Jeffrey Sachs 我們分裂了世界，現在正在付出代價

Jeffrey Sachs：我們分裂了世界，現在正在付出代價

Sachs: We've divided the world, now paying the cost
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5FoSgy-h5w

2022年6月29日

你說你對北約擴張的方式有一些看法。現在我們處於這樣的境地，問題是在更多人喪生之前擺脫這種局麵，或者會造成什麽樣的長期經濟損失。

傑弗裏·薩克斯

傑伊·鮑威爾說得完全正確。世界正在分裂成碎片。這將付出極其高昂的代價。美國和歐洲實施的製裁對歐洲、美國和世界其他大部分地區造成了巨大損害。

我們正感受到強烈滯脹的衝擊，這是葡萄牙中部央行領導人麵臨的主要議題。

這很可能是未來幾個月世界大部分地區出現的硬著陸。

我認為，我們對中國和俄羅斯的外交政策戰略多年來一直具有挑釁性和分裂性。這不是現在才開始的。美國已經對中國發動了貿易戰，然後是技術更糟糕的金融製裁，等等。

我們分裂了世界。現在我們為此付出了沉重的代價。

>> 對。

當然，讓我們把責任歸咎於應該歸咎的人。無論北約擴張的目的是什麽，或者在 1990 年代等等，它都不能證明普京在烏克蘭的所作所為是正當的，我明白你的觀點。當然，必須對此作出強烈回應。

傑弗裏·薩克斯

當然。但應該在 2021 年進行談判，當時普京說，北約不應該擴展到烏克蘭和格魯吉亞。

我會說，絕對正確。為什麽要做如此挑釁的事情，

類似於 1853 年的克裏米亞戰爭。我們不應該在黑海發生衝突。我們應該謹慎行事。普京去年表示，要就不擴大北約進行談判。

拜登說，絕對不行。這是不可能的。我們要擴張。我們致力於建立一個北約，不僅在烏克蘭，而且要一直擴展到黑海東部邊緣的格魯吉亞。

這是北約的一次巨大擴張。使其成為西歐對抗蘇聯的防禦聯盟。一個對抗不存在的國家的防禦聯盟。

然而，我們說它將繼續擴張到黑海東部邊緣。

俄羅斯 30 年來一直說不。討論開始時我就在場。俄羅斯說不要這樣做。戈爾巴喬夫說不要這樣做。
--
德國外長 --
說別擔心，我們不會動一寸。
這並不是說這就是戰爭的起因。
戰爭是普京發動的。
美國一直在挑釁。
對中國的挑釁也是如此。
我的觀點是，理查德，我們正在付出沉重的經濟代價。
這個代價可能會上升。
北約今天占世界的 12.2% --

>> 傑弗裏，讓我插話。

現在，你當然不能否認，不管你的論點是否正確，我相信人們會對此提出異議，但你不能否認瑞典和芬蘭現在有權受到北約的保護，因為他們看到了普京能做什麽。
記住他當麵告訴我們，我無意入侵烏克蘭。
直到坦克越過邊界的那一刻。
>> 絕對引人注目的是，3 月底，談判正在推進，以建立一個中立的烏克蘭，並結束戰爭。
然後烏克蘭在 3 月底離開了談判桌。
原因是英國和美國向他們施壓，你可以在戰場上獲勝。
你不必與北約的非大國談判。
這是一個大錯誤。
我的觀點很簡單，我們需要這場戰爭以俄羅斯離開烏克蘭而結束，他們說，我們不會填補空白。
烏克蘭將保持中立。這就是我們拯救世界經濟以及拯救烏克蘭的方式。

這很簡單。俄羅斯需要離開。但美國沒有

Sachs: We've divided the world, now paying the cost

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5FoSgy-h5w
 2022年6月29日

You said you had some views in how nato's expansion has taken place in your view. Now we are where we are and it's a question of getting out of this before any more lives are lost, or what long term economic damage can be done.

Jeffrey Sachs

Jay Powell has it exactly right. The world is falling into fragmented groups. There will be extraordinarily high costs from this. The sanctions the United States and Europe have put on have done. a tremendous damage to Europe and the United States and much of the rest of the world.

We are feeling the brunt of a strong stagflation, which was the main topic facing the central bank leaders that were in central Portugal. This is likely a hard landing in much of the world, coming up in the next months.

I think our foreign policy strategy, both toward China and Russia has been provocative and divisive for a number of years. This didn't just start now. There was already the U.S. Trade wars on China, and then the technology worse, the financial sanctions, and all
the rest.

We divided the world. Now we are paying a strong, heavy cost for that.

>> Right.
Let's put blame where blame lies, surely. Whatever in nato's expansion may have been about, or, in the 1990s, et cetera, it doesn't justify, and I see your views there, what Putin did in Ukraine. There had to be a strong response to that, surely.

Jeffrey Sachs

>> Of course. But there should have been negotiation in 2021, when Putin said in, nato should not expand to Ukraine and Georgia.

I would've been the one to say, absolutely correct. Why do something so provocative,
something akin to the crimean wart, back in 1853. We shouldn't be having a black
sea confrontation. We should have been prudent. Putin said last year, negotiate
over the non enlargement of nato.

Biden said, absolutely not. That's off the table. We are going to expand. We are committed to having a nato, not only in Ukraine, but all the way across to the eastern edge of the black sea, in Georgia.

This is a huge expansion of nato. Made it was a defensive alliance of western Europe
against the soviet union. A defensive alliance against the country that doesn't exist.
And yet we said it will continue to expand all the way to the eastern edge of the black sea.

Russia kept saying, no, for 30 years. I was there at the beginning when the discussion started. Russia was saying don't do that. Gorbachev was saying don't do that.
--
the German foreign --
said don't worry, we won't move
one inch.
This isn't to say that that is
what started the war.
The war was started by Putin.
The United States has been
provocative.
Provocative also toward China.
My point, Richard, is we are
paying a heavy economic costs.
That cost is likely to rise.
Nato, today, is 12.2% of the
world --

>> Jeffrey, let me jump in
here.

Surely you can't deny, now,
however right your argument
might or might not be, I'm sure
people take issue with it, but
you couldn't deny Sweden and
Finland now the right to have
the protection of the nato
umbrella, having seen what's
Putin can do.
Bearing in mind he told us
straight to our faces, I have
no intention of invading
Ukraine.
To the very moment that the
tanks went across the border.
>> What is absolutely
remarkable is that at the end
of March, negotiations were
advancing for a neutral Ukraine
and for an end of the war.
And then Ukraine walked away
from the negotiating table at
the end of March.
The reason is that the uk and
the U.S. Pressed them, you can
win on the battlefield.
You don't have to negotiate non
and large meant of nato.
This was a big mistake.
My point is simply that we need
this war to end with Russia
leaving Ukraine and they are
saying, we are not going to
fill in the void.

Ukraine is going to be neutral. This is how we could also save the world economy, as well as saving Ukraine.

It's very straightforward. Russia needs to leave. But the United States doesn't