the United States and, in the broader context, Greenland, I think, is important, I don't think any of this would be happening without the sugar high that the administration is currently on after Venezuela and in particular, you know, after Midnight Hammer. Those seem to have really convinced the president and his team the United States can truly be the world's superpower and can act like this way in any sphere of the world in its demands. What do you think the effects of this type of strategy and of belief system in the White House could wreak in terms of the international situation?
Jeffrey Sachs: Again, if this gang continues to pursue this course, this is not the will of the American people. This is not the will of Congress. This reflects no constitutional process whatsoever. This is a gangsterism. And gangsterism generally ends in shootouts.
So, I think that this is a perilous and reckless course, and Europe sadly became essentially a vassal of the United States over the past 30 years, in any event.
So, it barely can utter a word in its own defense. They're scared of their shadow; they have been rather pathetic. I've spoken to many European leaders over many years warning them about the direction of the United States. It's not only Trump. Trump is doing it in a crazy way. But this also reflects a kind of thuggery that the United States has been on for a long time.
Now, it seems completely unhinged and, of course, we're going to see whether any European power or country can actually express an honest view.
But they're getting close at least.
The German government has said that Greenland is a very bright red line.
The French government at many different levels, Foreign Minister and President have expressed the fact that this will not be tolerated.
Britain, which is, of course, I think the most delusional and subservient country and that's been true for many many decades, was able to utter a sentence, at least, that this is not acceptable by British standards. That's quite remarkable.
We should understand, by the way, that more important things are happening in the world than this in many ways.
A couple of days ago, the prime minister of Canada [Mark Carney] was in Beijing and Canada and China signed a strategic partnership [Cf. Prime Minister Carney forges new strategic partnership with the People’s Republic of China focused on energy, agri-food, and trade, 16.01.2026]. Very interesting. Because for Canada to do that reflects the fact that they understand that the United States has gone looney, has really completely left any kind of normalcy. I'm very happy that they have normal relations with China, but to declare it a strategic partnership, which I perfectly understand, and I commend the Premier of Canada for doing it, shows what Trump is actually doing.
The idea that they're on a sugar high, because they're succeeding one thing after another, I think is fundamentally wrong.
It's, of course, what's pumped up hour to hour on Truth Social. But I think nothing has been accomplished, except to put the world on notice that the United States is out of control from any legal restrictions and any normal restrictions.
Of course, I think this puts much of the world on high alert. We are in a nuclear world. The United States is not alone in power. It is not invulnerable. It actually rarely gets its way.
The United States does not run Venezuela, by the way. They kidnapped a President. They killed some people. They don't run anything. They've commandeered a few ships, but nothing is settled on that score.
There is no way that the United States is going to own Greenland. It's not going to happen, although the United States may claim it. So, it could absolutely one day claim that Greenland is the United States, and I think that that's actually likely by Trump.
But that will not make Greenland part of the United States. It will make the United States an invader of Europe. That will dramatically change the scene.
So, I don't really feel that this is a… in any way, a demonstration of the United States being a superpower. I view it as a delusional unchecked period. And I can't really say myself whether it is a mental instability of a President or gangsterism, that is premeditated and… but thuggishness [matonismo] just on its own. It is not strategic. It does not increase America's wealth, or safety, or security, or the economy, or anything else. There's nothing that's happening right now that sticks in a meaningful way for the benefit of MAGA, or the benefit of the American people, or the security of the American people, or anything else. It's a lot of performance. It's a lot of rather insane boasting and threatening, and bombing, but nothing that's happened, in my view, has any consequential benefit of any sort for the American people. Even, probably, his friends that he's enriching on each of these things, on each of these actions, probably that doesn't last either. This is just to my mind a massive and very dangerous instability.
The fact that nobody in Washington, in power, in any office, I mean, elected office, can find the words to express how bizarre, and dangerous, and completely unacceptable this is, is a sign of how profoundly degraded our constitutional system is.
So, I think that it is a warning to all of us.
He's invading Minnesota [ready to deploy 1,500 soldiers], the same way he's invading Venezuela, and he's in the same way that he's threatening to invade Greenland, it's completely unhinged and it's very dangerous.
Krystal Ball: Let me go ahead and put up this Financial Times tear sheet about the European response here...
So, it says the EU is readying some 93-billion-euro tariffs in retaliation.
[Financial Times, EU readies €93bn tariffs in retaliation for Trump’s Greenland threat, 18.01.2026].
