The collapse of Greek economy and the threat of financial collapse in Italy, the eurozone's third largest economy, have already led to changes of government and the resignation of prime ministers. Whether the new governments, prime ministers and their cabinets gain control over the situation and accomplish all the requirements of Brussels will soon be clear, but I will not be mistaken if I say that the main burden regarding the debt problems of the eurozone, as well as initiatives on the reform of eurozone institutions, were taken by the two main economies of the eurozone – Germany and France. The efforts of these two countries will define the future of the eurozone.
Possible future of the eurozone as well as its destiny’s influence on Russia was discussed by experts in the frames of a video link between Berlin and Moscow. Vladimir Shemyatenkov, professor, doctor of economics, David Gregosh, expert of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and Maria Medvedeva, deputy head of the Department of World Economics and International Monetary-Credit Relations at the Moscow Financial Academy participated in the discussion
David Gregosh, expert of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation on questions of the EU's economic development:
“All the governments have a goal to save the eurozone in its present format. Together with the official policies of governments, different rumors exist, but in my opinion there is no sense in taking part in these rumors, as we have to preserve the eurozone exactly in the same form it exists now. On the one hand, this is not an easy task, we should work hard and move in this direction, change structures. We find ourselves at the moment in this difficult process. Whether Greece will find itself in a situation where it will not be able to accomplish all the requirements is still hard to say. A smaller eurozone is not in any way regarded by the federal government as a possible scenario and we will try our best to save it in its present form.”
Maria Medvedeva, deputy head of the Department of World Economics and International Monetary-Credit Relations at the Moscow Financial Academy under the government of the Russian Federation:
I hope it will be able to do it, although it will be very hard and this will probably take more than two or three years. The program in my opinion should be projected for a much longer period. Concerning Italy, despite my great love for this country and its people, it had problems already at Bretton Woods and it was the weakest chain in this monetary institution, their inflation was always higher than in other countries. So it is not surprising at all that nowadays Italy is experiencing problems. Another question is how to solve them in the context of other countries, since it is not the only weak point at the moment in the eurozone. From a political perspective, I entirely agree with my colleagues that the eurozone should be saved. However, it might not happen from an economic perspective
Vladimir Shemyatenkov, professor, doctor of economics:
There is a sharp contrast between the economic and political sides of the conflict, as has been rightly pointed out by my colleague. The economic side of the problem was essentially developed already in the 1960s, when a famous Canadian economist, Robert Mandell, developed a theory of optimal economic zones. It had a pure justification, according to which from the economic point of view certain fundamental principles must be fulfilled in order for the currency integration to produce the effect it is aimed at. However, the development of the currency integration in Europe has a different route. The second aspect of the problem – political interests – were in unsolvable contradiction with this purely academic concept. For instance, according to Madell, Italy was never to be adopted into the eurozone. But was it possible to forbid Italy, one of the founding members of the EU, to join it? Generally there is a contradiction between those articles of the Maastricht agreement which define the paradigm of the EU expansion without a defined limit and economic circumstances which put certain limits on the integration process. I believe that this dilemma is now being faced by the EU leaders. Just as before, everything will depend on their decision. What is more important to them? Economic effectiveness, an increase in competitive advantages of the Western part of Europe in the world? Or political interests, maintenance of the eurozone, the gradual elimination of the economic problems of the majority of its members. European members, especially Germany, in this case will be ready to spend great financial resources. In fact, everything depends on you, my dear colleagues, on your decisions. Whether you want to spend your surplus, produced by your effective and powerful economy on developing the wealth of Germans, competing with the US, China etc.? Or whether it is important for you not only to save the EU but also the eurozone? If there will be a decision to save the eurozone, how to act with countries which are not members of the eurozone - Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania - since they also have certain rights in relation to the EU? Thus you are facing very difficult questions. So far I do not see understanding of the very depth of the question by leaders of Germany and other leading European countries.
