Nicolai Petro 金砖国家多极化 VS 北约霸权

真正的战争：金砖国家多极化 VS 北约霸权

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

尼古拉·N·佩特罗在京都举行的2024年中立性会议上指出，新的意识形态之战正在如火如荼地展开。观看他题为“中立、安全与文明现实主义：一个难题及其对俄罗斯和乌克兰的启示”的评论和分析。

他评论道：“这种自由的文明认同不再局限于欧洲的文化范围。它被认为会扩展到全球，这使得北约的扩张‘包括日本、澳大利亚、韩国、菲律宾以及任何像阿根廷一样表示希望加入的民主国家’（正如最近一封由一百多位前任和现任政治和军事官员签名的公开信所暗示的那样）成为弗朗西斯·福山曾经称之为‘历史的终结’的翻版。”

与此同时，“金砖国家+”国家正在倡导一种截然不同的主权与安全关系观，这种观为政治和价值观中立提供了更大的空间。北约认为各国的文化和政治理念必须保持一致，否则全球安全就会受到损害，而金砖国家联盟则以政治和文化多样性为前提，而非一致，从而增强全球安全。

我们现在可以理解，为什么俄罗斯与西方在乌克兰问题上的斗争具有全球意义。这是一场理念的冲突。北约认为，这场战争的结果将决定其核心意识形态的命运——即自由价值观的扩张将带来世界和平与繁荣。自苏联解体以来，这已成为北约的核心信念和核心使命。

金砖国家也认为，这场战争的结果将决定其核心意识形态的命运——即文化和政治多样性是全球和平与繁荣的关键。其核心信念和核心使命日益依赖于文明多极化的制度化。

我认为，文明多极化——我称之为金砖国家意识形态——比大多数分析人士认为的更为复杂，因为它借鉴了俄罗斯自21世纪初以来在国内推行的主权民主概念。起初，主权民主并没有任何外交政策的成分，因为当时俄罗斯正致力于融入西方。

人们曾希望主权民主能够成为俄罗斯在西方稳固地位的手段，这种希望持续了十年，但当这种希望被抛弃时，正是对主权的强调使俄罗斯能够从亲西方的外交政策平稳过渡到文明多极化政策。自2022年以来，俄罗斯开始将自己定义为“文明国家”。

“文明国家”一词的含义仍在演变，但莫斯科国立大学教授鲍里斯·梅茹耶夫对文明、多极化和安全之间的关系进行了深入思考。

梅茹耶夫认为，自由国际主义在哲学上与外交政策现实主义相悖，这种不相容性阻碍了全球许多冲突的解决。世界各国领导人面临的挑战是如何防止这种紧张局势升级为一场吞噬全球的冲突。梅茹耶夫认为，存在一个框架，在这个框架内，这种冲突不必成为现实。他将这个框架称为“文明现实主义”。 (...)
<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>
我们现在可以理解，为什么俄罗斯与西方在乌克兰问题上的斗争具有如此重要的全球意义。这是一场
愿景的冲突。北约认为，这场战争的结果将决定其核心意识形态的命运，即相信自由价值观的扩张将带来全球和平与繁荣。自苏联解体以来，这已成为北约的主导信念和核心使命。金砖国家也认为，这场战争的结果将决定其核心意识形态的命运，即相信文化和政治多样性是全球和平与繁荣的关键。其主导信念和核心使命越来越依赖于文明多极化的制度化。我认为，我称之为“金砖国家意识形态”的文明多极化比大多数分析家认为的更为复杂，因为它借鉴了俄罗斯自上世纪初以来在国内推行的主权民主理念。

2000年代，谢谢帕斯，谢谢帕斯卡，谢谢各位同事的到来，聆听我们为智慧而做出的努力。我稍微修改了一下我的发言，呃，他们并没有具体讨论乌克兰问题，但我希望他们能在更广泛的背景下有所贡献。他们现在的题目是“中立、安全与文明现实主义”，这是一个给俄罗斯和乌克兰带来教训的难题。这位是文明现实主义概念的提出者之一，我将参考他的观点。

