Jeffrey Sachs sees movement after his talks with European heads of state. The time for slogans is over. Germany must finally present a concrete plan.
Economist and top diplomat Jeffrey Sachs believes that the talks initiated by Norway and Finland with Russia have "real substance." In an interview with World News Monitor, he praises Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for being the first to acknowledge the need for security guarantees for Russia. He cautions Moscow against overreaching with its demands. Despite its military successes, Russia needs genuine peace with Europe to prosper economically. Sachs hopes that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz will soften his hardline stance. Germany could pave the way for a breakthrough toward peace with a diplomatic initiative.
What is your impression after the phone call between Norway, Finland, and Putin? Are the Europeans breaking their silence towards Russia, or is this merely a tactical move?
I think there is real substance here, even though Europe is divided. President Stubb and Prime Minister Støre spoke with President Putin for about ninety minutes. The phone call had reportedly been scheduled for less than half an hour. They prepared it in coordination with Kyiv and Washington. They informed President Zelenskyy immediately afterward, and they said openly what most European leaders have avoided saying for almost five years: that ending the war requires direct talks with Russia. As President Stubb put it, Europe cannot contribute to bringing peace by remaining silent about Russia. I have been urging European leaders over the years to take precisely this step, and I am very pleased that these two leaders have now done so.
Whether the phone call proves to be more than tactical will depend on what Europe brings to the table. If Europe goes only to reiterate its demands for a ceasefire without addressing the underlying security issues, the channel will quickly close. If the talks are based on indivisible security—that is, an arrangement that respects Russia's opposition to NATO or other foreign troops in Ukraine while simultaneously providing security for both Ukraine and Europe—the call could mark the beginning of a genuine reboot of European diplomacy. Some European governments are ready for this. Others remain trapped in Russophobia or committed to a long military buildup. Germany will be crucial in determining which side prevails. If Berlin leads Europe toward negotiations, the new diplomacy will work. If Chancellor Merz clings to his confrontational course, Germany could lead Europe to disaster.
Russia's neighbors see the dangers
Mixed signals emerged from other EU capitals after the phone call. Some were against the talks, but interestingly, Poland was quite positive. Are the conflict's immediate neighbors feeling the heat of escalation? The Scandinavians also stated that they had taken the initiative as neighbors of Russia.
The reactions were revealing. Prime Minister Frederiksen of Denmark said she was very skeptical of the initiative and saw no indication that Russia wanted peace with Europe. Prime Minister Kristersson of Sweden said that everyone wanted peace except Putin and warned that talks could divide Europe. These are the reactions of governments that have based their policies on the conviction that Russia can be forced into submission and that view any talks with Moscow as a concession. Prime Minister Tusk was more cautious. He advised caution and vigilance in such contacts but reportedly also spoke of a measured optimism in Europe regarding the prospects for negotiations. Rome and Paris have been advocating a direct European channel to Moscow for several months.
Yes, I believe that the countries closest to war feel the danger most acutely. Finland shares a border of more than 1,300 kilometers with Russia, and Norway shares the Arctic border and the Barents Sea. Their leaders understand that a war involving long-range drones, deep strikes, and incidents in the Baltic Sea could spill over borders at any time, and that they would bear the initial cost of any escalation. For decades, being Russia's neighbor was the reason for Finland's prudence under Paasikivi and Kekkonen. It is good to see that this insight being regained. Prime Minister Støre made the essential point when he said that Moscow should hear Europe's views directly, not just through Washington. Crucially, Europeans must also hear Moscow's views, because Russia's long-standing security concerns regarding NATO enlargement and the CIA's long-standing anti-Russian activities in Ukraine have considerable merit and justification.
What should Europe do?
They are in constant contact with the Europeans. What is your impression, are they listening?
They are listening more than a year ago, even if their public statements fall short of their private understanding. In my discussions with European heads of state and government, diplomats, and parliamentarians, including a meeting with members of the European Parliament in Brussels earlier this month, I am observing a growing realization: the war will not be won on the battlefield, and Ukraine will not join NATO. Yet public positions are still dominated by slogans. This gap between private realism and public rhetoric is a major obstacle to peace.
There are signs that the gap is closing. Foreign Minister Wadephul met with Foreign Minister Lavrov in New York in September, the first meeting between the German and Russian foreign ministers since 2022. Europe is now debating whether to nominate a lead negotiator and is preparing a delegation for the next round of talks in Abu Dhabi. And now the leaders of Finland and Norway have spoken directly with Putin. Europe's deeper problem is not that it refuses to listen, but that it doesn't yet have a position of its own to put on the table. Until it does, it will remain a commentator on negotiations conducted by others.
