A Comparison of the Perspectives of Dell’Asta, Macgregor, and Sachs
WAR IN UKRAINE: TRULY UNDERSTANDING IN ORDER TO CHOOSE PEACE
A Comparative Look at Adriano Dell’Asta, Jeffrey Sachs, and Douglas Macgregor
After attentively listening to Adriano Dell’Asta’s public talk on the Russia-Ukraine conflict — a culturally rich yet surprisingly one-sided intervention, marked by rigid moral categories — I felt the urgent need to offer a comparison. A contrast between those who speak ideologically and those who, like Jeffrey Sachs and Col. Douglas Macgregor, begin with different premises: historical observation, analytical patience, and a desire to understand reality before passing judgment.
In this article, I analyze the major points of divergence between these perspectives: Crimea, Donbass, NATO, 2014, peace negotiations, propaganda… and I highlight who is truly seeking the truth — even when it’s uncomfortable — and who instead bends it to fit an emotional narrative. Because if we genuinely want peace, we must begin by respecting the whole truth, not just the parts that suit us.
A Clash Between Mainstream Narratives and Dissenting Voices: Sachs and Macgregor Deconstruct the One-Sided Story
We live in an era where war is not only fought on the battlefield, but also through language, headlines, and news framing. For many, the Ukraine conflict has become a kind of moral crusade, told like a fairytale: on one side good, on the other evil. Ukraine the martyr, Russia the tyrant — and the West, of course, firmly on the “right” side, the side of “peace.”
But is it really that simple?
An emblematic example of this framing is the lecture by Adriano Dell’Asta, a Slavist, professor of Russian literature, and president of Russia Cristiana — an institution that, by vocation, ought to foster dialogue and understanding between Eastern and Western Christian cultures. Yet, in his presentation (video linked below), Dell’Asta offers a surprisingly Manichean view of the war: on one side, the absolute aggressor — Putin, symbol of lies and oppression; on the other, the innocent Ukrainian victims, driven only by resistance and truth.
From an intellectual of this caliber — and a Christian immersed in Russian Orthodox culture — one might expect a more nuanced and human reading, one capable of acknowledging the West’s share of responsibility in fueling the conflict. Instead, what emerges is a moralistic narrative in which geopolitical complexity is flattened into a struggle between light and darkness.
But what happens when we lift the veil?
When we stop repeating slogans and start asking not just what is happening, but how we got here?
This is exactly what two very different, yet extraordinarily lucid, voices have long attempted to do: Jeffrey Sachs — economist, Columbia University professor, advisor to governments and the UN — and Col. Douglas Macgregor, a U.S. Army veteran, NATO mission leader, and strategic analyst.
From different angles, they challenge the official narrative. Not to defend Russia or Putin, but to recover a basic, long-forgotten truth: a war cannot be explained if we only consider the last shot fired.
What’s needed is a broader view. Memory. Listening. Intellectual honesty.
And it is precisely from these foundations that Sachs and Macgregor lead us into a different story — one in which the West is not innocent, and where truth and propaganda are no longer synonymous.
To Truly Understand This War, We Must Step Back
Let’s examine the contrasting perspectives — on the origins of the war, NATO expansion, the events of 2014, and the missed opportunities for peace. On one side, Adriano Dell’Asta. On the other, Douglas Macgregor and Jeffrey Sachs.
How Did We Get Here? A War Foretold
Dell’Asta:
He claims the war began in 2014 with Russia’s annexation of Crimea and intervention in Donbass, suggesting that Russia acted unilaterally, driven by authoritarian and imperialist motives.
Sachs and Macgregor:
Sachs argues the roots go back to the 1990s and the relentless eastward expansion of NATO, despite promises made to Gorbachev. Macgregor adds that the post-Cold War strategic framework was shaped by the U.S. to contain Russia, inevitably provoking a reaction.
Macgregor: “Putin acted to defend a strategic red line. It’s not the blind aggression we’re being told.”
The Issue:
Dell’Asta overlooks Russia’s perception of encirclement and the West’s role in eroding trust — a major omission for someone calling for dialogue and truth.
The Breaking Point: Ukraine, 2014
Dell’Asta:
Frames 2014 as the start of Ukrainian deaths, caused by Russian interference. He fails to mention the Western role in the regime change.
Sachs and Macgregor:
Both are clear: 2014 was a U.S.-sponsored coup that ousted a democratically elected president. The leaked phone call between Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Pyatt is definitive evidence of direct American involvement.
Sachs: “We installed that government in Kyiv. How did you expect Moscow to react?”
