Professor Jeffrey D. Sachs just released "A Framework for Peace in Ukraine" a copy reprinted here.
Sorry, but I find this to be a facile patch over a world wounded by wonton wars - instead, this should be an opportunity for a major reset in international relations. We simply cannot carry on like this.
What I see is a binary choice, an either/or proposition.
The "Either" part is Russia controls Ukraine until its governance structures mature enough to again attempt independence (and actual neutrality). The present regime in "Kyiv" could assist this process by Zelensky and his generals surrendering and laying down arms, otherwise Russia will carry on and finish the job the hard way. If Russia has to give up one tiny millimeter of territory or policy, then strategy shifts completely to the "Or" proposal.
The "Or" part is this, and remember this is an absolute binary: The unwritten subtext of the UN Charter is that the organization exists to change nation's behaviours. This by outlawing aggressive behaviour, in spite of having no genuine enforcement mechanisms.
What then, is the alternate to aggression? Obviously, non-aggression. And wherein would non-aggression be found? In actual neutrality. Thus it could be proposed that the United Nations is the best gathering place of neutral nations, as aggression is relegated to the dustbin of history. Instead of patch-work remedies, let's make use of this inflection point in history to upgrade the UN's functioning.
If the UN is the working association of neutral nations and aggression is proscribed, then military pacts such as NATO and the new Mecca Pact can be outlawed as they violate both the neutrality of the participants and impinge on the security interests of the supposed "threat" nations. These "defensive" agreements are what brought on WW-I and are an end-run around the United Nations. NATO was developed by the U.S. because that hegemon must ALWAYS be at the head of the table, it cannot treat other nations as equals, thus requiring a structure like NATO rather than the United Nations.
Therefore the first step in the "Or" path is a two-prong effort which abolishes NATO (and other such pacts) and renovates the United Nations, particularly the Security Council.
After this inglorious year of idiocy, the U.S. is banished from the Security Council. The Security Council's primary members must be normative states, states which are agreement-capable, an obvious necessity. At present, there are just three such nations in the world, who haven't been subsumed into the U.S. Empire, those being China, Iran and Russia - main powers on the planet's largest land mass. Furthermore, they all have a moral grounding, established civilizational cultures. Those three could start out as the main members, others could participate on term limits if they can show a five-year record of non-aggression, non-alignment and good governance. Obviously they sit at that council to be a good example to the whole world. In this way the UN can be restored to be the primary international organization, the organizing point for virtually all international diplomacy.
With the abolition of military pacts, all nations are now non-aligned and become truly neutral, as Switzerland used to be, with armed forces strictly for protecting their own territorial integrity, and abolishing export of any offensive weapons. The goal of this new world order must mirror the Xi/Putin conference calling for a new world security architecture, without nations interfering in the affairs of others, and no nation claiming greater security than its neighbours – in other words, "collective security" in which all nations retain sovereignty and equally respect the sovereignty of all others. Thus you can see that a serial hegemon such as USA has no place in this new world order and must be isolated until it reforms, if that is even possible.
After NATO's proxy Ukraine invaded Russia's Kursk Oblast, Russia rightly concluded it needs a zone of security around its borders. With nations in the new world order being non-aligned, neutral, then this existential threat is removed. However, the Donbas Oblasts have already voted to be Russian lands, so that isn't going to change. Those lands and Crimea are not returning to Ukraine. In this new world order, all nations along Russia's and China's borders would, of course now be neutral.
Not all international concerns can addressed through the filters of non-alignment and neutrality. The political realm offers deep points of concern, as revealed in Nazi Germany, in present-day Ukraine, in USA and in Israel. It may eventually be necessary to call a General Assembly Uniting for Peace resolution and transfer certain rogue states to UN Dependency. The world can't go on like this.
Leave a comment! This is a re-direct to my Substack page.
Return to Limits to Progress Main Page
If you would like to send a donation, please send an Interac eTransfer to email address below. Thank you!
©2026 Kathleen McCroskey
Send your e-mail comments and questions to: