風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
烏克蘭是最新的新保守主義災難
https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/m6rb2a5tskpcxzesjk8hhzf96zh7w7
傑弗裏·薩克斯 (Jeffrey D. Sachs) 2022 年 6 月 27 日 | 其他新聞
烏克蘭戰爭是美國新保守主義運動30年計劃的頂峰。 拜登政府中充斥著同樣的新保守派人士，他們支持美國在塞爾維亞（1999年）、阿富汗（2001年）、伊拉克（2003年）、敘利亞（2011年）、利比亞（2011年）發動的戰爭，並且為挑釁俄羅斯做了很多事情。 入侵烏克蘭。 新保守派的記錄是一場徹頭徹尾的災難，但拜登卻在他的團隊中配備了新保守派。 結果，拜登正在引導烏克蘭、美國和歐盟走向另一場地緣政治崩潰。 如果歐洲有任何洞察力，它就會與美國的這些外交政策失敗區分開來。
新保守主義運動於 20 世紀 70 年代圍繞一群公共知識分子興起，其中一些人受到芝加哥大學政治學家利奧·施特勞斯和耶魯大學古典學家唐納德·卡根的影響。 新保守派領導人包括諾曼·波德霍雷茨、歐文·克裏斯托爾、保羅·沃爾福威茨、羅伯特·卡根（唐納德的兒子）、弗雷德裏克·卡根（唐納德的兒子）、維多利亞·紐蘭（羅伯特的妻子）、埃利奧特·艾布拉姆斯和金伯利·艾倫·卡根（弗雷德裏克的妻子）。
新保守派的主要信息是，美國必須在世界每個地區的軍事力量上占據主導地位，並且必須對抗有朝一日可能挑戰美國全球或地區主導地位的崛起的地區大國，其中最重要的是俄羅斯和中國。為此，美國應在全球數百個軍事基地預先部署軍事力量，並準備好在必要時領導選擇性戰爭。隻有當聯合國對美國的目的有用時，美國才可以利用聯合國。
保羅·沃爾福威茨 (Paul Wolfowitz) 在 2002 年為國防部撰寫的國防政策指導草案 (DPG) 中首次闡明了這一做法。盡管德國明確承諾，該草案仍要求將美國領導的安全網絡擴展到中歐和東歐。1990年，外交部長漢斯-迪特裏希·根舍爾表示，德國統一後不會出現北約東擴。 沃爾福威茨還闡述了美國選擇戰爭的理由，捍衛美國獨立甚至單獨行動以應對美國關注的危機的權利。據韋斯利·克拉克將軍稱，沃爾福威茨已於 1991年5月向克拉克明確表示，美國將領導伊拉克、敘利亞和其他前蘇聯盟友的政權更迭行動。
早在2008年小布什政府將北約東擴納入美國官方政策之前，新保守派就支持北約對烏克蘭的擴張。他們認為烏克蘭的北約成員身份是美國在地區和全球主導地位的關鍵。2006年4月，羅伯特·卡根 (Robert Kagan) 詳細闡述了北約東擴的新保守主義主張：
俄羅斯人和中國人認為 [ 前蘇聯的“顏色革命”] 沒有什麽自然的，隻有西方支持的政變，旨在擴大西方在世界戰略重要地區的影響力。他們錯了嗎？可能不會 在西方民主國家的敦促和支持下，烏克蘭成功的自由化隻是該國加入北約和歐盟的前奏——簡而言之，是西方自由霸權的擴張？”
卡根承認北約東擴的可怕影響。 他引用一位專家的話說，“克裏姆林宮正在認真地為‘烏克蘭之戰’做好準備。”蘇聯解體後，美國和俄羅斯都應該尋求一個中立的烏克蘭，作為謹慎的緩衝和保障。安全閥。相反，新保守派想要美國的“霸權”，而俄羅斯人參戰部分是出於防禦，部分也是出於他們自己的帝國主義自負。克裏米亞戰爭（1853-6）的陰影，當時英國和法國尋求 在俄羅斯向奧斯曼帝國施加壓力後，削弱了俄羅斯在黑海的地位。
卡根以普通公民的身份撰寫了這篇文章，而他的妻子維多利亞·紐蘭 (Victoria Nuland) 是小布什時期的美國駐北約大使。紐蘭是新保守派的傑出代表。 除了擔任布什駐北約大使外，紐蘭還在 2013-17 年間擔任巴拉克·奧巴馬負責歐洲和歐亞事務的助理國務卿，參與推翻烏克蘭親俄總統維克托·亞努科維奇，現在擔任拜登的副國務卿。國家指導美國對烏克蘭戰爭的政策。
新保守主義的觀點基於一個壓倒性的錯誤前提：美國的軍事、金融、技術和經濟優勢使其能夠在世界所有地區發號施令。這種立場既顯著傲慢又蔑視證據。自20世紀50年代以來，美國在其參與的幾乎所有地區衝突中都遭遇了阻礙或失敗。然而，在“烏克蘭之戰”中，新保守派不顧俄羅斯的強烈反對，準備通過擴大北約來挑起與俄羅斯的軍事對抗，因為他們堅信，俄羅斯將被美國的金融製裁和北約的武器擊敗。
由金伯利·艾倫·卡根（Kimberley Allen Kagan）領導的新保守主義智庫戰爭研究所（ISW）（並得到通用動力公司和雷神公司等國防承包商名人的支持）繼續承諾烏克蘭會取得勝利。 對於俄羅斯的進展，ISW 給出了一個典型的評論：”無論哪一方占領了[西維耶頓涅茨克]城市，俄羅斯在作戰和戰略層麵的攻勢可能已經達到頂峰，讓烏克蘭有機會重新啟動其作戰行動—— 進行水平反攻，將俄羅斯軍隊擊退。”
然而，實際情況卻表明事實並非如此。西方的經濟製裁對俄羅斯影響不大，但對世界其他國家的“回旋鏢”影響卻很大。此外，美國有限的生產能力和破碎的供應鏈嚴重削弱了美國向烏克蘭提供彈藥和武器裝備的能力。俄羅斯的工業能力當然使烏克蘭相形見絀。俄羅斯的GDP大約是戰前烏克蘭的10倍，而烏克蘭現在已經在戰爭中失去了大部分工業能力。
當前戰鬥最有可能的結果是俄羅斯將征服烏克蘭的大片地區，或許使烏克蘭陷入內陸或接近內陸。 隨著戰爭和製裁的軍事損失以及滯脹後果，歐洲和美國的挫敗感將會加劇。如果美國的右翼煽動者上台（或者就特朗普而言，重新掌權）並承諾通過危險的升級來恢複美國褪色的軍事榮耀，那麽連鎖反應可能是毀滅性的。
真正的解決辦法不是冒這場災難的風險，而是結束過去30年的新保守主義幻想，讓烏克蘭和俄羅斯回到談判桌，北約承諾結束對烏克蘭和格魯吉亞東擴的承諾，以換取烏克蘭和格魯吉亞的東擴承諾。尊重和保護烏克蘭主權和領土完整的可行和平。
Ukraine Is the Latest Neocon Disaster
https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/m6rb2a5tskpcxzesjk8hhzf96zh7w7
Jeffrey D. Sachs | June 27, 2022 | OtherNews
The war in Ukraine is the culmination of a 30-year project of the American neoconservative movement. The Biden Administration is packed with the same neocons who championed the US wars of choice in Serbia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Syria (2011), Libya (2011), and who did so much to provoke Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The neocon track record is one of unmitigated disaster, yet Biden has staffed his team with neocons. As a result, Biden is steering Ukraine, the US, and the European Union towards yet another geopolitical debacle. If Europe has any insight, it will separate itself from these US foreign policy debacles.
