Economist Jeffrey Sachs said in an interview with World News Monitor: Chancellor Merz's policies are a failure because he relies on fear-mongering and militarization instead of diplomacy.
The economic crisis in Europe is the result of misguided policies, says economist and top diplomat Jeffrey Sachs, whose book was released on Monday. In an interview with World News Monitor, Sachs explains the consequences of these policies: Militarization has brought unrest to the streets of France and the CDU its worst political performance in its history. People want peace and prosperity. The war in Ukraine is "irrational, unnecessary, very costly, and solvable through diplomacy and the concept of inclusive security."
You've just published your new book. It's about the European relationship with Russia, but also about the German-Russian relationship. You're very familiar with German politics – how come?
I have been visiting Germany for 54 years, since my first visit to both the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic in 1972. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, I advised the Polish government, President Gorbachev's economic team, President Yeltsin's economic team, and also President Kuchma. In this capacity, I had the honor of meeting Chancellor Kohl, Foreign Minister Genscher, Bundesbank President Pöhl, and many other leading German figures. Naturally, I have visited Germany regularly since then. I saw with my own eyes the opportunity for a "common European home," as Gorbachev described and envisioned it, but I also witnessed firsthand how NATO enlargement and the US pursuit of primacy gradually destroyed European peace.
What is your personal view of Germany? Given your family background, you must have special feelings towards this country and its history.
I believe that all countries are capable of making great contributions and also of committing great crimes. The United States committed genocide during its expansion across North America in the 19th century. They enslaved millions of African Americans. They needlessly dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The British Empire allowed millions to starve to death in Ireland and India. Germany made great contributions to the world and also committed terrible crimes. Our task is not to divide societies into good and evil, but to act ethically today and in the future and to learn the lessons of the past.
How do you see Germany's responsibility in world politics in light of its history?
All powerful countries have a responsibility to uphold the rule of law, mutual respect, and peace. Germany has a responsibility to learn from its past and honor the promises it made to Russia after 1990. Genscher left no doubt: NATO will not expand eastward. Merkel also left no doubt: Germany will uphold the Minsk II agreement. Germany reached a constitutional agreement with Yanukovych on February 21, 2014, to resolve the Ukraine crisis, but then supported a violent coup the very next day. These are not the kinds of behaviors that lead to peace. Neither is Merz's approach, which favors fear-mongering and militarization over diplomacy.
Update: Von der Leyen wants to provide Ukraine with "further funds for drones and missiles"
You have met many German politicians. What is the difference between the politicians at the time of German reunification and those of today?
German politicians from Willy Brandt to Merkel understood in 2008 that peace in Europe should be built on positive relations between Germany and Russia. But the US wanted "preeminence" rather than peace and therefore pressured Merkel to support NATO enlargement to include Ukraine at the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest. She knew this was wrong, but she yielded to US pressure on the second day of the summit. Since then, Germany has not pursued a truly independent foreign policy for peace and prosperity.
I have always been amazed at how willing Russia was to rebuild a good relationship with Germany after what happened in World War II. How long will it take to restore this relationship?
Germany needs a leader who speaks the truth and wants peace. And who will fly to Moscow to meet President Putin and chart a path forward based on mutual respect, inclusive security, and a return to mutually beneficial trade and investment.
Russia invaded Ukraine, which was clearly a violation of international law. Could this war have been avoided if there had been a continuous and trusting relationship between Germany and Russia?
Of course, the war could have been avoided or ended very quickly! If Germany had defended the Minsk II agreement from 2015 onwards, kept the promises made by Genscher and Kohl in 1990, or supported the Istanbul peace process in 2022, the war would have been avoided altogether or ended many years ago. If Germany had rejected the plan by America and Ukraine to blow up Nord Stream, the German economy would still be healthy and the war would not have unfolded as it did.
Michael von der Schulenburg thinks something is happening behind the scenes between the German and Russian governments. Do you see it that way too?
There could indeed be some movement. The meeting between foreign ministers Wadephul and Lavrov on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly was a positive step forward, even if the meeting only lasted 20 minutes and wasn't very positive at that moment.
Von der Schulenburg also says that Ukraine could end up as a failed state. What would that mean in the heart of Europe?
Ukraine is the biggest loser in a continuation of the war. Europe is also paying a very high price for the war and the breakdown of normal economic relations with Russia. Many European countries are experiencing growing domestic political, economic, and financial crises because the current approach of war instead of diplomacy has been such a failure.
A question for you as an economist: War is always also about who can afford to fight. Isn't the current state of European finances such that the war will end sooner rather than later because there's no more money?
War generally leads to heavy losses on all sides. There may be "winners" and "losers" in a narrow sense, but generally speaking, war only produces losers.
Economist Folker Hellmeyer says it is quite possible that someone could try to escalate the war in order to blame Putin for a financial crash.
It would be insane to escalate the situation to blame Russia for a financial crisis, but unfortunately, people do insane things – that's just the way it is. However, I don't believe this is the conscious motivation behind Europe's misguided policies. Russophobia is a bigger obstacle.
All European countries want to invest more money in military spending. Is this possible given the current debt spiral in the Eurozone?
The current path of militarization has led to unrest in the streets of France and the CDU's worst political performance in its history. The public rejects the choice between "guns" and "butter." People want peace and prosperity. The war in Ukraine is irrational, unnecessary, extremely costly, and solvable through diplomacy and the concept of inclusive security.
The questions were asked by Michael Maier .