Destabilizing Operation In The Caucasus & Vassalization Of Europe | Dr. Jeffrey Sachs

## Framing the Stakes: Small States, Big Games The South Caucasus is no mere footnote in global strategy; it has become a testing ground for larger powers' ambitions and miscalculations. Recent turbulence in Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia—ranging from unilateral foreign policy moves to domestic crackdowns and attempted regime change—cannot be understood as isolated incidents. The conversation with Professor Jeffrey Sachs and regionally focused analysts makes clear that these events are symptoms of a broader pattern: external actors, driven by strategic priorities that have little to do with local welfare, are treating fragile states as chess pieces. The result is a dangerous cocktail of instability, misplaced hope, and the erosion of small-state agency. ## Recent Developments in the South Caucasus Azerbaijan’s recent alignment with US and Israeli moves against Iran, Armenia’s crackdown on opposition voices, and the EuroMaidan-like attempt to dislodge Georgia’s government are not random. In the exchange, these occurrences were portrayed as interconnected episodes in a wider campaign of influence projection. Whether through intelligence operations, covert support for civil society, or overt political pressure, Western actors have pushed agendas that prioritize geostrategic leverage over regional stability. The immediate consequence is a fragmentation of local politics: governments oscillate between resisting foreign pressure and courting patronage, while societies are left to pick sides in conflicts they did not choose. The conversation emphasized another dimension: geography. The South Caucasus sits astride routes linking Europe and Asia and borders major regional powers—Russia, Iran, Turkey, and the Gulf states. Any misstep by external patrons can therefore cascade into broader instability. The region’s strategic location should encourage restraint and nuanced diplomacy; instead, it has attracted adventurism that treats geography as opportunity rather than constraint. ## Georgia’s Pragmatic Geopolitical Strategy Against the backdrop of meddling and mischief, Georgia’s recent course drew particular attention as an example of pragmatic statecraft. The current government, according to the participants, has adopted a low-risk, interest-driven posture: focusing on national security, preserving economic lifelines, and avoiding gratuitous confrontation. Where earlier governments embraced more maximalist Western-facing narratives—sometimes with catastrophic consequences—this administration has pursued what was described as a “zero-problems” regional approach aimed at survival rather than symbolic alignment. This pragmatism reflects hard lessons from history. The 2008 war highlighted the limits of romanticized Western guarantees and the peril of brinkmanship on the borders of a much larger neighbor. For a small state in a congested neighborhood, success is less about grand declarative politics and more about carefully balancing relationships with immediate neighbors and managing the expectations of distant patrons. Georgia’s current posture suggests a recalibration toward realism: protecting sovereignty by staying useful and non-threatening to those powers that matter regionally. ## The Deep State and Patterns of Western Meddling One of the most striking threads in the exchange was the explanation of why interference persists despite periodic political cycles and leaders who rhetorically oppose it. The term “deep state” was used to describe an enduring security establishment in Washington and allied capitals whose strategic worldview has hardened around containment of rival powers—principally Russia and increasingly China. From this perspective, peripheral regions like the South Caucasus are viewed instrumentally: as places to apply pressure, open fronts, and place friendly proxies. Professor Sachs framed this as an institutional continuity that transcends any single administration. Organizations that cultivate relationships, fund NGOs, and shape narratives operate with long time horizons and a clear strategic purpose. The result is a structural dynamic where local civil society space can be co-opted, local elites incentivized to align with external agendas, and regional stability sacrificed for geopolitical leverage. The conversation cautioned that this is not naive idealism but systematic policy—one that treats other peoples’ political life as a resource for grand strategy. ## Historical Context and Unrealistic Western Expectations The conversation also dug into the cognitive errors that have riddled Western policy and local expectations since the end of the Cold War. There remains a persistent, anachronistic belief in some quarters that the United States or the European Union will act as benevolent nation-builders in every troubled region, replicating the postwar reconstruction of Western Europe or the unique U.S. occupations of