You've got Davos-Klosters happening this week, the World Economic Forum [19-23 January 2026]. Lots of conversations happening between European leaders. They're supposed to be speaking with Trump as well. I mean, what would you… what can they do? What would you advise them to do? Do you think that they have woken up and realize that they need to take a more assertive posture and assert some sort of sovereignty here? Because clearly the strategy of appeasement has failed.
Jeffrey Sachs: Yes. That's what I've been saying to them for many years, and especially during the past year.
But they're very sad, semi pathetic, scared of their shadow. And I don't know whether they still remember how to be national leaders of sovereign countries, or to act together. They're showing a little bit of sign of this. The tariff retaliation and all the rest is one thing. What they should be doing is saying unequivocally, We're not negotiating. We're not discussing.
I won't use the word that… words that I would use, and that I think that they ought to use in their private discussions, but basically, they ought to say, this is nuts. It's not going down. We're not even talking about it. So, stop!
That's the most basic point. They ought to get together with Russia, and China, and India, and other parts of the world and the BRICS, to say we cannot go day-to-day with this kind of madness and treat it as normal, because basically, every country in the world is threatened by a completely lawless United States.
And they've expressed, they've explained. Mr. Miller has explained that there are no laws. Donald Trump has explained that there are no laws.
We're in the hands of a small number of people in a system that seems to have lost its voice and is unable to comprehend what's happening.
I should add that, you know, as we're watching this, they were trying last week to overthrow the government of Iran [Cf. Jeffrey Sachs & Sybil Fares, In Iran, the US-Israeli addiction to hybrid warfare is on full display. Hybrid war tactics help explain why Trump’s strategy oscillates between threats of war and false offers of peace, Al Jazeera, 19.01.2026].
This was clearly a CIA operation from beginning to end with Mossad. [Cf. Max Blumenthal & Wyatt Reed, Western media whitewashes deadly riots in Iran, relying on US govt-funded regime change NGOs, The Grayzone, 12.01.2026]
That's also a very lawless, reckless, dangerous action. And we are still close to a generalized war in the Middle East, which could well turn nuclear.
That's not gone away either.
So, either we, as a country, somehow regain some constitutional order or I think we are all imperiled. (...)
Saagar Enjeti: Professor, I do want to ask you because you were talking there about the Europeans and about our system. I think one of the problems that I see is, for example, the Europeans say that the sovereignty of Greenland is just total and complete and, at the very same time, the German chancellor [Friedrich Merz] called the Iranian government ‘illegitimate’ [también tuvo la desfachatez criminal de asegurar, en una entrevista que concedió a ZDF, que “Israel is doing our dirty work” bombardeando Iran], and it's time to fall…
Jeffrey Sachs: Yeah.
Saagar Enjeti: … as of, you know, I think a week ago, for example, all of them did not recognize Maduro as the President of Venezuela, and they effectively supported the kidnapping by the United States and the current operations. If anything, their only qual is that we didn't put boots on the ground and then force, you know, some sort of quote ‘democratic transition’.
You know, at the very same time, this President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, whose country is literally being invaded, is supportive of ‘regime change’ in Iran [13.01.2026, en plena armonía con su apoyo al golpe del Maidán].
And even, here, in the US, while many congressmen and others may be upset, let's say, over Greenland, they fundamentally agree with this idea. And hence why they didn't have any war powers resolutions or anything else on Venezuela, on Iran, I mean. If anything, they were more hawkish than even the Trump administration was on Iran.
And so, it seems as if that fundamental hypocrisy in their stance and lack, not even just of principles, but they don't believe in law whenever it benefits, let's say, an agenda that goes to them seems to have opened the space through which something like this can happen, because if they were to, let's say, enforce something on Greenland, it would fundamentally call into questions their relations with multiple other states across the world and their very own foreign policy.
Jeffrey Sachs: Your points are absolutely right and extremely important. I would put it this way, and I think it's also really important to understand.
The United States foreign policy has been lawless for many decades [de hecho, hay debajo una 'Gun Culture', un superego bélico fuera y en casa]. Our presidents and our rhetoric have generally hidden that —to a minor extent, at least.
Tradición que incluye también a los más guapos, simpáticos, elegantes y reverenciados por la prensa libre y plural.But the kinds of thuggishness that Trump is displaying is part of American foreign policy, for a long time [Cf. General Smedley Butler: War is a Racket y Matt Kennard, The Racket, A Rogue Reporter vs the American Empire (2015, 2024].
