風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
歐洲和平與西方主導的世界秩序的終結？
查斯·弗裏曼 2025年2月22日 視頻報道
https://chasfreeman.net/the-end-of-peace-in-europe-and-the-western-dominated-world-order/
在由羅馬廣播電台新聞電視台/Amici Network主辦的“結束烏克蘭災難”國際會議上的講話
查斯·W·弗裏曼大使（美國森林局，退役）
戰爭如何結束至關重要。拿破侖戰爭以歐洲列強（包括戰敗的法國）在維也納會議上和解而告終。由此產生的包容性“歐洲協調”確保了長期（盡管並不完美）的和平，直到第一次世界大戰才宣告結束。
那場戰爭主要發生在歐洲。隨後，兩個歐洲大國被惡意排除在維護歐洲穩定之外，也未承擔任何責任。德國和俄羅斯的被逐出教會為第二次世界大戰奠定了基礎，對美國人來說，這場戰爭既是跨大西洋的，也是跨太平洋的。那場戰爭並非以和平告終，而是以冷戰告終——一個由美蘇軍事對抗相互威懾維持的緊張但穩定的秩序。
俄羅斯未能在歐洲發揮與其實力相稱的作用，如今再次將戰爭帶到了歐洲大陸。曆史的教訓顯而易見。歐洲不可能存在一個排除任何大國的穩定秩序。那些無法以和平方式確保其安全利益得到尊重的國家，沒有理由不使用武力來捍衛自身利益。如果無法建立一個可持續的框架來維護其利益，他們寧願選擇戰場上的成果，也不願在談判桌上達成協議。
這就是烏克蘭戰爭的故事。近三十年來，美國和北約一直漠視並拒絕俄羅斯的安全關切。如今，俄羅斯發出最後通牒，要求就以下三項關切進行談判：
（1）烏克蘭保持中立，而非加入北約——一個以武裝對抗俄羅斯為前提的聯盟；
（2）尊重烏克蘭大量俄語人口的語言和文化權利；以及
（3）就能夠緩解俄羅斯和西方國家安全擔憂的歐洲安全安排達成一致。
西方斷然拒絕討論這些問題。這讓俄羅斯麵臨選擇：要麽放棄最後通牒，接受北約和美國軍隊在其西部邊境全麵駐紮；要麽發動戰爭來阻止這一切。不出所料，俄羅斯選擇了戰爭，盡管它將戰爭限製在其所謂的“特別軍事行動”範圍內。俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭幾周後，就與烏克蘭達成了一項條約草案，其中烏克蘭滿足了俄羅斯的基本要求。但西方更感興趣的是“孤立和削弱”俄羅斯，而非停火。它說服烏克蘭違背了此前達成的協議。
烏克蘭戰爭即將進入第四個年頭。這場戰爭對烏克蘭來說是災難性的，對西方來說更是屈辱的。烏克蘭已是強弩之末，人口減少，工業化程度下降，軍事人力枯竭，民主製度喪失，國家破產，領土麵積縮減。與此同時，俄羅斯並未被孤立或削弱。它一直在限製其目標，但其和平條件卻日益苛刻。烏克蘭的選擇餘地越來越小。
俄羅斯不會停止堅持烏克蘭不對其構成威脅，也不會停止在歐洲建立更廣泛的和平框架。俄羅斯和西方之間不會在烏克蘭停火，也不會建立朝鮮半島那樣的“非軍事區”。西方在戰場上未能取得勝利，在談判桌上也難以取得勝利。
烏克蘭戰爭的替代方案無非是和平，即在烏克蘭和俄羅斯之間劃定邊界，並防止歐洲分裂成相互敵對的陣營。要實現這一目標，俄羅斯和西方必須各自應對並采取行動，緩解對方的恐懼和猜疑。這對任何一方來說都並非易事。但現在是雙方都該努力嚐試的時候了。
自戰爭爆發以來，世界發生了翻天覆地的變化，顯然使達成停戰協議變得更加困難。
美國已成為“協議必須遵守”（PACTA SUNT SERVANDA）原則的慣犯。現在沒有人，尤其是俄羅斯，相信華盛頓會信守諾言。
西方國家無恥地支持以色列在巴勒斯坦的殘酷種族滅絕、對鄰國的襲擊以及領土擴張，這清楚地表明，大西洋共同體不再遵守或感到受國際法的約束。
西方對烏克蘭和巴勒斯坦實行的公然雙重標準，使其失去了在所有曾經被其殖民的人民心目中的道德權威。
“全球大多數”認為西方的政策不公正。美國和七國集團對其他國家實施的製裁和其他脅迫措施，導致這些國家幾乎普遍不再尊重西方。
羅姆尼的領導地位以及追隨它的意願。
西方與巴西、印度和中國等複興大國之間緊張且不斷惡化的關係，這些大國有意幫助促成烏克蘭和平，這確保了它們對西方的支持將比原本可能減少。
這些變化以及近期世界秩序的其他變化的累積效應，要麽導致混亂加劇，要麽導致一個新的國際體係的出現，在這個體係中，對各國主權平等及其安全關切的重新尊重將取代當前的全球無政府狀態。烏克蘭戰爭的結局將決定哪種選擇將主宰我們的未來。
The End of Peace in Europe and the Western-dominated World Order?
