原文鏈接：https://medium.com/@giorgioprovinciali/a-misstep-in-davos-highlights-the-need-for-a-paradigm-shift-30705cb625c0?sk=a7cba04138e79f5183651ce5a5b644e6
A Misstep In Davos Highlights The Need For A Paradigm Shift
By: Giorgio Provinciali
Live from Ukraine ????????
Dmytrivka, Donetsk The so-called Abu Dhabi negotiations have turned out to bethe farce the world wanted to see, becausethe Russians will continue the war they unleashed. The Davos meeting, however, revealed a no less disturbing picture, as many European countries will continue to finance it, and the United States will dictate the price, timeframe, and rules of its hegemony over European and Kyivs defense.
Many have called President Volodymyr Zelenskys interventionungenerousbecause in thewordsof Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani Europe has done everything to support Ukraines independence politically, financially, and militarily.
This is partly true: without the economic support of the European Union lets call it by its name Ukraine would be a failed state, perhaps already disappeared from the map. However, it is equally true thatwhile Brussels was keeping Kyiv afloat with one hand, it was alsofinancing Russian terrorismthrough record purchases year after year, from 2022 to today of Russian hydrocarbons: 200 230 billionpaidto Moscow, compared to 140 160 billionallocatedto Kyiv for its defense.
Likewise,it should also be remembered that both European and overseas partners have consistently denied Ukraine the weapons that could truly have allowed it to defend and reaffirm its territorial integrity.
In the decisive phase of the victorious counteroffensive of 2022, tanks were denied precisely when they would have enabled the reconquest of much of the remaining territories illegally occupied by the Russian Federation, allowing the occupiers to entrench themselves there and establish the impenetrable Surovikin Lines. Long-range weapons were denied, while the production and purchase of Russian weapons was financed directly or indirectly. Often obsoleteweapons were delivered, subject to inane operational caveats, andrestrictions were imposed that were incompatible with the noble declarations of intent that are still being reiterated.
However, Zelensky himself is not free of errors. His presence in Davos, by the way he engaged there, was inappropriate. Davos is a place of finance, economic elites, and reassuring, nonbinding narratives.At this stage, Ukraine needed decision-makers, not listeners. The fact that it had decided not to attend until the day before, and that the change of direction occurred after Donald Trumps whistle, reinforces the impression ofhierarchical asymmetry. Not initiative, but reaction. Trump called, and he responded. By reiterating from the same pulpit the White House leaders invectives against Ukraines only allies.
Davos traditionally symbolizes cohesion and stability, encouraging investors and partners. Trump came with the opposite intention, and to please him, Zelensky repeated that same mistake. The leader of the Ukrainian Resistance continues to focus onframework agreementswith the US, which arent wrong in an absolute sense, but become so if theyre sold as solutions.
InIstanbul, in 2022, they served to buy time while Ukraine reorganized militarily and the West had not yet shown its true colors.Today, the context is radically different: the West says its tired of a war it never fought, the US is in a phase of rentrenchment, displaying postures increasingly similar to the Kremlins rhetoric, and Moscow no longer needs to feign openness, as it made clear in Abu Dhabi.
If reintroduced without an underlying strategy of force, framework agreements become a suspension of reality.A narrative useful to Washington and dangerous for Kyiv. Precisely what Zelensky accuses the EU of.
Suchagreements work only if they are explicitly tactical, temporary, and accompanied by a controlled de-escalation strategy. Otherwise, they becomethe preamble to a delayed surrender.
The most difficult political issue raised by Zelensky concerns Europes renunciation of its role as a strategic player. Its a shame that he himself accepted and supported restrictive initiatives like the PURL, whichleaveWashington with the power to decide on prices and timelines, even delegating the narrative of peace.
If this is a European mistake, Zelensky has accepted it, normalized it, and even partially legitimized it by continuing to treat Europe as an audience rather than an actor.