Cf. Carl Boggs, Obama’s Imperial Presidency, CounterPunch, 14.09.2018. Extractito:In his book The Obama Syndrome, Tariq Ali writes: “From Palestine through Iraq, Obama has acted as just another steward of the American empire, pursuing the same aims as his predecessors, with the same means but with more emollient rhetoric.” He adds: “Historically, the model for the current variant of imperial presidency is Woodrow Wilson, no less pious a Christian, whose every second word was peace, democracy, or self-determination, while his armies invaded Mexico, occupied Haiti, and attacked Russia [yes, Russia!], and his treaties handed one colony after another to his partners in war. Obama is a hand-me-down version of the same, without even Fourteen Points to betray.”
We invaded Iraq not on wrong premises, but on completely false premises.
We overthrew the government of Syria in a CIA operation that went on for 14 years [verbi gratia].
We bombed Libya to oblivion and created what has now been 15 years of civil war in that country.
We overthrew, helped to overthrow a government in Ukraine in February 2014, that put us on the path of war.
[Cf. Daniele Ganser: Kiew 2014 - Der Putsch, der Europa in den Krieg stürzte, 15.08.2025 y Ivan Katchanovski, The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine. The Mass Killing that Change the World, 4.10.2024. Ambos muy censurados. Kit Klarenberg recuerda aquí el caso de Katchanovski.]
[Cf. Emily Jashinsky & Ryan Grim, Breaking Points, Jeffrey Sachs, Taibbi: How The West DESTROYED Russia, 4.09.2024:You won't find almost any of this in The New York Times or The Washington Post —God forbid that's the CIA outlet or the Wall Street Journal, which just chronicles on who's going to make money on what particular venture.
— Jeffrey Sachs: (...) this was a coup in which the US played a significant role, sad to say, I saw some of it with my own eyes, which I did not want to see, but I did see, some of it with my own eyes, the US was up to its neck in that coup, and of course the Russians knew it: they even did us a favor of intercepting Victoria Nuland's phone call with the US ambassador to Ukraine, Jeffrey Pyatt, who's now a senior State Department official. [Telephone Call between Assistant Sec. of State VICTORIA NULAND & US Ambassador to Ukraine GEOFFREY PYATT. Leaked online 4 February 2014 (1)] Victoria Nuland is my colleague at Columbia University, unbelievably… and the…
— Matt Taibbi [Racket News]: (28:49) …the “Yats”-our-guy call?
— Jeffrey Sachs: What's that?
— Matt Taibbi: that's the “Yats”-our-guy call…?
— Jeffrey Sachs: That's the “Yats”-our-guy call, hahaha, and the reason I saw some of it is that Yats: [Arseniy] Yatsenyuk , who became the US installed prime minister, called me! He said: I want you to come talk to me about this economic crisis, I mean, oh my God! Well, I knew Ukraine, I had advised [Leonid] Kuchma [primer ministro entre 1992 y 1993, fue también presidente de Ucrania], I did not understand exactly what it happened, by any means… so, when Yatsenyuk asked me to go there, I flew there. And this was just… I don't remember exactly, a day or a few days after Maidan, after the violent coup, and when I got there, an American or… somebody representing an American NGO said: do you want to go see the Maidan? because we have a few hours before the meeting with the Prime Minister. And, when we went to the Maidan, they explained to me how much American money had gone into pumping up the Maidan, you know, I sat!! literally; we gave 50,000 to this one, 5,000 to this one, and so forth. This NGO… extraordinarily unpleasant, I got the hell out of there that night, and this is the reality.
So, where did this war come from? It came from the fact that the US was… we call it now Cold War 2.0, but it's really the same Cold War, it never really stopped.
The US had a campaign… well, Russia is going to be second rate… or maybe divided… or decolonized, to use a favorite word in Washington, but we're going to continue this effort, because they're on the other side. You know, it turned out, didn't have anything to do with Bolshevism, didn't have anything to do with Communism, didn't have anything to do with Democracy or not Democracy, the US did not want a big Power there, except one completely subservient to the US.]
The lawlessness has been there for a long time. It's coming unhinged though with Trump in the last few weeks, because now, everything is open game and that's why I say that there may be something psychological (2), or something constitutional, or something gangsterism in this, but the pace of the lawlessness and the brazenness of it, and the boasting of the absence of any restraints is something new compared even to the lawlessness before.
Now, the Europeans used to object once in a while to this. There used to be European leaders who objected to the Iraq war (3), for example. They said it was not correct. It was dangerous.
I knew those leaders. We don't have them in Europe for the last 15 years.
It's an interesting question why I think they are afraid of the United States and afraid of Russia, and very weak internally, and basically, they have… this political class has been raised by the CIA, and the American Deep State, and all of the organizations… the Atlantic Council, and the German Marshall Fund [Cf. Nel Bonilla, Elite Capture & European Self-Destruction: The Hidden Architecture of Transatlantic Hegemony, The Mindness, Substack, 28.06.2025], and all of these favorite… and Davos, and everybody else. You better play the American game if you want to have political success.