Europeans take note of four-point plan
You discussed your four-point plan with several top European politicians . How did they react?
I have shared my framework plan for peace in Ukraine with several European heads of state and government. My proposal is a single package, signed by Ukraine and Russia, adopted by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII, and guaranteed by the five permanent members of the Council, along with others. It is based on four commitments: an end to NATO enlargement to the east, including the formal revocation of the 2008 Bucharest Commitment; permanent neutrality for Ukraine, based on the 1955 Austrian model, with no foreign armed forces or bases on its territory; a ceasefire line, with neither side recognizing the other's territorial claims and both renouncing the use of force; and Ukraine's path to EU membership as a neutral state. It also includes demilitarized zones, the lifting of sanctions in 2027, a reconstruction fund for both sides of the line, and a revived OSCE to monitor implementation.
The general reaction was that it was useful to have something in writing that went beyond slogans. Phrases like "We stand with Ukraine," "For as long as necessary," or "Ukraine must win" were designed to avoid a rational discussion about how the war should end. They do not promote peace. A written text forces each side to state what it can and cannot accept. The objections I hear mainly concern timing and domestic politics, not substance. These are not reasons not to put a serious plan on the table.
What does Trump want?
Do you believe that Trump has the process under control, or are those who want to continue the war simply waiting for the midterm elections?
President Trump wants a deal. His envoy, Steve Witkoff, has been active, meeting with President Zelensky in Oslo on October 20 ahead of a new round of talks scheduled for November in Abu Dhabi. But Washington is deeply divided. The administration's policy oscillates between pressuring Kyiv and pressuring Moscow. I expect the midterm elections on November 3 to leave the United States more divided, not less. Therefore, I don't believe any faction will be able to get its way. There is no public or congressional support for new funding for Ukraine. There is broad public support for negotiations. Parts of the national security establishment would probably still prefer to continue the war—but they lack both a political majority and public support.
The practical consequence is that the US role will be limited to mediating talks. American inaction is to be expected after the midterm elections. Europe will have to launch its own diplomacy. That is why the Nordic initiative is important. That is why Europe should stop waiting for Washington to decide its future.
The USA will not decide
Is Stubb Trump's man, and can he get Europeans to accept reality?
President Stubb has a personal relationship with President Trump, and he has used it well. But it would be a mistake to see him as Trump's emissary. He and Prime Minister Støre conducted the telephone call as heads of state and government of their own countries. Stubb has explicitly made it clear that they were not speaking on behalf of Europe. Stubb's statements of recent weeks represent the best Finnish traditions of Paasikivi and Kekkonen and the Helsinki Final Act, signed in Finland's own capital in 1975. Based on neutrality, Finland has become one of the happiest countries in the world and one of the richest and safest.
What matters now is a European position, not an American one. Europe's security is indivisible. Europe will have to live alongside Russia after this American administration is voted out. If European leaders remember that they are not American pawns or vassals, but the leaders of a crucial and wonderful independent region of the world, then peace is possible. Stubb can help Europe accept this reality, but only if the larger countries, and especially Germany, support this effort.
The task that lies ahead for Merz
Merz seems to have softened his hardline stance somewhat. Do you think he's reconsidering his tough position?
I see some movement, and I welcome that. In Singapore on October 27, the Chancellor said that Russia and the United States cannot resolve the war without Ukraine and Europe. He said that Germany is working with its partners on a format that gives Europe a seat at the table. In January, he, along with President Macron and Prime Minister Meloni, described Russia as a European country, and his Foreign Minister has now met with Lavrov. Yet in the same speech in Singapore, he said that the end of the war depends solely on Putin's stance, as if Europe's own decisions were irrelevant. A seat at the table is only useful if Germany also has something to say when it is there. So far, Berlin has not put forward its own proposal.
Germany has the most to gain from peace and the restoration of normal economic relations with Russia. German industry was the biggest European beneficiary of trade with Russia, thanks to cheap energy and a large export market. Germany abandoned this under Chancellor Scholz in 2022, a policy continued by Chancellor Merz. The result has been high energy costs and industrial decline, which German workers feel every day. This is very sad, and it is entirely their own fault. Merz should reverse this. If he doesn't, I believe a future chancellor will soon do so.
Could a bold diplomatic initiative by Germany be a turning point leading to a breakthrough?