Ukraine today lacks the independent leverage that Europe lacks. In this context, Zelensky risks becoming the face of a strategy that isnt his own while awaiting real European alternatives. If the greatest achievement of that improvisation was translating the Russian-written peace plan intoproseand then sending it back to the sender as Western, we are far from the turning point Zelensky hopes for.
Ukraine had alegal,historical, andpolitical basisfor bringing the issue ofrestoringa minimum nuclear deterrent back to the table after the spectacular failure of the Budapest Memorandum.
The discussion wasnt about uncontrolled proliferation, nor a violation of international law, but rather the reacquisition of deterrence capabilities in the face of formally violated security guarantees, armed aggression, and the total failure of guarantors to comply. Although thisremainsthe predominant issue in the internal debate, Zelensky hasraisedit but never transformed it into a real negotiating tool: no ultimatum, no credible roadmap, no structured pressure on allies. He chose not to use the only card that forces everyone to truly sit down at the table, despite Ukraine having the expertise, materials, space, and time to do so. Not playing it meant leaving the strategic initiative to Washington and Moscow,renouncing the only tool capable of breaking the current hypocritical balance. This is likely also the result of the same pressures to which Zelensky accuses on a broader scale the EU of bowing. In this sense, his speech to the wrong audience should be read as a mea culpa. In this, too,Ukraine has proven itself European.
Hours after his requisitory against Europe after Trimps one at the Davos meeting, Zelensky exhibited the promise of additional PAC-3 missiles for Patriot as a success. First of all, it should be noted that its Ukrainian mostly European allies who have paid for those missiles, and that the US just gave its imprimatur to that, once again dictating times and prices for European and Kyivs defense.
Far from being a victory, that message proved the existence ofa toxic relationship.
Without American missiles, Ukraine could operate its air defense using the Samp/T systems, but here in Ukraine we have only a couple of them. MBDA (with Eurosam) hasboostedproduction of Aster 30 interceptors. So much so that it has been able todelivermissile volumes approximately five times higher than planned for 2025. This is why more have also beendeliveredto Ukraine.
A reconversion of European industry would be necessary as is already happening with Renault and some German car manufacturers, for example. Production times have already been reduced and will be further reduced in 2026, buta sensible choice on the Ukrainian side might have been to push for joint ventureslike those with Rheinmetall, making its supply chain available to itself and, with a view to the future, to the EU, of which we will be a member.
The Samp/T is a European pillar, but most of the hundreds of missiles produced each year now go to the UK, France, and Italy. This is why I insist onraising awareness of the issue from a Ukrainian perspective.
A paradigm shift is needed.
The rest of the best anti-aircraft defense here in Ukraine is already European. This is no small matter and should be noted.
The system that works best against cruise missiles and drones is the IRIS-T, a European system. Its missiles are derived from AAMs and offer extremely high precision at a lower cost than the Asters. This is why Zelensky just a few hours agoagreedto another 18 complete batteries, including launchers and interceptors.
Even the NASAMS can survive an American withdrawal because they can integrate with European radars and have a modular architecture.
The Crotale and CAMM-ER are also highly credible European solutions that free the Samp/T from use other than for ballistic threats. Not to mention recent laser systems like the DrsgonFire, which are British.
Ukrainian anti-aircraft defense is already essentially European and is already operating without American missiles.
However,regarding ballistic threats, a paradigm shift is needed, and it begins by raising awareness of the importance of alternatives like Samp/T. Only by enhancing these alternatives and not creating further dependence on the US can an alternative solution be found.
Therefore, I believe its right to smooth things over with the Americans to a certain extent, so that they can provide PAC-3 while, in the meantime,pushing for alternatives that already exist and must be implemented in the Ukrainian production chain because they are already part of the European one.
The problem isnt the existence of alternatives, but their industrial scale. That is, what is decided today.
We need a European industrial paradigm shift with a Ukrainian share in the supply chain. Ukraine must not be the end customer but a production hub.These are issues that should also be addressed in the economic sphere, addressing audiences like the one in Davos.