The Issue:
Dell’Asta completely omits this turning point, skewing his narrative. Yet, this is precisely when the Donbass resistance and the Crimean crisis emerged. Ignoring the 2014 coup helps preserve a black-and-white story.
Donbass and Crimea: The Missing Chapter
Dell’Asta:
Presents Crimea’s annexation as a brutal and illegitimate violation. Mentions Ukrainian casualties but is silent about Donbass deaths from 2014 to 2022.
Sachs and Macgregor:
They emphasize the Crimean referendum (unrecognized by the West), where a clear majority voted to rejoin Russia. In Donbass, over 14,000 people died in a civil conflict mostly ignored by Western media.
Macgregor: “People in Donbass felt under attack. They weren’t terrorists — they were citizens defending themselves.”
The Issue:
Dell’Asta never once mentions the 14,000 dead in Donbass. This information vacuum creates a moral imbalance that prevents us from understanding the Russian and local population’s motives.
2022: The Avoidable Invasion
Dell’Asta:
Describes the invasion as total aggression, criminal, aimed at Ukraine’s destruction. Dismisses all strategic or historical context.
Sachs and Macgregor:
Both argue that the invasion was a direct response to years of Western provocations, especially the push to bring Ukraine into NATO.
Sachs: “Putin didn’t want this war. But the prospect of NATO missiles just miles from Moscow was seen as an existential threat.”
The Issue:
Dell’Asta denies any rationality to Russia’s actions, labeling them as pure lust for power. But if we aim to understand — not merely condemn — we can’t ignore the geopolitical analysis presented by Sachs and Macgregor.
Peace, Sabotaged
Dell’Asta:
Does not mention the March 2022 Istanbul peace talks, nor who derailed them.
Sachs and Macgregor:
They detail how Russia and Ukraine reached a tentative agreement — derailed after British PM Boris Johnson intervened on Washington’s behalf.
Sachs: “Ukraine was ready for neutrality. But the West said no — because it wanted to prolong the war.”
The Issue:
Dell’Asta’s omission of this turning point distorts the moral landscape. If the West did block a potential ceasefire, it can no longer claim to be a “force for peace.”
The Weak Always Pay the Price
Dell’Asta:
Rightly denounces the suffering of the Ukrainian people and honors the victims — but places full blame on Russia.
Sachs and Macgregor:
They share compassion for the victims, but stress that Ukraine was used by the West as a tool against Russia — at the cost of its own people.
Macgregor: “We sacrificed hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainians for a geopolitical game that had nothing to do with their freedom.”
The Issue:
Dell’Asta fails to critique the West. His call for truth and peace rings hollow if he refuses to acknowledge the role of those who armed, incited, and then abandoned Ukraine.
Conclusion
In light of this comparison, it’s clear that Adriano Dell’Asta’s vision — though driven by noble intentions — remains trapped in a moralistic, selective, one-sided narrative.
This is surprising, especially coming from the president of Russia Cristiana, who should represent a culture of dialogue, deep understanding, and patience in the pursuit of truth.
Instead, his narrative excludes any attempt to understand the other side. And thus, inevitably, it excludes the possibility of peace.
Jeffrey Sachs: “We can stop the war — but we must first change our language. You can’t make peace by calling everyone who disagrees with you an enemy.”
Douglas Macgregor: “Real courage today isn’t sending more weapons — it’s telling the truth. Even when it’s uncomfortable.”
Perhaps that’s exactly where we must begin — as Christians, intellectuals, or ordinary citizens: with the whole truth, not just the convenient one.
Peace doesn’t come by decree. It comes when we understand the other. When we admit we were wrong. When we choose to stop killing — even when we still could.
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION
-
If it’s true that the UK sabotaged the peace deal in 2022, what does that say about our role in the conflict?
-
Why do our media never talk about the 14,000 dead in Donbass before the invasion?
-
Why is anyone who speaks about peace today immediately branded as “pro-Russian” — as if that were monstrous?
Primary Sources:
-
-
Sachs, J. (2023). Understanding the War in Ukraine, YouTube.
-
Macgregor, D. (2022–2024). Appearances on Tucker Carlson, Judging Freedom, The Grayzone.
-
Russia Cristiana’s idea of peace: YouTube Link
-
Se apprezzi il lavoro che trovi su questo blog e credi nell'importanza di una voce libera, il tuo sostegno può fare la differenza.
🔹 Puoi donare con con carta di credito o direttamente dal tuo conto PayPal. Se lo desideri, puoi anche attivare un contributo mensile.
Grazie di cuore per il tuo supporto!