So, they have lost their voice entirely. And it's shocking for me, because I rather like Europe and always hoped that Europe would be a stabilizing influence on an extraordinarily violent US foreign policy. They dropped that.
By the way, the Ukraine war was a complete provocation by the United States. And that's why The New York Times, which is our phony newspaper, reported that it was ‘unprovoked’ a thousand times, precisely because it was provoked by the United States by overthrowing a government in order for NATO to enlarge. Okay.
Now, having said all of that, the Europeans would not tell the truth in public about this at all. I speak to the leaders. Some of them even know it in private. Some do not know it. But the ones that know it in private, won't say it in public.
So, we've had a situation where you're completely right. Europe went along with every abuse.
And let's remember: we have just been complicit in a genocidal operation in Gaza.
So, this isn't theoretical about what's going to happen to Greenland.
We had a genocide in Gaza before our eyes, in the last year, which the United States funded, armed, supported with military intelligence, and gave full diplomatic backing to. That's by the way both Biden and Trump.
So, we're in and the Europeans couldn't utter a word. Interestingly, I was at the UN Security Council after the Israelis bombed Iran.
So, around the table, all the Europeans said, they made warnings to Iran, you better show restraint. Not one of them challenged Israel for having just bombed Iran.
I actually, ironically, had a little colloquy with the ambassador to Denmark, because I went up to her, after her… rather shocking words, and said that how much I like Denmark and, in a publication that I co-edit every year, The World Happiness Report, Denmark's always at the top, the happiest country in the world. And she was very happy, she smiled at me and then I said, "But wouldn't it be nice if you mentioned not Iran's restraint, but that Israel just bombed Iran?"
She turned around and walked out, without a word.
That's the level of the reality.
Same thing happened with the kidnapping of Maduro.
All they could get out of their mouth was, "Well, he's a terrible person” or “he's an illegitimate president."
No one could say a word about the United States brazenly violating the UN charter and its implications.
So, you're completely right. I don't want to attack the Europeans when they're being attacked, but I do want to say that consistency… that… actually we should follow some principles is what keeps us all alive, we hope. And if Europe doesn't utter a word when the United States makes every abuse, every regime change, every covert operation, every bombing, every complicity in Israel's crimes… then they turn around and are surprised about Denmark. It's a little sad.
By the way, if… I don't know if we have time, I would like to just find you a statement… if I can find it, that I read, that I said to… let me see if I can find it quickly. I'm sorry to take the time, but…
Krystal and Saagar: No problem. Please go ahead.
Jeffrey Sachs: I spoke to the European Parliament a year ago [23.02.2025] and I told them, this is going to happen, and they thought, what's the matter with you Mr. Sachs?
So, I want to read you what I said. This is verbatim, because it shows, you could see, I said to the parliamentarians.
So, I'm not saying that we're all at the new age of peace, but we are in a very different kind of politics right now. A return to great power politics. Europe needs its own foreign policy and not just a foreign policy of Russophobia. Europe needs a foreign policy that is realistic, understands Russia's situation, understands Europe's situation, understands what America is and what it stands for, and that tries to avoid Europe being invaded by the United States. It's certainly not impossible that Trump's America will land troops in Greenland.That's what I told them. Okay.
I'm not joking, and I don't think Trump is joking. Europe needs a foreign policy, a real one. Europe needs something different from Yes, we'll bargain with Mr. Trump and meet him halfway. Do you know what that will be like? Give me a call afterwards.
When I told them this, they were not impressed.
Oh, Mr. Sachs, you're exaggerating, and America's not so bad and blah blah blah.
They don't understand. But most of the world doesn't understand. And most of my neighbors on the Upper West Side of New York do not understand, because they read The New York Times. I'm sorry to say. I'm going to pick on it one more time, because the violence, the regime change, the brutality of American foreign policy is not exposed and not discussed in polite company —except now Trump, to his bizarre credit, I can't use that word in a full sentence with him, but he's at least saying out loud the brazen truth, that there is no law and no constraint for the US.
Incidentally, I think it was… Yes, I think it's The Washington Post today [Cf. Francesca Ebel, Putin’s global standing takes a hit as Russia’s allies are brought low, January 18, 2026. "As allies like Venezuela, Syria and Iran get picked off or bombed, Putin’s international promises are regarded as more hollow than ever and his lies less convincing"] that ran a story that said how terrible Putin is! Everyone sees he's a liar, because he doesn't come to the defense of this country, and that country, and this country, instead of saying how terrible is our president of the United States, is bombing, and attacking, and so forth, The Washington Post, which is the mouthpiece of the intelligence agencies, twists it so that it's Putin that's the villain, because he doesn't respond to Trump's thuggery.
