Transcription
Welcome back. We are joined today by Professor Jeffrey Saxs to discuss a a situation, a security situation in Europe which appears to be coming more and more uh dangerous.
Um so thank you very much for coming back on the program. I've been looking with a great concern at um the possibility of a NATO Russia war breaking out because we've always over the past four years had this incremental escalation and it now appears to have reached a point where it seems almost impossible for Russia not to retaliate. That is drones are attacking Russia out of the territory of the Baltic states. First, it was denied by NATO and now they recognize that it's happening, but they claim that Ukraine doesn't have the right to use their territory, but the fact that they're doing this is Russia's fault anyways. So, it's u yeah, it's quite incredible stuff. And uh now they're condemning Russia for threatening to retaliate. So, how do you make sense of this situation?
Of course uh as has been the case uh for many years there is uh no diplomacy taking place between Europe and Russia. Uh both sides uh therefore uh are talking past each other. The Europeans are strident. Uh the European voices in the lead are from the Baltic states and from Poland which are the most rousophobic parts of Europe. Strangely, Europe gave the voice for the European community, which is uh 450 million people over to the Baltic States in in the person of uh their external relations vice president Kaya Kalas, also the commissioner for defense uh who is from Latvia um or Lithuania, excuse It's very strange. Much of Europe is not of this strident rousophobic view. Uh the Baltics for lots of reasons, psychological and geographical uh are and they are driving European policy right now to a shocking extent. And unfortunately the uh major powers in Europe especially Germany and France don't put on the brakes.
We have uh in the person of Chancellor Mertz the most uh irresponsible leader of Germany in decades actually. Uh he is an outright uh wararmonger. uh he has not shown uh one cintillaa of interest in diplomacy even uh contacting his counterpart President Putin even having foreign ministers of Germany and Russia meet to discuss the situation. Mertza seemed to have determined in his mind that he would uh base his government's policy on remilitarizing Germany. A not very pleasant prospect I have to say.
And so uh one of the things that has gone wrong in addition to the voice of Europe being the voice of three Baltic states with the combined population of 6 million people and the most extreme of all rousophobia is Germany uh which I think plays an extraordinarily dangerous and irresponsible role in all of this because Germany has the most responsib ability as not only the largest country of Europe, but also the country that explicitly promised the Soviet Union in 1990 in unambiguous terms that NATO would not enlarge. It was the country that was supposed to be the guarantor of the end of the Ukraine war in 2015 with the Mins 2 agreement. It failed on that as well. So Germany has a special burden of responsibility. Of course, history is another matter, but not even going to the history of World War II, but just going to the history of German reunification. And afterwards, Germany has cheated repeatedly and Chancellor Mertz acts as if there is no responsibility at all.
Then we move to France which is just bizarre in its foreign policy I have to say. Uh maybe Mcronone's idea which is not all wrong but is absolutely peculiar in how it is being carried out is Europe's strategic autonomy. I have no problem with Europe's strategic autonomy from the United States, but to implement it through wararmongering with Russia is a quite a dangerous game, completely unnecessary. One could argue for Europe's strategic autonomy on the simple fact that we're 80 years after the end of World War II and it's time that Europe get on with it. It doesn't need the United States to either be its defender or the determinant of its foreign policy. But Mcronone seems to think that in order to carry out his idea of strategic autonomy, he has to be a hostile rousophobic leader as well. Add in Britain to this mix which is also and always rousophobic and has been since 1840 at least we have quite a brew which is no diplomacy uh only talk of escalation now the actual events of escalation taking place from Ukraine and let's understand the Ukrainian situation this is a radical government it has not anything to do with democracy. Obviously, it is a small group that runs the state under martial law. Uh that is extraordinarily corrupt as everybody knows. either you see it in the villas owned by Ukrainians all over Western Europe or you see it in the reports of Nabu and uh many many other accounts but you have a dictatorship corrupt and uh extremist and so this is uh what is happening right now and Ukraine is trying to provoke uh Europe Europe into an expanded war. Just like Israel always tries to provoke the United States into joining Israel in an expanded war in the Middle East, Ukraine will do whatever it can to provoke an expanded war. This is Ukraine's tactic because Ukraine can't fight Russia. But maybe Europe will fight Russia. Maybe if Europe fights Russia, then the United States, they think, will have to fight alongside Europe. I don't know what goes through their minds, but sending drones through Baltic airspace, if that's what they're doing, and it seems like it is the case, then this is part for the course. They have bombed Russia's nuclear triad, bombing the the airplanes sitting on the tarmac as part of uh the surveillance mechanisms of nuclear arms control. They have taken whatever provocative steps they can. They want a wider war because they think that that's their best chance to win.
