风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
乌克兰是最新的新保守主义灾难
https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/m6rb2a5tskpcxzesjk8hhzf96zh7w7
杰弗里·萨克斯 (Jeffrey D. Sachs) 2022 年 6 月 27 日 | 其他新闻
乌克兰战争是美国新保守主义运动30年计划的顶峰。 拜登政府中充斥着同样的新保守派人士，他们支持美国在塞尔维亚（1999年）、阿富汗（2001年）、伊拉克（2003年）、叙利亚（2011年）、利比亚（2011年）发动的战争，并且为挑衅俄罗斯做了很多事情。 入侵乌克兰。 新保守派的记录是一场彻头彻尾的灾难，但拜登却在他的团队中配备了新保守派。 结果，拜登正在引导乌克兰、美国和欧盟走向另一场地缘政治崩溃。 如果欧洲有任何洞察力，它就会与美国的这些外交政策失败区分开来。
新保守主义运动于 20 世纪 70 年代围绕一群公共知识分子兴起，其中一些人受到芝加哥大学政治学家利奥·施特劳斯和耶鲁大学古典学家唐纳德·卡根的影响。 新保守派领导人包括诺曼·波德霍雷茨、欧文·克里斯托尔、保罗·沃尔福威茨、罗伯特·卡根（唐纳德的儿子）、弗雷德里克·卡根（唐纳德的儿子）、维多利亚·纽兰（罗伯特的妻子）、埃利奥特·艾布拉姆斯和金伯利·艾伦·卡根（弗雷德里克的妻子）。
新保守派的主要信息是，美国必须在世界每个地区的军事力量上占据主导地位，并且必须对抗有朝一日可能挑战美国全球或地区主导地位的崛起的地区大国，其中最重要的是俄罗斯和中国。为此，美国应在全球数百个军事基地预先部署军事力量，并准备好在必要时领导选择性战争。只有当联合国对美国的目的有用时，美国才可以利用联合国。
保罗·沃尔福威茨 (Paul Wolfowitz) 在 2002 年为国防部撰写的国防政策指导草案 (DPG) 中首次阐明了这一做法。尽管德国明确承诺，该草案仍要求将美国领导的安全网络扩展到中欧和东欧。1990年，外交部长汉斯-迪特里希·根舍尔表示，德国统一后不会出现北约东扩。 沃尔福威茨还阐述了美国选择战争的理由，捍卫美国独立甚至单独行动以应对美国关注的危机的权利。据韦斯利·克拉克将军称，沃尔福威茨已于 1991年5月向克拉克明确表示，美国将领导伊拉克、叙利亚和其他前苏联盟友的政权更迭行动。
早在2008年小布什政府将北约东扩纳入美国官方政策之前，新保守派就支持北约对乌克兰的扩张。他们认为乌克兰的北约成员身份是美国在地区和全球主导地位的关键。2006年4月，罗伯特·卡根 (Robert Kagan) 详细阐述了北约东扩的新保守主义主张：
俄罗斯人和中国人认为 [ 前苏联的“颜色革命”] 没有什么自然的，只有西方支持的政变，旨在扩大西方在世界战略重要地区的影响力。他们错了吗？可能不会 在西方民主国家的敦促和支持下，乌克兰成功的自由化只是该国加入北约和欧盟的前奏——简而言之，是西方自由霸权的扩张？”
卡根承认北约东扩的可怕影响。 他引用一位专家的话说，“克里姆林宫正在认真地为‘乌克兰之战’做好准备。”苏联解体后，美国和俄罗斯都应该寻求一个中立的乌克兰，作为谨慎的缓冲和保障。安全阀。相反，新保守派想要美国的“霸权”，而俄罗斯人参战部分是出于防御，部分也是出于他们自己的帝国主义自负。克里米亚战争（1853-6）的阴影，当时英国和法国寻求 在俄罗斯向奥斯曼帝国施加压力后，削弱了俄罗斯在黑海的地位。
卡根以普通公民的身份撰写了这篇文章，而他的妻子维多利亚·纽兰 (Victoria Nuland) 是小布什时期的美国驻北约大使。纽兰是新保守派的杰出代表。 除了担任布什驻北约大使外，纽兰还在 2013-17 年间担任巴拉克·奥巴马负责欧洲和欧亚事务的助理国务卿，参与推翻乌克兰亲俄总统维克托·亚努科维奇，现在担任拜登的副国务卿。国家指导美国对乌克兰战争的政策。
