Nicolai Petro 金磚國家多極化 VS 北約霸權

真正的戰爭：金磚國家多極化 VS 北約霸權

尼古拉·佩特羅教授 中立性研究 2024年10月29日
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFTcQVTld1Q

尼古拉·N·佩特羅在京都舉行的2024年中立性會議上指出，新的意識形態之戰正在如火如荼地展開。觀看他題為“中立、安全與文明現實主義：一個難題及其對俄羅斯和烏克蘭的啟示”的評論和分析。

他評論道：“這種自由的文明認同不再局限於歐洲的文化範圍。它被認為會擴展到全球，這使得北約的擴張‘包括日本、澳大利亞、韓國、菲律賓以及任何像阿根廷一樣表示希望加入的民主國家’（正如最近一封由一百多位前任和現任政治和軍事官員簽名的公開信所暗示的那樣）成為弗朗西斯·福山曾經稱之為‘曆史的終結’的翻版。”

與此同時，“金磚國家+”國家正在倡導一種截然不同的主權與安全關係觀，這種觀為政治和價值觀中立提供了更大的空間。北約認為各國的文化和政治理念必須保持一致，否則全球安全就會受到損害，而金磚國家聯盟則以政治和文化多樣性為前提，而非一致，從而增強全球安全。

我們現在可以理解，為什麽俄羅斯與西方在烏克蘭問題上的鬥爭具有全球意義。這是一場理念的衝突。北約認為，這場戰爭的結果將決定其核心意識形態的命運——即自由價值觀的擴張將帶來世界和平與繁榮。自蘇聯解體以來，這已成為北約的核心信念和核心使命。

金磚國家也認為，這場戰爭的結果將決定其核心意識形態的命運——即文化和政治多樣性是全球和平與繁榮的關鍵。其核心信念和核心使命日益依賴於文明多極化的製度化。

我認為，文明多極化——我稱之為金磚國家意識形態——比大多數分析人士認為的更為複雜，因為它借鑒了俄羅斯自21世紀初以來在國內推行的主權民主概念。起初，主權民主並沒有任何外交政策的成分，因為當時俄羅斯正致力於融入西方。

人們曾希望主權民主能夠成為俄羅斯在西方穩固地位的手段，這種希望持續了十年，但當這種希望被拋棄時，正是對主權的強調使俄羅斯能夠從親西方的外交政策平穩過渡到文明多極化政策。自2022年以來，俄羅斯開始將自己定義為“文明國家”。

“文明國家”一詞的含義仍在演變，但莫斯科國立大學教授鮑裏斯·梅茹耶夫對文明、多極化和安全之間的關係進行了深入思考。

梅茹耶夫認為，自由國際主義在哲學上與外交政策現實主義相悖，這種不相容性阻礙了全球許多衝突的解決。世界各國領導人麵臨的挑戰是如何防止這種緊張局勢升級為一場吞噬全球的衝突。梅茹耶夫認為，存在一個框架，在這個框架內，這種衝突不必成為現實。他將這個框架稱為“文明現實主義”。 (...)
<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>
我們現在可以理解，為什麽俄羅斯與西方在烏克蘭問題上的鬥爭具有如此重要的全球意義。這是一場
願景的衝突。北約認為，這場戰爭的結果將決定其核心意識形態的命運，即相信自由價值觀的擴張將帶來全球和平與繁榮。自蘇聯解體以來，這已成為北約的主導信念和核心使命。金磚國家也認為，這場戰爭的結果將決定其核心意識形態的命運，即相信文化和政治多樣性是全球和平與繁榮的關鍵。其主導信念和核心使命越來越依賴於文明多極化的製度化。我認為，我稱之為“金磚國家意識形態”的文明多極化比大多數分析家認為的更為複雜，因為它借鑒了俄羅斯自上世紀初以來在國內推行的主權民主理念。