You combine all of this uh Baltic state rousophobia, Europe giving over its foreign policy to the Baltic states, uh a German leadership which for the first time since World War II, I would say is openly calling for remilitarization, which incidentally runs against the 4 plus2 treaty that was negotiated for German uh unification which says precisely that Germany will not remilitarize in the context of a reunified Germany and uh the uh aarent leadership of France and the UK and we have a perfect colossal disaster which makes now the Baltic front line probably the world's most dangerous hot spot even more than the contact line of the war in Ukraine. The Baltic states are probably the most dangerous place on the whole planet right now. That's saying a lot because we have the war in Iran. We have the war in Palestine. We have the war inside Ukraine. We have the tensions in Taiwan. But I would say the Baltic states are are now on the front line because they are screaming for war, for vengeance, for hatred of Russia and counting on Europe to follow through through an active engagement in war.
Well, uh there's some indications that well either Russia there were some drones entering the Baltic states from Russia now in what appears well it could be a retaliation. Some arguing that the Russians simply, you know, um, scrambled Ukrainian drones, so they went in by accident. Others are saying that the Russians brought down and then essentially attacked the Baltics with B with their with Ukrainian drones. It's hard to say, you know, it's only the speculation, but anyways, it does appear that uh yeah, the the situation escalating. And of course, all of this is also fueled by mutual rhetoric now of war. And uh it's um yeah it's very concerning because in such a war they're talking about there will be no winners. There will be only mass death and and it doesn't seem to make much sense. So we now moving to a place it seems we're either going to actually enter war with Russia you know whatever the consequences would come from this or there's time to put an end to this thing. And uh we're seeing some discussions now in Europe at very slow slow speed but nonetheless about restoring possibly diplomacy with Russia and indeed of all people Angela Merkel she argued that it's time to speak to Russia and it was has been a mistake by the EU not to do this. I mean it's a bit strange coming after more than four years of fighting and uh but still it's it's quite significant it seems because for more than four years the Europeans have been sitting on the sidelines boycotting all diplomacy and presenting it as some kind of virtue that oh we don't speak to the Russians as if you know this is a sign of how how good they are. Uh do do you see any potential here? Because so far they're talking about whether they should talk to Russia and if they can agree then who should represent them and if they can agree agree then they of course they have to come to agreement uh what they should actually speak with a common voice and whenever the 27 EU countries will speak with a common voice it tends to be the lowest common denominator being aggressive as possible. So probably they will end up asking for Russia's capitulation or I'm not sure where they're going, but it at this point it seems better if any European leader will just pick up the phone and at least just talk.
It's um No, it's it's a I don't know. Are you optimistic about at least uh the efforts to decriminalize diplomacy? I mean, I haven't heard anyone talk about speaking with the other side in a long time. They're not doing it yet, but at least they're discussing the possibility of it. I think uh what has happened is that the rhetoric and the wararmongering is spinning out of control. And I think there is an analogy with what's happening with Israel and Palestine. For a long time, Israel was engaged in a strategy to conquer and control all of Palestine, including, of course, that means the occupied territories uh of the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem, and even to expand into neighboring countries in Lebanon and Syria. But this was uh mainly I would say strategic security policy. It's has spiraled especially after the October 7th attack by Hamas but more generally in the changing millure into the most radical ethno uh dehumanization massacres and in the end genocide against the Palestinian people. The the reason I mention this is that the war in Ukraine has been a war of great power politics. It's a war that emerged from NATO enlargement and Russia's resistance to it. uh that emerged from a coup in February 2014 where uh the Russian view which I agree with is that the United States was a major actor and proponent of the coup uh and that it was directed against Russia in order to bring Ukraine into NATO. Uh the idea was to overthrow a government that was uh neutral and wanted to remain outside of NATO. Uh and one could say that this was a unpleasant, dangerous great power politics, a great game uh over Ukraine of the kind that new Brjinski