Jeffrey Sachs doesn't usually do "quiet." So, when the world-renowned economist walked into the European Parliament in February 2025, nobody expected a polite lecture on interest rates. Instead, they got a rhetorical blowtorch.
If you've been following the headlines, you know the Jeffrey Sachs EU Parliament appearance went viral for all the right—and wrong—reasons. He didn't just critique policy; he basically told Europe that its relationship with the United States is "fatal." That’s a heavy word. Honestly, it’s the kind of statement that makes diplomats spill their coffee.
The event, titled "The Geopolitics of Peace," was hosted by Michael von der Schulenburg, a former UN official and current MEP. Sachs used the floor to air a grievance that has been brewing for decades. He argues that Europe has lost its voice, becoming little more than a "vassal" to American interests.
Why the "Fatal Friend" Quote Is Everywhere
The centerpiece of his speech was a callback to Henry Kissinger. Sachs reminded the room that being an enemy of the U.S. is dangerous, but being a friend is fatal. You've probably seen that clip on social media.
Sachs wasn't just being dramatic for the sake of it. He was talking about Ukraine. In his view, the war is the result of 30 years of American "hegemonic" overreach, specifically the eastward expansion of NATO. He claims that by following Washington’s lead, Europe has destroyed its own economy, lost access to cheap energy, and pushed the world to the brink of nuclear catastrophe.
It's a polarizing take. To some, he's a truth-teller speaking power to a delusional elite. To others, he sounds like an apologist for the Kremlin. Sachs himself rejects the "Putin's puppet" label, often pointing to his long history of working with Eastern European governments, including Estonia, where he helped design their currency system in the early 90s.
🔗 Read more: Why is traffic stopped on I-80 East Sacramento today: Real-time updates and what's actually happening
Breaking Down the Main Arguments
Sachs didn't hold back on the specifics. He touched on everything from the Nord Stream pipeline to the role of the "military mafia" in Washington.
- NATO Expansion: He argues that the promise made in 1990—that NATO would not move "one inch eastward"—was a real diplomatic commitment that the U.S. broke.
- The Ukraine Conflict: Sachs believes the war could have been avoided if the U.S. had accepted Ukrainian neutrality. He frequently mentions the 2022 peace negotiations in Istanbul as a "missed opportunity" that was supposedly scuttled by Western powers.
- European Autonomy: This was his big "call to action." He wants a European foreign policy that isn't just a carbon copy of the White House's agenda. He thinks Europe and Russia have "complementary economies" and should be trading partners, not enemies.
He also took some shots at the Trump administration, calling it "imperialist at heart." Despite the political shifts in Washington, Sachs maintains that the underlying machinery of U.S. foreign policy remains the same: it's about dominance, not cooperation.
The Reaction: From Standing Ovations to Sharp Rebukes
The room was packed. People were leaning in. But the reaction outside those walls was split right down the middle.
Critics argue that Sachs ignores the agency of Eastern European nations. Countries like Poland and the Baltics didn't join NATO because the U.S. forced them to; they joined because they were terrified of Russian aggression. For many in the EU Parliament, Sachs' suggestion that Estonia should just "stop their Russophobia" felt dismissive of decades of Soviet occupation.
There's also the China factor. Sachs often portrays China as a "success story" rather than a threat. In the 2025 EU Parliament session, he explicitly told Europeans that China isn't the enemy—the U.S. just views it that way because China is a bigger economy. This doesn't sit well with those concerned about human rights or the trade imbalance.
The Reality of "Independent Europe"
Is an independent European foreign policy even possible at this point? Sachs thinks so. He's pushing for a return to multilateralism and the UN Charter. He basically thinks Europe should stop "begging" in Washington and start talking to Moscow and Beijing on its own terms.
It's a bold vision, but it's also complicated. Europe is currently deeply integrated into the NATO security framework. Unwinding that would be a multi-decade project, not a weekend fix. Plus, there is no single "European" voice—Paris, Berlin, and Warsaw rarely agree on what a "European interest" actually looks like.
🔗 Read more: Why the Royal Australian Air Force is Much More Than Just Fighter Jets
What You Should Take Away
If you're trying to make sense of the Jeffrey Sachs EU Parliament firestorm, keep these points in mind:
- Context is King: Sachs is speaking from the perspective of someone who was "in the room" in the 90s. He feels a personal sense of betrayal over how the post-Soviet transition was handled.
- Economic Realism vs. Security: His arguments are heavily weighted toward economic logic—cheap gas, open trade, stable markets. Critics say he sacrifices security and sovereignty to get there.
- The Shift in Rhetoric: The fact that he was invited to speak at the EU Parliament at all shows that there is a growing, if controversial, faction in Europe that is tired of the status quo.
The world is moving toward a multipolar setup. Whether you agree with Sachs or think he's dangerously wrong, his speech highlights the massive cracks in the Western alliance.
To stay informed, look into the specific primary sources Sachs mentions, such as the National Security Archive at George Washington University. This is where the declassified documents regarding the 1990 "no eastward expansion" promises live. Comparing those documents with the official NATO stance will give you a much clearer picture of why this debate is so fierce. Also, track the development of the "European Strategic Autonomy" platform within the EU; it’s the formal policy version of the "independence" Sachs is screaming about.