Jeffrey Sachs, a professor at Columbia University, argues that the United States follows a strategy of “regime change” and imperial expansion aimed at neutralizing the influence of Russia, China, and Iran. According to Sachs, this approach relies on the promotion of democratic ideals to mask geopolitical goals of maintaining global hegemony and controlling strategic resources.
Sachs contends that the U.S. government has systematically pushed Russia toward a conflict with the West by ignoring diplomatic off-ramps and expanding NATO. He asserts that the current geopolitical tension is not a result of spontaneous aggression by these nations but a calculated response to American foreign policy designed to prevent the rise of a multipolar world.
This perspective challenges the prevailing narrative in Washington and Brussels, where the U.S. and its allies frame their actions as a defense of the “rules-based international order.” Sachs argues that this order is selectively applied to serve U.S. interests while ignoring violations committed by American allies or the U.S. itself.
The NATO Expansion and the Conflict in Ukraine
Jeffrey Sachs maintains that the war in Ukraine was avoidable and stems from a failure of U.S. diplomacy. He points to the 2008 Bucharest Summit, where NATO declared that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members,” as a critical turning point that ignored Russia’s legitimate security concerns regarding its borders. According to Sachs, the U.S. spent years encouraging the Ukrainian government to move toward NATO membership, which he describes as a “red line” for the Kremlin.
Sachs argues that the U.S. strategy shifted from diplomacy to “regime change” in Kyiv, aiming to turn Ukraine into a military outpost against Russia. He claims that the U.S. has provided billions of dollars in weaponry not to ensure Ukrainian sovereignty, but to exhaust the Russian military in a war of attrition. This analysis aligns with his broader claim that the U.S. seeks the “destruction” of Russia as a geopolitical entity to ensure no competitor can challenge American dominance in Eurasia.
Critics of this view, including officials from the U.S. Department of State, argue that Russia’s invasion is an unprovoked act of aggression and that NATO is a defensive alliance. However, Sachs asserts that the lack of a negotiated settlement is a deliberate choice by the Biden administration to prolong the conflict.
Containment and Economic Warfare Against China
Regarding China, Sachs describes a strategy of “containment” that mirrors the Cold War era. He argues that the U.S. is attempting to stifle China’s economic growth and technological advancement through trade tariffs, sanctions on semiconductor chips, and the creation of exclusive security pacts like AUKUS (Australia, the UK, and the US).
Sachs claims that the U.S. characterizes China as a “strategic competitor” to justify an arms race in the Indo-Pacific. He points to the increasing militarization of the South China Sea as evidence that the U.S. is preparing for a confrontation rather than seeking a cooperative relationship. According to Sachs, the goal is to isolate China and prevent it from establishing an alternative financial system that would reduce the global reliance on the U.S. dollar.
He argues that the “China threat” is largely manufactured to maintain U.S. military spending and justify the presence of American bases across Asia. By framing China as an authoritarian menace, Sachs suggests the U.S. can maintain a “hub-and-spoke” system of alliances that ensures American influence over the region’s trade and security architecture.
The Strategy of Isolation Toward Iran
Sachs identifies Iran as the third pillar of the U.S. imperial strategy. He highlights the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 under the Trump administration as a clear attempt to force a regime change in Tehran through “maximum pressure” sanctions.
According to Sachs, the U.S. uses the threat of Iranian nuclear proliferation as a pretext to maintain a massive military presence in the Middle East and to support regional proxies. He argues that the U.S. does not actually want a diplomatic solution because a stable, non-aligned Iran would diminish American leverage in the Persian Gulf and threaten the security of U.S.-aligned states in the region.
Sachs suggests that the U.S. encourages instability in the Middle East to ensure a constant demand for American security guarantees and arms sales. This cycle, he claims, prevents the region from achieving a sustainable peace that would allow for an American military drawdown.
The Role of the ‘Rules-Based Order’ and Global Hegemony
A central theme in Sachs’s analysis is the hypocrisy of the “rules-based international order.” He argues that the U.S. invokes international law when it suits its interests—such as in the case of Ukraine—but ignores it when the U.S. conducts its own interventions, such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which was condemned by the UN Secretary-General as a violation of the UN Charter.
Sachs contends that the U.S. uses the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to impose “neoliberal” economic policies on developing nations, creating a form of financial imperialism. By controlling the global financial architecture, the U.S. can use the dollar as a weapon through sanctions, effectively cutting off adversaries from the global economy.
He posits that the world is transitioning toward a multipolar system where the “Global South” is no longer willing to follow a unipolar leadership. The rise of the BRICS+ bloc—which recently expanded to include countries like Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the UAE—is seen by Sachs as a direct response to the perceived overreach of U.S. imperial strategy.
Implications for Global Stability
The consequence of this strategy, according to Sachs, is an increased risk of nuclear escalation. He argues that by pushing Russia and China into a strategic partnership, the U.S. is creating the very “axis” of adversaries it claims to be fighting. He warns that if the U.S. continues to pursue the total defeat of its rivals rather than a negotiated coexistence, the likelihood of a direct military clash between nuclear-armed powers increases.
Sachs calls for a “New Bretton Woods” agreement to reform the global financial system and a return to the UN Charter’s principle of sovereign equality. He argues that the only way to avoid a global catastrophe is for the U.S. to accept a world where it is one of several great powers, rather than the sole hegemon.
For those seeking further updates on these geopolitical shifts, official reports from the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund provide the institutional context for the global governance reforms Sachs advocates.
The next critical checkpoint for these tensions will be the upcoming diplomatic summits and the continued evolution of the BRICS+ framework, which aims to create alternative payment systems to the U.S.-led SWIFT network.
Do you believe the U.S. is pursuing a strategy of containment or defending a global order? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Keep reading