2000年代，謝謝帕斯，謝謝帕斯卡，謝謝各位同事的到來，聆聽我們為智慧而做出的努力。我稍微修改了一下我的發言，呃，他們並沒有具體討論烏克蘭問題，但我希望他們能在更廣泛的背景下有所貢獻。他們現在的題目是“中立、安全與文明現實主義”，這是一個給俄羅斯和烏克蘭帶來教訓的難題。這位是文明現實主義概念的提出者之一，我將參考他的觀點。

可以說，像俄羅斯這樣的地區大國的戰略野心是通過推動全球不結盟來防止全球霸權的出現，然而其自身身份在很多方麵都與在自身利益範圍內占據主導地位息息相關。像俄羅斯這樣的自詡為文明的國家，或任何其他國家，能否以一種不威脅他人的方式界定其利益範圍？答案的一部分可能在於，像烏克蘭這樣的地區小國如何看待中立？當它們轉向中立作為一種安全戰略時，它們麵臨著一個嚴峻的選擇：被動中立使它們能夠充當緩衝區，讓競爭對手至少可以暫時脫離接觸；或者，它們可以采取強硬的中立，並通過不斷轉變效忠對象來挑撥競爭對手之間的對抗。這兩種策略都強化了國家政治自主權，我認為，這是主權的一個基本屬性，但被動或強硬的中立要麽與北約和歐盟等西方聯盟結構相容，正如我們在匈牙利、斯洛伐克和……的案例中看到的那樣。土耳其許多人認為中立與北約的價值觀相悖，因此對他們構成潛在威脅。因此，中立帶來了一個難題。一方麵，推行反映國家獨特文化和政治價值觀的政策的能力是國家主權的重要組成部分，但過度的獨立可能會削弱北約提供的安全屏障，使其容易受到來自侵略性鄰國的威脅。有時，對像土耳其和斯洛伐克這樣的異見國家的批評僅僅是，他們的不忠誠破壞了北約的安全。但這反過來又基於這樣一種觀點：北約反映了一種獨特的公民文明認同，而加入北約所帶來的安全利益迫使各國接受這種特定的自由文明認同。這種自由文明認同不再局限於歐洲的文化範圍，它被認為會擴展到全球，這使得北約的擴張（我在這裏引用）包括日本、澳大利亞、韓國、菲律賓和任何其他國家。像阿根廷這樣的民主國家表示希望加入。在最近一封由一百多名前任和現任政治和軍事官員簽名的公開信中，美國緝毒局（DEA）實際上重現了弗朗西斯·福山曾經稱之為“曆史的終結”的時代。與此同時，金磚國家正在倡導一種截然不同的主權與安全關係觀，這種觀點為政治和價值觀中立提供了更大的空間。而北約則認為，各國的文化和政治理念必須保持一致，否則全球安全就會受到損害。金磚國家聯盟的前提是，政治和文化多樣性，而不是一致性，才能增強全球安全。我們現在可以理解，為什麽俄羅斯和西方在烏克蘭問題上的鬥爭具有如此重要的全球意義，這是一場願景的衝突。北約認為，其結果將決定其核心意識形態的命運，即自由價值觀的擴張將帶來全球和平與繁榮。自蘇聯解體以來，這已成為北約的
核心信念和核心使命——金磚國家也認為，這場戰爭的結果將決定其核心意識形態的命運。其核心意識形態的信念
認為文化和政治多樣性
是全球和平與繁榮的關鍵。其核心信念和核心使命
日益依賴於文明多極化的製度化。我認為，我稱之為金磚國家意識形態的文明多極化比大多數分析家認為的更為複雜，因為它借鑒了俄羅斯自21世紀初以來在國內推行的主權民主概念。起初，主權民主中沒有外交政策的成分，因為當時俄羅斯致力於融入西方。希望主權民主可以作為俄羅斯在西方站穩腳跟的手段，這種希望持續了十年，但當它被拋棄時，正是對主權的強調，使得俄羅斯能夠從親西方的外交政策平穩過渡到文明多極化.