新保守主义的观点基于一个压倒性的错误前提：美国的军事、金融、技术和经济优势使其能够在世界所有地区发号施令。这种立场既显着傲慢又蔑视证据。自20世纪50年代以来，美国在其参与的几乎所有地区冲突中都遭遇了阻碍或失败。然而，在“乌克兰之战”中，新保守派不顾俄罗斯的强烈反对，准备通过扩大北约来挑起与俄罗斯的军事对抗，因为他们坚信，俄罗斯将被美国的金融制裁和北约的武器击败。
由金伯利·艾伦·卡根（Kimberley Allen Kagan）领导的新保守主义智库战争研究所（ISW）（并得到通用动力公司和雷神公司等国防承包商名人的支持）继续承诺乌克兰会取得胜利。 对于俄罗斯的进展，ISW 给出了一个典型的评论：”无论哪一方占领了[西维耶顿涅茨克]城市，俄罗斯在作战和战略层面的攻势可能已经达到顶峰，让乌克兰有机会重新启动其作战行动—— 进行水平反攻，将俄罗斯军队击退。”
然而，实际情况却表明事实并非如此。西方的经济制裁对俄罗斯影响不大，但对世界其他国家的“回旋镖”影响却很大。此外，美国有限的生产能力和破碎的供应链严重削弱了美国向乌克兰提供弹药和武器装备的能力。俄罗斯的工业能力当然使乌克兰相形见绌。俄罗斯的GDP大约是战前乌克兰的10倍，而乌克兰现在已经在战争中失去了大部分工业能力。
当前战斗最有可能的结果是俄罗斯将征服乌克兰的大片地区，或许使乌克兰陷入内陆或接近内陆。 随着战争和制裁的军事损失以及滞胀后果，欧洲和美国的挫败感将会加剧。如果美国的右翼煽动者上台（或者就特朗普而言，重新掌权）并承诺通过危险的升级来恢复美国褪色的军事荣耀，那么连锁反应可能是毁灭性的。
真正的解决办法不是冒这场灾难的风险，而是结束过去30年的新保守主义幻想，让乌克兰和俄罗斯回到谈判桌，北约承诺结束对乌克兰和格鲁吉亚东扩的承诺，以换取乌克兰和格鲁吉亚的东扩承诺。尊重和保护乌克兰主权和领土完整的可行和平。
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
新保守主义Neocon or Neoconservatism，是一场始于20世纪60年代美国自由鹰派的政治运动，他们对民主党日益和平主义的外交政策以及1960年代不断增长的新左派和反主流文化（尤其是越南抗议活动）感到失望。一些人还开始质疑他们对“伟大社会”等国内政策的自由主义信念。新保守派通常主张促进民主和干预国际事务，包括通过实力实现和平，并以蔑视共产主义和政治激进主义而闻名。
许多新保守主义的追随者在1970年代、1980年代、1990年代和 2000年代的共和党总统执政期间在政治上产生了影响力，在乔治·W·布什执政期间影响力达到顶峰，当时他们在推动和策划2003年入侵伊拉克方面发挥了重要作用。乔治·W·布什政府中著名的新保守主义者包括保罗·沃尔福威茨、埃利奥特·艾布拉姆斯、理查德·珀尔和保罗·布雷默。虽然副总统迪克·切尼和国防部长唐纳德·拉姆斯菲尔德不被认为是新保守派，但高级官员仔细听取了新保守派顾问关于外交政策的意见，特别是国防以色列和提升美国在中东的影响力。
新保守主义的批评者用这个词来形容支持侵略性军国主义或新帝国主义的外交政策和战争鹰派。从历史上看，新保守主义一词指的是那些在20世纪60年代和1970年代从反斯大林主义左翼转向美国保守主义阵营的人。该运动的思想根源在于 Norman Podhorez 编辑的《Commentary》杂志。他们公开反对新左派，并以这种方式帮助定义了这场运动。
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]