described in the 1990s. But in the context of uh events, it has spiraled into a deep ethno hatred. Especially we see it in Poland and the Baltic states, places where I have worked and supported 30 years ago when a new era of peace looked to be taking hold. And I worked with Poland to help them to cancel their debts and to stabilize their currency and to open their trade and to join Europe. All of which proved to and I helped Estonia to introduce a currency and worked with Kayakalis's father who was then governor of the central bank of Estonia. But the idea at the time for me and the idea as expressed by Germany and the United States and President Gorbachov and President Yelen was that this was in the interest of a new peace and a common European home. And the uh 4 plus2 treaty which enabled German reunification speaks of uh a treaty uh following the Helsinki final act in which it said that security in Europe is indivisible and that no security could be at the expense of another country and that there would not be remilitarization and so on. But what has happened now is rampant radicalized ethno hatred. These countries have their historical memories, I think, grossly distorted in my own view about Russia, but stoked by the war in Ukraine and by the unrestrained rhetoric and the tragedy of war itself. There's no appreciation at all. not even for a moment a nancond that what is at stake in the Ukraine war has a lot to do with Russia's security visav the United States that isn't admitted or understood or acknowledged at all everything became interpreted as Russian evil as Russian aggression uh as unpro provoked war and massacre by the Russians. All of it false in its uh pseudo history. all in its deliberate denial of basic facts about German reunification about NATO about Minsk 2 and many many other things arms control uh the US abandonment of the anti-bballistic missile treaty the US participation in the Maidan coup of the history that you and I and many others have talked about for years none of this is mentioned for a moment in Germany or in Estonia or in Latvia or in Lithuania or in Poland or by the European Commission in any way. So what we have instead is just the emergence of hatred. Hatred can boil over. This is what makes this so dangerous in the Israel context which I mentioned. hatred boiled over to open genocide. The Israelis have no self-control anymore. They don't even know how they're viewed by the rest of the world. They don't understand because they are in the grip of hatred. And I would say that this is what is happening on the front in Europe right now in the Baltic States and in Poland and in Russia's response. What are you doing? Do you really want a war in Europe? And then that echoes back and we heard from Berlin, yeah, we have to get ready for a war in Europe maybe by 2029. And we hear about uh the need to prepare for war. The nuclear umbrella now this debate, should we actively support drones attacking Russia? the celebration when Ukraine attacks Moscow and so forth with a drone attack. Now, the only thing I can say, Glenn, is that not only is this about to boil over, but maybe, just maybe, it's giving some uh responsible people in Europe the idea that this has reached the point where there's no self-control on the European side and it could completely uh explode and explode in a way that would be devastating for all of Europe. Europe. And so maybe this is the genesis of the idea four years late that somebody should be discussing this with the Russian counterparts. And I've been saying this for years. You've been saying this and many others. talk to the other side because there's actually real things that the Russians have to say to help jog the memory uh of the Europeans about how we got into this colossal disaster. And with Chancellor Merkel, it's very interesting and very poignant. I like Chancellor Merkel. I I respect her as a level-headed uh decent, honest, hard-working leader and as someone who wanted peace in Europe. But she herself has described what went wrong. And the poignant moment is between the first day and the second day of the Bucharest NATO summit in 2008 when the United States was pushing for NATO enlargement and Chancellor Merkel knew and said so this could be the path to war with Russia. Very sensible. And the United States was pushing for a fixed date, what they called a map uh which was a plan for uh NATO enlargement to Ukraine and incidentally to Georgia in the South Caucus' region which is not only not the North Atlantic but isn't even in Europe, it's part of Asia. But not to digress, Chancellor Merkel knew and wrote that the commitment to expand NATO was likely to lead to war and she resisted the first day of the NATO summit and then gave in the second day and gave in in a way which uh she thought she was still holding some ground. There won't be a specific plan or date, but the conference would close with the unequivocal declaration that NATO will enlarge to Ukraine and to Georgia. That was the end of Germany's voice for restraint.