Japan and South Korea. That comparison is misleading. The specific geopolitical conditions, material commitments, and bipolar logic that enabled the Marshall Plan are not replicable in the contemporary multipolar world. Locally, this has produced damaging illusions. Societies and political movements have sometimes internalized promises of Western rescue—expecting unconditional integration and protective umbrellas—without appreciating the limits of interest, resources, and political will on the part of external actors. The conversation suggested that these expectations were not only misplaced but dangerous: the pursuit of Western alignment as an end in itself can provoke countermeasures from neighboring powers and create openings for manipulation by patrons who are playing long, risky games. ## Generational Shifts in Foreign Policy A less overt but consequential theme was generational change among foreign-policy elites. Those who shaped the early postwar order came of age in a world defined by bipolar competition and a willingness to invest hegemonic resources deeply. Today's decision-makers matured in the optimistic 1980s and 1990s but are now governing in a more complex, debt-constrained, and multipolar era. This generational transition affects not only tastes and rhetoric but institutional memory and appetite for engagement. The result is a hybrid policy environment: professionals steeped in containment-driven doctrines continue to influence strategy, even as political leaders face domestic pressures and fiscal limits that constrain expansive nation-building projects. These mixed incentives can produce incoherent approaches—grand promises abroad, scant follow-through at home, and a reliance on proxies and softer instruments that may do more harm than good. The South Caucasus, the conversation warned, is being buffeted by this institutional drift and intergenerational mismatch. ## Future Scenarios: NATO Expansion, Russia, and Regional Balance Looking ahead, the region’s trajectory depends on whether external actors choose de-escalation or escalation. One striking concern was the push to expand NATO influence to Russia’s periphery—not as a security assurance for local populations, but as a strategy of pressure on Russia itself. Participants argued that this tactic risks replicating Ukraine’s fate in the South Caucasus by inviting confrontation with Moscow in places that cannot realistically be defended by outside powers. A more constructive path would prioritize regional architectures that reflect local realities: economic corridors that bind neighboring economies, confidence-building with Russia and Iran, and pragmatic arrangements with Turkey and the Gulf. In such a scenario, the South Caucasus becomes a connective hub rather than a frontline. Achieving this requires an honest reassessment by Western capitals of their strategic aims—and a willingness to forgo short-term influence for longer-term stability. The conversation implied that such a course is politically unpalatable for many Western security estab

Destabilizing Operation In The Caucasus & Vassalization Of Europe We’ve seen a lot of turmoil in the South Caucasus recently, from Azerbeijan’s support for the US /Israeli attack on Iran to a crack down on political opposition in Armenia and previously an attempt in Georgia to oust the elected government by something very reminiscent of the Euro-Maidan in Ukraine. Together with my co-host, Lasha Kasradze, today want to hear Jeffrey's reading of these events. Professor Jeffrey Sachs, is a Professor at Columbia University, advisor to countless governments, and a prolific analyst. Lasha Kasradze is an international relations analyst specializing in the South Caucasus. Timestamps: (00:00) - Intro (00:26) - Recent Developments in the South Caucasus (04:14) - Georgia's Pragmatic Geopolitical Strategy (06:56) - The Dangers of Foreign Interference (10:10) - Personal Anecdote: Former Georgian President Saakashvili (13:27) - The Role of the "Deep State" in US Foreign Policy (18:44) - Historical Context & Unrealistic Western Expectations (25:28) - Generational Shifts in Foreign Policy (28:43) - The Future of the South Caucasus & NATO Expansion (33:10) - Post-Interview Analysis (38:54) - Current Russia-Georgia Relations (44:44) - Geopolitical Landscape & Regional Power Dynamics (51:41) - Europe's Predicament and the Ukraine War #M2 Hello, everybody. This is Pascal from Neutrality Studies, and I'm joined today by my co-host, Lasha Kasradze, an international relations analyst specializing in the South Caucasus. We are very honored to welcome Professor Jeffrey Sachs, a professor at Columbia University, advisor to countless governments, and a prolific analyst. Jeffrey, welcome back. #M3 Great to be with both of you again. Thank you. #M2 Well, fantastic having you again. Great to see you, Professor. And, you know, we want to ask you first specifically about the South Caucasus, because this is a region where we have seen a lot of developments