Economist Jeffrey Sachs does not believe that the US will provide billions in new aid to Ukraine. He believes the newly elected US Congress will primarily focus on reducing the cost of living. Sachs hopes that the Democrats will evolve into a "peace party."
According to the latest count by the Associated Press (AP), US Democrats have won at least 54 seats in the Senate and more than 250 in the House of Representatives. This would be their largest majority in the House since 2008. In an interview with World News Monitor, the economist and top diplomat analyzes how the new majority will affect US foreign policy. With regard to Ukraine, the question is whether the "hawks" will prevail and whether Congress can force Donald Trump to adopt a tougher stance toward Russia.
What made American voters vote the way they did?
Voters have delivered a clear verdict on Trump's presidency. His policies are widely regarded as a massive failure, particularly his economic policies. These failures have been primarily linked to his disastrous war against Iran. The war was both a political failure and a gross violation of international law.
Trump himself admitted on election night that "part of it was Iran." Vice President Vance was more explicit the next day, writing: "The reason we lost is the war."
In the AP voter survey, about 60 percent of voters said the decision to use military force against Iran was wrong. About 90 percent cited the cost of living as a decisive or important factor in their voting decision.
Are they truly against the Iran war, or were they simply annoyed by the high prices at the pump?
War and the cost of living are related issues. Before the war began on February 28, gasoline cost about $2.80 per gallon. By mid-May, the price had risen by about 55 percent. In September, it averaged $4.43.
The yield on 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds rose from under four percent before the war to over five percent in the fall. This increased the cost of every mortgage and auto loan. At the same time, the Pentagon requested more than $200 billion in additional military funding. Voters also made a deeper connection. The wars in the Middle East over the past 25 years have cost the United States trillions of dollars. These include the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, and now Iran. Most were waged at Israel's urging or in conjunction with Israel.
They brought a loss of prestige, repeated political failures, and rising costs for consumers. Brown University's Costs of War project puts the cost of wars since 2001 at about eight trillion dollars. Americans have been watching this for a generation, and they've had enough.
Trump once campaigned on the slogan "No more endless wars"—he was successful because, at the time, the Democrats were fighting those wars. Can people trust that it will be different this time?
No, not necessarily. Both Democrats and Republicans have supported the US military-industrial complex. Trump promised no more endless wars and then started a war against Iran. The Biden administration refused to negotiate with Russia on NATO expansion in December 2021. In April 2022, it joined Britain in blocking the Istanbul Agreement. Throughout the destruction of Gaza, it armed Israel.
Voters punished the Democrats for this in 2024. Among Americans who voted for Biden in 2020 but not for Harris in 2024, the most frequently cited reason was the end of Israeli violence in Gaza.
The Democrats must now draw the right lessons from their victory. They must become the party of peace. Trust will be built through actions, not slogans. This begins with restoring Congress's constitutional powers over war and the budget. No president should ever again be able to lead the country into war on a whim or at the behest of domestic or foreign lobbyists.
Could a Democratic Congress try to pressure Trump to return to the levels of military, financial, and political support he received under Joe Biden?
No, because the Democratic faction will be split between older hawks and younger doves. Naturally, voters want the doves to win this battle. A New York Times/Siena poll in May found that roughly three-quarters of Democratic voters oppose U.S. military and economic aid to Israel. There is no public desire to return to the tens of billions of dollars a year that Washington sent to Ukraine under Biden. American voters are fed up with militarism and war, and voters elsewhere feel the same. Netanyahu lost his majority in the Israeli election on October 27. Only 10 percent of Germans say they are satisfied with Chancellor Merz. That is the lowest rating ever recorded for a German chancellor.
President Macron's approval rating fell to 15 percent in October. In Bulgaria, Iliana Iotova, who favors dialogue with Moscow, won the presidency on November 1 with more than 58 percent of the vote.
The Democrats have so far rejected all talks with Russia. Does Trump still have any room to negotiate something with the Russians?
Yes, Trump still has room to maneuver in making peace with Russia. Talks will resume in Abu Dhabi on November 10th and 11th. It is the first trilateral meeting between the United States, Russia, and Ukraine since February. This shows that the channel is open.
The question is whether Trump is competent enough to use it. Unfortunately, I doubt he is. To make peace, he would have to address the root causes of the war, especially NATO enlargement and Ukraine's neutrality. He shouldn't just be haggling over lines on a map.
He would also have to prevail against the warmongers in Congress, the military-industrial complex, and, incredibly, in Europe. His policies have so far vacillated between putting pressure on Kyiv and putting pressure on Moscow. His war against Iran has squandered a large portion of his political capital. If Trump truly seeks a genuine agreement, the new Congress should not obstruct him. The wise Democrats will not.
Chuck Schumer has called Vladimir Putin a "thug and butcher" and a "murderous dictator." Hakeem Jeffries has used similar language. Do you expect them to change their tone or escalate their rhetoric?
This will test her intelligence as a politician. Her handling of Russia contributed to the Democrats' defeat in 2024. Voters blamed the Biden administration for the costs of Biden's wars, including the energy shock.
This followed the escalation of the Ukraine war in 2022, when gasoline first cost more than five dollars a gallon. The American people don't like the Ukraine war, just as they don't like the Iran war. Insults are not foreign policy. President Kennedy negotiated the Limited Test Ban Treaty with Khrushchev less than a year after the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Reagan, who had called the Soviet Union an "evil empire," later signed the INF Treaty with Gorbachev. Schumer and Jeffries can follow these examples and support diplomacy. Or they can escalate and try to lead their party back into the trap that cost them the White House in 2024. But that would mean defying the will of the voters.
Following the clash between Donald Trump and Zelensky in the Oval Office in February 2025, Chuck Schumer said Trump and Vance were "doing Putin's dirty work." Hakeem Jeffries called the meeting "appalling." Can Zelensky expect a new approach to the war from Washington?
No. Congress is divided and will be largely uninterested in Ukraine. All eyes will be on 2028. The new majority's priorities will be the cost of living, not another bailout for Kyiv. If the Democrats are wise, they will push for an end to the war in Ukraine, not its continuation. President Zelenskyy should also represent his own citizens. Some 75 percent of Ukrainians support negotiations with Russia to end the war. He would best serve them by negotiating seriously in Abu Dhabi and beyond, based on Ukraine's neutrality. He shouldn't count on a new wave of American support. It won't come.
Isn't there a strong anti-Russian sentiment among Democrats?
Yes, there is strong anti-Russian sentiment within Washington's political class, and it transcends party lines. Democratic Representative Vicente Gonzalez met with members of the Russian Duma in March, along with four Republican colleagues. Senator Shaheen, the highest-ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Wicker, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, demanded an explanation from the administration as to why the visit had been permitted.
A former congressman called the American participants "traitors." It is a very sad and dangerous situation when talks with the other side are treated as treason. During the Cold War, American and Soviet lawmakers, scientists, and officials met regularly. These contacts helped to maintain peace. Russophobia exists in the political class of Washington, as well as in Berlin, Brussels, Paris, and London.
It is not shared by the voters. The voters want the wars to end. Russophobic warmongers will suffer the same fate at the ballot box as Trump's party did this month.
The Europeans were largely aligned with the hawks among the Democrats. Could they derail the negotiations?
They could try to delay an agreement. However, I don't believe they can prevent it. Europe has largely excluded itself from the negotiations. No European government will be at the table in Abu Dhabi. Europe's role has been limited to talks about post-war security guarantees and reconstruction. Europe does not want to end this war right now. The Europeans and Zelenskyy can condemn more Ukrainians to die in a senseless war. This will happen if they insist on conditions that Russia has rejected for years—such as the deployment of European troops in Ukraine after a ceasefire.
It would be better if they stood by Ukraine and pushed for a sensible peace agreement. President Stubb and Prime Minister Støre spoke with President Putin by telephone on October 27. This shows that some European heads of state and government have understood this. Germany, France, and the EU institutions should follow this approach.
Democrats, through their control of Congress, could launch investigations, restrict funding, and politically constrain the Witkoff-Kushner Channel. Do you see this as a danger?
The Democrats would be very foolish to try that. The problem with the Witkoff-Kushner Channel isn't the talks with Russia. The problem is that it has been ineffective.
They met repeatedly in the first weeks of the year. Then everything stalled for nine months. Talks resume this week in Abu Dhabi. Witkoff and Kushner treated the war like a real estate negotiation, simply marking plots on a map. They ignored the causes of the war, particularly NATO expansion and Ukraine's neutrality.
If the Democrats use their oversight powers, they should insist on a serious diplomatic strategy. They should not try to end the talks.
In any case, ending a European war is not solely or primarily Washington's responsibility. The EU, Ukraine, and Russia share this responsibility.
Isn't Trump a lame duck when it comes to the Ukraine war?
Yes, largely. Because the Democrats control both houses of Congress, Trump will have difficulty passing legislation. His authority abroad is also weakened.
Both Moscow and Kyiv will inevitably look beyond this situation. Europe should now choose to negotiate peace. After the end of this government, Europe will continue to coexist with Russia and would benefit enormously from a peace settlement. A continued war could result in catastrophic losses for Europe.
With whom should German politicians speak in order to generate some momentum towards an end to the war?
Chancellor Merz should speak directly with President Putin and President Zelenskyy, as President Stubb and Prime Minister Støre have done. This is overwhelmingly a European, not an American, matter.
I would suggest ignoring the Americans. They are not the point. Nor do they guarantee Europe's security. I would sit down within Europe and revive the OSCE, largely without the Americans. Germany should put a plan on the table. Since only ten percent of Germans are satisfied with the Chancellor, Merz has every reason to change course. He should push for peace based on the principle of indivisible security.
The questions were asked by Michael Maier.