Guancha: Previously the editorial page of a US newspaper asked you for an Op-editorial on Ukraine. But when you finished writing, they refused to publish it. What was the reason they gave you, if any? What viewpoints or expressions that got their nerves?

Goldman: I argued that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine resembled the outbreak of the First World War, when all sides acted rationally according to their perceived self-interest and together created a disaster. The editorial position of all the major US newspapers assigns unilateral blame to Russia. I do not defend Russia’s attack on Ukraine, but it was set in motion by Western efforts to expand NATO to Russia’s border. In the past many prominent Americans, including Henry Kissinger as well as the present CIA chief William Burns, warned against expanding NATO and predicted exactly this disastrous outcome. But now that their warnings have proven correct, it is unacceptable to provide any context for Russia’s action in most of the major media.

Guancha: Could China mediate the Ukraine war?

Goldman: This is certainly possible. I made this argument in Asia Times on March 9. Dr. Huiyao Wang, the director of the Center for China and Globalization, proposed this in the New York Times on March 13. China is a major trading partner of both Russia and Ukraine, and Ukraine was one of the first countries to participate in the Belt and Road Initiative. China also has the resources to offer incentives for compromise in the form of reconstruction aid. But mediation depends on the readiness of both sides to compromise.

It is not clear what Russia might be willing to accept in the way of compromise. The Ukrainian position is also hard to read, because President Zelensky has talked about compromise on some occasions, and on other occasions compared Russia to Nazi Germany during World War II, that is, an evil entity with whom no compromise is possible. It is risky to mediate between two sides who do not want to compromise, because the mediator might be blamed for failure. Nonetheless I think it would be a positive step for China to try.

Guancha: After banning the Energy imports from Russia, US and Europe have turned to Latin America and Middle East countries. Will there be any structural change to the global energy landscape?

Goldman: The United States and Europe are negotiating with the oil exporters of the Persian Gulf to replace Russian energy production. I do not know what the United States is willing to concede to the Gulf countries in return for help in the energy market. It seems clear that Saudi Arabia wants the United States to help on security issues, notably the insurgency in Yemen backed by Iran.

Meanwhile Russian oil and gas continue to trade in the absence of European sanctions, while India has bought additional Russian oil, some at a discount to market prices. The disruption in the energy market is far milder than many analysts feared in February. For the time being there is no structural change. Unless Europe changes its mind about sanctions on Russian oil, there will be no structural change. Europe, to be sure, will look for alternate energy sources. Germany is buying more gas from Qatar, for example. But diversification of energy sources requires a lot of investment and a lot of time.

Guancha: Many countries are loosening up restriction, while China is sticking to the Zero-Covid policy. Will China be excluded in the Global economy in the long run?

Goldman: I’m not qualified to answer questions about epidemiology.

Guancha: Given the high inflation domestically in the US, are waging sanctions against Russia and a trade war with China simultaneously in the interests of American people?

Goldman: It depends how you view the interests of the American people. President Trump thought he would protect American jobs by imposing tariffs on imports from China, which went into effect in September 2019. But US imports from China rose by 46% by my calculation between September 2019 and December 2021. Clearly these were ineffective, because Americans paid higher prices for Chinese goods, rather than producing alternative goods at home. Tariffs failed to improve the competitiveness of American products, or the willingness of American business to invest in manufacturing. I believe that vigorous action is needed to improve American manufacturing, but tariffs do more harm than good.

Regarding Russia, national security always takes precedence over short-term economic convenience, in the United States as well as other countries. The use of force on the borders of NATO countries is a security concern of the United States. But in this case, the crisis could have been avoided if Washington had joined France and Germany in supporting the Minsk II framework for a negotiated solution in Ukraine. In the narrow sense, one could argue that the Russia sanctions entailed economic pain for Americans in the form of higher oil prices, but were justified to protect American security. But American security would have been served better through a negotiated solution before the crisis.