So, Putin's a liar, because he doesn't stand up to Trump's thuggery, rather than an article that Trump is a thug and, maybe, it's a dangerous thing for the world that the United States is led by a gangster group. So, that's where we are.
Krystal Ball: I want to talk to you a little bit about this…
Jeffrey Sachs: …Am I being intemperate?
Saagar Enjeti: No, you're fine.
Krystal Ball: …making logical sense to me.
Saagar Enjeti: Everybody wants to hear you speak.
Jeffrey Sachs: No, no, I'm sorry. It's just… it gets worse and worse, more brazen, more shocking, and… it's… Trump's style is to normalize this, and that is absolutely grotesque. Sorry.
Krystal Ball: You… I wanted to talk to you too… you know, in the context of all of this, about this “Board of Peace” proposal from Trump (4).
Have you dug into the details here?
Jeffrey Sachs: Yes, I have!
Krystal Ball: Here's some of the latest reporting from Bloomberg [Alberto Nardelli & Alex Wickham, 17.01.2026 at 10:52 PM]:
Trump Wants Nations to Pay $1 Billion to Stay on Peace BoardI'll just read you a little bit of this:
The Trump administration is asking countries that want a permanent spot on his new Board of Peace to contribute at least $1 billion.We also have news that, you know, of a variety of countries that have been invited, apparently Putin himself has been invited onto the “Board of Peace”. This was all originally conceived, you know, in the context of this quote unquote “Peace Plan in Gaza” [el padrino de todos los sarcasmos más sádicos y obscenos o pissing on peace into pieces], but now apparently the “Board of Peace” is being positioned as sort of a Trump-run alternative to the UN. How do you view this? What is he up to here?
According to a draft charter for the proposed group seen by Bloomberg, President Donald Trump would serve as its inaugural chairman and would decide on who is invited to be members. Decisions would be taken by a majority, with each member state present getting one vote, but all would be subject to the chairman’s approval.
“Each Member State shall serve a term of no more than three years from this Charter’s entry into force, subject to renewal by the Chairman. The three-year membership term shall not apply to Member States that contribute more than USD $1,000,000,000 in cash funds to the Board of Peace [within the first year of the Charter’s entry into force,” the draft says.
Critics are worried that Trump is trying to build an alternative, or rival, to the United Nations, which he has long criticized.] (...)
Jeffrey Sachs: If George Orwell had written it, you would think it mildly funny, clever... You might view this in a Marvel comic strip, as somebody aiming to run the world. I view this as sad and pathetic. I said a year ago to many leaders, when Trump's so-called “Peace Plan for Gaza” was put forward, that this was… a travesty and a trap, and after a genocide. This is not how things should proceed.
Things should proceed with a State of Palestine, and Palestinians in charge of reconstruction. God forbid Israel should have some responsibility to rebuild after they've killed probably hundreds of thousands and destroyed this area.
But actually, Trump prevailed on one leader after another, because he threatened them, he bribed them. He told them, you can't have data centers unless you do this. You can't have this missile system unless you do this. He twisted everything out of shape and got that plan approved.
Now, he's doing it again. This is shambolic. He's got his hedge fund friends. He's got… you can't even joke about putting Tony Blair on this, since the British are the most responsible for having screwed up the Middle East for the last century of anybody.
So, why don't we put Tony Blair back in charge of Gaza? He can maybe rewrite the Balfour Declaration…
The whole thing is so absurd. You don't even know where to start.
But again, I have to admit, hardly anyone says boo about anything right now. Each one is scared of putting a… word out, right now. I don't think any of this lasts, but… on the other hand, this kind of gangsterism plays for a little while. It makes us all at risk.
Saagar Enjeti: One of the things that I see in this “Board of Peace”, Professor, I'm curious what you do as well, is it's almost like a recreation of the UN Security Council here, especially with Russia, and a quasi-privatized version, with Trump as some sort of emeritus chair…
Jeffrey Sachs: It's not going to happen. It's not going to happen.
Look, okay, around the world there are actually grown-ups. And when you talk to them, they know that this is looney. This is insane stuff. Nobody is joining Trump's board to replace the UN Security Council.