in recent months, from Azerbaijan's support of the US-Israeli attack on Iran to a crackdown on political opposition in Armenia, and previously an attempt in Georgia to oust the elected government by something very reminiscent of the Euromaidan in Ukraine, although that was already back in December, like last year. But still, it's quite fresh to me. What is your reading of these events? -- 1 of 17 -- #M3 Well, they're all interconnected in the three South Caucasus regions. This is the US and Europe meddling, trying to make color revolutions, trying to, again, get to the soft underbelly of Russia. It's very destabilizing, and it comes from the United States and Europe, especially from the intelligence agencies. I have no sympathy at all for what Europe and the United States are doing, because this is a region that is in between many major powers—Russia, Iran, Turkey, the Gulf countries. It should be handled with care. It is not Europe. Geographically, it is Asia. Europe should get out of there. It's not that the South Caucasus should have bad relations with Europe or anyone else. It's that meddling in the internal politics of these three fragile countries, in a very difficult region, should be handled with extreme deference and care so that they don't become the next Ukraine. Ukraine is ablaze because of United States and European stupidity. And they're trying to do it again in the South Caucasus. What the hell is Azerbaijan doing as part of the Middle East conflict, supporting Israel and its attacks against Iran? Are you kidding? It's unbelievable. And this is the CIA at work— these geniuses who will destabilize this region and create a massive crisis. #M2 Do you think that even in Azerbaijan, it's part of CIA operations to utilize the country against Iran? Or is it something that is actually indigenous, grown by its own leadership? #M3 Anything indigenous would start by saying, "We are in the South Caucasus. We are in between a number of powers. We better stick together because that is where our economic and security future lies. We should not antagonize our neighbors. We should find a way to be truly the middle corridor that connects Asia and Europe, and the north-south corridor that connects Russia and the Middle East. And we should stay out of big power politics and, for God's sake, stay out of Israel's wars. Shame on Israel." But of course, Israel by itself can't be doing this. This is Mossad, CIA, and Europe all playing this game in this extremely volatile region. #M2 Lasha, you're in Georgia. I mean, what's your impression of where Georgia is taking this? Because to me, it seems that Georgia is trying to get out of this. And maybe you can follow up on what Jeffrey said. #M1 Sure. Well, first of all, I understand and agree with what Professor Sachs has just said about surviving in the region. That's what he was alluding to, I think. So Georgia is doing a stellar job. The -- 2 of 17 -- current government, in terms of geopolitics, pragmatism, and looking after its national security interests as a small state—as the government that rules a small state—is doing, I think, an excellent job, given the reality that it has. #M3 I agree with that completely, by the way—completely. #M1 Great. That's good to hear. And I'm sure that neither of us here is trying to exaggerate what's happening. You know, it's so extremely politicized nowadays that we have to be careful, at least in terms of analyzing it or siding with certain positions. So I'm trying to stick strictly to analysis from an academic perspective. And there is just no reason to suspect that this government is pursuing some reckless course or is punching above its weight, if you will, or that it is acting recklessly—which is a fundamental departure from the previous government that led us to the 2008 war and almost the ending of Georgian statehood, if you will. I keep saying this, and I will continue to say that Georgia came very close, in August 2008 when Russia invaded, to being finished off as a state. And so I think this government has understood the trick, where Georgia is in an extremely hostile environment. You have to act accordingly, be very pragmatic, and have a zero-problems policy regionally. And of course, just like Professor Sachs mentioned earlier, Georgia cannot afford to be, you know, belligerent against the West. Georgia needs the West, but not in the shape and form in which the West has treated it over the past decade or so. #M3 If I could add, by the way, just for clarity, my admiration goes to the current Georgian government for its common sense and pragmatism. My very deep skepticism is regarding Azerbaijan and the Armenian government right now for playing games—or maybe even, that's not quite right—by being used by the United States and Europe for geopolitical purposes, which do not suit the interests of Azerbaijan and Armenia. And this is what I really am warning against, just to be clear: it is the longstanding practice of the CIA to meddle around Russia's