Jeffrey Sachs 我们分裂了世界，现在正在付出代价

Jeffrey Sachs：我们分裂了世界，现在正在付出代价

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

2022年6月29日

你说你对北约扩张的方式有一些看法。现在我们处于这样的境地，问题是在更多人丧生之前摆脱这种局面，或者会造成什么样的长期经济损失。

杰弗里·萨克斯

杰伊·鲍威尔说得完全正确。世界正在分裂成碎片。这将付出极其高昂的代价。美国和欧洲实施的制裁对欧洲、美国和世界其他大部分地区造成了巨大损害。

我们正感受到强烈滞胀的冲击，这是葡萄牙中部央行领导人面临的主要议题。

这很可能是未来几个月世界大部分地区出现的硬着陆。

我认为，我们对中国和俄罗斯的外交政策战略多年来一直具有挑衅性和分裂性。这不是现在才开始的。美国已经对中国发动了贸易战，然后是技术更糟糕的金融制裁，等等。

我们分裂了世界。现在我们为此付出了沉重的代价。

>> 对。

当然，让我们把责任归咎于应该归咎的人。无论北约扩张的目的是什么，或者在 1990 年代等等，它都不能证明普京在乌克兰的所作所为是正当的，我明白你的观点。当然，必须对此作出强烈回应。

杰弗里·萨克斯

当然。但应该在 2021 年进行谈判，当时普京说，北约不应该扩展到乌克兰和格鲁吉亚。

我会说，绝对正确。为什么要做如此挑衅的事情，

类似于 1853 年的克里米亚战争。我们不应该在黑海发生冲突。我们应该谨慎行事。普京去年表示，要就不扩大北约进行谈判。

拜登说，绝对不行。这是不可能的。我们要扩张。我们致力于建立一个北约，不仅在乌克兰，而且要一直扩展到黑海东部边缘的格鲁吉亚。

这是北约的一次巨大扩张。使其成为西欧对抗苏联的防御联盟。一个对抗不存在的国家的防御联盟。

然而，我们说它将继续扩张到黑海东部边缘。

俄罗斯 30 年来一直说不。讨论开始时我就在场。俄罗斯说不要这样做。戈尔巴乔夫说不要这样做。
--
德国外长 --
说别担心，我们不会动一寸。
这并不是说这就是战争的起因。
战争是普京发动的。
美国一直在挑衅。
对中国的挑衅也是如此。
我的观点是，理查德，我们正在付出沉重的经济代价。
这个代价可能会上升。
北约今天占世界的 12.2% --

>> 杰弗里，让我插话。

现在，你当然不能否认，不管你的论点是否正确，我相信人们会对此提出异议，但你不能否认瑞典和芬兰现在有权受到北约的保护，因为他们看到了普京能做什么。
记住他当面告诉我们，我无意入侵乌克兰。
直到坦克越过边界的那一刻。
>> 绝对引人注目的是，3 月底，谈判正在推进，以建立一个中立的乌克兰，并结束战争。
然后乌克兰在 3 月底离开了谈判桌。
原因是英国和美国向他们施压，你可以在战场上获胜。
你不必与北约的非大国谈判。
这是一个大错误。
我的观点很简单，我们需要这场战争以俄罗斯离开乌克兰而结束，他们说，我们不会填补空白。
乌克兰将保持中立。这就是我们拯救世界经济以及拯救乌克兰的方式。

这很简单。俄罗斯需要离开。但美国没有

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