自2022年以來，俄羅斯開始將自己視為一個文明國家。這一轉變的意義仍在演變，但一位深入思考過文明多極化與安全之間關係的學者是莫斯科國立大學的bis教授bis miuv。miuv認為，自由國際主義在哲學上與外交政策現實主義相悖，並且, 這種不相容性阻礙了
全球許多衝突的解決。世界領導人麵臨的挑戰是如何防止這種緊張局勢升級為一場吞噬整個世界的衝突。

Globe miru s認為，存在一個框架，在這個框架內，這種衝突不必成為現實，他稱之為文明現實主義。民族現實主義者認為，當前的國際體係將無法在自由主義與現實主義之間的衝突中生存。自由主義認為，使用武力迫使各國服從普遍的道德框架；而現實主義則認為，使用武力是為了確保每個國家的生存。這兩種觀點都會導致衝突持續存在，不斷加深，並最終跨越國界。因此，自由主義應該重新審視自身，將其視為眾多聲音中的一個，而不是全人類唯一合法的聲音。放棄自由主義對普遍道德權威的主張，這是全球穩定與和平的關鍵。

因為自由帝國主義已經與試圖將西德在軍事、政治和經濟領域確立地位的努力交織在一起，而所有這些都建立在西方自由主義價值觀的道德優越性之上。同樣，現實主義也必須被重新接受，這樣主權和權力就不再是國家行為的絕對道德理由。相反，一個新構想的國家體係應該采用多極化的哲學前提是價值觀中立，因此，即使是價值觀不相容的國家，也必須學會共存。這種轉變的可行性如何？MV 謹慎地表示，這將是國際關係體係的一次重大變革。然而，曆史上曾有過先例。

17 世紀的歐洲，領導人因近一個世紀的無休止戰爭而精疲力竭，他們選擇減少宗教價值觀在國際事務中的作用。我認為，文明現實主義者所呼籲的實際上是一項新的《西非條約》，它將像其前身一樣，終結基於價值觀的戰爭的泛濫。文明現實主義認為，miru 的意義在於使多極化發揮作用，將其製度化，成為多元文明的代表，每個文明都有其自身的文化和政治勢力範圍。為了實現這一目標，我們必須取代說到國際關係的主流政治語言，這似乎有些牽強，但要是想起這也是西方最著名的國際關係理論流派之一——社會建構主義——的號召，它認為，新的政治機遇可能源於精英階層對新政治語言的選擇，因此，取代主流政治語言或許是……首先，診斷我們的全球男性是由於……碎片化造成的，並提出一種新的政治話語，設想一個……植根於共同理想、共同身份和意義的全球社會，從而……避免自由主義和……現實主義的陷阱，這兩者都會導致二元論……然而，任何社會建構主義的解決方案都需要幾代人的時間才能實施，而世界可能沒有……那麽長時間……因此，我希望看到……它與常識性的外交智慧相結合，即所謂的……英國外交學派，以及……像文明現實主義那樣的中立性……

英國學派主張……價值觀多樣性的重要性，這種多樣性要求各國加強英國學派所稱的全球社會，即國家利益相互交織的互動舞台。孤立任何國家的行為都被認為是不負責任且危險的，因為它們會撕裂我們全球社會的根基。外交官的職責可以比作婚姻顧問，而離婚根本不是一個選項。那麽，中立如何融入其中呢？我認為，尤其是在價值觀方麵的中立，與文明現實主義的框架完美契合。

正如我之前所提到的，中立是一個有問題的概念，因為它會宣揚獨特的國家文化政治價值觀，並可能降低國家的政治安全。事實上的獨立總是與國家安全相衝突，但正如英國學派喜歡指出的那樣，現代民族國家體係很大程度上歸功於這樣一種理念：在一個健康的社會中，宗教價值觀不僅應該被區分開來。遠離政治，但同樣重要的是，這種古老的觀念，即我們最深層的價值觀並非源於政治，而是超越政治，最終使領導人能夠接受價值觀，甚至是宗教價值觀的中立，而不是為之拚死搏鬥。這最終導致了西方和平的失敗、三十年戰爭的結束以及隨後歐洲作為未來三個世紀全球強國的崛起。如果我們今天希望避免另一場全球價值觀衝突，我們迫切需要重新獲得這種中立。如果這場衝突的破壞性遠超很久以前歐洲宗教戰爭造成的破壞，謝謝。