Many people think the UN Security Council is dead, killed by the United States, but nobody… okay, I can think of, yes, a few hedge fund guys,… maybe a son-in-law and a few others, who will join the board thinking that it's something real. Nobody believes that this is an alternative to the UN, except some crazy media story in some mainstream medium, pumped up by talking to someone in the White House.
And the fact of the matter is the United States is not all powerful.
It can't run Venezuela. It can't overthrow the world. It can't own Greenland. It tried very hard. It could not —in a proxy war with Russia— defeat Russia in Ukraine. That was a war between the United States and Russia —people should understand that— fought with the Ukrainians killed in vast numbers. That was the US strategy. But didn't work.
The US has not had any success anywhere in the Middle East, in actually achieving stability or long-term goals.
It has created chaos in Libya, in Somalia, in Sudan, in Lebanon, in Syria, in Iraq, in Yemen, and it tried to overthrow the government of Iran last week, and my view is… it's not over yet. Maybe they'll be bombing in the next few days. This is an ongoing story.
That's not peace. That's not security. That is not enrichment —except maybe, and I admit there are some Silicon Valley gazillionaires that do make a lot of money off of these wars. And maybe this is how Peter Thiel likes it.
But for the American people, this is not leading to anything real over the longer term. And it's not a great show… there have been a spade of articles in the last few days that America is back as the world's sole superpower. This is… absurd.
Yes, you can kidnap a president, and you can bully, and you can even commit a genocide, you can announce the “Peace Board”… That doesn't give you ownership of the world.
The fact of the matter is… I have just been traveling throughout Asia: real investment, real business, real technological advance is taking place, not in the way the United States would like it to happen… or we pretend, but actually is happening outside of the United States and not in the US control or the US orbit.
So, I find the gap between the brazenness, the rhetoric and so forth, and the underlying instability and unreality wider and wider. And I think it is absolutely important for us to understand, and to keep remembering, Trump is sending troops into American cities [al menos 10, y drones].
And, of course, that's terrifying, but is that a show of strength? or is that a show of utter contempt for American society, for the safety of the American people, for the Constitution, for law? It's the latter.
Does it prove that he's a great man, a strong man?
No, it doesn't prove that. It proves that there is a degree of recklessness that we've not seen in our country in… at least since the civil war, I would say. And yeah… […something I'm…] it's very serious.
Saagar Enjeti: …something I'm struck by, in your comments there, is —and I've noted this— …is… we are amazed at our power, as you said, to kidnap Maduro with the Delta force raid, to take out some Iranian nuclear facilities, with a high precision strike. But we seem to be, at the same time, we seem completely and totally unable to recognize the constraints that surround us. So, for example, one of the things that apparently held up a potential strike on Iran is a carrier strike group had to make its way from the South China Sea, is the idea that we… you know, because a significant number of naval assets are also in the Caribbean. And it also… it almost seems to me like the grasping of a lot of the straws here seem to be indicative actually of declining power and ability...
Jeffrey Sachs: Absolutely!
Saagar Enjeti: …considering what has happened now over the last 5 years.
Jeffrey Sachs: Absolutely! And if you look at the situation in Iran, the bombing last summer did nothing but performative. It did not set back Iran's nuclear program two years. It didn't set it back at all necessarily. [Obliterated, and everyone knows it?]
400 kg of 60% enriched uranium are just out of sight.
The amount of centrifuging needed to turn those into nuclear weapons, if they want that, is actually quite tiny at this point.
Nothing was solved in terms of security, except breaking any kind of oversight and a chance to have the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, have a continued line of sight into what was happening (y MI6ás cosas).
At the same time, Iran demonstrated hypersonic missiles that pierced Israel's Iron Dome. They did not target the absolute most sensitive targets in Israel. They targeted some military sites and… but actually, they showed that they can pierce the Iron Dome.
It's not so iron and Trump's golden dome isn't going to be so golden, after trillions of dollars spent on it either.
So, the idea that we have proved this overwhelming strength is absolutely false. And, as you say, they did not have the means, even if they had wanted to act last week to… and they may want to act next week, by the way, when this carrier strike group comes closer. So, I do not put it past events at all to see that we're in a war next week. But it's not going to be so simple. And the United States is not the only nuclear superpower, nor is Israel. And if there is a war, it's right into the cauldron of nuclear weapons all over the place. It would be the most dangerous kind of war one can imagine in all of modern times. This is not the same… even as the recklessness of the Iraq war.
So, the idea that this is somehow American strength is an illusion or a delusion.
It is an unhinged government. And again, is it unhinged by literal mental instability, or is it unhinged because of gangsterism, or some combination, or maybe the difference is too narrow to matter?
