風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
William Moloney 美國履行全球義務的能力和意願正在迅速減弱
威廉·莫洛尼，觀點撰稿人 - 08/09/21
英國曆史學家保羅·肯尼迪在其 1987 年的經典著作《大國的興衰》中提出了“帝國過度擴張”的主題，他寫道：“如今，美國的全球利益和義務總和遠遠超過了該國同時保衛所有利益和義務的能力。”三分之一世紀前，相對較少的敏銳觀察者看到了這一點，而今天，這對世界各地的人民和領導人來說是一個不言而喻的現實。
因此，美國正在相對快速地（盡管這已經是遲來的，而且並非總是經過深思熟慮的）削減其全球軍事承諾，阿富汗和最近的伊拉克就是這種趨勢的明顯例證。
這種不祥的趨勢很可能將繼續下去，甚至會加速——對敘利亞的混亂幹預可能是下一個——而且每一次連續的退位都會比前一次產生更大的後果。
目前已經出現的還有另外兩個潛在的“解脫”，它們的問題要嚴重得多——烏克蘭和台灣——因為它們有可能讓美國與世界上另外兩個超級大國俄羅斯和中國發生直接衝突，並伴隨危險誤判的風險。
烏克蘭長期存在的危機始於 1991 年，當時蘇聯解體後，烏克蘭宣布獨立，而此前幾個世紀烏克蘭一直是俄羅斯不可分割的一部分。 2014 年，俄羅斯通過吞並克裏米亞和支持烏克蘭東部俄語區軍事叛亂來重申其在烏克蘭的權力，危機急劇升級。
奧巴馬政府強烈譴責俄羅斯的侵略行為，但僅向烏克蘭提供財政和物質支持，而特朗普政府則將支持範圍擴大到有限的軍事武器。俄羅斯總統弗拉基米爾·普京完全不為這種反對所嚇倒，這一點從他 7 月發表的一篇 5,000 字論文《論俄羅斯人和烏克蘭人的曆史團結》中可以看出，他在文中回顧了俄羅斯和烏克蘭一千年的曆史，並得出結論，他們的共同命運永遠不會被打破。
在《華爾街日報》最近的一篇文章《普京為何仍覬覦烏克蘭》中，沃爾特·羅素·米德表示，“西方國家最好認真對待這篇文章”，並進一步指出“西方在對俄政策上陷入了無可救藥的分裂”。
這個問題的核心是一個難題：由於烏克蘭不是美國的盟友，也不是北約或歐盟 (EU) 的成員，那麽美國進一步介入這場位於俄羅斯曆史心髒地帶的激烈衝突，對美國的國家利益有什麽好處？美國人民在多大程度上會支持就這一問題與俄羅斯直接和不斷加深的衝突？
與烏克蘭形成鮮明對比的是，台灣長期以來與美國有著密切的政治和軍事關係。從 1955 年到 1980 年，這種關係表現為直接軍事聯盟，美國承諾保衛台灣免受任何外國（即中國）的侵略。然而，1979年，當卡特政府正式承認大陸共產黨政權並與其建立外交關係時，這項軍事保證被從1980年的《台灣關係法》中刪除，而該法至今仍是美國與台灣關係的基礎。
因此，40年來，美國一直與台灣保持著法律和軍事上的模糊關係，被名副其實的“戰略模糊”理論所包圍，根據這一理論，我們在外交上宣布“一個中國”政策，但同時在軍事上支持台灣作為事實上的獨立國家，並繼續提供先進武器，以進一步阻止北京以武力奪取該島的任何企圖。
在整個任期內，中國領導人習近平明確表示，他決心重建中國對他所認為的“分離省份”台灣的完全主權，而且，正如普京對烏克蘭的追求一樣，曆史和地理都為習近平實現這一目標提供了重要籌碼。雖然這兩個專製的獨裁者都無法完全衡量美國當前政治混亂的深度和持續時間，但他們知道這對他們各自的“統一計劃”來說是個好兆頭。
民意調查顯示，美國從阿富汗撤軍得到了廣泛支持，這清楚地表明美國人民對美國作為“世界警察”的角色越來越厭倦和失望。不太清楚的是，這條美國撤軍之路將通向何方，以及世界將變成什麽樣子。
America's ability and will to meet worldwide obligations is eroding rapidly
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/566921-americas-ability-and-will-to-meet-worldwide-obligations-is-eroding/
Expanding upon the theme of “imperial overstretch” that he introduced in his 1987 classic, “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers,” English historian Paul Kennedy wrote that “the sum total of the United States’s global interests and obligations is nowadays far larger than the country’s power to defend them all simultaneously.” What was seen by relatively few perceptive observers a third of a century ago is today a self-evident reality to people and leaders throughout the world.