The neocon movement emerged in the 1970s around a group of public intellectuals, several of whom were influenced by University of Chicago political scientist Leo Strauss and Yale University classicist Donald Kagan. Neocon leaders included Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan (son of Donald), Frederick Kagan (son of Donald), Victoria Nuland (wife of Robert), Elliott Abrams, and Kimberley Allen Kagan (wife of Frederick).
The main message of the neocons is that the US must predominate in military power in every region of the world, and must confront rising regional powers that could someday challenge US global or regional dominance, most importantly Russia and China. For this purpose, US military force should be pre-positioned in hundreds of military bases around the world and the US should be prepared to lead wars of choice as necessary. The United Nations is to be used by the US only when useful for US purposes.
This approach was spelled out first by Paul Wolfowitz in his draft Defense Policy Guidance (DPG) written for the Department of Defense in 2002. The draft called for extending the US-led security network to the Central and Eastern Europe despite the explicit promise by German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher in 1990 that German unification would not be followed by NATO’s eastward enlargement. Wolfowitz also made the case for American wars of choice, defending America’s right to act independently, even alone, in response to crises of concern to the US. According to General Wesley Clark, Wolfowitz already made clear to Clark in May 1991 that the US would lead regime-change operations in Iraq, Syria, and other former Soviet allies.
The neocons championed NATO enlargement to Ukraine even before that became official US policy under George W. Bush, Jr. in 2008. They viewed Ukraine’s NATO membership as key to US regional and global dominance. Robert Kagan spelled out the neocon case for NATO enlargement in April 2006:
" [T]he Russians and Chinese see nothing natural in [the “color revolutions” of the former Soviet Union], only Western-backed coups designed to advance Western influence in strategically vital parts of the world. Are they so wrong? Might not the successful liberalization of Ukraine, urged and supported by the Western democracies, be but the prelude to the incorporation of that nation into NATO and the European Union -- in short, the expansion of Western liberal hegemony? "
Kagan acknowledged the dire implication of NATO enlargement. He quotes one expert as saying, “the Kremlin is getting ready for the 'battle for Ukraine' in all seriousness." After the fall of the Soviet Union, both the US and Russia should have sought a neutral Ukraine, as a prudent buffer and safety valve. Instead, the neocons wanted US “hegemony” while the Russians took up the battle partly in defense and partly out of their own imperial pretentions as well. Shades of the Crimean War (1853-6), when Britain and France sought to weaken Russia in the Black Sea following Russian pressures on the Ottoman empire.