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. (USFS, Ret.)
How wars end matters. The Napoleonic wars ended in the reconciliation of Europe’s great powers, including the defeated French, at the Congress of Vienna. The resulting, inclusive “Concert of Europe” ensured a long, if imperfect, peace that ended only in World War I.
That war was fought mainly in Europe. It was followed by the vindictive exclusion of two great European powers from any role in or commitment to sustaining stability in Europe. The excommunication of Germany and Russia laid the basis for World War II, which – for Americans – was both transatlantic and transpacific. That war ended not in a peace but in a cold war – a tense but stable order sustained by mutual deterrence through military confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States.
The failure to include a role for Russia in Europe commensurate with its power has now once again brought war to the continent. The lessons of history are clear. There can be no stable order in Europe that excludes any of its great powers. Those with no peaceful way to ensure respect for their security interests will see no reason not to use force to defend them. And if there is no prospect of a sustainable framework to safeguard their interests, they will prefer outcomes on battlefields to those contrived at the negotiating table.
This is the story of the Ukraine War. After nearly three decades of indifference and rejection of Russian security concerns by the United States and NATO, Russia issued an ultimatum demanding negotiations on three of these concerns:
(1) neutrality for Ukraine rather than its incorporation into NATO – an alliance premised on armed hostility to Russia;
(2) respect for the linguistic and cultural rights of Ukraine’s large Russian-speaking population; and
(3) agreement on Europe-wide security arrangements that could mitigate and relieve Russian security anxieties as well as those of the West.
The West flatly refused to discuss these issues. This left Russia with a choice between abandoning its ultimatum and accepting NATO and American forces everywhere on its western borders or going to war to prevent this. Russia quite predictably chose war, though it limited this to what it called a “special military operation.” Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was followed within weeks by a draft treaty in which Ukraine met the basic Russian requirements. But the West was more interested in “isolating and weakening” Russia than in a ceasefire. It persuaded Ukraine to repudiate what it had agreed to.
The Ukraine War is now about to enter its fourth year. It has been catastrophic for Ukraine and humiliating for the West. Ukraine is on its last legs, depopulated, deindustrialized, depleted of military manpower, shorn of its democracy, bankrupt, and territorially reduced. Meanwhile, Russia has not been isolated or weakened. It has continued to limit its objectives, but its terms for peace are hardening. Ukraine’s options continue to narrow.
Russia will not cease to insist on a Ukraine that does not threaten it and a broader framework for peace in Europe. There will be no ceasefire or Korean-style “demilitarized zone” between Russia and the West in Ukraine. The West has failed to prevail on the battlefield. It will not prevail at the negotiating table.
The alternative to war in Ukraine is nothing less than a peace that sets agreed borders between Ukraine and Russia and prevents the division of Europe into mutually hostile blocs. Achieving this will require Russia and the West each to address and take actions to alleviate the other’s fears and suspicions. That will not be easy for either side. But it is time for both to try.
An agreement to end the war has clearly been made more difficult by the ways in which the world has changed since it began.
- The United States has become a serial violator of the principle of PACTA SUNT SERVANDA (“agreements must be kept”). No one, least of all Russia, now trusts Washington to honor its word.
- The collective West’s shameless backing for Israel’s sadistic genocide in Palestine, attacks on its neighbors, and territorial expansion have made it clear that the Atlantic community no longer adheres to or feels bound by international law.
- The blatant double standards the West has applied to Ukraine and Palestine have cost it its moral authority with all the peoples it formerly colonized.
- The “global majority” sees Western policies as unjust. The promiscuous imposition by the United States and G-7 of sanctions and other coercive measures on other countries has resulted in their almost universal withdrawal of respect for Western leadership and willingness to follow it.
- Strained and worsening relations between the West and resurgent powers like Brazil, India, and China that are interested in helping broker peace in Ukraine ensure that they will be less supportive of the West than they might otherwise have been.
The cumulative effect of these and other recent changes in the world order will be either mounting chaos or the emergence of a new international system in which renewed respect for the sovereign equality of nations and for their security concerns replaces the current global anarchy. How the war in Ukraine ends will determine which of these alternatives rules our future.