periphery and now also around Iran's periphery. And that is what is happening right now, and that's extremely dangerous. And the West, so-called, comes and sings a fairy tale to countries like it did to Ukraine. Actually, to be more precise, it overthrew a government in Ukraine so that it could sing its fairy tales to a regime that it installed in February 2014. But the point is that it comes and sings a fairy tale: "We will save you." And what I'm saying to friends in the South Caucasus is, look at a map. The United States -- 3 of 17 -- could care less about the South Caucasus. It's playing games. Be careful. Brussels, which is completely incompetent and unable to do anything useful—I'm sorry to say, because I was a big fan of the European Union at one point—but the European Union does not belong in the South Caucasus. It's not even Europe. The ridgeline of the Great Caucasus Mountains is the boundary between Europe and Asia. So just be careful not to be played. Pay attention to your neighbors. Your neighbors are Russia, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other neighbors. That's what's important for you. Don't believe that the United States, especially under Donald Trump, is going to somehow save you from your neighbors. Come on. Are you kidding? They will get you into deep trouble. The capacity of Brussels to do this is astounding, but you could say Brussels is a kind of vassal of the US. Brussels is not actually a representative of Europe, or at least of European interests. It's a representative of US interests. That's why both NATO and the European Commission are located, co-located, together there. They're playing games. The South Caucasus has been a place for games for decades. And I could say to Lasha, by the way, just a personal anecdote on this: In 2008, at the moment he identifies as the great threat to Georgia, I had the experience of being invited as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York to a talk by the then leader of Georgia, Saakashvili. Saakashvili was a puppet of the United States. He was on the payroll of George Soros. He was absolutely a U.S. puppet, let's put it that way. And so I went to the talk. I thought the guy was insane, frankly. He gave a talk at the Council on Foreign Relations: "Georgia is in the middle of Europe." "Georgia is a core member, will be a core member of NATO. Georgia this, Georgia that in Europe." And I walked out, and of course the audience in New York applauded, "Yes, we love you, we love you." And I walked out and I called my wife and I said, "This guy is crazy. He's going to lose his country. This is craziness." And a few weeks later came the war. You know, it's so obvious. Don't be played. Don't be owned by U.S. money. Don't be owned by U.S. NGOs—so-called—which are not quite NGOs. They are GOs; they are government organizations. Come on. I know it, by the way. I've watched this for 40 years. These are GOs. And that's why, you know, when Georgia tried to say, "No, you have to register, or at least tell us who's funding you..." Who got so upset? The funders. "You're going to expose us. You're going to prove that these are GOs. This is money coming from Washington. This is a game." Don't get caught in the game anymore, please. I love the South Caucasus. What a beautiful region. What great history. What great culture. What wondrous sights. By the way, phenomenal tourism, food, everything. But don't get caught in a game which is going to make you Ukraine. It's that simple. And for heaven's sake, don't end up like Azerbaijan. Stay out of the Middle East wars. Stay out of a genocide taking place in Gaza. Don't get involved just because Israel gives you security systems or spying systems or something else. For God's sake, that is not the future of the South Caucasus. #M2 -- 4 of 17 -- Jeffrey, Lasha and I were also discussing before you came online what the role of the deep state is. Because on the one hand, yes, we have the NGOs, you have these various ways in which there's influence being projected into these places, including, of course, the CIA. But why is it that permanent Washington seems to be permanently interested in these games, even when there is somebody like Donald Trump actually rallying against the deep state? But it continues. #M3 He's not rallying against the deep state. The deep state is bigger than Donald Trump. The deep state means the permanent security system of the United States of America. And that, since 1947 when it was established—and I would say since 1945 with the OSS—has been organized to defeat Russia. That has been a primary objective. Now, I would say the primary objective of the deep state is to defeat Russia and China. And a subsidiary goal of the deep state is to make Israel the local hegemon in its neighborhood in the eastern Mediterranean. But as part of a broader strategy: defeat Russia and defeat China. That's the deep state. And the deep state looks at the chessboard like Brzezinski did in The Grand Chessboard in 1997