Accordingly, the United States is implementing a relatively rapid — albeit overdue and not always well-thought-out — reduction in its global military commitments, with Afghanistan, and more recently Iraq, being highly visible illustrations of the same.
This ominous trend very likely will continue and even accelerate — the muddled intervention in Syria probably will be next — and each successive abdication will have greater consequences than the previous.
Already on the horizon are two other potential “extrications” that are vastly more problematic — Ukraine and Taiwan — because they threaten to bring the United States into direct conflict with the world’s other two superpowers, Russia and China, with all the attendant risks of dangerous miscalculation.
The long-simmering crisis regarding Ukraine began in 1991 when, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine declared its independence after centuries of being an integral part of the Russian state. The crisis dramatically escalated in 2014 when Russia reasserted its power in Ukraine via annexation of Crimea and sponsorship of a military revolt against the central government in the heavily Russian-speaking eastern portions of the country.
The Obama administration strongly denounced Russia’s aggression but went no further than offering financial and material support to Ukraine, which the Trump administration expanded to include limited military weaponry. That Russian President Vladimir Putin is utterly undeterred by this opposition was made clear through a 5,000-word essay, “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” that he published in July, in which he reviews a thousand years of Russian/Ukrainian history, concluding that their common destiny shall never be broken.
In a recent Wall St. Journal article, “Why Putin Still Covets Ukraine,” Walter Russell Mead states that “Western powers would be well advised to take the essay seriously,” and further notes that “the West is hopelessly disunited on Russia policy.”
At the heart of this matter is a conundrum: Because Ukraine is not a U.S. ally and not a member of NATO or the European Union (EU), what U.S. national interest would be served by increased involvement in a bitter conflict geographically located inside the historic heartland of the Russian state — and to what extent would the American people be supportive of a direct and deepening conflict with Russia on this issue?
In stark contrast to Ukraine, Taiwan has a long history of close political and military alignment with the United States. From 1955 to 1980, this relationship took the form of a direct military alliance, which pledged the United States to defend Taiwan against any foreign (i.e., Chinese) aggression. However, in 1979, when the Carter administration formally recognized and established diplomatic relations with the mainland communist regime, that military guarantee was omitted from the Taiwan Relations Act of 1980, which remains the basis of U.S. relations with Taiwan today.
Thus, for 40 years the U.S. has maintained a legally and militarily murky relationship with Taiwan, compassed in the aptly- named doctrine of “strategic ambiguity” under which we diplomatically proclaim a “One China” policy but at the same time militarily sustain Taiwan as a de-facto independent nation and continue to provide sophisticated weaponry to further deter Beijing from any effort to seize the island by force.
Throughout his tenure, Chinese leader Xi Jinping has made abundantly clear his strong determination to re-establish China’s full sovereignty over what he regards as the “breakaway province” of Taiwan and, as is the case with Putin’s quest for Ukraine, both history and geography give Xi important leverage in pursuit of that goal. While neither of these willful authoritarians can fully gauge the depth or duration of America’s current political disarray, they know it bodes well for their respective “unification projects.”
Polls showing broad-based support for U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan make clear the American people’s growing fatigue and disillusionment with their country’s role as “world policeman.” What is less clear is where this road to American retrenchment leads and what the world will look like in the aftermath.
William Moloney is a fellow in conservative thought at Colorado Christian University’s Centennial Institute who studied at Oxford and the University of London and received his doctorate from Harvard University. He is a former Colorado Commissioner of Education.