The conclusion is therefore operational, not just ideological: it makes sense to smooth the fur of the Americans until the PAC-3 arrive, but only while shifting the center of gravity towards the onlystrategic way out.Europeanizing anti-ballistic defense with SAMP/T and Aster and doing so by including Ukraine in the industrial chain as part of the solution, not as a passive recipient.
Zelensky has already demonstrated his ability to break the apparent trajectory. Therefore, in Ukraine, there is hope that this strategy still conceals a final twist.
The continuous blackouts severely damaged the heating system of our house in Western Ukraine while we were here in Donbas.
Without electricity, the pump couldnt circulate the liquid while the fire was lit. As a result, the system caught fire, and the whole house was at risk of burning. Fortunately, it did not, but the whole system needs to be changed, and the house needs to be restored. Tubes are all bent, walls are blackened by haze, and the heating system doesnt work, requiring an entirely new system.
We are doing our best since Allas parents live there, but theres still a lot to work on here, too, as the people around us are in no better situation.
Were renewing our fundraising campaign and thanking everyone who joins to help us restore what Russia is destroying. Even a small donation helps. Well keep you updated on developments.
Thank you all, friends ????????
達沃斯的失誤凸顯模式轉變的必要性
作者：Giorgio Provinciali
翻譯：旺財球球
烏克蘭前線報道????????
頓涅茨克，第米特裏夫卡所謂的阿布紮比談判終究成了全世界想要看到的鬧劇，因為俄羅斯要繼續它發起的戰爭。然而，達沃斯會議呈現了同樣令人不安的局麵：許多歐洲國家會繼續為這場戰爭提供資金支持，而美國將決定其代價、時間表以及規則，從而確立對歐洲和基輔防務的霸權。
許多人稱沃洛季米爾澤連斯基總統的發言不夠大方，正如意大利外長安東尼奧塔亞尼所言歐洲在政治上、財政上和軍事上盡了一切努力支持烏克蘭的獨立。
這在某種程度上是真的：沒有歐盟的經濟支持直言不諱烏克蘭將會是戰敗國，甚至可能早已從地圖上消失。然而，同樣真實的是，當布魯塞爾用一隻手扶持基輔時，另一隻手卻通過創紀錄的俄羅斯化石燃料采購在資助俄羅斯的恐怖主義從2022年至今年複一年：向莫斯科支付了約2000億至2300億歐元，而用於基輔防務的僅為約1400億至1600億歐元。