But when a president writes to the Prime Minister of Norway, as you opened, to say, You didn't give me the Nobel Peace Prize, now I don't have to think about peace; this is not under any definition, the kind of situation that any American should want for our own safety and security, much less that the world should want by any standard on any interpretation. This is deeply, profoundly, disturbing and unnerving.
Krystal Ball: Professor, my final question for you is, you know… I'm American. And I can't help but, in spite of some of my best attempts, feeling a bit of American nationalism. And this all seems incredibly terrible for our country, for the people of our country. But I do wonder if the brazenness of it is sort of a wakeup call for the rest of the world.
You know, you pointed out the new alliance between Canada and China.
You see Europeans, you know, showing some theoretical signs of potentially thinking about a bit of a backbone.
Obviously, there have been efforts with BRICS etc.
So, I… is it possible that out of this brazen undeniable gangsterism, that you emerge actually with a better order if we're looking at the entire globe.
Jeffrey Sachs: Yes. In fact, there are diplomatic conversations happening all over the world, within regions and across regions, saying, We need to get our act together, this is very dangerous.
And the BRICS is one part of that. That's half the world population, with the 10 countries, right now, about almost half the world's GDP, and they are absolutely aware of what the implications of all of this are. But I think everywhere in the world. Trump is uniting the rest of the world in the opposite of what he intends. India was courted supposedly; I always thought it was absurd, and I told the Indians that Indian leaders many times courted to be on our side against China, join what's called The Quad [The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue], which is an informal group of the United States, India, Japan, and Australia, that supposedly are the major powers to surround China and to keep China contained.
And I said to the Indians, Indian leadership, many times, This is a bad idea. Don't be used by the United States.
They —many times, many— said to me, You know we have a good inside track, we have good relations and so forth.
During the past year, all of that has broken —predictably, in my view; I have to say I told them so, very very explicitly.
And what did we see in Shanghai, at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization? We saw Prime Minister Modi, President Xi of China, and President Putin of Russia in close embrace. Of course, they're in a close embrace! They have a United States that is completely erratic, doesn't have a consistency hour to hour, much less day to day, week to week or month to month.
Every day is a new threat. Every day is a new slur. Every day is a new tariff. Every day is a new executive decree.
Of course, these are serious countries, that are actually not interested in playing some game of Donald Trump's mind but actually interested in stability.
They’re nuclear powers, they don't want a nuclear war.
They don't want to be brazenly threatened or pushed around by the United States.
So, the answer is yes. Trump is raising in everybody's mind, how do we make a multi-polar world? Precisely because we don't even have a stable power in the case of the United States, one that anyone can rely on for any moment, because it's whimsical, it is without any kind of treaty constraint, external constraint or respect for anybody else.
So, the answer is emphatically yes.
It's very hard to reshape the thinking. Europe has been so wrong vis-à-vis Russia, so misunderstanding of what really happened to create the Ukraine war, which is a US created war, basically outlined by Zbigniew Brzeziński back in the 1990s, that we're going to take NATO and bring Ukraine into NATO, and we're going to make Russia a third-rate power.
Well, the United Europe played along so much that now… that they're threatened imminently with, basically, an invasion by the United States in Greenland.
They don't know how to react, because they've been so much under the US, so much influenced —I should say— by the US approach and by the fear of Russia.
But even they, as we talked about, are rethinking everything right now.
Maybe they'll even realize, and, actually, I have to say, Chancellor Merz said it, a few days ago, that maybe he needs to call President Putin.
That shows that even the Europeans are recalibrating right now under this threat. And I can tell you that's happening all over the world, because I'm hearing those conversations. I'm being asked about these issues. This is happening all over the world.
________________________________________
(1) Telephone Call between Assistant Sec. of State VICTORIA NULAND & US Ambassador to Ukraine GEOFFREY PYATT. Leaked online 4 February 2014:
— NULAND: What do you think?El 13.12.2013, Victoria Nuland (entonces Assistant Secretary of State for European/Eurasian Affairs del presidente Barack Obama) había explicado en el National Press Club, Washington D.C., con patrocinio de Chevron Oil, que "USA had spent $5 billion promoting 'democracy' in the Ukraine" [“EEUU ha invertido más de 5 mil millones de dólares —5.000.000.000— para promover la "democracia" en Ucrania”. En Wall Street, como en la Constitución de EEUU, llaman "democracia" a que gobiernen ellos —We the People of the United States, los grandísimos propietarios, la raza de los Señores, que decía Domenico Losurdo—, es decir, a la "plutocracia"].
