It would be absurd for any political commentator to ignore the US presidential election, in which a very substantial number of voters had already cast their ballots through early voting before the official election day on Tuesday. And after what we have seen in the Gaza Strip, it would be strange to remain silent in the face of the brazen, explicit effort to displace people in Lebanon, where, so far, most of the residents of the largest Shiite cities, towns and suburbs have been uprooted and displaced. However, as I struggled with the dilemma on whether to comment on the US election or the tragedy in Lebanon, I happened to come across an interview with American academic, expert and political adviser Jeffrey Sachs, in which he discussed the Ukrainian crisis and its background. One could say: “Given the importance of these two matters, is discussing anything else not a form of evasion?” The truth is, I have never shied away from expressing my opinion on the Donald Trump-Kamala Harris battle in America and I will never evade the matter, or what has happened and continues to happen in Lebanon and Gaza, in the future. However, the significance of Sachs’ comments (he was a witness and participant in many of the developments) is that they unpack the circumstances of the Ukraine war. Firstly, he discussed the manner in which US administrations (both Republican and Democratic) handle global crises. Secondly, he provided a historical overview of how the crisis began — a crisis that has rearranged the strategic priorities of most European countries and reshaped many alliances and predictive readings of what might happen in the world. In the interview, Sachs said that the crisis is not an attack by Vladimir Putin on Ukraine, like we are constantly being told. Rather, it erupted in February 1990, when the US secretary of state at the time, James Baker, apparently promised that NATO would not expand if Moscow agreed to the reunification of Germany — a promise that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev accepted. Putin initially considered European orientations, even contemplating joining NATO for a while Eyad Abu Shakra However, Washington reneged on its promise in the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton agreed to expand NATO as far as Ukraine. Indeed, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined NATO in 1999. Moscow ignored this step, but it began to become alarmed following the NATO-US campaign in Serbia that same year. Nevertheless, Moscow remained silent and swallowed the issue when Putin took power. In fact, Putin initially considered European orientations, even contemplating joining NATO for a while. Then, after 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan that followed, Washington unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 and deployed missile systems in Eastern Europe “minutes away from Moscow” — which Russia considered a direct threat to its national security, even though it had supported Washington’s “War on Terror.” In 2003, the US invaded Iraq for entirely fabricated reasons, according to Sachs. In 2004-2005, it pushed “regime change in Ukraine” and supported Viktor Yushchenko’s rise to power. However, in 2010, Viktor Yanukovych, with Moscow’s support, won elections and took office championing “Ukrainian neutrality.” This cooled the temperature temporarily, especially since polls showed that Ukrainians did not support joining NATO, Sachs claimed in the interview. However, Washington proceeded to work on toppling Yanukovych and pursued regime change, joining the effort to push him out of power on Feb. 22, 2014. Thus, it imposed the expansion of the alliance despite Putin’s objections and attempts to remind Washington of its promises. By the way, 10 years earlier, in 2004, NATO had admitted seven other Eastern European countries as members. Sachs reiterated that Washington had always been keen on expanding NATO to Russia’s borders and objected to any settlement on the matter. He then listed subsequent developments that “destroyed what remained of Washington"s partners’ trust,” as he put it. In 2018, the US withdrew from the nuclear agreement it had concluded with Iran and, in 2019, it withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. “Reckless foreign policy” continued to be pursued when Putin proposed a draft security agreement to Washington in December 2021 with the aim of ending NATO expansion. Sachs says he personally contacted the White House and urged it to avoid war and engage in negotiations, but “No, there will be no war,” was the response he received. His interlocutor repeated the announcement that there would be no NATO expansion, but that is exactly what happened. “You have no right to plant military bases wherever you want... and expect peace. We have to be reasonable and logical, and we (the Americans) stood in 1823 against the expansion of European powers in the American continent through the Monroe Doctrine.” He concluded by saying that “the narrative around the Ukraine crisis is false … and Putin is not another Hitler … likewise, we should stop what we are doing with regard to China and Taiwan.” Finally, to get back to the US election and the tragedies of Lebanon and Gaza, I believe that Sachs’ remarks provide crucial insights about certain highly placed interests being willing to ruin anything, demonize anyone, obliterate any issue, erase any country and invent any delusion. The US election and the tragedies of Lebanon and Gaza are unfolding today in a world teetering on the edge of a unipolarity that openly applies double standards, disregards international institutions, ignores the rights of peoples and dismisses pluralism of identities and nationalities. On the other hand, resentful forces are rising. They no longer see themselves as fated to defeat and surrender at the hands of an aging West that is failing to rejuvenate itself and opposes allowing others to come in and reinvigorate its societies. Eyad Abu Shakra is managing editor of Asharq Al-Awsat. X: @eyad1949 This article first appeared in Asharq Al-Awsat.