可以说，像俄罗斯这样的地区大国的战略野心是通过推动全球不结盟来防止全球霸权的出现，然而其自身身份在很多方面都与在自身利益范围内占据主导地位息息相关。像俄罗斯这样的自诩为文明的国家，或任何其他国家，能否以一种不威胁他人的方式界定其利益范围？答案的一部分可能在于，像乌克兰这样的地区小国如何看待中立？当它们转向中立作为一种安全战略时，它们面临着一个严峻的选择：被动中立使它们能够充当缓冲区，让竞争对手至少可以暂时脱离接触；或者，它们可以采取强硬的中立，并通过不断转变效忠对象来挑拨竞争对手之间的对抗。这两种策略都强化了国家政治自主权，我认为，这是主权的一个基本属性，但被动或强硬的中立要么与北约和欧盟等西方联盟结构相容，正如我们在匈牙利、斯洛伐克和……的案例中看到的那样。土耳其许多人认为中立与北约的价值观相悖，因此对他们构成潜在威胁。因此，中立带来了一个难题。一方面，推行反映国家独特文化和政治价值观的政策的能力是国家主权的重要组成部分，但过度的独立可能会削弱北约提供的安全屏障，使其容易受到来自侵略性邻国的威胁。有时，对像土耳其和斯洛伐克这样的异见国家的批评仅仅是，他们的不忠诚破坏了北约的安全。但这反过来又基于这样一种观点：北约反映了一种独特的公民文明认同，而加入北约所带来的安全利益迫使各国接受这种特定的自由文明认同。这种自由文明认同不再局限于欧洲的文化范围，它被认为会扩展到全球，这使得北约的扩张（我在这里引用）包括日本、澳大利亚、韩国、菲律宾和任何其他国家。像阿根廷这样的民主国家表示希望加入。在最近一封由一百多名前任和现任政治和军事官员签名的公开信中，美国缉毒局（DEA）实际上重现了弗朗西斯·福山曾经称之为“历史的终结”的时代。与此同时，金砖国家正在倡导一种截然不同的主权与安全关系观，这种观点为政治和价值观中立提供了更大的空间。而北约则认为，各国的文化和政治理念必须保持一致，否则全球安全就会受到损害。金砖国家联盟的前提是，政治和文化多样性，而不是一致性，才能增强全球安全。我们现在可以理解，为什么俄罗斯和西方在乌克兰问题上的斗争具有如此重要的全球意义，这是一场愿景的冲突。北约认为，其结果将决定其核心意识形态的命运，即自由价值观的扩张将带来全球和平与繁荣。自苏联解体以来，这已成为北约的
核心信念和核心使命——金砖国家也认为，这场战争的结果将决定其核心意识形态的命运。其核心意识形态的信念
认为文化和政治多样性
是全球和平与繁荣的关键。其核心信念和核心使命
日益依赖于文明多极化的制度化。我认为，我称之为金砖国家意识形态的文明多极化比大多数分析家认为的更为复杂，因为它借鉴了俄罗斯自21世纪初以来在国内推行的主权民主概念。起初，主权民主中没有外交政策的成分，因为当时俄罗斯致力于融入西方。希望主权民主可以作为俄罗斯在西方站稳脚跟的手段，这种希望持续了十年，但当它被抛弃时，正是对主权的强调，使得俄罗斯能够从亲西方的外交政策平稳过渡到文明多极化.