The REAL War: BRICS Multipolarity VS NATO Hegemony

Prof. Nicolai Petro Neutrality Studies 2024年10月29日
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFTcQVTld1Q

The new battle of ideologies is in full swing, argues Nicolai N. Petro at the 2024 Neutrality Conference in Kyoto. Watch his remarks and analysis which he entitled "Neutrality, Security, and Civilizational Realism: A Conundrum with Lessons for Russia and Ukraine"

From his remarks: "This liberal civilizational identity is no longer limited to the cultural confines of Europe. It is assumed to extend globally, which makes the expansion of NATO “to include Japan, Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, and any other democratic country that, like Argentina, expresses a wish to join,” as suggested in a recent open letter signed by more than a hundred former and current political and military officials, the reincarnation of what Francis Fukuyama once termed "the end of history." 

Meanwhile, the BRICS+ countries are promoting a very different view of the relationship between sovereignty and security, one that offers more space for both political and values neutrality. Whereas NATO presumes that the cultural and political ideals of states must conform, lest global security be undermined, the BRICS alliance is premised on the idea that it is political and cultural diversity, rather than unanimity, that enhances global security.

We can now grasp why the struggle between Russia and the West over Ukraine has global significance. It is a conflict of visions. NATO assume that its outcome will determine the fate of its core ideology—the belief that the expansion of liberal values will lead to global peace and prosperity. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, this has become NATO's defining belief and core mission.

BRICS also assumes that the outcome of this war will determine the fate of its core ideology—the belief that cultural and political diversity are key to global peace and prosperity. Its defining belief and core mission increasingly lie in the institutionalization of civilizational multipolarity. 

I argue that Civilizational Multipolarity—which I call the BRICS ideology—is more sophisticated than most analysts assume, since it borrows much from the concept of Sovereign Democracy that Russia has pursued domestically since the early 2000s. At first there was no foreign policy component to sovereign democracy, since Russia was at that point committed to integrating into the West. 

The hope that sovereign democracy might serve as a means of anchoring Russia in the West survived for a decade, but when it was abandoned, it was the  emphasis on sovereignty that allowed Russia to transition smoothly from a pro-western foreign policy, to a policy of civilizational multipolarity. Since 2022, Russia has, in addition, begun to define itself as a “civilization-state.”   

The meaning of this term is still evolving, but one scholar who has thought deeply about the relationship between civilizations, multipolarity, and security is Moscow State University Professor, Boris Mezhuev.

Mezhuev makes the case that Liberal internationalism is philosophically at odds with foreign policy Realism, and that this incompatibility is preventing the resolution of many conflicts around the globe. The challenge facing world leaders is how to prevent this tension from escalating into a conflict that consumes the entire globe. Mezhuev suggests that there is a framework within which this conflict need not become existential. He calls this framework Civilizational Realism." (...)
<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>