（圖：俄羅斯襲擊後烏克蘭民用基礎設施的電氣麵板版權所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
同樣也應當記住，歐洲及海外夥伴一直拒絕向烏克蘭提供那些本可真正使其捍衛並重奪領土完整的武器。
在2022年決定性的勝利反攻階段，恰在其可助於奪回被俄聯邦非法占據的大部分剩餘地區之際，烏克蘭被拒絕提供坦克，使占領者得以在當地鞏固陣地並建立起難以穿透的蘇羅維金防線。烏被拒絕提供遠程武器，而對俄武器的生產與購買卻被直接或間接資助。經常交付的是過時的武器，附帶荒謬的使用限製，並施加了與那些仍在重申的崇高意向宣言不相稱的約束。
（圖：Alla在被俄聯邦摧毀的烏克蘭民用設施內景版權所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
然而，澤連斯基本人也並非沒有錯誤。他出席達沃斯及在那兒演講並不恰當。達沃斯是金融與經濟精英聚集之地，充斥著安撫性和非約束性的敘事。在此階段，烏克蘭需要的是決策者，而不是傾聽者。烏克蘭原本決定不出席，直到前一天在唐納德川普的一聲令下才改弦易轍，都更加強了等級不對等的印象。不是主動，而是被動。特朗普一通電話，他便回應了。並在同一講台上重申白宮領導人對烏克蘭唯一盟友的抨擊。
傳統上達沃斯象征著凝聚與穩定，旨在鼓勵投資者與合作夥伴。特朗普帶著相反意圖而來，為討好他，澤連斯基重複了同樣的錯誤。烏克蘭抵抗運動的領導人持續把注意力放在同美國的框架協議上，這些協議本身並非絕對錯誤，但如果被當作解決方案來強賣，就有問題。
2022年在伊斯坦布爾，那些協議曾用以爭取時間，使烏克蘭得以重組軍力，而西方尚未露出真麵目。如今，情勢已大為不同：西方宣稱對一場它從未參戰的戰爭感到厭倦了；美國正在倒退，表現出越來越類似於克裏姆林宮的敘事姿態；莫斯科也不再需要偽裝開放，阿布紮比已明證此點。
如果在沒有以實力為支撐的前提下重新提出，框架協議便成了對現實的暫停。對華盛頓有用，卻對基輔危險的敘事恰恰是澤連斯基所指責歐盟的。
此類協議僅在明確為戰術性、臨時性且伴隨可控降級戰略時才有效，否則隻是延遲投降的序言。
（圖：Alla在烏克蘭一所被毀學校的瓦礫中版權所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
澤連斯基提出的最棘手的政治問題在於歐洲放棄了作為戰略參與者的角色。可惜他自己卻接受並支持了諸如PURL（采購/定價與受控時間表）之類的限製性倡議，這使華盛頓有權決定價格與時間表，甚至能主導和平敘事。
如果這是歐洲的一個失誤，澤連斯基已接受並將其常態化，甚至通過繼續將歐洲視為觀眾而非行動者而在某種程度上予以其部分合法化。
如今烏克蘭缺乏的是歐洲同樣缺乏的獨立籌碼。在這種情形下，在等待真正的歐洲替代方案時，澤連斯基有成為一套並非出自他本人的戰略麵孔的風險。如果這場即興之舉最大的成就是把俄方起草的和平計劃翻譯成文，然後再作為西方的名義發回發送者，那離澤連斯基所期望的轉折仍很遙遠。
（圖：Alla在烏克蘭前核武器基地內景版權所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
在布達佩斯備忘錄的慘痛失敗之後，烏克蘭有法律、曆史與政治依據，將恢複最低限度核威懾的問題重新提上議程。
討論並非關於不受控的擴散或違反國際法，而是關於在安全保障被正式違反、遭受武裝侵略以及擔保方徹底未能履約的情形下，重獲威懾能力。盡管這仍是國內討論中的主導議題，澤連斯基曾提出該問題，但從未將其轉化為真正的談判工具：沒有最後通牒、沒有可信的路線圖、也沒有對盟友施加結構性的壓力。他選擇不動用那張可以迫使所有人真正坐到談判桌前的牌，盡管烏克蘭具備相應的專業知識、材料、空間與時間。不出收就意味著將戰略主動權拱手讓給華盛頓與莫斯科，放棄了唯一能打破當前虛偽均衡的工具。這很可能也是澤連斯基所指責的，在更大範圍內歐盟屈從於的那些壓力的結果。從這個意義上看，他在錯誤聽眾麵前的發言應被視為一種自我反省。在這一點上，烏克蘭在某種程度上也表現出了歐洲性。