And then unfortunately fast forward to the events of February 21st specifically 2014 when the coup was uh nearly uh undertaken in Kiev and uh the Germans together with colleagues negotiated with the then president of Ukraine. ain President Victor Yanukovic that there would be no coup and that President Yanukovich's term would extend till uh late in 2014 at which point there would be new elections held and Germany agreed to that and the United States did and there were conversations with President Putin that evening about this agreement and then the next day the uh cool leaders stormed the government buildings in uh Kiev or Kev, whichever you prefer, and then the US immediately recognized the new government rather than saying, "Wait a minute, we had an agreement. This is extra constitutional. President Yanukovich is still the president." The United States played its card and immediately recognized the new government. It didn't formally recognize it. It said that it would work with the new government. didn't call for constitutional order and Germany went along. So this was the next step and then one year after that came the Minsk 2 agreement. It was actually February 2015 and Germany was to be the guarantor of the Minsk 2 agreement. And people may not recall the Minsu agreement, but it was an agreement to end the fighting in the Donbas by creating a new constitutional order in which the Donbas, the two oblasts of Lugansk and Donetsk, would be granted autonomy for essentially self-ruule within Ukraine. And Ukraine agreed with this. The agreement was unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council. Germany and France were to be the guaranurs of Minsk 2 and then the United States and Ukraine privately said now we're not going to implement this and Germany did not stand up and say wait a minute we have an agreement. It's backed by the UN Security Council. We are responsible for enforcement. it will be implemented. Germany remains silent. So much so that in 2022, I believe it was, Chancellor Merkel rather uh strangely said, "Well, we never really meant it. It was to buy time for Ukraine." I actually don't believe that was her view in 2015, but it was her excuse in 2022 when she was under attack for having signed such an agreement, under attack within Germany for having been uh too obliging to the Russians. And so all of this is to say we've come to a point of hatred and we've come to a complete amnesia about actual events and we've come to a point where this could easily boil over into open war in the Baltics or other parts of Europe. In other words, the potential for complete disaster. And so maybe maybe maybe this is why Chancellor Merkel among others I mean it's surely why Chancellor Merkel is saying we need to talk but maybe it's why some others are also uh perhaps agreeing that Europe needs to talk. It's quite notable by the way in this discussion of search for the individual that would be the counterpart where Chancellor Merkel herself is named as a potential uh European representative or Mario Draghi is mentioned as a possible European representative. It's taken for granted that their own real uh external affairs chief Kaakalis could not be that person because her rousophobia is so so blatant uh so uh so so basic that she cannot serve the role of diplomat. They know that that by itself is very very sad. It's like saying we need diplomacy, but in the US context it can't be the secretary of state. He's no diplomat. That's what it would be like saying. But Europe is implicitly acknowledging that fact.
>> Well, the EU picked Kalas as the foreign policy chief when the EU was uh following the line that they were boycotting diplomacy and weapons were the path to peace. So, if you don't want any diplomacy at all, then I guess she could be a good choice. Uh I I often think about what you just mentioned as well that how could he go from Angela Merkel who once stated that offering a membership action plan for NATO to Ukraine would be interpreted by Moscow as a declaration of war to where we are now where it's impossible to even discuss our side having provoked anything? I I sometimes think that part of the the way the the narrative has been manipulated or the discussion has been uh suppressed is they they often tend to present any issue as being only two sides. Either it's our narrative or the Russian narrative and you essentially have to pick one. And uh I I think of in this country actually in in Norway we we used to because of our geography have a key uh point in the Americanled missile defense which is now NATO missile defense strategic missile defense which threatened to undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent and the Norwegian uh Norwegians used to be quite concerned about this and then Wikileaks taught us that the ambassador American ambassador to Norway he was making the point that well we can you know flip the Norwegian All we have to do is make this an issue of alliance solidarity. That is either the Norwegians are repeating what the Russians are saying or they or they prioritize NATO solidarity. And he argued if we frame it like this there's no way they can anymore talk about you know security and uh you know also making the point that you know we'll engage with NOS's think tanks journalists politicians and later on you saw another um Wikileak yeah cable being released where the uh where essentially confirmed that oh no they're all falling in line now. So it's it's not more complicated than that. either you repeat the Kremlin talking point or you have solidarity. And I noticed in this war as well, that's what they're saying as well. If you're saying, well, NATO provoked this. Well, that's a Kremlin talking point. We NATO helped to topple the government Kremlin talking point. There's no discussion. It's just pick one camp and somehow, you know, arguing for war, pretending it's unprovoked. That's the pro-western and pro, you know, Ukrainian. You know, if you mention perhaps, you know, kidnapping all these young Ukrainian men and sending them to their death is not pro- Ukrainian, well, that's a pro Kremlin talking point as well. If you're pro- Ukraine, you're pro, you know, busification, sending all these men to die. It's a it's