Kagan penned the article as a private citizen while his wife Victoria Nuland was the US Ambassador to NATO under George W. Bush, Jr. Nuland has been the neocon operative par excellence. In addition to serving as Bush’s Ambassador to NATO, Nuland was Barack Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs during 2013-17, where she participated in the overthrow of Ukraine’s pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych, and now serves as Biden’s Undersecretary of State guiding US policy vis-à-vis the war in Ukraine.
The neocon outlook is based on an overriding false premise: that the US military, financial, technological, and economic superiority enables it to dictate terms in all regions of the world. It is a position of both remarkable hubris and remarkable disdain of evidence. Since the 1950s, the US has been stymied or defeated in nearly every regional conflict in which it has participated. Yet in the “battle for Ukraine,” the neocons were ready to provoke a military confrontation with Russia by expanding NATO over Russia’s vehement objections because they fervently believe that Russia will be defeated by US financial sanctions and NATO weaponry.
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a neocon think-tank led by Kimberley Allen Kagan (and backed by a who’s who of defense contractors such as General Dynamics and Raytheon), continues to promise a Ukrainian victory. Regarding Russia’s advances, the ISW offered a typical comment: “[R]egardless of which side holds the city [of Sievierodonetsk], the Russian offensive at the operational and strategic levels will probably have culminated, giving Ukraine the chance to restart its operational-level counteroffensives to push Russian forces back.”
The facts on the ground, however, suggest otherwise. The West’s economic sanctions have had little adverse impact on Russia, while their “boomerang” effect on the rest of the world has been large. Moreover, the US capacity to resupply Ukraine with ammunition and weaponry is seriously hamstrung by America’s limited production capacity and broken supply chains. Russia’s industrial capacity of course dwarfs that of Ukraine’s. Russia’s GDP was roughly 10X that of Ukraine before war, and Ukraine has now lost much of its industrial capacity in the war.
The most likely outcome of the current fighting is that Russia will conquer a large swath of Ukraine, perhaps leaving Ukraine landlocked or nearly so. Frustration will rise in Europe and the US with the military losses and the stagflationary consequences of war and sanctions. The knock-on effects could be devastating, if a right-wing demagogue in the US rises to power (or in the case of Trump, returns to power) promising to restore America’s faded military glory through dangerous escalation.
Instead of risking this disaster, the real solution is to end the neocon fantasies of the past 30 years and for Ukraine and Russia to return to the negotiating table, with NATO committing to end its commitment to the eastward enlargement to Ukraine and Georgia in return for a viable peace that respects and protects Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
https://www.other-news.info/ukraine-is-the-latest-neocon-disaster/
Translation in Portuguese: https://alicenews.ces.uc.pt/?id=39496
新保守主義Neocon or Neoconservatism，是一場始於20世紀60年代美國自由鷹派的政治運動，他們對民主黨日益和平主義的外交政策以及1960年代不斷增長的新左派和反主流文化（尤其是越南抗議活動）感到失望。一些人還開始質疑他們對“偉大社會”等國內政策的自由主義信念。新保守派通常主張促進民主和幹預國際事務，包括通過實力實現和平，並以蔑視共產主義和政治激進主義而聞名。
許多新保守主義的追隨者在1970年代、1980年代、1990年代和 2000年代的共和黨總統執政期間在政治上產生了影響力，在喬治·W·布什執政期間影響力達到頂峰，當時他們在推動和策劃2003年入侵伊拉克方麵發揮了重要作用。喬治·W·布什政府中著名的新保守主義者包括保羅·沃爾福威茨、埃利奧特·艾布拉姆斯、理查德·珀爾和保羅·布雷默。雖然副總統迪克·切尼和國防部長唐納德·拉姆斯菲爾德不被認為是新保守派，但高級官員仔細聽取了新保守派顧問關於外交政策的意見，特別是國防以色列和提升美國在中東的影響力。
新保守主義的批評者用這個詞來形容支持侵略性軍國主義或新帝國主義的外交政策和戰爭鷹派。從曆史上看，新保守主義一詞指的是那些在20世紀60年代和1970年代從反斯大林主義左翼轉向美國保守主義陣營的人。該運動的思想根源在於 Norman Podhorez 編輯的《Commentary》雜誌。他們公開反對新左派，並以這種方式幫助定義了這場運動。
Neoconservatism is a political movement that began in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party and with the growing New Left and counterculture of the 1960s, particularly the Vietnam protests. Some also began to question their liberal beliefs regarding domestic policies such as the Great Society. Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, including peace through strength, and are known for espousing disdain for communism and political radicalism.[1][2]
Many adherents of neoconservatism became politically influential during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, peaking in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Bremer. While not identifying as neoconservatives, senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of American influence in the Middle East.[3]
Critics of neoconservatism have used the term to describe foreign policy and war hawks who support aggressive militarism or neo-imperialism. Historically speaking, the term neoconservative refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the camp of American conservatism during the 1960s and 1970s.[4] The movement had its intellectual roots in the magazine Commentary, edited by Norman Podhoretz.[5] They spoke out against the New Left, and in that way helped define the movement.[6][7]
