I have great respect for Sachs. I appreciate his knowledge and candor. I think he is well intentioned and makes some excellent points. I do not recall his recent candor in previous years when he was in the middle of all of this. (Did I miss it?). Seems like an unaddressed credibility gap to me. That aside, I appreciate the fact he is focused on diplomacy, negotiation, etc. He does a great job of detailing out how to negotiate. What seems to be missing is getting Mr. Putin to the table on any terms other than Mr. Putin's. It's not like Mr. Putin has a great track record of credibility.
Yes, Jeffrey Sachs has been involved for a long, even developing the currencies in some European countries. But if he is really deep in what he is saying here, perhaps we no have evidence that people can live and learn. And about Putin, their govt is essentially organized crime, but dismissing a negotiation on account of an assumption about another's intentions derails discussion before it happens. Sachs is trying to say that you do not demonize the other side, that is Lesson One in diplomacy. Let ALL players come to the table on their own terms, they should have nothing to lose by showing up, if all come willing to look at the whole situation without prejudice. Obviously credibility is low on all sides of the table right now, since rTump has violated trade agreements he himself signed. So any agreement must be designed with consequences for betrayal. But all parties must come to the table and present their own case and search for areas of agreement, if any. In any case, Peace should be the default, not war.
I have great respect for Sachs. I appreciate his knowledge and candor. I think he is well intentioned and makes some excellent points. I do not recall his recent candor in previous years when he was in the middle of all of this. (Did I miss it?). Seems like an unaddressed credibility gap to me. That aside, I appreciate the fact he is focused on diplomacy, negotiation, etc. He does a great job of detailing out how to negotiate. What seems to be missing is getting Mr. Putin to the table on any terms other than Mr. Putin's. It's not like Mr. Putin has a great track record of credibility.
Yes, Jeffrey Sachs has been involved for a long, even developing the currencies in some European countries. But if he is really deep in what he is saying here, perhaps we no have evidence that people can live and learn. And about Putin, their govt is essentially organized crime, but dismissing a negotiation on account of an assumption about another's intentions derails discussion before it happens. Sachs is trying to say that you do not demonize the other side, that is Lesson One in diplomacy. Let ALL players come to the table on their own terms, they should have nothing to lose by showing up, if all come willing to look at the whole situation without prejudice. Obviously credibility is low on all sides of the table right now, since rTump has violated trade agreements he himself signed. So any agreement must be designed with consequences for betrayal. But all parties must come to the table and present their own case and search for areas of agreement, if any. In any case, Peace should be the default, not war.
Sachs is becoming the de facto leader of the West!!!