风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
欧洲和平与西方主导的世界秩序的终结？
查斯·弗里曼 2025年2月22日 视频报道
https://chasfreeman.net/the-end-of-peace-in-europe-and-the-western-dominated-world-order/
在由罗马广播电台新闻电视台/Amici Network主办的“结束乌克兰灾难”国际会议上的讲话
查斯·W·弗里曼大使（美国森林局，退役）
战争如何结束至关重要。拿破仑战争以欧洲列强（包括战败的法国）在维也纳会议上和解而告终。由此产生的包容性“欧洲协调”确保了长期（尽管并不完美）的和平，直到第一次世界大战才宣告结束。
那场战争主要发生在欧洲。随后，两个欧洲大国被恶意排除在维护欧洲稳定之外，也未承担任何责任。德国和俄罗斯的被逐出教会为第二次世界大战奠定了基础，对美国人来说，这场战争既是跨大西洋的，也是跨太平洋的。那场战争并非以和平告终，而是以冷战告终——一个由美苏军事对抗相互威慑维持的紧张但稳定的秩序。
俄罗斯未能在欧洲发挥与其实力相称的作用，如今再次将战争带到了欧洲大陆。历史的教训显而易见。欧洲不可能存在一个排除任何大国的稳定秩序。那些无法以和平方式确保其安全利益得到尊重的国家，没有理由不使用武力来捍卫自身利益。如果无法建立一个可持续的框架来维护其利益，他们宁愿选择战场上的成果，也不愿在谈判桌上达成协议。
这就是乌克兰战争的故事。近三十年来，美国和北约一直漠视并拒绝俄罗斯的安全关切。如今，俄罗斯发出最后通牒，要求就以下三项关切进行谈判：
（1）乌克兰保持中立，而非加入北约——一个以武装对抗俄罗斯为前提的联盟；
（2）尊重乌克兰大量俄语人口的语言和文化权利；以及
（3）就能够缓解俄罗斯和西方国家安全担忧的欧洲安全安排达成一致。
西方断然拒绝讨论这些问题。这让俄罗斯面临选择：要么放弃最后通牒，接受北约和美国军队在其西部边境全面驻扎；要么发动战争来阻止这一切。不出所料，俄罗斯选择了战争，尽管它将战争限制在其所谓的“特别军事行动”范围内。俄罗斯入侵乌克兰几周后，就与乌克兰达成了一项条约草案，其中乌克兰满足了俄罗斯的基本要求。但西方更感兴趣的是“孤立和削弱”俄罗斯，而非停火。它说服乌克兰违背了此前达成的协议。
乌克兰战争即将进入第四个年头。这场战争对乌克兰来说是灾难性的，对西方来说更是屈辱的。乌克兰已是强弩之末，人口减少，工业化程度下降，军事人力枯竭，民主制度丧失，国家破产，领土面积缩减。与此同时，俄罗斯并未被孤立或削弱。它一直在限制其目标，但其和平条件却日益苛刻。乌克兰的选择余地越来越小。
俄罗斯不会停止坚持乌克兰不对其构成威胁，也不会停止在欧洲建立更广泛的和平框架。俄罗斯和西方之间不会在乌克兰停火，也不会建立朝鲜半岛那样的“非军事区”。西方在战场上未能取得胜利，在谈判桌上也难以取得胜利。
乌克兰战争的替代方案无非是和平，即在乌克兰和俄罗斯之间划定边界，并防止欧洲分裂成相互敌对的阵营。要实现这一目标，俄罗斯和西方必须各自应对并采取行动，缓解对方的恐惧和猜疑。这对任何一方来说都并非易事。但现在是双方都该努力尝试的时候了。
自战争爆发以来，世界发生了翻天覆地的变化，显然使达成停战协议变得更加困难。
美国已成为“协议必须遵守”（PACTA SUNT SERVANDA）原则的惯犯。现在没有人，尤其是俄罗斯，相信华盛顿会信守诺言。
西方国家无耻地支持以色列在巴勒斯坦的残酷种族灭绝、对邻国的袭击以及领土扩张，这清楚地表明，大西洋共同体不再遵守或感到受国际法的约束。
西方对乌克兰和巴勒斯坦实行的公然双重标准，使其失去了在所有曾经被其殖民的人民心目中的道德权威。
“全球大多数”认为西方的政策不公正。美国和七国集团对其他国家实施的制裁和其他胁迫措施，导致这些国家几乎普遍不再尊重西方。
罗姆尼的领导地位以及追随它的意愿。
西方与巴西、印度和中国等复兴大国之间紧张且不断恶化的关系，这些大国有意帮助促成乌克兰和平，这确保了它们对西方的支持将比原本可能减少。
这些变化以及近期世界秩序的其他变化的累积效应，要么导致混乱加剧，要么导致一个新的国际体系的出现，在这个体系中，对各国主权平等及其安全关切的重新尊重将取代当前的全球无政府状态。乌克兰战争的结局将决定哪种选择将主宰我们的未来。
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.