we can now grasp why the struggle
between Russia and the West over Ukraine
has such Global significance it is a
conflict of Visions NATO assumes that
its outcome will determine the fate of
its core ideology namely the belief that
the expansion of liberal values will
lead to Global peace and prosperity
since the collapse of the Soviet Union
this has become NATO's defining belief
and core Mission bricks also assume that
the outcome of this war will determine
the fate of its core ideology the belief
that cultural and political diversity
are key to Global peace and prosperity
its defining belief and core Mission
increasingly lie in the institutionalization of civilizational
multipolarity I argue that civilizational multipolarity which I
call the brics ideology is more sophisticated than most
analysts assume since it borrows much
from the concept of sovereign democracy
that Russia has pursued domestically
since the early. 
2000s thank you Pas thank you Pascal thank you colleagues for for coming and listening to our efforts at wisdom I've amended my remarks a bit uh they do not deal much  pecifically with Ukraine but I hope they add something to the broader
context they are now entitled neutrality security and civilizational realism a
conundrum with lessons for Russia and Ukraine and this is one of the authors
of the concept of civilizational realism that I will be making reference
to it can be argued that the Strategic ambition of regional great powers like
Russia is to prevent the emergence of a global hegemon by promoting Global
non-alignment and yet its own identity is in many ways tied to dominating in
its own sphere of interest can a self-professed civilization State like Russia or any
other Define its sphere of interest in a way that is not threatening to
others part of the answer May lie in how lesser Regional powers like Ukraine view
neutrality when they turn to neutrality
as a security strategy such States face
a stark Choice passive neutrality allows
them to serve as a buffer zone where
rival powers can disengage at least
temporarily or they could adopt an assertive
neutrality and play Rival Powers against
each other by constantly shifting
Allegiance both strategies strengthen
National political autonomy an essential
attribute I would say of sovereignty but passive or assertive
neutrality is either one compatible with Western Alliance
structure like NATO and the EU as we
have seen in the case of Hungary
Slovakia and turkey many see neutrality
as being at odds with the values of the
alliance and therefore a Potential
Threat to them thus neutrality poses a
conundrum on the one hand the ability to
pursue policies that reflect the
distinctive cultural and political
values of the nation are an essential
aspect of national sovereignty but too
much Independence could weaken the security Shield offered
by the alliance and make it vulnerable
to threats from aggressive neighbors sometimes the criticism
leveled at dissidents like hungery
turkey and Slovakia is simply that their
disloyalty undermines the security of
the alliance but this in turn rests on
the idea that NATO reflects a distinctive civil civilizational
identity and that the security benefits
that derive from membership obliges
Nations to accept this specific liberal
civilizational identity this liberal civilizational
identity is no longer limited to the
cultural confines of Europe it is ex it
is assumed to extend globally which
makes the expansion of NATO and here I
quote to include Japan a Australia South
Korea the Philippines and any other
Democratic country like Argentina
expresses a wish to join end quote as
suggested in a recent open letter signed
by more than a hundred former and
current political and military officials
the DEA facto Reincarnation of what
Francis fukuyama once termed the end of
History meanwhile bricks countries are
promoting a very different view of the
relationship between sovereignty and
security one that offers more space for
political and values neutrality whereas NATO presumes that
the cultural and political ideals of
states must conform lest Global Security
be undermined the brics alliance is
premised on the idea that it is
political and cultural diversity rather
than unanimity that enhances Global
Security security we can now grasp why
the struggle between Russia and the West
over Ukraine has such Global significance it is a conflict of Visions
NATO assumes that its outcome will
determine the fate of its core ideology
namely the belief that the expansion of
liberal values will lead to Global peace
and prosperity since the collapse of the
Soviet Union this has become NATO's
defining belief and core Mission brics also assumes that the
outcome of this war will determine the
fate of its core ideology the belief
that cultural and political diversity
are key to Global peace and prosperity
its defining belief and core Mission
increasingly lie in the institutionalization of civilizational
multipolarity I argue that civilizational multipolarity which I
call the brics ideology is more sophisticated than most
analysts assume since it borrows much
from the concept of sovereign democracy
that Russia has pursued domestically
since the early 2000s at first there was no foreign
policy component to Sovereign to Sovereign democracy since Russia was
committed at that point to integration
into the West the hope that Sovereign
democracy might serve as as a means of
anchoring Russia in the west survived
for a decade but when it was abandoned
it was the emphasis on sovereignty that
allowed Russia to transition smoothly