（圖片來源：Vatnik on X）
達沃斯會議上，在對歐洲的控訴在特朗普之後數小時內，澤連斯基又將獲得更多愛國者PAC-3導彈的承諾當作勝利。首先應指出，那些導彈主要是由烏克蘭的亦多為歐洲的盟友付費購買的，而美國不過再次蓋章同意，從而再次為歐洲和基輔的防務規定了時間與價格。
這遠非勝利，反而暴露了一種有毒的關係。
沒有美國導彈，烏克蘭仍可使用SAMP/T係統運作防空，但在烏克蘭我們隻有寥寥幾套。MBDA（與Eurosam）已大幅提高Aster 30攔截彈的生產，甚至能在2025年交付大約五倍於原計劃的導彈數量。這也是為何更多導彈也被交付到烏克蘭的原因之一。
歐洲工業的轉型勢在必行正如雷諾和一些德國汽車製造商已在做的那樣。生產周期已縮短，並將在2026年進一步縮短，但烏克蘭方麵一個明智的選擇或許應是推動與萊茵金屬等公司的合資企業，使自己能控製其供應鏈，並著眼未來為歐盟（我們將成為其中一員）所用。
SAMP/T是歐洲的中流砥柱，但每年生產的數百枚導彈大多流向英國、法國和意大利。這就是我堅持從烏克蘭視角提高對此問題的重視。
範式轉變是比需的。
烏克蘭這裏其餘最佳的防空係統已經是歐洲的。這並非小事，值得關注。
對抗巡航導彈和無人機最有效的係統是IRIS-T，這是一套歐洲體係。其攔截彈源於空對空導彈，具有極高精確度且成本低於Aster。因此，澤連斯基就在數小時前同意再獲取18套完整電池，包括發射器與攔截彈。
即便美國撤出，NASAMS也可存活，因為它能與歐洲雷達整合並具模塊化架構。
Crotale與CAMM-ER同樣是高度可信的歐洲解決方案，可使SAMP/T專注於對抗彈道威脅。更不用說近期如英國的DragonFire等激光係統。
烏克蘭的防空體係本質上已經是歐洲化的，並已在沒有美國導彈的情況下運行。
然而，針對彈道威脅，模式轉變仍然必需，而這一轉變始於提高對諸如SAMP/T這類替代方案重要性的認識。隻有增強這些替代方案，而非進一步加深對美國的依賴，才能找到替代出路。
（圖：Alla烏克蘭頓巴斯灰色地帶版權所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
因此，我認為在一定程度上與美國和稀泥是正確的，以便他們提供PAC-3，與此同時，應推進那些已存在並必須納入烏克蘭生產鏈中的替代方案，因為這些方案已是歐洲體係的一部分。
問題不在於替代方案是否存在，而在於其工業化規模。也就是說，決定權在今天。
我們需要歐洲工業範式的轉變，並使烏克蘭在供應鏈中占有份額。烏克蘭不應是最終客戶，而應成為生產樞紐。這些問題也應在經濟層麵被提出，麵向像達沃斯那樣的聽眾。
（圖：Alla在烏克蘭蘇梅大學廢墟上報道????????版權所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
結論因此是務實而非僅僅意識形態的：在PAC-3到位之前，安撫美國是合情合理的，但必須同時將重心逐步轉向唯一的戰略出路以SAMP/T與Aster實現反彈道能力的歐洲化，並將烏克蘭納入工業鏈，作為解決方案的一部分，而非被動的接受者。
澤連斯基已證明他有能力打破表麵上的軌跡。因此，在烏克蘭，人們對這一戰略帶來最終的轉機抱有希望。
***
持續的停電嚴重損壞了我們在烏克蘭西部的家中的供暖係統，而我們當時就在頓巴斯。
沒有電，點著的爐火無法通過水泵循環熱水。結果，係統起火，整個房子麵臨著燒毀的風險。幸而未被燒毀，但整個係統需要更換，房子也需要修複。管道都是歪的，牆壁被煙霧熏黑，供暖係統無法正常工作，需要徹底更換。
我們正在盡最大努力，因為Alla的父母住在那裏，但這裏還有許多工作要做，周圍的人處境也好不到哪兒去。
我們正在重啟籌款活動，感謝每一位支持我們修複被俄羅斯摧毀一切的朋友。即使是小額捐款也有幫助。我們會及時更新進展。
感謝大家，朋友們。
????????如果你相信我們的工作，請支持我們????????????
在過去的三年裏，我們一直在烏克蘭戰爭的各個前線進行報道
https://www.paypal.com/pools/c/9lP2mIk7Nk