— PYATT: I think we’re in play. The [Vitaly] Klitschko piece is obviously the complicated electron here, especially the announcement of him as deputy Prime Minister, and you’ve seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now. So, we’re trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you’ll need to make… I think that’s the next phone call you want to set up is exactly the one you made to Yats [Arseniy Yatsenyuk], and I’m glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I’m very glad that he said what he said in response.
— NULAND: Good. So, I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government, I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think it’s a good idea.
— PYATT: Yeah… I mean, I guess… you think…? In terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff… I’m just thinking, in terms of… sort of the process moving ahead, we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be [Oleh] Tyahnybok and his guys, and, you know, I’m sure that’s part of what [President Viktor] Yanukovych is calculating on all of this. Ahh, I kind of…
— NULAND: I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the guy, you know… what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside, he needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in, he’s going to be at that level, working for Yatsenyuk – it’s just not going to work.
— PYATT: Yeah, no, I think that’s right. Okay, good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step?
— NULAND: My understanding from that call, that you tell me, was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a three way, you know, a three-plus-one conversation or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it?
— PYATT: No, I think… I mean, that’s what he proposed, but I think, just knowing the dynamic, that’s been with them where Klitschko’s been the top dog, he’s going to take a while to show up for whatever meeting they’ve got. He’s probably talking to his guys at this point, so, I think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three, and it gives you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it – behind it before they all sit down, and… he explains why he doesn’t like it.
— NULAND: OK, good. I’m happy. Why don’t you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after?
— PYATT: OK. We’ll do. Thanks.
— NULAND: OK, I’ve now written, - oh, one more wrinkle for you, Geoff. Ah, I can’t remember if I told you this or if I only told Washington this, but when I talked to Jeff Feltman [Under-Secretary-General Jeffrey Feltman] [at the UN] this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy – Robert Serry. Did I write you that this morning?
— PYATT: Yeah, I saw that.
— NULAND: He’s now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday.
— PYATT: Okay.
— NULAND: So, that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, Fuck the EU!
— PYATT: No, exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude that the Russians will working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again, the fact that this is out there right now, I'm still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych (garbled) that. In the meantime, there's a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I'm sure there's a lively argument going on in that group at this point. But anyway, we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep... we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych, but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.
— NULAND: So, on that piece Jeff when I wrote the note [National Security Advisor Jake] Sullivan's come back to me VFR saying you need [Vice-President Joe] Biden, and I said probably tomorrow for an “atta-boy” and to get the deets (details) to stick. So, Biden's willing.
— PYATT: OK. Great. Thanks.
Era la financiación de un “cambio de régimen”, golpe para el que faltaban dos meses y se sumaría a una acendrada tradición estadounidense sufrida previamente por tantos Mohamed Mossadegh (Irán, 1953), Jacobo Árbenz (Guatemala, 1954), João Goulart (Brasil, 1964), Salvador Allende (Chile, 1973), etc.
(2) Cf. Frédéric Lordon et Sandra Lucbert, Psychés débridées pour capitalisme déchaîné, Le Monde diplomatique, janvier 2026. Sobre los resultados del largo cultivo psicopático de la psique israelí, pínchese aquí.
(3) En concreto, Francia, con el presidente Jacques Chirac y su ministro de Asuntos Exteriores Dominique de Villepin, que pronunció un memorable discurso ante las Naciones Unidas el 14.02.2003, y Alemania, con el canciller Gerhard Schröder y su ministro de Exteriores Joschka Fischer. El 5.08.2002, durante el inicio de su campaña electoral en Hannover, Schröder declaró que Alemania no participaría en la invasión de Iraq, ni siquiera en el supuesto de que finalmente contara con el respaldo de las Naciones Unidas. Schröder y Fischer insistieron en que Alemania no se uniría a una "aventura" en Irak y enfatizaron la necesidad de buscar una solución política, todo ello pese a las críticas y la presión de Washington.
Por su parte, Jacques Chirac anunció el 18 de marzo de 2003 que Francia vetaría cualquier resolución que autorizara la guerra en Irak y, posteriormente, el mismo día, declaró que Irak no representaba una amenaza inmediata, subrayando que la guerra era un fracaso e instando al respeto del derecho internacional y de la ONU.
En realidad, la expresión de su postura coordinada había tenido lugar antes: el presidente francés Chirac y el canciller alemán Schröder habían mostrado una postura alineada contra la guerra el 22 de enero de 2003, recalcando la legitimidad de la ONU y su rechazo al uso de la fuerza militar.
(4) Cf. Ali Abunimah, Trump’s Board of Peace: billionaires, cronies and genocidaires, The Electronic Intifada, 21.01.2026.