from a pro-western foreign policy to a
policy of civilizational multipolarity
since 2022 Russia has in addition begun to
Divine itself as a civilization State
the meaning of this turn is still
evolving but one scholar who has thought
deeply about the relationship between
civilizations multipolarity and security
is Moscow States bis Professor bis miuv
miuv makes the case that liberal
internationalism is philosophically at
odds with foreign policy realism and
that the incompatibility is preventing the
resolution of many conflicts around the globe the challenge
facing world leaders is how to to
prevent this tension from escalating
into a conflict that consumes the entire
Globe miru s suggests that there is a
framework within which this conflict
need not become existential he calls
this framework civilizational
realism civilizational realists believe
that the current International system
will not survive the clash between a
liberalism that justifies the use of
force to make States submit to a univers
universal moral framework and a realism
that justifies the use of force to
ensure the survival of every individual
State both of these Visions lead to
conflicts that persist deepen and
eventually cross National borders liberalism should therefore
reconceive itself as but one voice among
many rather than the sole legitimate
voice for all of humanity relinquishing
liberalism's claim to Universal moral
Authority is the key to global stability
and peace because liberal imperialism
has become intertwined with efforts to
establish Western Germany in military
politics and economics all of which rest
on the claim of the moral superiority of
Western liberal values realism must likewise be Recon
received so that sovereignty and power
no longer serve as absolute moral
justifications for State actions instead
a newly conceived State system should
adopt the philosophical premise of
multipolarity in which values neutrality
is the suum bonum and thus even
countries with incompatible values
systems must learn to coexist how plausible is such a
transformation MV is cautious saying
that it would be quote a major upheaval
in the system of international relations
end quote but there is a historical
precedent for it in the 17th century in
Europe leaders exhausted by nearly a
century of incessant Warfare chose to
reduce the role of religious values in
international affairs I believe that what civilizational
realists are calling for is in effect a
new Treaty of West faia that like its
predecessor would put an end to the prolif proliferation of
values-based warfare the point of civilizational
realism says miru is to make multipolarity functional to institutionalize it as the
representation of diverse civilizational
poles each one with its own cultural and
political sphere of influence to get
there he says we must quote replace the
dominant political language of international relations this may seem far-fetched
until one recalls that it is also the
call of one of the West's most well-known schools of international
relations Theory social constructivism
which argues that new political
opportunities can emerge from the
Elite's choice of a new political
language therefore replacing the
dominant political language might Begin
by diagnosing our Global males as due to
fragmentation and suggesting a new
political discourse that envisions a
global Society rooted in common ideals
shared identities and meanings thereby
avoiding the pitfalls of liberalis M and
realism both of which lead to Binary
thinking any social constructivist
solution however will take generations
to implement and the world may not have
that long I would therefore like to see
it paired with the common sense
diplomatic wisdom what is called the
English school of diplomacy and with
neutrality like civilizational realism
the English School affirms the
importance of values diversity this
diversity requires that Nations
strengthen what the English school calls
Global society which is defined as the
arena of interaction where national
interests overlap efforts to isolate Any Nation
are considered irresponsible and
dangerous because they tear at the very
fabric of our Global Society
the proper task of diplomats can
therefore best be likened to that of a
marriage counselor where divorce is
simply not an option so how does neutrality fit
in I believe that neutrality especially
with respect to values fits nicely into
the framework of civilizational realism
as I suggested earlier neutrality is a
problematic concept to the extent that
it promotes distinctive National
cultural political values it can
potentially make nations less secure political and values sovereignty
de facto Independence are thus always in
tension with National Security but as the English school likes
to point out the modern nation state
system owes much to the idea that in a
healthy Society religious values should
not only be kept separate from politics
but also right Ral it in importance this ancient notion that our
deepest values did not derive from
politics but transcend politics is what
ultimately allowed leaders to embrace
neutrality with respect to values even religious values rather than fight to the death over them this eventually led to the Peace of West failure the end of the 30 Years War and the subsequent Emer emergence of Europe as a global Powerhouse for the next three centuries we sorely need to recapture this type of neutrality today if we wish
to avoid another Global confrontation over values one that would dwarf the devastation caused by the religious wars in Europe so long ago thank you.