自2022年以来，俄罗斯开始将自己视为一个文明国家。这一转变的意义仍在演变，但一位深入思考过文明多极化与安全之间关系的学者是莫斯科国立大学的bis教授bis miuv。miuv认为，自由国际主义在哲学上与外交政策现实主义相悖，并且, 这种不相容性阻碍了
全球许多冲突的解决。世界领导人面临的挑战是如何防止这种紧张局势升级为一场吞噬整个世界的冲突。

Globe miru s认为，存在一个框架，在这个框架内，这种冲突不必成为现实，他称之为文明现实主义。民族现实主义者认为，当前的国际体系将无法在自由主义与现实主义之间的冲突中生存。自由主义认为，使用武力迫使各国服从普遍的道德框架；而现实主义则认为，使用武力是为了确保每个国家的生存。这两种观点都会导致冲突持续存在，不断加深，并最终跨越国界。因此，自由主义应该重新审视自身，将其视为众多声音中的一个，而不是全人类唯一合法的声音。放弃自由主义对普遍道德权威的主张，这是全球稳定与和平的关键。

因为自由帝国主义已经与试图将西德在军事、政治和经济领域确立地位的努力交织在一起，而所有这些都建立在西方自由主义价值观的道德优越性之上。同样，现实主义也必须被重新接受，这样主权和权力就不再是国家行为的绝对道德理由。相反，一个新构想的国家体系应该采用多极化的哲学前提是价值观中立，因此，即使是价值观不相容的国家，也必须学会共存。这种转变的可行性如何？MV 谨慎地表示，这将是国际关系体系的一次重大变革。然而，历史上曾有过先例。

17 世纪的欧洲，领导人因近一个世纪的无休止战争而精疲力竭，他们选择减少宗教价值观在国际事务中的作用。我认为，文明现实主义者所呼吁的实际上是一项新的《西非条约》，它将像其前身一样，终结基于价值观的战争的泛滥。文明现实主义认为，miru 的意义在于使多极化发挥作用，将其制度化，成为多元文明的代表，每个文明都有其自身的文化和政治势力范围。为了实现这一目标，我们必须取代说到国际关系的主流政治语言，这似乎有些牵强，但要是想起这也是西方最著名的国际关系理论流派之一——社会建构主义——的号召，它认为，新的政治机遇可能源于精英阶层对新政治语言的选择，因此，取代主流政治语言或许是……首先，诊断我们的全球男性是由于……碎片化造成的，并提出一种新的政治话语，设想一个……植根于共同理想、共同身份和意义的全球社会，从而……避免自由主义和……现实主义的陷阱，这两者都会导致二元论……然而，任何社会建构主义的解决方案都需要几代人的时间才能实施，而世界可能没有……那么长时间……因此，我希望看到……它与常识性的外交智慧相结合，即所谓的……英国外交学派，以及……像文明现实主义那样的中立性……

英国学派主张……价值观多样性的重要性，这种多样性要求各国加强英国学派所称的全球社会，即国家利益相互交织的互动舞台。孤立任何国家的行为都被认为是不负责任且危险的，因为它们会撕裂我们全球社会的根基。外交官的职责可以比作婚姻顾问，而离婚根本不是一个选项。那么，中立如何融入其中呢？我认为，尤其是在价值观方面的中立，与文明现实主义的框架完美契合。

正如我之前所提到的，中立是一个有问题的概念，因为它会宣扬独特的国家文化政治价值观，并可能降低国家的政治安全。事实上的独立总是与国家安全相冲突，但正如英国学派喜欢指出的那样，现代民族国家体系很大程度上归功于这样一种理念：在一个健康的社会中，宗教价值观不仅应该被区分开来。远离政治，但同样重要的是，这种古老的观念，即我们最深层的价值观并非源于政治，而是超越政治，最终使领导人能够接受价值观，甚至是宗教价值观的中立，而不是为之拼死搏斗。这最终导致了西方和平的失败、三十年战争的结束以及随后欧洲作为未来三个世纪全球强国的崛起。如果我们今天希望避免另一场全球价值观冲突，我们迫切需要重新获得这种中立。如果这场冲突的破坏性远超很久以前欧洲宗教战争造成的破坏，谢谢。

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.