>> I think it would be very interesting in the Norwegian context to ask the leadership today, what was Norway's position at the Bucharest NATO summit? uh in its actual position. I happen to have some information about that. Uh and uh I believe that NATO that Norway's position was to be a gasast at what George Bush was promoting and to ask how is it that Bush who promised that he wouldn't go down that path went down that path. I I'd like to know what Norway's leadership says about that. Is there any remembrance of events in 2008, of attitudes in 2008, of the sense that Chancellor Merkel expressed and wrote down at least honestly in her recent book, her diary in in effect or her memoirs, that yes, she knew that this was tantamount uh to war or would be seen that way from the Russian side. I'd like to know what the Norwegians would remember about that, the Norwegian leadership, because there is historical memory. And that reflection should be helpful. Okay? There's a lot of American bullying. We we know that there's a lot of arm twisting. You step out of line, Americans will say you're corrupt. They'll try to bring down your government. They'll do one thing or another. But this is actually what has brought Europe to this disaster. You know I I view Europe's situation today as tragic and as mistaken. I view the rousophobia uh as a terrible self harm of Europe by being so rousophobic. Europe has hurt itself many many times in history. It's a a long and fascinating subject that I'm writing about and studying myself right now. It's very harmful for Europe to take these extreme positions. Doesn't unify Europe. It just brings Europe closer to disastrous conflict by uh absolutely deliberately uh evading history and not uh uh attempting any honest assessment. uh but people do know at least uh there are people who should remember and can recall and again I put primary responsibility for all of this on Chancellor Mertz because Germany has the most responsibility here and the most accountability here not only World War II But I'll put that in. And not only the terms of German reunification, but the explicit promises of no NATO enlargement, the terms of the 4 plus2 treaty, the events around Maidan, the events around Minsk 2. If Mertz would just spend an honest day, one day reviewing German recent history and diplomacy and how many times Germany lied to the Soviet Union and to Russia since 1990. And by the way, I'll add one more incidental fact which is also puzzling but true. Germany took the lead in saying no NATO enlargement. The United States and Germany expressed this absolutely explicitly to Gorbachov and to Yeltson. And then around 1992, the US started to reconsider and Germany, interestingly, especially the business community, started to lobby for NATO enlargement as early as 1993. So while I tend to put a lot of blame on US foreign policy uh of manipulation and reigging on commitments, Germany actually has a direct independent responsibility not just falling into line with the United States, which it did often enough, but rather independently blowing off the terms of German reunification within a three-year period and starting to lobby for NATO enlargement and I know that some scholars are studying this right now. The German businesses I think believed that they were going to invest in Eastern Europe and they wanted the security of these countries being within the NATO umbrella. But they gave short shrift or no shrift I should say to the fact that Germany had explicitly promised in the 4 plus2 agreement not to move troops into even Germany and that this was in the context of absolute clarity not ambiguity as our narrative says now but absolute clarity that that commitment included not just not moving troops into Eastern Germany, which is what's in the 4 plus2 treaty, but more generally into central and eastern Europe, much less to the Baltic states and to Ukraine and to Georgia, which became the the ploy and the plot soon after those commitments were made. So I would above everything like the German chancellor to review the history and from the position of honesty say it's time to talk to our counterpart.
Yeah. But again when we meet it's uh I wonder what can actually be achieved. Now I saw the Finland's foreign minister make this statement that NATO is not a threat but Russia is a threat to world peace. So in other words this is how you see the world now that is more NATO is more peace less Russia is more peace essentially the world is good guys and bad guys. If the good guys have more guns the be bad guys are weak and then we'll have peace. This is I mean this is the the thinking. So there's no
>> I agree with that. I Glenn I just believe I believe I hope without proof but I hope that a face-to-face discussions where frankly the Europeans are forced to remember some recent history would be helpful. There is a lot of uh experience both the actual events and uh experimental data which shows that face-to-face uh discussions can make some difference that it's very hard to keep a false narrative directly in the face of the counterpart on a prolonged basis. I happen to know well foreign minister Lavrov. I respect him enormously. He is a walking encyclopedia of the last 36 years of history. I think he would be a very excellent counterpart for discussions of these issues and I believe since I've seen a lot of them with my own eyes, I think that the Europeans would have a lot to remember and that that would be beneficial for Europe's own security.
>> Yeah. No, I agree. Well, when diplomacy becomes sitting in a room with people you agree with only, then it's easy to have this bubble mentality where crazy narratives begin to move forward and dominate. Anyways, I've already taken too much of your time, so thank you very much and enjoy in Brazil.
>> Thanks a lot. See you soon. Bye-bye.