Yes. Germany holds the key to peace for several reasons: It is Europe's largest economy. Its industry stands to gain the most from normal trade with Russia. And Germany bears a special historical responsibility for how this crisis arose ( more details here ).
A German peace initiative would begin with an honest acknowledgment of the historical record. Chancellor Merz should then speak directly with President Putin, as Stubb and Støre did . Foreign Minister Wadephul should follow his meeting in New York with a visit to Moscow. Germany should put a written framework on the table that ends NATO enlargement, establishes the permanent neutrality of Ukraine, and sets a ceasefire line. It should offer to serve as one of the guarantors of the settlement. If Germany now returns to the promises on which its own reunification was based, I believe there will be peace in Europe and a resumption of German and European prosperity.
Can Putin be trusted?
The Russians seem suspicious. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was quite rude to the Europeans. Can the Europeans trust Putin?
Lavrov said the phone call offered nothing new and that the Europeans simply wanted a role in the negotiations. Putin's advisor, Yuri Ushakov, said that Moscow was not currently concerned with who would represent Europe. Russian mistrust is rooted in past negative experiences . Trust between adversaries is never a matter of personal belief. It is built through agreements that serve the interests of both sides, are signed at the highest level, and are monitored. Therefore, the framework I recommend would stipulate that the agreement be adopted by the UN Security Council and guaranteed by the permanent members together with Germany, Italy, and Turkey. Implementation should be monitored by an OSCE mission comprised of non-NATO countries.
The Europeans must try. Russia should also make a serious effort instead of rejecting European interlocutors. Russia has clear advantages on the battlefield, but it shouldn't overplay its hand. A negotiated peace that addresses Russia's core security needs is far more valuable to Russia than further territorial gains because it would restore Russia's economic and political ties with Europe, lift sanctions, and release its frozen assets. I believe Russia's economic future within the BRICS is very promising. Peace would help. Moscow should also recognize that a Europe excluded from the settlement will be a Europe that remains a source of crises for years to come. Security is indivisible.
The role of the EU
The EU is not very present in the ongoing process. Has the EU missed a historic moment in which it could have acted with a peace agenda for Europe?
The EU has failed miserably for years. Its leadership adopted a narrative of the war that ignored its true causes. The Commission under President von der Leyen defined the EU's role as imposing sanctions and financing the war, rather than engaging in diplomacy. When President Costa explored a channel of communication with Moscow earlier this year, efforts to mount a political response were shelved. The Commission's reaction to the Nordic phone call, pointing out that it took place solely on a bilateral basis, speaks volumes, and most of it is disheartening for the EU institutions. Of course, given the German and French policies that fueled the war, it has been extremely difficult for the EU institutions to overcome the mistakes of their largest member states.
The EU has not completely missed its moment, however . Brussels is now preparing a delegation for the talks in Abu Dhabi, even though Moscow has reportedly not agreed to EU participation. Moreover, no delegation would have a binding mandate from all twenty-seven member states. The EU can only regain its role if it becomes a force for peace instead of a force for perpetuating war. The founding idea of European integration was that former enemies could make peace through economic interdependence and common institutions. The EU should apply this idea to its relations with Russia and return to the concept of indivisible security.
Praise for Zelenskyy and a piece of advice
What advice would you give Zelenskyy?
First, I would like to acknowledge something important. On October 28, President Zelenskyy said that Russia was raising the same question as Ukraine, namely that it also needed security guarantees, and that these issues could be discussed. As far as I know, this is the first time he has acknowledged that Russia's security concerns are a legitimate subject for negotiation. In August 2025, his answer to the same question was: "Guarantees for what?" He also correctly stated that security guarantees for Russia, as Russia understands them, represent a change in Europe's security architecture. That is precisely the point, and I commend him for saying so.
My advice is to pursue this insight to its conclusion. President Zelenskyy says that the war must end first and that Russia's questions can be answered afterward. But the war will not end until those questions are answered, and the security needs of both sides must be met in a single package, not one after the other. Ukraine came close to an agreement on precisely this basis in Istanbul in April 2022, before the United States and Great Britain pressured Kyiv to withdraw. Zelenskyy knows this history. He should honestly tell his own people that neutrality brings security and prosperity—as Austria and Finland have experienced for decades. Then there would be peace. Neutrality is not defeat. Under the framework I propose, Ukraine would pursue membership in the European Union and be rebuilt with international support.
The questions were asked by Michael Maier.